What Really Happened That Night

[watson]

HI everyone, I haven't posted for awhile, but back this past summer, after the Carr fiasco, I posted that it seemed like time to go back and re-examine the original evidence (virtually all released to the public) free from any media, LE theories that emerged after the crime, because none of those had proved correct. So, that being done, here's what the actual evidence IMO indicates (or proves) happened that night. Of course I"d be happy for any input or to discuss any points and relate them to the clear proofs.
There is no indication of pedophile involvement, of a mother daughter fight over bed wetting, or of a fight at all. Instead the evidence only indicates.......someone who knew JB well had been planning on eliminating her by killing her. This individual planned on covering the deed with a fake kidnapping by 'terrorists' as he'd seen in the media and imagined in his grandiose fantasies. Why he picked that particular night, will probably remain only known to him, but his ransom script/letter already completed, he prepared the basement room because it was the most secluded and soundproof, with 2 blankets (1 from the 2nd floor linen closet, 1 from her bed). He gathered all the materials he'd need from the house (paper, pen, flashlight, shoe laces, paint stick), and exactingly and methodically made his murder weapon. Knowing JB, and not wanting her to suffer he planned to 'choke her out' quickly. He awoke her from bed, possibly granted her a 'last meal' of pineapple, then marched her down to the basement room. Once there he had her face the wall, placed the loop round her neck, then at arms length from behind, where she would not have to look at him, nor he at her, his left hand at the back of her neck, pulled the string through the slip knot he'd made, tightening it completely circumferentially, shutting off both artery and vein into and out of her head. She would've lost consciousnous in less than a minute. Then he hesitated or errored, relaxing his grip, and she sputtered back to life, clawing at the lace round her neck. He tightened it again, pulling it enough to cause clinical death, but he had no way of knowing that, so continued his plan, of once she was unconscious and could not feel, delivering 1 fatal blow to the head. The deed done, he laid the body in the room, a little unnerved, he made mistakes in staging the wrists were tied before death, then wrapped the body in the blankets not normally, but as a shroud for 'proper' burial. Leaving the Barbie nightgown to keep her 'company' he left, locking the door from outside, because to him it was a temporary tomb. He placed the fake ransom letter oddly on the spiral stairs instead of in the victims room, and waited for the light of dawn to carry out the rest of his plan, the early morning disposal of the body for 'proper' burial. Of course the rest is well known, mother Patsy waking before dawn, finding the letter on her usual morning route, immediately calling police in violation of all the letters instructions....causing the police, the body, and probably the killer to all be at the scene at the same time. Then, the Boulder police incompetence, in not searching, and not taking control, not finding the body for 8 hours causing the untidy mystery. This IMO relly is what the evidence indictes or proves.......please all think about it.

[shill]

I think the day, being Christmas, will prove important.

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
HI everyone, I haven't posted for awhile, but back this past summer, after the Carr fiasco, I posted that it seemed like time to go back and re-examine the original evidence (virtually all released to the public) free from any media, LE theories that emerged after the crime, because none of those had proved correct. So, that being done, here's what the actual evidence IMO indicates (or proves) happened that night. Of course I"d be happy for any input or to discuss any points and relate them to the clear proofs.
There is no indication of pedophile involvement, of a mother daughter fight over bed wetting, or of a fight at all. Instead the evidence only indicates.......someone who knew JB well had been planning on eliminating her by killing her. This individual planned on covering the deed with a fake kidnapping by 'terrorists' as he'd seen in the media and imagined in his grandiose fantasies. Why he picked that particular night, will probably remain only known to him, but his ransom script/letter already completed, he prepared the basement room because it was the most secluded and soundproof, with 2 blankets (1 from the 2nd floor linen closet, 1 from her bed). He gathered all the materials he'd need from the house (paper, pen, flashlight, shoe laces, paint stick), and exactingly and methodically made his murder weapon. Knowing JB, and not wanting her to suffer he planned to 'choke her out' quickly. He awoke her from bed, possibly granted her a 'last meal' of pineapple, then marched her down to the basement room. Once there he had her face the wall, placed the loop round her neck, then at arms length from behind, where she would not have to look at him, nor he at her, his left hand at the back of her neck, pulled the string through the slip knot he'd made, tightening it completely circumferentially, shutting off both artery and vein into and out of her head. She would've lost consciousnous in less than a minute. Then he hesitated or errored, relaxing his grip, and she sputtered back to life, clawing at the lace round her neck. He tightened it again, pulling it enough to cause clinical death, but he had no way of knowing that, so continued his plan, of once she was unconscious and could not feel, delivering 1 fatal blow to the head. The deed done, he laid the body in the room, a little unnerved, he made mistakes in staging the wrists were tied before death, then wrapped the body in the blankets not normally, but as a shroud for 'proper' burial. Leaving the Barbie nightgown to keep her 'company' he left, locking the door from outside, because to him it was a temporary tomb. He placed the fake ransom letter oddly on the spiral stairs instead of in the victims room, and waited for the light of dawn to carry out the rest of his plan, the early morning disposal of the body for 'proper' burial. Of course the rest is well known, mother Patsy waking before dawn, finding the letter on her usual morning route, immediately calling police in violation of all the letters instructions....causing the police, the body, and probably the killer to all be at the scene at the same time. Then, the Boulder police incompetence, in not searching, and not taking control, not finding the body for 8 hours causing the untidy mystery. This IMO relly is what the evidence indictes or proves.......please all think about it.

You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

:beer:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg


You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

:beer:
But would John strangle JB in addition to the head bash? Why not give her another whack on the head if his goal was to finish her off?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg

But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

:beer:
Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote. This links Patsy to the staging of the scene.
And John's fibers in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear panties link him to the staging of the scene too.
Both Ramseys were in it together, there is no doubt about it imo.

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by docg
[B]

You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

Thanks for the reply...Actually Im not saying who may have killed JB right now, just how it happened, which the scene evidence should be able to tell us. It seems to me we should get the method down first of WHAT happened before we look at the type of person and WHO may have done it.
As to the strangling coming first....this is because the medical evidence found little if any bleeding in the skull or under the scalp from the head blow (ME report other medical commentary) which would not be the case had the heart been pumping normally....and....the petechial hemorrhaging seen (ME report) indicates a victim very much alive during the strangling. MOre important, the fact the victims own fingernails made gouge marks in her neck round the string (close up photographs, the victims own skin under her nails (DNA report)) indicate she was very conscious during the strangling. All this I think proves the strangling came first. I'd predict the head blow was either part of the killers original plan (as I wrote) or almost equally an improvization when she sputtered back to life after the first strangling and an inexperienced killer had to make sure.

The hair in the wrappings of the garrote does bother me, as that garrote ended up nearly 3 feet from the victim by the time the crime was complete( (ME measurement). However, every detail of a crime can never be explained, and there are other ways pieces of her hair could have become intertwined, as....the victims hair was 1-2 feet long, perhaps she struggled and some hair came out, perhaps the killer accidentally pulled some strands out etc.

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon
[B]
Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote.

Hi Rashomon,

It's a good point about John 'telling Patsy to call the police'. The big problem with it though is we get this only through John's self reporting of what he did, backed up by Patsy. There is no independent evidence John told her to call the police, just his word, backed up later by her. The evidence shows only Patsy calling, only her voice on the tape. It also shows that she called in minutes of finding the note, not much time to confer with John ecspecially with her on the 1st floor he on the 3rd, and that the call was made from the 1st floor. Maybe he did tell her to call the police like he says, I'm just saying there's no independent evidence of this, so I left it out, because it's not a fact, just someones word.
As to them both being in on it, then why would they both have cooperated in calling the police before they got rid of the body? If they both wrote the note, then why did they put all the instructions in the note to themselves making sure they had an excuse for having no police there at all that morning, and then call the police to be caught with the body, in violation of their own note? If they were both in on it, they could've easily gotten rid of body that morning, told the police later, they were just following the instructions in the note not to call the police right away, and everything would've been fine.
This would seem to prove that either only 1 of them did it, or neither did.
P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway???

[nuisanceposter]

JonBenet didn't struggle while she was being strangled at all. Meyer did not note her skin under her nails, and it would have been had she been able to reach her throat and claw at the cord. Those marks on her neck are from trauma.

Petechiae proves she was alive when strangled, but not that she fought her killer.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence

"Petechiae (puh-TEE-key-eye) are tiny little broken capillary blood vessels. Everyone has had them. A hard bout of coughing or vomiting can cause facial petechiae, especially around the eyes. These mean nothing. Newborns often have facial petechiae from the tight squeeze through the cervix. Thus petechiae are fairly common and in general of no concern."





It looks, imo, like she was completely unconscious while being strangled due to the lack of signs of struggle. There are no defense wounds, and no bruises or abrasions indicating she struggled against restraints. The interior of her neck shows little damage, not what would you see with a person who struggled against her strangler. Her hyoid bone and larynx were intact. Her thyroid and cricoid cartileges are undamaged, as was her trachea. The strap muscles of the neck were not hemorrhaged. The insides of her cheeks and tongue were smooth and unblemished, and her frenulum was still attached. (Cyril Wecht's book and autopsy report)

The head wound was developed, with swelling of the brain indicated as sulci narrowed and gyri flattened in the autopsy report. There were three pooled areas of blood, one of them measuring 7 X 4 inches and covering almost the entire hemisphere of her brain.

The fact that the garotte was tied on her body as opposed to being constructed elsewhere and put on her (as indicated by her hair being caught in it) and the fact that the knot was at the back of her neck leads me to believe she was strangled while unconscious, and the urine stains in the front and in the crotch of her long johns and undies indicates she was lying face down when her bladder released in death.

How is anyone going to tie a cord around the neck of a conscious child and then strangle her face down without her offering any resistance or struggle whatsoever, incurring no defensive wounds at all? They're not. She was unconscious when strangled, imo.

[shill]

Originally posted by docg


No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer.

Is the hole in the skull at the front or back?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Is the hole in the skull at the front or back?

Shill actually looking at the picture of the skull. shiver.... it looks to be all on one side:shrug:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by watson


[QUOTE]
Originally posted by rashomon
[B]
Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote.

Hi Rashomon,

It's a good point about John 'telling Patsy to call the police'. The big problem with it though is we get this only through John's self reporting of what he did, backed up by Patsy. There is no independent evidence John told her to call the police, just his word, backed up later by her. The evidence shows only Patsy calling, only her voice on the tape. It also shows that she called in minutes of finding the note, not much time to confer with John ecspecially with her on the 1st floor he on the 3rd, and that the call was made from the 1st floor.

The evidence does NOT show that she called within minutes of finding the note. That's the impression the Ramseys want to give. The evidence shows that there was a phone call by Patsy in the morning, that's all. We don't 'know' where John was either.

And if according to Docg's theory, it was Patsy who called the police (without John telling her to do so), then WHY would both Ramseys LIE about it later and say that it was John who told her to call the police? There would have been no reason for them to lie about this.

P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway???
It depends on where those fibers are found. And Patsy's fibers were found in VERY incriminating locations: on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth, in the wrappings of the garrote handle and in the paint tote where the paintbrush was taken from.

[watson]

To Nuisance......
It seems to me we should stick with the 'most likely' interpretation of the evidence, not the least likely, until and if the least likely is 'proven'.
All the research I've done on petechial hemorrhage in forensic science (and that is what were talking about a forensic case, not new born babies or coughing fits) indicates the hemorrhages are caused by a concsious victim straining to breath during asphyxia. //science.enotes.com/forensic-science/petechial-hemorrhage.....is common of this info. Nowhere can I find a forensic description of a unconscious victim being strangled and developing petechia.....Nowhere can I find an absolute forensic rule that the same is impossible......but why reach for such a unlikely interpretation?
The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible?

[elvislives]

Originally posted by watson
P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway??? [/B]

Precisely, Watson. This is the theory of transfer in a nutshell. For example, my neighbor has a dog that I pet from time to time. I have also spent some time in the neighbors house, but the dog has never been in my house. The other day, I was cleaning up a spill on the floor of my own house and found my neighbor's dogs hair, which is very distinctive. Imagine how much dog hair I would find everywhere in my house if the dog lived with me. Same with Patsy and John's hair and fibers--they'd be all over their own house for benign reasons. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it, but I do agree that the fiber evidence does not implicate them.

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon
[B]

The evidence does NOT show that she called within minutes of finding the note. That's the impression the Ramseys want to give. The evidence shows that there was a phone call by Patsy in the morning, that's all. We don't 'know' where John was either.

************************************************** **
Well, the evidence of what happened before the phone call to the police does come mostly from John and Patsy, but not entirely, and just because it comes from them, and their suspects, should we ignore it?
We know as fact that the Ramsey's had planned an early morning trip that required getting up early. The alarm clocks were set for 5:30am, as the Ramsey's said, and it is a fact that is the time they'd have to get up to keep their plans. Patsy and John said the alarm went off at 5:30, she got up and went down to the kitchen by her usual route, while John went into his bathroom on the 3rd floor. We know as a fact the call to the police was in the 5:40's. If the alarm did go off as it was set, and Patsy got up shortly after 5:30 went from floor 3 down the spiral stair (as she says), found and read the note, made a quick check for JB, then called police.......the call would have been 'in minutes' and the evidence of the alarm, vaction plans, and time element, all fits.
Of course they could be totally lying, been up all night, made the call to the police right at the correct time to luckily match the early morning wake up evidence......but where is 'any' evidence to back up this scenario? And if they were both lying and did it, then why call the police at all before they got rid of the body that morning? Why should we consider this if there is 'no' evidence of it?
The evidence we do have does back up their statements of getting up around 5:30am and the call in the 5:40's, don't we have to accept this until we have solid evidence of something else?

[watson]

In a posted reply above to docg, I mis-typed and typed that the handle end of the garotte ended up 3 feet away from the victims head by the end of the crime. Of course this was an error I meant to say 1 1/2 feet (or as ME says 17inches)....Oops....

[rashomon]

Originally posted by elvislives


Precisely, Watson. This is the theory of transfer in a nutshell. For example, my neighbor has a dog that I pet from time to time. I have also spent some time in the neighbors house, but the dog has never been in my house. The other day, I was cleaning up a spill on the floor of my own house and found my neighbor's dogs hair, which is very distinctive. Imagine how much dog hair I would find everywhere in my house if the dog lived with me. Same with Patsy and John's hair and fibers--they'd be all over their own house for benign reasons. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it, but I do agree that the fiber evidence does not implicate them.
It is not about transfer in general (I'm a dog owner and believe me, I know what you're talking about! For example, a few days ago, I had to remove some of my dog's hairs from the PC keys, for they had been transferred to there by my hand ...).

But transfer in general is not the point here. For in every criminal case, one has too look where exactly those transfer items are found. And fibers from Patsy's jacket which she had been wearing to the Whites' party ON THAT FATAL NIGHT were found in the paint tray in the basement, on the duct tape and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
So we have three VERY incriminating locations which link Patsy to the staging of the scene.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by watson
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon
[B]
Of course they could be totally lying, been up all night, made the call to the police right at the correct time to luckily match the early morning wake up evidence......but where is 'any' evidence to back up this scenario? And if they were both lying and did it, then why call the police at all before they got rid of the body that morning? Why should we consider this if there is 'no' evidence of it?

And that's what I think they did, Watson: they made the call to the police at exactly the time to match their time line - for they had scheduled a flight and therefore had to be up early in the morning.

And do you really think that it is easy to get rid of a body? It was Christmas, where many people stay up very late at night.
Suppose a neighbor had seen the Ramsey car pulling out of their garage in those early morning hours: end of the ball game for the Ramseys.
Which is why I think they decided against dumping JB's body somewhere outside. It was far too risky.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by rashomon

It is not about transfer in general (I'm a dog owner and believe me, I know what you're talking about! For example, a few days ago, I had to remove some of my dog's hairs from the PC keys, for they had been transferred to there by my hand ...).

But transfer in general is not the point here. For in every criminal case, one has too look where exactly those transfer items are found. And fibers from Patsy's jacket which she had been wearing to the Whites' party ON THAT FATAL NIGHT were found in the paint tray in the basement, on the duct tape and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
So we have three VERY incriminating locations which link Patsy to the staging of the scene.

How do you know that fibers from Patsy's jacket didn't attached themselves to JB over the course of the evening? Perhaps fibers from Patsy's jacket became entangled in JB's hair when she was holding her, helping her get dressed, hugging her, etc on Christmas. Then comes the killer and carries her downstairs to assault her. During the assault, some of the fibers in JB;s hair, on her clothing etc contaminate the crime scene.
I saw a case on tv where a little girl was abducted from a christmas party by some local perv, then raped and murdered. I don't think they ever found her body, but they were able to link him to the crime because rabbit hair from her mother's jacket was found in his home and car. Not the victim's jacket but her mothers and her mother was never in this man's house or car. The fibers had been transferred to the child from the mother's clothing, then transferred to the killer's car and house .

[LindaA]

Originally posted by elvislives


<snip>
I saw a case on tv where a little girl was abducted from a christmas party by some local perv, then raped and murdered. I don't think they ever found her body, but they were able to link him to the crime because rabbit hair from her mother's jacket was found in his home and car. Not the victim's jacket but her mothers and her mother was never in this man's house or car. The fibers had been transferred to the child from the mother's clothing, then transferred to the killer's car and house .

I believe that was a case that happened in Prince William, VA. If not, then it was the same scenario. The perp's name was Caleb Hughes. I was thinking they found fibers that matched what she had been wearing. Her mother had ordered the outfit fromt he JCPenney catalog and they were able to get an indentical outfit and matched fibers to some found in his vehicle. But maybe that;s not the same case.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

And that's what I think they did, Watson: they made the call to the police at exactly the time to match their time line - for they had scheduled a flight and therefore had to be up early in the morning.

And do you really think that it is easy to get rid of a body? It was Christmas, where many people stay up very late at night.
Suppose a neighbor had seen the Ramsey car pulling out of their garage in those early morning hours: end of the ball game for the Ramseys.
Which is why I think they decided against dumping JB's body somewhere outside. It was far too risky. That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.

Was he going to ditch the suitcase too because I'm sure JB would have left physical evidence of having been in it. It would have been broad daylight when JR set out to dump her body and go to the bank. Pretty risky.
The ransom note also explains why JB was killed - because the Ramseys contacted the authorities and others when they were warned repeatedly not to. I still think Cherokees theory makes more sense. Every line of the ransom note has a meaning that makes sense of how things played out if you believe his/her theory. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Was he going to ditch the suitcase too because I'm sure JB would have left physical evidence of having been in it. It would have been broad daylight when JR set out to dump her body and go to the bank. Pretty risky.
The ransom note also explains why JB was killed - because the Ramseys contacted the authorities and others when they were warned repeatedly not to. I still think Cherokees theory makes more sense. Every line of the ransom note has a meaning that makes sense of how things played out if you believe his/her theory. IMO
She's wrapped in a blanket in the suitcase. And the police would have no reason to check the suitcase for evidence because they would be clueless about it. As far as they know she was kidnapped by someone other then the Ramseys. The suitcase is used for the money on the return. Bodys get dumped in broad daylight with out being seen. I'm sure there is some remote terrain in Boulder where they would not be seen.
They tell the police they stopped to talk to a dog(kidding of course) call some friends over and it's no surprise they find JB dumped somewhere by the kidnappers, not alive.

[LindaA]

They find her body with the Ramsey's fibers all over the blanket and on the body and the blanket fibers all over the Ramseys. Would JBR fit in the suitcase with a blanket wrapped around her?

I do agree that the comment about the size of the case in the RN makes it tempting to believe that's what the writer thought when writing the note -- the writer being JR or PR, but it could have been written just for efecct IF the RDI I just cannot imagine their being able to go through all this staging afterwards and I certainly don't think that IF they did it it was premeditated. That;s what's so strange -- some elements of this case seem premeditated and others seem accidental.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by watson

<snp>

The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible? [/B]

Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

[Athena]

Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does. :)

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.

I also wanted to post a link to a forensic video in which this pathologist states that Petechial hemorrhage does occur in a victim that is CONSCIOUS while being strangled. This site also has NOTHING to do with JBR so IMO is not skewed. It also supports the fact that JBR was strangled BEFORE the head blow and therefore also supports Watson's analysis.

This is the transcript from the video as well:

Petechial hemorrhage

[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is conscious and trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for—you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/education/medical/index.html

[Athena]

Meant to add the credentials from the website I posted above:

Medical Views is based on the "Autopsy Revealed" multimedia interactive station at the Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body exhibition on display at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland from February 16, 2006–February 16, 2008. Visitor and guided-tour information is available online at VISIT. If you have questions about visiting Visible Proofs, contact us at NLMExhibition@mail.nih.gov or 301.594.1947.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena


Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does. :)

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.


[B]

You may not know any more than anyone else, BUT you certainly know where to look for more info. Thanks for the link and your comments.

Watson, I think your comments are well thought out and probably on the mark. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena
Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does. :)

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.



Athena, you may not know any more than anyone else - except where to go to get more info. :) Thanks for the link.

I agree about watson's post. Well thought out and on the mark - IMO.

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
[B]

You may not know any more than anyone else, BUT you certainly know where to look for more info. Thanks for the link and your comments.

Watson, I think your comments are well thought out and probably on the mark. JMO

:beer: OK I'll accept this! LOL

[sweetcharlotte]

Notice my double post.....My computer is acting up this morning!

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Notice my double post.....My computer is acting up this morning!

I thought I was just seeing "double" :D

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.
Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

He makes it seem as if it was child's play for the Ramseys, who were in no way professional criminals, to dispose of a body in broad daylight.
And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.


Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John. But Docg can't have his forensic cake and eat it too, so to speak. Either all the fiber evidence is implicating or none is. He can't pick and choose, and simply disregard out (Lou Smit-like) evidence which doesn't fit into his theory.

In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.
So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

The poster on this board with the most exhaustive knowledge about the DNA and other forensic evidence in the JBR case is Nuisanceposter. I'm sure (s)he'll coment on it if (s)he reads it.

Watson: no 'fingernail' marks are mentioned at all on page 3 in the autopsy report.
And whatever Lou Smit says about those 'crescent' shapes being "the size of a child's fingernail", does this mean we have to believe him?
Could you please show me where Dr. Meyer speaks of 'crescent' shapes?

Nor have I ever red anywhere that JB's own DNA under her fingernail was from her skin debris.

I hope Nuisanceposter reads this and will set the record straight:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by watson

<snp>

The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible? [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[docg]

Originally posted by rashomon

>Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

Does so! :-)

>And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

That's one reason behind the note, rashomon. "The tire tracks got there when I was delivering the ransom, your honor." As far as the trunk is concerned, she was wrapped in a blanket, remember, any fibers from her clothing wouldn't have been found there.

>All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Far more risky was allowing the police to find the body in the house. AND providing them with a ransom note printed in ones own hand! There'd have been very little risk involved in dumping the body, since that little trip could have been explained as ransom delivery.

>Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.

No need to put her in a suitcase. She woudn't have fit anyhow. She was already wrapped in blankets, "like a papoose." Ready to go.

>Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John.

There is a huge difference between fibers that can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim and fibers found in the victim's crotch.

>In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.

Why take the word of the two chief (and only) suspects in this case? John would have lied because otherwise he'd have looked too suspicious. Patsy probably lied to avoid calling John a liar.

>So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, John simply announced to the world, via CNN, that the call was his idea. Patsy was hardly in a position to contradict him publicly, that would have made both of them look suspicious. As for the rest, he (and possibly their lawyers as well) could have explained to her that it would be better for both of them if his being opposed to calling were NOT revealed. Their whole legal strategy has been a team effort, with each supporting the other to the max. If it got out that they'd disagreed about ANYTHING their credibility would be weakened. Besides, once she got word from the "experts" that John was ruled out, she would no longer have had any reason to suspect him.

>And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning on this point. As I see it, the note was written for Patsy's eyes. It stands to reason he'd have wanted HER to be the one to find it. He was hoping the threats would convince her it would be a mistake to call the police. There's no way he could physically have prevented her from making the call, short of ripping out the phone lines.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by rashomon

>Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

Does so! :-)

>And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

That's one reason behind the note, rashomon. "The tire tracks got there when I was delivering the ransom, your honor." As far as the trunk is concerned, she was wrapped in a blanket, remember, any fibers from her clothing wouldn't have been found there.

>All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Far more risky was allowing the police to find the body in the house. AND providing them with a ransom note printed in ones own hand! There'd have been very little risk involved in dumping the body, since that little trip could have been explained as ransom delivery.

>Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.

No need to put her in a suitcase. She woudn't have fit anyhow. She was already wrapped in blankets, "like a papoose." Ready to go.

>Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John.

There is a huge difference between fibers that can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim and fibers found in the victim's crotch.

>In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.

Why take the word of the two chief (and only) suspects in this case? John would have lied because otherwise he'd have looked too suspicious. Patsy probably lied to avoid calling John a liar.

>So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, John simply announced to the world, via CNN, that the call was his idea. Patsy was hardly in a position to contradict him publicly, that would have made both of them look suspicious. As for the rest, he (and possibly their lawyers as well) could have explained to her that it would be better for both of them if his being opposed to calling were NOT revealed. Their whole legal strategy has been a team effort, with each supporting the other to the max. If it got out that they'd disagreed about ANYTHING their credibility would be weakened. Besides, once she got word from the "experts" that John was ruled out, she would no longer have had any reason to suspect him.

>And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning on this point. As I see it, the note was written for Patsy's eyes. It stands to reason he'd have wanted HER to be the one to find it. He was hoping the threats would convince her it would be a mistake to call the police. There's no way he could physically have prevented her from making the call, short of ripping out the phone lines.
I can't understand why you don't see my point.
For if the note was written for Patsy's eyes, all John needed to do was after he 'found' the note, show it to her and then tell her "OMG, look at this, Patsy!" Then he lets her read it and points out to her: "Look what it says here: they will behead JB if we call the police. You know how dangerous these terrorists are, Patsy. These guy are serious, believe me."
Child's play for someone like John who was a CEO used to take charge. Which is why Patsy would have taken his advice.
Believe me, a level-headed type like John would NOT have let that RN laying around if he wanted to make sure that NO one should call the police before JB's body was disposed of.

Re the fibers: so you think that Patsy's fibers in the murder ligature, in the paint tote and on the sticky side of the duct tape don't mean anything, but got transferred there innocently by secondhand transfer? Patsy had touched JB on the Whites' party, her fibers got on JB and John then picked them up and transferred them into these incriminating locations, right?
Well, but the same could be said of John's fibers, ever thought of that, docG?
Here goes: Patsy touched John's shirt at the Whites' party, his fibers stuck to her and were later transferred to the oversized underwear in which she was going to redress JB.
Imo both fiber trasfers were first-hand transfers. This is the most logical explanation. Never forget that little Occam's razor in your pocket when presenting a theory.

[shill]

rashomon putaspinon,
The only theory that will ever make sense to you, is your own.
And your arguements are always based on the belief that you're right, therefore everyone else is wrong.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
rashomon putaspinon,
The only theory that will ever make sense to you, is your own.
And your arguements are always based on the belief that you're right, therefore everyone else is wrong.
Getting childish again, Shill? Are your buttons always pushed so easily just because you don't happen to agree with someone else's opinion?

[docg]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

Her hands were bound. If she scratched at her neck while being strangled, then the binding is clearly staging. And it's very difficult to see this as anything other than an inside job.

[Hey Paula]

I don't believe anyone in the Ramsey family had anything to do with JonBenet's murder.

Currently, I'm wondering if there is a connection between Michael Helgoth and John Mark Karr.

IMO

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon
[B]

The poster on this board with the most exhaustive knowledge about the DNA and other forensic evidence in the JBR case is Nuisanceposter. I'm sure (s)he'll coment on it if (s)he reads it.

Watson: no 'fingernail' marks are mentioned at all on page 3 in the autopsy report.
And whatever Lou Smit says about those 'crescent' shapes being "the size of a child's fingernail", does this mean we have to believe him?
Could you please show me where Dr. Meyer speaks of 'crescent' shapes?

Nor have I ever red anywhere that JB's own DNA under her fingernail was from her skin debris.

I hope Nuisanceposter reads this and will set the record straight:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rashomon

Nuisance does seem to have a good eye for detail and for what may somehow be possible but anyway............
The ME in this case NEVER uses the words fingernail marks, or cresent shaped. What the ME said about the marks is as I quoted in this thread.....purple to rust colored non patterned abrasions....above and below the ligature furrow on the front of the neck.....that's all he says about them (he'd described the other larger more prominent abrasions first)......Then there is a photo showing these many small marks or 'abrasions' on the front of her neck, above and below the string.
The ME like all ME's is a medical doctor who only describes things in medical-clinical terms. If a body had a huge knife slash across it, the ME would NOT call it a knife slash, he'd call it a 'laceration' and measure it like a good scientist. It's up to the detectives and people reading the report to say the obvious....that the 'laceration' was caused by and in fact is a knife slash.
Same in this case....there are all these little marks (or in ME speak, numerous non patterned abrasions) above and below the string only on the front of her neck. They are consistent with the size of the victims fingernails and are in the front of the neck around the string where you'd expect her to claw at during a strangling. If you look at the photo many of them are cresent shaped.
It's only logical to conclude that these 'numerous non patterened abrasions' were caused by the victims fingernails. Can we 'prove' this for sure? Of course not. I'm just saying it's the most likely inference to drawn from this evidence (as others including Lou Smit have). Are other inferences possible....you bet....but their going to be way less likely. Besides if her fingernails didn't make these marks (as seems logical) what did......how else can they be explained? Are we to believe that besides strangling her the killer took some sharp small instrument and carefully poked her many times only in the front of the neck, and only above and below the string during or after strangling her to make those little marks and mess with us?
I'm sure someone will post to say just such a thing is possible, but then 'anything' is possible..........but will it also be the most likely and fit in with the strangling that occured in this case?

[Athena]

JonBenet didn't struggle while she was being strangled at all. Meyer did not note her skin under her nails, and it would have been had she been able to reach her throat and claw at the cord. Those marks on her neck are from trauma.

Petechiae proves she was alive when strangled, but not that she fought her killer.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence

"Petechiae (puh-TEE-key-eye) are tiny little broken capillary blood vessels. Everyone has had them. A hard bout of coughing or vomiting can cause facial petechiae, especially around the eyes. These mean nothing. Newborns often have facial petechiae from the tight squeeze through the cervix. Thus petechiae are fairly common and in general of no concern."

<snip>



Petechial hemorrhage

[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is consciousand trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for ”you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs...cal/index.html

More:

A petechial hemorrhage is a tiny pinpoint red mark that is an important sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways. They are sometimes also called petechiae. Their presence often indicates a death by manual strangulation, hanging, or smothering. The hemorrhages occur when blood leaks from the tiny capillaries in the eyes, which can rupture due to increased pressure on the veins in the head when the airways are obstructed. If petechial hemorrhages and facial congestion are present, it is a strong indication of asphyxia by strangulation as the cause of death.

The forensic pathologist usually needs a very good light source and maybe even a magnifying glass to detect petechial hemorrhages. They range in size from the size of a speck of dust to around two millimeters and may occur in distinct groups. Often they are seen in the conjunctiva of the eyes and also on the eyelids, especially after hanging.

http://science.enotes.com/forensic-science/petechial-hemorrhage

[shill]

Could one of the door locks be picked without leaving any detectable evidence of it being done?

[bullmoose]

I keep reading these strange theories that the Ramseys were going to dispose of the body in the suitcase,when they went to get the ransom. That is one of the silliest ideas I've yet read here. The 118,000 dollar ransom amount, a very strange sum for a kidnapping, with 18,000 in twenties and 100,000 in 100 dollar bills would only require 1900 bills, which would require nothing larger than a small brief case to haul.The idea that a suitcase might be planned for by these supposedly diabolical parents to dispose their daughter is just plain ridiculous.

[LindaA]

Thanks for clearing that up. I have no idea how much space that amount of $ in those denominations would occupy, but I have always thought it was a strange sentence to include in a RN. I must admit the RDIs had me going there for a while with that theory.

[thewhitewitch1]

I keep reading these strange theories that the Ramseys were going to dispose of the body in the suitcase,when they went to get the ransom. That is one of the silliest ideas I've yet read here. The 118,000 dollar ransom amount, a very strange sum for a kidnapping, with 18,000 in twenties and 100,000 in 100 dollar bills would only require 1900 bills, which would require nothing larger than a small brief case to haul.The idea that a suitcase might be planned for by these supposedly diabolical parents to dispose their daughter is just plain ridiculous.


Even I (one of those horrid RDIs) must agree with that. An "attache" case is not the same as a suitcase at all and the ransom instructions clearly stated an attache be used. I do not believe she could have even fit in that suitcase.

[rashomon]

Petechial hemorrhage

[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is consciousand trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for ”you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs...cal/index.html

More:

A petechial hemorrhage is a tiny pinpoint red mark that is an important sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways. They are sometimes also called petechiae. Their presence often indicates a death by manual strangulation, hanging, or smothering. The hemorrhages occur when blood leaks from the tiny capillaries in the eyes, which can rupture due to increased pressure on the veins in the head when the airways are obstructed. If petechial hemorrhages and facial congestion are present, it is a strong indication of asphyxia by strangulation as the cause of death.

The forensic pathologist usually needs a very good light source and maybe even a magnifying glass to detect petechial hemorrhages. They range in size from the size of a speck of dust to around two millimeters and may occur in distinct groups. Often they are seen in the conjunctiva of the eyes and also on the eyelids, especially after hanging.

http://science.enotes.com/forensic-science/petechial-hemorrhage

A question (which the ER doc here can certainly answer):
Does 'petechial hemorrhage' only refer to pinpoint bleeding in the eye?

And just for clarification: who said that the person has to be conscious for petechiae to occur: Dr. Fierro or you, Athena?
Why can't petechiae happen in an unconscious person too? A person in a coma for example? For even when someone is in a coma, blood is still circulating in the body.

Watson: I asked poster Texan (who I think is a nurse) over at FFJ about the marks on JB's neck above and below the ligature, and she answered that sometimes sees similar marks after removing blood pressure cuffs from her patients' arms.

[watson]

Maybe the marks around the strangling string on the front of the neck were caused by something other than the victims fingernails. (marks from squeezing as with a blood pressure cuff says Texan, never heard that one before but thanks). I guess it's not crucial to my point, which was what the original evidence taken by itself indicates most likely happened that night. Someone had suggested the victim was unconscious when strangled....the petechia, the marks around the string that look like fingernail marks, the making and use of an unusual garrote I posted all indicate she was conscious. Is it possible the petechia were unusually made while she was unconscious, that the marks are not fingernail marks, and that the killer for some unimaginable reason made a sophisticated garrote for use on a victim unconscious and helpless anyway?....Yeah I guess...it's just not the most probable or most likely scenario of what the evidence indicates.

[bullmoose]

Shill: sorry to wait until today to reply about lockpicking, but I'll say what I know: My former brother in law runs a doorshop in Las Vegas; one time he showed me his special keyring-20 or so keys, and told me he could get into any lock sold in America with the master keys he had. And as a matter of fact, he didn't need the keys, he knew how to pick most locks, I watched him demonstrate; so I think that if the locks were in fact picked the night of Jonbenet's murder, it could easily have been done without leaving any evidence, if the lockpicker knew what he was doing.

[thewhitewitch1]

Shill: sorry to wait until today to reply about lockpicking, but I'll say what I know: My former brother in law runs a doorshop in Las Vegas; one time he showed me his special keyring-20 or so keys, and told me he could get into any lock sold in America with the master keys he had. And as a matter of fact, he didn't need the keys, he knew how to pick most locks, I watched him demonstrate; so I think that if the locks were in fact picked the night of Jonbenet's murder, it could easily have been done without leaving any evidence, if the lockpicker knew what he was doing.


Then what, in your opinion, would be the reason for the broken/open window with the suitcase under it that JR and Lou Smit tried so hard to push as the means of entry/exit for this illusive "intruder"?
And what of all of the hoopla about all of the "opened" windows and the butler pantry door?
Why didn't the "lock picker" take JBs body with him and collect his "ransom?" Easy in....easy out, right?

[Louisadelmar]

A question (which the ER doc here can certainly answer):
Does 'petechial hemorrhage' only refer to pinpoint bleeding in the eye?

And just for clarification: who said that the person has to be conscious for petechiae to occur: Dr. Fierro or you, Athena?
Why can't petechiae happen in an unconscious person too? A person in a coma for example? For even when someone is in a coma, blood is still circulating in the body.

Watson: I asked poster Texan (who I think is a nurse) over at FFJ about the marks on JB's neck above and below the ligature, and she answered that sometimes sees similar marks after removing blood pressure cuffs from her patients' arms.

Petechial hemorrhages can occur anywhere. It can have a variety of causes. My mare had a fatal anemia this summer and one of her symptoms about a week before she died was petechial hemorrhages on her tongue, lips and vaginal vault.

Like you, I don't understand the bit about being conscious. It makes no sense. Perhaps they meant alive rather than just conscious.

[bullmoose]

To TWW:Notice that I said If they were picked; Actually I don't think it would have been neccessary; IMO with all the keys that were out with the remodeling work, etc, I think it more likely that the killer/s let themselves in or walked in through an unlocked door. From all I've read the Ramseys were disorganized and complacent about security[my wife is from Detroit, 30 years in a small town and she checks the locks and security chain on each door each night,without exception] and I think they may have left doors unlocked and unchecked. There were, what 17 doors in that house? I do not claim to know how and why the killers did what they did to Jonbenet, you are RDI, I am IDI but I think we can agree that the killers did what they did, for reasons they alone know the reasons for.Whoever the killers were. Why not take the body? Were they afoot? In a suitcase? Makes no sense at all, thats why I'm here, to get a better idea of what really went down that night. Sometimes, when I research the case, I get a feeling that maybe we're all off-base, that the explanation is something we haven't even thought of,yet. Because, IMO, it just seems to me that every theory has problems. I don't have a theory to explain it all, I'm just leery of the way the BPD rushed to judgment.The lack of an objective investigation and the PR campaign against the Ramseys raised my hackles from the start. Is there something else going on here? I just don't know.

[shill]

Then what, in your opinion, would be the reason for the broken/open window with the suitcase under it that JR and Lou Smit tried so hard to push as the means of entry/exit for this illusive "intruder"?
And what of all of the hoopla about all of the "opened" windows and the butler pantry door?
Why didn't the "lock picker" take JBs body with him and collect his "ransom?" Easy in....easy out, right?
The basement window could have been set up as an emergency escape route(open the window and set a suitcase under it). You don't want to get trapped in the basement if someone comes down. The killer puts a chair infront of the train room door so if it is moved, he knows that his escape route out this window has been compromised.
The motive is payback for all John's success at Access Graphics and the killer getting axed in the process of the merger and no credit for his contributions.
I believe the killer wanted to take JB from the house and use her to torment John more before killing her, but accidently killed her there, hid the body, and stalled a manhunt by writing a ransom note so he could get out of the country.

[thewhitewitch1]

The basement window could have been set up as an emergency escape route(open the window and set a suitcase under it). You don't want to get trapped in the basement if someone comes down. The killer puts a chair infront of the train room door so if it is moved, he knows that his escape route out this window has been compromised.
The motive is payback for all John's success at Access Graphics and the killer getting axed in the process of the merger and no credit for his contributions.
I believe the killer wanted to take JB from the house and use her to torment John more before killing her, but accidently killed her there, hid the body, and stalled a manhunt by writing a ransom note so he could get out of the country.


If your scenerio is true, there should have been no problem figuring out who the killer was. You find someone "axed" by Access Graphics who left the country and there ya go. But that didn't happen.
Why not put the suitcase in front of the trainroom door and go out the window by standing on the chair? A chair would provide much sturdier footing than a suitcase. What about the alleged "debris" found from the window well? Are you saying the killer came in through there and left another way? Or are you saying he exited that way? If he was in such a hurry to leave through his emergency route, why did he bother to pull the chair back in front of the door? If he accidentally killed JB and then wrote the note, do you really think he would have taken the time to sit around composing that rambling bizarre note when a simple short version would do and eliminate the risk of being caught? If he had the time to write the note; he had the time to take the body and go for the money. There would have been a "manhunt" with or without the ransom note. IMO the Ramseys would have looked even more guilty without the note and the "killer" could have had that to gloat over.
Where and how does the pineapple fit in?
Your killer with a vendetta against John would have had a plan to knock JB out and get her out of the house a.s.a.p., you'd think and it shouldn't have been that hard to subdue a little 6 year old. There can not be any real reason why a kidnapping/abduction could not have gone off as planned and had to turn into a murder. Someone wanting to sexually abuse JB would not have taken the time to play their sick games in her home with her family members right there where he could have been busted at any moment. That defies belief. IMO

[Ames]

If your scenerio is true, there should have been no problem figuring out who the killer was. You find someone "axed" by Access Graphics who left the country and there ya go. But that didn't happen.
Why not put the suitcase in front of the trainroom door and go out the window by standing on the chair? A chair would provide much sturdier footing than a suitcase. What about the alleged "debris" found from the window well? Are you saying the killer came in through there and left another way? Or are you saying he exited that way? If he was in such a hurry to leave through his emergency route, why did he bother to pull the chair back in front of the door? If he accidentally killed JB and then wrote the note, do you really think he would have taken the time to sit around composing that rambling bizarre note when a simple short version would do and eliminate the risk of being caught? If he had the time to write the note; he had the time to take the body and go for the money. There would have been a "manhunt" with or without the ransom note. IMO the Ramseys would have looked even more guilty without the note and the "killer" could have had that to gloat over.
Where and how does the pineapple fit in?
Your killer with a vendetta against John would have had a plan to knock JB out and get her out of the house a.s.a.p., you'd think and it shouldn't have been that hard to subdue a little 6 year old. There can not be any real reason why a kidnapping/abduction could not have gone off as planned and had to turn into a murder. Someone wanting to sexually abuse JB would not have taken the time to play their sick games in her home with her family members right there where he could have been busted at any moment. That defies belief. IMO

I totally agree with you on this! Why stick around in the victims own home, with three family members asleep, and play sick games with JB? Makes no sense to me. Why not just kidnap her and unlock the front door and go out that way? Or a window? Why take the chance with the sicko games? Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note....after JB was killed....IMO. I still believe that Patsy is the one that inflicted that blow to her head (accidently..a hard push into something)...and then John helped to cover. Oh, by the way...on FFJ, theres tapes of John from old interviews...and his recent one...and he has had eye lift surgery. It is so obvious...everyone on there is talking about it....complete with side by side pictures and videos. Guess he is tryng to look good for wife number 3. (IMO)

[shill]

If your scenerio is true, there should have been no problem figuring out who the killer was. You find someone "axed" by Access Graphics who left the country and there ya go. But that didn't happen.
>They didn't check everyone at AG or the Asian Divisian of Sun Micro Systems. And yes, it should be easy to pin down the this suspect if they were looking for him, being he doesn't celebrate Christmas.

Why not put the suitcase in front of the trainroom door and go out the window by standing on the chair? A chair would provide much sturdier footing than a suitcase. What about the alleged "debris" found from the window well? Are you saying the killer came in through there and left another way? Or are you saying he exited that way? If he was in such a hurry to leave through his emergency route, why did he bother to pull the chair back in front of the door?
>Entered possibly, left no, chair was still in front of door and yes the chair would make a better choice unless he was securing JB in the chair for the garroting and had to use the suitcase. And it was an emergency back up exit, just incase he had to leave in a hurry, doesn't mean he did.

If he accidentally killed JB and then wrote the note, do you really think he would have taken the time to sit around composing that rambling bizarre note when a simple short version would do and eliminate the risk of being caught?
>He felt he was smart enough to not get caught and he had something to say to John, and that was an important part of the whole crime.

If he had the time to write the note; he had the time to take the body and go for the money. There would have been a "manhunt" with or without the ransom note. IMO the Ramseys would have looked even more guilty without the note and the "killer" could have had that to gloat over.
>It wasn't about the money, it was about John's bonus that he felt he deserved and not John.
He just needed a day to get out of town. Even when they found the body, they didn't go on a man hunt. I don't think he expected them to find her body so early.
He wasn't out to frame the Ramseys, he was empowering himself over John, since John took away his livelyhood.

Where and how does the pineapple fit in?
>Does it need to? JB could have awoke that night and went downstairs and helped herself. Wouldn't she have traces of pineapple on her mouth and hands if she ate it that night? It's very acidic.

Your killer with a vendetta against John would have had a plan to knock JB out and get her out of the house a.s.a.p., you'd think and it shouldn't have been that hard to subdue a little 6 year old. There can not be any real reason why a kidnapping/abduction could not have gone off as planned and had to turn into a murder. Someone wanting to sexually abuse JB would not have taken the time to play their sick games in her home with her family members right there where he could have been busted at any moment. That defies belief. IMO
>It would take very little to subdue her. But a 6 yr old screaming can be just as loud as an adult screaming and the killer might have let his guard down and was startled by a scream and struck her.
Playing their sick games in the house would be a huge rush on top of violating her right under John's nose, and possibly taking photos to prove it would be very vindictive.
I've had girlfriends that get turned on by the possibility of getting caught. Be it their parents in the next room with no doors between us, or in public place, or their husbands might catch them. It always made me nervous and worried, but I went along with it.
Tying up, garroting, and violating a six year old is way out there, staged or real. Doing it right under their noses is just another part of the fantasy.

[shill]

Oh, by the way...on FFJ, theres tapes of John from old interviews...and his recent one...and he has had eye lift surgery. It is so obvious...everyone on there is talking about it....complete with side by side pictures and videos. Guess he is tryng to look good for wife number 3. (IMO)Eye lift? To get a wife?
I'll believe it when I read it in the National Inquirer.

[sweetcharlotte]

Oh, by the way...on FFJ, theres tapes of John from old interviews...and his recent one...and he has had eye lift surgery. It is so obvious...everyone on there is talking about it....complete with side by side pictures and videos. Guess he is tryng to look good for wife number 3. (IMO)


I suppose it had nothing to do with the fact that all the extra skin over his eyes felt heavy and caused him to feel tired or that it effected his vision. JMO

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by Ames View Post
Oh, by the way...on FFJ, theres tapes of John from old interviews...and his recent one...and he has had eye lift surgery. It is so obvious...everyone on there is talking about it....complete with side by side pictures and videos. Guess he is tryng to look good for wife number 3. (IMO)

Must be wonderful to live you life under the scrutiny of everyone in the world, when they can pass judgment on every phase of your life and interpret it in a negative light. If what you do is not a sign of your guilt, it is at least a sign of your moral deficiencies.

I was thinking last night about John. This time of year must be horrible for him, especially this year. It's the 10th anniversary of JBR's murder, and his first Christmas without PR, and her 50th bd would have been right after Christmas. I know all you RDI think I"m crazy, but I really feel sorry for him.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by Ames View Post
Oh, by the way...on FFJ, theres tapes of John from old interviews...and his recent one...and he has had eye lift surgery. It is so obvious...everyone on there is talking about it....complete with side by side pictures and videos. Guess he is tryng to look good for wife number 3. (IMO)

Must be wonderful to live you life under the scrutiny of everyone in the world, when they can pass judgment on every phase of your life and interpret it in a negative light. If what you do is not a sign of your guilt, it is at least a sign of your moral deficiencies.

I was thinking last night about John. This time of year must be horrible for him, especially this year. It's the 10th anniversary of JBR's murder, and his first Christmas without PR, and her 50th bd would have been right after Christmas. I know all you RDI think I"m crazy, but I really feel sorry for him.

Thank you for posting this first. My thoughts exactly, and planned on posting the same thing, but knew the RDI's would come out and blast me for feeling any sympathy for JR.

And personally Ames, I hope he does find wife number 3. I truly hope he does not spend the rest of his life alone and lonely. I can't imagine how he must feel this holiday season.

[Ames]

Thank you for posting this first. My thoughts exactly, and planned on posting the same thing, but knew the RDI's would come out and blast me for feeling any sympathy for JR.

And personally Ames, I hope he does find wife number 3. I truly hope he does not spend the rest of his life alone and lonely. I can't imagine how he must feel this holiday season.


I personally couldn't care less what he did with his eyes...or why he did it. I was just posting something that is big news on another forum....thought the RDI's here might appreciate it. The reason for the eye lift....wife number 3...is speculation on the other boards...not from me. IMO

[Ames]

I suppose it had nothing to do with the fact that all the extra skin over his eyes felt heavy and caused him to feel tired or that it effected his vision. JMO


Yep, that could be...

[thewhitewitch1]

>They didn't check everyone at AG or the Asian Divisian of Sun Micro Systems. And yes, it should be easy to pin down the this suspect if they were looking for him, being he doesn't celebrate Christmas.


>Entered possibly, left no, chair was still in front of door and yes the chair would make a better choice unless he was securing JB in the chair for the garroting and had to use the suitcase. And it was an emergency back up exit, just incase he had to leave in a hurry, doesn't mean he did.


>He felt he was smart enough to not get caught and he had something to say to John, and that was an important part of the whole crime.


>It wasn't about the money, it was about John's bonus that he felt he deserved and not John.
He just needed a day to get out of town. Even when they found the body, they didn't go on a man hunt. I don't think he expected them to find her body so early.
He wasn't out to frame the Ramseys, he was empowering himself over John, since John took away his livelyhood.


>Does it need to? JB could have awoke that night and went downstairs and helped herself. Wouldn't she have traces of pineapple on her mouth and hands if she ate it that night? It's very acidic.


>It would take very little to subdue her. But a 6 yr old screaming can be just as loud as an adult screaming and the killer might have let his guard down and was startled by a scream and struck her.
Playing their sick games in the house would be a huge rush on top of violating her right under John's nose, and possibly taking photos to prove it would be very vindictive.
I've had girlfriends that get turned on by the possibility of getting caught. Be it their parents in the next room with no doors between us, or in public place, or their husbands might catch them. It always made me nervous and worried, but I went along with it.
Tying up, garroting, and violating a six year old is way out there, staged or real. Doing it right under their noses is just another part of the fantasy.


Shill, almost everything you wrote made a certain kind of sense except one thing: The ransom note.
If the killer had "something to say" to John, why not just come out and say it? Why make him "read between the lines?" A ransom note doesn't fit in with your scenerio at all. Leaving her body there also doesn't fit in.
Assuming the killer had her legs taped to the chair...what chair? The chair in front of the train room? In that case, there would be tape residue on the chair. I believe when you read "duct tape on legs" (whomever said it...John?) it was either a typo or an error, such as the search warrant stating that so and so saw two blankets in the wine cellar. Neither one of these things has ever been mentioned again. There is always the possibility that these two peices of evidence have been kept from the public since the original mention, though.

[shill]

Shill, almost everything you wrote made a certain kind of sense except one thing: The ransom note.
If the killer had "something to say" to John, why not just come out and say it? Why make him "read between the lines?" A ransom note doesn't fit in with your scenerio at all. Leaving her body there also doesn't fit in.
Assuming the killer had her legs taped to the chair...what chair? The chair in front of the train room? In that case, there would be tape residue on the chair. I believe when you read "duct tape on legs" (whomever said it...John?) it was either a typo or an error, such as the search warrant stating that so and so saw two blankets in the wine cellar. Neither one of these things has ever been mentioned again. There is always the possibility that these two peices of evidence have been kept from the public since the original mention, though.I think he did say what he wanted to say in the note and by what he did to JB, it was a big FU; "do not particually like you" "You can try to deceive us" "you try to out smart us" "You and your family are under constant scrutiny" "Don't try to grow a brain John." "You are not the only fat cat around" "Don't underestimate us John." "Victory!"
I think he was planning on making John jump through hoops to get JB back to empower himself over John and then kill her. Just like John was empowered over him as his boss and then killing him by taking everything away from him when he was cut from the company.
It is loosing ones job that created the first Postal Shooting. And the person went Postal on the one resposible for his firing. So we have case studies and terminology in our language to describe people who go on killing rampages over loosing their jobs. This payback scenerio is plausible.

Do you think anyone even thought to check a chair for tape residue? And maybe they did, and it tested positive, but they are withholding that evidence.
And there must be things in evidence being withheld. Such as no mention of the garrote at the time of discovery of the body by John or the interrogators, and no autopsy photos from the waist down or descriptions of her body from the waist down.

[Ames]

<snipped>

Just like John was empowered over him as his boss and then killing him by taking everything away from him when he was cut from the company.


So, you think it was someone from Access Graphics? Do you think that they stuck around in town, or skipped out of the state or country? Because, if they skipped out, then they would become an obvious suspect...but, if they stuck around, and possibly still live there (which I think would be pretty brave....then again, its the same person that committed a murder right under the parents and sibling's noses....without the fear of being caught), then nobody would suspect them.

[thewhitewitch1]

I think he did say what he wanted to say in the note and by what he did to JB, it was a big FU; "do not particually like you" "You can try to deceive us" "you try to out smart us" "You and your family are under constant scrutiny" "Don't try to grow a brain John." "You are not the only fat cat around" "Don't underestimate us John." "Victory!"
I think he was planning on making John jump through hoops to get JB back to empower himself over John and then kill her. Just like John was empowered over him as his boss and then killing him by taking everything away from him when he was cut from the company.
It is loosing ones job that created the first Postal Shooting. And the person went Postal on the one resposible for his firing. So we have case studies and terminology in our language to describe people who go on killing rampages over loosing their jobs. This payback scenerio is plausible.

Do you think anyone even thought to check a chair for tape residue? And maybe they did, and it tested positive, but they are withholding that evidence.
And there must be things in evidence being withheld. Such as no mention of the garrote at the time of discovery of the body by John or the interrogators, and no autopsy photos from the waist down or descriptions of her body from the waist down.

You could read the note that way, Shill...or you could see it from DocG or Cherokees perspective. I happen to see it from Cherokees that Patsy was the author (with help from John) and that the note is a cover up to explain how JB came to be killed. It is hard to ignore the fact that the Ramseys did not follow one single instruction given in that note. Who would be so blatantly careless about doing what they were told to do when the author of the note clearly stated that their every move was being monitored? Only someone who knew the note was a fake. IMO
The things you quoted as the "taunting" to John were merely things the note writer thought a kidnapper might say...with over-kill. It was redundant.
Why would the kidnapper want to make John "jump through hoops" if, as you think, the note was written after the murder? There was no way the "kidnapper" could have known that she wouldn't have been found right away.

I also think that if it was a disgruntled former employee of Johns, he should have been caught by now. It's not that hard to make a list of people that were "let go" from Access Graphics and check them out.
I agree that there MUST be (should be anyway) evidence not known to the public, though I have heard it said (during the Karr fiasco) that there isn't.

[shill]

Why would the kidnapper want to make John "jump through hoops" if, as you think, the note was written after the murder? There was no way the "kidnapper" could have known that she wouldn't have been found right away.I think the original plan was to kidnap her alive and then make John "jump through hoops". That didn't happen.

I also think that if it was a disgruntled former employee of Johns, he should have been caught by now. It's not that hard to make a list of people that were "let go" from Access Graphics and check them out.
He should have been caught by now. But they where looking for an obviously disgruntled employee and I'm sure they ignored many, including the killer. I don't think the killer stood out at all as a suspect. I believe he had a deep seated hate that he probably never expressed to anyone before he went postal on JB.

And then there is the business venture in in Alabama that went sour and John said those involved were quite upset with him.

[thewhitewitch1]

Shill, since the case is still "open" and JR still has his team of investigators on the job, you would think that they and he would have been smart enough to check into any and all of his employees. That's the first place I would have started. John did claim that it was an "inside" job so I am wondering why he and his "team" seem to go chasing after "strangers", such as Helgoth and others. Also, if the DNA is from an asian, as far as former employees go, that would narrow down the suspects considerably, don't you think?
A former employee would have been nabbed by now. IMO

[shill]

Also, if the DNA is from an asian, as far as former employees go, that would narrow down the suspects considerably, don't you think?
A former employee would have been nabbed by now. IMOI agree. I would like to know if they exausted this possiblilty so I can give up on this theory.

[bullmoose]

If the Boulder DA's office was able to say that the DNA on Jonbenet did not match Karr, it would seem to me that they must have a pretty good profile on the DNA. But it is of absolutely no use if they don't have a sample to compare it to; I think I saw Lacey on TV saying they brought Karr all the way back from Thailand, not just because he seemed to know too much about the murder, but because he would not voluntarily give DNA samples to compare with what was on file. If they don't have samples of all former employees' DNA, in the US, and in Asia, then the possibility can never be totally ruled out. And I don't think that they do. JMO

[Athena]

Petechial hemorrhages can occur anywhere. It can have a variety of causes. My mare had a fatal anemia this summer and one of her symptoms about a week before she died was petechial hemorrhages on her tongue, lips and vaginal vault.

Like you, I don't understand the bit about being conscious. It makes no sense. Perhaps they meant alive rather than just conscious.

Maybe I should have made my post clearer. It is correct to say that pectechial hemorrhages can occur anywhere. However, Dr. Fierro's comments were based on pectechial hemorrahing found in the conjunctival surfaces of the eyes which matches the description in the autopsy report. Apparently depending on where they are found makes a difference:

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html


[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is consciousand trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for ”you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs...cal/index.html

[elvislives]

Maybe I should have made my post clearer. It is correct to say that pectechial hemorrhages can occur anywhere. However, Dr. Fierro's comments were based on pectechial hemorrahing found in the conjunctival surfaces of the eyes which matches the description in the autopsy report. Apparently depending on where they are found makes a difference:

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html


[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is consciousand trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for ”you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs...cal/index.html

Breathing is an involuntary reflex, so petechial hemorrhaging in the conjunctiva and lungs can occur whether the patient is conscious or not. There was a nursing home 'mercy killing' where a comatose patient was smothered and she, even tho she was in a coma, developed petichiae.

[nuisanceposter]

You're gonna hafta find other sources than this Dr Fierro to support your claim that petechiae require consciousness to develop, Athena, conjunctival or otherwise. As I pointed out to you before, petechiae are burst capillary vessels, and there is nothing about losing consciousness that would prevent capillaries from bursting, no matter where they are located. It isn't like you consciously decide that the pressure is too much and the blood vessels need to break open to deal with the pressure. Your body does that whether you want it to or not, whether you are conscious at the time or not.

Can you refute my claim that JonBenet offered no struggle as she was strangled? How can you explain a child allowing someone to tie a cord around her neck and strangle her to death with no struggle whatsoever, unless she was unconscious at the time?

[Athena]

You're gonna hafta find other sources than this Dr Fierro to support your claim that petechiae require consciousness to develop, Athena, conjunctival or otherwise. As I pointed out to you before, petechiae are burst capillary vessels, and there is nothing about losing consciousness that would prevent capillaries from bursting, no matter where they are located. It isn't like you consciously decide that the pressure is too much and the blood vessels need to break open to deal with the pressure. Your body does that whether you want it to or not, whether you are conscious at the time or not.

Can you refute my claim that JonBenet offered no struggle as she was strangled? How can you explain a child allowing someone to tie a cord around her neck and strangle her to death with no struggle whatsoever, unless she was unconscious at the time?

Just wanted to let you know just read your PM re: this subject. I am horrible at checking pms and haven't been on the board lately. :)

What I personally found interesting about Fierro's statement is that it was recent and has nothing to do with a specific murder case. He presented this specifically related to strangulation not to general characterization of pectechial hemorrhage and specifically related it to the way one breathes. I would believe that being conscious or unconscious would affect the way you breathe as well. I'm not a Dr./Scientist NP -- and did a search and didn't find anything to dispute his analysis nor support it.

RE: her fighting back. I don't see enough evidence to indicate whether she did or not. She also may have been bound -- we don't know either way. Can you find one where it says pectechial hemorrhage can occur in the conjunctival surface of the eyes when they are unconscious? I searched for that as well and came up with nothing re: the eyes only other parts of the body. JMO

[Ames]

<snipped>
Your body does that whether you want it to or not, whether you are conscious at the time or not.



I agree with you. I am no doctor, but common sense tells me that whether you are conscious or not, you are STILL breathing....and therefore would have the same type of hemoraging. (IMO)

[Eagle1]

Could one of the door locks be picked without leaving any detectable evidence of it being done?

That's my thought, from day one, exactly.

[Ames]

That's my thought, from day one, exactly.

Shill and Eagle1...the only thing about someone picking a lock is...how would an intruder know that an alarm wouldn't blare?? (It's a big house...I am sure that an intruder would have thought twice about picking a lock...because that big house, may just have a big, elaborate alarm system).

[shill]

An alarm system that had not been operational for some time, and many people knew about it.
Extension cords running out windows is a give away the system is not armed.
Quite often burglars will do a pre-test to see if there is an alarm systems and if it is operational.

[Ames]

An alarm system that had not been operational for some time, and many people knew about it.
Extension cords running out windows is a give away the system is not armed.
Quite often burglars will do a pre-test to see if there is an alarm systems and if it is operational.

Do you think that the intruder was someone that they knew personally...or someone that worked with John, that was p.o.'d for some reason???

[roostermuffin]

HI everyone, I haven't posted for awhile, but back this past summer, after the Carr fiasco, I posted that it seemed like time to go back and re-examine the original evidence (virtually all released to the public) free from any media, LE theories that emerged after the crime, because none of those had proved correct. So, that being done, here's what the actual evidence IMO indicates (or proves) happened that night. Of course I"d be happy for any input or to discuss any points and relate them to the clear proofs.
There is no indication of pedophile involvement, of a mother daughter fight over bed wetting, or of a fight at all. Instead the evidence only indicates.......someone who knew JB well had been planning on eliminating her by killing her. This individual planned on covering the deed with a fake kidnapping by 'terrorists' as he'd seen in the media and imagined in his grandiose fantasies. Why he picked that particular night, will probably remain only known to him, but his ransom script/letter already completed, he prepared the basement room because it was the most secluded and soundproof, with 2 blankets (1 from the 2nd floor linen closet, 1 from her bed). He gathered all the materials he'd need from the house (paper, pen, flashlight, shoe laces, paint stick), and exactingly and methodically made his murder weapon. Knowing JB, and not wanting her to suffer he planned to 'choke her out' quickly. He awoke her from bed, possibly granted her a 'last meal' of pineapple, then marched her down to the basement room. Once there he had her face the wall, placed the loop round her neck, then at arms length from behind, where she would not have to look at him, nor he at her, his left hand at the back of her neck, pulled the string through the slip knot he'd made, tightening it completely circumferentially, shutting off both artery and vein into and out of her head. She would've lost consciousnous in less than a minute. Then he hesitated or errored, relaxing his grip, and she sputtered back to life, clawing at the lace round her neck. He tightened it again, pulling it enough to cause clinical death, but he had no way of knowing that, so continued his plan, of once she was unconscious and could not feel, delivering 1 fatal blow to the head. The deed done, he laid the body in the room, a little unnerved, he made mistakes in staging the wrists were tied before death, then wrapped the body in the blankets not normally, but as a shroud for 'proper' burial. Leaving the Barbie nightgown to keep her 'company' he left, locking the door from outside, because to him it was a temporary tomb. He placed the fake ransom letter oddly on the spiral stairs instead of in the victims room, and waited for the light of dawn to carry out the rest of his plan, the early morning disposal of the body for 'proper' burial. Of course the rest is well known, mother Patsy waking before dawn, finding the letter on her usual morning route, immediately calling police in violation of all the letters instructions....causing the police, the body, and probably the killer to all be at the scene at the same time. Then, the Boulder police incompetence, in not searching, and not taking control, not finding the body for 8 hours causing the untidy mystery. This IMO relly is what the evidence indictes or proves.......please all think about it.The killer would have had to wait two hours before killing her because of the pinapple evidence. She died face down because of the urine stain evidence. A shroud involves the folding of the hands/arms to the chest. This couldn't be done because she was in rigor. Rigor occurs at least 4 hours after death, so the shroud was done at least four hours after death. There were no claw marks on Jonbenets' neck. She was already unconscious. It wasn't a slip knot on her neck, it was a double knot. It wasn't shoe laces around her neck.

[roostermuffin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rashomon
[B]

The evidence does NOT show that she called within minutes of finding the note. That's the impression the Ramseys want to give. The evidence shows that there was a phone call by Patsy in the morning, that's all. We don't 'know' where John was either.

************************************************** **
Well, the evidence of what happened before the phone call to the police does come mostly from John and Patsy, but not entirely, and just because it comes from them, and their suspects, should we ignore it?
We know as fact that the Ramsey's had planned an early morning trip that required getting up early. The alarm clocks were set for 5:30am, as the Ramsey's said, and it is a fact that is the time they'd have to get up to keep their plans. Patsy and John said the alarm went off at 5:30, she got up and went down to the kitchen by her usual route, while John went into his bathroom on the 3rd floor. We know as a fact the call to the police was in the 5:40's. If the alarm did go off as it was set, and Patsy got up shortly after 5:30 went from floor 3 down the spiral stair (as she says), found and read the note, made a quick check for JB, then called police.......the call would have been 'in minutes' and the evidence of the alarm, vaction plans, and time element, all fits.
Of course they could be totally lying, been up all night, made the call to the police right at the correct time to luckily match the early morning wake up evidence......but where is 'any' evidence to back up this scenario? And if they were both lying and did it, then why call the police at all before they got rid of the body that morning? Why should we consider this if there is 'no' evidence of it?
The evidence we do have does back up their statements of getting up around 5:30am and the call in the 5:40's, don't we have to accept this until we have solid evidence of something else?Are you definately sure of what time the alarm was set for. What is your source?

[roostermuffin]

How do you know that fibers from Patsy's jacket didn't attached themselves to JB over the course of the evening? Perhaps fibers from Patsy's jacket became entangled in JB's hair when she was holding her, helping her get dressed, hugging her, etc on Christmas. Then comes the killer and carries her downstairs to assault her. During the assault, some of the fibers in JB;s hair, on her clothing etc contaminate the crime scene.
I saw a case on tv where a little girl was abducted from a christmas party by some local perv, then raped and murdered. I don't think they ever found her body, but they were able to link him to the crime because rabbit hair from her mother's jacket was found in his home and car. Not the victim's jacket but her mothers and her mother was never in this man's house or car. The fibers had been transferred to the child from the mother's clothing, then transferred to the killer's car and house .Thank you, elvislives, explains something I was having difficulty with. Re the fibers found on Jonbenet and the cord around her neck. I'm new here and it is nice to meet you. At some point, I will tell you my theory. Just hope I don't get sued. What magic words should I use to protect myself when I post my theory?

[roostermuffin]

To TWW:Notice that I said If they were picked; Actually I don't think it would have been neccessary; IMO with all the keys that were out with the remodeling work, etc, I think it more likely that the killer/s let themselves in or walked in through an unlocked door. From all I've read the Ramseys were disorganized and complacent about security[my wife is from Detroit, 30 years in a small town and she checks the locks and security chain on each door each night,without exception] and I think they may have left doors unlocked and unchecked. There were, what 17 doors in that house? I do not claim to know how and why the killers did what they did to Jonbenet, you are RDI, I am IDI but I think we can agree that the killers did what they did, for reasons they alone know the reasons for.Whoever the killers were. Why not take the body? Were they afoot? In a suitcase? Makes no sense at all, thats why I'm here, to get a better idea of what really went down that night. Sometimes, when I research the case, I get a feeling that maybe we're all off-base, that the explanation is something we haven't even thought of,yet. Because, IMO, it just seems to me that every theory has problems. I don't have a theory to explain it all, I'm just leery of the way the BPD rushed to judgment.The lack of an objective investigation and the PR campaign against the Ramseys raised my hackles from the start. Is there something else going on here? I just don't know.Yes, something else is going on here. Nice to meet you. Wait for my explanation and debate my theory.

[roostermuffin]

You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

:beer:You are right, the head blow was struck, it knocked her out and that is all I believe happened. Hi, nice to meet you , will post my theory soon and please debate/critique as you will.

[roostermuffin]

I think the day, being Christmas, will prove important.kWhy do you believe that?

[roostermuffin]

Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote. This links Patsy to the staging of the scene.
And John's fibers in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear panties link him to the staging of the scene too.
Both Ramseys were in it together, there is no doubt about it imo.Hi,Rashomon, nice to meet you. Yes, I agree both were involved but I hope to explain why, and I will welcom your debate.

[roostermuffin]

JonBenet didn't struggle while she was being strangled at all. Meyer did not note her skin under her nails, and it would have been had she been able to reach her throat and claw at the cord. Those marks on her neck are from trauma.

Petechiae proves she was alive when strangled, but not that she fought her killer.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence

"Petechiae (puh-TEE-key-eye) are tiny little broken capillary blood vessels. Everyone has had them. A hard bout of coughing or vomiting can cause facial petechiae, especially around the eyes. These mean nothing. Newborns often have facial petechiae from the tight squeeze through the cervix. Thus petechiae are fairly common and in general of no concern."





It looks, imo, like she was completely unconscious while being strangled due to the lack of signs of struggle. There are no defense wounds, and no bruises or abrasions indicating she struggled against restraints. The interior of her neck shows little damage, not what would you see with a person who struggled against her strangler. Her hyoid bone and larynx were intact. Her thyroid and cricoid cartileges are undamaged, as was her trachea. The strap muscles of the neck were not hemorrhaged. The insides of her cheeks and tongue were smooth and unblemished, and her frenulum was still attached. (Cyril Wecht's book and autopsy report)

The head wound was developed, with swelling of the brain indicated as sulci narrowed and gyri flattened in the autopsy report. There were three pooled areas of blood, one of them measuring 7 X 4 inches and covering almost the entire hemisphere of her brain.

The fact that the garotte was tied on her body as opposed to being constructed elsewhere and put on her (as indicated by her hair being caught in it) and the fact that the knot was at the back of her neck leads me to believe she was strangled while unconscious, and the urine stains in the front and in the crotch of her long johns and undies indicates she was lying face down when her bladder released in death.

How is anyone going to tie a cord around the neck of a conscious child and then strangle her face down without her offering any resistance or struggle whatsoever, incurring no defensive wounds at all? They're not. She was unconscious when strangled, imo.Great post, absolutely correct. Medical person? I have a theory as well, but am just new to this forum, when I post, please feel free to debate. I know, I know==I gotta get a life!!

[roostermuffin]

Shill actually looking at the picture of the skull. shiver.... it looks to be all on one side:shrug:What side? Left or right? If someone struck her from behind, would He/she be left or right handed?

[roostermuffin]

I believe that was a case that happened in Prince William, VA. If not, then it was the same scenario. The perp's name was Caleb Hughes. I was thinking they found fibers that matched what she had been wearing. Her mother had ordered the outfit fromt he JCPenney catalog and they were able to get an indentical outfit and matched fibers to some found in his vehicle. But maybe that;s not the same case.Hi, lindaA, fibers may be important in this case and I am in no way an expert--but I have a theory and when I post it , I welcome your debate. Just waiting for info on how to do it without being sued by youknowwho! In the meantime, do you have a theory?

[elvislives]

Thank you, elvislives, explains something I was having difficulty with. Re the fibers found on Jonbenet and the cord around her neck. I'm new here and it is nice to meet you. At some point, I will tell you my theory. Just hope I don't get sued. What magic words should I use to protect myself when I post my theory?

Since you're anonymous on this board you don't have use any disclaimers. I'm not sure who you intend to implicate, but if they filed a libel suit against Roostermuffin, the judge would probably throw it out of court.;) So post away and tell us your theory!

[elvislives]

A question (which the ER doc here can certainly answer):
Does 'petechial hemorrhage' only refer to pinpoint bleeding in the eye?

And just for clarification: who said that the person has to be conscious for petechiae to occur: Dr. Fierro or you, Athena?
Why can't petechiae happen in an unconscious person too? A person in a coma for example? For even when someone is in a coma, blood is still circulating in the body.

Watson: I asked poster Texan (who I think is a nurse) over at FFJ about the marks on JB's neck above and below the ligature, and she answered that sometimes sees similar marks after removing blood pressure cuffs from her patients' arms.


I somehow missed this post before, Rash. To answer your question, petechial hemorhaging can happen anywhere--on JB it was noted on the conjunctiva and the lungs. And I do not understand why Dr. Fierro would think a patient needs to be conscious in order to develop petechiai. Unconscious patients can and do develop petechial and any other type of hemorrhaging. I would love to hear Dr. Fierro's explanation to this. I never heard of him before, but googled him and he seems to think that petechiai develops when someone is straining to breath, but unconscious people will strain to breathe too as it is an involuntary reflex. So again I dont understand his comments and disagree that the petechiai is indicative that she was conscious when strangled.

[roostermuffin]

Since you're anonymous on this board you don't have use any disclaimers. I'm not sure who you intend to implicate, but if they filed a libel suit against Roostermuffin, the judge would probably throw it out of court.;) So post away and tell us your theory!Good to know. How great is that, free speech! But as to posting my theory. Give me one week. Today is December 15, 2006. where I am. Will post before 2007. And then that is it for me, I gotta get a life! The world needs my help!

[Ames]

Good to know. How great is that, free speech! But as to posting my theory. Give me one week. Today is December 15, 2006. where I am. Will post before 2007. And then that is it for me, I gotta get a life! The world needs my help!


We are anxiously awaiting!!! ;)

[AmyW]

I have nothing new to add, as I am thoroughly confused with this case. I did, however, find a link to the autopsy report. Hopefully that will answer some of the poster's questions about the damage to her skull and what not.

http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/autopsy.html

[Eagle1]

............................................

And then there is the business venture in in Alabama that went sour and John said those involved were quite upset with him.

Shill, since I don't remember this specific business deal, maybe there are also others who don't remember it. Will you enlighten us?

BTW, I think your theory sounded pretty good about the chair by the train room door letting him know if his window escape route had been compromised, but as someone said right after that, a chair under the window would have been better. Maybe the killer would have realized that if he'd had more time. But FW said he put the suitcase under the window, and picked up a piece of glass off the floor and put on the suitcase, right? I for one can't imagine why he did all that. He should have known not to touch anything at a crime scene.

Anyway, what about the Alabama deal? And didn't they investigate a Jeff Merrick who'd been an employee?

[Coloradokares]

Shill, since I don't remember this specific business deal, maybe there are also others who don't remember it. Will you enlighten us?

BTW, I think your theory sounded pretty good about the chair by the train room door letting him know if his window escape route had been compromised, but as someone said right after that, a chair under the window would have been better. Maybe the killer would have realized that if he'd had more time. But FW said he put the suitcase under the window, and picked up a piece of glass off the floor and put on the suitcase, right? I for one can't imagine why he did all that. He should have known not to touch anything at a crime scene.

Anyway, what about the Alabama deal? And didn't they investigate a Jeff Merrick who'd been an employee?

Yes they did investigate Jeff Merrick.....for your curiosity if you wish here is a link to and interview with Jeff Merrick

http://dimwit.byethhost5.com/jeff%20merr

I agree people should have known to not touch anything at a crime scene even if it was at the time a suspected kidnapping. The officers failed to secure the scene...that is a fact :shrug: It is very hard to understand isn't it? For all of us. I think Shill may have meant Atlanta deal where they ultimately closed the company? Or perhaps he did mean Alabama deal I just can't think right now of any Alabama deals....sorry I can't be of help on that . Living proof I really dont know even the half of what there is to know.

[Athena]

Shill, since I don't remember this specific business deal, maybe there are also others who don't remember it. Will you enlighten us?

BTW, I think your theory sounded pretty good about the chair by the train room door letting him know if his window escape route had been compromised, but as someone said right after that, a chair under the window would have been better. Maybe the killer would have realized that if he'd had more time. But FW said he put the suitcase under the window, and picked up a piece of glass off the floor and put on the suitcase, right? I for one can't imagine why he did all that. He should have known not to touch anything at a crime scene.

Anyway, what about the Alabama deal? And didn't they investigate a Jeff Merrick who'd been an employee?

According to PMPT Jeff Merrick remained a person of interest. He was demoted by JR but allowed to keep a six-figure salary until JR could no longer justify Merrick's salary. JR told Merrick he would have to take a pay cut or leave. He chose to leave and claimed that that the company owed him $118,000. Merrick also sent a long fax to Lockheed Martin denouncing Ramsey for the way he dealt with employees and was was overheard by a directory of the company saying he was going to get JR. Merrick and his wife went home at 8:00 after spending the day with friends and his wife wasn't feeling well -- so there was no alibi either.

I also cannot even imagine what the heck FW was thinking when he moved the suitcase and picked up glass -- why???? For what reason even if he didn't realize at the time it was evidence? I have never understood why he could have possibly done that or why he went back down to the basement after JBR's body was found and touched the duct tape? Why, why, why??? I have never seen any reasonable explanation for this. Could he have transferred fibers to that tape? Was he looking for something? Why was he walking around taking notes?

[nuisanceposter]

I also cannot even imagine what the heck FW was thinking when he moved the suitcase and picked up glass -- why???? For what reason even if he didn't realize at the time it was evidence? I have never understood why he could have possibly done that or why he went back down to the basement after JBR's body was found and touched the duct tape? Why, why, why??? I have never seen any reasonable explanation for this.

I ask the same thing about JR going looking through the basement alone when he was supposed to be with the group in the sunroom - when he supposedly found an open window and shut it, and then went back upstairs and said not a damn thing about it for four months.

Why didn't he turn and yell for the detective in the house to come see the evidence he just found? Why did he close the window? Didn't he think there may have been prints? Didn't he think police would want to check that out? Didn't he think that might help find where his daughter was?

How on earth could he just walk back upstairs and not say anything to anyone about what he'd just found? Not mention it to Detective Arndt? Or his best friend, FW? Or his wife Patsy, who was sitting there distraught and searching for answers? Why would he find something that was a clue like that and keep silent about it for months until he brought it up to police when the Rs finally allowed an interview? Why refuse to speak to police all that time when you've found something like that? And how come no one else who was in the basement looking for open windows or any sign of entry/exit by an intruder saw it, just JR?

WHY WHY WHY????

[Athena]

I ask the same thing about JR going looking through the basement alone when he was supposed to be with the group in the sunroom - when he supposedly found an open window and shut it, and then went back upstairs and said not a damn thing about it for four months.

Why didn't he turn and yell for the detective in the house to come see the evidence he just found? Why did he close the window? Didn't he think there may have been prints? Didn't he think police would want to check that out? Didn't he think that might help find where his daughter was?

How on earth could he just walk back upstairs and not say anything to anyone about what he'd just found? Not mention it to Detective Arndt? Or his best friend, FW? Or his wife Patsy, who was sitting there distraught and searching for answers? Why would he find something that was a clue like that and keep silent about it for months until he brought it up to police when the Rs finally allowed an interview? Why refuse to speak to police all that time when you've found something like that? And how come no one else who was in the basement looking for open windows or any sign of entry/exit by an intruder saw it, just JR?

WHY WHY WHY????

NP: He did tell FW. Why he did not tell anyone else is also beyond my comprehension. There is just one thing you need to remember -- it was NOT FW's daughter and how you can compare JR's reactions to what I posted re: FW are comparing apples to oranges. Everytime I bring up FWs actions it is countered with what JR did. I am still looking for an explanation for FW's actions and have yet to be offered one. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

When did he tell FW? When he came upstairs from finding the window open and closed it? Why didn't he tell the frickin DETECTIVE, so that someone official could ascertain the situation? Bugger the friends, there's a cop in your house! She's the one to notify of anything suspicious!

And why didn't any officers such as French or Veitch who searched the basement specifically for signs of entry/exit see this window?

And exactly, Athena, this was JR's daughter, not FW's. I don't care what FW did when it wasn't even his house or his child that this was happening in or to. The only reason FW was even there was because Patsy called up in a panic and told them to come over. I think the person whose actions need to be examined is JR rather than FW - JR, who was in the house at the time his daughter was assaulted and murdered. JR, who told contradicting statements to LE such as "the house was locked...oh wait, no, it wasn't" and "I read to JonBenet...nope, I read to myself."

I still can't understand why you insist on believing all of the R's lies no matter how many times they've been shown to have contradicted themselves but think other people, such as Levin, are the ones lying. the Ramseys are the only ones with the NEED to lie, and they been caught doing it repeatedly through this investigation...when they could be bothered to cooperate with the investigation. FW cooperated, didn't he? He was cleared by police in April of 97, but John and Patsy Ramsey are still prime suspects.

[andU]

When did he tell FW? When he came upstairs from finding the window open and closed it? Why didn't he tell the frickin DETECTIVE, so that someone official could ascertain the situation? Bugger the friends, there's a cop in your house! She's the one to notify of anything suspicious!

And why didn't any officers such as French or Veitch who searched the basement specifically for signs of entry/exit see this window?

And exactly, Athena, this was JR's daughter, not FW's. I don't care what FW did when it wasn't even his house or his child that this was happening in or to. The only reason FW was even there was because Patsy called up in a panic and told them to come over. I think the person whose actions need to be examined is JR rather than FW - JR, who was in the house at the time his daughter was assaulted and murdered. JR, who told contradicting statements to LE such as "the house was locked...oh wait, no, it wasn't" and "I read to JonBenet...nope, I read to myself."

I still can't understand why you insist on believing all of the R's lies no matter how many times they've been shown to have contradicted themselves but think other people, such as Levin, are the ones lying. the Ramseys are the only ones with the NEED to lie, and they been caught doing it repeatedly through this investigation...when they could be bothered to cooperate with the investigation. FW cooperated, didn't he? He was cleared by police in April of 97, but John and Patsy Ramsey are still prime suspects.

Nor do IDI's understand why RDI's must be so biased and not willing to view our points...

[LindaA]

Exactly, and U. I don't see how anyone can be so sure they are right that that continually belittle those who do not agree with them.

[nuisanceposter]

Nor do IDI's understand why RDI's must be so biased and not willing to view our points...

What points am I not viewing? The claim that police focused on the Rs and nowhere else that I have found to have been disproven in more than one source?

Seriously, tell me what I'm missing...as I see it, there is no forensic evidence of an intruder and forensic evidence placing the Rs in the crime scene.

You can call me biased (thank you for spelling it right, so many people just write "bias"), but I've come to my conclusion based on hours and hours of reading everything I can find about this case.

Please list your points one by one and I promise you I will take the time to address each one in detail. I'm serious.

And LindaA, just who are you saying is belittling you by not agreeing? Saying I don't understand why Athena believes what the Rs say and believes others like Levin are lying is in no way meant to belittle her.

Just because I think I'm right does not mean I'm insulting anyone else by not agreeing with them. I think you may have me confused with that other guy that you say is okay insulting people because he makes good points. Funny how it's okay when an IDI does it, but not when you think an RDI is doing it...

[LadyFisher]

What points am I not viewing? The claim that police focused on the Rs and nowhere else that I have found to have been disproven in more than one source?

Seriously, tell me what I'm missing...as I see it, there is no forensic evidence of an intruder and forensic evidence placing the Rs in the crime scene.

You can call me biased (thank you for spelling it right, so many people just write "bias"), but I've come to my conclusion based on hours and hours of reading everything I can find about this case.

Please list your points one by one and I promise you I will take the time to address each one in detail. I'm serious.

And LindaA, just who are you saying is belittling you by not agreeing? Saying I don't understand why Athena believes what the Rs say and believes others like Levin are lying is in no way meant to belittle her.

Just because I think I'm right does not mean I'm insulting anyone else by not agreeing with them. I think you may have me confused with that other guy that you say is okay insulting people because he makes good points. Funny how it's okay when an IDI does it, but not when you think an RDI is doing it...

Nuisance, I don't think you are insulting anyone...hey, any gal that likes antiques is a good gal in my book...:)...but we do disagree....The only evidence I see against the Ramseys..it was their home their daughter was found murdered in.....how many cases have we seen since JBs where pedophile, kidnapper, murderers stealth into someone's home kidnap and kill their daughters.....only this one did his evil deed in the victim's own basement..that tells me, this perp had previously been in that home...there is imho significant evidence in this case...unidentified DNA, not belonging to the Ramseys...there's the little issues of..where's the remaining duct tape and cord that was used on JB? So much that you disregard, I see as evidence of an intruder...now, as Sun would say, my opinions are not set in stone, and are subject to change if there is new evidence in this case....I would still like to know, too, what those marks that certainly look as they could have come from a stun gun are?

[andU]

I believe, and I am trying to be objective, that if there were enough forensic evidence, there would have been a trial and conviction long ago. Of course John and Patsy were at the crime scene, they reside in that house. There isn't evidence to place either of them at the more narrow crime scene of either JB's bedroom or the basement room, other than fibers that would be expected to be found in any resident's home. I would change my opinion, with more evidence. I wanted it to be the parents, originally and was so angered that they weren't arrested and questioned separately... there is now enough doubt to have changed my mind. Evil do-ers are not always parents.

[andU]

If we all shared the same views, thoughts and opinions, there would be no need for this board.

[watson]

Hey all,
As these posts get longer it's easy to say that all has been said, and move on, but that's not actually the case, it's just that internet technology (so far) arranges everything in long single stream lists, and the 'freshness' of the discussion tends to get lost going down that single thread (will anyone ever invent a split screen, with side by side posting of 2 columns of posts, or how about 3-4, a screen like newspaper columns? Anyone got Bill Gate's number?).
Anyway, responding to what someone posted above (this page) referring to Patsy not being able to be cleared of this crime by the fact SHE called the police, because John told her to do this, and since he TOLD her to do it HE can be cleared. This as FACT is not true. The original police reports taken on the 26th, and in the Ramsey's original statements, ONLY say Patsy called the police (911), that she yelled for John and he was reading the note, the first mention of John 'telling' her to do it, doesn't come until (as far as I know) 1-1 (5 days later) in the CNN interview. An enhancement of the 911 tape reportedly has John's voice on it (and Burkes) in background, but no order from John to call police. As a fact, John telling Patsy to call the police can't be shown or proven from the original evidence, but was added later first by John and then Patsy and John much later. Is this not true???

[Louisadelmar]

A couple of years ago Tricia hired a Mr. Paul Ginsberg to see if he could find Burke and John on the tape. He couldn't and you can be sure his report wasn't made into a permanent sticky for all to see. :-)

But - I have a vague memory that at the beginning he found new stuff of Patsy saying "Hon we need 'em." presumably in reference to calling the police. I used to have a copy of his report but not on this computer. If you are a member at FFJ or if someone who is is willing to do a search for you, you can probably find it. It was in April 2004. You might also be able to find reference to it at 2B WS where you can search even if you aren't a member.

[Louisadelmar]

Wasn't able to find the original report but I did find this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208762&postcount=9

Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
Professional Audio Laboratories transcript:
Patsy: God.
911: 911 Emergency.
Patsy: Hon, we need 'em. Police.
911: What's going on ma'am?
Patsy: 755 15th Street.
911: What's going on there, ma'am?
Patsy: We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please.
911: Explain to me what's going on, okay?
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...read.php?t=4576

Steve Thomas book transcript:
PATSY RAMSEY: (inaudible) police.
BOULDER POLICE DISPATCHER: (inaudible)
PATSY RAMSEY: Seven fifty-five Fifteenth Street.
DISPATCHER: What's going on there, Ma'am?
PATSY RAMSEY: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please.
DISPATCHER: Explain to me what's going on, OK?

NBC transcript:
Patsy: “Police.”
911: “What’s going on ma’am?”
Patsy: “755 15th street.”
911: “What’s going on there ma’am”
Patsy: “We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!”
911: “Explain to me what’s going on. Ok?” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

LKL transcript:
(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

P. RAMSEY: Police -- 755 15th Street.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's going on there, ma'am?

P. RAMSEY: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain to me what's going on. OK? http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

Interesting that none of the transcripts have the first two lines that PAL has, and that ST's & LKL's transcripts don't have the "“What’s going on ma’am?” from the dispatcher.

[Athena]

<snip>
I still can't understand why you insist on believing all of the R's lies no matter how many times they've been shown to have contradicted themselves but think other people, such as Levin, are the ones lying. the Ramseys are the only ones with the NEED to lie, and they been caught doing it repeatedly through this investigation...when they could be bothered to cooperate with the investigation. FW cooperated, didn't he? He was cleared by police in April of 97, but John and Patsy Ramsey are still prime suspects.

NP: Again I have asked to see these outright lies the Ramseys allegedly told that would have a bearing on this case? The few inconsistencies I have seen are in interviews that are months apart, where information during the interim has been told to them and is clear in their different answers it is information they have become privy to and seem to not remember if they experienced it first-hand or something that they heard or read later.

I can say this: under extreme stress I am surprised that they can remember any details surrounding the death of their daughter as well as they do. It is not unusual for someone experiencing a traumatic event not to remember details. FW was not under the same emotional trauma the Ramseys were and I don't care that he knew JBR for 3 years. It was NOT his daughter. The ONLY reason the Ramseys may still be under the umbrella is because their daughter was found in their house -- there is NO concrete evidence against the Ramseys -- and we can agree to disagree on this. The only fiber evidence IMO that has been linked to the Ramseys are the red fibers on the duct tape which could have been secondary transfer and even that is not so clear to me since they weren't even sure if the fibers were fleece, wool or acrylic. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Yeah, clearly I'm wasting my time.

Here's an example. Patsy told interviewers that she saw the heart on JonBenet's hand the morning of the 26th. Then she comes back and says she didn't see the heart that morning, but knew about it from the autopsy - but JR was saying neither he nor Patsy read the autopsy. First off, why would she start her next interview session "clarifying" the heart on the hand? Why is it so important to her that she starts out saying she had been wrong, here's another story, and why would JR be saying that they hadn't read the autopsy when Patsy said she had?

And the locked doors. John and Patsy both told police and friends that doors were locked that night (this is in PMPT), then four months later at the police interview, here's JR saying the doors weren't locked. So....they got it wrong the morning of the 26th when they told police and friends the doors were locked and had to "clarify" for police four months later, or the doors were locked and JR was lying when he said they weren't? It can't be both. One of those has to be a lie. Either the doors were locked or they weren't, and considering both John and Patsy told police and friends they were locked on the morning of 12/26, and since friends of the Rs as well as Burke said the Rs were good about locking up, I think JR was lying when he said they weren't locked later on. God knows he had enough reason to need to lie, and it wasn't the first time - how about that time in DOI where he let some business guy think he'd driven through the snow to get to work when really all he'd done was go downstairs?

But I'm sure you won't see these as lies, now will you, Athena? No, these are mourning, grief-stricken parents who can't be relied upon to remember any detail accurately in their insurmountable and all-encompassing grief, so they get a free pass on lie after lie after lie from the IDI. Very convenient. Let me ask you this - if some solid proof came out, suppose Burke came forward and said, "Yes, my parents are responsible for JonBenet's death and I know because I was there and heard them", how would you react?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Nuisance Poster <snip>But I'm sure you won't see these as lies, now will you, Athena? No, these are mourning, grief-stricked parents who can't be relied upon to remember any detail accurately in their insurmountable and all-encompassing grief, so they get a free pass on lie after lie after lie from the IDI. <snip>

Oh, no, NP, you are never sarcastic to IDIs.

I'm not Athena but if Burke ever confessed to having heard the murder, I'd probably believe him. But what makes you think that would ever happen?

[nuisanceposter]

It was just a supposition. I don't think Burke knows any inside info about what happened to his baby sister, and has been fed a steady diet of RST rhetoric these past ten years.

I'm very sarcastic, but I don't reserve for just the IDI. I apologize if I'm rude, I have a terrible cold and haven't slept well.

I do think the IDI give the Rs a free pass to put out wrong information, though, with the excuse that they were too distraught to remember straight. I might buy that if they didn't display such selective memory loss.

But how would you feel about all of the things they've said over the years that you believe they said in honesty that turned out not to be true? I mean, if it came out they did it with solid proof, wouldn't you feel cheated and used and lied to? How would you feel about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in their stories that you now excuse as being part of grief or whatever?

[LindaA]

NP, are you doubting they were distraught? I believe they would have been no matter how JB died or who was responsible. In other words, being distraught is not necessarily an indicatio of innocence, IMO.

I'm not sure how I stand on the Rs' inconsistencies. A certain amount of inconsistency is to be expected in human memory. (You'd have to know my husband to understand this. :D ) And I think it would be more suspicious if they never varied their facts one iota. People would say it was all rehearsed.

Hope you feel better soon!!

[nuisanceposter]

No, I don't doubt that they were distraught. I think they were double distraught, as an RDI, because I think they loved JonBenet very much and did not mean to kill her. I think they were also distraught over being caught as the responsible party in her death.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook some very blatant inconsistencies, such as the heart on the hand and the locked doors. Distress wouldn't make them tell police a different story than the original one, but lying to cover their butts would.

I agree that some inconsistency is expected and would be supect if they never varied at all, but the hallmark of truthful statements is a reasonable amount of consistency. That's why police ask everyone for their story, and more than one officer asks. They take that info and compare it to look for consistency.

I just don't think they'd have any reason to lie if they didn't know what happened to JonBenet, and I've seen repeated examples of them lying again and again...about crucial information.

Thank you.

[LindaA]

Thanks for explaining your views. You may well be right, I just don't know. Altho' I am basically an IDI, I do have my doubts. However, it seems to me that the conventional wisdom -- if you can use that term -- about the Rs' state of mind was that they were faking their distress. (Patsy peeking through her finigers to gauge reaction, John's peering over his shoulder to watch PR, etc. just after he brought the body upstairs.) I was wondering if you felt that was the case.

[andU]

"Cricify Him"!

[watson]

Wasn't able to find the original report but I did find this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208762&postcount=9

Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
Professional Audio Laboratories transcript:
Patsy: God.
911: 911 Emergency.
Patsy: Hon, we need 'em. Police.
911: What's going on ma'am?
Patsy: 755 15th Street.
911: What's going on there, ma'am?
Patsy: We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please.
911: Explain to me what's going on, okay?
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...read.php?t=4576

Steve Thomas book transcript:
PATSY RAMSEY: (inaudible) police.
BOULDER POLICE DISPATCHER: (inaudible)
PATSY RAMSEY: Seven fifty-five Fifteenth Street.
DISPATCHER: What's going on there, Ma'am?
PATSY RAMSEY: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please.
DISPATCHER: Explain to me what's going on, OK?

NBC transcript:
Patsy: “Police.”
911: “What’s going on ma’am?”
Patsy: “755 15th street.”
911: “What’s going on there ma’am”
Patsy: “We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!”
911: “Explain to me what’s going on. Ok?” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

LKL transcript:
(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

P. RAMSEY: Police -- 755 15th Street.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's going on there, ma'am?

P. RAMSEY: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain to me what's going on. OK? http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

Interesting that none of the transcripts have the first two lines that PAL has, and that ST's & LKL's transcripts don't have the "“What’s going on ma’am?” from the dispatcher.
************************************************
Thank you so much for finding and reprinting this Louisadelmar.
I've heard the 9-11 tape (or was told it was the whole tape many times) BUT it NEVER contained the first 5 lines above. If this is the official transcript...it is way MORE than interesting, because it shows Patsy (who we've always known made the call so early that am) convincing and insisting to John that the police be called (when John later said it was all his idea to call).
Whichever parent wanted to ignore the note and call police against the notes instructions can be eliminated as writing the note, and therefore in doing the crime. Whichever parent didn't want to call police but instead to follow the notes instructions and have a police free day on the 26th, casts suspicion on themselves of actually writing the note.
Are you sure of the accuracy of the begining of this tape?

[LindaA]

Watson & Louisadelmar, I've never read that line in a transcript or heard mention of it either. Watson, you do make a very interesting point.

[Coloradokares]

Wasn't able to find the original report but I did find this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208762&postcount=9

Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
Professional Audio Laboratories transcript:
Patsy: God.
911: 911 Emergency.
Patsy: Hon, we need 'em. Police.
911: What's going on ma'am?
Patsy: 755 15th Street.
911: What's going on there, ma'am?
Patsy: We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please.
911: Explain to me what's going on, okay?
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...read.php?t=4576

Steve Thomas book transcript:
PATSY RAMSEY: (inaudible) police.
BOULDER POLICE DISPATCHER: (inaudible)
PATSY RAMSEY: Seven fifty-five Fifteenth Street.
DISPATCHER: What's going on there, Ma'am?
PATSY RAMSEY: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please.
DISPATCHER: Explain to me what's going on, OK?

NBC transcript:
Patsy: “Police.”
911: “What’s going on ma’am?”
Patsy: “755 15th street.”
911: “What’s going on there ma’am”
Patsy: “We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!”
911: “Explain to me what’s going on. Ok?” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

LKL transcript:
(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

P. RAMSEY: Police -- 755 15th Street.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's going on there, ma'am?

P. RAMSEY: We had a kidnapping. Hurry, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain to me what's going on. OK? http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

Interesting that none of the transcripts have the first two lines that PAL has, and that ST's & LKL's transcripts don't have the "“What’s going on ma’am?” from the dispatcher.

So then what this is claiming is that the recording was going on before the dispatcher answered. Or am I just confused on this? CK

[bandit's mom]

Thanks for explaining your views. You may well be right, I just don't know. Altho' I am basically an IDI, I do have my doubts. However, it seems to me that the conventional wisdom -- if you can use that term -- about the Rs' state of mind was that they were faking their distress. (Patsy peeking through her finigers to gauge reaction, John's peering over his shoulder to watch PR, etc. just after he brought the body upstairs.) I was wondering if you felt that was the case.


I'm and RDI and I've never believed the Ramsey's were faking their distress, exactly, I just think that once it happened, and I personally don't believe it
was intentional and certainly not planned, they did fairly quickly shift into
self preservation mode at which time it became more about saving themselves than feeling their loss. Which, I suppose, is really what self
preservation is all about.

[Louisadelmar]

So then what this is claiming is that the recording was going on before the dispatcher answered. [...]


Apparently.

I thought it was interesting she said "God... hon we need em."

Doesn't sound (to me) like what a guilty person would be saying.

[thewhitewitch1]

Apparently.

I thought it was interesting she said "God... hon we need em."

Doesn't sound (to me) like what a guilty person would be saying.

She said "God" first and then the dispatcher said "911 emergency", then Patsy said "Hon, we need 'em. Police". Sounds to me like she was talking to the operator.

[shill]

Yeah, clearly I'm wasting my time.

Here's an example. Patsy told interviewers that she saw the heart on JonBenet's hand the morning of the 26th. Then she comes back and says she didn't see the heart that morning, but knew about it from the autopsy - but JR was saying neither he nor Patsy read the autopsy. First off, why would she start her next interview session "clarifying" the heart on the hand? Why is it so important to her that she starts out saying she had been wrong, here's another story, and why would JR be saying that they hadn't read the autopsy when Patsy said she had?I read John's interview and he said he didn't read the autopsy report but Patsy did.
And Patsy would point out she was wrong about the heart so people like YOU wouldn't think she was lying about it, but was in fact mistaken.
You imply she was lying to cover up her crime. How does lying about seeing a heart on her hand that morning help her cover up her alleged crime?

And the locked doors. John and Patsy both told police and friends that doors were locked that night (this is in PMPT), then four months later at the police interview, here's JR saying the doors weren't locked. So....they got it wrong the morning of the 26th when they told police and friends the doors were locked and had to "clarify" for police four months later, or the doors were locked and JR was lying when he said they weren't? It can't be both. One of those has to be a lie. Either the doors were locked or they weren't, and considering both John and Patsy told police and friends they were locked on the morning of 12/26, and since friends of the Rs as well as Burke said the Rs were good about locking up, I think JR was lying when he said they weren't locked later on. God knows he had enough reason to need to lie, and it wasn't the first time - how about that time in DOI where he let some business guy think he'd driven through the snow to get to work when really all he'd done was go downstairs?He said he locked all the doors that night. He found out the butler door was unlocked at a later time. Where's the lie? You find out information that you didn't know previously just means you were ignorant about that fact.
And an open unlocked door is a sure sign of an intruder.

But I'm sure you won't see these as lies, now will you, Athena? No, these are mourning, grief-stricken parents who can't be relied upon to remember any detail accurately in their insurmountable and all-encompassing grief, so they get a free pass on lie after lie after lie from the IDI. Very convenient. Let me ask you this - if some solid proof came out, suppose Burke came forward and said, "Yes, my parents are responsible for JonBenet's death and I know because I was there and heard them", how would you react?I'd feel the same way as if someone came forward and turned in the killer whether it was the parents or someone else.
I would feel terrible if I had crucified them like you and others have only to find out someone else did it. I won't feel guilty for not crucifying them before proof came out they did it.

[Louisadelmar]

She said "God" first and then the dispatcher said "911 emergency", then Patsy said "Hon, we need 'em. Police". Sounds to me like she was talking to the operator.

I read it as she was saying to John "God hon, we need em" as she dialed 911. The dispatcher answers while Patsy is talking. There is no way to type an overlay of voices.

I defiinitely don't think she started her conversation with the dispatcher by saying "Hon, we need em."

[thewhitewitch1]

I read John's interview and he said he didn't read the autopsy report but Patsy did.
And Patsy would point out she was wrong about the heart so people like YOU wouldn't think she was lying about it, but was in fact mistaken.
You imply she was lying to cover up her crime. How does lying about seeing a heart on her hand that morning help her cover up her alleged crime?

He said he locked all the doors that night. He found out the butler door was unlocked at a later time. Where's the lie? You find out information that you didn't know previously just means you were ignorant about that fact.
And an open unlocked door is a sure sign of an intruder.

I'd feel the same way as if someone came forward and turned in the killer whether it was the parents or someone else.
I would feel terrible if I had crucified them like you and others have only to find out someone else did it. I won't feel guilty for not crucifying them before proof came out they did it.


The location of the doors in the Ramsey house confuses me. Wasn't the butler pantry door the one that John Fernie came to and found locked?
Wasn't that where JR laid the ransom note down to read? If it was, there was no way on earth that JR could not have know that door was "open". He would have seen it and felt the cold air on his nearly nekkid body. And Fernie says it was locked....so...
Unless I am mistaken about which door was open and unlocked, someone did lie. If the door was found open and unlocked for a fact, it happened well after the murder was commited by any one of the many persons in their home that morning.

[Zoey]

I read it as she was saying to John "God hon, we need em" as she dialed 911. The dispatcher answers while Patsy is talking. There is no way to type an overlay of voices.

I defiinitely don't think she started her conversation with the dispatcher by saying "Hon, we need em."

Yes, I don't think after finding out her daughter had been kidnapped, her main concern was being polite to the 911 operator by calling her Hon!

[Zoey]

The location of the doors in the Ramsey house confuses me. Wasn't the butler pantry door the one that John Fernie came to and found locked?
Wasn't that where JR laid the ransom note down to read? If it was, there was no way on earth that JR could not have know that door was "open". He would have seen it and felt the cold air on his nearly nekkid body. And Fernie says it was locked....so...
Unless I am mistaken about which door was open and unlocked, someone did lie. If the door was found open and unlocked for a fact, it happened well after the murder was commited by any one of the many persons in their home that morning.

IIRC, JR did not say that door was open, it was the police that said they found the door open, and there is a photo on acandyrose.com that is a supposed crime scene photo that shows that door ajar. Fernie stated he parked in the alley, came to the butler doors, read the ransom note that was on the floor, tried the door, it was locked, so he went to the front of the house.

(PMPT Page 236):

"John Fernie was angry when he read Charlie Brennan's story about footprints. Like many media storeis, this one fame from an unnamed source and made the Ramseys look guilty. Fernie wondered if the souce was provided the reporter with all the facts. He knew that his own footprints were there in the snow that morning. He had driven up the back alley to the Ramseys' house just after 6:00 A.M. in response to Patsys' frantic call that terrible morning. He remembered walking along the brick sidewalk to the patio door, looking through the glass panel, and reading a line or two of the ransom note, which was lying on the floor just inside the door. Then he ran through the snow-covered grass, around the south side of the house, to the front door. If the cops had been looking, they would have found his footprints. A year and half after JonBenet's death, Fernie told a reporter that the police still had not checked the shoes he wore that day, though a shoe imprint had been discovered next to JonBenet's body."

I also found this:

DOI (HB) Page 270:

"The investigators spent a great deal of time talking with me about a large diagram of the house on the wall behind me. I later learned that they also used the same diagram with Patsy. I was shocked to see that they had found the butler kitchen door, which led to the outside, open. This was reported by one of our friends when he arrived shortly after six in the morning. I'd never even noticed that open door as we frantically rushed around making phone calls, and yet there on the police diagram of our home was the note: "Door found open."

Both of the above are taken from:

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

[bullmoose]

:eek: I'm a bit confused here; if Fernie ran around the house, surely he would have left footprints, right? The BPD found no footprints, gasp, does this mean that the BPD was incompetent? Could they have missed important clues in the case at the very beginning? The fact that the BPD said that there was no footprints was the very reason they looked at the parents as the only real suspects, so is it possible the BPD was suspicious of the Ramseys based on faulty or false information? Could this mean that the BPD wasn't interested in an actual investigation? After all, it was very cold outside in the early morning; it was a lot more pleasant in the nice, warm house. If Fernie is telling the truth, how could the cops miss his footprints if they actually looked? Could it be that the cops didn't actually look? That's how it looks to me.

[Tober]

Whichever parent wanted to ignore the note and call police against the notes instructions can be eliminated as writing the note, and therefore in doing the crime.

I disagree. They had a very narrow time-frame in which to call police. They couldn't call too early, because they had to make it appear as if they slept all night and awoke to find the note. They couldn't call too late, because they were expected to be somewhere and people would begin inquiring. Had they taken the trip without JonBenet, people would naturally begin asking why she wasn't with them.

[shill]

I disagree. They had a very narrow time-frame in which to call police. They couldn't call too early, because they had to make it appear as if they slept all night and awoke to find the note. They couldn't call too late, because they were expected to be somewhere and people would begin inquiring. Had they taken the trip without JonBenet, people would naturally begin asking why she wasn't with them.

....or, they had planned on getting up at the time they did, and cancelled there trip because their daughter was gone.

[thewhitewitch1]

IIRC, JR did not say that door was open, it was the police that said they found the door open, and there is a photo on acandyrose.com that is a supposed crime scene photo that shows that door ajar. Fernie stated he parked in the alley, came to the butler doors, read the ransom note that was on the floor, tried the door, it was locked, so he went to the front of the house.

(PMPT Page 236):

"John Fernie was angry when he read Charlie Brennan's story about footprints. Like many media storeis, this one fame from an unnamed source and made the Ramseys look guilty. Fernie wondered if the souce was provided the reporter with all the facts. He knew that his own footprints were there in the snow that morning. He had driven up the back alley to the Ramseys' house just after 6:00 A.M. in response to Patsys' frantic call that terrible morning. He remembered walking along the brick sidewalk to the patio door, looking through the glass panel, and reading a line or two of the ransom note, which was lying on the floor just inside the door. Then he ran through the snow-covered grass, around the south side of the house, to the front door. If the cops had been looking, they would have found his footprints. A year and half after JonBenet's death, Fernie told a reporter that the police still had not checked the shoes he wore that day, though a shoe imprint had been discovered next to JonBenet's body."

I also found this:

DOI (HB) Page 270:

"The investigators spent a great deal of time talking with me about a large diagram of the house on the wall behind me. I later learned that they also used the same diagram with Patsy. I was shocked to see that they had found the butler kitchen door, which led to the outside, open. This was reported by one of our friends when he arrived shortly after six in the morning. I'd never even noticed that open door as we frantically rushed around making phone calls, and yet there on the police diagram of our home was the note: "Door found open."

Both of the above are taken from:

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

Do you not see the contradictions here?? So the police put in their report that the door was found open. At what point did they find the door open? It sure wasn't upon their immediate arrival. If JR was hunkered down in his tighty whities reading the ransom note in front of that door, how on earth would he NOT know it was open? What you quoted from DOI was just one of the Ramseys blatant lies because the "friend" he referred to was John Fernie and Fernie told the LE in his interview that the door was locked.
Also, I believe the police arrived before Fernie did and no doubt had already checked the yard for footprints.
They "frantically rushed around making phone calls?" The only person making phone calls was Patsy and she made them from the same phone, as John was alledgedly reading the ransom note on the floor so I am not buying that that's why he didn't notice the door was open. I don't know how IDIs can dismiss this kind of thing so easily. :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

Yes, I don't think after finding out her daughter had been kidnapped, her main concern was being polite to the 911 operator by calling her Hon!


Could have been a "southern thing"...just the way she speaks.
The document shown says Patsy said "God" first and then the operator say "911 emergency" and then "Hon, we need 'em. Police".
This can be taken your way or mine. We have no way of really knowing who she was talking to.
Also, if she was talking to John, then she/they lied to the police over and over about John being the one who told her to call them or else why would she be explaining to him that they "needed them?" So why would they need to lie about that?

[KingCoyote]

For Additional information about locked doors see the following:

JR 1998 Interview Page 496

PMPT-Paperback P. 70 - PR states to LHP after the funeral service that "we are sure" [that all doors were locked]

ST - Paperback - P. 50 - Suzanne Savage - former nanny - Ramseys were very careful about locking their doors

KingCoyote

[shill]

The butler door was solid and set in brick, if I'm not mistaken. Fernie had to be talking about another door being locked wouldn't he?.

[Zoey]

Do you not see the contradictions here?? So the police put in their report that the door was found open. At what point did they find the door open? It sure wasn't upon their immediate arrival. If JR was hunkered down in his tighty whities reading the ransom note in front of that door, how on earth would he NOT know it was open? What you quoted from DOI was just one of the Ramseys blatant lies because the "friend" he referred to was John Fernie and Fernie told the LE in his interview that the door was locked.
Also, I believe the police arrived before Fernie did and no doubt had already checked the yard for footprints.
They "frantically rushed around making phone calls?" The only person making phone calls was Patsy and she made them from the same phone, as John was alledgedly reading the ransom note on the floor so I am not buying that that's why he didn't notice the door was open. I don't know how IDIs can dismiss this kind of thing so easily. :shrug:


Yes, I very much see the contradictions here and in many other aspects of this case. What I don't see, and perhaps it is because I am not hell bent on accusing the Ramseys of murdering their little girl, is where the Ramseys continuously lied about everything. John stated he was shocked to see the police photo that showed that butler door open. He said a friend told him it was open. He never lied about it. Wherein was the lie? Because when he was frantically reading a ransom note and did not notice if a door was locked or unlocked, this makes him a liar?

I just don't get how every single RDI knows exactly how the Ramsey's should have acted, what they should have noticed or not noticed, how they lie about everything, how they sounded on a phone, how they should have dressed, how they shouldn't have dressed, what they should have said, what they shouldn't have said.

The police took a picture of the door open. Fernie claims it was locked. Who is the liar, the police or Fernie?

The above is just my own opinion.

[Athena]

The butler door was solid and set in brick, if I'm not mistaken. Fernie had to be talking about another door being locked wouldn't he?.

Shill I read that as well and it was actually on another forum that leans towards RDI but and RDI poster pointed out it was a different door complete with link to diagram but damned if I can find it. I will continue to look.

I do know a neighbor said they saw the door open and reported it to BPD but it wasn't until 8AM that morning so the door could have been opened by a visitor in the house between 6AM - 8AM but to my knowledge has never been verified as to what time the door was actually open. The police photos were taken much later.

I also believe this is the "friend" John refers to re: the open door not John Fernie.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by watson
Whichever parent wanted to ignore the note and call police against the notes instructions can be eliminated as writing the note, and therefore in doing the crime.
But if the note was part of the Ramseys' staged scene, both John and Patsy Ramsey of course knew that nothing was going to happen if they called the police and tons of people over.

And one poster's theory that John had planted the note on the stairs and then a clueless and innocent Patsy (to John's surprise) called the police, does not hold any water imo. Not only is it not supported by the circumstantial evidence (for per the Ramseys' story, it was John who told Patsy to call the police) - if John had wanted to make sure that Patsy wouldn't call the police, he wouldn't just have left the note lying there for her to pick up. Instead he would have arranged it so he "found" it and then have taken matters into this own hands.
I disagree. They had a very narrow time-frame in which to call police. They couldn't call too early, because they had to make it appear as if they slept all night and awoke to find the note. They couldn't call too late, because they were expected to be somewhere and people would begin inquiring. Had they taken the trip without JonBenet, people would naturally begin asking why she wasn't with them.
Exactly. Given the circumstances you listed above, the time frame for them to make the phone call was very narrow indeed.

[nuisanceposter]

But if the note was part of the Ramseys' staged scene, both John and Patsy Ramsey of course knew that nothing was going to happen if they called the police and tons of people over.

I'm glad you replied to this, rashomon. I wanted to say exactly what you've just said but couldn't remember what thread it was in or who said it.

We can't exclude the person who called of writing the note or committing the crime because the person who wrote it knew very well there was no risk of JonBenet's head being off if they did call anyone, so they're now free to do exactly what they both decided to do - call police without mentioning their daughter's life has been threatened, and call over any number of friends, as well as send Burke out of the house without any fear for his safety, because the author of the note knew there was no kidnapper threatening any of them. And considering neither John nor Patsy were opposed to calling police and friends and sending Burke out, one can conclude they both knew the RN was a fake and there was no real threat to anyone.

There's no guarantee that the author of the RN and the killer are the same person, either.

[createthis]

So, how does one or both parents kill their kid (accidently or not) after 10PM at night, being tired from Xmas day, sit down, write a fake ramson note and get their stories straight(if both are involvled) and not make any "huge" mistakes to police or public the last 10 years that would get them caught. I know thier are inconsistancies from Ramsey's, but come on howw do one or both of them not slip up bigtime?

[bullmoose]

:eek: Excuse me for going back to the footprints that the BPD didn't see whenever they made the outside inspection of the house; but I do know that John Fernie saw the note on the floor shortly after 6AM when he arrived, then ran around the house, leaving footprints in the snow. For the BPD to have done a walkaround inspection of the house they would have had to have officers there before the time John Fernie was there, shortly after 6AM. Otherwise they would have seen his footprints or would have run into him coming around the side of the house. Does anyone have a timeline for when the BPD inspected the perimeter of the house,and when the inspecting officers actually arrived? To me the timeline of the cops not seeing any footprints is important; if it wasn't before Fernie's arrival, then I have doubts that a real inspection actuaaly took place. Anyone have a timeline on the BPD's arrival and/or inspection of the perimeter?

[shill]

It's a safe bet Fernie was upset for a reason. He was there early and probably didn't see any police looking around outside or he wouldn't have been locked out of the house running around trying to get in. Had the police been inspecting the outside, they would have stopped Fernie to find out who he is and why he is running around the house.

[Athena]

:eek: Excuse me for going back to the footprints that the BPD didn't see whenever they made the outside inspection of the house; but I do know that John Fernie saw the note on the floor shortly after 6AM when he arrived, then ran around the house, leaving footprints in the snow. For the BPD to have done a walkaround inspection of the house they would have had to have officers there before the time John Fernie was there, shortly after 6AM. Otherwise they would have seen his footprints or would have run into him coming around the side of the house. Does anyone have a timeline for when the BPD inspected the perimeter of the house,and when the inspecting officers actually arrived? To me the timeline of the cops not seeing any footprints is important; if it wasn't before Fernie's arrival, then I have doubts that a real inspection actuaaly took place. Anyone have a timeline on the BPD's arrival and/or inspection of the perimeter?

French was the first officer at the scene arriving at the house approximately 7 minutes after the 911 call. He searched the inside of the house. It is reported that by the time the second officer arrived the Fernies and the Whites were already there which means that when Reichenbach arrived and subsequently did his search he should have seen footprints if in fact there was enough snow to leave any. I have questioned this myself many times. Reichenbach would have had to arrive after 6:15AM since that is the approximate time FW went down into the basement and before 8:10AM as that is the reported time that Officer Arndt arrived and was filled in by Reichenbach. I wish we could read the actual police reports. I find it very difficult to believe that Reichenbach did a thorough search -- IMO the search was probably as shabby as everything else they did that morning. At 8AM that morning is when the neighbor reported seeing a door open that faced the side of his house. Not clear which door it was but there were two doors with pry marks though no wood scrapings which is why the BPD claimed there was no "clear" sign of forced entry.

When detectives arrived much later they were shocked to see all of those people in the house and marked police cars parked in front of the house.

[Athena]

I'm glad you replied to this, rashomon. I wanted to say exactly what you've just said but couldn't remember what thread it was in or who said it.

We can't exclude the person who called of writing the note or committing the crime because the person who wrote it knew very well there was no risk of JonBenet's head being off if they did call anyone, so they're now free to do exactly what they both decided to do - call police without mentioning their daughter's life has been threatened, and call over any number of friends, as well as send Burke out of the house without any fear for his safety, because the author of the note knew there was no kidnapper threatening any of them. And considering neither John nor Patsy were opposed to calling police and friends and sending Burke out, one can conclude they both knew the RN was a fake and there was no real threat to anyone.

There's no guarantee that the author of the RN and the killer are the same person, either.

NP when someone calls 911 to have police sent over the calls are usually brief -- was Patsy supposed to read the note to the dispatcher? Also it wasn't like Burke didn't have escorts. Both Fleet and John escorted him.

[LindaA]

Had PR read the entire contents of the note when she called 911? i was under the impression that she read the beginning and the closing only at that point.

[Louisadelmar]

I don't know if she'd read the signature when she called. Douglas says she skipped to that part when the dispatcher asks if it says who took her.

[KingCoyote]

John Fernie ran to the South Side Patio Door next to the hallway between the study and the kitchen. He did not run to the rear or north side of the house where the "butler doors" were. He found the South side Patio door locked, which by the way is the door next to the metal grate above the broken window John allegedly broke the summer before. Then Fernie says he looked through the glass patio door and read part of the ransom note and then ran to the front of the house. Depending on what time he arrived and what time the police arrived, the police may have arrived before Fernie and saw no footprints in the light dusting of snow that occurred sometime during the night JBR was killed. It is also possible that the rear butler doors were actually opened by a police officer checking out the doors and the house, and was left partially open or unlocked by the officer. By the time the Crime Scene Photos were taken who knows how many people went in or out of that door. SEE PMPT Paperback edition - Page 78 and See Appendix of Ramsey Floor Plan in back of book. Or go to Fernie Testimony at the acandyrose site.

KingCoyote

[createthis]

I'm glad you replied to this, rashomon. I wanted to say exactly what you've just said but couldn't remember what thread it was in or who said it.

We can't exclude the person who called of writing the note or committing the crime because the person who wrote it knew very well there was no risk of JonBenet's head being off if they did call anyone, so they're now free to do exactly what they both decided to do - call police without mentioning their daughter's life has been threatened, and call over any number of friends, as well as send Burke out of the house without any fear for his safety, because the author of the note knew there was no kidnapper threatening any of them. And considering neither John nor Patsy were opposed to calling police and friends and sending Burke out, one can conclude they both knew the RN was a fake and there was no real threat to anyone.

There's no guarantee that the author of the RN and the killer are the same person, either.

How do you know the author of the note new very well there was no risk of JB's head being cut off? Maybe that was going to be an option if things hadn't went as planned and instead JB was killed in a different manner? Maybe PR and JR Ramsey sensed internally as soon as they read the note that the kidnapper's were real but not necassarily professionals and they're gut reaction was to involve authorities. Also they were panicking I'm sure. Could you imagine? Just stating that even the most clear-headed individuals might not think rationally in a panic situation even if there is a threat. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

How do you know the author of the note new very well there was no risk of JB's head being cut off? Maybe that was going to be an option if things hadn't went as planned and instead JB was killed in a different manner? Maybe PR and JR Ramsey sensed internally as soon as they read the note that the kidnapper's were real but not necassarily professionals and they're gut reaction was to involve authorities. Also they were panicking I'm sure. Could you imagine? Just stating that even the most clear-headed individuals might not think rationally in a panic situation even if there is a threat. JMO


I would imagine anyone would take at least a few minutes to discuss whether to call the police or not, in light of your daughters life being at stake.
I think the threat would certainly cause at least some kind of inner turmoil over whether to involve the authorities or not. And I certainly would not have called multiple friends over so that the "kidnapper" might see all of the activity and know that his "orders" were not being followed. This implies to me very strongly that the Ramseys already knew exactly what happened to JonBenet. IMO

[createthis]

I would imagine anyone would take at least a few minutes to discuss whether to call the police or not, in light of your daughters life being at stake.
I think the threat would certainly cause at least some kind of inner turmoil over whether to involve the authorities or not. And I certainly would not have called multiple friends over so that the "kidnapper" might see all of the activity and know that his "orders" were not being followed. This implies to me very strongly that the Ramseys already knew exactly what happened to JonBenet. IMO

take a few minutes? I do believe they ran around the house checking rooms and such and Patsy said she just read the first few sentences only, (now that I think about it) before she went to JB's room. They checked on Burke went back downstairs and John told her to call 911 and then he started to read the note more fully while she was on the phone with 911. That is what they had stated I believe.
They knew what happened already to Jonbenet? So you believe that one of them sat down and wrote a 3 page ransom note after she was killed? Cause if it was written beforehand of course that would mean they premeditated killing her. I don't buy it. JMO

[shill]

I would imagine anyone would take at least a few minutes to discuss whether to call the police or not, in light of your daughters life being at stake.
I think the threat would certainly cause at least some kind of inner turmoil over whether to involve the authorities or not. And I certainly would not have called multiple friends over so that the "kidnapper" might see all of the activity and know that his "orders" were not being followed. This implies to me very strongly that the Ramseys already knew exactly what happened to JonBenet. IMO

Yes, some people might be cool and calm and discuss what to do instead of rushing to search for their daughter while the trail may still be hot.
When I recently found some stuff stolen, I assumed it just happened and I ran around looking for someone in the vicinity of the crime. It was my first instinct. It was like I thought I could catch the guy red handed.

Kidnappers always say don't call the police or else. There are probably a few cases where the victims met the kidnappers demands with out involving LE. "Big Lebowski" comes to mind. What ever the number of cases that went that way, a lot more called in LE. That's why they have special kidnap laws and the FBI gets involved, so people will seek out their help.

Had they waited until 10am that day or the next for the call to come before calling LE, RDI would go off on how they didn't call the police because they where staging the crime and getting their stories straight or a hundred other reasons. And they could have not called LE and got rid of the body while picking up the ransom money.

[createthis]

Yes, some people might be cool and calm and discuss what to do instead of rushing to search for their daughter while the trail may still be hot.
When I recently found some stuff stolen, I assumed it just happened and I ran around looking for someone in the vicinity of the crime. It was my first instinct. It was like I thought I could catch the guy red handed.

Kidnappers always say don't call the police or else. There are probably a few cases where the victims met the kidnappers demands with out involving LE. "Big Lebowski" comes to mind. What ever the number of cases that went that way, a lot more called in LE. That's why they have special kidnap laws and the FBI gets involved, so people will seek out their help.

Had they waited until 10am that day or the next for the call to come before calling LE, RDI would go off on how they didn't call the police because they where staging the crime and getting their stories straight or a hundred other reasons. And they could have not called LE and got rid of the body while picking up the ransom money.

Great point Shill. Here, here!

[thewhitewitch1]

Yes, some people might be cool and calm and discuss what to do instead of rushing to search for their daughter while the trail may still be hot.
When I recently found some stuff stolen, I assumed it just happened and I ran around looking for someone in the vicinity of the crime. It was my first instinct. It was like I thought I could catch the guy red handed.

Kidnappers always say don't call the police or else. There are probably a few cases where the victims met the kidnappers demands with out involving LE. "Big Lebowski" comes to mind. What ever the number of cases that went that way, a lot more called in LE. That's why they have special kidnap laws and the FBI gets involved, so people will seek out their help.

Had they waited until 10am that day or the next for the call to come before calling LE, RDI would go off on how they didn't call the police because they where staging the crime and getting their stories straight or a hundred other reasons. And they could have not called LE and got rid of the body while picking up the ransom money.


Well, Shill...neither you nor Createthis have explained why the Ramseys would call a flock of friends over if there was even a minute chance that the kidnappers were "watching" them. A call to the police can be understandable but calling a bunch of people over? I wouldn't take that kind of chance that the threats were a "bluff" when my daughters life was on the line. Would you? What purpose did it serve in having those people there? It's not like they could do anything to change the situation. If they needed comfort or to talk to someone, why wouldn't a phone call have been sufficient? Why on earth would you risk having an army of people come to your home if there was a chance of jeopordizing your childs life? What was more important? Their need to be surrounded by the comfort of friends or their daughters life? That absolutely makes no sense and should tell you one of two things: 1) their priorities were way off or 2) They already knew JB was dead and there was no threat. How else can you explain it?

[aussiesheila]

Yes, some people might be cool and calm and discuss what to do instead of rushing to search for their daughter while the trail may still be hot.
When I recently found some stuff stolen, I assumed it just happened and I ran around looking for someone in the vicinity of the crime. It was my first instinct. It was like I thought I could catch the guy red handed.

Kidnappers always say don't call the police or else. There are probably a few cases where the victims met the kidnappers demands with out involving LE. "Big Lebowski" comes to mind. What ever the number of cases that went that way, a lot more called in LE. That's why they have special kidnap laws and the FBI gets involved, so people will seek out their help.

Had they waited until 10am that day or the next for the call to come before calling LE, RDI would go off on how they didn't call the police because they where staging the crime and getting their stories straight or a hundred other reasons. And they could have not called LE and got rid of the body while picking up the ransom money.Good luck shill, I hope you get a better set of replies from RDIs than I did when I made pretty much the same points at Websleuths a while back.

A major issue for me is, had the Ramseys been the murderers it would have been so much more logical for them to wait until the following day before calling the police, giving them time in the interim to at least get rid of the body. I have yet to see a believable explanation from RDIs as to why they didn't.

[shill]

Well, Shill...neither you nor Createthis have explained why the Ramseys would call a flock of friends over if there was even a minute chance that the kidnappers were "watching" them. A call to the police can be understandable but calling a bunch of people over? I wouldn't take that kind of chance that the threats were a "bluff" when my daughters life was on the line. Would you? What purpose did it serve in having those people there? It's not like they could do anything to change the situation. If they needed comfort or to talk to someone, why wouldn't a phone call have been sufficient? Why on earth would you risk having an army of people come to your home if there was a chance of jeopordizing your childs life? What was more important? Their need to be surrounded by the comfort of friends or their daughters life? That absolutely makes no sense and should tell you one of two things: 1) their priorities were way off or 2) They already knew JB was dead and there was no threat. How else can you explain it?
Yes, that is an excellent point and a very obvious point, to obvious.
Knowing they themselves wrote all those threats in the note, one can also ask why they called all those friends over and risk their daughter's death when it is obvious everyone would question that action, like you are TWW.
If they were the writers and trying to sell the Ransom Note as real, then they should have acted like it was real. According to many RDIs, the Ramseys did a lot of acting. I guess they ignored the script on how to react to the RN.
They did start calling right away. Had they calmed down and talked about it, they may have not done that. Once they called LE, they may have felt the damage was done.

[LindaA]

I think calling in friends was just a Patsy Ramsey kind of thing. It's what she would have done in any bad situation. I don't think either of them knew enough not to. I also think it indicates they thought of it as a kidnapping and had no idea the body was still in the house.

I still think that if one of them had accidentally killed JBR with a head blow they would have thrown her body down a stairwell and tried to pass it off as an accidental fall. All the staging that was done just doens't make sense to me as somoething the would have done to cover up a head injury and molestation.

And no, I don't think just a phone call to get consolation would make sense. After all, they had ato keep the lines clear in case the kidnappers called.

[thewhitewitch1]

I think calling in friends was just a Patsy Ramsey kind of thing. It's what she would have done in any bad situation. I don't think either of them knew enough not to. I also think it indicates they thought of it as a kidnapping and had no idea the body was still in the house.

I still think that if one of them had accidentally killed JBR with a head blow they would have thrown her body down a stairwell and tried to pass it off as an accidental fall. All the staging that was done just doens't make sense to me as somoething the would have done to cover up a head injury and molestation.

And no, I don't think just a phone call to get consolation would make sense. After all, they had ato keep the lines clear in case the kidnappers called.

The kidnappers left a time frame that they were to call in so the phone line wouldn't have had to been "open" for quite a while. They could also have called their friends on their cells phones.
You insult the Ramseys intellegence when you suggest they "didn't know any better" than to have all of those people coming in. How does it indicate they thought it was a kidnapping and didn't know the body was in the house? If they thought it was a kidnapping, they wouldn't have called all those people over. How many times did the RN warn against such a thing?
There IS no logical innocent explaination for why they did it. IMO
Whether the Ramseys would know or not that this action would be questioned later is irrelevant. It isn't something that was going to seal their guilt, and in fact, because of the contamination of the crime scene because of it, it actually helped them. For all we know, maybe they were hoping that one of their friends would find the body.
I don't know but whatever the reason, they took a risk that their child would be killed by doing it. This still implies to me that they knew she was already dead.

[LindaA]

TWW1, I have always thought that the Ramseys were naive about LE procedure. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it was just out of the realm of their experience. I say this because JR must have thought LE would let them leave the area when he called his pilot to arrange a flight to Atlanta and also because his attitude was that LE should get busy and find the real murderer and not waste valuable time focusing on the parents. We now know that's standard procedure. I doubt that the Ramseys or most upper middle class people knew it in 1996.

I don't think cell phones were such a big deal in '96. I believe I've read on this board that JR hated to use his. I suspect that leaving the phone line open is a natural reaction if you are expecting a call from someone who has your daughter, and would do so even outside of the time frame indicated.

If they knew JB's body was in the house I believe they would have behaved quite differently. I don't think that when those calls were placed they had any idea of just how serious the situation really was. I believe their over-whelming suspicion was they were the victims of a huge, cruel prank at least, and a kidnapping at the worst.

[createthis]

Tww1 Criminals take clever actions because they have a criminal mind and manipulative mind. I think Ramseys were (though intellingent) extremely naive. Big difference. If one or both were smart enough to think this staging through, and purposely call friends over after 911 because they knew it would contaminate crime scene or whatever their reason, then they would have been smart enough not to leave a ransom note in their OWN handwriting!!! they might have been a little less obvious with the staging IMO.Yes-I can go with them calling friends over because they knew JB was already dead...but a ransom note in your own handwriting? Oh and one or both (not being former criminals) thought & staged this through in just a few hours? so well that no one in the country for 10 years has been able to prove they did it.?!?!

[thewhitewitch1]

Tww1 Criminals take clever actions because they have a criminal mind and manipulative mind. I think Ramseys were (though intellingent) extremely naive. Big difference. If one or both were smart enough to think this staging through, and purposely call friends over after 911 because they knew it would contaminate crime scene or whatever their reason, then they would have been smart enough not to leave a ransom note in their OWN handwriting!!! they might have been a little less obvious with the staging IMO.Yes-I can go with them calling friends over because they knew JB was already dead...but a ransom note in your own handwriting? Oh and one or both (not being former criminals) thought & staged this through in just a few hours? so well that no one in the country for 10 years has been able to prove they did it.?!?!


It isn't that they staged it so well...because obviously even some experts saw it as staging. How else were they going to write a ransom note if not in their own hand? No one has been able to prove that either of them wrote it, remember. The usage of the Sharpie pen helped to distort the handwriting somewhat also.
If you think about it, how much time would it actually take to put together a hasty plan to set the stage? They had as much as 8 hours to do everything that was done, depending on what time she was actually killed. There wasn't really that much to do, as far as the staging goes. It seems like the thing that would take the most time would have been writing the actual note. They had ample time to do that in.
They also had a lot of things in their favor that could easily be explained away since evidence of themselves would naturally be all over the house.
Maybe they called their friends over because they didn't want to be alone with the police. If they were alone with them, they'd have had a lot more focus put on them. IMO The less focus, the less scrutiny, the better.
I also still believe that JR removed the ligature from her wrist and undid the staging as he second guessed how convincing it looked. I also believe that's why he picked her up and removed her from the cellar. Remember, to this day nobody really knows what the murder scene really looked like except John Ramsey. All we know of it is what he says. I, for one, do not believe him. (such as how tight the wrist ligatures were) I am extremely bothered by the facts that 1) he did not "see" the garrote around her neck, which had to have been glaringly obvious and 2) he did not know she was dead when he touched her and she was in full rigor mortis and should have known to leave her where she was and call for help because there was nothing he could do for her at that point.
I can't get the image out of my head of him carrying her stiff body up those stairs. How could he not have known? And I am going to hear people quote JR himself about how ridiculous it is for anyone to think that he, as the grieving parent, would not pick her up. Yes...pick her up from the floor and put her down on another one. Why not the couch if the thought was to get your baby off of the cold floor, especially if you somehow think she is still alive.
There are just too many things about the Ramseys for me to believe they are innocent. I've tried to get around it but I just can't.

[KingCoyote]

There is a reference in the Bonita Papers (Bonita Sauer, Secretary/Assistant to Dan Hoffman, an attorney who was involved early in the case), that stated that Fleet White's diagram of where JBR's body was and its position differed from JR's. PMPT P. 18 says that FW did follow JR into the wine cellar. Since there is very little available from Fleet White I really don't know what weight to give to that statement. I found the Bonita Papers by just doing an AOL search and it took me right to the link. Somebody else might have a direct link to post. I also don't have much information about the credibility of Bonita Sauer but I sure wouldn't like an assistant taking this type of information and making it public if I were a practicing attorney. Legal secretaries and assistants are supposed to be bound by the same confidentiality rules attorneys are bound to. I am sure her attorney was not pleased with her actions and possibly could have faced some ethical charges for what she did.

Just a little info

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

There is a reference in the Bonita Papers (Bonita Sauer, Secretary/Assistant to Dan Hoffman, an attorney who was involved early in the case), that stated that Fleet White's diagram of where JBR's body was and its position differed from JR's. PMPT P. 18 says that FW did follow JR into the wine cellar. Since there is very little available from Fleet White I really don't know what weight to give to that statement. I found the Bonita Papers by just doing an AOL search and it took me right to the link. Somebody else might have a direct link to post. I also don't have much information about the credibility of Bonita Sauer but I sure wouldn't like an assistant taking this type of information and making it public if I were a practicing attorney. Legal secretaries and assistants are supposed to be bound by the same confidentiality rules attorneys are bound to. I am sure her attorney was not pleased with her actions and possibly could have faced some ethical charges for what she did.

Just a little info

KingCoyote

Be wary about taking the Bonita papers too much to heart.

[Louisadelmar]

I knew I had a list somewhere of questionable bits in the Bonita Papers.

Part I



When not talking to an officer, John stayed by himself, and strangely, there was no interaction with Patsy. The victim advocates who had remained at Patsy's side assumed that John and Patsy were either divorced or estranged, because of the lack of communication between the two of them that morning. John seemed to pace the floor nervously in the area between the dining room and den, but ran to answer the phone every time it rang. Arndt observed that when John did sit down, one of his legs bounced up and down in nervous spasms.
…………

Soon the only police official remaining was Detective Arndt, along with John and Patsy and the family friends. T hen even John left to pick up the family's mail, and was gone approximately an hour and 20 minutes. When John returned Detective Arndt noted that he sat in the kitchen and opened the mail. John still remained in a room by himself not making contact with Patsy or any of the friends who stayed to console the family.
…
At 8:30 a.m. on the morning of December 26, unaware of the tragedy in Boulder, Melinda, John Andrew and Stewart Long had taken a private jet from Atlanta to Minneapolis in anticipation of meeting the rest of the Ramsey family to continue on to Charlevoix for the family holiday. Once in Minneapolis, they were contacted and told of the apparent kidnapping. Arrangements were made to fly them immediately to Denver.
…
Then examining the contents of the stomach and intestines, Dr. Meyer found the substance in the stomach was unidentifiable, but chunky matter, appearing to be pineapple, was found in the small intestine. Dr. Meyer noted for the record that food found in the intestines would have been consumed approximately two hours prior.
…
The next morning, the family and close friends flew to Marietta, Georgia.
John's Cessna, flown by Mike Archuletta, family friend and personal pilot, carried friends Priscilla, Barbara, Jay Elowsky, Pinque Barber, and the mother of Burke's closest school friend. The immediate family and Burke's schoolmate rode in a corporate jet, piloted by John and carrying the casket with JonBenet for her final trip home to Georgia. Little Miss
Colorado, dressed in her white sequined pageant gown and jeweled
…
In an apparent attempt to ward off the focus on themselves, John and Patsy, who had now become evasive and uncooperative with the Boulder police, scheduled an appearance on a national t.v. news program, CNN, to show their grief to the public and thank everyone for the prayers and kindness since the death of JonBenet.
…
Within days of the funeral, lines began forming separating those who continued to support the Ramseys and the former friends. One of the families placed on the side opposite John and Patsy was the family of Fleet and Priscilla White. A confrontation had occurred between Fleet and John's brother, Jeff Ramsey, on December 31 the day after the funeral and the Whites were asked to leave the Paugh home where they had been staying and move to a hotel. When contacted by the Boulder detectives, the Whites denied that such an incident had occurred. However, in the interview with Westmoreland who had been present during the incident, he told the detectives that Fleet was upset with the involvement of the Ramsey’s, attorneys in the investigation and their lack of cooperation with the police department. Fleet started an argument with Jeff at Westmoreland's home, went to the home of Jeff Ramsey to continue the argument, and then ended up at the Paugh residence still arguing. Westmoreland was concerned enough with the heat of the verbal exchange that he contacted the Boulder detectives to ask that someone respond to the Pauqh residence. Soon after this incident, John Ramsey told the Boulder police that in his opinion Fleet White was a prime suspect in the murder.

[Louisadelmar]

Part II


When left alone with the psychologist, Burke appeared to be at ease and even told the doctor that be felt safe, even though he did say that he had not wanted to come that day! Dr. Bernhard thought it was unusual for this child to feel safe. "People in this entire town didn't feel safe with the concept that there was someone running around that could be snatching children, and this was his own sister and happened in his own home. Generally speaking, a child who goes through this kind of trauma, where a sibling or a family member has been killed, they don’t feel safe.
…
Social Services had previously provided Dr. Bernhard with some history on Burke which indicated an ongoing bedwetting problem, but Burke denied this saying that it happened a long time ago. Children are usually honest about this in interviews, and Dr. Bernhard wondered why Burke was not.
…
In addition to Patsy, John and Burke, over 50 persons had submitted handwriting samples. After analysis,none of these persons are indicated to be the author of the ransom note.
…
At her first meeting with the three engineers, Hickman was told that it appeared that the cassette had been recorded in a Dictaphone format which would require a special recorder to recopy. Hickman drove to the nearest Dictaphone company which was located in the San Fernando Valley. A Dictaphone technician examined the tape and told Hickman that the information was not recorded in Dictaphone format. Hickman, feeling the frustration of the proverbial goose chase, returned to her hotel.

That evening, Roeder called her at the hotel and asked her to return to Aerospace. Roeder had decided that the tape probably had been recorded on a regular format which could be copied digitally by their computer. A hard drive disk was made of the tape, and this disk was copied to a JAZ drive, a large disk with more memory than a standard floppy disk.

On the morning of April 22, Hickman met again with Roeder in his office at Aerospace. The detective and the engineer went to a small lab to work with the disk to try to filter out extraneous noise and enhance the voices in the background. Roeder made several variations using different noise reduction settings, and those recordings were then copied onto the JAZ drive. They returned to Roeder's office where they were able to further enhance the disk. With this latest enhancement, they were able to hear two voices on the tape one of which sounded like a juvenile male, and the second one appeared to be Patsy. The first words seemed to belong to the juvenile, and then Patsy is heard to say, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus." The voice again appeared to be the "juvenile male saying, "Please, what do I do?'' Hickman and Roeder agreed to meet again in the morning to continue enhancing the tape.

When Hickman returned to Aerospace the next morning to meet with Roeder, he said that he had continued listening to the disk after Hickman had left for the evening. He and another engineer had played the original version of the 911 call that had been transferred to the JAZ drive and found that to be the clearest recording. Both engineers had heard three distinct voices on the tape and written down that they thought was being said. The tape
was then played for Hickman. After listening to the tape three or four times, Hickman heard John Ramsey say “We’re not speaking to you”. In what sounded like a very angry voice. Patsy then says, “Help me Jesus, help me Jesus,” and finally Burke is clearly heard to say, “ Well, what did you find?”, with an emphasis on the word “did.” After Hickman told the engineers her impression of the conversation, Roeder handed her a piece of notepaper containing the conversation heard by himself and his fellow engineer – the conversation as written down was exactly as Hickman herself had just heard.

…

Coroner Meyer had noted in his autopsy examination that the food found in JonBenet's intestine would have been consumed approximately two hours prior death.
….
Patsy said she left on the white long sleeved knit top worn to the party, contrary to her statement on the morning of December 26 that she had changed JonBenet into a red turtle neck shirt.
…
She also distinctly remembered that when Burke hugged her before leaving the residence with Fleet, which differed from Fleet’s statement that Burke did not even see Patsy before they left. Patsy then mentioned that she had her
…
Pubic hairs from Patsy Boulder Community Hospital 2/13
On December 29, John and Patsy, accompanied by their attorneys appeared at Boulder community hospital to give hair and blood samples and be fingerprinted. As she was being fingerprinted, Patsy became hysterical Saying, "Why are you doing this? Do think I killed my baby?"
..
Interview of Dr. Beuf pediatrician 3/25 JonBenet had over 33 visits to the pediatrician in the last two years diagnosis was "yeast infections". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks for posting that. There are obviously a lot of errors and other possible controversies about The Bonita Papers. That I won't deny.

There is one part of not only the Bonita Papers, but something that has been bothering me in general. As the Bonita Papers suggests, John allegedly left the house to get the mail. The response has been that since the Ramsey's had a mail slot in the door that he did not leave the house to get the mail.

Is there some statement by someone other than John that he actually picked up the mail in the foyer next to the mail slot? The reason I ask is that John did, by his own admissions leave the first floor three times. Just because he has a mail slot in the door doesn't automatically preclude him from say, slipping out the butler room door, walking around the north side of the house undetected and meeting the mailman (or doing something else??). I mean, he has admitted to going up to his bedroom to get binoculars and going down to Burke's bedroom to look out the window and going to the basement. I accept the fact that he has admitted those three things but I won't automatically assume, just because he has admitted to three excursions away from the first floor, that there wasn't an fourth excursion to the outdoors?

You seem to have very good resource material on this case, far better than mine. Can you check to see if there is verification that he actually picked up the mail in the foyer?

Thanks

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

I don't think there is anything but I'll have a look tomorrow.

[Louisadelmar]

Couldn't find anything. It would be nice to have the Fernie's and the White's interviews.

This is what Arndt had to say but it doesn't give you what you are looking for.





25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a

Page 117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of
4 time; is that correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It's not correct?
7 A. That is not correct.
8 Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said
9 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up
10 the mail.
11 A. No.
12 Q. What did you say?
13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather
14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in
15 the media are not the same. I said something during
16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.
17 Q. We will get back to that later.
18 But there was a period when you lost
19 contact with him, is that right, personal contact with
20 him?
21 A. I did not watch John Ramsey the entire
22 time.

[…]


24 Q. And didn't you indicate that it was
25 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 noon that John Ramsey
Page 129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 left to pick up his mail or that you lost track of him
2 but later saw him reading the mail and assumed he had
3 left to pick up the mail during that period you had
4 lost track of him?
5 A. It has been widely reported that -
6 Q. I'm not talking about widely reported. I'm
7 talking about what you know.
8 A. What I know? Okay. Ask me again then.
9 Q. I'll ask you again. Isn't it your
10 recollection that it was between 10:40 and 12:00 noon
11 that you lost track of John Ramsey, and when you later
12 saw him opening mail you assumed he had gone out to get
13 the mail during that period you had lost track of him?
14 A. As I told you when you asked before, I
15 didn't personally watch him every minute from about
16 10:40 until noon.
17 Q. Would you read back the question?
18 (Record read by reporter as requested.)
19 THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry. What did I not
20 answer?
21 Q. (BY MR. HALABY) Are you stating that you
22 never lost track of him during that period?
23 A. I think I just told you that I personally
24 couldn't account for every minute.
25 Does that mean that you lost track of him

Page 130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 then?
2 A. You could interpret it that way.
3 Q. All right. And during that period that you
4 lost track of him, did you later conclude what he had
5 done during that period in terms of going to pick up
6 the mail?
7 A. When I didn't personally monitor him the
8 whole time, what was the other half?
9 Q. Did you conclude that during that period
10 you'd lost track of him that he had gone out to pick up
11 the mail?
12 A. When I didn't personally monitor him, I
13 didn't know how he had gotten his mail.
14 Q. And did you then put two and two together
15 and believe that he had gone out to get the mail?
16 A. I thought he had gotten mail by stepping
17 outside.
18 Q. You didn't believe somebody else had picked
19 up the mail and delivered it to him inside the house?
20 A. I didn't know.
21 Q. But what you had concluded was that he had
22 gone out to get the mail, correct?
23 A. I thought he had got - yes.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks....I will keep my eyes and ears open for corroboration of JR picking up mail in foyer via mail slot. It's not a major point but I think you have been following my posts and I like to cover all alternatives, those both favorable and unfavorable to any party.

KC

[createthis]

It isn't that they staged it so well...because obviously even some experts saw it as staging. How else were they going to write a ransom note if not in their own hand? No one has been able to prove that either of them wrote it, remember. The usage of the Sharpie pen helped to distort the handwriting somewhat also.
If you think about it, how much time would it actually take to put together a hasty plan to set the stage? They had as much as 8 hours to do everything that was done, depending on what time she was actually killed. There wasn't really that much to do, as far as the staging goes. It seems like the thing that would take the most time would have been writing the actual note. They had ample time to do that in.
They also had a lot of things in their favor that could easily be explained away since evidence of themselves would naturally be all over the house.
Maybe they called their friends over because they didn't want to be alone with the police. If they were alone with them, they'd have had a lot more focus put on them. IMO The less focus, the less scrutiny, the better.
I also still believe that JR removed the ligature from her wrist and undid the staging as he second guessed how convincing it looked. I also believe that's why he picked her up and removed her from the cellar. Remember, to this day nobody really knows what the murder scene really looked like except John Ramsey. All we know of it is what he says. I, for one, do not believe him. (such as how tight the wrist ligatures were) I am extremely bothered by the facts that 1) he did not "see" the garrote around her neck, which had to have been glaringly obvious and 2) he did not know she was dead when he touched her and she was in full rigor mortis and should have known to leave her where she was and call for help because there was nothing he could do for her at that point.
I can't get the image out of my head of him carrying her stiff body up those stairs. How could he not have known? And I am going to hear people quote JR himself about how ridiculous it is for anyone to think that he, as the grieving parent, would not pick her up. Yes...pick her up from the floor and put her down on another one. Why not the couch if the thought was to get your baby off of the cold floor, especially if you somehow think she is still alive.
There are just too many things about the Ramseys for me to believe they are innocent. I've tried to get around it but I just can't.

I got to hand it to you TWW1 that really made me think about some points in a different way. Guess that is what the board is for...so both sides can get to the same ending. Thanks for the reply quote.

CT

[watson]

I got to hand it to you TWW1 that really made me think about some points in a different way. Guess that is what the board is for...so both sides can get to the same ending. Thanks for the reply quote.

CT
**********************************************
Whitewitch1 originally posted a lucid, probable scenario of how the crime 'generally could have happened' unfortunately the whole top half doesn't fit the 'actual' evidence of this 'specific' crime. If 'both' Ramsey's did it, then WHY call the police when they went out of the way in the ransom letter to give themselves a perfect alibi for not calling the police until they got rid of the body?
What about the sexual molestation, they both murdered their kid, and then when she's dead, sexually molested her?
There is nothing hasty about the construction of the 'garotte' or the way it was used.
The Ramsey's had 'the time' to committ the crime (if they stayed up all night) but that doesn't mean they did, or did it together.
The 2nd part of WW1's original post IMO is much better. It's perfectly true no one knows what the murder scene actually looked like but JR, and that people mistakenly take his word as fact.
The wrist ligatures 'are' all wrong, and I could never understand JR bringing the obvious dead victim through the furnace room, around the corner, up the stairs, down the short hall like a stiff piece of cordwood with arms stuck fully up and present the body in the foyer at the living room entrance to everyone assembled there. Why on earth move it so far! Why basically 'bring' it to all those people?......... When found, hug the victim and scream for help. See if the victim is alive, and even if not start CPR right on the spot. Touch nothing and wait for police. Move the body to a more open area of the basement, all these I could understand, but this 'march' with the dead stiff victim up to the living room and to the assembled company IMO is just weird. But, it's 'possible' people do strange things under stress.

[shill]

IMO, It doesn't appear that she was victimized and murdered in the wine cellar, only hidden there. And I would venture to guess most RDIs don't think the killing was done there either.
The killer disturbed the murder scene when they moved the body to hide it.
John disturbed the scene where the body was dumped.

[bullmoose]

I agree with Shill and I suspect others, both IDI and RDI that I also do not believe that Jonbenet was victimized and murdered in the winecellar. IMO, that is simply where she was found. Obviously her father disturbed that scene when he moved her, but by his own admission, so did Fleet White. People in deep psychic shock sometimes do things that seem odd in retrospect. There is no SOP of what a parent should do if they find their daughter murdered; I think all John was doing was taking her to where other people and the police were to get help for her; even though it seems obvious now that she was dead. Had Linda Arndt been with them when they found Johnbenet, she probably would have preserved the scene much better. But it was not her fault, she was upstairs trying to keep some order in the house with no help from the BHP.

[LindaA]

IMO if JR had looked down at her, maybe even touched her briefly and immediately indicated he knew she was dead, those convinced of his guilt would say that proved he knew she was dead all along. No matter what he did there are those of would interpret it a a sign of his guilt.

[andU]

IMO, It doesn't appear that she was victimized and murdered in the wine cellar, only hidden there. And I would venture to guess most RDIs don't think the killing was done there either.
The killer disturbed the murder scene when they moved the body to hide it.
John disturbed the scene where the body was dumped.

I agree, I think the actual crime took place in her bedroom. I also think there is much that is not being said about what was found. Most of us agree that there was cover up & staging.... but by whom and why? I don't believe that the parents did it, as I've stated previously. I do suspect that someone either active in LE or with a history of LE or military training/involvement was actively involved in this entire thing. I lean toward LE because of the mass confusion and the bungling of the scene; I don't think that was stupidity on the BPD, at least not all of it.

[thewhitewitch1]

**********************************************
Whitewitch1 originally posted a lucid, probable scenario of how the crime 'generally could have happened' unfortunately the whole top half doesn't fit the 'actual' evidence of this 'specific' crime. If 'both' Ramsey's did it, then WHY call the police when they went out of the way in the ransom letter to give themselves a perfect alibi for not calling the police until they got rid of the body?
What about the sexual molestation, they both murdered their kid, and then when she's dead, sexually molested her?
There is nothing hasty about the construction of the 'garotte' or the way it was used.
The Ramsey's had 'the time' to committ the crime (if they stayed up all night) but that doesn't mean they did, or did it together.
The 2nd part of WW1's original post IMO is much better. It's perfectly true no one knows what the murder scene actually looked like but JR, and that people mistakenly take his word as fact.
The wrist ligatures 'are' all wrong, and I could never understand JR bringing the obvious dead victim through the furnace room, around the corner, up the stairs, down the short hall like a stiff piece of cordwood with arms stuck fully up and present the body in the foyer at the living room entrance to everyone assembled there. Why on earth move it so far! Why basically 'bring' it to all those people?......... When found, hug the victim and scream for help. See if the victim is alive, and even if not start CPR right on the spot. Touch nothing and wait for police. Move the body to a more open area of the basement, all these I could understand, but this 'march' with the dead stiff victim up to the living room and to the assembled company IMO is just weird. But, it's 'possible' people do strange things under stress.


Watson, the RN does fit with the parents being involved if you look at it from a different perspective. For one, I believe that note had to be written whether they "dumped" her body or not. They needed some kind of explanation for her body being in the basement. I don't believe they wanted to "dump" her body anyway. As I've said before, I believe it originally started as an accident.
As far as her "sexual molestation"...well, it was minimal; you must agree with that. Either it was done to cover prior molestation or another part of the staging process to make it look like a pedophile or pervert had commited the crime. The ransom note indicates neither. What the scene appears to be is a bunch of different possiblilities as to the identity of the killer all mixed in to throw LE off. I can't think of anyone else who would have the need to perpetuate so many different possiblities except the parents. If they were as upset and panicked as I imagine they would be, I can see them getting confused and dseperately setting up false leads in every direction.
If the RN was written by terrorists, there would have been no need for the sexual assult. If the murder was commited by a pedophile, there would have been no need for a RN indicating terrorism, as the sexual assult aspect was already there. Not sure if all that made sense. Hope so.

[shill]

Watson, the RN does fit with the parents being involved if you look at it from a different perspective. For one, I believe that note had to be written whether they "dumped" her body or not. They needed some kind of explanation for her body being in the basement. I don't believe they wanted to "dump" her body anyway. As I've said before, I believe it originally started as an accident.
As far as her "sexual molestation"...well, it was minimal; you must agree with that. Either it was done to cover prior molestation or another part of the staging process to make it look like a pedophile or pervert had commited the crime. The ransom note indicates neither. What the scene appears to be is a bunch of different possiblilities as to the identity of the killer all mixed in to throw LE off. I can't think of anyone else who would have the need to perpetuate so many different possiblities except the parents. If they were as upset and panicked as I imagine they would be, I can see them getting confused and dseperately setting up false leads in every direction.
If the RN was written by terrorists, there would have been no need for the sexual assult. If the murder was commited by a pedophile, there would have been no need for a RN indicating terrorism, as the sexual assult aspect was already there. Not sure if all that made sense. Hope so.

Terrorism has an agenda that is most often about revenge.

There is no need for a note to explain their daughter dead in the wine cellar. Haven't you said all along all they had to do is deny knowledge of everything, and LE would have no response to that.

911, "What's your emergency?"
PR, "Our daughter is missing"
911, "Have you searched the house?"
PR, "Yes, she's not here"
911, "Will send officers over right away"

The police show up and immediately conduct a thorough search of the house, discovering JB's bound and strangled body that had been raped.

LE, "It appears someone has murdered your daughter"

And the questioning begins and the Ramseys deny knowing anything. You get the same outcome as with a RN, or IMO, a more believable outcome then if you wrote a long threatening ransom note.

[watson]

Watson, What the scene appears to be is a bunch of different possiblilities as to the identity of the killer all mixed in to throw LE off. I can't think of anyone else who would have the need to perpetuate so many different possiblities except the parents. If they were as upset and panicked as I imagine they would be, I can see them getting confused and dseperately setting up false leads in every direction.
If the RN was written by terrorists, there would have been no need for the sexual assult. If the murder was commited by a pedophile, there would have been no need for a RN indicating terrorism, as the sexual assult aspect was already there. Not sure if all that made sense. Hope so.
************************************************** *****
WW1, I'd sure agree with you that there's a bunch of dfferent possiblities at the scene. It's probably the most unique, and standout feature of this case.....WHY so many seeming different directions at the crime scene....you have a sexual assault, a murder, and a kidnapping all at the same place and same time, how confusing. Your idea is that it was really an accident and John and Patsy staged all 3 different scenarios to confuse LE, but would panicked people (as you say) come up with that? Didn't they realize that by staging 3 diferent crime types, all that staging would be obvious and since they were the only people known to be there, they'd be immediately suspected? I mean it's possible but pretty far fetched, isn't it?
What if there was another way to look at this crime....that's very probable...and easy.. where all the confusion would disapear, all the evidence would match and be consistent, all the contradictions would go away.....and there'd be only 1 streamlined clear crime. Would... you,,, give it a thought. Here goes.....
What if we assume, the crime scene was so confusing just, and only because the killer didn't complete the last step of the plan, getting rid of the body? Just bear with me!
What if the killer had removed the body that pre dawn and buried it along with the barbie nightgown in the woods of the Flat Irons or wherever, then what would we have had at the crime scene? No sex assault, because there'd be no body. No murder because no body. No confusion at the scene at all. No evidence at all. All LE would've had was a kidnapping note, and JB's empty bed, (and missing nightgown). JB would have gone down in history as a kidnapping victim never returned, she'd probably be appearing on milk cartons now as she'd look as a 16 year old as just another missing child. The killer would never be caught. Sure LE might suspect something, but would have no proof or evidence of anything. The perfect crime. Now that's a plan! And it's all so easy if we just assume the killer was interrupted before completing this final step. It's probable, it's likely, it's simple, not at all far fetched. It clears up the case confusion. Would you and all give it some thought?
P.S.The staging of the wrist ties? That's just in case the burial site was found weeks, months later, (tied wrists on a skelton sure would indicate to LE it had been a real kidnapping).
As someone once said, why look for complex, far fetched explanations, when there is a simple, likely explanation right in front of us?
Further P.S. there are strong indications in the evidence the killer was planning on carrying out this final step of body removal, and burial that pre-dawn, or morning the 26th (the killers fevered references in the RL not to call police, to keep the 26th free of police. The reference to the burial of the victim in the RL ( 'proper burial'). The way the body was wrapped.

[andU]

Watson, I can 'see' that as a possibility. I still think there was more than one perp/perv, though with one of them being now deceased (no, not PR).

[KingCoyote]

Andu:

I can "see" more than one perp too....it is possible....and PR isn't one of them either....

KC

[andU]

Thanks KC... I've always felt there were more than one and perhaps one of them having pedofile tendacies while the other was the 'business guy'.... who perhaps had the vendetta against John. Sorry, I took my opinion too far... I have nothing to back any of this, it is opinion only

[rashomon]

************************************************** *****
WW1, I'd sure agree with you that there's a bunch of dfferent possiblities at the scene. It's probably the most unique, and standout feature of this case.....WHY so many seeming different directions at the crime scene....you have a sexual assault, a murder, and a kidnapping all at the same place and same time, how confusing. Your idea is that it was really an accident and John and Patsy staged all 3 different scenarios to confuse LE, but would panicked people (as you say) come up with that? Didn't they realize that by staging 3 diferent crime types, all that staging would be obvious and since they were the only people known to be there, they'd be immediately suspected? I mean it's possible but pretty far fetched, isn't it?

It is not far-fetched at all, for as criminal profilers have pointed out, perps who are no professional criminals themselves usually make terrible mistakes in the staging, and often try to stage too much: they throw everything into the mix in the hope that at least one scenario will be swallowed by the investigators.

[bullmoose]

Is it okay and chime in as stating that I think along the lines of what you are putting forth.? To me it makes the most logical sense for an explanation. Of course, my two cents worth is that the perps. meant to destroy John Ramsey and his family by the crime and inevitable blamecasting, which is such an issue even now. I think the crime was carefully premeditated to be seemingly pointing at the parents; I have to wonder if the perps. were familiar with the BPD, its vacation and holiday schedule, and its level of ability to be able to investigate such a crime without screwing it up like it did. A truly FUBAR investigation. I do not mean to infer that the BPD didn't want to solve the crime; it just has seemed to me that Eller and the gang decided on 12/26/96 that they already knew the answer, and just tried ever so hard to pound that square peg of their assumptions through the round hole of the actual case and its evidence. It never fit, and still doesn't, IMO.

[Zoey]

Is it okay and chime in as stating that I think along the lines of what you are putting forth.? To me it makes the most logical sense for an explanation. Of course, my two cents worth is that the perps. meant to destroy John Ramsey and his family by the crime and inevitable blamecasting, which is such an issue even now. I think the crime was carefully premeditated to be seemingly pointing at the parents; I have to wonder if the perps. were familiar with the BPD, its vacation and holiday schedule, and its level of ability to be able to investigate such a crime without screwing it up like it did. A truly FUBAR investigation. I do not mean to infer that the BPD didn't want to solve the crime; it just has seemed to me that Eller and the gang decided on 12/26/96 that they already knew the answer, and just tried ever so hard to pound that square peg of their assumptions through the round hole of the actual case and its evidence. It never fit, and still doesn't, IMO.

I agree with you on this post. Please add my two cents to yours!

[LindaA]

Count me in. Six cents and counting.

[Louisadelmar]

Actually, I sometimes think the perp never thought the parents would be suspected because of what he saw as their powerful position. His misdirection was to head the police off on the trail of a child molester. He wasn't one himself hence the perfunctory sexual assault.

[Tober]

It is not far-fetched at all, for as criminal profilers have pointed out, perps who are no professional criminals themselves usually make terrible mistakes in the staging, and often try to stage too much: they throw everything into the mix in the hope that at least one scenario will be swallowed by the investigators. Also, the psychological personality of the stager is reflected in the staging. In this case, the overly dramatic staging reflects the overly dramatic Patsy. Patsy fits the profile for three distinct aspects of this crime. She fits the profile for the type of person who would have caused JonBenet's head injury (anger/rage), the profile for the type of person who'd stage the crime scene (self-preservation), and the profile for the type of person who'd write that particular ransom note (overly dramatic). www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/28/193035.shtml

[Louisadelmar]

Also, the psychological personality of the stager is reflected in the staging. In this case, the overly dramatic staging reflects the overly dramatic Patsy. Patsy fits the profile for three distinct aspects of this crime. She fits the profile for the type of person who would have caused JonBenet's head injury (anger/rage), the profile for the type of person who'd stage the crime scene (self-preservation), and the profile for the type of person who'd write that particular ransom note (overly dramatic). www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/28/193035.shtml


So does Fleet White.

[bullmoose]

Of course, in his scintillating analysis, Dr. Depue misses the fact that John Ramsey was born in Nebraska and raised in Michigan, which sort of throws the 'Good Southern Sense' line of the note into question. But why quibble over such a minor detail. When employing sophistry, details are not that important.

[Louisadelmar]

Of course, in his scintillating analysis, Dr. Depue misses the fact that John Ramsey was born in Nebraska and raised in Michigan, which sort of throws the 'Good Southern Sense' line of the note into question. But why quibble over such a minor detail. When employing sophistry, details are not that important.


http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_11.28.96/news_views/media.php
The Lynching of Richard Jewell
GREG BOYD
Are the news media bad for your health? Ask Richard Jewell, the Atlanta man who this year was strung up by the FBI and a credulous newspaper.
Jewell's encounter with toxic celebrity began on July 27 in Atlanta's Olympic Centennial Park at a free concert that was part of the festivities of the Summer Olympics. Jewell was working the area as a security guard when he came across an abandoned knapsack. He alerted fellow workers and they began to clear the area - not quickly enough, because the pipe bomb inside the knapsack detonated, killing one person and injuring 100.
Still, without Jewell's actions, it might have been worse, and the 33 year-old was hailed as a hero. But even as he was being sprinkled with the holy water of celebrity on NBC's Today show, the Atlanta Journal Constitution was preparing to report that Jewell was a suspect. Jewell made the journey from zero to hero to mad bomber in less than three days, as the headline of the July 30 Olympic extra edition of the Journal Constitution screamed: "FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb."
What had happened? Jewell's lawyers, in a Nov. 6 letter to the Journal Constitution, say basic investigative methods dictated that the FBI should interview Jewell and look into his background a little, since he was the one who found the bomb. Then, wrote Jewell's lawyers, the paper "seized upon this initial investigative step to 'scoop' its competition by turning it into a headline and then proceeding over the next several days to unfairly and unlawfully portray Mr. Jewell as the Centennial Olympic Park bomber."
The "unfair" and "unlawful" aspects of the Journal-Constitution's coverage will have to be determined in court, as the above-quoted letter, asking for retractions and an apology, mark the start of Jewell's lawsuit for libel against the paper. One thing that's clear from the reply, written by Journal-Constitution attorney Peter Canfield, is that the paper's idea of what constitutes responsible journalism has more in common with reviewing The X-Files than reporting the facts.
Quite simply, the Journal-Constitution decided to broadcast whatever it heard from an employee of the FBI. It seems one or more investigators thought Jewell, who, in the words of the Associated Press "had a checkered career in police and security work, including an arrest for impersonating an officer, fit a common profile for a lone bomber: a former police officer, military man or aspiring policeman who seeks to become a hero."
The Journal-Constitution seized on this snatch of FBI liturgy and began reinterpreting events to fit the new gospel. Jewell had been mobbed by the media, but now he was depicted as hungry for publicity - which fit the FBI profile. "Bomb suspect had sought limelight, press interviews," read a headline in the July 30 extra edition. The next day Jewell had become the object of a pop-psychological exercise: "It may have been done in search of glory for saving lives. It may have been the quest for power that comes from bringing the Olympic celebration to a halt. Or it may have been revenge for being unable to retain an important job with a police department. Whatever the reason, the man under investigation for planting a bomb in Centennial Olympic Park appears to fit one of the three profile groups developed by experts in criminal behavior."
By then Jewell's life had become a horror, as he holed up in the apartment he shares with his mother while the media laid siege outside and the FBI marched about with little vacuum cleaners hunting for a shred of evidence to prop up the headlines.
They came away empty-handed. On Friday, Oct. 25, U.S. Attorney Kent Alexander said in a letter to Jewell's lawyer, "This is to advise you that based on evidence developed to date, your client Richard Jewell is not considered a target of the federal criminal investigation into the bombing."
In a statement to the media Alexander elaborated: "Unfortunately, criminal investigations often intrude upon the lives of private citizens like Mr. Jewell and his mother. In this case, the Jewells have regrettably also endured highly unusual and intense publicity that was neither designated nor desired by the FBI, and in fact interfered with the investigation."
That the authorities may "designate" publicity is, sadly, not front page news. Take the case in Toronto, over the past week, of Jeremy Foster, who was arrested on Saturday, Nov. 16, and charged with being the perpetrator of a series of sexual assaults in Metro and York Region.
Foster was cleared a week later by DNA evidence, but back when he seemed a good suspect, York Regional police dropped the quiet word to reporters that, when arrested, Foster had been in possession of a "restricted weapon." Turns out the man was carrying pepper spray to ward off possible muggers.
In Foster's and Jewell's cases the authorities gave tidbits to reporters who turned those handouts into facts that reinforced the official story. And what happens when the official story turns out to be a pipe dream born of incompetence? The hungry pack moves on, in search of its next feeding.

[thewhitewitch1]

************************************************** *****
WW1, I'd sure agree with you that there's a bunch of dfferent possiblities at the scene. It's probably the most unique, and standout feature of this case.....WHY so many seeming different directions at the crime scene....you have a sexual assault, a murder, and a kidnapping all at the same place and same time, how confusing. Your idea is that it was really an accident and John and Patsy staged all 3 different scenarios to confuse LE, but would panicked people (as you say) come up with that? Didn't they realize that by staging 3 diferent crime types, all that staging would be obvious and since they were the only people known to be there, they'd be immediately suspected? I mean it's possible but pretty far fetched, isn't it?
What if there was another way to look at this crime....that's very probable...and easy.. where all the confusion would disapear, all the evidence would match and be consistent, all the contradictions would go away.....and there'd be only 1 streamlined clear crime. Would... you,,, give it a thought. Here goes.....
What if we assume, the crime scene was so confusing just, and only because the killer didn't complete the last step of the plan, getting rid of the body? Just bear with me!
What if the killer had removed the body that pre dawn and buried it along with the barbie nightgown in the woods of the Flat Irons or wherever, then what would we have had at the crime scene? No sex assault, because there'd be no body. No murder because no body. No confusion at the scene at all. No evidence at all. All LE would've had was a kidnapping note, and JB's empty bed, (and missing nightgown). JB would have gone down in history as a kidnapping victim never returned, she'd probably be appearing on milk cartons now as she'd look as a 16 year old as just another missing child. The killer would never be caught. Sure LE might suspect something, but would have no proof or evidence of anything. The perfect crime. Now that's a plan! And it's all so easy if we just assume the killer was interrupted before completing this final step. It's probable, it's likely, it's simple, not at all far fetched. It clears up the case confusion. Would you and all give it some thought?
P.S.The staging of the wrist ties? That's just in case the burial site was found weeks, months later, (tied wrists on a skelton sure would indicate to LE it had been a real kidnapping).
As someone once said, why look for complex, far fetched explanations, when there is a simple, likely explanation right in front of us?
Further P.S. there are strong indications in the evidence the killer was planning on carrying out this final step of body removal, and burial that pre-dawn, or morning the 26th (the killers fevered references in the RL not to call police, to keep the 26th free of police. The reference to the burial of the victim in the RL ( 'proper burial'). The way the body was wrapped.

Of course I read yours and others opinions and give it thought.
Too many questions unanswered with your scenerio, as there is with mine.
How was the killer interrupted? Why sexually assult her in the home or at all?
Why kill her in the home? How did the killer move so freely throughout the house without fear of detection? At what point did the killer feel comfortable enough to have a glass of tea and feed JB pineapple? If the blanket she was found in wasn't on her bed that night (which it appears it wasn't), how did the killer know to find it in the dryer? The Barbie nightgown has no significance to this crime, so how did it wind up in her blanket, if not from static from being in the dryer?
If it was a planned kidnapping gone wrong, why didn't the killer write a note in advance? Why did the killer use only the things available in the Ramseys home (and I realize the cord and the duct tape are in dispute)?
I think that the confusion over the kidnapping/sexual assult/terrorist staging was, as I said, done in a panic with the Ramseys just doing everything they could to make it look like someone else did it. Not well thought out at all just a little of this and a little of that. Yes, it was a sloppy job of staging but what else could be expected from them if they were in a panic?
Most staging can be detected by LE. No matter how they staged it, they would probably have bungled it in a way that someone would have at least suspected it was staged.
Actually, I think my scenerio is just as uncomplicated as yours is.

[Tober]

So does Fleet White.

JonBenet's head injury (which was done in anger toward her on the basis of its severity), the staging (which includes the strangulation and sex assault), and the ransom note (another aspect of the staging) all go hand-in-hand. What possible reason would Fleet have to be angry with JonBenet as to cause her head injury? None that I can think of. Fleet didn't live at the Ramsey home, so he'd have no need to stage the crime scene. What possible reason would Fleet have to write the ransom note? None that I can think of. Couple all that with the fact that the physical evidence doesn't point to Fleet's involvement in the crime. I think it's safe to say that Fleet White had absolutely nothing at all to do with JonBenet's death. Like Steve Thomas, he only wants justice for her.

[Kor]

the cords tied on JB's wrists were loose, not tight, is it the results of her body being shrunk after she dead? I think the killer still want tie her up "just in case" she got back up after being knock out.

[shill]

Also, the psychological personality of the stager is reflected in the staging. In this case, the overly dramatic staging reflects the overly dramatic Patsy. Patsy fits the profile for three distinct aspects of this crime. She fits the profile for the type of person who would have caused JonBenet's head injury (anger/rage), the profile for the type of person who'd stage the crime scene (self-preservation), and the profile for the type of person who'd write that particular ransom note (overly dramatic). www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/28/193035.shtml

You never said you knew Patsy personally. Are you a relative or personal friend?
Do you live in Colorado?

[shill]

the cords tied on JB's wrists were loose, not tight, is it the results of her body being shrunk after she dead? I think the killer still want tie her up "just in case" she got back up after being knock out.

Her father John tried to undo the knots, which were slip knots, and he loosened them up.

[bullmoose]

Tober: Like Steve Thomas, Fleet White only wants justice for Jonbenet. The way you write what you say makes me wonder how well you know these two. Steve Thomas became quite close to the Whites, if I remember correctly; constantly defending him, just like you. Your writing style reminds me of Steve Thomas' book. It must be just a coincidence, right?:tongue:

[Zoey]

JonBenet's head injury (which was done in anger toward her on the basis of its severity), the staging (which includes the strangulation and sex assault), and the ransom note (another aspect of the staging) all go hand-in-hand. What possible reason would Fleet have to be angry with JonBenet as to cause her head injury? None that I can think of. Fleet didn't live at the Ramsey home, so he'd have no need to stage the crime scene. What possible reason would Fleet have to write the ransom note? None that I can think of. Couple all that with the fact that the physical evidence doesn't point to Fleet's involvement in the crime. I think it's safe to say that Fleet White had absolutely nothing at all to do with JonBenet's death. Like Steve Thomas, he only wants justice for her.


Tober, why do your posts never include an IMO? Unless you were there the night of this horrible murder, you have no more idea of what happened than any of the rest of us do. How do you know the head injury was done in anger? Because it was so severe does not necessarily mean it was done in anger. It could have been done just because someone with a very twisted mind thought it would be the thing to do.

What possible reason could John or Patsy Ramsey have to be so angry with their beautiful little girl to cause such a head injury. Bed wetting, I don't think so. I don't think had she wet her bed that night it would have been any different than the 100's of times she had done it before. I don't believe Patsy would have reacted any different than she had the other times. It just doesn't fit, IMO.

What reason would Fleet White have? Jealousy? Fear? Revenge? Paranoia? I don't know, as I don't know the guy, but his actions that day and the days after make him very suspiscious, IMO.

[andU]

I agree, Zoey, but there are others that I am suspicious of, as well.

[Tober]

How do you know the head injury was done in anger? Because it was so severe does not necessarily mean it was done in anger.

No one acts without motivation. Most of us would be unable to bring ourselves to inflict such an injury upon a fellow human. It can be inferred on the basis of the severity of the injury that a great deal of anger/rage (directed at JonBenet) was present in the person who caused the injury at the time it was caused.

[Tober]

What possible reason could John or Patsy Ramsey have to be so angry with their beautiful little girl to cause such a head injury. Bed wetting, I don't think so.

Though John is a successful businessman, I find him to be pretty passive, almost henpecked. IMO, he could never have gotten so angry with JonBenet as to inflict such an injury upon her. The offender didn't necessarily become angry with JonBenet over bed wetting. Perhaps JonBenet defied the offender in some way, which infuriated the offender, giving the offender the motivation to lash out at JonBenet in a moment of rage.

[cami]

[quote]Originally posted by rashomon
[b]
Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote.

Hi Rashomon,

It's a good point about John 'telling Patsy to call the police'. The big problem with it though is we get this only through John's self reporting of what he did, backed up by Patsy. There is no independent evidence John told her to call the police, just his word, backed up later by her. The evidence shows only Patsy calling, only her voice on the tape. It also shows that she called in minutes of finding the note, not much time to confer with John ecspecially with her on the 1st floor he on the 3rd, and that the call was made from the 1st floor. Maybe he did tell her to call the police like he says, I'm just saying there's no independent evidence of this, so I left it out, because it's not a fact, just someones word.
As to them both being in on it, then why would they both have cooperated in calling the police before they got rid of the body? If they both wrote the note, then why did they put all the instructions in the note to themselves making sure they had an excuse for having no police there at all that morning, and then call the police to be caught with the body, in violation of their own note? If they were both in on it, they could've easily gotten rid of body that morning, told the police later, they were just following the instructions in the note not to call the police right away, and everything would've been fine.
This would seem to prove that either only 1 of them did it, or neither did.
P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway???

There's also no independant evidence that Patsy called 911 within minutes of finding the note..only her word. The RN is part of the staging, nothing more. I too believe they are both involved in JB's death.

[cami]

I believe that was a case that happened in Prince William, VA. If not, then it was the same scenario. The perp's name was Caleb Hughes. I was thinking they found fibers that matched what she had been wearing. Her mother had ordered the outfit fromt he JCPenney catalog and they were able to get an indentical outfit and matched fibers to some found in his vehicle. But maybe that;s not the same case.

Yes it is....they did find an identical outfit from a catalogue and they matched those fibres plus the fibres from the mother's jacket to his home and car...

[rashomon]

Of course, in his scintillating analysis, Dr. Depue misses the fact that John Ramsey was born in Nebraska and raised in Michigan, which sort of throws the 'Good Southern Sense' line of the note into question. But why quibble over such a minor detail. When employing sophistry, details are not that important.
I have read somewhere that Patsy's family referred to John Ramsey as having 'good Southern common sense', although he was not born and raised in the South. This may have been their way of conveying to him that they acccepted him as "one of their own kind".

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: Are you suggesting that Patsy's family wrote the ransom note? The idea that Patsy wrote it, which some RDI's think, is one thing. I have not ever read or heard anywhere that Patsy ever wrote or said anything like that. It would be like me referring to you as Bavarian when I knew you were from Saxony. Mind you, I don't have any idea where you are from in Germany; one of my dearest friends was a Bavarian from Munchen and explained to me over the years about how different Germans are from region to region, just like here in the US.

[rashomon]

Rashoman: Are you suggesting that Patsy's family wrote the ransom note? The idea that Patsy wrote it, which some RDI's think, is one thing. I have not ever read or heard anywhere that Patsy ever wrote or said anything like that.
I'm suggesting that it was in the back of Patsy's mind how her family thought of John (whom they meanwile considered as being one of their own kind despite the fact that he was originally not from the South), hence her allusion to his "good southern common sense" in the ransom note.

[bullmoose]

I'm suggesting that it was in the back of Patsy's mind how her family thought of John (whom they meanwile considered as being one of their own kind despite the fact that he was originally not from the South), hence her allusion to his "good southern common sense" in the ransom note. I see now what you mean; Since Patsy did it, all evidence must point to Patsy, because Patsy did it, right? Seriously, if I even suspected that Patsy wrote the note ,to me that would be the last thing I'd think she would put in the note; it would be such a red flag to cause suspicion to center on her. But, to each his own reasoning, right?:biggrin:

[rashomon]

I see now what you mean; Since Patsy did it, all evidence must point to Patsy, because Patsy did it, right? Seriously, if I even suspected that Patsy wrote the note ,to me that would be the last thing I'd think she would put in the note; it would be such a red flag to cause suspicion to center on her. But, to each his own reasoning, right?:biggrin:
The boot is on the other foot: the evidence links Patsy Ramsey to the staging of the scene, and therefore it can be concluded that she had to do something with the crime.
And I think far too much logic and reasoning is being projected into her clumsy staging efforts, which imo were sheer chaos from start to finish. The CASKU experts pointed out that the writer of the ransom note was in a panic. A panicked person acts impulsively without thinking of the consequences of her actions. It is exactly this scenario which we have in the staged scene:a bit of this, a bit of that.

[Zoey]

The boot is on the other foot: the evidence links Patsy Ramsey to the staging of the scene, and therefore it can be concluded that she had to do something with the crime.
And I think far too much logic and reasoning is being projected into her clumsy staging efforts, which imo were sheer chaos from start to finish. The CASKU experts pointed out that the writer of the ransom note was in a panic. A panicked person acts impulsively without thinking of the consequences of her actions. It is exactly this scenario which we have in the staged scene:a bit of this, a bit of that.


I understand that experts think the writer was in a panic when the ransom note was written, but IMO, I think the ransom note was well thought out and planned way before what happened. I believe when the killer was in the home before the Ramsey's returned home from the party is when the note was written and was left on the stairs on his way out the door.

[thewhitewitch1]

I understand that experts think the writer was in a panic when the ransom note was written, but IMO, I think the ransom note was well thought out and planned way before what happened. I believe when the killer was in the home before the Ramsey's returned home from the party is when the note was written and was left on the stairs on his way out the door.

Out of the door? Don't you mean the window? Even JR thinks that is the point of exit/entry.

[Zoey]

Out of the door? Don't you mean the window? Even JR thinks that is the point of exit/entry.


I never have really bought the climb up and out of the window theory. I know JR feels this way, but IMO, that window just doesn't seem to be a way out of the home. In, maybe, as you could just pop open the window and slide down into the basement, but to hoist yourself up and out of that window, I just can't see it.

I believe they came in through a door and left the same way. Crazy thinking on my part? Perhaps, but not unbelievable. Happens every day. Burglars and rapists enter through a door and leave through a door all the time.

[bullmoose]

I never have really bought the climb up and out of the window theory. I know JR feels this way, but IMO, that window just doesn't seem to be a way out of the home. In, maybe, as you could just pop open the window and slide down into the basement, but to hoist yourself up and out of that window, I just can't see it.

I believe they came in through a door and left the same way. Crazy thinking on my part? Perhaps, but not unbelievable. Happens every day. Burglars and rapists enter through a door and leave through a door all the time.Let me throw my vote in on this; I have always thought that the most likely way in and out was one of the doors. If the basement window was
broken much earlier a criminal/s scouting out the home could have gotten in there; or could have spotted and picked that room as the center of the elaborate staging in order to mislead the investigtors from the get-go. And I too think that the note was written before the crime to throw suspicion squarely on the Ramseys. JMHO

[KingCoyote]

The boot is on the other foot: the evidence links Patsy Ramsey to the staging of the scene, and therefore it can be concluded that she had to do something with the crime.
And I think far too much logic and reasoning is being projected into her clumsy staging efforts, which imo were sheer chaos from start to finish. The CASKU experts pointed out that the writer of the ransom note was in a panic. A panicked person acts impulsively without thinking of the consequences of her actions. It is exactly this scenario which we have in the staged scene:a bit of this, a bit of that.


I am voting for sheer chaos no matter who did it.

KingCoyote

[bullmoose]

[QUOTE=KingCoyote;8803581]I am voting for sheer chaos no matter who did it.

Let me throw my vote in with yours; IMO, whether a person is RDI,PDI,JDI,JADI, or one of the IDI's you would think that a reasonable concensus could be reached. But that has not happened, nor will it, in all likelihood. I think the case was mishandled, badly, but I don't know if that made that much of a difference in its lack of a resolution. Top to bottom,IMO, this case is full of contradictory clues, and the result has been chaos. My hope is that the DNA holds the key to the killer/s; if it is to ever be solved that may be the way it happens, but ten years and counting; I'm not holding my breath.:confused:

[KingCoyote]

Bullmoose:

I fully agree that the mishandling of this case by BPD or DA doesn't really make all that much difference anymore. As you say...The clues are just too contradictory. I don't even hold any hope for the DNA (RDI or IDI wise)...short of a confession of at least what someone knows...not necessarily what someone did...would sure help. The Fleet White Party pictures or FW's deposition would sure answer a lot of questions. Even some of my analysis seems to open up more questions and problems than answers. Some of the questions that still bug me tremendously:

What did cause that triangular strangulation mark on JBR's throat?

Why did FW act the way he did and JR seem to play it down in DOI? Was it really FW's suggestion that Rs go on TV?

Were PR and PW making phone calls to Pam Griffin on the morning of the 26th and why?

Where did that pineapple come from?

What is the real story in the M. Helgoth murder/suicide?

Why did JR put a recently purchased scarf in the casket instead of a personal memento of some type?

What did Pam Paugh really take out of that house?

Who drew that heart on JBR's palm and when did PR see it?

Why didn't Lou Smit push hard for Search Warrants on medical, financial and telephone records?

When were the sheets on JBR's bed actually changed? On the 23rd, 24th or 25th?

Where was that Ransom Note originally?

What was in that Plastic bag at the bottom of the stairs and why did it move within different pictures?

Was there really a scream heard by Melody Stanton? If so, what time?

How did Burke's knife get from the second floor cabinets to the basement?

I feel like the Energizer bunny.....still going!!!!!

Of course, if we had all these answers it wouldn't be so much of a mystery, now would it?

KC

[bullmoose]

Bullmoose:

I fully agree that the mishandling of this case by BPD or DA doesn't really make all that much difference anymore. As you say...The clues are just too contradictory. I don't even hold any hope for the DNA (RDI or IDI wise)...short of a confession of at least what someone knows...not necessarily what someone did...would sure help. The Fleet White Party pictures or FW's deposition would sure answer a lot of questions. Even some of my analysis seems to open up more questions and problems than answers. Some of the questions that still bug me tremendously:

What did cause that triangular strangulation mark on JBR's throat?

Why did FW act the way he did and JR seem to play it down in DOI? Was it really FW's suggestion that Rs go on TV?

Were PR and PW making phone calls to Pam Griffin on the morning of the 26th and why?

Where did that pineapple come from?

What is the real story in the M. Helgoth murder/suicide?

Why did JR put a recently purchased scarf in the casket instead of a personal memento of some type?

What did Pam Paugh really take out of that house?

Who drew that heart on JBR's palm and when did PR see it?

Why didn't Lou Smit push hard for Search Warrants on medical, financial and telephone records?

When were the sheets on JBR's bed actually changed? On the 23rd, 24th or 25th?

Where was that Ransom Note originally?

What was in that Plastic bag at the bottom of the stairs and why did it move within different pictures?

Was there really a scream heard by Melody Stanton? If so, what time?

How did Burke's knife get from the second floor cabinets to the basement?

I feel like the Energizer bunny.....still going!!!!!

Of course, if we had all these answers it wouldn't be so much of a mystery, now would it?

KCAbsolutely! All very good questions. On the one, the drawn heart on Jonbenet's hand, was it really a heart or a stylized capital V? In the one energizer commercial that I saw last night, the bunny was giving a jumpstart to a flying saucer; oddly, if aliens and flying saucers were to be injected into this case, it wouldn't be that much stranger,would it?:beer:

[Zoey]

Absolutely! All very good questions. On the one, the drawn heart on Jonbenet's hand, was it really a heart or a stylized capital V? In the one energizer commercial that I saw last night, the bunny was giving a jumpstart to a flying saucer; oddly, if aliens and flying saucers were to be injected into this case, it wouldn't be that much stranger,would it?:beer:


You need to read "Daddy's Little Princess" Good read until you get to the end and find out it is about aliens and flying saucers. Truly almost believeable with everything else stange that has transpired in this case!

And KC, awesome questions.

I too have read where some thought the drawing on JB's hand was not a heart but a V, drawn on her hand on the 23rd as the start of the clues that would be forthcoming in the ransom note. JMO, but I can picture that.

[KingCoyote]

I am ashamed to say that I have even thought about demonic influences...now, before you think I am nuts just humor me....in order for the Ramsey to do all of this, an unbelievable amount of cold, calculating, demonic thoughts have to possess them. I have already had a few words with others about the possibility of rage but we are talking methodical, systematic and time consuming acts, confused as they may seem and actually be, subsequent to the striking of JBR's head.

I am not providing this as a theory or anything, in fact I am just speculating or better yet, thinking out loud, but do you know how many times you have heard neighbors/friends of confessed or convicted serial killers or heinous criminals say something to the effect: "I never would have guessed it...they seemed so nice and normal." If you know the John List case...look how long John List lived a normal life (19 years?) after brutally murdering his family and was never even noticed by others. I am not saying the Ramseys were a Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde duo but something is missing here....

I keep thinking back to statements that Linda Arndt made when she spoke after PR died. Something to the effect: "PR had secrets and there were secrets in this case." In the back of my mind I just keep thinking...there is something we just don't know and it would just stun us. (RDI and IDI alike)

Just a few thoughts, opinions, questions while I let my hair down from my usual analytical, statistical approach to this case.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

[...]

I keep thinking back to statements that Linda Arndt made when she spoke after PR died. Something to the effect: "PR had secrets and there were secrets in this case." In the back of my mind I just keep thinking...there is something we just don't know and it would just stun us. (RDI and IDI alike)

Just a few thoughts, opinions, questions while I let my hair down from my usual analytical, statistical approach to this case.

KingCoyote

Ex-officer reached out to Ramsey
Arndt was in Boulder home when child's body was found

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
June 28, 2006
Patsy Ramsey died before Linda Arndt could fulfill her pledge to JonBenet's mother.
"Last year, I was told just about this time of year that she was on her deathbed and gravely ill," said Arndt, the former Boulder Police officer who was the lone detective in the Ramsey home when JonBenet's body was found in the basement on Dec. 26, 1996.

"That spurred me to reach out to her and find her again, which I did. She responded."

Ramsey battled her disease for 13 years, succumbing to ovarian cancer early Saturday at her father's home in Roswell, Ga. She was 49. She will be laid to rest Thursday alongside JonBenet in Marietta, Ga.

Their renewed contact in May 2005, Arndt said, "was a heart-to-heart connection, common decency, showing courtesy and empathy to someone who really had a lot of tragedy."

She talked about what the contact between the two meant to her.

"Knowing that she was dying, that was the impetus I needed to finish, to fulfill the promise that she asked of me," said Arndt, 45.

Officer 'gave her my word'

The day was Jan. 8, 1997. Arndt was at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot where JonBenet's older brother Burke - now 19 - was being interviewed by a child psychologist.

"Patsy and I were alone for over an hour, and she shared a lot of things in that conversation. She did, and I did," Arndt recalled.

"And one of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet.'

"I don't remember my words, but I gave her my word that I would. And I cannot hold her story any longer."

Arndt wasn't allowed by department brass to stay on the case. She was pulled off in April 1997, quit the force two years later and unsuccessfully sued the department for defamation. Arndt, who still lives in the West but is no longer a police officer, is now occupied, she said, "putting my life back together, trying to find my way back in the world."

And she's writing a memoir in hopes of keeping her promise.

'The right thing to do'

In her first in-depth print interview, Arndt remembered Ramsey as "a lady of grace and courage and spirit, particularly in the face of such unrelenting adversity."

"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

Arndt was reluctant to reveal many details of her contact with JonBenet's mother in the final year of her life.

"I gained nothing and risked everything to contact her. And it was just the right thing to do," Arndt said.

"There's no way to undo the wrong that was done (to the Ramsey family). But (it was) just to acknowledge what you could or couldn't do, and apologize for any error on my part and to offer myself in any way that was helpful to her."

Arndt would not discuss her theories of the case, saying only that she doesn't hold the "prevailing view" within the Boulder Police Department, which increasingly keyed on Patsy Ramsey.

"I'm able to confirm a lot of things that Patsy was maintaining for 10 years," Arndt said.

Asked if what she is writing will eliminate anyone's suspicions about Ramsey, Arndt stopped short of saying so.

"I think our expectation of the justice system is that you clear 'em or you don't, but you don't leave people hanging in the wind this long - at least, that's my interpretation," Arndt said.

"I don't know that (the book) will exonerate. It will give people a context that they have not had before, and it will give them an understanding for everyone involved - but, particularly, for Patsy."

Ramsey hard to reach

National airwaves have been buzzing since Saturday with legal pundits weighing in on the question of how Ramsey's death affects the investigation - whether it represents an ending or perhaps even the opening of a new chapter.

Arndt leans toward the latter.

"I think it's just starting," said Arndt. "I think the real story is just coming out now. . . .

"I think her death really shakes the foundation of what people have been content or comfortable in believing, refusing to accept or refusing to look at."

The mere act of connecting with Ramsey, who along with her husband was identified in December 1997 as being under an "umbrella of suspicion" by then-Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, was not easily accomplished by Arndt.

"I contacted every attorney she's ever worked with," she said. "I was willing to contact anyone in order to get a message to her."

Arndt spoke of a bond of trust that evolved between them during her time on the case - cutting against the grain of her department's overall approach.

"I knew that would not be allowed directly during the time that I was on the case, (because of) individuals from both sides. Direct contact between the two of us was never allowed."

During her June 2001 defamation trial at U.S. District Court in Denver, however, Arndt admitted to arranging an hourlong meeting with Ramsey in March 1997, independent of her fellow investigators, after concerns grew about Ramsey's health.

"When Patsy heard I wanted to reach her, every time, she allowed me to meet with her and call her," Arndt said Tuesday.

Despite the renewed contact between Arndt and Ramsey in 2005, the former detective admits she was blindsided by her death.

Not owning a television for the past few months, Arndt got word from her brother, who lives in the Denver area.

"I had no idea" she had taken a turn for the worse, Arndt said. "I knew she was just in Boulder (in February). Different people call and tell me, because I don't follow a lot of it. I was really stunned. I thought she had beaten it again."

Arndt said she would "absolutely" want to attend Thursday's services for Ramsey but she won't.

"Those around her see my presence differently than she does," Arndt said.

"There would be nothing positive for the people assembled there from my presence. Patsy would appreciate it. I doubt anybody else would."

Arndt admitted she doesn't have the answers as to who did what that Christmas night to the 6-year-old who, in death, became the nation's most famous child beauty queen.

"Nobody does," Arndt said. "But I have the information, for somebody else who might. All the information is there."

She said 90 percent of the case details have not been disclosed accurately.

"If anyone wants to understand and make sense of this case, yes, the information I have allows them to do it," Arndt said.

"You can make an informed decision, rather than uninformed speculation."
[...]
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/loca...4807014,00.html

[LindaA]

Thanks for posting this. I started a thread about it, but it got very little response.

It seems to me that Arndt is convinced of PR's innocence, but feels PR knew something that would have solved the case. I wonder what she is hinting at. When does her book come out?

[shill]

While Patsy wept, John paced. "The first night he was completely pacing," says Novack, "and I had to wake up his brother Jeff, because I needed to have him keep an eye on John. The first night, Patsy slept on a futon and John must have slept on the couch. They pretty much did not sleep."
VANITY FAIR Wow, they stayed up all night murdering and staging their daughters crime after a long long day of celebrating Christmas, going to a party, and dropping off gifts. And they didn't get any sleep or show signs of exhaustion the whole day the crime scene unfolded and yet they still were not tired enough to fall asleep that night.:shrug:

[andU]

Let me throw my vote in on this; I have always thought that the most likely way in and out was one of the doors. If the basement window was
broken much earlier a criminal/s scouting out the home could have gotten in there; or could have spotted and picked that room as the center of the elaborate staging in order to mislead the investigtors from the get-go. And I too think that the note was written before the crime to throw suspicion squarely on the Ramseys. JMHO

I agree, I, too, have always felt that the entry/exit was a door...



GO COLTS!

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>
I wonder what she is hinting at. When does her book come out?

All I can find still says release date unreported. I wish it would be released soon so we'll have something new to discuss.

[andU]

I wish that I could look at this case as if I knew nothing, and begin afresh, without opinion. I don't know if it would make any difference, but I feel strongly that something is being overlooked by all of us and the LE, something that is right there in plain sight. I think it would take someone who is very open and unknowing to see it, though.

[Athena]

You need to read "Daddy's Little Princess" Good read until you get to the end and find out it is about aliens and flying saucers. Truly almost believeable with everything else stange that has transpired in this case!

And KC, awesome questions.

I too have read where some thought the drawing on JB's hand was not a heart but a V, drawn on her hand on the 23rd as the start of the clues that would be forthcoming in the ransom note. JMO, but I can picture that.

I have to agree with you Zoey. I am also one of those people who believe the "heart" was in fact a V and what convinced me were when I asked my almost grown children what it looked like without them having a clue as to what they were looking at and they both said the letter "V" -

[thewhitewitch1]

I wish that I could look at this case as if I knew nothing, and begin afresh, without opinion. I don't know if it would make any difference, but I feel strongly that something is being overlooked by all of us and the LE, something that is right there in plain sight. I think it would take someone who is very open and unknowing to see it, though.


I am using your quote because in reading JRs 1998 interview, I came up with a thought that I'm not sure anyone has touched on yet (though I would be surprised if they haven't).
JR notes that JBs pillow is at the end of her bed in the crime scene photos. That is certainly unusual if she had been put to bed while asleep as claimed. Someone obviously moved the pillow from the head of the bed to the foot. Why?
This is where Elvislives needs to chime in. I was wondering if it is possible that JB was smothered with her pillow, as opposed to being strangled? I am not disputing that she was strangled but she may have already been dead and I believe the garrote was a prop in the staging of the crime scene. My question is...would smothering her show the same type of internal damage and also cause the hemmorages on her face and eyelids as strangling would?
Certainly I have a hard time imagining the Rs using a garrote to strangle her unless she was already dead, but I do not have too difficult of a time envsioning them smothering her with a pillow (after the head blow) to end her suffering.
Her pillow being at the wrong end of the bed also could have happened if/when the bed was remade, as I think it was and they may have overlooked putting it back at the head of the bed. I also notice (and JR confirms) a multi-colored sweater belonging to Patsy lying on JBs bed. Why would that be there?

[Louisadelmar]

Actually Patsy says the sweater is JonBenet's Christmas sweater. I would hope they collected it. The size should have answered any questions.

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, see, that's the
23 pillow there.
24 THOMAS HANEY: Okay.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Her Christmas
0243
1 sweater.
2 THOMAS HANEY: When is the last
3 time she wore the Christmas sweater?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know
5 exactly.
6 THOMAS HANEY: Would that be where
7 it would end up?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
9 THOMAS HANEY: So not unusual?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.


I'll be interested in what Elvislives adds to this little bit.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

SMOTHERING occurs when airways are closed by an obstructing object, such as a pillow or blanket. If a soft object has been used, the body will show no visible signs of trauma, but often there are small, discernible contusions or lacerations on the inner lips. Cyanosis may or may not be present, but there is usually what is called petechial hemorrhage -- small, pin-point blotches or dark red spots on the face, typically around the area of the eyes.

[Athena]

I wish that I could look at this case as if I knew nothing, and begin afresh, without opinion. I don't know if it would make any difference, but I feel strongly that something is being overlooked by all of us and the LE, something that is right there in plain sight. I think it would take someone who is very open and unknowing to see it, though.

Valid observation. I think Louisa may have said it best. We are probably all overanalyzing everything at this point. :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

I would still like Elvislives to give her opinion about suffocation by pillow and if it would show the same internal/external signs as a strangling would.

[andU]

I would still like Elvislives to give her opinion about suffocation by pillow and if it would show the same internal/external signs as a strangling would.

I would be interested in knowing what elvislives has to think about it also. My thoughts are not professional, just my opinion, I'd like a professional opinion.

[shill]

WALSH:I mean, you are a detective and you go to a kidnapping of a high -- prominent family in a very wealthy area, and then, you know, police work 101, you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.

[thewhitewitch1]

WALSH:I mean, you are a detective and you go to a kidnapping of a high -- prominent family in a very wealthy area, and then, you know, police work 101, you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.


I guess his opinion isn't worth a nickel when he can't even get the facts straight.
Why did you quote him?

[shill]

I guess his opinion isn't worth a nickel when he can't even get the facts straight.
Why did you quote him?

I think his opinion of "you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house", is dead on.

I didn't know he had a reputation for not getting his facts straight, do you have a link to examples of his fact checking being off?

[thewhitewitch1]

I think his opinion of "you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house", is dead on.

I didn't know he had a reputation for not getting his facts straight, do you have a link to examples of his fact checking being off?


I agree with the part of the quote you just stated. The rest of the quote stated that JR "cut JB down" and "she is hanging there". We know this is not what happened. Ergo...his facts are wrong.

[shill]

I agree with the part of the quote you just stated. The rest of the quote stated that JR "cut JB down" and "she is hanging there". We know this is not what happened. Ergo...his facts are wrong.
I know this is what happened. Ergo...his facts are right.

I realize you have trouble reading between the lines but here is a man who would be privy to way more details then you and I.
Tell me, why would John spend time struggling to untie JB's hands instead of just whisking her upstairs?
And why are her hands shown and described as bound above her head?

When are you going to realize that there is a ton of info that has been with held from the public? Everyone here I assume wants to be sleuths and yet they don't seem to be able to figure anything out for themselves.

[andU]

I agree with Shill; I believe John Walsh was given information not made public and that he let the cat out of the bag. He was brought in to put the case on his show, but later decided, he and LE, not to do so. This doesn't sound any farther 'out there' than other postings, IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

And how can you guys be so sure that John Walsh is very well read on the JBR case and knows all the details, including ones that haven't been made public? It's my understanding that John Walsh has admitted to not being that familiar with the Ramsey case. The Ramseys turned down a chance to have JBR's case featured on AMW. I wonder why...

There's no evidence on JonBenet's body that she was ever hanging or suspended from anywhere - not on her neck, not on her wrists, not on her abdomen, not on her ankles. No one other than Walsh has ever said JB needed to be cut down and that that's what JR was doing when he tried to untie her wrists. What would he have been using to cut her down with?

[Zoey]

And how can you guys be so sure that John Walsh is very well read on the JBR case and knows all the details, including ones that haven't been made public? It's my understanding that John Walsh has admitted to not being that familiar with the Ramsey case. The Ramseys turned down a chance to have JBR's case featured on AMW. I wonder why...

There's no evidence on JonBenet's body that she was ever hanging or suspended from anywhere - not on her neck, not on her wrists, not on her abdomen, not on her ankles. No one other than Walsh has ever said JB needed to be cut down and that that's what JR was doing when he tried to untie her wrists. What would he have been using to cut her down with?


NP...could you please provide the link where you got your information on them turning down a chance to be featured on AMW. This is the first I have heard of this.

How do we know for sure there was no evidence on her body that she was hanging? We all know that we don't have the complete autopsy report readily available on the internet. We have no pictures of her abdomen, her ankles, nothing below the waist, so how do we know for sure. We don't even have a real clear picture of her wrists. Could this information be something that is being withheld from the public as only the killer would know?

Why would John Walsh say she was cut down not once, but twice, if this perhaps is not how she was found. IMO, he knows more than any of us could know, he had access to documents we will never see until this case is solved.

[thewhitewitch1]

I know this is what happened. Ergo...his facts are right.

I realize you have trouble reading between the lines but here is a man who would be privy to way more details then you and I.
Tell me, why would John spend time struggling to untie JB's hands instead of just whisking her upstairs?
And why are her hands shown and described as bound above her head?

When are you going to realize that there is a ton of info that has been with held from the public? Everyone here I assume wants to be sleuths and yet they don't seem to be able to figure anything out for themselves.


Come on. We've all read countless accounts from the Ramseys in police interviews, heard them on tv, read their book....
Now you are saying that only John Walsh is privy to this "secret information"?
That's bull. John Walsh has nothing to do with the Ramsey case except to insert his opinion.
There is no indication that JB was "hanging". JR found her on the floor. Why did he try to untie her hands? Your guess is as good as mine. A better question would be why didn't he try to remove the garrote from her neck.
If the fact that she was "hanging" is so secret, why did John Walsh release a public statement about it?
It didn't happen.

[LindaA]

I do know the Walsh organization is privy to more info about cases under investigation than the general public. That's how they solved a case inivolving the murder of 3 teens here several years ago -- several years after the fact. I belive Walsh was doing research for his show and may have been told this when he was interviewing for it. The show was never done, but Walsh's staff still did some prep, I believe. Of course it's possible that he was confused with another case, but he seemed pretty sure. Only JR and FW know for sure. Is it possible that that is why FW's depos have been sealed? Would that explain why JR held JBR's body as he did when he carried her upstairs?

[nuisanceposter]

If JonBenet had been hanging and needed to be cut down, then JR was lying when he describes how he found her on the floor in DOI and in his interviews...

If only John Walsh has ever said JonBenet was hanging and cut down with all of the people who have talked about this case, then I'd say JW had his facts wrong in his head and made a mistake.

Zoey, that info came from a thread at WS. I'll see what else I can find out about it.

[nuisanceposter]

Here, Zoey (bolding mine) -

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/24/lkl.00.html


KING: We're back with John Walsh. We're going to discuss some other cases of interest. We want to get to some phone calls too. Our first call is from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. My question is for your guest, Larry. I wonder, there's three parts to the question. I wanted to know if he has any comments about the JonBenet case in Colorado, and the second part to that question is, if that case will ever be solved? And the third part to that question is, doesn't he think it's really weird the way those parents acted from the beginning of that case, when they were doing everything possible to protect themselves rather than to find out what were -- who were the real killers of his daughter?

KING: OK, we got it. John?

WALSH: I've been to Dubai, hunting fugitives -- terrorists out there.

I don't think that that case will ever, will ever be solved, because now it's been taken over by the state, you know, the attorney general of the state of Colorado, because so many incredible mistakes were made at the crime scene at the beginning.

KING: From the get-go.

WALSH: From the get-go. And then they empaneled a grand jury and brought DAs from every county around Colorado, and they all came to the same conclusion. They said whether the Ramseys had something to do with it or not, there was such poor police work was done in the beginning, this case will probably never be solved.

Parents have the right to get lawyers. They have the right to get -- you know, to have people represent them if they think the cops are doing a bad job. I always wanted to do that case on "America's Most Wanted." And Mr. Ramsey said, I'd like to do it. Mrs. Ramsey said no. I said, I'll treat you fairer than anybody else in the world. Let me do a whole hour on "America's Most Wanted." But they're going to start over and take a re-look at the case. That's what I say you have to do. You have to throw everything out and start again.

[bullmoose]

WALSH:I mean, you are a detective and you go to a kidnapping of a high -- prominent family in a very wealthy area, and then, you know, police work 101, you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.Shill: could you list where you got that quote from? Its intriguing, to say the least; I like to read the context of it.

[Athena]

bullmoose: not shill - but your wish is my command LOL

You know he made the same comments about JonBenet being cut down by JR in a 2002 interview. Here he says it again. The first time I read it I thought maybe it was a mistake -- but to make the same mistake twice? John Walsh? I'm really beginning to think maybe she was hanged and it was kept from the public????

KING: Have you ever shown an interest the in the JonBenet Ramsey case?

WALSH: You know, we were asked to do that case a year afterward to try to help the Boulder police, you know, get a couple tips on it. But I think everybody knows that the case was compromised by bad police work in the beginning. I'm not the first one to say that and I'm a great supporter of law enforcement.

I mean, you are a detective and you go to a kidnapping of a high -- prominent family in a very wealthy area, and then, you know, police work 101, you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.

KING: So there's nothing you can do to help in a situation...

WALSH: You know, we've talked about it a couple of times because there were 200 people in that house at Christmas parties the day before. And I've found over the years it's never your trusted maid. It's a crack-addicted boyfriend that gets the key and comes in and robs your house. You know, it always someone affiliated in that area. I always hope that we would, you know, get a tip on that case, that someone would come forward. But I truly think because of the police work, that this case will never be solved.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/lkl.00.html

[thewhitewitch1]

Personally, I think JW has his facts wrong. There is no physical evidence that she was hanged.
If she was, as someone else already said, then JR lied to the police.
We have already ruled out suffocation. I believe we can rule out hanging as well. Has Elvislives given her thoughts on this?
Also, why would you need to bash someone on the head if they had been hung and needed to be "cut down"? Death by hanging is a pretty sure thing.

[bullmoose]

Having read that transcript over a couple of times, I can come to only one conclusion; that John Walsh was privy to information on the Jonbenet case that was never released to the general public. I do not think it a mistaken detail that he says John Ramsey cut her down; in fact it fits the fact that even with rigor mortis, Jonbenet's arms were above her head when brought upstairs and layed down. Maybe, then, Fleet White didn't see her laying there because she wasn't laying there, but was hung from a pipe. John Ramsey, knowing where the light switch was, either saw her as he turned on the light or when he turned on the light. But there is no way Walsh was blowing steam; he was stating what he knew to be so.

[Athena]

Personally, I think JW has his facts wrong. There is no physical evidence that she was hanged.
If she was, as someone else already said, then JR lied to the police.
We have already ruled out suffocation. I believe we can rule out hanging as well. Has Elvislives given her thoughts on this?
Also, why would you need to bash someone on the head if they had been hung and needed to be "cut down"? Death by hanging is a pretty sure thing.

I'm not stating it as fact TWW. Just surprised that he said it again. He was consulted early on in the case and maybe he knows something we don't. As I've said earlier I in now way believe this is the complete autopsy report so therefore we do not have ALL of the evidence. I also questioned it if you recall the first time I read it with this line from the autopsy:

It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of the neck.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

[bullmoose]

I'm not stating it as fact TWW. Just surprised that he said it again. He was consulted early on in the case and maybe he knows something we don't. As I've said earlier I in now way believe this is the complete autopsy report so therefore we do not have ALL of the evidence. I also questioned it if you recall the first time I read it with this line from the autopsy:

It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of the neck.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.htmlYou know, it would explain why John Ramsey screamed and why Fleet bolted; the sheer horror of finding your daughter hanging.

[andU]

Come on. We've all read countless accounts from the Ramseys in police interviews, heard them on tv, read their book....
Now you are saying that only John Walsh is privy to this "secret information"?
That's bull. John Walsh has nothing to do with the Ramsey case except to insert his opinion.
There is no indication that JB was "hanging". JR found her on the floor. Why did he try to untie her hands? Your guess is as good as mine. A better question would be why didn't he try to remove the garrote from her neck.
If the fact that she was "hanging" is so secret, why did John Walsh release a public statement about it?
It didn't happen.

There is no proof that she wasn't either. Have you seen any photos of her entire body post mortem?

[Athena]

Having read that transcript over a couple of times, I can come to only one conclusion; that John Walsh was privy to information on the Jonbenet case that was never released to the general public. I do not think it a mistaken detail that he says John Ramsey cut her down; in fact it fits the fact that even with rigor mortis, Jonbenet's arms were above her head when brought upstairs and layed down. Maybe, then, Fleet White didn't see her laying there because she wasn't laying there, but was hung from a pipe. John Ramsey, knowing where the light switch was, either saw her as he turned on the light or when he turned on the light. But there is no way Walsh was blowing steam; he was stating what he knew to be so.

Exactly and perhaps that is one reason why Flieet White's depos have not been released. I aksi recal so many times reading comments from Lin Wood stating that Fleet White's depos would not hurt the Ramseys. No matter if true or not we do not have all of the evidence. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

But there is no way Walsh was blowing steam; he was stating what he knew to be so.
And there's no possibility that John Walsh, who is the only person who has ever stated that JonBenet was hanging, in a cast of hundreds of people involved, has that information wrong?

If John Walsh is right, and JonBenet was hanging and needed to be cut down, then John Ramsey was lying in DOI and in his interviews where he repeatedly said JonBenet was lying on the floor when he found her.

If JonBenet was hanging, what did JR use to cut her down with? Where did he get it from, split second like that? What was securing the blanket around JonBenet, papoose-style, if she was hanging suspended from above?

Finding a child who was alive the last time you saw her, dead and cold and hidden away, after searching and waiting to hear about her for hours, isn't enough to send someone who knew and loved her screaming or running in terror? She had to have been hanging in order for JR to have screamed and FW to have bolted? I think not. I think just seeing her dead and having your worst fears confirmed after waiting to hear something - anything - would be enough to make a father scream and a man whose daughter was best friends with the dead child bolt to call for help.

The only place we've ever heard of anything about JonBenet hanging is from John Walsh, and there's no way to be sure he knew the case details well enough to not have made a mistake - and since no one else at all, including the Rs, have ever said JB was hanging, I'd say John Walsh made a mistake. When did he say JonBenet had been hanging a second time?

[Athena]

To all my fellow posters:

I apologize that I misspoke saying John Walsh repeated that JR had cut her down. I re-read the link and the date and don't ask me why (temporary insanity) I thought I was reading a new interview. It's been a long time since I had read that interview originally so I didn't realize it was the same one.

See NP: I do read your posts :)

In all sincerity though I do apologize if I misled anyone; it was not intentional. :o

The upward deviation of the furrow around the neck though is bugging me now.

[elvislives]

Personally, I think JW has his facts wrong. There is no physical evidence that she was hanged.
If she was, as someone else already said, then JR lied to the police.
We have already ruled out suffocation. I believe we can rule out hanging as well. Has Elvislives given her thoughts on this?
Also, why would you need to bash someone on the head if they had been hung and needed to be "cut down"? Death by hanging is a pretty sure thing.


I'm not following here. Is the theory that she was hanging by her neck or by her hands?