A Newbie With An Idea

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am new to the forums but I have been studying the JBR case extensively. I have come to the conclusion, with no offense intended, that the whole matter is a chaotic mess.

I have been working on an idea that emcompasses some Organizational Management Techniques in an attempt to put some order to this case and the discussions that have evolved from it.

The process is lengthy and complex but I am in need of assistance and constructive criticism to see if we can work out some of the problems.

Is anybody interested?

[andU]

Hello Forum Members:

I am new to the forums but I have been studying the JBR case extensively. I have come to the conclusion, with no offense intended, that the whole matter is a chaotic mess.

I have been working on an idea that emcompasses some Organizational Management Techniques in an attempt to put some order to this case and the discussions that have evolved from it.

The process is lengthy and complex but I am in need of assistance and constructive criticism to see if we can work out some of the problems.

Is anybody interested?

I apologize for being skeptic, but to what purpose are you doing this? What kind of input do you need? Are you going with a particular theory?

[LindaA]

You are right it is a mess and some organization does need to be done. I have often thought about trying to do some kind of a chart, but I just don't have the time. I"d be interested in seeing what you come up with, though.

[Knot4u2no]

Perhaps this link will provide you with the information you need:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

Russell

[nuisanceposter]

I'll be happy to help you in any way I can. Please let me know what you may need.

[KingCoyote]

Thank all of you for your responses.

Andu - It is good to be skeptical. I do not have a theory, I have a plan of organization.

LindaA - I have come up with a chart. I hope you like it.

Knot4u2no - Thank you for the reference to the PBWiki. I have already studied it extensively.

NuisancePoster - Thank you for your offer. I find your posts to be excellent.

I will start preparing a post with the basics of my plan.

[elvislives]

Thank all of you for your responses.

Andu - It is good to be skeptical. I do not have a theory, I have a plan of organization.

LindaA - I have come up with a chart. I hope you like it.

Knot4u2no - Thank you for the reference to the PBWiki. I have already studied it extensively.

NuisancePoster - Thank you for your offer. I find your posts to be excellent.

I will start preparing a post with the basics of my plan.

Hey King, I'm not sure what you've got in mind, but count me in.

Organization is exactly what this discussion needs. I think there are a lot of people here with a tremendous amount of information, intelligence, logic and great ideas, but for some reason the discussions often seem to devolve into a pissing match and nothing gets resolved.

Case in point: John Andrew Ramsey. I thought it was universally accepted that he had been cleared...was in another state when the crime occurred. Yet just recently on another thread, he was suspected. Same with John Mark Karr (why is everyone in this case named John??). I thought it was also proven that he was out of state at the time and therefore eliminated as a suspect, but he too is reintoduced time and again. IMO it helps nothing to keep rehashing these same cleared suspects.

So whatever your plan is to organize the discussion, bring it on!

[SnarkyCow]

I'm curious and interested as well. Welcome KingCoyote ~ from one Newbie to another! :beer:

[KingCoyote]

Thanks elvislives and SnarkeyCow.... I will be working on the introduction to the plan and should have it posted later today.

[KingCoyote]

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by elvislives: <snip>
Case in point: John Andrew Ramsey. I thought it was universally accepted that he had been cleared...was in another state when the crime occurred. Yet just recently on another thread, he was suspected. Same with John Mark Karr (why is everyone in this case named John??). I thought it was also proven that he was out of state at the time and therefore eliminated as a suspect, but he too is reintoduced time and again. IMO it helps nothing to keep rehashing these same cleared suspects.

So whatever your plan is to organize the discussion, bring it on![/QUOTE]

I also thought JAR had been cleared via alibi. However, am I mistaken in thinking his DNA was actually found at the crime scene in his semen on the blanket found in the suitcase, which had come from his bed? (Which would make it pretty normal for it to have his semen

As for JMK, my understanding is that while they could not prove he ws in Boulder on 12-25/26-96, they could never prove he was with his fammily as his wife claimed. News sources all read that he had been cleared by the DNA evidence. However, recently there has been some discussion in the news that he is not in the clear and is being watched and investigated further for the JBR murder. I don't know what to make of that. It seems to me that from what you read in the news LE must have more faith in the DNA evidence than the RDIs on this board have.

And I totally agree with you on the pissing contests!

[bullmoose]

I look foward to your input on this board and await with interest what you plan to post; as LindaA says, 'bring it on'!

[elvislives]

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

I like this idea. Count me in.

[Coloradokares]

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

Absolutely!!! And I am local if you need me to research anything from the local level. I don't smoke a pipe but I'll fake it and wear a trench coat if that helps to qualify me.:D

[Louisadelmar]

Forum Members:

I am developing a Plan of Organization to place structure and order to the discussions of the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Plan currently has a 45+ point outline with 3 main segments:

1. Assemble and manage a Database of Information (AKA Evidence) which is sourced, credible and flexible.
(I am knee deep into this part. I have assembled 250+ pieces of Data which has been organized in a combination Chronology/Topical/Location approach. The Data is broken into 22 categories and 13 subcategories.)

2. Establish the concept of "Corpus Dilecti" (CD) or the body of the crime.
( I have created a flexible TimeFrame for the CD and further have created Stages of the CD and Phases withing Stages. The Data can then be inserted within the Events and Activities of each Stage and Phase of the CD.)

3. Establish a Matrix of Participant Hypotheses
( I have tentatively drawn the eight (8) most common participant hypothesis from all the forums I have visited.)

I have realized that I can no longer do all of this by myself. I need your help as well as your patience. We will need to decide on some orderly procedures to complete this project and I have started developing those as well.

This project is designed to include RDI/IDI and Fence Sitters. I am proposing no theory as to "Whodunnit." I am merely trying to facilitate your process of developing theories.

Are you Game?

2 Questions:
How does your plan differ from the pbwiki?

Is there a reason you chose that spelling for "Dilecti"?

[KingCoyote]

Thanks for the interest elvislives, ColoradoKares and Louisadelmar;

Louisadelmar:

PBWiki is in an Encyclopedia format. I am establishing a Database format. The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

Did I misspell Dilecti in the first post....sorry about that...I think I am getting too close to my work and starting to miss obvious errors...I never took Latin.

I should be posting the first part of the Outline tomorrow with some suggested guidelines on how to approach this idea.

Thanks again,

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

I think I just misspelled it again...mistakes are habit forming...Delicti...Is that right???

[Louisadelmar]

Thanks for the interest elvislives, ColoradoKares and Louisadelmar;

Louisadelmar:

PBWiki is in an Encyclopedia format. I am establishing a Database format. The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

Did I misspell Dilecti in the first post....sorry about that...I think I am getting too close to my work and starting to miss obvious errors...I never took Latin.

I should be posting the first part of the Outline tomorrow with some suggested guidelines on how to approach this idea.

Thanks again,

KingCoyote

corpus delecti. I don't usually question spelling since I'm as bad as anyone typos and spelling problems. I just wondered if there was a pun or something that had gone over my head. That's all :-)

Your database sounds interesting. Finding evidence that has genuine, original, or generally agreed upon as valid sources will be a trick though. There's not much that's agreed upon other than she's dead, red fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket were found in the vicinity, and she was sexually assaulted that night.

I look forward to reading your Outline and would be happy to help if I can.

[KingCoyote]

Louis: I'm not real good at puns...and I totally agree that getting people to agree on much of anything in this case may be major trick.Oh...BTW,I just found a dusty old pocket dictionary that had the correct spelling of Corpus Delicti

Later

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am ready to start posting the Outline of the Plan of Organization. I will post the first section in three separate posts. The first post will be the outline itself. The second will be Explanatory Notes (which will be the longest post). The third post will be an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Please be patient.

The Outline

In The Matter of The Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Plan of Organization - Outline

I. Establish Database
A. Collect Data (AKA: Evidence)
B. Source the Data
C. Eliminate Unnecessary Data
1. Non-Verifiable Data
2. Irrelevant Data
D. Limit "Expert" Data
E. Manage the Data
F. Add Additional Data as necessary
G. Provide Index of Abbreviations/Acronyms

Again, let me say that nothing I post is "cast in stone." If the group feels we
need a change, we can do that.

Next Post: Explanatory Notes for (I) of Outline.

Later

[KingCoyote]

Well, it didn't quite post in the format I typed. I will have to check the toolbar for other options.

Sorry, but Newbies like me are sometimes ignorant.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>
The end result should be a list of evidence that members agree upon with a source for each piece of evidence or DATA as I will be calling it. Each person should then use or dismiss all pieces of evidence in any theory they present. I think it may start coming together at a later point.

<snip>




It will be absolutely wonderful if your project succeeds! Accomplishing just what is outline in your above quote will border on miraculous. Wishing everyone the best in this endeavor.

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

Here are the Explanatory Notes for the first section of the Outline:

1. First let me clearly state that I have no authority to "rule" on any issue regarding the Outline. This outline is not being presented to be my outline but, rather, an outline to facilitate the theory development process. I am sure someone will have to "make a decision" at some point(s) within the discussions and I suppose that will have to be me since I created this monster. I can only console you with the fact that I haven't gotten everything I wanted in this life either.

2. Establishing a Database is dull, boring, tedious and to put it bluntly, grunt work. But it will serve certain purposes. It will provide a uniform source of evidence which "theorists" must account for. The proponent of the theory must either utilize the Data or dismiss the Data with Rationale, a subject we will come to much later. It will also create a quick reference for "Newbies" who haven't had the time to research all of the sources some veteran posters have already labored through.

3. Two things helped me develop this process with objective determination. Those two things are the incontrovertible conclusions about this matter at which I have arrived. They are:

a. JonBenet Ramsey is dead
b. I do not know who caused her death

When I began to weaken in my determination I remembered that an adorable six year old child was brutally killed. That fact should never be forgotten and I reminded myself of a. above.

When I began to lean toward IDI or RDI and found it possible to slant the Database by leaving out innocuous information or "pile on" information for one side or the other, I simply reminded myself of b. above.

4. The Sources I have used to Source what Data I have collected are:

a. Court Documents such as Depositions and Order(s) in civil cases such as the Order for Summary Judgment (Carnes) in the Wolf v. Ramsey Civil Case with attendant Statements of Material Fact (SMF) etc.

b. Law Enforcement Interviews

c. Search Warrants

d. The Autopsy Report and Published Photos

e. Pubished Photos of Ransom Note and Crime Scene

f. Paperback Books: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town , Schiller
Death of Innocence, Ramseys
Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Thomas

Some of my sourcing is obviously incomplete. I need page numbers, links, etc. Some of the sourcing could be more authoritative. A statement by an author from a paperback would not be as good as a statement by the party from a Law Enforcement Interview.

5. Elimination of Data

a. Non-verifiable Data: We surely don't want to include Data that really doesn't exist. There must be a source for everything. I don't like the category of "General Knowledge" as a source but I have fallen back on it a few times. We don't want to fall into the trap of "Urban Legends." Simply because the story has been told many, many times doesn't make it true.

b. Relevancy of Data:This is going to be tough. The easiest way to classify Data as Irrelevant is for a unanimous decision that the Data is truly an "artifact" and has nothing to do with the crime. (Get a Grip KingCoyote)
If we can't do that we must fall back on what I believe to be a legal standard for relevancy. (Not that I have more than enough knowledge about the law to be anything but extremely dangerous but we do need some guidelines, if for nothing else, just for this exercise.) The way I understand relevancy is that there is a balancing between probative value and prejudicial value of the Data/Evidence. I will just wade through this one as the need arises. Bear with me. Your comments and patience will be appreciated.

6. Limiting "Expert" Data: We want to refrain, if at all possible, from inlcuding Data that is solely the conclusion of one expert when there is no "counter" expert available. Where the Data comes in because of two competing experts we will include the Data and delay the discussion of its "weight" until the Section on Theory Development and Defense comes up.

The purpose of the Database portion is to look at the forest and simply count the trees, categorize the trees and list them in some order. We want to analyze the forest from a standpoint of trees not analyze each individiual tree, root, leaf etc. We can come back at another time to our analysis of the "minutae." Does that make sense to anyone besides me? [Rhetorical, self effacing question:think about it]

{Maybe I should say we are counting the alligators in the swamp to see if we really want to find ourselves up to our neck in alligators when all we wanted to do was drain the swamp} OK OK...I will stop with the cliches and comparisons

7. Manage the Data: Here comes a circular portion of the Outline. If you begin to manage the Data in a Chronological fashion first, as I have, then you must define your largest Stages of the Corpus Delicti (CD). I chose to define my Stages as Pre CD, CD, and Post CD. Then I realized that I needed to Establish a TimeFrame for the CD to know what comes before it and what comes after it from a Chronolgogical standpoint.

For purposes of allocating Data to a Stage of the CD I have chosen the following flexible TimeFrame to accomodate both RDI and IDI.

Begin TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder entry nor later than Ramseys arrival home from White party

End TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder exit nor later than Ramseys leaving home after discovery of body.

We will go into these more deeply at a later stage and the general TimeFrame may change. Stay with me, now.

I found it easier to establish the Data of the CD first, then the PreCD and the PostCD second. We will come back to these Stages later.

You will also see that I began to arrange the Data by Location within the house. There are only four floors to the house so I started at the top in the bedrooms and kind of worked my way down to the basement. I also found that some bits of Data began to form Topics of Data and some bits of Data were too broad and neeed sub topics. Those will start to show up.

8. Add Additional Data as Necessary: This is a two edged sword in a couple of ways. Data can be of benefit to one side, while of detriment to the other side; or it can be of benefit to both sides; or it can be of detriment to both sides; or it can be both benefit and detriment to both sides. As a personal caution, be careful about introducing Data that comes back to haunt you. On a more objective note no Data will be dismissed simply because it is damaging to one side nor will it be admitted simply because it is beneficial to one side. How I am going to make that decision, I don't know yet. Just bear with me. This is a learning process for me too.

Also remember one of the ultimate goals of this project and that is to establish a Database of Evidence that all parties must account for in his/her respective theories. "Account for" means you must use it to support your theory or dismiss it with Rationale, a term which will be better defined later. The more Data you enter, the more you have to account for.

9. Develop an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms : Next Post

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Thank you SweetCharlotte...I hope you will participate

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

You might email Miss Marple about what you are planning. I understand the difference between what you are trying to do and his pbwiki but he might have some suggestions that could be helpful. Also I believe things like the Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms are already out there. I have to go somewhere this morning but will look for it later today.

Have you read this from WS?
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35649

[KingCoyote]

Louis;

I am glad to hear you suggest contacting others around the Internet. I, too, have thought of that idea and your suggestion reinforces my line of thought. (Brillliant minds do think alike. LOL) In fact, I have thought about contacting several individuals from other forums and inviting them to participate by joining CrimeLibrary. I have also thought about suggesting that other forums set up a thread within their forum and, maybe, select one individual to post their collective thread's thoughts on any given issue. I would then try to "lurk" to present others' points of view. (That is a little presumptuous, though.)

As to the Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms, I have created some that may be unique to my Database and Outline. It won't take long to post them but please do give me the reference to the Index of which you are aware. It never hurts to compare.

Yes, I have seen the Post on Websleuths that you provided a link for. I found it informative and enjoyable and it just might come in handy.

Thanks

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

In The Matter of the Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms

JBR = JonBenet Ramsey
JR = John Ramsey
PR = Patsy Ramsey
BR = Burke Ramsey
JAR = John Andrew Ramsey
MR = Melinda Ramsey

Smit/LS = Lou Smit
FW = Fleet White, Jr.
LHP = Linda Hoffman Pugh
JMK = John Mark Karr

PMPT = Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
DOI = Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
ST = JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
(All references are to the Paperback editions)

Floor Plan = Appendix A - Perfect Town, Perfect Murder

PBWiki = http://JonBenetRamseyCase.pbwiki.com
ACR = www.Acandyrose.com

Carnes = Judge Julie Carnes, Summary Judgment Order - Wolf vs. Ramsey
SMF = Statement of Material Fact
PDSMF = Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Fact

IV = Interview with Law Enforcement
LE = Law Enforcement
BPD = Boulder Police Department
DA = District Attorneys' Office

SW = Search Warrant
Depo = Deposition (cite case)
RN = Ransom Note

Stmt. = Statement (subject to scrutiny for additional source)
? = Data in need of source
XXXXXXX = Data that must speculated upon in Theory

Please feel free to comment on the Outline, the Explanatory Notes or the Index

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

In The Matter of the Death of JonBenet Ramsey
Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms

JBR = JonBenet Ramsey
JR = John Ramsey
PR = Patsy Ramsey
BR = Burke Ramsey
JAR = John Andrew Ramsey
MR = Melinda Ramsey

Smit/LS = Lou Smit
FW = Fleet White, Jr.
LHP = Linda Hoffman Pugh
JMK = John Mark Karr

PMPT = Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller
DOI = Death of Innocence, John and Patsy Ramsey
ST = JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas
(All references are to the Paperback editions)

Floor Plan = Appendix A - Perfect Town, Perfect Murder

PBWiki = http://JonBenetRamseyCase.pbwiki.com
ACR = www.Acandyrose.com

Carnes = Judge Julie Carnes, Summary Judgment Order - Wolf vs. Ramsey
SMF = Statement of Material Fact
PDSMF = Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Fact

IV = Interview with Law Enforcement
LE = Law Enforcement
BPD = Boulder Police Department
DA = District Attorneys' Office

SW = Search Warrant
Depo = Deposition (cite case)
RN = Ransom Note

Stmt. = Statement (subject to scrutiny for additional source)
? = Data in need of source
XXXXXXX = Data that must speculated upon in Theory

Please feel free to comment on the Outline, the Explanatory Notes or the Index

KingCoyote

Here are some. The list I found had too many editorial comments so I stripped it down.

2BWS. www.jameson245.org
BDA - Boulder District Attorney
BDI - Burke Did It
BORG - Bent on Ramsey Guilt/Believers of Ramsey Guilt
BR - Burke Ramsey
DOI - Death of Innocence.
FFJ – www.forumsforjustice.org
IDI - Intruder Did it.
IMO/IMHO - In my Opinion/In My Humble Opinion
JARDI - John Andrew Ramsey Did It.
JBR - JonBenet Ramsey
JDI - John did it.
JR - John Ramsey
LS - Lou Smit.
LW - Lin Wood - Ramsey's civil attorney..
Mary Keenan=Mary Lacey - Current Boulder DA
PDI - Patsy did it.
RST - Ramsey Spin Team/Ramsey Support Team
ST - Steve Thomas
WS – www.websleuths.com

[elvislives]

Hey KC,
I applaud your scientific and logical approach to this case. Perhaps you should consider running for DA of Boulder.:)

[KingCoyote]

Thanks elvis....

[Coloradokares]

Hey KC,
I applaud your scientific and logical approach to this case. Perhaps you should consider running for DA of Boulder.:)

Do you promise and swear to act in accordance with where the evidence leads and do your job if so. I might be able to help get you on the ticket. The position might be opening up. :lol:

[KingCoyote]

ColoradoKares:

Let me update my resume! (LOL)

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

I am ready to begin posting Data (aka: evidence) to build our Database.

A few procedural points are in order;

1. Please feel free to invite any posters from other forums if you feel they would be interested or of particular benefit to this project.

2. I will post all of the entries in my proposed Database so you may see the flow of the entire Database.

3. Each Posting of Data will have a title for descriptive and tracking purposes. The first posting will start with about 15 Entries and we will adjust to more or less as is possible from the discussion. I may direct you to certain Data that I need special comment on within each posting.

4. There are four areas of possible comment on each Entry. I suggest that you only comment on the entries you take exception to or feel that comment is necessary. If you agree with it, go to the next entry. That will speed things up.

a. Does the Data (aka: Evidence) exist?

b. If it does exist, what is the source of the data or is the source listed agreeable to you? (If no source can be obtained the Data will be eliminated from the list.)

c. Is the Data relevant to the crime? (If not, it will be eliminated.)

d. Do you have additional Data, related to this field of Data, which you feel should be discussed? (If so, we will repeat steps a., b., and c. with your Data.) I may request that you "hold that thought" until a later time as the Data may appear then.

This set of Data has to do with initial timelines and clothing present within that Timeline.

Please refer to previous posts of Explanatory Notes and Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms when necessary.

NEXT POST: DATA

KingCoyote

[nuisanceposter]

What if there's dissent between members as to whether the evidence exists or not (specific example: fiber evidence placing Patsy and John in the crime scene on JonBenet's body)? It was brought up in an interview, but as none of us have ever seen the report from CBI pertaining to the fiber evidence, some of us doubt the fiber evidence truly exists in the first place.

[KingCoyote]

Hello Forum Members:

Here is my first attempt at posting Data to build a Database.

NOTE: The numbering system corresponds to my current Database. Formatting such as indentation and parenthetical reference which may indicate category/subcategory style of Database development has been deleted to expedite the posting.

NOTE:Order of Data posted is not meant to indicate any opinion or theory on the part KingCoyote which supports any RDI/IDI theory as to hypothesized Timeline or Participants. The Database has flexibility to remove any topic from one point in the Timeline to any other point in the TimeLine to accommodate any theory.


DATA.............................................. ..................................SOURCE

24. TimeLine - Intruder Entry............................................. ....XXXXX
25. Means of Intruder Entry............................................. ......XXXXX
26. TimeLine - Ramsey Arrival Home 12/25 9-9:15PM..................JR97IV
27. JBR - Ascension to Bed............................................... .....XXXXX
28. JR Stmt. - Carried JBR to Bed............................................JR/PR97IV
29. PR Stmt. - Redressed JBR - Blk pants to longjohns................PR97IV
30. BR Stmt. - JBR walked up Spiral Stairs to bed......................ST335
31. TimeLine - PR retires to bed/asleep 930-10PM.....................PR97IV
32. TimeLine - JR retires to bed/asleep 1030-1040PM.................JR97IV
33. JR Stmt. - Took Melatonin to sleep better...........................JR97IV
34. Clothing - PR - Red/Black/Grey Jacket worn on 12/25............PR97IV
35. Clothing - JR - Black Israeli Wool Shirt worn on 12/25...........GenKldge
36. Clothing - JR - Blue Bathrobe in Liv. Rm on 12/26.................???????
37. Jewelry - PR - Wore rings to bed 12/25..............................PR97IV

Comment: The 1997 interview of PR and JR with LE as reported via link in Acandyrose website did not contain page numbers.

Comment: Athough it is believed to be General Knowledge that JR wore a black Israeli wool shirt on 12/25 I could not find any source where JR has actually stated that he did. Can you help?

Comment: The Blue Bathrobe evidence is lurking somewhere in the back of my mind. I am not sure where I got that.

Lets see if this type of posting works. If it doesn't, its back to the drawing board.

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

NuisancePoster:

You bring up one of the very cogent points of the process.

My thoughts on your question are as follows:

As to the existence of evidence, the preference and presumption will be to include the evidence unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to deny the existence. In the event there are conflicting statements as to the existence of the evidence, the evidence will be included and the theorist must utilize or dismiss the evidence based upon the weight of the credibility of the conflicting sources.

In your specific instance one may argue that attorneys who assert evidence in an interview would be more credible than police officers since attorneys are bound by a code of ethics not to engage in dishonesty where police officers can use trickery to get suspects to confess.

Others may argue that attorneys have little credibility by virtue of their mere occupation and that they believe the conflicting source that the evidence does not "for a fact" exist, which by the way was an attorney.

My above comments are no way intended to assert any theory as to this crime. They are merely examples to answer your question and elaborate for understanding of the process I have introduced.

KingCoyote

[Athena]

Hello Forum Members:

Here are the Explanatory Notes for the first section of the Outline:

1. First let me clearly state that I have no authority to "rule" on any issue regarding the Outline. This outline is not being presented to be my outline but, rather, an outline to facilitate the theory development process. I am sure someone will have to "make a decision" at some point(s) within the discussions and I suppose that will have to be me since I created this monster. I can only console you with the fact that I haven't gotten everything I wanted in this life either.

2. Establishing a Database is dull, boring, tedious and to put it bluntly, grunt work. But it will serve certain purposes. It will provide a uniform source of evidence which "theorists" must account for. The proponent of the theory must either utilize the Data or dismiss the Data with Rationale, a subject we will come to much later. It will also create a quick reference for "Newbies" who haven't had the time to research all of the sources some veteran posters have already labored through.

3. Two things helped me develop this process with objective determination. Those two things are the incontrovertible conclusions about this matter at which I have arrived. They are:

a. JonBenet Ramsey is dead
b. I do not know who caused her death

When I began to weaken in my determination I remembered that an adorable six year old child was brutally killed. That fact should never be forgotten and I reminded myself of a. above.

When I began to lean toward IDI or RDI and found it possible to slant the Database by leaving out innocuous information or "pile on" information for one side or the other, I simply reminded myself of b. above.

4. The Sources I have used to Source what Data I have collected are:

a. Court Documents such as Depositions and Order(s) in civil cases such as the Order for Summary Judgment (Carnes) in the Wolf v. Ramsey Civil Case with attendant Statements of Material Fact (SMF) etc.

b. Law Enforcement Interviews

c. Search Warrants

d. The Autopsy Report and Published Photos

e. Pubished Photos of Ransom Note and Crime Scene

f. Paperback Books: Perfect Murder, Perfect Town , Schiller
Death of Innocence, Ramseys
Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Thomas

Some of my sourcing is obviously incomplete. I need page numbers, links, etc. Some of the sourcing could be more authoritative. A statement by an author from a paperback would not be as good as a statement by the party from a Law Enforcement Interview.

5. Elimination of Data

a. Non-verifiable Data: We surely don't want to include Data that really doesn't exist. There must be a source for everything. I don't like the category of "General Knowledge" as a source but I have fallen back on it a few times. We don't want to fall into the trap of "Urban Legends." Simply because the story has been told many, many times doesn't make it true.

b. Relevancy of Data:This is going to be tough. The easiest way to classify Data as Irrelevant is for a unanimous decision that the Data is truly an "artifact" and has nothing to do with the crime. (Get a Grip KingCoyote)
If we can't do that we must fall back on what I believe to be a legal standard for relevancy. (Not that I have more than enough knowledge about the law to be anything but extremely dangerous but we do need some guidelines, if for nothing else, just for this exercise.) The way I understand relevancy is that there is a balancing between probative value and prejudicial value of the Data/Evidence. I will just wade through this one as the need arises. Bear with me. Your comments and patience will be appreciated.

6. Limiting "Expert" Data: We want to refrain, if at all possible, from inlcuding Data that is solely the conclusion of one expert when there is no "counter" expert available. Where the Data comes in because of two competing experts we will include the Data and delay the discussion of its "weight" until the Section on Theory Development and Defense comes up.

The purpose of the Database portion is to look at the forest and simply count the trees, categorize the trees and list them in some order. We want to analyze the forest from a standpoint of trees not analyze each individiual tree, root, leaf etc. We can come back at another time to our analysis of the "minutae." Does that make sense to anyone besides me? [Rhetorical, self effacing question:think about it]

{Maybe I should say we are counting the alligators in the swamp to see if we really want to find ourselves up to our neck in alligators when all we wanted to do was drain the swamp} OK OK...I will stop with the cliches and comparisons

7. Manage the Data: Here comes a circular portion of the Outline. If you begin to manage the Data in a Chronological fashion first, as I have, then you must define your largest Stages of the Corpus Delicti (CD). I chose to define my Stages as Pre CD, CD, and Post CD. Then I realized that I needed to Establish a TimeFrame for the CD to know what comes before it and what comes after it from a Chronolgogical standpoint.

For purposes of allocating Data to a Stage of the CD I have chosen the following flexible TimeFrame to accomodate both RDI and IDI.

Begin TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder entry nor later than Ramseys arrival home from White party

End TimeFrame: No earlier than Intruder exit nor later than Ramseys leaving home after discovery of body.

We will go into these more deeply at a later stage and the general TimeFrame may change. Stay with me, now.

I found it easier to establish the Data of the CD first, then the PreCD and the PostCD second. We will come back to these Stages later.

You will also see that I began to arrange the Data by Location within the house. There are only four floors to the house so I started at the top in the bedrooms and kind of worked my way down to the basement. I also found that some bits of Data began to form Topics of Data and some bits of Data were too broad and neeed sub topics. Those will start to show up.

8. Add Additional Data as Necessary: This is a two edged sword in a couple of ways. Data can be of benefit to one side, while of detriment to the other side; or it can be of benefit to both sides; or it can be of detriment to both sides; or it can be both benefit and detriment to both sides. As a personal caution, be careful about introducing Data that comes back to haunt you. On a more objective note no Data will be dismissed simply because it is damaging to one side nor will it be admitted simply because it is beneficial to one side. How I am going to make that decision, I don't know yet. Just bear with me. This is a learning process for me too.

Also remember one of the ultimate goals of this project and that is to establish a Database of Evidence that all parties must account for in his/her respective theories. "Account for" means you must use it to support your theory or dismiss it with Rationale, a term which will be better defined later. The more Data you enter, the more you have to account for.

9. Develop an Index of Abbreviations and Acronyms : Next Post

KingCoyote

Peeking in from work. Great idea - am looking forward to your database and in participating.

[KingCoyote]

Athena:

Thanks...the first part of the Database was entered this morning. I am looking forward to your participation.

KingCoyote

[TuscanDreams]

Good luck in your endeavors. This case was a train wreck from the moment that Linda Ardnt wasn't allowed back up and the crime scene had people walking all over it.

[KingCoyote]

Tuscan Dreams:

Thanks, I agree fully, but I believe that order can come from chaos.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Good luck in your endeavors. This case was a train wreck from the moment that Linda Ardnt wasn't allowed back up and the crime scene had people walking all over it.
What do you mean by "when Linda Arndt wasn't allowed back up..."?

Love your screen name!!

[KingCoyote]

Linda A:

I know you are replying to TuscanDreams comment about Linda Arndt not being allowed backup. I would have said that she was not provided backup. I just happened to be reading PMPT by Schiller when I saw your post. Page 15 of the paperback edition states that Linda Arndt was the only officer in the Ramsey house for two hours and twenty seven minutes.

[LindaA]

I am aware of that, but when I read she was not "allowed back up" with the space between "back" and "up" I couldn't think what she meant. When you use the word "provided" it's perfectly clear. Thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes: e:

[KingCoyote]

Hi Members:

I am still working on my Database, which is now up to 280+ entries. There are eleven (11) entries for which I have absolutely no source. The entries could be "urban legends" or valid. Let me list them and if you have a source, link, citation, etc. please reply.

1. JBR ill on 12/23 or 12/24 or 12/25 and stayed inside one afternoon
2. JR clothing - Blue bathrobe on living room floor on 12/26
3. JBR Bed - Creatine on sheets - (which sheets?...see PMPT 729)
4. JBR Clothing - Black jacket worn to FW party
5. Basement-Wine Cellar - Palm print belonged to Melinda Ramsey
6. Basement-Train Room - Partial footprint on suitcase
7. Weapon-Golf club with blonde hair
8. Weapon-Brick with fibers
9. Duct Tape - Lack of fingerprints
10. Swiss Army Knife - Traces of Duct Tape on blade
11. Dolls - Doll ordered after JBR death; delivered to Access Graphics

If I can ever get a good hold on this Database monster I am creating I may be willing to initially provide it privately via email to those who wish to see it. Let me know if you would be interested in receiving an updated draft. I do not think I would ever be able to actually post such a long document. I am still too much of computer "Dodo" to have figured out how attach it in a Forum Post.

I await your replies. Thanks in advance.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

King,
I don't think you can post attachments here. You can send it to those interested as a private message, I believe. I'd love to see it when it is finished to your satisfaction.

[KingCoyote]

Linda:
Thanks for the information about attachments. I will put your name on a list for private receipt of a rough draft of the Database. It may be a few days and it will never be finalized. It will always be a work in progress.

KingCoyote

[thewhitewitch1]

Linda:
Thanks for the information about attachments. I will put your name on a list for private receipt of a rough draft of the Database. It may be a few days and it will never be finalized. It will always be a work in progress.

KingCoyote

Can you please add me to your list too? Thanks in advance!

[KingCoyote]

Whitewitch:

Will Do!

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

I'd like to see your rough draft too
Thanks

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

I will put you on the list. Thanks for the second reply; I missed your first request. It is coming together slowly but I will get there soon.

CC to LindaA and Thewhitewitch1:

By the way, the Database of Information is in Microsoft Works xlr. I hope you can download to Microsoft Works or a compatible format. Two explanatory documents will come with the Database of Information that are in Microsoft Word .doc format.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

KC, I have Works on my laptop. I can just transfer the document with a thumb drive. Thanks so much.

[KingCoyote]

To Those who have requested a copy of my Database Work;

I can find no way to Attach Files or Documents to a Private Message. I also find no way to email you through information found in your forum profile. It appears that the email function for this forum is not enabled. That is a shame because that function would hide your email address from any sender.

In any event there is no way for me to get the copies of what I have to you unless you voluntarily provide me your email in a Private Message.

I will make this pledge: I will only email you upon your specific Private Message request. I will email you updates to the documents only; I will not initiate any other emails to you that do not obtain either links to an updated document or information with which you can update your document.

I am not requesting that anyone provide me with anything. If you so desire I will Private Message you my email address first and take the chance that you know more about who I am first rather than I know more about you first.
I am willing to take that chance.

If someone has a better suggestion, I am all ears.


KingCoyote

[GrrlPwer]

Hey KC,
I applaud your scientific and logical approach to this case. Perhaps you should consider running for DA of Boulder.:)

I was thinking the same thing lol

[KingCoyote]

WOW! I am definitely updating my resume now...I have two votes! LOL

[KingCoyote]

I thought I would start to use this thread for a few comments from my analyses rather that use several new small threads.

1. We all know that there was a red heart, or something similar, drawn on one of JBR's palms. We don't know who drew it, when, why or for that matter where the pen is that was used.

There are PR's statements in her 98 Interview at PP. 197-207 (circa) about PR seeing the heart "the next morning" that morning apparently being a reference to the morning of 12/26. (I don't remember any statements about PR seeing the red heart when she went to JBR's body in the Living Room early that afternoon.) In the interview PR goes on to comment about the heart being a pretty good little heart and well drawn. She comes back the next day and retracts/qualifies her statements.

These statements have given rise to a lot of thoughts in my mind and I wouldn't mind hearing other member's comments.

Another reference about hearts is in the Bonita Papers. I realize there is a lot of controversy over the accuracy of these papers but I am not willing to go so far as to totally dismiss the papers as having no truth whatsoever. Anyway, the papers indicate that PR regularly drew hearts on JBR.

2. The next 'red heart' situation connects to the October 1995 Issue of the Boulder Co. Bus. Report where JR is pictured with other local businesspeople receiving an award. Apparently there is a red heart drawn around JR's face with the word 'Yes' and the word 'No" next to or on the other people's faces (or something to that effect).

In DOI P.3 JR refers to JBR not being able to read and BR helping JBR with the Christmas tags. I am not sure how much JBR could read or write as far as printing versus cursive writing goes but I am wondering how much she could read, write or print some 14 months earlier.

There also seems to be some issue as to where this report was found in the house and what type of folder it was in. In the 1998 JR Interview at Pages 263-268 (circa) Lou Smit is not sure what type of folder the report is found in and is somewhat hesitant to discuss it location. The hesitancy could be that Lou Smit just isn't sure where it was found or it could be connected to the finding of photocopies/photos/pictures of JBR which seemed to have been found in the basement and discussed at circa P. 268 of the JR Interview. I also "sensed" a hesitancy to disclose in a record or transcript everything that was being discussed in these interviews. Lou Smit used a strange term when he said "I'll try to sign today. Was LS signing off on documents for exhibits or using sign language to mute any particular statements from being included in the transcript? Could this report with the red heart have been found in the basement with some proximity to the body?
That would be interesting!

Finally as to the pen that may have drawn the hearts. I know of no discussion in the Interviews specifically about a red pen; if someone has a cite please post it. The only somewhat 'mysterious' pen I found discussed was in the 1998 PR Interview at P. 434 (circa). Here there is a picture of an open drawer in JBR's bath. (This open drawer seems to be confirmed by LHP's comments in PMPT 727) In the open drawer, which is JBR's panty drawer, there is discussion about a pen/pencil/magicmarker in the panty drawer. Although PR states that it may have just fallen in there, she does consider it unusual for a pen to be there. Does anybody have any more information about this pen or any other references to red pens?

KingCoyote :read:

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
There also seems to be some issue as to where this report was found in the house and what type of folder it was in. In the 1998 JR Interview at Pages 263-268 (circa) Lou Smit is not sure what type of folder the report is found in and is somewhat hesitant to discuss it location. The hesitancy could be that Lou Smit just isn't sure where it was found or it could be connected to the finding of photocopies/photos/pictures of JBR which seemed to have been found in the basement and discussed at circa P. 268 of the JR Interview. I also "sensed" a hesitancy to disclose in a record or transcript everything that was being discussed in these interviews. Lou Smit used a strange term when he said "I'll try to sign today. Was LS signing off on documents for exhibits or using sign language to mute any particular statements from being included in the transcript? Could this report with the red heart have been found in the basement with some proximity to the body?
That would be interesting!

[...]

KingCoyote :read:

20 LOU SMIT: I'll try to sign specifically
21 today where that was found. I had an idea where it
22 was found, but I don't want to say it because I'm
23 not sure and I'd rather (INAUDIBLE).
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Could you tell us, when
25 you've
0270
1 seen the larger photograph, could you see what
2 this scrawling is?
3 LOU SMIT: I haven't been able to make
4 that out as yet. It's kind of a scrawl.

I'm wondering if that's a typo and what he really said was :"I'll try to find specifically today where that was found"

But what also caught my eye is there appears to have been some sort of handwriting in addition to the "no, no, no" on the pictures.


23 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it's got Ray. It's
24 got "no, no, no" written on the three faces, one
25 of whom is the guy from Corporate Express, I
0264
1 think. What does it say? "Heart" "Two Hearts."
2 Where was this found?

and Lous Smit says (from 1st quote above)

24 JOHN RAMSEY: Could you tell us, when
25 you've
0270
1 seen the larger photograph, could you see what
2 this scrawling is?
3 LOU SMIT: I haven't been able to make
4 that out as yet. It's kind of a scrawl.

[KingCoyote]

Thanks Louisa...you are so quick and good with those quotes and I am such a computer/internet dummy I am surprised I can find my way back to the forum each morning...I like your idea that the word 'sign' may be 'find'. I do tend to take some things very literally and look waaaaaay between the lines to see if anything is suspicious...

KC

P.S. I think PR made out the scrawl to read YES in her interview and it appears to be just a reference to a heart as opposed to an actual heart drawn.... I need to start "factchecking" my notes a little better...thanks again for the clarification

[Louisadelmar]

One of the most useful things I found is I strung all of Patsy's interviews together in a single Word file (John's in another) and I made the text of each separate interview a different color. It's easy to search for stuff and I can tell immediately which interview it came from.

[User615]

I wish you luck on this, and hope it will eventually make sense. I think there are only two basic ways to solve crimes, facts and motivation. There seems to be a trail of evidence that no one can make sense of, so I hope you spend some time on motivation. I can certainly play "Devil's Adovocate" in that area, just don't take offense. I am cynical by nature. Too much of this case makes no sense at all. Ready when you are.

[bullmoose]

Too much of this case makes no sense at all if looked at from a conventional viewpoint. If a person looks at this case as an elaborately staged murder/frame-up committed by a person or persons unknown to throw suspician on the Ramseys, then to me at least there appears to be a pattern. IMO, anyways. The problem I have always had is the obvious picking of the Ramseys as the only suspects from 12/26/96 at 1:30PM onward. Statistically, it makes sense to start close, then work out as a case progresses. In this case, IMO, tunnelvision prevented the BPD from ever seriously considering any evidence that didn't support their theory; the BPD caused the Ramseys and their friends to become wary from the start, trying to hold the body illegally; questioning Burke illegally at Fleet White's house that day, spreading the false story to the press that they were not cooperative, when they had given samples already; telling the press and the Boulder mayor that there was no killer/s on the loose in Boulder{The Ramseys being in Atlanta at the time] etc. IMO, the BPD botched the case from day one.

[Zoey]

One of the most useful things I found is I strung all of Patsy's interviews together in a single Word file (John's in another) and I made the text of each separate interview a different color. It's easy to search for stuff and I can tell immediately which interview it came from.


What an excellent idea. You are so quick to bring these interviews up, that I was very impressed. Thank you for the tip!

[Louisadelmar]

You're welcome. Now if someone can just go back in time and teach those typists how to spell...

[KingCoyote]

User615:

Please read my Post 122 on Page 4 in the Thread "Parents Who Kill" initiated by Louisadelmar. I have listed about 30 indications and contraindications of possible "rage" evidence including holiday stress activities, dynamics of the relationship between JBR and PR as well as some brief medical information. It was intended to be an introductory look at the possible motive as espoused by Steve Thomas. I have no background in criminal psychology much less psychology in general except for one basic Psych. course in college. If you wish to offer comments, suggestions or opinions as to anything I have listed or wish to add or delete some entries to the list I have started I will be glad to consider anything.

KingCoyote

[User615]

User615:

Please read my Post 122 on Page 4 in the Thread "Parents Who Kill" initiated by Louisadelmar. I have listed about 30 indications and contraindications of possible "rage" evidence including holiday stress activities, dynamics of the relationship between JBR and PR as well as some brief medical information. It was intended to be an introductory look at the possible motive as espoused by Steve Thomas. I have no background in criminal psychology much less psychology in general except for one basic Psych. course in college. If you wish to offer comments, suggestions or opinions as to anything I have listed or wish to add or delete some entries to the list I have started I will be glad to consider anything.

KingCoyote
Certainly the holidays are a time of stress. You can't overlook that factor. My ex and filed for divorce right after the New Year...getting through the Xmas thing. They were scheduled to leave for a long vacation together, which could have added more to the problem. I have never been comfortable with the idea a "stranger" was in the house and taking all this time to write notes, etc. I can't even fathom trying to kidnap someone while the parents are one floor up. If their motive was to kidnap why not get the heck out immediately? Why show up to kidnap someone without a ransome note already written? Too many strange events.....

[KingCoyote]

Too much of this case makes no sense at all if looked at from a conventional viewpoint. If a person looks at this case as an elaborately staged murder/frame-up committed by a person or persons unknown to throw suspician on the Ramseys, then to me at least there appears to be a pattern. IMO, anyways. The problem I have always had is the obvious picking of the Ramseys as the only suspects from 12/26/96 at 1:30PM onward. Statistically, it makes sense to start close, then work out as a case progresses. In this case, IMO, tunnelvision prevented the BPD from ever seriously considering any evidence that didn't support their theory; the BPD caused the Ramseys and their friends to become wary from the start, trying to hold the body illegally; questioning Burke illegally at Fleet White's house that day, spreading the false story to the press that they were not cooperative, when they had given samples already; telling the press and the Boulder mayor that there was no killer/s on the loose in Boulder{The Ramseys being in Atlanta at the time] etc. IMO, the BPD botched the case from day one.

Bullmoose:

I can fully understand your position but respectfully speaking most of that is water under the bridge and there is nothing we can do to change the past, we can only learn from it and try not to repeat our mistakes.

I would like to comment on the statistical aspects of this case. If the figures quoted by ST in his book are correct, 54% of child murders are committed by family members and 6% are committed by strangers. I suppose that leaves 40% which are committed by friends, acquaintances, associates, employees, etc.

There seems to be a close race between the 54% category and the 40% category which would warrant approximately equal time being given to both categories, first and foremost. I would also point out that the high correlation between murdered children and family members having committed the murder is merely a statistical correlation and must be further analyzed for cause effect relationship.

Such other important determinants for choosing a family member as your prime suspect are poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, childhood abuse of family member suspected, young parental age, mental illness, domestic violence and non biological parents. (I got those from JR in DOI P 315 Paperback edition...but I knew a few of them on my own...but not all). You don't have to look hard in this case to pretty much find a complete lack of those determinants for cause-effect relationship within the family. You may find some within the 40% category.

Statistical and scientific analysis is a funny thing though. It can cut both ways. For instance, it has been said that PR's rating on the handwriting analysis was a 4.5 out of 5.0 as to her NOT having written the ransom note (RN). Well, that leaves a 10% chance that she did write the RN which gives us a greater chance (a 66.6% greater chance) that PR wrote the note than the chance of a stranger/intruder/pedophile having killed JBR (6%). 'Bootstrap' a little and couple that chance with the determinant that PR cannot totally be eliminated with 70+ people's handwriting being examined and the fact that she is a family member and you do have PR as a suspect, statistically one pretty high up the list too.

Statistics sure can say funny things and be used in many strange ways and as I have mentioned before, some refer to the field of statistics as "those damn lies."

KingCoyote

[User615]

Try this one on. Before I get too confused reading all the books on this case, this is from 3 hours of reading threads and a few links. Just a "what if" mind you, and I do have doubts because I am going to speculate PR did this.

John takes a sleeping pill, so she knows he will probably be out. The ransom note does seem personal, twice calling John by his name, after starting out with Mr. Ramsey. (A flow of emotions?). The note is written at their home, with materials found there. PR entices JBR downstairs with the promise of a pineapple treat. This is so she goes quietly with no protest. The sloppy job of her death indicates a female attempted this, and wasn't as overpowering. I think at some point she lost control of the attempt, JBR cried out, and was struck on the head to silence her. The clumsy use of the garrotte, duct tape, etc. makes me think this was someone emotionally involved, and not "on a mission" of kidnapping. She wasn't going to crawl out that window, so it didn't matter what was put there.

Motivation: John receives his bonus check, and puts it all in one account. This is a loose end, so bear with me. I suspect is was not a joint account, but maybe someone can help with this. This is a slap in the face, not dividing it equally with her. They are getting ready to leave to go visit his relatives, and this certainly will prevent that trip. Another loose end I have is why get rid of JBR? Does this deprive JR somehow? Does it cover something else up? Was he molesting her and PR did this to protect JR? Then in turn did JR realize she this and help protect her? I hate to accuse anyone falsely, so someone blow some holes in this theory.

[KingCoyote]

Just a few comments on your idea:

If PR is enticing JBR downstairs with pineapple to kill JBR for whatever reason, remember that you have to wait about 1 and 1/2 hours or maybe 2 hours for the pineapple to reach her intestines. Thats a looooooong time to hold any kind of thoughts about killing your daughter. A lot of time to think about it. The emotion has to be unbelievably strong.

As to any financial disputes between JR and PR there just isn't any history to support this. In fact the opposite may be true. JR rarely pulled in the financial reins on PR that I know of. The worst I ever heard reported was a slightly sarcastic statement by JR that PR spent more remodeling the house than it cost to buy it.

As far as having separate checking accounts I have no knowledge of that. I do know that professional estate planners recommend NOT having too much in joint type accounts because it can mess up your tax liabilities after one party dies.

As far as taking it out on JBR for JR molesting JBR that just seems to have the target backwards. Wouldn't you go after JR before you go after the victim of molestation. You would have to have PR very much in a twisted frame of mind for that motive. There really isn't any all that much evidence of prior molestation and what we have is still controversial. That is not to say a mother cannot sense things that may have been happening that we just don't know about.

I really have difficulty finding a motive. When I posted my thoughts about possible motivation regarding rage in the thread Parents who Kill, it really didn't look like a lot of possibility for rage existed. In fact it would have been easy to say just the opposite: there was strong evidence of no rage. Millions of families have a lot of things going on at Christmas. Wealthy people may have a few more because of their status but the Rs activities were a push but not totally unmanageable. Just because PR pushed hard in the pageant thing, it really did not appear to go to the nth degree. 3rd parties saw it as PR's obsession but not necessarily directed at JBR with a vengeance. I saw it as no more than a father who pushes his son at sports hoping the son will get a college scholarship or maybe become the next sports superstar. That is very common in today's society and there aren't a lot of fathers who are killing their sons over sports issues.

Keep working on it but I will tell you that IMO finding a motive in this case is reeeeaaaaaal difficult. Sorting out the mess of possible evidence isn't real easy either.

KingCoyote

[Zoey]

Try this one on. Before I get too confused reading all the books on this case, this is from 3 hours of reading threads and a few links. Just a "what if" mind you, and I do have doubts because I am going to speculate PR did this.

John takes a sleeping pill, so she knows he will probably be out. The ransom note does seem personal, twice calling John by his name, after starting out with Mr. Ramsey. (A flow of emotions?). The note is written at their home, with materials found there. PR entices JBR downstairs with the promise of a pineapple treat. This is so she goes quietly with no protest. The sloppy job of her death indicates a female attempted this, and wasn't as overpowering. I think at some point she lost control of the attempt, JBR cried out, and was struck on the head to silence her. The clumsy use of the garrotte, duct tape, etc. makes me think this was someone emotionally involved, and not "on a mission" of kidnapping. She wasn't going to crawl out that window, so it didn't matter what was put there.

Motivation: John receives his bonus check, and puts it all in one account. This is a loose end, so bear with me. I suspect is was not a joint account, but maybe someone can help with this. This is a slap in the face, not dividing it equally with her. They are getting ready to leave to go visit his relatives, and this certainly will prevent that trip. Another loose end I have is why get rid of JBR? Does this deprive JR somehow? Does it cover something else up? Was he molesting her and PR did this to protect JR? Then in turn did JR realize she this and help protect her? I hate to accuse anyone falsely, so someone blow some holes in this theory.

John did not just receive this bonus in December of 1996. He received it the first of the year 1996. Patsy said in one of her interviews that John took care of the finances, she had no idea what was coming and going. I don't think it was a matter of not sharing, she just didn't pay any attention to it.

[shill]

So there was almost a year for people to find out about the bonus, and the amount of the bonus appeared on every paycheck stub John received during that year.

[bullmoose]

To King Coyote: My last post was made in response to User615, who does not have a strong background in the accepted facts of the case,not to you. There was nothing in my post directed to or at you, just User 615, who needs to slow down a little and read a couple of the books written on the case before espousing his/her theories too wildly. I have to agree with you that crime statistics are an interesting bunch of numbers, so are statistics in sports; but you don't win games on statistics, you win them by final scores. Crimes are not solved by statistics, although they might help; crimes are solved by evidence of guilt gathered by competent cops or investigators; which is then judged by jury and/or judge to be sufficient to convict.

[LindaA]

To Poster615:
John did not take a sleeping pill Christmas night. I took a melatonin, which is not a narcotic and would not have zonked him.

[KingCoyote]

Bullmoose;

I don't think statistics can solve crimes either but they can give me probabilities as to what happened and who did it. Since I am kind of in the field of statistics I have done some reading on Economic Analysis and wrongdoing. One of the more interesting books is Freakonomics by Dr. Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner where they discovered the cheating methods used by Chicago school teachers to help the students pass standardized achievement tests. I know that Dr. Levitt was approached by Homeland Security for crime determination and prediction. I think that the TV show NUMBERS is a takeoff on Math and Crime and may not be far from being a wave of the future in criminal investigation.

Ah...the wonderful things computers can do for us...

KingCoyote

[nuisanceposter]

As far as taking it out on JBR for JR molesting JBR that just seems to have the target backwards. Wouldn't you go after JR before you go after the victim of molestation. You would have to have PR very much in a twisted frame of mind for that motive.

But there's an interesting dynamic in molestation of family members protecting the molester and blaming the victim for the molestation. I can't tell you how many people I have heard from who have said that exact thing - they were reviled for the molestation while the molester wasn't, even when the molester was their own father. There are countless cases like this where the child's mother knew the child was being molested and harbored anger and resentment for the child, as if the victim was a rival and not a victim at all.

If PR knew JR was molesting JBR and chose to see her as the "enemy" and not JR, that would fit right in with all of the other cases of that going on I have heard of. I'm not saying that was the case here, but if it was, it was hardly out of the norm for that kind of situation. Mothers suspecting or knowing their child is being molested and then blaming the child and not the molester for it happens all too often.

[Louisadelmar]

Bullmoose;

I don't think statistics can solve crimes either but they can give me probabilities as to what happened and who did it. Since I am kind of in the field of statistics I have done some reading on Economic Analysis and wrongdoing. One of the more interesting books is Freakonomics by Dr. Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner where they discovered the cheating methods used by Chicago school teachers to help the students pass standardized achievement tests. I know that Dr. Levitt was approached by Homeland Security for crime determination and prediction. I think that the TV show NUMBERS is a takeoff on Math and Crime and may not be far from being a wave of the future in criminal investigation.

Ah...the wonderful things computers can do for us...

KingCoyote

I thought these were interesting sites. Unfortunately the second link no longer works and I can't get the numbers to line up appropriately. But you can realign them for yourselves.

http://christianparty.net/juststat.htm
This seems to be a pro-fathers website. Statistically more mothers kill their children than fathers. They neglected to include a chart on the age of the child since I suspect many of the mother killings are caused by post-partum psychosis. HOWEVER, about halfway down they do have a chart on violence done to children and family income that is interesting.

http://www.kidsafenetwork.com/statistics.htm
..............Family Acquaintance Stranger Unknown
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Age:
< 1 year....... 31.2 4.8 1.4 6.9
1-4 ........... 36.3 17.0 6.4 9.9
5-14 .......... 22.6 20.6 25.0 21.0
15-17 ......... 9.95 7.6 67.3 62.3
Total number 10,795 13,060 4,006 9,092

Half of all child murders in 1994 were committed with a handgun; about 7 in 10 victims age 15 to 17 were killed with a handgun.
Source: FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-94

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

I can't get all the figures to total to 100% by row or column.... I do see that the 5-14 age group comes close to totalling to 100% by row and doesn't seem to indicate the figures that ST quoted in his book. But then again JBR was only 6 years and 4 months whereas that 5-14 age group skews very far away from her actual age to a much older age withing the range. The progressive change or perpetrators from family member/acquaintance to stranger/unknown as you get older is logical and therefore this wide of an age category (5-14) would be nonmeaningful to apply to JBR at 6. I tried to look at the younger category but it doesn't "foot" or total to 100% by row or column. Check your post....maybe it was just an input error.

Thanks

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Nuisance Poster;

Thanks for the comment...the problem with trying to predict human behavior is the human factor.

KC

[KingCoyote]

One more thing Louisa:

Were those figures just for murder or domestic violence as a whole?

KC

[Louisadelmar]

One more thing Louisa:

Were those figures just for murder or domestic violence as a whole?

KC

I don't know. I found it in 2003 and unnfortunately I just saved the link and the chart because it was the only one I'd ever seen with an age breakdown. I'll try later and see if I can find a way back to the original article. Maybe it was taken down because the numbers were incorrect. But right now we're fixing outdoor faucets that burst from the cold.

[KingCoyote]

I sympathize with the faucets. We have had torrential rains here and have found every leak in our 80 year old tile roof and a flat roof portion...my car doesn't like the cold either....we can't find the oil leak when it is warm in the middle of the day....only in the morning when I start it up....Ya know...everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it....(was that Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens?)

KC

[Louisadelmar]

Try this:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvvoatv.pdf

Fig. 17, page 17. There is a bar graph and the table I posted is right above it.

[Louisadelmar]

Actually the bar graph is more interesting than the table.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

WOW...that report could keep me occupied for a loooooooooong time....
Thank you....thank you...thank you

Just a quick analysis tells me

1. ST's figures are somewhat off: I did a little combination of progression analysis and interpolation...quick rule of thumb stuff for the 1994 figures because they had a category of 5-9 year olds which would have less skew that the 5-14 year old group...and this is REAL ROUGH because I didn't have figures for each specific age:

% of children appx 6 years old killed by family member = 47% or so
" " " " " " " " acquaintance = 28% or so
" " " " " " " "stranger/unknown = 25% or so

Again that is real rough.... but unfortunately the family member is still up top but:

97% chance a man did it; 3% chance a woman did it but:
3.5% chance a man JR's age did it
2% chance a woman PR's age did it

I will continue to review that report in my spare time and let you know if my figures change with a much, much closer review....I may want to analyze the analysis for my own benefit....

KingCoyote

[User615]

Just a few comments on your idea:

If PR is enticing JBR downstairs with pineapple to kill JBR for whatever reason, remember that you have to wait about 1 and 1/2 hours or maybe 2 hours for the pineapple to reach her intestines. Thats a looooooong time to hold any kind of thoughts about killing your daughter. A lot of time to think about it. The emotion has to be unbelievably strong.

As to any financial disputes between JR and PR there just isn't any history to support this. In fact the opposite may be true. JR rarely pulled in the financial reins on PR that I know of. The worst I ever heard reported was a slightly sarcastic statement by JR that PR spent more remodeling the house than it cost to buy it.

As far as having separate checking accounts I have no knowledge of that. I do know that professional estate planners recommend NOT having too much in joint type accounts because it can mess up your tax liabilities after one party dies.

As far as taking it out on JBR for JR molesting JBR that just seems to have the target backwards. Wouldn't you go after JR before you go after the victim of molestation. You would have to have PR very much in a twisted frame of mind for that motive. There really isn't any all that much evidence of prior molestation and what we have is still controversial. That is not to say a mother cannot sense things that may have been happening that we just don't know about.

I really have difficulty finding a motive. When I posted my thoughts about possible motivation regarding rage in the thread Parents who Kill, it really didn't look like a lot of possibility for rage existed. In fact it would have been easy to say just the opposite: there was strong evidence of no rage. Millions of families have a lot of things going on at Christmas. Wealthy people may have a few more because of their status but the Rs activities were a push but not totally unmanageable. Just because PR pushed hard in the pageant thing, it really did not appear to go to the nth degree. 3rd parties saw it as PR's obsession but not necessarily directed at JBR with a vengeance. I saw it as no more than a father who pushes his son at sports hoping the son will get a college scholarship or maybe become the next sports superstar. That is very common in today's society and there aren't a lot of fathers who are killing their sons over sports issues.

Keep working on it but I will tell you that IMO finding a motive in this case is reeeeaaaaaal difficult. Sorting out the mess of possible evidence isn't real easy either.

KingCoyote
Certainly the motive is going to be complicated, but who really knows what happens when a mind snaps? When a woman picks up a rock and kills her 3 sons...or one drowns her kids? I will admit I don't know the background, I was making a snap judgement before I got too swamped with information. The more I read the more confused I got, so I just let go a gut reaction. If PR suspected she wasn't going to survive ovarian cancer, maybe taking JBR away from JR was part of the motivation. Just little snippets tell me she wanted to be mixed in with JBR, but she was taking a back seat. While there may be no history of financial rifts, sometimes just the gesture is enough to cause resentment. I remember got ex got a large Xmas bonus, and instead of sitting down and deciding how we would spend it, she promptly went out and bought herself a new car. It didn't make me want to kill her, but let's say I was disappointed she didn't even offer to discuss it. Since the RN is part of the crime, and the bonus amount is the same as the ransom price, I have to conclude it was someone close to PR, and resentfull. While there are always the "usual" suspects...another mother jealous of JBR winning contests over her daughter, a housekeeper with a disdain for their wealth, then I have to keep looking at PR. As several have discussed, who would stay in a house that long and write a note if they weren't comfortable being there? Whey kill her if they wanted money? Too much doesn't fit at all. While it may be very complicated to unravel the motivation, there is just too much going on here for it to be a random act. Most people are able to feign a normal life, and very few know what goes on behind closed doors. Just the way JR carried her up the stairs at arms length says things to me....like look what you have done. There are some definate dynamics going on here. The timeline of the pineapple is vague, but I still feel it was a diversion. I am just throwing things out for Coyote to ponder, and anyone else. I just don't feel evidence is going to solve this case, but finding the motivation will.

[User615]

To Poster615:
John did not take a sleeping pill Christmas night. I took a melatonin, which is not a narcotic and would not have zonked him.

According to Newsweek® magazine -

"Melatonin is the all-natural nightcap. It's secreted by the pineal gland, a pea-size structure at the center of the brain, as our eyes register the fall of darkness.

"At night melatonin is produced to help our bodies regulate our sleep-wake cycles. The amount of it produced by our body seems to lessen as we get older. Scientists believe this may be why young people have less problem sleeping than older people.

"Studies suggest that... supplements can hasten sleep and ease jet lag, without the hazards or side effects of prescription sleeping pills."

[shill]

Bullmoose;

I don't think statistics can solve crimes either but they can give me probabilities as to what happened and who did it. Since I am kind of in the field of statistics I have done some reading on Economic Analysis and wrongdoing. One of the more interesting books is Freakonomics by Dr. Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner where they discovered the cheating methods used by Chicago school teachers to help the students pass standardized achievement tests. I know that Dr. Levitt was approached by Homeland Security for crime determination and prediction. I think that the TV show NUMBERS is a takeoff on Math and Crime and may not be far from being a wave of the future in criminal investigation.

Ah...the wonderful things computers can do for us...

KingCoyote
Any statistics are going to change for a crime committed in a unknown way.
What are the statistics for a parent killing their child with strangulation or head blow, tying her hands and raping her and then leaving a ransom note.

I believe this has never happened with a parent, so statistics would say that it could not be a parent because statistically it has never happened.

[shill]

But there's an interesting dynamic in molestation of family members protecting the molester and blaming the victim for the molestation. I can't tell you how many people I have heard from who have said that exact thing - they were reviled for the molestation while the molester wasn't, even when the molester was their own father. There are countless cases like this where the child's mother knew the child was being molested and harbored anger and resentment for the child, as if the victim was a rival and not a victim at all.

If PR knew JR was molesting JBR and chose to see her as the "enemy" and not JR, that would fit right in with all of the other cases of that going on I have heard of. I'm not saying that was the case here, but if it was, it was hardly out of the norm for that kind of situation. Mothers suspecting or knowing their child is being molested and then blaming the child and not the molester for it happens all too often.

Would this hold true for Bill McReynold's wife if she knew he was or wanted to molest JB.
Mrs. Clause would blame JB for tempting her husband, as maybe other little girls had tempted him in his past who died.

[LindaA]

According to Newsweek® magazine -

"Melatonin is the all-natural nightcap. It's secreted by the pineal gland, a pea-size structure at the center of the brain, as our eyes register the fall of darkness.

"At night melatonin is produced to help our bodies regulate our sleep-wake cycles. The amount of it produced by our body seems to lessen as we get older. Scientists believe this may be why young people have less problem sleeping than older people.

"Studies suggest that... supplements can hasten sleep and ease jet lag, without the hazards or side effects of prescription sleeping pills."

Yes, we are aware of the effects of melatonin. It has been discussed here at length. John did take it as a sleep aid, but I stand by my statement that it is not a narcotic. You notice that the article you posted says that it "can hasten sleep." this is quite different from narcotic sleeping pills.

[andU]

But.... what if it had been given to JB? Couldn't that have been the reason she was in such a deep sleep? This going back to the 'special plate' that had been prepared for her at the Whites'...

[KingCoyote]

User615:

I have no problem with your gut feelings about things...sometimes we all get so bogged down in the trees that we can't see the forest...keep trying..ya never know...a fresh mind could see something so obvious that the rest of us have missed us.

Shill: Even with statistics there are exceptions. Statistics are only a starting point...not a finishing point and cannot cover all possibilities and probabilities. The problem with statistics, as I have said before, is they cannot alway account for the "human factor" that humans are totally unpredictable and there is a first time for everything.

KingCoyote

[thewhitewitch1]

But.... what if it had been given to JB? Couldn't that have been the reason she was in such a deep sleep? This going back to the 'special plate' that had been prepared for her at the Whites'...

In my experience with Melatonin, it can cause different reactions in people. My sister, for instance, took a tab once to help her sleep and it had the opposite affect and made her hyper. My husband has said that it makes him feel "jittery" sometimes.
Melatonin is not a "drug" you would "slip" to anyone to "knock them out" because it doesn't "knock you out" anyway and you can't be sure what affect it's going to have on any given person.
How would the Whites get JRs Melatonin anyway? How would they know for sure that JB could eat the crab that night?
I can't help but notice that the Ramseys like to emphisize how "zonked" JB was and I feel they do it because they want LE to believe the story about being asleep in the car and from there to her bed and from that point on until they themselves went to bed. It's important for the LE to believe it because if she had been awake, there would have been some hard questions to answer. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

[...]While there may be no history of financial rifts, sometimes just the gesture is enough to cause resentment. I remember got ex got a large Xmas bonus, and instead of sitting down and deciding how we would spend it, she promptly went out and bought herself a new car. It didn't make me want to kill her, but let's say I was disappointed she didn't even offer to discuss it. Since the RN is part of the crime, and the bonus amount is the same as the ransom price, I have to conclude it was someone close to PR, and resentfull. [...].

As has been mentioned, the bonus was paid in Feb, 1996 and was deferred compensation so its unlikely it was the cause of resentment between Pand J.

There are very few who think this was just a random act of violence. Bit it would not surprise me if the bonus was the catalyst for someone who knew or worked for the Ramseys.

[andU]

In my experience with Melatonin, it can cause different reactions in people. My sister, for instance, took a tab once to help her sleep and it had the opposite affect and made her hyper. My husband has said that it makes him feel "jittery" sometimes.
Melatonin is not a "drug" you would "slip" to anyone to "knock them out" because it doesn't "knock you out" anyway and you can't be sure what affect it's going to have on any given person.
How would the Whites get JRs Melatonin anyway? How would they know for sure that JB could eat the crab that night?
I can't help but notice that the Ramseys like to emphisize how "zonked" JB was and I feel they do it because they want LE to believe the story about being asleep in the car and from there to her bed and from that point on until they themselves went to bed. It's important for the LE to believe it because if she had been awake, there would have been some hard questions to answer. IMO

WW1, I am not going to argue with you. You can only see your view and will not consider any other, so what is the point in making myself more clear?

[Louisadelmar]

In my experience with Melatonin, it can cause different reactions in people. My sister, for instance, took a tab once to help her sleep and it had the opposite affect and made her hyper. My husband has said that it makes him feel "jittery" sometimes.
Melatonin is not a "drug" you would "slip" to anyone to "knock them out" because it doesn't "knock you out" anyway and you can't be sure what affect it's going to have on any given person.
How would the Whites get JRs Melatonin anyway? How would they know for sure that JB could eat the crab that night?
I can't help but notice that the Ramseys like to emphisize how "zonked" JB was and I feel they do it because they want LE to believe the story about being asleep in the car and from there to her bed and from that point on until they themselves went to bed. It's important for the LE to believe it because if she had been awake, there would have been some hard questions to answer. IMO

My older son has to take melatonin in order to have a normal sleep pattern. Without it he falls back asleep in the bathroom, at the table, in his car etc. I just wish I had discovered the solution to his sleep problem while he was still in school. It made such a miraculous change in him that my daughter-in-law (his wife) tried it. Her reaction was like your sister's.

I think the reaction of my DIL and your sister is probably the exception. I certainly wasn't aware of the possibility until she told me how different her reaction was from my son's. So I don't think its impossible someone believed melatonin could be used as a sort of OTC mickey I don't think that's what happened here.

My bedwetter experience is bedwetters do seem to zonk-out more completely than non-bedwetters. After a full and happy day it doesn't strike me as odd that JonBenet would crash on the way home.

[nuisanceposter]

But JonBenet's condition wasn't just limited to bed-wetting, so that may have not been the case. She wet herself at any time of day, to the point where it was said her undies were always wet. Perhaps if she only wet herself while she was asleep I could see that, but she wet herself regardless of whether it was day or not - indicating that sleeping deeply and not waking up when her bladder was full was not the sole cause of her urinary incontinence. And just wetting herself wasn't the only issue, either - it was noted by Boulder County Sexual Abuse team member Holly Smith that most of her pairs of underwear were stained with fecal matter.

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1


I agree with TWW. The Rs, imo, kept saying JB was so "zonked" because they needed to adhere to the story that she was asleep when they arrived home to avoid answering questions they didn't want to.

[Tober]

What are the statistics for a parent killing their child with strangulation or head blow, tying her hands and raping her and then leaving a ransom note.

JonBenet wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. There is a difference.

[Louisadelmar]

JonBenet wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. There is a difference.

Depends on the state. I haven't checked CO law but there are a number of states where what was done would constitute rape.

[nuisanceposter]

JonBenet wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. There is a difference.

Good point, and one that should not be overlooked. None of the experts, including Coroner Meyer himself, believed JonBenet had been the victim of penile penetration. They all thought it was digital penetration, either finger or paintbrush, that incurred the wounds to her genitals that night.

And according to the description of her hymen and vagina, in connection with her known toileting issues and recurring need for treatment for painful urination and vaginitis, IMO the night she was killed was not the first and only time she had been sexually assaulted.

[Zoey]

JonBenet wasn't raped. She was sexually assaulted. There is a difference.



I would say by this definition of rape and sexual assault, that she was indeed raped, as a foreign object was used on her.


Rape: forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. It includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Sexual Assault: a wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.


http://www.swcp.com/nmcsaas/statistics.html

[Tober]

I would say by this definition of rape and sexual assault, that she was indeed raped, as a foreign object was used on her.

The reason John Karr was going to be charged with sexually assaulting JonBenet, is because the crime against her didn't meet Colorado's evidentiary threshold for rape.

[Louisadelmar]

http://www.duidenver.com/FAQ.shtml?ss=fln-faq-question.xsl#rape

What is the difference between rape and sexual assault?
Rape is often used as a generic term for unwanted sexual acts. However, historically its common-law definition required the sexual act to be intercourse, the rapist to be a man, and the victim to be a woman, other than his wife. Furthermore, the act had to be committed as a result of force or the threat of force. Common-law rules often required the rape to be corroborated by independent witnesses to negate the offender's defense of consent.
Many modern-day penal codes no longer use the term " rape" , but instead use sexual abuse or sexual assault to define the prohibited acts. Rape is covered by these statutes and may be designated as sexual abuse in the first degree. However, most sexual assault statutes cover intercourse as well as other sexual acts and apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Generally, husbands can be charged with sexual assault of their wives, although they may receive a lighter sentence than non-marital sexual assault. Lesser offenses, such as unwanted touching or lascivious acts may be included in the definition of sexual assault.

[thewhitewitch1]

WW1, I am not going to argue with you. You can only see your view and will not consider any other, so what is the point in making myself more clear?


Why do you think I am arguing with you? All I'm doing is discussing this. You have no evidence that she was drugged to back up your opinion. Did you think I was just going to agree with you? I know you don't agree with me and that's fine but I really didn't think we were arguing.

[Louisadelmar]

http://www.duidenver.com/FAQ.shtml?ss=fln-faq-question.xsl#rape

What is the difference between rape and sexual assault?
Rape is often used as a generic term for unwanted sexual acts. However, historically its common-law definition required the sexual act to be intercourse, the rapist to be a man, and the victim to be a woman, other than his wife. Furthermore, the act had to be committed as a result of force or the threat of force. Common-law rules often required the rape to be corroborated by independent witnesses to negate the offender's defense of consent.
Many modern-day penal codes no longer use the term " rape" , but instead use sexual abuse or sexual assault to define the prohibited acts. Rape is covered by these statutes and may be designated as sexual abuse in the first degree. However, most sexual assault statutes cover intercourse as well as other sexual acts and apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Generally, husbands can be charged with sexual assault of their wives, although they may receive a lighter sentence than non-marital sexual assault. Lesser offenses, such as unwanted touching or lascivious acts may be included in the definition of sexual assault.

This has a better pedigree:

http://www.cbi.state.co.us/dr/cic/definitions.htm
Forcible Rape - Forcible rape is defined as any sexual penetration directed against another person (including oral, anal or by use of an object) against that person’s will, regardless of the victim’s age. (Colorado Uniform Crime Reporting Definition). Beginning in 1996, the definition of rape used by Colorado law enforcement agencies was changed to more closely match the Colorado Revised Statutes. As a result, the new definition is broader than the definition used by the FBI. Therefore, the total number of rape offenses may appear larger than the national average and the total number of Colorado statewide offenses reported in prior years.

[thewhitewitch1]

My older son has to take melatonin in order to have a normal sleep pattern. Without it he falls back asleep in the bathroom, at the table, in his car etc. I just wish I had discovered the solution to his sleep problem while he was still in school. It made such a miraculous change in him that my daughter-in-law (his wife) tried it. Her reaction was like your sister's.

I think the reaction of my DIL and your sister is probably the exception. I certainly wasn't aware of the possibility until she told me how different her reaction was from my son's. So I don't think its impossible someone believed melatonin could be used as a sort of OTC mickey I don't think that's what happened here.

My bedwetter experience is bedwetters do seem to zonk-out more completely than non-bedwetters. After a full and happy day it doesn't strike me as odd that JonBenet would crash on the way home.

And on that note, it's entirely possible that she was so zonked out that she wet her bed, since Patsy claims not to have woken her up to use the bathroom. I understand that part of the problem of bed-wetters is that they sleep so soundly.
It doesn't strike me as odd that JB would be so tired either after her day.
It's just that knowing her history of bed wetting, it's easy to believe that one of two things happened that night. Either she wet her bed or Patsy got her up to use the bathroom, as was their routine. A third possibility is that even if JB was asleep when they got home, Patsy could have woke her up then to use the bathroom, and from there she was given her snack of pineapple...or the snack followed the midnight wake up.
At least two incidences happened that day that may have had Patsy a little ticked off. First would be the less than enthusiastic reaction JB had to the My Twin doll and second would be the refusal to dress like mommy. Maybe JB was less than pleasant to be around that entire day...who knows. Maybe Patsy was tired and irritable. Everyone wants to paint her as a saint but everyone has emotions and anger and frusteration is one of them. Maybe JB did wet the bed and it pushed Patsy over the edge that night and caused her to be rough with her...which in turn caused the head injury. I know everyone thinks the flashlight was the instrument used to deliver the blow, but there is no concrete proof of that.
Maybe something happened during the pineapple snack that set PR off. None of these scenerios are impossible.

[Louisadelmar]

+I wonder if its possible that Patsy didn't wake her up but that the pants changing was enough to make her start to surface. She wakes, goes to the bathroom and wanders downstairs. She's not interested in what John and Burke are doing and they don't notice she was there. She helps herself to a piece of pineapple and drifts back to bed. Purely by chance she and Patsy don't cross paths and Patsy isn't aware she was up briefly.

Just a thought...

[shill]

And on that note, it's entirely possible that she was so zonked out that she wet her bed, since Patsy claims not to have woken her up to use the bathroom. I understand that part of the problem of bed-wetters is that they sleep so soundly.
It doesn't strike me as odd that JB would be so tired either after her day.
It's just that knowing her history of bed wetting, it's easy to believe that one of two things happened that night. Either she wet her bed or Patsy got her up to use the bathroom, as was their routine. A third possibility is that even if JB was asleep when they got home, Patsy could have woke her up then to use the bathroom, and from there she was given her snack of pineapple...or the snack followed the midnight wake up.
At least two incidences happened that day that may have had Patsy a little ticked off. First would be the less than enthusiastic reaction JB had to the My Twin doll and second would be the refusal to dress like mommy. Maybe JB was less than pleasant to be around that entire day...who knows. Maybe Patsy was tired and irritable. Everyone wants to paint her as a saint but everyone has emotions and anger and frusteration is one of them. Maybe JB did wet the bed and it pushed Patsy over the edge that night and caused her to be rough with her...which in turn caused the head injury. I know everyone thinks the flashlight was the instrument used to deliver the blow, but there is no concrete proof of that.
Maybe something happened during the pineapple snack that set PR off. None of these scenerios are impossible.

I'm sorry TWW, but I don't think I will ever believe those scenarios you paint were strong enough motivation for someone to strike out and kill their six-year-old one and only daughter. Especially someone who was clinging to life and new how precious each day of being alive was.
I don't think the evidence points to violent burst by Patsy. It seems that Burke would have been present and awake at any of those suggested timelines that Patsy would have done this, hence he would be a knowing witness.

If there had been a noticeable sign of forced entry, would that have swayed your opinion of an IDI?

[thewhitewitch1]

I'm sorry TWW, but I don't think I will ever believe those scenarios you paint were strong enough motivation for someone to strike out and kill their six-year-old one and only daughter. Especially someone who was clinging to life and new how precious each day of being alive was.
I don't think the evidence points to violent burst by Patsy. It seems that Burke would have been present and awake at any of those suggested timelines that Patsy would have done this, hence he would be a knowing witness.

If there had been a noticeable sign of forced entry, would that have swayed your opinion of an IDI?


Shill...believe me, I have a hard time picturing a parent hurting their child like that too but as I've said...it is not out of the realm of possibility.
The image I have of the Ramseys and their perfect lives is that what went on behind closed doors is another matter. We only know of them what they want us to know and the same would go for their friends. We are talking about a bunch of "socialites" here. Why would either Ramsey let a less than perfect side of themselves be seen by their socialite friends? I think their friendships were superficial.
Lots of people give off false images of themselves and their lives in public. Hell, everyone thought my dad was a great guy. They didn't know that he verbally abused us kids or that he once pulled a knife on my mother. This isn't the kind of thing you go around telling people.
All I am saying is that you have to allow for the possibility that Patsy and John were not perfect. Even if Patsy was or said she was "grateful for being alive" doesn't mean that as a human being she wasn't just as vulnerable as everyone else to being in a bad mood or getting angry or depressed. When an emotion hits you, you can't always just blow it off as "Oh, I'm just grateful to be alive". That's ridiculous.
Yes, I can see Patsy getting rough with JB and possibly pushing her into something. What if JB was smarting off to her or something and she was just tired and irritable enough for a reaction to it that she didn't take the time to think about? I never believed that Patsy meant to hurt her.
Let's not get into the "why didn't she call 911 if it was an accident" because I'm sure you already know my thoughts on that.
Also, I do think Burke does know something. I think he at least heard something that went on that night. I've read somewhere (forgot where) that he heard voices that night. I will have to go look it up again.

If there had been signs of a forced entry, maybe I'd find the intruder theory more plausable but even a forced entry can be staged. Even so, there was no forced entry so I guess that is a moot point.
I have tried to imagine this intruder and for the life of me cannot envision anyone doing all of the things that were done right under the families noses, so to speak. I can't imagine anyone being stupid, careless or comfortable enough to take that risk. It totally defies my imagination.

[KingCoyote]

Earlier in this thread I posted some issues regarding the red heart on JBR's palm and statements by PR in her 1998 interview (P.197-207) which led me to believe that PR was stating that she saw the red heart on JBR's palm on the morning of the 26th. To me these statements put PR with JBR sometime after midnight on Christmas night and possibly with the body. I was under the impression that JR and PR, from their previous statements, had no first hand knowledge of any heart on JBR's hand. (PR went on to retract/qualify her statement about seeing the red heart the next day.)

There were no comments from the forum. I thought RDI's would jump all over this and IDI's would come quickly to the defense of PR. Did I just read way too much into these statement or did I misread them, which I have been known to do?

To me these comments by PR were of tremendous importance as inconsistent statements go. If I were prone to picking out inconsistent statements of anyone in this case, I would start with that one. Please let me know if I am starting to imagine things or what.

KingCoyote :shrug:

[Tober]

Please let me know if I am starting to imagine things or what.

Oh, no, you're right on with this. Patsy's statements concerning the red heart drawn on JonBenet's palm are a huge deal. This is one of those things we must square away before we can proceed. We have to infer whether it's a reasonable mistake or something more telling. I'll give my two-cents when I have time.

[User615]

Personally, I would head more down the lines that Burke was somehow involved in this, and PR came to his aid. Let's say BR and JBR went back downstairs to play with their toys, knowing they were leaving in the morning and wouldn't get to play with them. They use the pretense of having a snack to go downstairs. They play with toys for a while, then move on to other things. Let's assume JR has been using Melatonin on JBR so she is compliant. She confides in Burke, and he is interested. He tries to imitate what the rage is, sexual asphixiation. It goes wrong, she cries out and he has to silence her. PR hears this and comes downstairs. She isn't going to lose two children, so she covers up for Burke by staging a crime scene. She throws in the bonus amount to divert attention. The RN is so rambling it's almost like they wrote it together. Burke goes to bed, PR cleans up and finishes staging the scene. In the morning, she takes charge, to the point of calling the police herself, before PR can even make a rational decision. The "Hon, we need them" tells me she has already decided a course of action, and isn't going to consult JR, which in itself seems strange. This is a CEO used to analzying facts and making decisions. Would a mother put her daughters life at risk in the slightest if she didn't already know she was dead? I think at some point JR put the pieces together and mulled it all over, and decided to cover for the family, as it would do no good for things to go any further. It would not bring JBR back. The only real question I have is how could Burke hold up under this? The guilt, the questioning......such a burden is this is true.

[KingCoyote]

User615:

Let me refer you to www.kenpolzin.com where you can click on the JonBenet websites which will refer you to an article called Did Burke Kill JonBenet. You can scroll down to the bottom left hand corner of the JonBenet Ramsey Homicide Web Sites. It is interesting reading.

Also as a precaution, when you state a theory it is suggested that you clearly state that it is your opinion so no one claims you are stating fact. That can help you avoid defamation issues as to Burke and JR. I realize that the chances are slim that that would happen but it never hurts to be careful. The Ramseys, including Burke, have been represented by aggressive legal counsel for years now.

KingCoyote

[shill]

User615,
If the Ramseys had a clue about Colorado law, they would know that Burke could not be prosecuted and would never be convicted.

[shill]

IMO the red ink looks faded, as if it had been washed a few times.

What's more important, whether PR saw the mark or JB's hand or the news clipping they found with John and three associates in which Johns face was circled with a red heart and the three associates had "NO" written on their faces?

[LindaA]

IMO the red ink looks faded, as if it had been washed a few times.

What's more important, whether PR saw the mark or JB's hand or the news clipping they found with John and three associates in which Johns face was circled with a red heart and the three associates had "NO" written on their faces?

Shill, where was this clipping found?

[KingCoyote]

LindaA:

Where the article/clipping with the YES/NO HEART writings was found could be an issue. In my original post about red hearts, Lou Smit was hesitant to say where he found the article. That may have been because he wasn't sure. But I did note in the interview that there was also a discussion at approximately the same time as to photos/pictures/photocopied pictures of JBR possibly found in the basement. I don't know where they were found either or at least not right off the top of my head. There was some talk that PR may have been using a paper cutter for some photocopied pictures of JBR.

I also have no idea what type of folder the article was found in but it would be fascinating if that article/clipping was found in a folder in the basement in some proximity to the body.(Now Don't start a rumor!) One would logically think a business article about JR would be in a business location such as a study perhaps?

This is just one of those little things that seemed a little mysterious in the interviews.

Shill:

I got that impression as well about the heart being somewhat faded. In fact, it didn't appear to be all that well defined as a heart either, which could have been caused by the fading.

I have to ask myself if the Rs really had no idea about the heart before the killing incident and PR somehow saw it after midnight on Chritsmas night? This may be another one of those sequence of events that we simply don't have all the facts about. The drawing of the heart could be very innocent. But PR claiming she saw the heart at a very certain time just gives me concern.

KC

[nuisanceposter]

Earlier in this thread I posted some issues regarding the red heart on JBR's palm and statements by PR in her 1998 interview (P.197-207) which led me to believe that PR was stating that she saw the red heart on JBR's palm on the morning of the 26th. To me these statements put PR with JBR sometime after midnight on Christmas night and possibly with the body. I was under the impression that JR and PR, from their previous statements, had no first hand knowledge of any heart on JBR's hand. (PR went on to retract/qualify her statement about seeing the red heart the next day.)

There were no comments from the forum. I thought RDI's would jump all over this and IDI's would come quickly to the defense of PR. Did I just read way too much into these statement or did I misread them, which I have been known to do?

To me these comments by PR were of tremendous importance as inconsistent statements go. If I were prone to picking out inconsistent statements of anyone in this case, I would start with that one. Please let me know if I am starting to imagine things or what.

KingCoyote :shrug:

I've actually pointed out this very thing with Patsy saying she saw it on the 26th, then immediately recanting first thing the very next day, on this very forum, with as much response as you pointing it out got.

I think it's a very big deal, and a definite sign that Patsy is attempting to be deceptive. Come on, people, she says she saw it on the morning of the 26th in an interview, and the very first thing she says the next day in the continuance of the interview is that she needs to clarify what she had said before...it just sounds to me like she realized what she had said didn't fit in with the story she'd be telling, and she needed to quick change her story the first chance she got.

I definitely think Patsy saw JonBenet's corpse well before 1 pm when JR brought it upstairs. Her fibers found in the ligature knot, on the tape, and in the paint tray back that up, as does her claim of having seen the heart on the morning of the 26th.

This is just yet ANOTHER of the inconsistencies the Ramseys have tried to put forth as fact. How many do they have to tell before people question just how credible the Rs really are?

And who ordered a new Molly doll in JonBenet's name on January 1st of 1997, to be delivered to John's work, and why?

[thewhitewitch1]

IMO the red ink looks faded, as if it had been washed a few times.

What's more important, whether PR saw the mark or JB's hand or the news clipping they found with John and three associates in which Johns face was circled with a red heart and the three associates had "NO" written on their faces?


Actually, that sounds like the type of thing a child might do. A heart around your daddys face and "NO" written on the other guys. "Yes" to my dad?
Or even possibly a woman. IMO

[User615]

User615:

Let me refer you to www.kenpolzin.com where you can click on the JonBenet websites which will refer you to an article called Did Burke Kill JonBenet. You can scroll down to the bottom left hand corner of the JonBenet Ramsey Homicide Web Sites. It is interesting reading.

Also as a precaution, when you state a theory it is suggested that you clearly state that it is your opinion so no one claims you are stating fact. That can help you avoid defamation issues as to Burke and JR. I realize that the chances are slim that that would happen but it never hurts to be careful. The Ramseys, including Burke, have been represented by aggressive legal counsel for years now.

KingCoyote
I actually read information from two different sources before formulating this opinion. At first I believed he was too young to do this, but it's the only scenario that makes the slightest bit of sense at present......IMO. I appreciate the warning, but I would think that since this is a discussion forum, anything posted is pure conjecture.

[nuisanceposter]

Actually, that sounds like the type of thing a child might do. A heart around your daddys face and "NO" written on the other guys. "Yes" to my dad?
Or even possibly a woman. IMO

Exactly. Certainly not the type of thing you'd expect a person so enraged with and jealous of JR that he breaks in and murders the youngest child to do. Anyone who hates JR that much and wants to hurt him as much as possible isn't going to draw a HEART of all things around JR's face.

As for Burke, I doubt he could have pulled this crime off and then been able to withstand interviews etc about it. There was no prior history of him exhibiting intense anger or jealousy towards JonBenet, and at age nine, if he felt that way enough to kill her like she was killed, it would have been obvious before the murder that he had a problem with her. Children that age, unlike adults, are much much less able to cover up negative emotions and actions of that nature. They lack the control and the experience. I also don't believe he would have been able to incur that traumatic a head wound, and I doubt he'd have been able to construct the ligature and would have bothered to wipe down the body.

[User615]

As for Burke, I doubt he could have pulled this crime off and then been able to withstand interviews etc about it. There was no prior history of him exhibiting intense anger or jealousy towards JonBenet, and at age nine, if he felt that way enough to kill her like she was killed, it would have been obvious before the murder that he had a problem with her. Children that age, unlike adults, are much much less able to cover up negative emotions and actions of that nature. They lack the control and the experience. I also don't believe he would have been able to incur that traumatic a head wound, and I doubt he'd have been able to construct the ligature and would have bothered to wipe down the body.
That is why I said at some point PR got involved, to help clean up the problem. I realize it's a stretch, but you never know. I read today where a 9 year old stole a car and then boarded two different planes without a ticket. As far as anger, I don't know how you can know about that. Remember those two brothers, where one was killed over a stick of gum? Who would have ever thought that could happen? I know at times I was afraid my son would seriously hurt his younger sister the way they argued over the simplest things. They finally outgrew it, but it was a concern. No matter how many talks we had with them, they were still kids, and thinking short term.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>


I agree with TWW. The Rs, imo, kept saying JB was so "zonked" because they needed to adhere to the story that she was asleep when they arrived home to avoid answering questions they didn't want to.

I've never said JonBenet was "zonked" but the only one who ever said she was awake when they got home was Burke and EVEN Steve Thomas said he thought Burke was confused.

:shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

"Zonked" was the word both the Ramseys and the post from TWW that I was replying to used.

As for Burke's recall of JB being awake - funny how the IDI say Thomas is dead wrong and lies all the time until he says something they agree with. Thomas doesn't even state exactly what he thinks Burke was confused about.

ST, hb, page 317

"He said that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry gifts into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night."

That's an awful lot of detail for a kid who's confused.

There's also this:

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.

[sweetcharlotte]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8802624
<snip>

ST, hb, page 317

"He said that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry gifts into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night."

That's an awful lot of detail for a kid who's confused.
<snip>

[/QUOTE]

Hey, just reporting what Stevie wrote.......Are you saying Steve was wrong in what he wrote?

[thewhitewitch1]

That is why I said at some point PR got involved, to help clean up the problem. I realize it's a stretch, but you never know. I read today where a 9 year old stole a car and then boarded two different planes without a ticket. As far as anger, I don't know how you can know about that. Remember those two brothers, where one was killed over a stick of gum? Who would have ever thought that could happen? I know at times I was afraid my son would seriously hurt his younger sister the way they argued over the simplest things. They finally outgrew it, but it was a concern. No matter how many talks we had with them, they were still kids, and thinking short term.

To be honest, there is still the question of Burkes involvement in the back of my mind. Maybe he and JB got up some time in the night to play with their toys, using the flashlight to navigate. Maybe he got angry with her over something and hit her over the head with the flashlight. He did play softball and could swing a bat. It is totally possible that he had the strength to inflict that blow to her head.
Even though Burke couldn't be prosecuted for murder due to his age, it would still have been a stigmata on the Ramseys reputation and lives. As far as him keeping this secret to himself, maybe he didn't know how much damage he did to her and J and P made up a big story to protect him from it. He did whack her with a golf club once, though probably by accident. I noticed when Patsy was questioned about the incident, she tried to down play it and gave Burkes age at the time as much younger than he actually was. How do we really know for sure how Burke felt about his little sister? She was always the one in the spotlight. I would think it would be only natural for him to harbor some jealousy and resentment towards her. It would make perfect sense for his parents to want to protect him. If Burke did deliver the blow to her head, I believe that's all he did. Patsy and John did the rest. IMO
Curiously, also, is Burkes reaction that morning. He asked no questions about why the police were there. The kid was more interested in his Nintendo game than what was going on in his home. It's too bad we don't know more about Burke but my impression of him is that of an awkward kid, too much into his Nintendo and computers, introverted and overshadowed by his sister.
I have no clue if Burke was really involved in any of this but it is certainly a possibility. No kid is ever going to admit to anyone that they hit their sister hard enough to kill her. I don't care what anyone says. At nine years old, you certainly know that you did something very wrong and fear alone will help keep your mouth shut. After all of these years, he may have even repressed the memory. One thing is for sure, Patsy and John have shielded him well. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Just because Steve Thomas said it and I admire his dedication to JonBenet does not mean I agree with every word out of his mouth or in his book. For example, ST doesn't think JR was involved...I do.

I'd like to know exactly what part of Burke's three day interview led Thomas to say that he felt Burke was confused. Like I said, I think Burke provided enough detail about his memory of JonBenet being awake when they got home to indicate that he was able to recall it accurately. When you combine it with the police reports that say JR told police on 12/26 that he read to the kids, including JB, it seems as though Burke may be correct and perhaps JonBenet was awake when she arrived home. JR originally said she was, and the pineapple in her intestine says she was, so what about Burke's interview makes ST say he thought Burke was confused?

It's Thomas's opinion anyway, and he stated it as such. If that's the way he felt after seeing Burke's interview, then that's the way he felt.

[bullmoose]

"Zonked" was the word both the Ramseys and the post from TWW that I was replying to used.

As for Burke's recall of JB being awake - funny how the IDI say Thomas is dead wrong and lies all the time until he says something they agree with. Thomas doesn't even state exactly what he thinks Burke was confused about.

ST, hb, page 317

"He said that his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home but awakened to help carry gifts into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference from the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed. I felt that this poor kid was confused and that he really had no idea what had happened that night."

That's an awful lot of detail for a kid who's confused.

There's also this:

ST's book, hb, page 23

Officers reconstructed some of the timeline of the previous night from the parents' recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed to Arndt that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in. He would later deny these statements as well.

ST's book, hb, page 173

(JR is being interviewed by Thomas and Trujillo)

But even with that cursory reading, John Ramsey said he found "errors or misunderstandings." He said not only did he not check every door in the house the night before but he did not believe he checked any door. Also incorrect was the police notation that Ramsey said he read to the kids before going to bed. "That did not happen. I mean what happened was the kids went to bed and then I read."

I asked, "Do you attribute that simply to an officer's error in recollection, or might you have said that?"

"No, I wouldn't have said that. I think that maybe the way I said it was misinterpreted. I clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep. We were going to get up early the next morning."

To believe him now, one would have to believe that three police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - were all mistaken about what Ramsey had told them.
Unless I am mistaken,this peerless account is all from the Twisters' recollections in his book, right? I have trouble with the veracity of his recollections, since he never could find the notes he kept, turned over to the BPD when he quit, but were subsequently anonymously mailed to him in time for his Twisterpiece. Is it possible[gasp] that Synthroid Stevie may have slanted his recollections of this case[his first murder investigation] to just reflect well on himself? I do not question his dedication, but I do question his truthfulness and objectivity, not to mention his training and ability as a murder investigator. Of course, this is JMHO:biggrin:

[KingCoyote]

NuisancePoster:

Thanks....I thought I had entered the Twilight Zone on that PR statement about the red heart on JBR's palm. I am not big on using too many inconsistent statements as evidence because all you do is prove someone is a liar, or has a terrible memory, instead of a criminal. But if I was going to use an inconsistent statement, boy oh boy, would that would be my pick.

I fully agree with your question about WHO ordered a Molly Doll after JBR was dead and WHY? If you ever hear anything I am sure you will let us know.
I will do the same.

KingCoyote

[packer48]

User615:

Let me refer you to www.kenpolzin.com where you can click on the JonBenet websites which will refer you to an article called Did Burke Kill JonBenet. You can scroll down to the bottom left hand corner of the JonBenet Ramsey Homicide Web Sites. It is interesting reading.

Also as a precaution, when you state a theory it is suggested that you clearly state that it is your opinion so no one claims you are stating fact. That can help you avoid defamation issues as to Burke and JR. I realize that the chances are slim that that would happen but it never hurts to be careful. The Ramseys, including Burke, have been represented by aggressive legal counsel for years now.

KingCoyote

Hi HC,

I just finished reading "Did Burke Kill JonBenet".

While I don't agree with all of his theory of how it happened, I sure do believe its possible that Burke was the perpatrator.

I can see where the Ramsey's would want to protect him at all cost.

To me for the boy to be funtional now they must have given him some pretty intense theropy to convince him he was not responsible. My guess with all their money and power they pulled it off.

JMHO

packer

[bullmoose]

To packer 48: I too have read 'Did Burke kill Jonbenet?' and I find it underwhelming,, to say the least. Remember, the BPD conducted an interrogation of Burke on 12/26/96 at Fleet White's house, of course without the knowledge or permission of his parents, doubtless because the BPD thought they might be able to solve the case quickly by doing so. The BPD thought that Burke would spill the beans on whatever really happened, whether it was him or his parents that cruelly strangled Jonbenet after crushing her skull. It would have been just about impossible to impress a believable cover story on a nine-year old in a couple hours that even the BPD couldn't have spotted as fake. But no cover story concerning him or his parents was uncovered. In several subsequent legal examinations of Burke, no sign of a cover story was spotted, even by the BPD. No amount of money and supposed power could have kept Burke from slipping up if he was repeating a cover story; telling the truth, as best he remembered it, was much more effective. Innocence is very effective at convincing a child that he wasn't responsible for his sister's murder, even better than money and power. JMHO;)

[thewhitewitch1]

To packer 48: I too have read 'Did Burke kill Jonbenet?' and I find it underwhelming,, to say the least. Remember, the BPD conducted an interrogation of Burke on 12/26/96 at Fleet White's house, of course without the knowledge or permission of his parents, doubtless because the BPD thought they might be able to solve the case quickly by doing so. The BPD thought that Burke would spill the beans on whatever really happened, whether it was him or his parents that cruelly strangled Jonbenet after crushing her skull. It would have been just about impossible to impress a believable cover story on a nine-year old in a couple hours that even the BPD couldn't have spotted as fake. But no cover story concerning him or his parents was uncovered. In several subsequent legal examinations of Burke, no sign of a cover story was spotted, even by the BPD. No amount of money and supposed power could have kept Burke from slipping up if he was repeating a cover story; telling the truth, as best he remembered it, was much more effective. Innocence is very effective at convincing a child that he wasn't responsible for his sister's murder, even better than money and power. JMHO;)


Didn't JR talk to Burke briefly before sending him to the Whites? For all we know, he or PR may have even spoken to him that morning before the 911 call was even made. They had enough time to tell him just to tell LE that he was asleep all night and morning and "didn't know nuthin'". He may have dodged questions like his mom and dad with "I don't remember".
I don't think he knew what happened after the hit on the head. I also am not convinced that he really had anything to do with it but I think he heard something and knows more than he's telling. IMO

[shill]

Actually, that sounds like the type of thing a child might do. A heart around your daddys face and "NO" written on the other guys. "Yes" to my dad?
Or even possibly a woman. IMO

I agree with you. I think JB did that and then drew the heart on her hand (that's why it isn't very well drawn). But it is odd and led to a line of questioning and could possible mean more.

[shill]

To be honest, there is still the question of Burkes involvement in the back of my mind. Maybe he and JB got up some time in the night to play with their toys, using the flashlight to navigate. Maybe he got angry with her over something and hit her over the head with the flashlight. He did play softball and could swing a bat. It is totally possible that he had the strength to inflict that blow to her head.
Even though Burke couldn't be prosecuted for murder due to his age, it would still have been a stigmata on the Ramseys reputation and lives. As far as him keeping this secret to himself, maybe he didn't know how much damage he did to her and J and P made up a big story to protect him from it. He did whack her with a golf club once, though probably by accident. I noticed when Patsy was questioned about the incident, she tried to down play it and gave Burkes age at the time as much younger than he actually was. How do we really know for sure how Burke felt about his little sister? She was always the one in the spotlight. I would think it would be only natural for him to harbor some jealousy and resentment towards her. It would make perfect sense for his parents to want to protect him. If Burke did deliver the blow to her head, I believe that's all he did. Patsy and John did the rest. IMO
Curiously, also, is Burkes reaction that morning. He asked no questions about why the police were there. The kid was more interested in his Nintendo game than what was going on in his home. It's too bad we don't know more about Burke but my impression of him is that of an awkward kid, too much into his Nintendo and computers, introverted and overshadowed by his sister.
I have no clue if Burke was really involved in any of this but it is certainly a possibility. No kid is ever going to admit to anyone that they hit their sister hard enough to kill her. I don't care what anyone says. At nine years old, you certainly know that you did something very wrong and fear alone will help keep your mouth shut. After all of these years, he may have even repressed the memory. One thing is for sure, Patsy and John have shielded him well. IMO

I have to admit these thoughts crossed my mind. It seems the bowl and glass places Burke up late, possibly around midnight when JB might have woken to pee. Burke being hopped up on caffeine may have struck at JB if she had threatened to tell mom he was up playing with toys.
But the rest of the story is just not plausible.
Maybe if Burke went back to bed and left JB there for hours until J&P awoke to find her, they might have taken the course of action displayed by the crime scene.
But how does Burke survive several interrogations and a GJ?

[KingCoyote]

This is an attempt to analyze the duct tape and fibers allegedly adhering to it, i.e., PR's red jacket fibers, the one beaver hair and the unsourced tan/brown fibers.

The information we have tells us that the duct tape was found on the blanket JBR was wrapped in. It also tells us that JR says he removed the tape from JBR's face/mouth and disposed of it to somewhere to the side. (For purposes of this discussion I will assume JR's statements to be true. I will also assume that if FW did inspect the tape that he replaced it in a similar position to where he found it. Analysis requires assumptions.)

If we can't determine where the duct tape came from originally (and I am not attempting to do that or determine where the remaining tape, if any, is located) for determining where the fibers may have originally come from, lets determine where the blanket and JBR's face were located since we know the tape was on each at one point or another.

If JBR was lying on the blanket and wrapped up "papoose style" as JR has said then one can assume a portion of the blanket was under JBR and one side or a portion of that blanket was in contact with the wine cellar floor. In viewing the blanket from Crime Scene Photos, it appears lumpy and disheveled and not flattened. One can speculate that the activity of JR in removing JBR from the papoose style wrapping and picking up JBR led to some of this lumpy appearance and that the blanket may have been "flatter" with more area touching the wine cellar floor while JBR was in it.

This activity of JR's with the blanket could have put the side of the blanket previously touching the floor in a position of facing up. The tape, when discarded by JR after its removal from JBR's face may have come in contact with this portion of the blanket and was the cause for some of the fiber transferance from the wine cellar flooring.

The next analysis is discussing the location of JBR's face and mouth. First, if we note that JBR's underwear and "pajama" bottoms were urine stained in the front and note that she may have released urine upon death, she may have been lying face down when she died from the head blow/strangulation events. If the strangulation came from above and behind her with force being applied to her shoulder (contusion/abrasion on shoulder from autopsy noted) opposite the force of the strangulation, then her face, mouth, chin, area could have been pressed into the flooring. (Abrasion on chin area from autopsy noted).

Some have hypothesized in other forums that JBR was killed in the carpeted area outside of the Wine cellar next to the paint tray and boiler room due to a possible urine stain on the floor of that area. (Sorry...I read that in JBR Encyclopedia/pbwiki but just can't find the exact quote or section right now.)

I also noted from autopsy pictures and statements that JBR had mucous/bodily fluids etc., on her face and mouth under the duct tape area. Moisture, even in the form of body fluids, is a magnet for picking up fibers, dirt, hairs, crumbs, etc. (Just try wiping up crumbs with a dry cloth and a wet cloth and see which one picks up more.)

If the tape was placed on her mouth after death, which some believe, due to the perfect lip impression without any tongue impressions (See Carnes Summary Judgment Order) then the tape would naturally absorb into its adhesive any fibers JBR's body fluids absorbed from the flooring while her face was in contact with the flooring.

If the fibers came from the floorings those fibers could have been there for days, weeks, months and maybe longer. Noting the cluttered aspect of that area and the mere fact that it is a basement area one can assume it was not a high priority area for regular vacuuming. (If you wish to disagree, so be it.) Also noting that who knows how many contractors, friends of Burke, and others could have been in that area given the propensity of the Ramseys to have many in their house, who knows where those fibers came from, how long they had been there or who brought them in.

As to PR's fibers being on the tape, I can only propose transferance. That may be primary or direct transferance: (jacket to tape) or secondary or indirect transferance: (jacket to blanket to tape). Take your pick.

Just a little analysis....

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Would the tape have stuck to her face if placed there while her face was wet from the mucous we see in autopsy photos?

[KingCoyote]

LindaA:

The tape could have stuck to the face, possibly not very well though, which may be the basis for the questions LE had for John as to how tight the tape was affixed to her face. I think that is an excellent question and you may have the same thoughts LE may have had...Sorry...I don't have the actual cite to that portion of the interviews about the "level of adhesion" of the tape but I have seen it discussed on this forum and others and will post it when I find it.

Let me think aloud about this for a minute....Your question brings possible series of events to light. If the tape would not stick to a moist mouth area, when would JBR's mouth be moist versus dry? It would be dry before the killing events and the tape could have been applied then. But then there would be no, or at least extremely little, evidence of moisture under the taped area but only around the edges of the taped area. The autopsy photos and information tend to indicate that the dried mucous was under the "taped" area though and even Judge Julie Carnes posted a legal finding in her order of a perfect lip impression which indicates the tape was not applied when JBR was conscious or alive but after she could not resist.

It would be definitely dry some time after JBR died and would adhere at that time if applied. So if we say the tape would not stick to a moist area it seems like the likely interpretation, based on the above paragraph, was that the tape was applied possibly quite some time after the mucous drained out of JBR's mouth and nose. Now...who would still be around the murder scene quite some time AFTER the mucous dried?

Hmmmm....the above is not the gospel.....let me continue thinking out those options and see what or who comes to light.

KingCoyote

[LindaA]

Exactly, KC, that's what I'm thinking: What does this do to the timeline of the crime? And IMO the timeline is crucial to determining "whodunnit." Couple that with the theory that JBR ate the pineapple before going to the Whites', and the earlier time of the scream, and we'd have to say it happened sooner rather than later. Would an intruder have then remained in the basement with no fear of detection? Maybe. Maybe that is when the ransome note was written. Maybe it points to RDI. What could we tell if we knew more about the musous residue on the back of the tape/ Just thinking out loud.

Some claim the tape had been previously used -- on the back of a painting or a doll to account for there not being any more tape in the house. That would make it less adhesive, I'm thinking.

[KingCoyote]

Linda:

I think we are on the same road and seeing lots of alternatives and possibilities....Even though I tried to limit my analysis to just fibers and transferance to tape...one must intertwine adhesion of tape and timeline and person and this and that, etc. ad infinitum......It almost is impossible to break the crime into itty bitty details and then reassemble with a big picture...I think that is why, when Nuisance Poster originally asked for my comments on this issue, I had been avoiding it until maybe much later....just keep the pencils sharp and the erasers close.

KC

[aussiesheila]

I thought I would start to use this thread for a few comments from my analyses rather that use several new small threads.

1. We all know that there was a red heart, or something similar, drawn on one of JBR's palms. We don't know who drew it, when, why or for that matter where the pen is that was used.

There are PR's statements in her 98 Interview at PP. 197-207 (circa) about PR seeing the heart "the next morning" that morning apparently being a reference to the morning of 12/26. (I don't remember any statements about PR seeing the red heart when she went to JBR's body in the Living Room early that afternoon.) In the interview PR goes on to comment about the heart being a pretty good little heart and well drawn. She comes back the next day and retracts/qualifies her statements.

These statements have given rise to a lot of thoughts in my mind and I wouldn't mind hearing other member's comments.

Another reference about hearts is in the Bonita Papers. I realize there is a lot of controversy over the accuracy of these papers but I am not willing to go so far as to totally dismiss the papers as having no truth whatsoever. Anyway, the papers indicate that PR regularly drew hearts on JBR.

2. The next 'red heart' situation connects to the October 1995 Issue of the Boulder Co. Bus. Report where JR is pictured with other local businesspeople receiving an award. Apparently there is a red heart drawn around JR's face with the word 'Yes' and the word 'No" next to or on the other people's faces (or something to that effect).

In DOI P.3 JR refers to JBR not being able to read and BR helping JBR with the Christmas tags. I am not sure how much JBR could read or write as far as printing versus cursive writing goes but I am wondering how much she could read, write or print some 14 months earlier.

There also seems to be some issue as to where this report was found in the house and what type of folder it was in. In the 1998 JR Interview at Pages 263-268 (circa) Lou Smit is not sure what type of folder the report is found in and is somewhat hesitant to discuss it location. The hesitancy could be that Lou Smit just isn't sure where it was found or it could be connected to the finding of photocopies/photos/pictures of JBR which seemed to have been found in the basement and discussed at circa P. 268 of the JR Interview. I also "sensed" a hesitancy to disclose in a record or transcript everything that was being discussed in these interviews. Lou Smit used a strange term when he said "I'll try to sign today. Was LS signing off on documents for exhibits or using sign language to mute any particular statements from being included in the transcript? Could this report with the red heart have been found in the basement with some proximity to the body?
That would be interesting!

Finally as to the pen that may have drawn the hearts. I know of no discussion in the Interviews specifically about a red pen; if someone has a cite please post it. The only somewhat 'mysterious' pen I found discussed was in the 1998 PR Interview at P. 434 (circa). Here there is a picture of an open drawer in JBR's bath. (This open drawer seems to be confirmed by LHP's comments in PMPT 727) In the open drawer, which is JBR's panty drawer, there is discussion about a pen/pencil/magicmarker in the panty drawer. Although PR states that it may have just fallen in there, she does consider it unusual for a pen to be there. Does anybody have any more information about this pen or any other references to red pens?

KingCoyote :read:I think the red heart was drawn by Santa as part of a 'prepping' ritual prior to taking JonBenet down to the basement to sexually abuse her. I don't know what pen he used, he could have used one from the house and since he would have been wearing gloves his fingerprints wouldn't have shown up. if it wasn't one from the house BPD would probably have found the matching pen at Santa's house if they had done a search of it the next day which they didn't.

I think all that stuff about there being a red heart on some business publication is a red herring, absolutely nothing to do with the case.

What I do find interesting is Patsy's comment about not seeing the heart until "the next morning". I have always thought that was one giant slipup by Patsy that no-one tweaked to. As you say, it really doesn't seem like she could have been referring to when the body was brought up from the basement because there is no reference to her having looked at JonBenet's hands, just her dramatically thowing herself over the body and shrieking hysterically. Also the fact that she comes back the next day and retracts/qualifies her statements add to the likelihood that she realised it was an incriminating mistake IMO.

It all fits in with my theory that Patsy already knew Jonbenet was dead, and had been forced to write the ransom note by the mastermind of the coverup. I think that once she had finished writing the note, she got the Maglite out of the kitchen drawer and went down to the cellar where she knew they had hidden the body. I think she took the Barbie nightgown with her intending to re-dress JonBenet in more attractive and appropriate clothing. I think however, when she saw the body the horror of it all overcame her and she dropped the nightgown and fled upstairs to bed, leaving the Maglite on the kitchen bench on the way.

[aussiesheila]

Earlier in this thread I posted some issues regarding the red heart on JBR's palm and statements by PR in her 1998 interview (P.197-207) which led me to believe that PR was stating that she saw the red heart on JBR's palm on the morning of the 26th. To me these statements put PR with JBR sometime after midnight on Christmas night and possibly with the body. I was under the impression that JR and PR, from their previous statements, had no first hand knowledge of any heart on JBR's hand. (PR went on to retract/qualify her statement about seeing the red heart the next day.)

There were no comments from the forum. I thought RDI's would jump all over this and IDI's would come quickly to the defense of PR. Did I just read way too much into these statement or did I misread them, which I have been known to do?

To me these comments by PR were of tremendous importance as inconsistent statements go. If I were prone to picking out inconsistent statements of anyone in this case, I would start with that one. Please let me know if I am starting to imagine things or what.

KingCoyote :shrug:Hey KingCoyote, I agree with you!

I also think these comments by PR were of tremendous importance as inconsistent statements go!

And I've replied (please see post 137). Holiday time here cause of delay.

[aussiesheila]

This is an attempt to analyze the duct tape and fibers allegedly adhering to it, i.e., PR's red jacket fibers, the one beaver hair and the unsourced tan/brown fibers.

The information we have tells us that the duct tape was found on the blanket JBR was wrapped in. It also tells us that JR says he removed the tape from JBR's face/mouth and disposed of it to somewhere to the side. (For purposes of this discussion I will assume JR's statements to be true. I will also assume that if FW did inspect the tape that he replaced it in a similar position to where he found it. Analysis requires assumptions.)

If we can't determine where the duct tape came from originally (and I am not attempting to do that or determine where the remaining tape, if any, is located) for determining where the fibers may have originally come from, lets determine where the blanket and JBR's face were located since we know the tape was on each at one point or another.

If JBR was lying on the blanket and wrapped up "papoose style" as JR has said then one can assume a portion of the blanket was under JBR and one side or a portion of that blanket was in contact with the wine cellar floor. In viewing the blanket from Crime Scene Photos, it appears lumpy and disheveled and not flattened. One can speculate that the activity of JR in removing JBR from the papoose style wrapping and picking up JBR led to some of this lumpy appearance and that the blanket may have been "flatter" with more area touching the wine cellar floor while JBR was in it.

This activity of JR's with the blanket could have put the side of the blanket previously touching the floor in a position of facing up. The tape, when discarded by JR after its removal from JBR's face may have come in contact with this portion of the blanket and was the cause for some of the fiber transferance from the wine cellar flooring.

The next analysis is discussing the location of JBR's face and mouth. First, if we note that JBR's underwear and "pajama" bottoms were urine stained in the front and note that she may have released urine upon death, she may have been lying face down when she died from the head blow/strangulation events. If the strangulation came from above and behind her with force being applied to her shoulder (contusion/abrasion on shoulder from autopsy noted) opposite the force of the strangulation, then her face, mouth, chin, area could have been pressed into the flooring. (Abrasion on chin area from autopsy noted).

Some have hypothesized in other forums that JBR was killed in the carpeted area outside of the Wine cellar next to the paint tray and boiler room due to a possible urine stain on the floor of that area. (Sorry...I read that in JBR Encyclopedia/pbwiki but just can't find the exact quote or section right now.)

I also noted from autopsy pictures and statements that JBR had mucous/bodily fluids etc., on her face and mouth under the duct tape area. Moisture, even in the form of body fluids, is a magnet for picking up fibers, dirt, hairs, crumbs, etc. (Just try wiping up crumbs with a dry cloth and a wet cloth and see which one picks up more.)

If the tape was placed on her mouth after death, which some believe, due to the perfect lip impression without any tongue impressions (See Carnes Summary Judgment Order) then the tape would naturally absorb into its adhesive any fibers JBR's body fluids absorbed from the flooring while her face was in contact with the flooring.

If the fibers came from the floorings those fibers could have been there for days, weeks, months and maybe longer. Noting the cluttered aspect of that area and the mere fact that it is a basement area one can assume it was not a high priority area for regular vacuuming. (If you wish to disagree, so be it.) Also noting that who knows how many contractors, friends of Burke, and others could have been in that area given the propensity of the Ramseys to have many in their house, who knows where those fibers came from, how long they had been there or who brought them in.

As to PR's fibers being on the tape, I can only propose transferance. That may be primary or direct transferance: (jacket to tape) or secondary or indirect transferance: (jacket to blanket to tape). Take your pick.

Just a little analysis....

KingCoyoteIf the tape was not fresh from the roll, but was simply a piece of pre-used tape as IMO it most likely was, and if it had been picked up from where it had been lying by someone after the killing to use in a kidnap scenario coverup, then any hairs/fibres could have already been there prior to it being placed on JonBenet's mouth. Not to mention the contamination of the duct tape after it was removed from her mouth. The hairs/fibres on the duct tape might very well have absolutely nothing to do with the case.

[Zoey]

I think the red heart was drawn by Santa as part of a 'prepping' ritual prior to taking JonBenet down to the basement to sexually abuse her. I don't know what pen he used, he could have used one from the house and since he would have been wearing gloves his fingerprints wouldn't have shown up. if it wasn't one from the house BPD would probably have found the matching pen at Santa's house if they had done a search of it the next day which they didn't.

I think all that stuff about there being a red heart on some business publication is a red herring, absolutely nothing to do with the case.

What I do find interesting is Patsy's comment about not seeing the heart until "the next morning". I have always thought that was one giant slipup by Patsy that no-one tweaked to. As you say, it really doesn't seem like she could have been referring to when the body was brought up from the basement because there is no reference to her having looked at JonBenet's hands, just her dramatically thowing herself over the body and shrieking hysterically. Also the fact that she comes back the next day and retracts/qualifies her statements add to the likelihood that she realised it was an incriminating mistake IMO.

It all fits in with my theory that Patsy already knew Jonbenet was dead, and had been forced to write the ransom note by the mastermind of the coverup. I think that once she had finished writing the note, she got the Maglite out of the kitchen drawer and went down to the cellar where she knew they had hidden the body. I think she took the Barbie nightgown with her intending to re-dress JonBenet in more attractive and appropriate clothing. I think however, when she saw the body the horror of it all overcame her and she dropped the nightgown and fled upstairs to bed, leaving the Maglite on the kitchen bench on the way.


IMO, it is not a heart, just a crude drawing by a right handed kid drawing with their left hand on their right hand. I believe JB drew it on herself on approx. the 23rd, as it was a very faded drawing. I believe Patsy saw it on the morning of the 24th or 25th, and in the confusion of what her life had become after the murder of her daughter, she was confused on when and what she saw. IMO, I am surprised Patsy knew her own name, let alone when she saw a drawing on her daughter's hand. IMO.

[bullmoose]

If the tape was not fresh from the roll, but was simply a piece of pre-used tape as IMO it most likely was, and if it had been picked up from where it had been lying by someone after the killing to use in a kidnap scenario coverup, then any hairs/fibres could have already been there prior to it being placed on JonBenet's mouth. Not to mention the contamination of the duct tape after it was removed from her mouth. The hairs/fibres on the duct tape might very well have absolutely nothing to do with the case.The tape did not match any duct tape found in the house, yet was traced to its factory of origin; it was only months old, not years. IMO, it was not just laying around, it was brought into the house by the killer/s.

[User615]

The tape did not match any duct tape found in the house, yet was traced to its factory of origin; it was only months old, not years. IMO, it was not just laying around, it was brought into the house by the killer/s.

12 LOU SMIT: And the duct tape, do you remember
13 if it was adhered all the way to her mouth?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It wasn't really duct
15 tape, it was -- well I'm sure you've seen it. But
16 it was like black. It wasn't electrical tape. It
17 was kind of white, black, unusual tape, I thought.


And also......

JonBenet was found dead with a decorative noose around her neck in the basement of her home the day after Christmas 1996. An autopsy revealed a mortal skull fracture yet there were no outward signs of this trauma. Her body was not battered as is sensationally claimed. She was wrapped in a white blanket with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. No one has ever been charged with the heinous crime. Mysterious dark blue fibers were found on her body, tan cotton fibers were found on the duct tape, and 'assorted hair' fibers were found littering the scene. No sources for the tape or fibers were found in the home and the crime remains unsolved and attributed to an intruder.
In an unprecedented move, Mrs. Ramsey's sister; Pam Paugh, was allowed into an active crime scene; still under investigation, with the pretense of getting clothing for the funeral. The list of things removed included far more than mourning attire. A friend in the DA's office; Pete Hofstrom, may have inapropriately influenced this decision. It went so far as the sister impersonating a police officer wearing a jacket and badge so as not to arouse suspicion. With multiple unfamiliar investigative agencies present, her actions would have appeared and been considered official.

Two years later it was published she had removed several dolls from the American Girls Collection. The dolls are 18" tall with a head and limbs of vinyl and a tan cotton body. The head is attached to the body with a string that is tied leaving a few inches dangling down the back. The cord can get in the way when the hair is brushed. In 1998 the company did train employees to suggest duct taping the string down as one of many ways to deal with the problem. The size of the tape from JonBenet matches if it had been on a doll. It was coated with tan cotton fibers descriptively matching the body of the doll.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

[shill]

1
JonBenet was found dead with a decorative noose around her neck in the basement of her home the day after Christmas 1996.
http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

The first line of this article is obviously bias or worse.
Since when are murder weapons described as decorative?
It's obviously a spin on what happened.

I don't know who would by a roll of black duct tape, use it on only a few of the dolls that needed it and nowhere else, and then throw out the rest of the roll.

[User615]

December 26th

Sunrise: 7:19am


10 LOU SMIT: Okay. You wake up the next morning
11 and you recall then what time it was? What time do
12 you remember it being?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well I think we set the time
14 for 5:30. I remember waking up before the alarm
15 went off. So it would have been 5:25 or probably
16 something like that.


5 JOHN RAMSEY: There was no snow at all when
6 we came in. I got up the next morning and looked
7 out. The sky was sort of breaking up. It look like
8 some evidence of some snow in the trees, so it had
9 snowed a little bit. But I remember thinking that
10 it was no big deal.
11 LOU SMIT: Where did you look out at that
12 time?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: I'm pretty sure it was out
14 of my windows in the dressing area.
15 LOU SMIT: If you could show us that in the
16 diagram here?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Just study that. I remember
18 thinking that there was no concern.
19 LOU SMIT: Do you remember that there could
20 have been a light sprinkling of snow?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: There was a little snow in some
22 trees (INAUDIBLE).
23 LOU SMIT: Would that mean there was possible
24 snow in the driveway area (INAUDIBLE).
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I didn't look specifically.

So is the area that well lit that two hours before sunrise he can see this?

[LindaA]

Possibly, User615. I can look out of my upstairs window at any time of night and tell what the weather is like because of the street lights.

[shill]

So is the area that well lit that two hours before sunrise he can see this?

Snow being white and shiny stands out from streetlights.
When everything is blanketed with snow, it is 4 or 5 times brighter out at night. It's very beautiful.

[Travis Twitt]

Newbie here.
Sorry if I'm off-track, but...
I believe the single most important piece of evidence as to whodunit is the ransom note.
The note seems to indicate that whoever wrote (or dictated) it was an outside family, friend or business associate of the Ramsey's--especially JB's father. From what I've read the note mentioned the exact sum JB's dad had recieved as a recent bonus.
It's my understanding that, based not only on the handwriting on the note but the sentence construction, syntax, puctuation and many other factors, suspects can be eliminated as such.
I'm assuming the ransom note was throughly investigated at some point in the past. And that the note did not point to JB's parents or Burke.

Personally, I don't believe that Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey or Burke had anything to do with the murder of JB. That the ransom note doesn't implicate JB's parents or Burke is one of many reasons.

The evidence of pineapple in JB's stomach and pineapple in a bowl in the kitchen, along with a glass of coffee or tea (I forget which) seems to indicate that JB might possibly sat and talked with the killer/accomplises, again pointing to an outside family member or friend. Additionally pointing to an outside family member/friend is the fact that JB did not cry out or struggle enough to show she did.

A Q. and sorry because it's probably been answered before, but were the fingerprints on the glass in the kitchen ever matched to anyone? If not, that would almost PROVE that JB's parents or Burke were not involved.

Last:
the number of items found at the scene with no connection to anything else in the house seems to indicate that someone went to the house with the express intent to kill JB.
A profile of the killer could be compared to all people known who could have perpertrated the crime. I hope this was done. If so, it came up empty.

[bullmoose]

Newbie here.
Sorry if I'm off-track, but...
I believe the single most important piece of evidence as to whodunit is the ransom note.
The note seems to indicate that whoever wrote (or dictated) it was an outside family, friend or business associate of the Ramsey's--especially JB's father. From what I've read the note mentioned the exact sum JB's dad had recieved as a recent bonus.
It's my understanding that, based not only on the handwriting on the note but the sentence construction, syntax, puctuation and many other factors, suspects can be eliminated as such.
I'm assuming the ransom note was throughly investigated at some point in the past. And that the note did not point to JB's parents or Burke.

Personally, I don't believe that Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey or Burke had anything to do with the murder of JB. That the ransom note doesn't implicate JB's parents or Burke is one of many reasons.

The evidence of pineapple in JB's stomach and pineapple in a bowl in the kitchen, along with a glass of coffee or tea (I forget which) seems to indicate that JB might possibly sat and talked with the killer/accomplises, again pointing to an outside family member or friend. Additionally pointing to an outside family member/friend is the fact that JB did not cry out or struggle enough to show she did.

A Q. and sorry because it's probably been answered before, but were the fingerprints on the glass in the kitchen ever matched to anyone? If not, that would almost PROVE that JB's parents or Burke were not involved.

Last:
the number of items found at the scene with no connection to anything else in the house seems to indicate that someone went to the house with the express intent to kill JB.
A profile of the killer could be compared to all people known who could have perpertrated the crime. I hope this was done. If so, it came up empty.To TT: It was tea or at least a teabag in the glass, which had at least one of Burkes' prints on it; don't be too worried about being a newbie; a fresh voice and set of opinions are good for the board. You sound like a person trying to learn about this case and discuss it, too; this is a good board, withan equal number of posters in the RDI and the IDI camps, with a number of fence sitters, too. It makes for an interesting place to come to, for me, anyways, welcome. :beer:

[LindaA]

Yes, welcome, TT.

All: I recently came across a reference to fingerprints on the ransome note. Has anyone ever heard this? I thought one of the strange things about the note was the absence of prints.

[User615]

Snow being white and shiny stands out from streetlights.
When everything is blanketed with snow, it is 4 or 5 times brighter out at night. It's very beautiful.

I follow that...but from the description I didn't get the impression things were blanketed. Seemed like a very light snow, even just flurries. He stated the streets were dry the night they came home, but there could have been some left over from a previous snow. It just made me wonder.

[aussiesheila]

IMO, it is not a heart, just a crude drawing by a right handed kid drawing with their left hand on their right hand. I believe JB drew it on herself on approx. the 23rd, as it was a very faded drawing. I believe Patsy saw it on the morning of the 24th or 25th, and in the confusion of what her life had become after the murder of her daughter, she was confused on when and what she saw. IMO, I am surprised Patsy knew her own name, let alone when she saw a drawing on her daughter's hand. IMO.The coroner described it as a heart, so I'm inclined to think it was.

JonBenet might have drawn it herself, as you say, but Patsy said that she would not have done it because she discouraged her from drawing on her hands as it didn't look good when parading in pageants. Not that I am one to believe everything Patsy says, actually I believe very little of what she says, but on this occasion I think I believe her.

[LindaA]

I follow that...but from the description I didn't get the impression things were blanketed. Seemed like a very light snow, even just flurries. He stated the streets were dry the night they came home, but there could have been some left over from a previous snow. It just made me wonder.


If I look out my window towards the streetlight I can clearly see the snow falling at night. I often check to see what's happening that way.

[Zoey]

The coroner described it as a heart, so I'm inclined to think it was.

JonBenet might have drawn it herself, as you say, but Patsy said that she would not have done it because she discouraged her from drawing on her hands as it didn't look good when parading in pageants. Not that I am one to believe everything Patsy says, actually I believe very little of what she says, but on this occasion I think I believe her.

Aussie, if you have looked at the autopsy photo, you can judge for yourself. IMO, it looks more like a V, but that is just my opinion.

Patsy may have said she discouraged her from writing on herself, but she was 6 years old. Do 6 years old always mind their mommas? IMO, NO!!

[Travis Twitt]

Yes, welcome, TT.

All: I recently came across a reference to fingerprints on the ransome note. Has anyone ever heard this? I thought one of the strange things about the note was the absence of prints.

I did some reading on another thread here and it was stated that the only prints found on the note itself were those of the document expert.
PR's prints were found on the pad the note was taken from, along with the document expert's and I believe a cops, but that's to be expected.
Contrary to t.v. shows, fingerprints cannot always be detected on materials such as paper. They are some ways to do it at the expense of the document i.e. using different chemicals that could destroy the note.
And of course since this was a premeditated mnurder, the note writer could have worn gloves.

[aussiesheila]

The tape did not match any duct tape found in the house, yet was traced to its factory of origin; it was only months old, not years. IMO, it was not just laying around, it was brought into the house by the killer/s.It fits with my theory to say that it was lying around the basement somewhere having been pulled off some package which could have been opened very recently by Patsy wearing whatever garment's fibres were found on it.

Since I don't think the perpetrators intended to kill JonBenet and only used that duct tape as an afterthought for the kidnapping staging, then I don't think they brought a roll of duct tape with them. Of course I suppose one of them might have, maybe he thought it might come in useful to bind her hands together.

Anyway, I've got no way of knowing if this is true or not, and as you say, it might have been brought in by the killers.

The only thing I feel confident of is that neither John nor Patsy bought a roll of duct tape or had one in the house at the time of the murder.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, if you have looked at the autopsy photo, you can judge for yourself. IMO, it looks more like a V, but that is just my opinion.I don't think the coroner would have said it was a heart if it didn't look as though it was one, and he saw it in the flesh, so to speak and we are only looking at a photograph. Also I think it possible that he might have swabbed a bit of it with water and/or ethanol to see what type of ink it was and smudged it a bit in doing so.


Patsy may have said she discouraged her from writing on herself, but she was 6 years old. Do 6 years old always mind their mommas? IMO, NO!!Of course you are right here, Zoey!

[shill]

I follow that...but from the description I didn't get the impression things were blanketed. Seemed like a very light snow, even just flurries. He stated the streets were dry the night they came home, but there could have been some left over from a previous snow. It just made me wonder.

Sorry, I didn't mean to miss lead you abut the blanketing it was just additional info.

Snow is sparkly. A light dusting on the trees would give them a sparkly effect, especially if a slight breeze caused the branches to move.

[bullmoose]

I follow that...but from the description I didn't get the impression things were blanketed. Seemed like a very light snow, even just flurries. He stated the streets were dry the night they came home, but there could have been some left over from a previous snow. It just made me wonder.
Here in North Idaho we got a light dusting of snow last night; between 1 and two inches of fluffy stuff; my nearest street light is 50 yards away, yet the lightening effect was pronouced, since the snow fell at a temperature of 15 degrees F or -10C and reflected all light quite well.

[User615]

Here in North Idaho we got a light dusting of snow last night; between 1 and two inches of fluffy stuff; my nearest street light is 50 yards away, yet the lightening effect was pronouced, since the snow fell at a temperature of 15 degrees F or -10C and reflected all light quite well.

Could you see clouds in the sky breaking up two hours before sunrise?

[User615]

Didn't JR talk to Burke briefly before sending him to the Whites? For all we know, he or PR may have even spoken to him that morning before the 911 call was even made. They had enough time to tell him just to tell LE that he was asleep all night and morning and "didn't know nuthin'". He may have dodged questions like his mom and dad with "I don't remember".
I don't think he knew what happened after the hit on the head. I also am not convinced that he really had anything to do with it but I think he heard something and knows more than he's telling. IMO

What bothers me is JR in his interview says that he looked in Burke after finding the ransom note, and saw him sleeping. He didn't even remember if he turned on the lights in the room. Now you assume an intruder has been in your home, and taken your daughter, wouldn't you do more than "look in" to make sure he was still alive and hadn't been slain? How can you tell if someone is sleeping or dead without even checking them? Curious.

And this article certainly raises suspicion which I already had.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44/

[Tober]

The note seems to indicate that whoever wrote (or dictated) it was an outside family, friend or business associate of the Ramsey's--especially JB's father.

And that is precisely what the ransom note writer wanted you to think, however, that's not the way it is at all. The note was part of a staged crime scene. It was a scam. Its writer never, ever intended to kidnap JonBenet, never intended to call, and never intended to collect the ransom. JonBenet alone was the target of the crime. The note writer wants you to think John Ramsey was the target. By presenting John (and through John, Patsy and the family) as the target, the writer is attempting to "con" LE into thinking that since the Ramseys are the victims (targets), they can't possibly be the perpetrators. It's noteworthy that the Ramseys themselves acknowledge the ransom note as a fake, theorizing that a "lone intruder" was responsible for the crime, and not a "small foreign faction." This post is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

That's not an "article". It's just a website made by an RDI poster.

[Tober]

What bothers me is JR in his interview says that he looked in Burke after finding the ransom note, and saw him sleeping. He didn't even remember if he turned on the lights in the room. Now you assume an intruder has been in your home, and taken your daughter, wouldn't you do more than "look in" to make sure he was still alive and hadn't been slain? How can you tell if someone is sleeping or dead without even checking them? Curious.

Great point. I'm sure an IDI will be happy to point out how that's perfectly normal and what they would also do, or how everyone reacts differently so we really shouldn't read much into it. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

Could you see clouds in the sky breaking up two hours before sunrise?In Wallace, Idaho, there are mountains crowding the sky; if the clouds are not too low sometimes from my yard[on a NE facing mountain slope] I can spot the false dawn and glow of the sun, not yet nearly risen in the Eastern sky. If the clouds are breaking up, like this morning it was because of the moon being out that it was so visible.Being Wallace, it soon clouded back over, and stayed gray and cloudy all day,as is normal around here.

[shill]

What bothers me is JR in his interview says that he looked in Burke after finding the ransom note, and saw him sleeping. He didn't even remember if he turned on the lights in the room. Now you assume an intruder has been in your home, and taken your daughter, wouldn't you do more than "look in" to make sure he was still alive and hadn't been slain? How can you tell if someone is sleeping or dead without even checking them? Curious.


You know that reminds me of a question I asked about Fleet White.
FW follows John to the wine cellar. According to police reenactments and FW, he couldn't see JB, but he turns around and dashes up the steps.

Now why didn't FW look to see if she was dead or alive? If you just found someone who was missing for several hours, wouldn't you be curios if they were dead or alive?

But I'm sure an RDI will be happy to point out how that's perfectly normal and what they would also do, or how everyone reacts differently so we really shouldn't read much into it. This post is my Tobernated opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

Great point. I'm sure an IDI will be happy to point out how that's perfectly normal and what they would also do, or how everyone reacts differently so we really shouldn't read much into it. This post is my opinion.

I don't see anything about waking all the other kids up and questioning them...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3341727/

[…]
Couric: ... You all were sleeping. And you were awakened by Mary Catherine.”
Lois Smart: “Yes. She came in and said, ‘Elizabeth’s gone.”
Then nine years old, Mary Katherine shared a bed with her sister Elizabeth, then 14.
Couric: “Was she frantic?”
Lois Smart: “She was frightened. She had a blanket. She was—”
Ed Smart: “Almost hiding behind the blanket.”
Lois Smart: “As she came in. And she said, ‘Elizabeth’s gone. A man took her with a gun.’ And of course being awoken to that, it was like, this is a bad dream.”
Couric: “Because you thought, well, maybe Elizabeth went to sleep on the sofa. Mary Katherine was bugging her or whatever—”
Lois Smart: “Yeah, taking the blankets or kicking or something. And so we weren’t alarmed. Within the next three or four minutes, it seemed like an eternity, while we were going around the house and checking everything.”
Ed Smart: “Checking each of the rooms and as you went from one room, didn’t find her, and it was — the adrenaline starts building to a point where you just, you know, is this really possible?”
Couric: “You were completely panic stricken.”
Lois Smart: “Yes. And when he came upstairs and says she’s not on the sofa, and I went flying down and turned on every light. And I saw that she wasn’t there either. As my eyes panned the room, I saw this cut screen. And I knew.”
Lois smart had burned the potatoes that night and had opened a kitchen window. Someone had cut the screen and entered their home. Someone had taken Elizabeth.
Lois Smart: “I was hysterical, and I was— we were yelling. I was yelling for Ed, ‘Call the police! Call the police!’ It’s a horrible, horrible feeling.”
[…]

[Louisadelmar]

I also thought this was interesting from the same interview.

Couric: “You understood that in a situation like this, the family is always under a cloud of suspicion.”
Lois Smart: “No, I don’t think we understood that.”
Couric: “No?”
Ed Smart: “No.”

[bullmoose]

And that is precisely what the ransom note writer wanted you to think, however, that's not the way it is at all. The note was part of a staged crime scene. It was a scam. Its writer never, ever intended to kidnap JonBenet, never intended to call, and never intended to collect the ransom. JonBenet alone was the target of the crime. The note writer wants you to think John Ramsey was the target. By presenting John (and through John, Patsy and the family) as the target, the writer is attempting to "con" LE into thinking that since the Ramseys are the victims (targets), they can't possibly be the perpetrators. It's noteworthy that the Ramseys themselves acknowledge the ransom note as a fake, theorizing that a "lone intruder" was responsible for the crime, and not a "small foreign faction." This post is my opinion.Boy oh Boy!!!! did the writer/s of the note ever fail to 'con' the LE[BPD, lead by Synthroid Stevie] into thinking that the Ramseys were the victims; these fearless crimefighters were over at Synthroid Stevie's breakfast buddies house[Fleet White] within an hour of the discovery illegally interrogating Burke, trying bravely to solve the case[Damn the Law!] by getting permission to question Burke from WHO? Doubtless the fine upstanding Fleet White can explain how permission to question Burke was given in his house, under his nose, when no mother, father, grandfather or grandmother was there to give it. Surely the fine, upstanding Fleet White has an explanation on why he kept this illegal questioning secret from his friends that had entrusted their son to him. I wonder what his explanation could be? Don't you? Despite the valiant efforts of that group of superheros at the BPD to overcome the obvious 'con' played on them the guilty parties have, up until now, escaped capture . IT is even an undisputed fact that there has not ever even been an indictment of anybody by the grand jury.IT appears that a great big ZERO was accomplished by the Twister towards solving the case[unless you count his book]. Of course, this is JMHO:biggrin:

[Tober]

I also thought this was interesting from the same interview.

Couric: “You understood that in a situation like this, the family is always under a cloud of suspicion.”
Lois Smart: “No, I don’t think we understood that.”
Couric: “No?”
Ed Smart: “No.”

Innocent persons have nothing to fear and don't have the "criminal mindset" that they're going to be suspected of the crime. This post is my opinion.

[LindaA]

I did some reading on another thread here and it was stated that the only prints found on the note itself were those of the document expert.
PR's prints were found on the pad the note was taken from, along with the document expert's and I believe a cops, but that's to be expected.
Contrary to t.v. shows, fingerprints cannot always be detected on materials such as paper. They are some ways to do it at the expense of the document i.e. using different chemicals that could destroy the note.
And of course since this was a premeditated mnurder, the note writer could have worn gloves.
I have always read that as well, but just the other day I found a reference in PMPT to a police officer telling a Ramsey friend he was questioning that fingerprints had been found on the note, so I wondered about that.

[Louisadelmar]

Innocent persons have nothing to fear and don't have the "criminal mindset" that they're going to be suspected of the crime. This post is my opinion.

You're right. That's why the Ramseys couldn't understand why BPD suspected them.

Added: As to the idea "Innocent persons have nothing to fear" you should read "Actual Innocence" by Barry Sheck

[User615]

I have always read that as well, but just the other day I found a reference in PMPT to a police officer telling a Ramsey friend he was questioning that fingerprints had been found on the note, so I wondered about that.



If there is even the slightest chance of turning a fingerprint, what difference does it make if the document is destroyed? There are many copies already, and a professional photograph could be made if necessary. To me, finding a fingerprint is far more important in this matter.

[Louisadelmar]

If there is even the slightest chance of turning a fingerprint, what difference does it make if the document is destroyed? There are many copies already, and a professional photograph could be made if necessary. To me, finding a fingerprint is far more important in this matter.

Because if there were to be a trial the defense would make an issue of not having the original note to examine. I believe however that destructive testing was finally done on the note but don't have a source.

[shill]

Because if there were to be a trial the defense would make an issue of not having the original note to examine. I believe however that destructive testing was finally done on the note but don't have a source.

I'm sure I read that the note was destroyed in this testing, with no print results.

[LindaA]

I'm sure I read that the note was destroyed in this testing, with no print results.
So if that's the case, then no one else can ever do a valid handwriting analysis on the note.

I find it interesting that police made this claim while questioning someone if it wasn't true.

[thewhitewitch1]

Boy oh Boy!!!! did the writer/s of the note ever fail to 'con' the LE[BPD, lead by Synthroid Stevie] into thinking that the Ramseys were the victims; these fearless crimefighters were over at Synthroid Stevie's breakfast buddies house[Fleet White] within an hour of the discovery illegally interrogating Burke, trying bravely to solve the case[Damn the Law!] by getting permission to question Burke from WHO? Doubtless the fine upstanding Fleet White can explain how permission to question Burke was given in his house, under his nose, when no mother, father, grandfather or grandmother was there to give it. Surely the fine, upstanding Fleet White has an explanation on why he kept this illegal questioning secret from his friends that had entrusted their son to him. I wonder what his explanation could be? Don't you? Despite the valiant efforts of that group of superheros at the BPD to overcome the obvious 'con' played on them the guilty parties have, up until now, escaped capture . IT is even an undisputed fact that there has not ever even been an indictment of anybody by the grand jury.IT appears that a great big ZERO was accomplished by the Twister towards solving the case[unless you count his book]. Of course, this is JMHO:biggrin:

Just wondering....did the police follow FW to his house when he took Burke there? If not, you can't blame him for giving permission since he spent the rest of the morning and early afternoon at the Ramseys. If so, at that point it was considered a kidnapping so why would they have to have parental consent or anyones consent to question him? No one was a suspect yet.
Did they question him after JB was found or before?
Does anyone know? I think this is an important point before you go blasting FW or the LE. IMO

[andU]

It wouldn't matter what her condition was, if Burke was questioned, his parents needed to give permission or be present when he was questioned, since he was a minor.

[Louisadelmar]

I suspect if BPD had solved the case no one would have thought twice about the questioning of Burke. But, as it is, the relationship between BPD and the Ramseys had broken down so badly that to the Ramseys it was just one more thing BPD didn't do 'by the book.'

[nuisanceposter]

Just wondering....did the police follow FW to his house when he took Burke there? If not, you can't blame him for giving permission since he spent the rest of the morning and early afternoon at the Ramseys. If so, at that point it was considered a kidnapping so why would they have to have parental consent or anyones consent to question him? No one was a suspect yet.
Did they question him after JB was found or before?
Does anyone know? I think this is an important point before you go blasting FW or the LE. IMO

It was before the body was found.

[Louisadelmar]

Just wondering....did the police follow FW to his house when he took Burke there? If not, you can't blame him for giving permission since he spent the rest of the morning and early afternoon at the Ramseys. If so, at that point it was considered a kidnapping so why would they have to have parental consent or anyones consent to question him? No one was a suspect yet.
Did they question him after JB was found or before?
Does anyone know? I think this is an important point before you go blasting FW or the LE. IMO

I think the problem was he was a minor not whether or not anyone was a suspect.

[andU]

I think the problem was he was a minor not whether or not anyone was a suspect.

I agree. I don't think they could have interviewed or interrogated him without parental consent, especially since he was not in his own home and no one there had guardianship, etc.

[Louisadelmar]

Personally I don't care that they interviewed him. He doesn't seem to have said anything useful but I can understand the Ramseys having a "that too" feeling.

[thewhitewitch1]

Personally I don't care that they interviewed him. He doesn't seem to have said anything useful but I can understand the Ramseys having a "that too" feeling.

Why? If Burke was in the house when the "kidnapping" occured, wouldn't it be only natural for the LE to ask him if he had heard or seen anything? If the Ramseys were innocent, they wouldn't have seen him being questioned as a "sign" of anything that early on. IMO

[Zoey]

Why? If Burke was in the house when the "kidnapping" occured, wouldn't it be only natural for the LE to ask him if he had heard or seen anything? If the Ramseys were innocent, they wouldn't have seen him being questioned as a "sign" of anything that early on. IMO

IMO, it would be natural for them to talk to him, with his parents present, for a few minutes, not at someone else's house for 6 hours, without his parent's consent or knowledge.

[andU]

Personally, I don't see any harm in them talking to him but I believe the law states that either a parent must be present or give consent. Wouldn't that mean that any information they obtained from him would be inadmissible in court? Could that vary from state to state?

[thewhitewitch1]

IMO, it would be natural for them to talk to him, with his parents present, for a few minutes, not at someone else's house for 6 hours, without his parent's consent or knowledge.


They talked to him for 6 hours? Link please.

[Louisadelmar]

Why? If Burke was in the house when the "kidnapping" occured, wouldn't it be only natural for the LE to ask him if he had heard or seen anything? If the Ramseys were innocent, they wouldn't have seen him being questioned as a "sign" of anything that early on. IMO

I don't think it has any bearing on whether the Ramseys are innocent or guilty. I think the Ramseys saw it (in retrospect) as just another example of the police not following any kind of protocol.

Added: It may have been "natural" but what if he'd said "I saw Mom and Dad kill JonBenet" and it wasn't allowed in at a trial because the interview was done without parental permission. Cases can be lost because of this kind of failure on the part of LE.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't think it has any bearing on whether the Ramseys are innocent or guilty. I think the Ramseys saw it (in retrospect) as just another example of the police not following any kind of protocol.

Added: It may have been "natural" but what if he'd said "I saw Mom and Dad kill JonBenet" and it wasn't allowed in at a trial because the interview was done without parental permission. Cases can be lost because of this kind of failure on the part of LE.

If the Ramseys knew police protocol so well, you'd think that they would know that the parents would be the first suspects in their daughters murder and would have co-operated. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

If the Ramseys knew police protocol so well, you'd think that they would know that the parents would be the first suspects in their daughters murder and would have co-operated. IMO

I don't think they were aware of protocol at the time. That's why I said 'in retrospect". I think they were just as amazed as Elizabeth Smart's parents to learn LE considered them suspects.

[bullmoose]

If the Ramseys knew police protocol so well, you'd think that they would know that the parents would be the first suspects in their daughters murder and would have co-operated. IMO I've never seen anywhere that the Ramseys had any idea of what police protocol was, but I think that it is reasonable to expect that the BPD would have known what the law and protocol was before questioning Burke. How difficult would it have been for whoever did it to call and ask permission of the Ramseys? The BPD claimed later, after the Ramseys returned from Atlanta that 'his grandmother gave permission' ;yet another lie from the Colorado Crimefighters; remember this happened at Fleet White's house. Whether it was Fleet or his wife there, if permission was actually asked by the BPD or not, they allowed the questioning to happen. No 'Let's get John or Patsy's permission' ;nope,' just fire away, what they don't know might hurt them, but that's okay, our butt is covered, right? 'This is JMHO:biggrin:

[Zoey]

They talked to him for 6 hours? Link please.


tww...my apologies. I was thinking of the interview in June when they interviewed him without his parents knowledge or consent. That was the 6 hour interview.

When Det. Patteson interviewed him at the White's home, I do not know how long that interview lasted, but that too was without their knowledge or consent.:o

[thewhitewitch1]

I still don't see why they needed the parents permission to speak to Burke at the Whites when the line of questioning had to do with the "kidnapping". They were not interrogating him as if he or his parents were suspects at that time.

[bullmoose]

I still don't see why they needed the parents permission to speak to Burke at the Whites when the line of questioning had to do with the "kidnapping". They were not interrogating him as if he or his parents were suspects at that time.I can't quote you the statute involved, but it is the law. When Burke was sent over to the Whites, the officer taking him could have asked John permission, he was right there.But he didn't; of course, over the next few hours, as he was questioned, but not as if he or his parents were suspects, of course, the interview was taperecorded. OOPS! How could these bungling cops think to record a child that wasn't a suspect, he or his parents? How could these unsuspicious cops fail to mention this taped interrogation until 1999? How could the fine, upstanding, beyond reproach, question and suspicion, Whites fail to tell their best friends, the Ramseys? I'll go out on a limb here and guess that the Whites, who couldn't give permission to the cops to question Burke, but either did give it or acquiesed to it, being how they were there when it happened; perhaps they were asked by the BPD not to tell their friends the Ramseys that an illegal interrogation had gone on. Because on the way to, or in Georgia it apparently didn't occur to Fleet to tell John some of what the BPD was pulling. Boy, with a pal like that, you don't need enemies, do you? Oh yeah, thats right Fleet keeps writing letters demanding a special prosecuter; I guess he is and was an enemy. JMHO :biggrin:

[Louisadelmar]

I still don't see why they needed the parents permission to speak to Burke at the Whites when the line of questioning had to do with the "kidnapping". They were not interrogating him as if he or his parents were suspects at that time.

Neither was Melinda and she left her interview in tears because of the way the police leaned on her trying to get her to say negative things about her father.

[thewhitewitch1]

Neither was Melinda and she left her interview in tears because of the way the police leaned on her trying to get her to say negative things about her father.


Melinda was questioned after it became a murder. At that time, yes, the Ramseys were suspects..which, of course is normal.

Bullmoose...how do you know FW was even there to give permission? I've asked someone...anyone...if they knew this for a fact. How do you know it was tape recorded? How do you know FW even knew Burke was questioned if he wasn't even present when it happened? Where did you get this information?

[bullmoose]

Melinda was questioned after it became a murder. At that time, yes, the Ramseys were suspects..which, of course is normal.

Bullmoose...how do you know FW was even there to give permission? I've asked someone...anyone...if they knew this for a fact. How do you know it was tape recorded? How do you know FW even knew Burke was questioned if he wasn't even present when it happened? Where did you get this information?I do not know that Fleet was himself there to give permission or not; I have no track of his movements on that day; if he wasn't his wife was there, and I assume was closeby the door when Burke arrived; so unless there was a complete breakdown in communication between the Whites, I believe it reasonable that he knew, if not the moment things occurred, then shortly after. My source for the fact that the interrrogation session was taped is from the Ramseys' book, the DOI, page 31. BTW, if you read my posts alittle more carefully , you would see that I never said that Fleet White was actually there to give permission; I did say he never tried to share the information of the illegal questioning with John or Patsy, then or later.Not much of a friend, wouldn't you agree.?:eek:

[thewhitewitch1]

I do not know that Fleet was himself there to give permission or not; I have no track of his movements on that day; if he wasn't his wife was there, and I assume was closeby the door when Burke arrived; so unless there was a complete breakdown in communication between the Whites, I believe it reasonable that he knew, if not the moment things occurred, then shortly after. My source for the fact that the interrrogation session was taped is from the Ramseys' book, the DOI, page 31. BTW, if you read my posts alittle more carefully , you would see that I never said that Fleet White was actually there to give permission; I did say he never tried to share the information of the illegal questioning with John or Patsy, then or later.Not much of a friend, wouldn't you agree.?:eek:

Hmm...wasn't Priscilla White also at the Ramseys that morning? How do you know Fleet didn't "share" that information with the R's? If neither of them were there when the police questioned Burke, how would they know to tell them? :shrug:
Also, you may believe every word the Ramseys wrote in their book, but I do not. It has about as many "errors" in it as the other books written about the murder. I don't have the book here but for example, JR says he placed JBs body under or near the Christmas tree, which we all know is not true. You'd think with being privy to reading all of the police paperwork they'd get their facts straight. IMO

[bullmoose]

Hmm...wasn't Priscilla White also at the Ramseys that morning? How do you know Fleet didn't "share" that information with the R's? If neither of them were there when the police questioned Burke, how would they know to tell them? :shrug:
Also, you may believe every word the Ramseys wrote in their book, but I do not. It has about as many "errors" in it as the other books written about the murder. I don't have the book here but for example, JR says he placed JBs body under or near the Christmas tree, which we all know is not true. You'd think with being privy to reading all of the police paperwork they'd get their facts straight. IMOTrue enough about the books not being perfect in detail; just last week I was reading two completely different versions in Steve Thomas' book about the time and actions when John Andrew and Melissa arrived from the airport with her fiance. I have the paperback edition and was surprised that nobody had spotted the error in any edition; after all,just like you say about the Ramseys being able to read the police paperwork, Synthroid Stevie had two separate chances to get his facts straight; first, when he wrote his notes; second, when the anonymous sources inside the BPD sent him the hundreds of pages of his notes so that he could tell the world the truth--- according to the Twister. So I don't claim that the DOI is a perfect record, but I find it to be just as or even more believable than the Twisterpiece. When the Ramseys write that they had no knowledge of the interrogation until 1999, I believe them. If, as you suggest the Whites never went back to their house, maybe they didn't know what the cops were doing. But how do you suppose the cops got in the house? OOPS.!! Just looking at the DOI; hmm, here on page 14 it says Burke left for the Whites with Fleet White; darn, that puts Fleet right there with the cops,doesn't it, and just when they'd be there at the house. Makes it easy to see why Fleet keeps coming to mind, doesn't it, when permission was asked. Any questions?:biggrin:

[Zoey]

Hmm...wasn't Priscilla White also at the Ramseys that morning? How do you know Fleet didn't "share" that information with the R's? If neither of them were there when the police questioned Burke, how would they know to tell them? :shrug:
Also, you may believe every word the Ramseys wrote in their book, but I do not. It has about as many "errors" in it as the other books written about the murder. I don't have the book here but for example, JR says he placed JBs body under or near the Christmas tree, which we all know is not true. You'd think with being privy to reading all of the police paperwork they'd get their facts straight. IMO


I may be wrong, someone correct me if I am, but I thought I read in DOI that JR says the stories have it wrong in that they say he placed the body under the tree when in fact he did not; he had placed her near the foyer. I thought he stated he does not know who put her under the tree.

[nuisanceposter]

I may be wrong, someone correct me if I am, but I thought I read in DOI that JR says the stories have it wrong in that they say he placed the body under the tree when in fact he did not; he had placed her near the foyer. I thought he stated he does not know who put her under the tree.

DOI, pb, page 22

I fall down over her body. Instantly I rip the tape off her mouth, begging her to talk to me. I pull the blanket off of her. Her delicate eyelids are closed and her skin is cool to the touch.

I can't stand the sight of her hands tied and have to do something to get them loose. I start untying her, but I can't get the tight knot undone. Everything begins to blur and I'm slipping out of mind and losing control. I grab JonBenet under her arms and pick her up. Stumbling out of the room, I run to the stairs, carrying my still child. From somewhere far inside of me, a scream erupts. That's all I can do. I scream like I'm in a nightmare but my body is still asleep; I'm deathly afraid.

I run to the living room, where Linda Arndt is standing, and lay JonBenet on the floor in front of the Christmas tree. I still believe we can do something. We've got to get her awake and out of this unconscious state. Breathing. Moving. Talking. Anything.

All I can do is comfort JonBenet. Hug her and kiss her. I've found my baby. Abruptly Officer Arndt is down beside me, checking JonBenet's vital signs. The policewoman straightens up, looks me in the eye, and tells me JonBenet is dead.



So JR claims he laid her under the tree in DOI. Yet another fact that JR should have clear in his mind and in his book, yet he describes a different version than others do.

[thewhitewitch1]

True enough about the books not being perfect in detail; just last week I was reading two completely different versions in Steve Thomas' book about the time and actions when John Andrew and Melissa arrived from the airport with her fiance. I have the paperback edition and was surprised that nobody had spotted the error in any edition; after all,just like you say about the Ramseys being able to read the police paperwork, Synthroid Stevie had two separate chances to get his facts straight; first, when he wrote his notes; second, when the anonymous sources inside the BPD sent him the hundreds of pages of his notes so that he could tell the world the truth--- according to the Twister. So I don't claim that the DOI is a perfect record, but I find it to be just as or even more believable than the Twisterpiece. When the Ramseys write that they had no knowledge of the interrogation until 1999, I believe them. If, as you suggest the Whites never went back to their house, maybe they didn't know what the cops were doing. But how do you suppose the cops got in the house? OOPS.!! Just looking at the DOI; hmm, here on page 14 it says Burke left for the Whites with Fleet White; darn, that puts Fleet right there with the cops,doesn't it, and just when they'd be there at the house. Makes it easy to see why Fleet keeps coming to mind, doesn't it, when permission was asked. Any questions?:biggrin:


FW took Burke to his house; yes but went back to the Ramseys. He had guests staying at his home that were watching the kids. Where is it written anywhere that the police accompanied him and Burke?

Thanks for suppying that passage from DOI for me, NP!

[User615]

I may be wrong, someone correct me if I am, but I thought I read in DOI that JR says the stories have it wrong in that they say he placed the body under the tree when in fact he did not; he had placed her near the foyer. I thought he stated he does not know who put her under the tree.


This is one explanation.


.......setting her down on the floor. Though it's unclear why, Arndt then picked up the body again and moved it to the living room near the Christmas tree where Ramsey knelt beside her, repeating "My little angel," over and over.

[Zoey]

This is one explanation.


.......setting her down on the floor. Though it's unclear why, Arndt then picked up the body again and moved it to the living room near the Christmas tree where Ramsey knelt beside her, repeating "My little angel," over and over.


This is what I remember reading. Could you please tell me where you got this quote from? Thank you.

[LindaA]

Doesn't sound to me as if he felt he was in control of his mind from the wuote you have posted.

[thewhitewitch1]

Doesn't sound to me as if he felt he was in control of his mind from the wuote you have posted.


He should have been in control of his mind when he wrote his book. He had access to the police reports. How does saying to your dead child "my little angel" indicate he wasn't in control of his mind? :shrug:

[bullmoose]

This is what I remember reading. Could you please tell me where you got this quote from? Thank you.Sorry to jump in, but I think the account or something similar comes from Steve Thomas' book
page 30, where it says Linda Arndt "lay the dead child on her back, on a rug beforethe Christmas tree."

[bullmoose]

Sorry to jump in, but I think the account or something similar comes from Steve Thomas' book
page 30, where it says Linda Arndt "lay the dead child on her back, on a rug beforethe Christmas tree."Oddly, neither DOI by the Ramseys or the Steve Thomas book has John Ramsey saying " My little angel,once or over and over; I guess I too have to ask which book has that account in it. I'd like to read and compare it to the other accounts.

[Zoey]

Sorry to jump in, but I think the account or something similar comes from Steve Thomas' book
page 30, where it says Linda Arndt "lay the dead child on her back, on a rug beforethe Christmas tree."

I know I am going to get blasted for this by the RDI's, but, I don't feel JR was lying in his book about where he laid little JB's body. I think he placed her in the foyer area, left the area for a few minutes, came back, and Linda Arndt had moved her. Perhaps in the confusion and turmoil of finding his dead daughter, he honestly cannot remember where he set her down. It is not like she moved by herself, and one would not expect to come back and find someone else had moved the body, so perhaps he has always been under the assumption that he is the one that indeed set her by the tree? This post is my opinion.

[Athena]

I know I am going to get blasted for this by the RDI's, but, I don't feel JR was lying in his book about where he laid little JB's body. I think he placed her in the foyer area, left the area for a few minutes, came back, and Linda Arndt had moved her. Perhaps in the confusion and turmoil of finding his dead daughter, he honestly cannot remember where he set her down. It is not like she moved by herself, and one would not expect to come back and find someone else had moved the body, so perhaps he has always been under the assumption that he is the one that indeed set her by the tree? This post is my opinion.

It totally amazes me that some cannot understand when one is going through trauma and under a great deal of grief and stress that recall of events are going to be skewed. Would happen to the best of us and under less dire circumstances. Ever just have a car accident and you really cannot remember details or the details become confus-ed? How about you hear or read something so often about what someone else did or said that you then believe you may have done or said it or even thinking you've been somewhere but haven't? But alas they are called liars! Been there, done that! JMO

[Louisadelmar]

When I remember situations, particularly stressful ones, it is like a series of very short video clips (sometimes just still shots). I don't remember things in a unfolding, linear way of 'Then I did this and then I did that." If I were being questioned there would be both a lot of 'I don't recalls' and I might make some assumptions that I might not have firm memories of.

I don't have a problem with the Ramsey's memories. I would find it more suspicious if they told the exact same story every time.

[shill]

It totally amazes me that some cannot understand when one is going through trauma and under a great deal of grief and stress that recall of events are going to be skewed. Would happen to the best of us and under less dire circumstances. Ever just have a car accident and you really cannot remember details or the details become confus-ed? How about you hear or read something so often about what someone else did or said that you then believe you may have done or said it or even thinking you've been somewhere but haven't? But alas they are called liars! Been there, done that! JMO

Trial lawers are very aware of it! It's a huge part of their business.

[Louisadelmar]

A friend of mine who is a prosecutor had to testify in a case. She called me afterwards to say it was the worst experience of her life. She couldn't remember details they wanted or worse, she could remember two possibilities but not which one actually happened. It was a real eye-opener for her.

[User615]

This is what I remember reading. Could you please tell me where you got this quote from? Thank you.

Sorry I didn't see your request sooner. Here you go.