The Pineapple Issue

[thewhitewitch1]

This is Patsy from DOI pg. 274 (hb version)- Then they turned to her Barbie nightgown, which had been in the windowless room where she was found. I had no idea how it could have gotten there. It certainly was not supposed to be there. I couldn't say for sure if the blanket had been on her bed that night. Often we wash our bedding in the large washer and dryer, which were in the basement, rather than use the smaller stackable unit on the second floor. Could the blanket and nightgown have been removed from that dryer?


-Tea


Thanks, Tea. How can Patsy definitively state that the nightgown "was not supposed to be there?" John has said this also. Many things "should not have been there" in that room, including JBs body so why do they single out the nightgown? I find that to be a very odd statement.
I think Patsy very well knows that the blanket and nightgown came from the dryer. Can you imagine an intruder searching through a dryer for a blanket? How would an intruder even know it was in there. If he needed a blanket, he could have used the comforter from her bed, or any other blankets in the house that were easily visible and accessable. IMO

[Zoey]

Thanks, Tea. How can Patsy definitively state that the nightgown "was not supposed to be there?" John has said this also. Many things "should not have been there" in that room, including JBs body so why do they single out the nightgown? I find that to be a very odd statement.
I think Patsy very well knows that the blanket and nightgown came from the dryer. Can you imagine an intruder searching through a dryer for a blanket? How would an intruder even know it was in there. If he needed a blanket, he could have used the comforter from her bed, or any other blankets in the house that were easily visible and accessable. IMO

When John made the statement about the barbie nightgown, he was being shown a picture of the blanket and the nightgown. He was not being shown a picture of his dead daughter down in the basement, because there couldn't be one. Of course he is going to say, "that should not have been there," meaning the nightgown, because it shouldn't have. IMO.

I find it odd that you find it odd that someone looking at a picture sees something that doesn't belong and comments on it. What was he supposed to say...hmmmm...cute nightgown? IMO.

When someone breaks in a house, do they just steal the obvious stuff? No, they rummage through everything, drawers, closets, bookshelves, everything. Why would this intruder be any different? He went through things, looking for things. IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

When John made the statement about the barbie nightgown, he was being shown a picture of the blanket and the nightgown. He was not being shown a picture of his dead daughter down in the basement, because there couldn't be one. Of course he is going to say, "that should not have been there," meaning the nightgown, because it shouldn't have. IMO.

I find it odd that you find it odd that someone looking at a picture sees something that doesn't belong and comments on it. What was he supposed to say...hmmmm...cute nightgown? IMO.

When someone breaks in a house, do they just steal the obvious stuff? No, they rummage through everything, drawers, closets, bookshelves, everything. Why would this intruder be any different? He went through things, looking for things. IMO.


How about he could have said "I don't understand why that's there. What is the purpose of the killer putting that there". Saying that it "shouldn't be there" is like stating a fact. Why does he know it "shouldn't be there" unless he set up the scene? It's odd that both he and Patsy used the same choice of words. Maybe you don't think it's odd but I do.
When someone breaks into a house to steal things, they rummage through everything. This intruder did not steal anything and obviously was not there to steal anything. There is no evidence that he "rummaged through" anything. Even the open drawers in the bathroom cannot be conclusively pinned on an intruder because the Ramseys were hardly candidates for the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval. IMO

[icedtea4me]

Thanks, Tea. How can Patsy definitively state that the nightgown "was not supposed to be there?" John has said this also. Many things "should not have been there" in that room, including JBs body so why do they single out the nightgown? I find that to be a very odd statement.
I think Patsy very well knows that the blanket and nightgown came from the dryer. Can you imagine an intruder searching through a dryer for a blanket? How would an intruder even know it was in there. If he needed a blanket, he could have used the comforter from her bed, or any other blankets in the house that were easily visible and accessable. IMO
Not only that, but JonBenet's bedding had always been cleaned in the laundry area just outside of her room. So, then why would Patsy be bringing up the possibility that the blanket was laundered in the basement?


-Tea

[Zoey]

How about he could have said "I don't understand why that's there. What is the purpose of the killer putting that there". Saying that it "shouldn't be there" is like stating a fact. Why does he know it "shouldn't be there" unless he set up the scene? It's odd that both he and Patsy used the same choice of words. Maybe you don't think it's odd but I do.
When someone breaks into a house to steal things, they rummage through everything. This intruder did not steal anything and obviously was not there to steal anything. There is no evidence that he "rummaged through" anything. Even the open drawers in the bathroom cannot be conclusively pinned on an intruder because the Ramseys were hardly candidates for the "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval. IMO

Why does he know it shouldn't be there? Because it was his house, his daughter, her Barbie nightgown. It should not have been in the basement. How obvious is that. Yes, he is stating it as fact, because the fact is, it shouldn't have been there. IMO.

I don't understand how you can repeatedly say what John or Patsy should or should not have said. You were not there. You have no idea what they were feeling or what was going through their heads at the time. IMO.

[Zoey]

Not only that, but JonBenet's bedding had always been cleaned in the laundry area just outside of her room. So, then why would Patsy be bringing up the possibility that the blanket was laundered in the basement?


-Tea

Patsy said herself in an interview that the bedding for the beds was done in the big washer and dryer downstairs. The sheets were done upstairs. IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

Why does he know it shouldn't be there? Because it was his house, his daughter, her Barbie nightgown. It should not have been in the basement. How obvious is that. Yes, he is stating it as fact, because the fact is, it shouldn't have been there. IMO.

I don't understand how you can repeatedly say what John or Patsy should or should not have said. You were not there. You have no idea what they were feeling or what was going through their heads at the time. IMO.

I did not say they "should have said this or that". I said they could have said it. Yeah, obviously it shouldn't have been there. I'd be questioning why it was there - what significance there was to it being there...not stating the obvious. I guess the difference is, I think they are guilty as sin and you don't so you wouldn't understand why that comment seemed off to me. No big deal.

[bullmoose]

Well, if he was "doing that", he'd know that the FBI was at his home that day, wouldn't he?
So...what is your opinion on why he lied about telling Arndt about the window and suitcase?What is your opinion on the lie that Linda Arndt told, that John went outside for a half hour to get his mail;when the mail came into the door. A lie is a lie; when has she publicly apologized for that lie? And why would JR feel a need to say the FBI was there? An agent of the FBI was there, but not as an agent, as a gawker only, he was not on the case.That is doubtless why he was not introduced to John Ramsey. So, from my standpoint, the FBI wasn't there any more than the people and gawkers outside. They weren't on the case either. :biggrin:

[Sharon]

I suspect he was so offended that Eller tried to ransom JonBenet's body that memory-wise it really doesn't make much difference whether they did or not.

I've read quite a lot on memory particularly memory under stress and where you see lies I see failures of memory brought on by stress. When Dorothy Moxley's testimony at the trial didn't match what she'd told police earlier I didn't consider it a lie. When Lindy Chamberlain's story wasn't consistent I didn't immediately assume she was lying. There are numerous cases where people's memories are not constant. In fact, I would find it suspicious if they were word perfect everytime.

They had been through about the worst trauma a parent can imagine. They were then immediately subjected to a huge accusatory media onslaught aided and abetted by LE. And they were taking prescription medicines that are known to cause problems with memory. Was John telling a lie in the interview where he can't remember his stepmother's current last name? Maybe because I have my own problems with memory I recognize it and am more sympathetic.

We got rid of my daughter's first horse last spring. She went to a good home. My clear memory is we gave her away. My husband remembers firmly that we sold her. I wonder which one of us is telling a "lie"? :-)

Thank you for writing this. For ages now I have been wanting to discuss this very topic of memory.

I would love to see any one here get put through a fine tooth comb re their memory. The truth is.....people`s memory of events, places, names, times is pretty poor. Not only does the memory often fail completely, but it also tends to remember with certainty things that did not take place. You can times this by 1000 when the person has gone through a stressful event.

You can experiment with yourselves & or family members/ freinds. Do you remember what you watched on tv last night, what order the shows were on, what time each show was on???? Do you remember what you ate last night, what your spouse ate last night, what time you went to bed/ sleep etc. What about last week? Do you remember who you rang yesterday, who rang you? Do you remember what you got for your last birthday or what you gave out to your kids for theirs? Do you think your spouse or so would remember the same answers that you did?

I dont want to bore you with my own details but the other day my fil asked if we bought new couches. We had painted a large brown feature wall white. No one in our close family could tell what was different about our room that they had been in 100s of times.

We do a lot of renovating. The other day I completely forgot that we had changed our marble in the shower because it had leaked a few years ago. My dh & I had an argument about it. I was wrong.

I always question that someone has actually `lied` because they cant remember details or they remembered them wrong. I think memory should be put into perspective and not be unrealistically compared to an impossible standard that doesnt exist for anyone.

One last example, does nobody here ever remember anything wrong or ever have a disagreement with anyone about different versions of events. Doesnt anyone ever forget appointments or have the other party get the time or place wrong. I dont think we have to look too far to see evidence of this in our own lives all the time.
jmo.

[thewhitewitch1]

What is your opinion on the lie that Linda Arndt told, that John went outside for a half hour to get his mail;when the mail came into the door. A lie is a lie; when has she publicly apologized for that lie? And why would JR feel a need to say the FBI was there? An agent of the FBI was there, but not as an agent, as a gawker only, he was not on the case.That is doubtless why he was not introduced to John Ramsey. So, from my standpoint, the FBI wasn't there any more than the people and gawkers outside. They weren't on the case either. :biggrin:

Linda Arndt assumed JR went out and got the mail when he "disapeared" and reapeared later reading the mail. Not a lie.
How do you know the FBI agent was a "gawker" and not on the case and wasn't introduced to JR? If he knew the agent was there and claimed the FBI never came, that is a lie. Stop trying to sugar coat it. :biggrin:

[shill]

Not only that, but JonBenet's bedding had always been cleaned in the laundry area just outside of her room. So, then why would Patsy be bringing up the possibility that the blanket was laundered in the basement?


-Tea

Patsy, "Often we wash our bedding in the large washer and dryer, which were in the basement, rather than use the smaller stackable unit on the second floor."

The FBI questioned Patsy about things in the basement laundry room. At some point the LE had to ask her if the sheets could have come from there which made her wonder.

IMO JB took the blanket off the bed and wrapped it around herself so she wouldn't be cold when she went down to the kitchen for a bite to eat.

[shill]

Linda Arndt assumed JR went out and got the mail when he "disapeared" and reapeared later reading the mail. Not a lie.


From what I've seen you describe as lies, Linda Arndt saying John went for the mail for a half hour fits your requirements to describe it as a lie.

Linda Arndt lied, and it wasn't even a little white (trash) lie.

[bullmoose]

Linda Arndt assumed JR went out and got the mail when he "disapeared" and reapeared later reading the mail. Not a lie.
How do you know the FBI agent was a "gawker" and not on the case and wasn't introduced to JR? If he knew the agent was there and claimed the FBI never came, that is a lie. Stop trying to sugar coat it. :biggrin:
tww1: Linda said he went outside, she could have looked out or looked and seen the mail slot.Oh yeah, so she was overwhelmed and alone on the scene and couldn't keep the scene under control alone. The situation was unbelievably stressful, so she mis-spoke. Omigod, if such soft standards were applied to the Ramseys people might think they were highly stressed, too. Nope, no can do. She had to be perfectly accurate about every single thing. She didn't so she lied. I'm sorry, I just can't give her any slack; it wouldn't be fair to the BPD investigation, would it? Nowhere have I ever read that agent
Walker was ever introduced to John, even in the Twister's book, it says that the FBI wasn't on the case once it became a murder. So, tww1, he was on his own, there unofficially, unintroduced, maybe even pretending to be BPD. JR told no lie, the BPD kept saying the FBI was on its way,etc to the distraught parents, now that was a bunch of liars.JMHO
:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

From what I've seen you describe as lies, Linda Arndt saying John went for the mail for a half hour fits your requirements to describe it as a lie.

Linda Arndt lied, and it wasn't even a little white (trash) lie.

Well, we aren't here to discuss Linda Arndts "lies". She is not a suspect.
Please address the other lies the Ramseys told and start with the one where JR said that he immediately told Arndt about the window and suitcase.
Scroll up and read his outright lie during a media interview and what he said during his interview with the LE.
And then you can explain why he didn't tell Arndt about the window and suitcase...or anyone else until months later.

[bullmoose]

Well, we aren't here to discuss Linda Arndts "lies". She is not a suspect.
Please address the other lies the Ramseys told and start with the one where JR said that he immediately told Arndt about the window and suitcase.
Scroll up and read his outright lie during a media interview and what he said during his interview with the LE.
And then you can explain why he didn't tell Arndt about the window and suitcase...or anyone else until months later.Why can't we discuss Linda Arndt? The BPD would only say that a lot of people were under the umbrella of suspician, I never saw a press release letting anyone beside Synthroid Stevies breakfast buddy, fleet, off the hook. Nobody is a suspect, suspects have rights, by not having any suspects, just persons of interest, the BPD kept from having to disclose very much. However,IMO, everybody involved in the case is a person of interest. POI's that make statements about other POI's especially, IMO become part of the debate here. Explain the statement doesn't sound as prejudicial as address the lies, try it that way.:biggrin:

[Athena]

Thank you for writing this. For ages now I have been wanting to discuss this very topic of memory.

I would love to see any one here get put through a fine tooth comb re their memory. The truth is.....people`s memory of events, places, names, times is pretty poor. Not only does the memory often fail completely, but it also tends to remember with certainty things that did not take place. You can times this by 1000 when the person has gone through a stressful event.

You can experiment with yourselves & or family members/ freinds. Do you remember what you watched on tv last night, what order the shows were on, what time each show was on???? Do you remember what you ate last night, what your spouse ate last night, what time you went to bed/ sleep etc. What about last week? Do you remember who you rang yesterday, who rang you? Do you remember what you got for your last birthday or what you gave out to your kids for theirs? Do you think your spouse or so would remember the same answers that you did?

I dont want to bore you with my own details but the other day my fil asked if we bought new couches. We had painted a large brown feature wall white. No one in our close family could tell what was different about our room that they had been in 100s of times.

We do a lot of renovating. The other day I completely forgot that we had changed our marble in the shower because it had leaked a few years ago. My dh & I had an argument about it. I was wrong.

I always question that someone has actually `lied` because they cant remember details or they remembered them wrong. I think memory should be put into perspective and not be unrealistically compared to an impossible standard that doesnt exist for anyone.

One last example, does nobody here ever remember anything wrong or ever have a disagreement with anyone about different versions of events. Doesnt anyone ever forget appointments or have the other party get the time or place wrong. I dont think we have to look too far to see evidence of this in our own lives all the time.
jmo.

I know for a fact that short-term memory can be affected in grief but will not put my life on a message board.

The ability to recall events especially during a tragic event is normal and does not mean that the Ramseys are lying. They could honestly believe they remembered the events as they releayed them. JR did mention the broken window to FW; it is also possible that he thought he mentioned it to LindaA and maybe he did but she did not record it. She was undergoing stress herself trying to keep a household of people under control without help. There are many variables in this case that could have affected anyone's recollection of events.

Unless you've lost a child or someone was suddenly and unexpectedly taken away from you, you CANNOT walk in that person's shoes. In addition to losing a child to a brutal murder, they weren't even allowed to go through a normal grieving process; the grieving process was interrupted. Recollection of events could even become clearer as time passes because it is the short-term memory that is most impaired under these circumstances thus making their recall of events different later on.

[andU]

Very good posts! As I understand it, the memory works as a defense mech. in that we may remember things that happened just prior to a major event or just after, but details of the event may be blurred by our body's attempt to protect ourselves. Many things in life are too painful to remember until enough time has past to allow healing. Even then, they my be remembered incorrectly.

[bullmoose]

Very good posts! As I understand it, the memory works as a defense mech. in that we may remember things that happened just prior to a major event or just after, but details of the event may be blurred by our body's attempt to protect ourselves. Many things in life are too painful to remember until enough time has past to allow healing. Even then, they my be remembered incorrectly.One thing my memory is very good about is the fact that Tober can't remember to tell me, and everyone when it was that the BPD had the chemical test to raise fingerprints done on the flashlight found on the counter. I also remember Tober said it proved that the Ramseys clubbed Jonbenet with it because it and the batteries clearly showed the marks from being wiped down. I remember that Tober never offered a scintilla of evidence for anything he said, just blah, blah, blah. JMHO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

What can be reasonably ignored: Nonexistant fibers found in flying carpets piloted by Rashoman; also ignorant claims of circumstantial evidence as being proof of fond fantasies held by RDI's. You can ignore this stuff, many do.:biggrin:
Yes, those who refuse to believe the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter ignore "this stuff" = the damning evidence which implicates the Ramseys.

[Sprocket]

Yes, those who refuse to believe the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter ignore "this stuff" = the damning evidence which implicates the Ramseys.

Completely agree. It's the evidence that has zero rebuttal arguments, so it's easier to deny it's existence and claim that the Boulder DA's fabricated this evidence. By doing that they are, in effect, claiming that in the Ramsey 2000 interviews, the DA's intentionally violated their oath of office by lying while representing the people of Colorado.

[bullmoose]

Yes, those who refuse to believe the Ramseys were involved in the death of their daughter ignore "this stuff" = the damning evidence which implicates the Ramseys. OOOOOOh,YYYEEEESSSSS!!!! That is doubtless why they were tried and convicted of murder,right? They wern't??? Surely they were indicted on this 'damning evidence' and their slick lawyers got them off on a reasonable doubt,right? What?? They werent even indicted, with all this damning evidence implicating them, are you kidding? Hummmm, maybe this damning evidence isn't very compelling, after all, if LE couldn't even salvage an indictment, after all an indictment is a lot easier to achieve than a conviction,right? And in my own opinion, the damning evidence is not compelling at all to implicate the Ramseys.NIMHO, anyway.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

It is very unfair to catagorize IDI's and lump us into people who have not looked at the idea that the Ramseys could have done it. As I have stated more than once, I used to be an RDI. I believed that Patsy did it. Then, I started looking at the other logic and as I researched and read I came to believe that it was an intruder. So, don't say that I have not looked at the other side. I am not going to explain anything else to any of you who wish to argue. There is a difference in arguments and debates or discussions. It sounds from all of you that you have an anger problem and you are ready to fling it onto anyone who is an IDI, today. Get a grip, we don't have to agree about it.
You can read in my post that I wrote "many" IDIs, not "all" IDIs.
But there are IDIs on this board who seriously believe that pedophiles brought a rabbit along with them, or that Patsy let in virtual strangers for a photo session with JonBenet around midnight at Christmas, when the family was scheduled for a flight in the early morning hours. I don't get 'angry' when reading that, quite the contrary, I have to laught so hard that my sides hurt. What do you as an IDI think of such a theory? Just curious.
Has any of the IDIs on this board ever come up with a time line of the events on that fatal night? If memory servrs, the only IDI who has done that was the poster with the rabbit scenario. :)

[andU]

No, I don't agree with that rabbit theory. ...and no, I have not taken the time to work up a timeline. I will but I can't say when, ok. I'll try to get it done in the next day or two. I'm not putting you off, I'll do it.

[rashomon]

OOOOOOh,YYYEEEESSSSS!!!! That is doubtless why they were tried and convicted of murder,right? They wern't??? Surely they were indicted on this 'damning evidence' and their slick lawyers got them off on a reasonable doubt,right? What?? They werent even indicted, with all this damning evidence implicating them, are you kidding? Hummmm, maybe this damning evidence isn't very compelling, after all, if LE couldn't even salvage an indictment, after all an indictment is a lot easier to achieve than a conviction,right? And in my own opinion, the damning evidence is not compelling at all to implicate the Ramseys.NIMHO, anyway.:biggrin:

Just think of O.J. Simpson, Bullmoose: guilty as hell but still got away with it.

[Zoey]

No, I don't agree with that rabbit theory. ...and no, I have not taken the time to work up a timeline. I will but I can't say when, ok. I'll try to get it done in the next day or two. I'm not putting you off, I'll do it.

Why would an IDI need to do a timeline? There is a perfectly good one on acandyrose.com. There is also a timeline on FFJ and Webbsleuths.

Why are you asking andU to do another? Just curious.

[aussiesheila]

They would be interesting reading, though. I'm tryiing to fit the Rs into the "sociopath" mold. As I work with offenders, I've run across quite a few in my day. They are often charming, often like to live dangerously, often abuse alcohol and drugs. They are "social engineers" who manipulate people, They are interested in a person only so far as that person can do them some good. Then they drop them and move on. As they are very narcissistic they seldom spend their time volunteering and helping others -- they're only in anything for what they can get out of it. They lack remorse and are unable to empathize. Other than that they are lovely people. ;)Linda, I am most interested in this post of yours. You describe very accurately and succintly what these people are like IMO. I know a person who fits into this mold, two actually, and as they are both members of my family of origin I know only too well what they are capable of. It is great when you meet someone who knows what these people are like and affirms that they do exist. I think the figures are about 5% of the population, which is actually a lot of people, but for the most part, they are not recognised as being a problem. Most people who have had a bad experience with one come away thinking it was themself that was the problem. From my experience, they are not all identical behaviourally, but as persons with a personality disorder I think they share one trait in common, and that is the inability to empathise with others, which you did mention. I think this is their fundamental flaw and this underrides the narcissism they all display to some extent. I think that, just like everyone else, they inherit 'normal' personality traits and these temper the 'abnormal' defect that is the disorder, and give rise to the different types of personality disorders which are all just very rough classifications IMO. That is my theory, anyway.

As you can see, this is a pet topic of mine and I go on about it, if given the opportunity. And this all has nothing to do with the JonBenet case. But what I do think, and this is my experience, that for every person that falls victim to their charms and remains a victim, there are at least ten who fell but became disenchanted and have suffered the consequences.

So the relevance of this to the JonBenet case is that IMO, if John did have a personality disorder, besides all the people who were friends of his at that point in time, there would be legions of people who had been terribly hurt by him and would have come forward to reveal the horrible things he had done to them. (And two people only in the form of F and P W do not count as a legion).

Patsy, I think had psychological problems, but again, not anything as fundamental as a personality disorder. I think her problems had their roots in the sexual abuse that I think she suffered as a child at the hands of her father.

[rashomon]

Are you quoting someone's post? Or are you talking about Aussiesheila's theory? Though I don't think her theory is correct I don't recall her suggesting a beaver was brought in. I thought she said a rabbit.

Could you give a source for your quote as I can't remember reading it anywhere.
You would have to ask Bullmoose for further info, for he expanded on the beaver theory. :)
tww1: You don't understand what the beaver was brought to the house to do.; Beavers slap the water with their tails when they spot danger, to warn the other beavers[if any are present]. This beaver was used by the killers as a lookout; it was startled and scared by something in the night, and accidentally bopped Jonbenet with its lethally powerful tail as it was giving warning to the others there. Just kidding, IMHO

From aussiesheila's post:

There were even animal hairs that could not be traced to anything in the house found on JonBenet's hands. That suggests to me that an animal was brought in as well, probably to be used as part of the abuse by the intruder.

If memory serves, Aussiesheila switched from 'beaver' to 'rabbit' after someone posted that the animal hair evidence did not conclusively point to beaver.

[rashomon]

Why would an IDI need to do a timeline? There is a perfectly good one on acandyrose.com. There is also a timeline on FFJ and Webbsleuths.

Why are you asking andU to do another? Just curious.
Where exactly are those IDI time lines on ACandyRose, FFJ and Webbsleuths? Could you give links? TIA - can't wait to read them!
(I was not referring to the time line of the Ramsey case history, but to the time line of what possibly happened on that fatal night, i. e. to theories).

[Sharon]

You can read in my post that I wrote "many" IDIs, not "all" IDIs.
But there are IDIs on this board who seriously believe that pedophiles brought a rabbit along with them, or that Patsy let in virtual strangers for a photo session with JonBenet around midnight at Christmas, when the family was scheduled for a flight in the early morning hours. I don't get 'angry' when reading that, quite the contrary, I have to laught so hard that my sides hurt. What do you as an IDI think of such a theory? Just curious.
Has any of the IDIs on this board ever come up with a time line of the events on that fatal night? If memory servrs, the only IDI who has done that was the poster with the rabbit scenario. :)

Well, no offense but this case is strange all around. It wouldnt surprise me if it did really happen the was Aussie says. It just so happens that we might never know as we only have access to a fraction of the evidence.

I also think its laughable that these parents not only bashed and strangled their daughter but then spent the whole night placing little criptic clues around including a fake real garrot or a real fake garrot.....And all thing being equal they didnt have much time to put together such an elaborate plan of staging. ie time goes pretty fast in the middle of the night when you are in a high stress situation.
jmo

[Sharon]

You can read in my post that I wrote "many" IDIs, not "all" IDIs.
But there are IDIs on this board who seriously believe that pedophiles brought a rabbit along with them, or that Patsy let in virtual strangers for a photo session with JonBenet around midnight at Christmas, when the family was scheduled for a flight in the early morning hours. I don't get 'angry' when reading that, quite the contrary, I have to laught so hard that my sides hurt. What do you as an IDI think of such a theory? Just curious.
Has any of the IDIs on this board ever come up with a time line of the events on that fatal night? If memory servrs, the only IDI who has done that was the poster with the rabbit scenario. :)

There are countless cold case murders where no one can come up with a time line or even any clues or motives. It doesnt mean the parents did it.

I could understand your point if every murder had a neat & satisfying ending with the perp. found & put into jail. But we know that thosands of murders remain a mystery often with no leads.

The way I see it, being an IDI does not mean I know which intruder & exactly how or when. I know the house was huge, and easily broken in to (no alarm, lots of doors, points of entry, keys around etc). I know that someone did it, and to be it doesnt make sence that the parents were involved. I am also basing my opinions on what transpired till now with the parents. Even how P. died with no `confession`...or satisfaction. I dont see the parents as phycotic which they would have to be imo to have killed their daughter & covered it up without cracking under all the interigation.

If it is proven otherwise I will happily acknowledge that I was wrong to not think the parents did it. But I will not waste time on `toilet rage` bashings or accidental bashings and fake strangling. It was a murder full stop.

jmo

[andU]

You can read in my post that I wrote "many" IDIs, not "all" IDIs.
But there are IDIs on this board who seriously believe that pedophiles brought a rabbit along with them, or that Patsy let in virtual strangers for a photo session with JonBenet around midnight at Christmas, when the family was scheduled for a flight in the early morning hours. I don't get 'angry' when reading that, quite the contrary, I have to laught so hard that my sides hurt. What do you as an IDI think of such a theory? Just curious.
Has any of the IDIs on this board ever come up with a time line of the events on that fatal night? If memory servrs, the only IDI who has done that was the poster with the rabbit scenario. :)

My Theory and timeline (Gereralized)

The intruder could have been someone known by the Ramsey family, could have been someone who once provided some type of service to them or their home which required them to have a key. I feel that entry was made with a key while the family was at the party at the White’s. I believe there were at least two perps and that one of them could have arrived later (perhaps midnight-ish) and was let in by the first one and that at least one of them did have pedophile tendencies.
The first arrival intruder waited (perhaps in the very room that JB’s body was found in) and either wrote the RN there or brought it with him. After everyone settled in for the night (again around midnight) he then stole into JB’s room. (I have no feelings about the pineapple at all, she obviously ate it; I don’t think it had anything to do with the actual murder.) JB may have either been drugged by the perp using something that he knew would not be tested for or she remained asleep until they got in the basement. They stood her on a chair and bound her hands throwing the rope over an overhead pipe (or something). She was not dangling; the idea was only to keep her in that position, not to hang her. She was then garroted and molested; she may have gotten one scream out, which was when she was bashed in the head. The tape was put on her mouth as staging only. I have a hunch here that she may well have been found by her father in that position. I have a strong belief that there were deep feelings of anger and vengeance for John Ramsey by the ‘perp in charge’. This man may well have been a person who had ‘befriended’ the family while getting the plan together. I think it could have been someone who knew the family for at least a year or more (maybe many more).
I think these activities and the murder took about 30 - 45 minutes. The ‘friend’ then went home and was awakened by a call from the Ramsey’s. The other intruder was found dead by a staged suicide, which I think was another murder. That leaves only one person alive that knows what actually happened.

I hope this is enough to give you what you asked for. When a person actually writes out these things, it is emotional. It puts you right there at the scene. The vision is limited, though. I’m putting myself out there and I ask not to be raked over. I can take constructive criticism but not bashing.

[thewhitewitch1]

My Theory and timeline (Gereralized)

The intruder could have been someone known by the Ramsey family, could have been someone who once provided some type of service to them or their home which required them to have a key. I feel that entry was made with a key while the family was at the party at the White’s. I believe there were at least two perps and that one of them could have arrived later (perhaps midnight-ish) and was let in by the first one and that at least one of them did have pedophile tendencies.
The first arrival intruder waited (perhaps in the very room that JB’s body was found in) and either wrote the RN there or brought it with him. After everyone settled in for the night (again around midnight) he then stole into JB’s room. (I have no feelings about the pineapple at all, she obviously ate it; I don’t think it had anything to do with the actual murder.) JB may have either been drugged by the perp using something that he knew would not be tested for or she remained asleep until they got in the basement. They stood her on a chair and bound her hands throwing the rope over an overhead pipe (or something). She was not dangling; the idea was only to keep her in that position, not to hang her. She was then garroted and molested; she may have gotten one scream out, which was when she was bashed in the head. The tape was put on her mouth as staging only. I have a hunch here that she may well have been found by her father in that position. I have a strong belief that there were deep feelings of anger and vengeance for John Ramsey by the ‘perp in charge’. This man may well have been a person who had ‘befriended’ the family while getting the plan together. I think it could have been someone who knew the family for at least a year or more (maybe many more).
I think these activities and the murder took about 30 - 45 minutes. The ‘friend’ then went home and was awakened by a call from the Ramsey’s. The other intruder was found dead by a staged suicide, which I think was another murder. That leaves only one person alive that knows what actually happened.

I hope this is enough to give you what you asked for. When a person actually writes out these things, it is emotional. It puts you right there at the scene. The vision is limited, though. I’m putting myself out there and I ask not to be raked over. I can take constructive criticism but not bashing.


Why was the tape put over her mouth for "staging?" Why would an intruder need to stage anything and why was only the tape "staged"? (If that's what you meant)
I think that if JR had found JB in the position that you think she was in, FW would have confirmed that since he was in the room with JR when she was found. Also, the only chair mentioned was the chair blocking the train room door unless you are insinuating that JR moved the chair in front of the door after he "took JB down"...and in that case, why would he do that?
I have asked before if it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled and no one has answered. I don't think it is...at least not to the extent of the scream that Melody Stanton alledgedly heard. The victim would be gasping for air if the pressure from their neck was released after being strangled into unconsiousness or near unconsciousness. IMO but it seems logical, doesn't it?
You obviously think FW killed her since you implied as much when you suggested the killer was awakened by a call from the Ramseys. So you think Helgoth was killed by FW too, even though there is nothing connecting him to Helgoth. There is nothing to support any feelings of anger or vengence from FW towards JR or the Ramseys and certainly not to the extent that he would murder a child that he not only took care of on occasion but was also a friend of his daughters.
I am not bashing you but like all of our theories, yours has a lot of holes in it.

[andU]

I realize there are a lot of holes in my theory. I don't have all of the answers. I don't make any claims at sleuthing nor crime solving and I admit my theory may be wrong. Thanks, WWI, for your comments.
Was FW actually in the room with John when he found JB? I thought that he'd only gone to the door and when he heard John gasp at finding her that he'd gone directly upstairs to call for help. Some of the information available to us is misleading, IMO.
What if the information made public was 'baiting'? I don't doubt that there is more known than we have access to, but I'm also wondering if some of what was released wasn't to bait the real killer by releasing false or not totally true statements?

[thewhitewitch1]

I realize there are a lot of holes in my theory. I don't have all of the answers. I don't make any claims at sleuthing nor crime solving and I admit my theory may be wrong. Thanks, WWI, for your comments.
Was FW actually in the room with John when he found JB? I thought that he'd only gone to the door and when he heard John gasp at finding her that he'd gone directly upstairs to call for help. Some of the information available to us is misleading, IMO.
What if the information made public was 'baiting'? I don't doubt that there is more known than we have access to, but I'm also wondering if some of what was released wasn't to bait the real killer by releasing false or not totally true statements?


There are some accounts of FW going into the room with JR and touching JBs foot. If this account is innacurate, Fw did go back into the basement after JB was found and picked up the tape so he would have seen the chair. Also, the chair was seen by JR before he found her.
JR has maintained that he doesn't know where FW was when he found her (which to me has been said in a way to imply something about FW). If you think about it, in the time it took to take the tape off of JBs mouth, untie the one wrist ligature and pick her up, it would only make sense that FW had come into the room by then to see what was going on.
Honestly, after 10 years, I don't think that there is much information that is being held back to the public about her murder. I think that's why it's been stated that short of a confession, the murder will never be solved...and we all know by now that even a confession isn't good enough. :cool:

[Louisadelmar]

I don't think a confession by itself is ever accepted as good enough. But if Person X were to confess and his motive/proximity/knowledge also checked out then it might count for something.

I do wish we could learn what "known" evidence is incorrect.

[Athena]

There are some accounts of FW going into the room with JR and touching JBs foot. If this account is innacurate, Fw did go back into the basement after JB was found and picked up the tape so he would have seen the chair. Also, the chair was seen by JR before he found her.
JR has maintained that he doesn't know where FW was when he found her (which to me has been said in a way to imply something about FW). If you think about it, in the time it took to take the tape off of JBs mouth, untie the one wrist ligature and pick her up, it would only make sense that FW had come into the room by then to see what was going on.
Honestly, after 10 years, I don't think that there is much information that is being held back to the public about her murder. I think that's why it's been stated that short of a confession, the murder will never be solved...and we all know by now that even a confession isn't good enough. :cool:

The chair was in front of the train room. FW did describe the basement as being very cluttered with very little open space but again there is very little documentation on what FW actually saw. According to ST and PMPT, JR turned on the lights, entered the wine cellar and FW stood back and entered the room when he heard JR screaming "Oh My God" and in ST's account FW touched her ankle and turned around and came back upstairs. FW preceded JR up the stairs and JR was behind him carrying JBR's body. After FW told them to call an ambulance he went back downstairs and picked up the duct tape and then laid it on the blanket.

[andU]

The chair was in front of the train room. FW did describe the basement as being very cluttered with very little open space but again there is very little documentation on what FW actually saw. According to ST and PMPT, JR turned on the lights, entered the wine cellar and FW stood back and entered the room when he heard JR screaming "Oh My God" and in ST's account FW touched her ankle and turned around and came back upstairs. FW preceded JR up the stairs and JR was behind him carrying JBR's body. After FW told them to call an ambulance he went back downstairs and picked up the duct tape and then laid it on the blanket.

I don't know, maybe the perps moved the chair...
I have to wonder why Fleet went back into the basement? See we don't have (that I know of) an account of Fleet's 'story'. There may be a very logical reason for him to have gone back down there... maybe he just didn't know what else to do with himself at that point...
Doesn't it seem that he would have helped JR to release her from the bondage (hands or whatever)? I'm not being snide here at all, I'm just thinking and sharing those thoughts.
I truly hope there is something left that has not been disclosed to the public about the case. If not, it probably will never be solved.

[shill]

If FW touched her ankle, what would motivate him to do this?
Did her ankle have something unusual on it?
Was her ankle bare skin?
Did John uncover her ankle from the blanket or was her ankle sticking out?
Why did her ankle go unseen and her hands were spotted first?

[aussiesheila]

I just said this in another thread so forgive me for repeating but I am now starting to think that she never even made it to bed. The way her bed looks in the crime photos just looks strange. The comforter is folded down, the pillow is at the wrong end of the bed and the pjs she wore the night before are on the bed.
You know, I honestly don't know. This is like putting together a puzzle where someone has mixed the pieces of another puzzle in the box. Nothing seems to fit....IDI or RDI.I think it is wise to remember that the crime scene photos are a record of how each scene looked at 11 am plus or minus an hour or so, depending on the moment each photo was taken, and are not necessarily how they looked at the time the perpetrator left, or even when the first police officers arrived.

[aussiesheila]

`````````````````````````````````````Given all the money the tabs spent trying to dig up dirt on the Ramseys, don't you think they'd have found something if she'd had Borderline Personality Disorder. I knew someone who had it and she left behind a wide path of personal mayhem and destruction.

Emphasis mine:
http://www.stanford.edu/~corelli/borderline.html
Symptoms
Relationships with others are intense but stormy and unstable with marked shifts of feelings and difficulties in maintaining intimate, close connections. The person may manipulate others and often has difficulty with trusting others. There is also emotional instability with marked and frequent shifts to an empty lonely depression or to irritability and anxiety. There may be unpredictable and impulsive behavior which might include excessive spending, promiscuity, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, shoplifting, overeating or physically self-damaging actions such as suicide gestures. The person may show inappropriate and intense anger or rage with temper tantrums, constant brooding and resentment, feelings of deprivation, and a loss of control or fear of loss of control over angry feelings. There are also identity disturbances with confusion and uncertainty about self-identity, sexuality, life goals and values, career choices, friendships. There is a deep-seated feeling that one is flawed, defective, damaged or bad in some way, with a tendency to go to extremes in thinking, feeling or behavior. Under extreme stress or in severe cases there can be brief psychotic episodes with loss of contact with reality or bizarre behavior or symptoms. Even in less severe instances, there is often significant disruption of relationships and work performance. The depression which accompanies this disorder can cause much suffering and can lead to serious suicide attempts.As usual, a great post from you, Louisa (IMO). I agree, I just don't see Patsy there. As an aside, I do think it's pretty close to Princess Diana though, but she was partly histrionic as well IMO. You guys had better send me all your hate mail by PM so I don't get banned for stuffing up the thread.

[aussiesheila]

I have "taken the pineapple." I have tried every-which-way to work in an intruder giving it to her or caterers leaving it, whatever. Any such scenario simply contradicts the evidence. The only logical answer for the pineapple, that fits perfectly with the evidence, is that a Ramsey (Burke or Patsy) placed the bowl of pineapple on the table and JonBenet was awake after they got home to be able to consume it. This post is my opinion.In what ways does an intruder giving the pineapple to her contradict the evidence? Your reasons for stating this please, Tober.

[bullmoose]

Just think of O.J. Simpson, Bullmoose: guilty as hell but still got away with it.I'm sorry to be so late to reply to this witty riposte, but like they say, better late than never, right? I have to say that I believe OJ guilty, the DNA found on his socks in his bedroom from his ex-wifeand Ron Goldman; his DNA in blood droplets at the scene, her blood and Ron Goldmans in the vehicle at OJ's estate, overwhelming to me as proof.
However, they did have probable cause enough to arrest and charge and try him. This, as you probably noticed, never happened in the Jonbenet case. I think it was because of the lack of damning evidence that they weren't even arrested;and I think it was because of the extreme paucity of evidence that they were never indicted. But, thats JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

I'm sorry to be so late to reply to this witty riposte, but like they say, better late than never, right? I have to say that I believe OJ guilty, the DNA found on his socks in his bedroom from his ex-wifeand Ron Goldman; his DNA in blood droplets at the scene, her blood and Ron Goldmans in the vehicle at OJ's estate, overwhelming to me as proof.
However, they did have probable cause enough to arrest and charge and try him. This, as you probably noticed, never happened in the Jonbenet case. I think it was because of the lack of damning evidence that they weren't even arrested;and I think it was because of the extreme paucity of evidence that they were never indicted. But, thats JMHO:biggrin:

In OJ's case they tried to frame a guilty man and it backfired.

[bullmoose]

In OJ's case they tried to frame a guilty man and it backfired.I've read the books by the different players in the OJ saga; I can't say which one for sure, maybe Marcie Clark or maybe Chris Darden's; but one of them stated that they figured that they couldn't ever get a conviction once they found out where there jury pool was going be drawn from in LA; if I remember it correctly it was because the LA cops so routinely planted false evidence to gain drug and firearms convictions that a jury drawn from this area would automatically assume that the damning evidence was planted and so would disregard it, which they did. Sometimes, even for cops, dishonest behavior comes back and bites them in the butt. I personally doubt that evidence was planted in OJ's case, but it doesn't matter what I think, clearly the jury did. JMHO

[Athena]

I've read the books by the different players in the OJ saga; I can't say which one for sure, maybe Marcie Clark or maybe Chris Darden's; but one of them stated that they figured that they couldn't ever get a conviction once they found out where there jury pool was going be drawn from in LA; if I remember it correctly it was because the LA cops so routinely planted false evidence to gain drug and firearms convictions that a jury drawn from this area would automatically assume that the damning evidence was planted and so would disregard it, which they did. Sometimes, even for cops, dishonest behavior comes back and bites them in the butt. I personally doubt that evidence was planted in OJ's case, but it doesn't matter what I think, clearly the jury did. JMHO

I hear ya! I was home on disability when that trial aired on CTV and was glued to the TV. I have to admit had I been a juror on that case I would have acquitted him also because it did appear that the evidence had been tampered with even though I believed him to be guilty. As a result it did create reasonable doubt.

[bullmoose]

I hear ya! I was home on disability when that trial aired on CTV and was glued to the TV. I have to admit had I been a juror on that case I would have acquitted him also because it did appear that the evidence had been tampered with even though I believed him to be guilty. As a result it did create reasonable doubt.I too, was off work injured watching that trial; to me when what should have been IMO the strongest prosecution witness, Mark Fuhrman, basically got caught on such a silly lie, had he used the N word in the past ten years? and he lied and fell into Cochran's trap, the trial was over. Even if everything else he said was Gospel truth, how could you believe anything he said? Mind you, I read his book, too, it was totally convincing, but if I had been on the jury I would have voted to acquit, even though the DNA evidence was overwhelming, IMO.

[Tober]

In what ways does an intruder giving the pineapple to her contradict the evidence? Your reasons for stating this please, Tober.
Hi Sheila--An intruder having given JonBenet the pineapple is contradicted by the following: 1) The digestive tract evidence, e.g. it's very highly unlikely that any intruder (considering the circumstances) would give JonBenet pineapple and then wait around for partial digestion to take place before killing her; 2) John Ramsey's statement that had a stranger (intruder implied) awaken JonBenet to feed her pineapple, he couldn't imagine that she wouldn't have screamed bloody murder; 3) The fingerprint evidence shows that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) There is nothing to indicate that the pineapple didn't belong to the Ramseys, e.g. it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, it was in proximity to a glass containing only Burke's fingerprints, the setting appears to be that of a domestic snack scenario (most likely supervised by Patsy), etc; 5) The position of the pineapple in her digestive tract, e.g. supporting factors indicate that she consumed the pineapple relatively shortly (possibly as early as 9:30 p.m.) after their arrival home, which means she was awake when they arrived home, contradicting John's and Patsy's claims. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

Hi Sheila--An intruder having given JonBenet the pineapple is contradicted by the following: 1) The digestive tract evidence, e.g. it's very highly unlikely that any intruder (considering the circumstances) would give JonBenet pineapple and then wait around for partial digestion to take place before killing her; 2) John Ramsey's statement that had a stranger (intruder implied) awaken JonBenet to feed her pineapple, he couldn't imagine that she wouldn't have screamed bloody murder; 3) The fingerprint evidence shows that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) There is nothing to indicate that the pineapple didn't belong to the Ramseys, e.g. it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, it was in proximity to a glass containing only Burke's fingerprints, the setting appears to be that of a domestic snack scenario (most likely supervised by Patsy), etc; 5) The position of the pineapple in her digestive tract, e.g. supporting factors indicate that she consumed the pineapple relatively shortly (possibly as early as 9:30 p.m.) after their arrival home, which means she was awake when they arrived home, contradicting John's and Patsy's claims. (IMO)Still no evidence on what appears now to be a flatulent claim about the magic flashlight, hmmm, yup same old Tobertwistery and blather,blah, blah,blah, blah. Same old same old,IMO:biggrin:

[Jayelles]

In OJ's case they tried to frame a guilty man and it backfired.

Who was the young guy who lived on OJ's Wife's estate. Something like Kasey....

I didn't really follow the OJ trial, but I remember visiting my brother in Canada at the time and a young blonde guy came on tv and my brother (a dour Scot) was whinging about the media coverage of the show and he said "See him - he's gonnae get his own tv show" (meaning that he had been giving lots of interviews).

Now I'm wondering - did he ever get his own tv show? :-)

[bullmoose]

Who was the young guy who lived on OJ's Wife's estate. Something like Kasey....

I didn't really follow the OJ trial, but I remember visiting my brother in Canada at the time and a young blonde guy came on tv and my brother (a dour Scot) was whinging about the media coverage of the show and he said "See him - he's gonnae get his own tv show" (meaning that he had been giving lots of interviews).

Now I'm wondering - did he ever get his own tv show? :-)
I think his name was Kato Katelin or something similar; I don't rcall him actually getting a show. There are some who say that Anna Nicole's photographer? sperm donor? whatever is just a new incarnation of Kato but I think it might be an early clone of Kato,like Dolly the sheep. JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

Kato has a show called "Extreme Justice". It's pretty funny courtroom show where the judge tends to sentence an eye for an eye justice.
Boxing matches, revenge destruction, etc..

[Athena]

Kato has a show called "Extreme Justice". It's pretty funny courtroom show where the judge tends to sentence an eye for an eye justice.
Boxing matches, revenge destruction, etc..

Yep - I've also seen him on those celebrity competitions. I forget off the top of my head what they are called. He was a household "celebrity" name for a while.

[Tober]

Lou Smit called the pineapple evidence "the big bugaboo" because he knew it called into question the Ramsey's story of a sleeping JonBenet being put to bed when they got home. He knew they were lying, but since he'd already decided to give them a pass, he didn't press John on it, but rather gave John the friendly advice that they have got to get to the bottom of the pineapple. That didn't mean actually getting to the bottom of it though, that just meant continuing to lie about it. (IMO)

[shill]

Lou Smit called the pineapple evidence "the big bugaboo" because he knew it called into question the Ramsey's story of a sleeping JonBenet being put to bed when they got home.
He probably meant that they didn't know when she ate it.

He knew they were lying,
That didn't mean actually getting to the bottom of it though, that just meant continuing to lie about it. (IMO)
You don't know what Lou Smit was thinking.
Your reasoning is so clouded you think you know what Lou Smit is thinking.
That is called delusional thinking and is a sign of a psychotic disorder.

[shill]

This is the bowl of pineapple from 12-26-96 PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/2006-06-29_schiller12-1.jpg)

And this is the same bowl shown in the center of the photo from the 12-23-96 Christmas party.
PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/1996-12-23_party2-1.jpg)

[bullmoose]

This is the bowl of pineapple from 12-26-96 PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/2006-06-29_schiller12-1.jpg)

And this is the same bowl shown in the center of the photo from the 12-23-96 Christmas party.
PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/1996-12-23_party2-1.jpg)I've been looking back and forth at the two photos,Shill, it is the same bowl. Good spot!! I'd never have noticed.:beer:

[shill]

In this photo of the bowl it definitely looks like there is cream in with the pineapple. Notice the spoon appears to have cream in it with the pineapple.PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/bowl.jpg)

In the photo from the 23rd party the bowl is all white inside as if it is filled with cream. Could the pineapple be lurking below and that's why Patsy has no knowledge of the pineapple at the 23rd party?

[sharlock]

Wow they do look identical and my nana used to make a dessert that had condensed milk and cream over pineapple, but wouldn't this indicate that the bowl was actually bought back from the party and as they seem to think the bowl was from the ramseys house that it was also probably taken there by them? So why don't they remember it at all unless the pineapple bowl and its contents just wouldn't fit in with their version of events. JMHO

[shill]

Wow they do look identical and my nana used to make a dessert that had condensed milk and cream over pineapple, but wouldn't this indicate that the bowl was actually bought back from the party and as they seem to think the bowl was from the ramseys house that it was also probably taken there by them? So why don't they remember it at all unless the pineapple bowl and its contents just wouldn't fit in with their version of events. JMHO

The photo is from the party of the 23rd at the Ramseys house , not the Whites X-mas party. The bowl would have been put back in the fridge after the party so the cream wouldn't spoil.

[Tober]

In this photo of the bowl it definitely looks like there is cream in with the pineapple. Notice the spoon appears to have cream in it with the pineapple.PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/bowl.jpg)

In the photo from the 23rd party the bowl is all white inside as if it is filled with cream. Could the pineapple be lurking below and that's why Patsy has no knowledge of the pineapple at the 23rd party?

If you enhance the photo of the bowl from the 23rd, you can see that it contains shredded coconut, and not cream.

[shill]

If you enhance the photo of the bowl from the 23rd, you can see that it contains shredded coconut, and not cream.

No you can't. The photo is to low of a resolution to enhance any detail.

You know I am a photographer and very familiar with Photoshop and enhancing photos so you're bluffing the wrong guy.

The bowl could be empty, I was only speculating on it's contents being cream since there is no conclusive detail.

You're getting desperate for answers Tober and now you're resorting to out right lies.

[bullmoose]

No you can't. The photo is to low of a resolution to enhance any detail.

You know I am a photographer and very familiar with Photoshop and enhancing photos so you're bluffing the wrong guy.

The bowl could be empty, I was only speculating on it's contents being cream since there is no conclusive detail.

You're getting desperate for answers Tober and now you're resorting to out right lies.Maybe it is time for the ward nurse to hand out Tober's meds, its so very hard for Tober to concentrate when its time for his meds. Poor Tober, nobody on his ward wants to listen to his ideas about the case, they want evidence fo his statements, too.JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Another thing I observed is that the glass seems to have no residue from tea, it looks clean except for the bag itself. Perhaps it was only to hold the tea bag, as someone had previously posted.

[bullmoose]

Another thing I observed is that the glass seems to have no residue from tea, it looks clean except for the bag itself. Perhaps it was only to hold the tea bag, as someone had previously posted.
That is indeed what the picture seems to show, there is no tea showing in the cup below the bag, if the tea had been brewed in that cup there still would be. IMO

[Zoey]

That is indeed what the picture seems to show, there is no tea showing in the cup below the bag, if the tea had been brewed in that cup there still would be. IMO


Finally, someone agrees with what I have been saying all along. Tea was not made in that glass nor was tea drunk from that glass. Someone, and I am still leaning towards a victim's advocate, made themselves some hot tea and put the used tea bag in the glass, which might have been the handiest thing at the time.

[thewhitewitch1]

The photo is from the party of the 23rd at the Ramseys house , not the Whites X-mas party. The bowl would have been put back in the fridge after the party so the cream wouldn't spoil.

I believe the bowl shown on the 23rd in the table "layout" would have contained items to decorate the gingerbread houses, as that is what most of the bowls seem to show. This would not include pineapple, of course.
If the bowl of pineapple contained cream, reports would have said pineapple and cream and they do not.
You seem to be the one inventing things here, Shill; not Tober. Oh yeah, IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

In this photo of the bowl it definitely looks like there is cream in with the pineapple. Notice the spoon appears to have cream in it with the pineapple.PHOTO (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/bowl.jpg)

In the photo from the 23rd party the bowl is all white inside as if it is filled with cream. Could the pineapple be lurking below and that's why Patsy has no knowledge of the pineapple at the 23rd party?


The bowl on the 23rd looks empty. Just because it looks like the same bowl does not mean that it is the same bowl. Don't you know that people buy dishes in sets? :biggrin:

[Zoey]

I believe the bowl shown on the 23rd in the table "layout" would have contained items to decorate the gingerbread houses, as that is what most of the bowls seem to show. This would not include pineapple, of course.
If the bowl of pineapple contained cream, reports would have said pineapple and cream and they do not.
You seem to be the one inventing things here, Shill; not Tober. Oh yeah, IMO.


Even in one of John's interviews, when shown a picture of the bowl with the pineapple, makes the comment along the lines of, is that cream in there? He further states, I don't know anyone that would eat it that way.

Apparently Shill is not the only one who sees cream.

I posted that many posts ago that the pineapple appears to have cream and other things mixed in with it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Even in one of John's interviews, when shown a picture of the bowl with the pineapple, makes the comment along the lines of, is that cream in there? He further states, I don't know anyone that would eat it that way.

Apparently Shill is not the only one who sees cream.

I posted that many posts ago that the pineapple appears to have cream and other things mixed in with it.

I believe what you think is cream is just the results of a flash photo. There would be no need to mislead the public about the contents of the bowl. It has never been said to have been anything else but pineapple so I don't understand why people feel the need to "insert" things into the crime scene that have no factual basis. Even if it was cream, what difference would it make? :confused:
I think JR would have said anything to make it appear that he knew nothing about that bowl of pineapple and his suggestion about seeing cream and "not knowing anyone who would eat it that way" was just said to throw more fuel on the "intruder" fire. You will notice that no one confirmed that it was cream when he made that comment. IMO

[bullmoose]

I believe what you think is cream is just the results of a flash photo. There would be no need to mislead the public about the contents of the bowl. It has never been said to have been anything else but pineapple so I don't understand why people feel the need to "insert" things into the crime scene that have no factual basis. Even if it was cream, what difference would it make? :confused:
I think JR would have said anything to make it appear that he knew nothing about that bowl of pineapple and his suggestion about seeing cream and "not knowing anyone who would eat it that way" was just said to throw more fuel on the "intruder" fire. You will notice that no one confirmed that it was cream when he made that comment. IMOYou say that, in your opinion, there is no cream, you don't understand people inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis, right?So , are you coming out to condemn Tobers' posts, none of which have any factual basis; especially that pesky flashlight he makes so many specious claims about?I'm just curious, here as to how you stand on that?:confused: JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

You say that, in your opinion, there is no cream, you don't understand people inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis, right?So , are you coming out to condemn Tobers' posts, none of which have any factual basis; especially that pesky flashlight he makes so many specious claims about?I'm just curious, here as to how you stand on that?:confused: JMHO


That the flashlight was there is a fact. That it had no fingerprints on either it or the batteries is a fact. Was it wiped down? That is in question. Did it belong to the Ramseys? Due to the fact that the flashlight that they normally kept in a drawer was not in the drawer, I would say yes, it did. To my knowledge, the Ramseys flashlight that looked like the one in question has not been found. I'm not good at math but I think I can add 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. IMO
I'm not sure what all else you are asking about what Tober believes.
Inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis would be items like the "cream", a pedophile bringing in a bunny to torture and a crowbar or pry-bar to either break in or use to inflict the injury to JBs head, for example. IMO again.

[shill]

The bowl on the 23rd looks empty. Just because it looks like the same bowl does not mean that it is the same bowl. Don't you know that people buy dishes in sets? :biggrin:

Then how come out of the six bowls that can be seen in that photo, none of them are matching or resemble a set?

[shill]

I believe the bowl shown on the 23rd in the table "layout" would have contained items to decorate the gingerbread houses, as that is what most of the bowls seem to show. This would not include pineapple, of course.
If the bowl of pineapple contained cream, reports would have said pineapple and cream and they do not.
You seem to be the one inventing things here, Shill; not Tober. Oh yeah, IMO.

I said, "as if it is filled with cream" which is like saying IMO.
I also said it could be empty and I was speculating.

[shill]

That the flashlight was there is a fact. That it had no fingerprints on either it or the batteries is a fact. Was it wiped down? That is in question. Did it belong to the Ramseys? Due to the fact that the flashlight that they normally kept in a drawer was not in the drawer, I would say yes, it did. To my knowledge, the Ramseys flashlight that looked like the one in question has not been found. I'm not good at math but I think I can add 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. IMO
I'm not sure what all else you are asking about what Tober believes.
Inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis would be items like the "cream", a pedophile bringing in a bunny to torture and a crowbar or pry-bar to either break in or use to inflict the injury to JBs head, for example. IMO again.

Someone could have barrowed their flashlight a long time ago. Were they ever asked when they last used it?

The mark on JB's neck looks like the end of a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.
PHOTO COMPARISON (http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg) WONDER BAR (http://scorpionsupport.com///wonderbar.gif)

The injury to her skull matches this pry bars width and shape. The flatness of this pry bar would not cut the skin. This pry bar is compact and makes a great burglar tool and is heavy enough to make a good weapon. These are factual basis.
And the murder weapon has not yet been positively identified.

Inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis would be items like a clothe that wiped her down, a pair of missing panties, duct tape from dolls, chord from painting slings.

[thewhitewitch1]

Then how come out of the six bowls that can be seen in that photo, none of them are matching or resemble a set?

Most of them seemed to be serving bowls which don't usually come in a set. The "pineapple" bowl looked like a regular sized soup or cereal bowl, which do come in sets.

[thewhitewitch1]

Someone could have barrowed their flashlight a long time ago. Were they ever asked when they last used it?

The mark on JB's neck looks like the end of a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.
PHOTO COMPARISON (http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg) WONDER BAR (http://scorpionsupport.com///wonderbar.gif)

The injury to her skull matches this pry bars width and shape. The flatness of this pry bar would not cut the skin. This pry bar is compact and makes a great burglar tool and is heavy enough to make a good weapon. These are factual basis.
And the murder weapon has not yet been positively identified.

Inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis would be items like a clothe that wiped her down, a pair of missing panties, duct tape from dolls, chord from painting slings.

Someone borrowing the flashlight and then bringing it with them to commit this crime is really a stretch. IMO
Your pry-bar theory is a possibility but there is nothing factual to base it on. It's been said that the flashlight fit the injury to her head exactly.
That JB was wiped down is a fact.
The other things you stated are no more factual than your saying that the killer took the rest of the cord and tape with him. There is no proof of any of these scenerios.

[shill]

Someone borrowing the flashlight and then bringing it with them to commit this crime is really a stretch. IMOI meant never to be returned. People borrow things and don't bring them back. I think the flashlight in evidence was the intruder's that he brought with him.

Your pry-bar theory is a possibility but there is nothing factual to base it on. It's been said that the flashlight fit the injury to her head exactly. The flashlight would fit any rectangular gap up to its width, whether it's a 1/2" wide or 1-3/4" wide gap perse.
That JB was wiped down is a fact. OK, so we have a missing clothe?
The other things you stated are no more factual than your saying that the killer took the rest of the cord and tape with him. There is no proof of any of these scenerios.
There is no proof for most of the RDI arguments either but they seem to think they're factual.
The BPD built an argument of a whole roll of cord and duct tape belonging to the Ramseys, being bought from a store through the use of alleged matching receipts from Patsy. So the craziness started there.

I've bought a lot of duct tape and you keep the roll to the end. They had less then two months to use it all up if they had bought it the day it was manufactured. So where did it all go?
If you went through my home, you would discover plenty of items with duct tape on them that could be traced to the same roll.

If the duct tape was the Ramseys, you would find other items with duct tape on them and you would find a barely used roll of duct tape in their home that they needed to get rid of. And if the cord was recently bought as the BPD alleged, I doubt they used it all up in that short amount of time and would need to get rid of it.

My money is on an intruder bringing in a length of duct tape wrapped around the flash light like a spool and a small amount of cord in his pocket.

[shill]

Most of them seemed to be serving bowls which don't usually come in a set. The "pineapple" bowl looked like a regular sized soup or cereal bowl, which do come in sets.

Maybe that's regular size for a horse!
I've never seen soup bowls that big or with a base on them.

[Sharon]

That the flashlight was there is a fact. That it had no fingerprints on either it or the batteries is a fact. Was it wiped down? That is in question. Did it belong to the Ramseys? Due to the fact that the flashlight that they normally kept in a drawer was not in the drawer, I would say yes, it did. To my knowledge, the Ramseys flashlight that looked like the one in question has not been found. I'm not good at math but I think I can add 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. IMO
I'm not sure what all else you are asking about what Tober believes.
Inserting things into the crime scene that have no factual basis would be items like the "cream", a pedophile bringing in a bunny to torture and a crowbar or pry-bar to either break in or use to inflict the injury to JBs head, for example. IMO again.

Re. the flashlight, just because the R. couldnt find their flashlight, doesnt make the found flashlight necessarily theirs. jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

I meant never to be returned. People borrow things and don't bring them back. I think the flashlight in evidence was the intruder's that he brought with him.
The flashlight would fit any rectangular gap up to its width, whether it's a 1/2" wide or 1-3/4" wide gap perse. OK, so we have a missing clothe?
There is no proof for most of the RDI arguments either but they seem to think they're factual.
The BPD built an argument of a whole roll of cord and duct tape belonging to the Ramseys, being bought from a store through the use of alleged matching receipts from Patsy. So the craziness started there.

I've bought a lot of duct tape and you keep the roll to the end. They had less then two months to use it all up if they had bought it the day it was manufactured. So where did it all go?
If you went through my home, you would discover plenty of items with duct tape on them that could be traced to the same roll.

If the duct tape was the Ramseys, you would find other items with duct tape on them and you would find a barely used roll of duct tape in their home that they needed to get rid of. And if the cord was recently bought as the BPD alleged, I doubt they used it all up in that short amount of time and would need to get rid of it.

My money is on an intruder bringing in a length of duct tape wrapped around the flash light like a spool and a small amount of cord in his pocket.


You dismiss the possibility of the Ramseys taking these items out of the house with them. They were never searched.
Why isn't it possible that the cord had been used in the home for some other purpose at some point and that's all there was of it?
If the killer brought the cord into the home, why didn't he bring his own garrote handle? Why did he have to have one period?
What if the tape had originally been on another item, placed there by the manufacturer?
If an intruder needed a flashlight to get around the darkened house, why would he not need it to exit the house? It seems highly improbable that he would have forgotten it.
The length of the cord used to tie JBs wrists and the length of the cord used to strangle her seem too long for their intended purposes. This implies to me that an effort was made to use all of the cord so that none could be connected to the Ramseys. IMO

[shill]

You dismiss the possibility of the Ramseys taking these items out of the house with them. They were never searched.
That's because if they had the opportunity to remove all these items, they could have gotten rid of the body. And spare me the "parents couldn't put their dead child out in the cold" speech. JB was strangled and raped with a paintbrush. If parents can do that, they can kick her to the curb too.
Why isn't it possible that the cord had been used in the home for some other purpose at some point and that's all there was of it? Where is there any evidence of more of this parachute cord?
If the killer brought the cord into the home, why didn't he bring his own garrote handle? Why did he have to have one period?The paintbrush handle was used sexually, it may have been a spontaneous impulse to violate her in this way. I believe the garrote and the rape with the paintbrush handle were one and the same. She was strangled and rape simultaneously.

What if the tape had originally been on another item, placed there by the manufacturer? It wasn't.
Are you implying the doll theory because the manufacture suggested putting the tape over the string, they didn't do that at the factory.
If an intruder needed a flashlight to get around the darkened house, why would he not need it to exit the house? It seems highly improbable that he would have forgotten it.
If he had finished writing the note around 5:30am he may have heard the Rs getting up as he placed the note and split out the butler door without the flashlight.
The length of the cord used to tie JBs wrists and the length of the cord used to strangle her seem too long for their intended purposes. This implies to me that an effort was made to use all of the cord so that none could be connected to the Ramseys. IMOThe cord length functioned as needed.
How do you use up 25ft. of cord when you only use less then 4ft. on the victim?

[thewhitewitch1]

That's because if they had the opportunity to remove all these items, they could have gotten rid of the body. And spare me the "parents couldn't put their dead child out in the cold" speech. JB was strangled and raped with a paintbrush. If parents can do that, they can kick her to the curb too.
Where is there any evidence of more of this parachute cord?The paintbrush handle was used sexually, it may have been a spontaneous impulse to violate her in this way. I believe the garrote and the rape with the paintbrush handle were one and the same. She was strangled and rape simultaneously.

It wasn't.
Are you implying the doll theory because the manufacture suggested putting the tape over the string, they didn't do that at the factory.If he had finished writing the note around 5:30am he may have heard the Rs getting up as he placed the note and split out the butler door without the flashlight.The cord length functioned as needed.
How do you use up 25ft. of cord when you only use less then 4ft. on the victim?

I'm not going to spare you the speech about parents putting their dead child out into the cold. A "proper burial" was quite important to the Rs. You can't put a pagent dress and tiara on an animal ravaged or decomposed body. It wouldn't be the same. :cool:
They did what they felt they had to do with the staging and yes, that includes the paintbrush "rape". It was unnecessary to dump her body (and perhaps too risky also). I think that they absolutely wanted her found so that she could have her proper funeral.
I am not implying that the tape came from the doll. It could have come from anything. Of course I can't tell you what but that doesn't make it not possible.
If you say the tape was wrapped around the flashlight handle, wouldn't the LE have found residue from it on the handle?
You are missing my point about the cord. Who knows how long they may have had that cord around or what its original use was. I don't know how you came up with your "25 feet" (because that's the length it is sold on a spool?) but then you are supposing that it was recently purchased and that it was purchased in that length. What if they bought only the length that they needed? And no, I am not suggesting that they bought it to use in JBs murder.

[rashomon]

The mark on JB's neck looks like the end of a "Wonder Bar" pry bar.
PHOTO COMPARISON (http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg) WONDER BAR (http://scorpionsupport.com///wonderbar.gif)

The mark on JB's neck was merely an abrasion, not a contusion or a bruise (see autopsy report). A pry bar would produce a wound far worse than a mere abrasion.

[Zoey]

The mark on JB's neck was merely an abrasion, not a contusion or a bruise (see autopsy report). A pry bar would produce a wound far worse than a mere abrasion.

What is your definition of an abrasion? It sounds like you think an abrasion to be a little scratch, when it reality, an abrasion can be a very nasty, deep trauma to the skin.

Abrasions are sometimes called rug burns or carpet burns. Road rash is another form of an abrasion, and road rash is not just some little scratch.

This is a link to a graphic photo of an abrasion. Looks pretty nasty to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abrasion.jpg

[shill]

The mark on JB's neck was merely an abrasion, not a contusion or a bruise (see autopsy report). A pry bar would produce a wound far worse than a mere abrasion.

Not the way I described it's use.
It would have just been pressed against her throat enough to get under the cord that was tightened into her neck.

[shill]

I'm not going to spare you the speech about parents putting their dead child out into the cold. A "proper burial" was quite important to the Rs. You can't put a pagent dress and tiara on an animal ravaged or decomposed body. It wouldn't be the same. :cool:
They did what they felt they had to do with the staging and yes, that includes the paintbrush "rape". It was unnecessary to dump her body (and perhaps too risky also). I think that they absolutely wanted her found so that she could have her proper funeral.
I am not implying that the tape came from the doll. It could have come from anything. Of course I can't tell you what but that doesn't make it not possible.
If you say the tape was wrapped around the flashlight handle, wouldn't the LE have found residue from it on the handle?
You are missing my point about the cord. Who knows how long they may have had that cord around or what its original use was. I don't know how you came up with your "25 feet" (because that's the length it is sold on a spool?) but then you are supposing that it was recently purchased and that it was purchased in that length. What if they bought only the length that they needed? And no, I am not suggesting that they bought it to use in JBs murder.

You've really gone out on a limb.

It wasn't my idea about the tape around the flashlight, it was John Mark Karr's, and it appears to be one of the things he said that convinced LE to pick him up. So yes, they may have found tape residue.

The rest of the stuff you posted I'm not going to waste my time responding to again.
You've obviously gotten to a point were you can't stand the thought that I might be right and it is reflected in your posts.

[Sharon]

I'm not going to spare you the speech about parents putting their dead child out into the cold. A "proper burial" was quite important to the Rs. You can't put a pagent dress and tiara on an animal ravaged or decomposed body. It wouldn't be the same. :cool:
They did what they felt they had to do with the staging and yes, that includes the paintbrush "rape". It was unnecessary to dump her body (and perhaps too risky also). I think that they absolutely wanted her found so that she could have her proper funeral.
I am not implying that the tape came from the doll. It could have come from anything. Of course I can't tell you what but that doesn't make it not possible.
If you say the tape was wrapped around the flashlight handle, wouldn't the LE have found residue from it on the handle?
You are missing my point about the cord. Who knows how long they may have had that cord around or what its original use was. I don't know how you came up with your "25 feet" (because that's the length it is sold on a spool?) but then you are supposing that it was recently purchased and that it was purchased in that length. What if they bought only the length that they needed? And no, I am not suggesting that they bought it to use in JBs murder.

You are really crossing the line here in how you are talking about this case. I will never be part of a discussion where there is any disrespect for the people involved, especially JBR. We have no proof of anyones guilt. We may think that the RDI, but none of us can bet our lives on it.

Try to control your contempt for the R`s lifestyle and how JBR was in beauty pageants. But it really sickens me to read cheap swipes at the family in an attempt at humour involving this murdered girls body. I take things like this seriously because the day this discussion turns into anything disrespectfull towards JBR Im out of here. jmo.

[sharlock]

I believe that a point of view can't be taken seriously unless it can be explained, and when someone questions "How could a parent do such a thing?" Then that warrants an answer and since we are all looking for justice for that poor innocent child I took no offense to the previous post. I have also thought that if someone in the family knew that an autopsy might show signs of sexual abuse then that could be another reason to have the staging done as it was.
Jon Benet was and is an innocent and I know it is just as likely that a predator did this to her but the focus seems to stay on Family and Friends so all mindsets should be taken into consideration and I don't beleive their was anything malicious in representing that nor anything disrespectful to Jon Benet.

[Sharon]

I believe that a point of view can't be taken seriously unless it can be explained, and when someone questions "How could a parent do such a thing?" Then that warrants an answer and since we are all looking for justice for that poor innocent child I took no offense to the previous post. I have also thought that if someone in the family knew that an autopsy might show signs of sexual abuse then that could be another reason to have the staging done as it was.
Jon Benet was and is an innocent and I know it is just as likely that a predator did this to her but the focus seems to stay on Family and Friends so all mindsets should be taken into consideration and I don't beleive their was anything malicious in representing that nor anything disrespectful to Jon Benet.

Sharlock, if you are addressing this to me (??), I want to point out that I find it offensive that someone could joke about the parents wanting to put a tiara on JBR and that is why they didnt throw her body outside, ie incase it decomposed or was eatten by animals. It is a jibe at the parents as being guilty for their lifestyle as much as anything.

Many people put the parents on trial for putting JBR in beauty pageants. This poster was obviously voicing her distain of same by saying they would be too concerned about her looks to want to throw her outside after killing her. A callous joke imo.

[sharlock]

Mate you are hard to disagree with because your thoughts are pretty nicely constructed. Yes I think she too was making a comment towards the Ramseys lifestyle which isn't one I personally think is viable, however it is possible and putting it out there isn't meant to insult you, Jon Benet or me. If the parents were to read it I can imagine they'd be hurt but this forum is about Jon Benet's MURDER so unpalatable ideas are going to come up. I guess the reason for my post was that you had taken such a dislike to the comment you had said you would not post if any more discussion on like subject came up (that would be a loss as you have a unique view point in many respects) and I think I was trying to change the direction you were viewing the comment because it does have its place in this discussion even if it does take a shot at their lifestyle.
Sharlock

[Sharon]

Mate you are hard to disagree with because your thoughts are pretty nicely constructed. Yes I think she too was making a comment towards the Ramseys lifestyle which isn't one I personally think is viable, however it is possible and putting it out there isn't meant to insult you, Jon Benet or me. If the parents were to read it I can imagine they'd be hurt but this forum is about Jon Benet's MURDER so unpalatable ideas are going to come up. I guess the reason for my post was that you had taken such a dislike to the comment you had said you would not post if any more discussion on like subject came up (that would be a loss as you have a unique view point in many respects) and I think I was trying to change the direction you were viewing the comment because it does have its place in this discussion even if it does take a shot at their lifestyle.
Sharlock

Its not the subject, I promise, it really is only the joke that I took offense at. I couldnt justify spending my time here if I thought people were laughing at stuff like that. Im not a prude, or politically correct, or lacking in any sense of humour.....but I sort of think there is a time and a place..... Also, Im a big girl and I dont mind being insulted or joked about to my face, but I cant stand by and listen to a joke that bases its humour on a dead girls body who is the subject of the case we are discussing. It doesnt seem right to me. jmo

And, fyi....I could probably make a grown man cry.....if I wanted to!!! j/k

[sharlock]

And, fyi....I could probably make a grown man cry.....if I wanted to!!! j/k
Bloody glad to hear it:beer: It's been fun but I'm very tired. Happy sleuthing to all.
Shalock:seeya:

[Athena]

What is your definition of an abrasion? It sounds like you think an abrasion to be a little scratch, when it reality, an abrasion can be a very nasty, deep trauma to the skin.

Abrasions are sometimes called rug burns or carpet burns. Road rash is another form of an abrasion, and road rash is not just some little scratch.

This is a link to a graphic photo of an abrasion. Looks pretty nasty to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abrasion.jpg

I'd also like to point out that it appears to me that Meyers used the term "abrasions" generically and described many different marks on JBRs body with this term rather than be specific. I believe I had posted a link here some time ago to actual autopsy instructions which basically indicated that sometimes when marks, scratches, etc are not identifiable to their cause the term abrasion is used as a generic term to describe any skin trauma. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

You are really crossing the line here in how you are talking about this case. I will never be part of a discussion where there is any disrespect for the people involved, especially JBR. We have no proof of anyones guilt. We may think that the RDI, but none of us can bet our lives on it.

Try to control your contempt for the R`s lifestyle and how JBR was in beauty pageants. But it really sickens me to read cheap swipes at the family in an attempt at humour involving this murdered girls body. I take things like this seriously because the day this discussion turns into anything disrespectfull towards JBR Im out of here. jmo.


Sharon, I am sorry that you took offense and felt as though I was "disrespecting" JB because that was not my intent. On the other hand, I suppose it's perfectly ok for some people to describe her head injury as being "clubbed like a baby seal". :cool:
I do not have any opinions about the pageant thing; nor have I ever criticized the Ramseys for putting her in them. I do, however, find it distasteful that she was buried wearing those things, as though that was the summation of all that she was. IMO

I'd also like to add that I feel the Rs would not have been able to bear the thought of her body being ravaged by animals or left to decompose until it was found. As I said before, I believe a "proper burial" was very important to them, as I believe that they did love her.

[shill]

On the other hand, I suppose it's perfectly ok for some people to describe her head injury as being "clubbed like a baby seal". That's an accurate description of a fact.

Your opinion implied that the R's vanity meant more to them then the death of their daughter, your contempt for them outweighs your ability to come to a logical conclusion of the evidence, and you are willing to flame them without just reasons but out of hate.

[thewhitewitch1]

That's an accurate description of a fact.

Your opinion implied that the R's vanity meant more to them then the death of their daughter, your contempt for them outweighs your ability to come to a logical conclusion of the evidence, and you are willing to flame them without just reasons but out of hate.


No, Shill. You just think that I implied that.
"Clubbed like a baby seal" is a disgusting and offensive description of her injuries that was as unnecessary as some felt my comment was. IMO
And you can go ahead and believe that I "hate" the Ramseys because you somehow think you know me. :rolleyes:

[shill]

No, Shill. You just think that I implied that.
"Clubbed like a baby seal" is a disgusting and offensive description of her injuries that was as unnecessary as some felt my comment was. IMOOK, how about she was "clubbed like a helpless little girl
And you can go ahead and believe that I "hate" the Ramseys because you somehow think you know me. :rolleyes:
I just like saying that about you, sorry.
But you do appear to have a very bias opinion of them.

[SnarkyCow]

I cannot speak for anyone but myself and Shill, I know your last post was in regards to what TWW1 had posted, but I feel the need to jump in.

Shill posted: <snip>your contempt for them outweighs your ability to come to a logical conclusion of the evidence, and you are willing to flame them without just reasons but out of hate.<snip>

It isn't fair to assume someone is RDI because they hold the Ramseys' lifestyle in contempt. I will not attempt to speak for TWW1 because she is quite capable of speaking for herself, but someone's opinion being written off as jealousy or contempt is belittling to one's intelligence.

I feel the need to constantly remind some (not all) of the IDIs here that RDI is JUST AS VALID an opinion as IDI. The Ramseys have not been cleared as suspects in the murder of their daughter. Obviously there isn't enough evidence to clear them which means their innocence isn't able to be proven.

There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of John & Patsy Ramsey that have nothing to do with their lifestyle.

The reasons I remain suspicious of the Ramseys:

1. They called the police after the note told them not to (of course I would have called the police too) BUT they didn't mention the note saying JB would be beheaded if they told anyone.

2. They disregarded the ransom note's warnings by calling friends and their minister over to their home.

3. JR wanting to fly to Atlanta so soon after finding his daughter's body.

4. They let Burke go with FW, in plain daylight, when a supposed kidnapper was "watching their home" ~ weren't they worried something would happen to their son?

5. They did not cooperate with LE, but hid behind their lawyers and made outlandish demands when LE tried to set up interviews:

Ramseys' demands stall inquiry
Date: March 5, 1997 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: B7 Word Count: 360

The parents of slain child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey have delayed a formal police interview by demanding that they be questioned together, rather than separately as the police have specified, the Rocky Mountain News reported today.

The couple also wants a doctor on hand should one of them become ill during the questioning, a source told the newspaper, noting that these stipulations were the major sticking points holding up a formal interview with John and Patricia Ramsey.

6. The Ramseys changed their stories on several occations.

7. JonBenet ate pineapple after they returned home from the Whites'. I highly doubt an intruder gave it to her. Patsy said she wouldn't have been able to get it herself and also it's highly unlikely Burke got it for her:

PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.
3 PATRICK BURKE: Before we get off of that,
4 just to finish, I think we have time left on the tape.
5 TOM HANEY: I am done talking, okay.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: Do I understand you to say that
7 JonBenet would not have fixed herself pineapple?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I very seriously doubt that.
9 TRIP DEMUTH: So if she had pineapple in her
10 system, someone had to serve that to her?

8. Patsy's fibers were found in very incriminating places (ie: garrot knot, paint tray, sticky side of the tape over JB's mouth).

I think I've listed legitimate reasons why some people remain suspicious of the Ramseys - none of which has anything to do with their lifestyle.

[thewhitewitch1]

OK, how about she was "clubbed like a helpless little girl
I just like saying that about you, sorry.
But you do appear to have a very bias opinion of them.

I don't know what being "biased" has to do with it. I think the Ramseys were involved in her murder. Period.

[Sharon]

Sharon, I am sorry that you took offense and felt as though I was "disrespecting" JB because that was not my intent. On the other hand, I suppose it's perfectly ok for some people to describe her head injury as being "clubbed like a baby seal". :cool:
I do not have any opinions about the pageant thing; nor have I ever criticized the Ramseys for putting her in them. I do, however, find it distasteful that she was buried wearing those things, as though that was the summation of all that she was. IMO

I'd also like to add that I feel the Rs would not have been able to bear the thought of her body being ravaged by animals or left to decompose until it was found. As I said before, I believe a "proper burial" was very important to them, as I believe that they did love her.

Thanks for the response. Im sure you are correct about the proper burial. I hope I never have to know how I feel about such things.
I didnt know that she was dressed in her pageant cloths for burial. I also hope that I never have to even think about what one dresses their children in for the last time.

Without getting personal, I would guess that you put on the outfit that gave the child the most pleasure, assuming the child had a geat interest at that age. Maybe for some kids it would be a fairy outfit, or their best new dress that they wore to their last party. I get sad even guessing about these things, believe me, I can cry very easily if I think too much about what I would do if it was me choosing for real.
jmo

[shill]

I think I've listed legitimate reasons why some people remain suspicious of the Ramseys - none of which has anything to do with their lifestyle.

If you haven't noticed, I and I believe most IDI do not find most of the reasons you listed as "legitimate reasons why some people remain suspicious of the Ramseys".
However in addition to your reasons, the Ramseys life style is often mentioned as reason to be suspicious of the Ramseys.

"Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"
~Troy McClure, "The Simpsons"
Did you read about the cow in India that was eating chickens alive?

[bullmoose]

If you haven't noticed, I and I believe most IDI do not find most of the reasons you listed as "legitimate reasons why some people remain suspicious of the Ramseys".
However in addition to your reasons, the Ramseys life style is often mentioned as reason to be suspicious of the Ramseys.

"Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"
~Troy McClure, "The Simpsons"
Did you read about the cow in India that was eating chickens alive?
Snarkycow, I want to make it clear that, while you are free, as are we all, to hold opinions and come to conclusions based on those opinions of what the behavior of the Ramseys meant; that I ,as an IDI do not agree that the reasons you list are even legitamite, IMO. I think that the tabloids and the lowlife TV equivalent shows seized on this case as a OJSimpson replacement case and started whipping up hate for the Ramseys for their wealth and lifestyle. Add in one Synthroid Stevie, the Twister himself with his breakfast buddy Fleet and his new best pal from the Globe, and with one half-baked bedwetting theory and a lot of lying and deliberate misinformation from the rest of the BPD, and you get an unsolvable[apparently] crime. And you get people who stay suspicious of the Ramseys because deep down they don't want to think cops could be so duplicitous in casting blame on innocent people to cover their appalling incompetence, which I remain convinced of. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

"Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"
~Troy McClure, "The Simpsons"
Did you read about the cow in India that was eating chickens alive?

LOL ~ I did hear about that. Carnivore cows? They said it might have been the cow was lacking some sort of nutrient or vitamin or something & instinct told it to eat the chickens to get what it was missing. Crazy.

PS. I know the reasons I listed for being suspicious of the Ramseys doesn't prove they are guilty, but in my opinion it does cast suspicion on them.

[SnarkyCow]

Snarkycow, I want to make it clear that, while you are free, as are we all, to hold opinions and come to conclusions based on those opinions of what the behavior of the Ramseys meant; that I ,as an IDI do not agree that the reasons you list are even legitamite, IMO. I think that the tabloids and the lowlife TV equivalent shows seized on this case as a OJSimpson replacement case and started whipping up hate for the Ramseys for their wealth and lifestyle. Add in one Synthroid Stevie, the Twister himself with his breakfast buddy Fleet and his new best pal from the Globe, and with one half-baked bedwetting theory and a lot of lying and deliberate misinformation from the rest of the BPD, and you get an unsolvable[apparently] crime. And you get people who stay suspicious of the Ramseys because deep down they don't want to think cops could be so duplicitous in casting blame on innocent people to cover their appalling incompetence, which I remain convinced of. JMO

I respect and understand what you are saying.:)

I did not list those reasons because I think IDIs should believe them, nor is what I listed an inclusive list of the reasons I believe the Ramseys had something to do with the murder of their daughter.

My point in listing the reasons I did was to show that I, as an RDI, have suspicions and reservations about the Ramseys' innocence which have nothing to do with their lifestyle.

The fact is the Ramseys did call their friends over when the note told them not to speak to anyone. They did try to fly to Atlanta after her body was found and they did delay interviews with their demands.

Someone must agree because the Ramseys have not been cleared as suspects. If their innocence was so cut and dried they would have been cleared by now.

Cheers,

Snarky

[Zoey]

I respect and understand what you are saying.:)

I did not list those reasons because I think IDIs should believe them, nor is what I listed an inclusive list of the reasons I believe the Ramseys had something to do with the murder of their daughter.

My point in listing the reasons I did was to show that I, as an RDI, have suspicions and reservations about the Ramseys' innocence which have nothing to do with their lifestyle.

The fact is the Ramseys did call their friends over when the note told them not to speak to anyone. They did try to fly to Atlanta after her body was found and they did delay interviews with their demands.

Someone must agree because the Ramseys have not been cleared as suspects. If their innocence was so cut and dried they would have been cleared by now.

Cheers,

Snarky

I know this has probably been discussed upteen times, but was it JR who claims they were going to fly to Atlanta after her body was found? Or is it more hearsay, as in someone from the BPD says they "heard" JR calling for his plane to be ready?

I aoplogize if this has been discussed before. I just am having a memory loss. If someone could point me in the right direction as to who exactly says what, I sure would appreciate it.

[nuisanceposter]

ST and PMPT both have John Ramsey being overheard on the phone arranging to fly to Atlanta right away, but DOI has a different account.

ST, hb, page 32

"At the Ramsey house a detective overheard John Ramsey on the telephone at 1:40 pm., telling his pilot to ready his plane for a flight to Atlanta. Ramsey was soon told to cancel that flight, but police would consider the action suspicious. Why would a father whose child had just been murdered be readying an airplane to get out of town? It made no sense."


PMPT, hb, page 17

"In the study, however, another detective overheard John Ramsey talking on the phone to his private pilot. He was amking plans to fly somewhere before nightfall. Moments later, Ramsey told Mason that he, his wife, and son would be flying to Atlanta that evening. He said he had something really important to attend to. At first Mason thought Ramsey was planning to leave the country.

"You can't leave," Mason told him. "We have a lot of unfinished business here. We have to talk to you."

"OK," Ramsey said. He didn't protest.

"You're going to have to postpone that kind of stuff," Mason added. "You can't go."


DOI, pb, page 24

"I try to focus on what we are going to do next. Boulder isn't really our home, Atlanta is. We need to go home now. To our parents, to our family, to my brother Jeff. That's what we should do.

Detective Mason asks me what my plans are, and I tell him we will go to Atlanta. He says something about staying around for a few days, and I agree."

----------------------

Interesting. JR doesn't mention being on the phone to his pilot and arranging the flight out of town, only to be told no. And he doesn't try to say that something very important needed attending, either. He doesn't seem to be concerned with the family's safety - he just wants to leave Boulder and be with family in Atlanta. No concern whatsoever for JonBenet - how she will fare in the hands of the coroner, or where she'll be kept, or how she'll be taken care of - just think about his own butt and get the family out of Dodge. I'd never leave until I knew what was going to happen to my baby. I'd try to wait with her til they came to get her.

Mason was right to wonder if the Rs were trying to leave the country - the passports are but a few of the massive list of items Pam Paugh retrieved from the hellhole in the guise of getting "clothes for the funeral." Why would they need their passports?

[Athena]

From the same pages you quote in PMPT Mason also said JR was not defensive nor adversarial just stoic; resigned almost.

Don't forget Schiller did not interview the Ramseys for his book. It would make sense that the Ramseys' book has more detail.

Re: leaving the country that is just speculation. I'm sure they interviewed the pilot and I've never heard anything like that and I do believe that would have been a big deal to the media.

[Sharon]

Mason was right to wonder if the Rs were trying to leave the country - the passports are but a few of the massive list of items Pam Paugh retrieved from the hellhole in the guise of getting "clothes for the funeral." Why would they need their passports?[/QUOTE]

I doubt they would be running os and leave without even a burial for JBR. jmo

[nuisanceposter]

That's just it, Athena - the Ramsey's book has significantly less information about the entire scene with the call to arrange a flight to Atlanta than the other two books do. In fact, JR completely leaves out the fact that he had been on the phone making plans to fly and was then told to cancel them - he just says it was his plan to go to Atlanta and LE said not now. Seems like he conveniently left the overheard call out when describing that certain situation. They call that lying by omission - and coincidentally, this is right after he lied about the involvement of the FBI. Same page. And he doesn't say anything at all about being concerned for his family's safety. You'd think that would be on the top of his concerns, but no.

Pam's raid and the two funerals all happened in quick succession. Pam went in on the 28th, the Boulder funeral was on the 29th, and the Atlanta funeral was on the 31st. Waiting three days to leave the country after the final funeral would not be ridiculous, IMO. They might have needed that time to get affairs in order and make arrangements, if they had thought of leaving the country.

My question was, why would they need their passports? They asked to get some clothes to wear to the funeral - where does needing passports come into that? They were going to Atlanta, not a foreign country.

[Louisadelmar]

What is the source for the passport information? Was it PMPT or ST?

[shill]

JR completely leaves out the fact that he had been on the phone making plans to fly and was then told to cancel them - he just says it was his plan to go to Atlanta and LE said not now. Seems like he conveniently left the overheard call out when describing that certain situation. They call that lying by omission
They also call that editing in the book publishing business and you do it when you're trying not to bore your readers.

[Zoey]

ST and PMPT both have John Ramsey being overheard on the phone arranging to fly to Atlanta right away, but DOI has a different account.

ST, hb, page 32

"At the Ramsey house a detective overheard John Ramsey on the telephone at 1:40 pm., telling his pilot to ready his plane for a flight to Atlanta. Ramsey was soon told to cancel that flight, but police would consider the action suspicious. Why would a father whose child had just been murdered be readying an airplane to get out of town? It made no sense."


PMPT, hb, page 17

"In the study, however, another detective overheard John Ramsey talking on the phone to his private pilot. He was amking plans to fly somewhere before nightfall. Moments later, Ramsey told Mason that he, his wife, and son would be flying to Atlanta that evening. He said he had something really important to attend to. At first Mason thought Ramsey was planning to leave the country.

"You can't leave," Mason told him. "We have a lot of unfinished business here. We have to talk to you."

"OK," Ramsey said. He didn't protest.

"You're going to have to postpone that kind of stuff," Mason added. "You can't go."


DOI, pb, page 24

"I try to focus on what we are going to do next. Boulder isn't really our home, Atlanta is. We need to go home now. To our parents, to our family, to my brother Jeff. That's what we should do.

Detective Mason asks me what my plans are, and I tell him we will go to Atlanta. He says something about staying around for a few days, and I agree."

----------------------

Interesting. JR doesn't mention being on the phone to his pilot and arranging the flight out of town, only to be told no. And he doesn't try to say that something very important needed attending, either. He doesn't seem to be concerned with the family's safety - he just wants to leave Boulder and be with family in Atlanta. No concern whatsoever for JonBenet - how she will fare in the hands of the coroner, or where she'll be kept, or how she'll be taken care of - just think about his own butt and get the family out of Dodge. I'd never leave until I knew what was going to happen to my baby. I'd try to wait with her til they came to get her.

Mason was right to wonder if the Rs were trying to leave the country - the passports are but a few of the massive list of items Pam Paugh retrieved from the hellhole in the guise of getting "clothes for the funeral." Why would they need their passports?


An overheard phone conversation? That is your "proof" that JR is a big fat liar??!! Sorry, but that is just too funny.

An overheard phone conversation woud be hearsay, thereby not admissible in court.

I can truly picture this overheard phone conversation...

First Officer: "yo, Bob...(of course his mouth is jammed with his third donut)...I think I just heard the killer, I mean JR, making plans to leave on his airplane."
Second Officer: Really?
First Officer: (taking another bite of donut)..."yeah, he was talking to someone...I am just gonna assume it was his pilot, saying that maybe it would be best if they left Boulder. I am just gonna go ahead and put in my report that I heard him saying he was leaving the country, okay."
Second Officer: Okay...hey, where did ya get the donut!!??


For all anybody knows, JR was talking to his brother saying he was worried about his family and what should he do. IMO, JMHO, MOO.

[Jayelles]

An overheard phone conversation? That is your "proof" that JR is a big fat liar??!! Sorry, but that is just too funny.

An overheard phone conversation woud be hearsay, thereby not admissible in court.

I can truly picture this overheard phone conversation...

First Officer: "yo, Bob...(of course his mouth is jammed with his third donut)...I think I just heard the killer, I mean JR, making plans to leave on his airplane."
Second Officer: Really?
First Officer: (taking another bite of donut)..."yeah, he was talking to someone...I am just gonna assume it was his pilot, saying that maybe it would be best if they left Boulder. I am just gonna go ahead and put in my report that I heard him saying he was leaving the country, okay."
Second Officer: Okay...hey, where did ya get the donut!!??
For all anybody knows, JR was talking to his brother saying he was worried about his family and what should he do. IMO, JMHO, MOO.


You have a wonderful imagination

[Zoey]

You have a wonderful imagination

Thank you. :)

[andU]

An overheard phone conversation? That is your "proof" that JR is a big fat liar??!! Sorry, but that is just too funny.

An overheard phone conversation woud be hearsay, thereby not admissible in court.

I can truly picture this overheard phone conversation...

First Officer: "yo, Bob...(of course his mouth is jammed with his third donut)...I think I just heard the killer, I mean JR, making plans to leave on his airplane."
Second Officer: Really?
First Officer: (taking another bite of donut)..."yeah, he was talking to someone...I am just gonna assume it was his pilot, saying that maybe it would be best if they left Boulder. I am just gonna go ahead and put in my report that I heard him saying he was leaving the country, okay."
Second Officer: Okay...hey, where did ya get the donut!!??


For all anybody knows, JR was talking to his brother saying he was worried about his family and what should he do. IMO, JMHO, MOO.

I'll give you one thing, you have writing style and imagination! Are you a journalist?

[bullmoose]

An overheard phone conversation? That is your "proof" that JR is a big fat liar??!! Sorry, but that is just too funny.

An overheard phone conversation woud be hearsay, thereby not admissible in court.

I can truly picture this overheard phone conversation...

First Officer: "yo, Bob...(of course his mouth is jammed with his third donut)...I think I just heard the killer, I mean JR, making plans to leave on his airplane."
Second Officer: Really?
First Officer: (taking another bite of donut)..."yeah, he was talking to someone...I am just gonna assume it was his pilot, saying that maybe it would be best if they left Boulder. I am just gonna go ahead and put in my report that I heard him saying he was leaving the country, okay."
Second Officer: Okay...hey, where did ya get the donut!!??


For all anybody knows, JR was talking to his brother saying he was worried about his family and what should he do. IMO, JMHO, MOO.Oh, Zoey, the cops were stuffing their chops with pineapple-fresh cut that they found in a bowl, and washing it down with herb tea. Isn't it obvious? As for the supposed retrieval of their passports by Pam; that appeared, at least as far as I can tell, only in Synthroid Stevie's Twisterpiece, without any evidence offered. JMHO:biggrin:

[SnarkyCow]

An overheard phone conversation? That is your "proof" that JR is a big fat liar??!! Sorry, but that is just too funny.

An overheard phone conversation woud be hearsay, thereby not admissible in court.

I can truly picture this overheard phone conversation...

First Officer: "yo, Bob...(of course his mouth is jammed with his third donut)...I think I just heard the killer, I mean JR, making plans to leave on his airplane."
Second Officer: Really?
First Officer: (taking another bite of donut)..."yeah, he was talking to someone...I am just gonna assume it was his pilot, saying that maybe it would be best if they left Boulder. I am just gonna go ahead and put in my report that I heard him saying he was leaving the country, okay."
Second Officer: Okay...hey, where did ya get the donut!!??


For all anybody knows, JR was talking to his brother saying he was worried about his family and what should he do. IMO, JMHO, MOO.

I don't recall the Ramseys denying trying to leave for Atlanta soon after JonBenet's body was found:

O.K., but why did you try to fly to Atlanta shortly after the body was found? "We had been asked to leave the house," he explains. "We had nowhere to go. We [had] lived in Atlanta for 25 years."

"TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE" 3-12-2000 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,40719,00.html)

[Zoey]

I don't recall the Ramseys denying trying to leave for Atlanta soon after JonBenet's body was found:



"TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE" 3-12-2000 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,40719,00.html)


Nowhere did I say they denied it. You missed the point.

[SnarkyCow]

I was pointing out that it wasn't hearsay. John Ramsey tried to fly himself & his family to Atlanta shortly after JB's body was found.

I was also trying to answer the question you posted earlier:
I know this has probably been discussed upteen times, but was it JR who claims they were going to fly to Atlanta after her body was found? Or is it more hearsay, as in someone from the BPD says they "heard" JR calling for his plane to be ready?

I may have interpreted your response to NP incorrectly, but it seems you were leaning toward it being hearsay because of LE overhearing the conversation. Just thought I'd give you another source besides ST's book or PMPT.:shrug:

[andU]

I'll give you one thing, you have writing style and imagination! Are you a journalist?

Zoey, did you miss this question? Do you write professionally?

[Zoey]

Zoey, did you miss this question? Do you write professionally?


No, I didn't miss it. Just didn't want to give out information!!

[andU]

No, I didn't miss it. Just didn't want to give out information!!


The comment, originally, was meant as a compliment... now you've got me wondering....

[Athena]

Nowhere did I say they denied it. You missed the point.

I pm'd you.

Also this is what has been left out of the posts I have read re: JR leaving to go to Atlanta as JR did tell Mason of his plans to leave. How much of this conversation did this detective hear since he didn't even know where he was going?

P22/PMPT

In the study, however, another detective overheard JR talking on the phone to his private pilot. He was making plans to fly somewhere before nightfall.. Moments later, Ramsey told Mason that he, his wife and his son would be flying to Atlanta that evening.

[Zoey]

The comment, originally, was meant as a compliment... now you've got me wondering....

Thank you for the compliment. I took it as such!

[Jayelles]

The comment, originally, was meant as a compliment... now you've got me wondering....

On another thread Zoey says she's a professional transcriptionist earning 250.00 per hour. I think it's the Bonita Papers thread.

Not sure if the 250 refers to dollars or dinar though :-)

[andU]

On another thread Zoey says she's a professional transcriptionist earning 250.00 per hour. I think it's the Bonita Papers thread.

Not sure if the 250 refers to dollars or dinar though :-)

Well, that doesn't fall under the category of a journalist or writer or author, IMO. I'm sorry, Zoey, I don't mean to state this as if you are not present... Your style shows great imagination and there is a certain flow that speaks professionalism (for almost 10 years I was the Tech Support in a public library and I learned a lot about the styles of authors and writing professionally... I am not trying to out you, Zoey. I just wanted to clarify my reason for asking.

[aussiesheila]

Then how else did it arrive on the table? It can be inferred that either Burke or Patsy virtually had to have placed it there on the basis that only their fingerprints were on the bowl. If one contends that a glove-wearing intruder placed it there, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny on the basis that the flashlight and its batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints. If the alleged intruder wore gloves, why did he/she need to wipe the flashlight and its batteries of fingerprints? This post is my opinion.Bullmoose brought up on another thread that fingerprint analysis is more of an art than a science, so I'm bringing it into every discussion on 'no fingerprints on flashlight or batteries' from now on. This is not directed specifically at you Tober, but to everyone who assumes that because no fingerprints were found on the the flashlight or batteries it means that they were all wiped down. This is a highly erroneous assumption IMO. It has been stated over and over so many times, I guess most people have taken it as a fact, even though if they had stopped to think of someone not only wiping down the flashlight but then opening it up, removing all the batteries, wiping each one of them down then replacing them, would have given the idea a bit of a giggle, but no serious consideration.

Some surfaces do not pick up fingerprints as readily as others, and in this case the situation most likely was that BPD could not pick up sufficient areas of any prints from the flashlight or batteries for them to be used in evidence, IMO. The lab report probably stated something like 'no fingerprints detected' then the spin doctors took over from there.

[shill]

You can't just fire up an airplane and take off.
You have to file a flight plan with the airport first.

John had to talk to his pilot to let him know that the first flight was cancelled so he could notify the airport and to keep him informed of what was happening with JB and to give him a heads up to file a new flight plan.

[aussiesheila]

I'm sure many of you have seen this show or read this transcript before, but please read it again...and especially read it if you've never seen it.
Most of us are well versed in the facts of this case so keep an open mind and count how many lies the Ramseys tell in this interview.
Tell me how they think a pedophile killed their daughter but they don't know if she was sexually abused, just for starters.
Then the lie about John handing the note to Officer French. Then the one about telling Linda Arndt about the open window and suitcase. Your turn.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/20/lkl.01.htmlwhitewitch, I've read through the transcript again as requested and for the life of me I just can't pick up on any lies told by John. Before I go on I would like to say I agree with everything you said in your post #924 about Patsy walking over the note on the stairs, because I think she wrote the note and placed it there and she lied wherever necessary. But IMO John, no. I don't think he ever lied.

You have a problem with his saying he believes it was a pedophile that killed his daughter but doesn't necessarily consider the pedophile sexually abused her. Maybe he thinks the pedophile just killed her without abusing her first. Maybe it is wishful thinking on his part. Maybe he prefers to go on believing that the evidence of the vaginal injury is not conclusive evidence of a sexual attack. Don't a lot of people here believe that the vaginal injury was a rage attack? Maybe John thinks that too. Maybe it is just so painful for him to think about it that he hasn't thought it through clearly. There is annother explanation which I think is the more likely one - the question wasn't entirely clear anyway. John might have thought King was referring to the possibility prior sexual abuse that had been debated about and that John himself had been investigated as being the perpetrator of. However, there are many experts who think there is no evidence of prior sexual abuse, as you well know, and maybe John is more comfortable going along with that belief.


Sorry, what is the lie about handing the note to the uniformed officer who arrived first at the house? Isn't that what happened? Whose statement can you produce that says something different?


Again, John said he told Arndt about the open window and the suitcase. Where is the lie? Again where's the statement from someone else that says something different?

[aussiesheila]

You do realize the flashlight they are talking about is the one they found in the kitchen and had taken into evidence.
This flashlight is not proven to be the Ramseys.

So where is your proof that the Ramseys still owned a similar flashlight at the time of the murder?I don't think you are correct shill. If you go to John's interviews with BPD, they show him photos of the flashlight which he says looks like his one that was kept in a kitchen drawer but that the one in the photo is dirty and his was clean. It was explained to him that it was the one they found on the kitchen bench and the dirty appearance was due to the effects of the chemicals that it was treated with to try to pick up fingerprints.

I think I've got that right. I'll soon find out if I haven't.
Sorry I can't remember which of the 3 interviews it was.

[bullmoose]

Bullmoose brought up on another thread that fingerprint analysis is more of an art than a science, so I'm bringing it into every discussion on 'no fingerprints on flashlight or batteries' from now on. This is not directed specifically at you Tober, but to everyone who assumes that because no fingerprints were found on the the flashlight or batteries it means that they were all wiped down. This is a highly erroneous assumption IMO. It has been stated over and over so many times, I guess most people have taken it as a fact, even though if they had stopped to think of someone not only wiping down the flashlight but then opening it up, removing all the batteries, wiping each one of them down then replacing them, would have given the idea a bit of a giggle, but no serious consideration.

Some surfaces do not pick up fingerprints as readily as others, and in this case the situation most likely was that BPD could not pick up sufficient areas of any prints from the flashlight or batteries for them to be used in evidence, IMO. The lab report probably stated something like 'no fingerprints detected' then the spin doctors took over from there.We have no idea what the lab report on the flashlight actually was, if indeed there was one. Only our dearly departed Tober ever claimed that there was, but alas for the rest of us mortals, he could or would not state if any tests were actually done, when exactly they would have been done[the murder was12/25-6/96] where they would have done or who actually would have done them. We were just expected to accept as Gospel Tober's bloviations about them being [wiped-free] of fingerprints as a result of chemical tests[Tober's terms] to raise fingerprints. Now that Tober has taken leave of us, we will probably never know why he claimed so much knowledge of the case without sharing any of it with the rest of us.Never has so little been shared by one who claimed to know so much. Happy trails, Tober:chicken: :chicken:

[bullmoose]

I don't think you are correct shill. If you go to John's interviews with BPD, they show him photos of the flashlight which he says looks like his one that was kept in a kitchen drawer but that the one in the photo is dirty and his was clean. It was explained to him that it was the one they found on the kitchen bench and the dirty appearance was due to the effects of the chemicals that it was treated with to try to pick up fingerprints.

I think I've got that right. I'll soon find out if I haven't.
Sorry I can't remember which of the 3 interviews it was.I will be waiting with bated breath to read that interview.IMO

[Louisadelmar]

I will be waiting with bated breath to read that interview.IMO

It's the 1998 one. Do a search on flashlight because the conversations aboout it are scattered around. There is also reference to a flashlight picture discussion in 'an earlier interview' but I can't find anything in the 1997 interview.

[Zoey]

11 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
12
13 VOLUME 2 OF 4
14 PAGES 259 - 432
15
16
17
18
19 JUNE 24, 1998






11 LOU SMIT: Okay. We will just go
12 on to the next photograph. I am going to show
13 you a photograph, this will -- you had
14 described your flashlight before. The one that
15 you had. And we had a photograph on the counter
16 of a flashlight and we discussed that before. I
17 am going to show you another photograph and have
18 you take a look at that, see if that looks
19 familiar to you, that's a photograph of a
20 flashlight, and I don't have a number associated
21 with that.
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it's dirty.
23 Mine was hardly used. You know, it was
24 completely black. I don't know what the scale
25 is here. Is that 3 feet do you suppose or maybe
0537
1 that's -- (handing a magnifying glass).
2 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.)
3 JOHN RAMSEY: It's dirty. Mine
4 was not dirty.
5 LOU SMIT: Is that a similar type
6 flashlight as to what you --
7 JOHN RAMSEY: It is similar if
8 that's a metal case, and it looks similar. The
9 end looks a lot different, the end where the
10 battery is in. It looks -- looks similar, but
11 it's very dirty. Mine was, I don't think mine
12 ever got used; it was just in the drawer.
13 LOU SMIT: Just another question to
14 touch on the flashlight. You have seen the
15 photograph before of the flashlight on the
16 kitchen counter. Do you have any idea how that
17 got there, have you thought about that?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: A little bit, but I
19 didn't have a flashlight that morning, no, I
20 don't. I mean there was a lot of chaos going on
21 and the kitchen was kind of ground zero, so the
22 police could have left one there or whatever,
23 but no, I don't. I don't remember ever leaving
24 a flashlight there.

[aussiesheila]

I really think that even if your whole theory should turn out to be true that the explanation for the letters SBTC would turn out to be other than yours; JMHO, but your explanation doesn't fit;the SBTC is not in a prayer or plea to God form. IMO, its fails the criteria of being" Patsy's desperate plea to her Christian God for her own redemption".Oh OK bullmoose, that was just my attempt to get into Patsy's mind.

So you don't think Patsy wrote the note? Or you think my explanation of what SBTC stands for is incorrect? I wasn't the one who came up with the suggestion that it stood for Saved By The Cross. But I think it is the best suggestion so far, and since I think Patsy wrote it, and so would have been the one who was thinking "Saved By The Cross", I was trying to imagine what was going on in her mind.

I have read what her answers were when police brought this up in interviews. She lapsed into one of her "Oh I am so distressed" routines, which I see as one of her many ploys for avoiding answering the question directly, and this makes me feel more certain of my belief that she did, in fact write it. Unfortunately, I have never seen the videotaped recordings of those interviews. I would love to be able to see her body language when she answered that question.

Do you have an opinion as to who wrote the note and what SBTC stands for?

[aussiesheila]

I'm not offended but I'm not surprised either. Better to avoid reading it than to have to make up excuses for why (among other things):

Why the Ramseys told Larry King that no one from the FBI came to their house that morning or ever. Blatant lie.

No whitewitch, that is not a blatant lie, not even a lie. The FBI did not go to the Ramsey house that morning.

Someone, I imagine it was the officer on duty at the BPD headquarters, did call the FBI very early on and FBI officers arrived at BPD headquarters later that morning. By the time they arrived, Eller was there and for some reason they were not sent to the house until around 1.30 that afternoon after the body had been found and (I think) even after the Ramseys had left.

My source for this info is Schiller's book.

So the FBI were not at the house when there was a supposed kidnapping and they should have been, and this is entirely consistent with what John said on LKL.

KING: Does the FBI get called in?

J. RAMSEY: We were told the FBI was called, we kept asking where are they, why aren't they here? We were told, well, they're on their way, it takes a couple of hours. And, of course, they never came.

[aussiesheila]

Actually you can read it yourself but I KNOW this from first-hand experience:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oBmQHScADQ4C&dq=Criminal+Interrogation+101&pg=PR4&ots=C-_uv0TUrl&sig=1HcrDQtfsnslhGzIUljeDCWT1U0&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DCriminal%2BInterrogation%2B 101%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2#PPR14,M1Great link, Athena. Thanks

[thewhitewitch1]

No whitewitch, that is not a blatant lie, not even a lie. The FBI did not go to the Ramsey house that morning.

Someone, I imagine it was the officer on duty at the BPD headquarters, did call the FBI very early on and FBI officers arrived at BPD headquarters later that morning. By the time they arrived, Eller was there and for some reason they were not sent to the house until around 1.30 that afternoon after the body had been found and (I think) even after the Ramseys had left.

My source for this info is Schiller's book.

So the FBI were not at the house when there was a supposed kidnapping and they should have been, and this is entirely consistent with what John said on LKL.

KING: Does the FBI get called in?

J. RAMSEY: We were told the FBI was called, we kept asking where are they, why aren't they here? We were told, well, they're on their way, it takes a couple of hours. And, of course, they never came.


Sorry, Aussie...but the FBI did show up at the Ramseys, though it was after her body was found but the Ramseys were there when the agent arrived. I thought I had posted a link proving this earlier. :shrug:
If JR had taken the time to get his facts straight, I guess I wouldn't have to think that he lied.

[aussiesheila]

Yes, that's the quote. Correct me if I am wrong, also, but JBs body was never withheld. There was talk of doing it but it didn't happen. So, there you go...yet another lie.
I don't care if they were interviewed on those days mentioned either. They were not formal police interviews and they were not interviewed seperately. They placed way more conditions on being formally interviewed than they gave on LKL. Talk about twisting the truth. I see a lot of "hedging" and avoidance of direct answers to the questions in that interview.whitewitch, I'm correcting you because I think you are wrong. I'm sure I read in PMPT that the body WAS withheld by Eller for some time. Unfortunately I don't have my copy with me so I can't check on that. I hope someone else can.

[aussiesheila]

The point is, Shill, that John Ramsey had every opportunity and every obligation to his daughter and her murder investigation to find out if FBI had in fact been on the case and participated in the investigation and to what degree, and to make sure that what he told in his audience in his book was factual.

The FBI responded to the call from the Boulder police that there was a kidnapping by 9 am on 12/26, and Agent Walker went to BPD HQ with a four man kidnapping team, that set up taps and traps on the Ramsey house. The FBI stopped being an active part of the investigation when JonBenet's body was found, because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide. Then Sgt Mason of the BPD drove Agent Walker out to the Ramsey house, and they toured the crime scene, discussing it. JR claims that BPD never called FBI (then how did FBI know a kidnapping occurred?) and were being kept at bay by BPD (Mason drove Walker over, and Walker didn't need to be there to set up the taps and traps.)

That was 12/26/96. My copy of DOI was published in 2000. John Ramsey should have found out exactly to what extent the FBI was involved in his daughter's murder investigation, if only to honor his daughter and make sure he knew what they had done for her. He had plenty of time and every opportunity between 1997 and 2000 to find out what the truth was and make sure that he was giving out factual information in the book he wrote defending himself.

Instead of doing the research and find out personally what FBI had done in regards to crimes committed against his daughter, JR chooses to print misleading and incorrect information in DOI. Real nice. Way to honor your daughter by making yourself look like the victim and not even bother to learn who did what for her. IMO.No FBI officer came to the house while JonBenet was missing, presumed kidnapped when they should have been there nor to John's knowledge, in the remaining time that he and Patsy were still at the house. THAT is what John was referring to in the LKL interview, which I think was sometime in January. As shill repeatedly has told you, at the time of that interview, John very likely didn't even know that the FBI did eventually come to the house after the body had been found. So this is not a proven lie of John Ramsey and anyone who keeps insisting that it is, is clutching at straws IMO. Surely you RDIs have something more substantive that we can discuss as being suggestive of John's guilt than this.

[thewhitewitch1]

whitewitch, I'm correcting you because I think you are wrong. I'm sure I read in PMPT that the body WAS withheld by Eller for some time. Unfortunately I don't have my copy with me so I can't check on that. I hope someone else can.

I believe she was buried 4 days after her death so how long do you think Eller "withheld" it? Isn't 4 days about normal for a burial after a death?
Her body was not withheld. It was something that had been tenatively threatened but it did not happen.

[bullmoose]

Sorry, Aussie...but the FBI did show up at the Ramseys, though it was after her body was found but the Ramseys were there when the agent arrived. I thought I had posted a link proving this earlier. :shrug:
If JR had taken the time to get his facts straight, I guess I wouldn't have to think that he lied.Actually, tww1, we both know that one FBI agent showed up with a BPD detective but was not there as an FBI agent, but purely as a gawker, he was never introduced to John Ramsey as an FBI agent or at all as far as I can tell; you see it was after Jonbenet's body had been found and the brass at the BPD, declined the offered FBI help, wanting to solve it all by their little old selves. Your link was only that a n FBI agent had been to the house, nothing more. JR didn't lie at all as your link amply proved, the BPD did. IMO

[bullmoose]

I believe she was buried 4 days after her death so how long do you think Eller "withheld" it? Isn't 4 days about normal for a burial after a death?
Her body was not withheld. It was something that had been tenatively threatened but it did not happen.Actually, those bastions of justice, the BPD, did try to withhold Jonbenet's body so that the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club could get her parents in for questioning on their [BPD] terms sweatboxing but were told that they had no right to set such conditions, so in fact Jonbenet's body was not held captive but was released for transport to Atlanta.IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Actually, those bastions of justice, the BPD, did try to withhold Jonbenet's body so that the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club could get her parents in for questioning on their [BPD] terms sweatboxing but were told that they had no right to set such conditions, so in fact Jonbenet's body was not held captive but was released for transport to Atlanta.IMO

Why are you correcting me? Didn't I say that her body had not been withheld? I never said that they weren't considering holding it.
I believe JR stated that they did withhold her body. (lie)
And it is only your assumption that JR and the FBI agent weren't introduced. You can not prove this and I do not believe it. IMO

[bullmoose]

Why are you correcting me? Didn't I say that her body had not been withheld? I never said that they weren't considering holding it.
I believe JR stated that they did withhold her body. (lie)
And it is only your assumption that JR and the FBI agent weren't introduced. You can not prove this and I do not believe it. IMOtww1: here we go again on the subject of the Imaginary objects and events of this universe; I know that I cannot definitively prove that something that didn't happen didn't happen, on the other hand I believe it to be so, and you cannot prove that which never occurred, happened. Believe what you want; but remember, as a pseudo-prosecuter, you have to prove that what you claim occurred actually took place to gain any traction here. Also, on a side note; I never said anything to the effect that you said the BPD weren't considering holding the body.Right?:biggrin: IMO

[andU]

What happened to Tober?

[bullmoose]

What happened to Tober?He was last seen entering the Mother Ship right before it flew away to look up and give us all the evidence to back up his claims he'd been making; but it took off for the Home Planet before he could relay the information to us.JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

I was just curious, there has been a lot to catch up on and I actually just realized that he? was absent.

[ralia]

Come on Bullmoose! Don't be so strict with Tober. I'm sure you enjoyed all your exchanged heated posts as much as I did reading them.

[Zoey]

I was just curious, there has been a lot to catch up on and I actually just realized that he? was absent.


I am sure he is busy gathering up all his links that he was asked to provide. With all the "facts" that he has posted...354 posts chuck full of them, it is going to take him a while I am sure. :D

[Athena]

I'm sure many of you have seen this show or read this transcript before, but please read it again...and especially read it if you've never seen it.
Most of us are well versed in the facts of this case so keep an open mind and count how many lies the Ramseys tell in this interview.
Tell me how they think a pedophile killed their daughter but they don't know if she was sexually abused, just for starters.
Then the lie about John handing the note to Officer French. Then the one about telling Linda Arndt about the open window and suitcase. Your turn.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/20/lkl.01.html

This is the issue I have again with re: what JR or PR says as lies. It is what they believe happened. A lie is knowingly, deliberately telling false information.

To address your questions above:

JR DID give the note to French. Where's the lie?
JR did not know if JBR had been sexually abused; he knew she was sexually assaulted that night but that is not what was asked. Where's the lie?
JR did tell FW about the open window and suitcase -- maybe he thought he told Linda about it and who is to say he did not? It is the way he recalled the events. Maybe it was LA who was mistaken that he didn't tell her. She certainly had enough on her head too. Where's the lie?

Everything I have seen pointed out about so-called lies doesn't make a hill of beans of difference in whether the case would have been solved then or now. Re: withholding of the body - JR was told this by Bynum after the fact. That is what caused the distrust between them and the BPD when they realized they were trying to make the evidence fit the crime instead of following the evidence. They had every right to distrust the BPD and it was within their right not to answer questions except as directed by their attorneys because they were not charged; period.

Re: the FBI. The FBI did not show up at JR's house and noone ever told him they were at headquarters. Ron Walker showed up with Mason after the body was found and NEVER identified himself as FBI. He did not exactly come in dressed with the FBI swat team gear on. How is that a lie if he did not know who the heck Walker was? He just looked like another detective. Shortly after JBR's body was found the FBI was dismissed and although they offered their help to the BPD; they were flatly refused. Where's the lie?

The body was withheld shortly while the BPD, the DA's office and the coroner's office squabbled over it. Where's the lie?

[Louisadelmar]

This is the issue I have again with re: what JR or PR says as lies. It is what they believe happened. A lie is knowingly, deliberately telling false information.

To address your questions above:

JR DID give the note to French. Where's the lie?
JR did not know if JBR had been sexually abused; he knew she was sexually assaulted that night but that is not what was asked. Where's the lie?
JR did tell FW about the open window and suitcase -- maybe he thought he told Linda about it and who is to say he did not? It is the way he recalled the events. Maybe it was LA who was mistaken that he didn't tell her. She certainly had enough on her head too. Where's the lie?

Everything I have seen pointed out about so-called lies doesn't make a hill of beans of difference in whether the case would have been solved then or now. Re: withholding of the body - JR was told this by Bynum after the fact. That is what caused the distrust between them and the BPD when they realized they were trying to make the evidence fit the crime instead of following the evidence. They had every right to distrust the BPD and it was within their right not to answer questions except as directed by their attorneys because they were not charged; period.

Re: the FBI. The FBI did not show up at JR's house and noone ever told him they were at headquarters. Ron Walker showed up with Mason after the body was found and NEVER identified himself as FBI. He did not exactly come in dressed with the FBI swat team gear on. How is that a lie if he did not know who the heck Walker was? He just looked like another detective. Shortly after JBR's body was found the FBI was dismissed and although they offered their help to the BPD; they were flatly refused. Where's the lie?

The body was withheld shortly while the BPD, the DA's office and the coroner's office squabbled over it. Where's the lie?

Precisely!

I remember once quoting from ST's book where he says that the Ramseys headed for "parts unknown." Implying they were (potentially) on the run. In fact they were headed back to Colorado. RDIs swore it was a fine and accurate statement because at that time ST didn't know where they were headed.

[bullmoose]

Come on Bullmoose! Don't be so strict with Tober. I'm sure you enjoyed all your exchanged heated posts as much as I did reading them.Yes, I did enjoy teasing Tober for his refusal to back any of his claims with even a scintilla of back-up or evidence; I'm sure that he is chuckling even as I write this post as he reviews our correspondance on his long fight home. But I am confident he will return; isn't the Perseid Meteor shower in July?; we'll have good times when he returns; then he will explain everything and I won't tend to be as skeptical of him as I have been until now. Just Kidding, ralia, I don't know where he went , either.JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

This is the issue I have again with re: what JR or PR says as lies. It is what they believe happened. A lie is knowingly, deliberately telling false information.

To address your questions above:

JR DID give the note to French. Where's the lie?
JR did not know if JBR had been sexually abused; he knew she was sexually assaulted that night but that is not what was asked. Where's the lie?
JR did tell FW about the open window and suitcase -- maybe he thought he told Linda about it and who is to say he did not? It is the way he recalled the events. Maybe it was LA who was mistaken that he didn't tell her. She certainly had enough on her head too. Where's the lie?

Everything I have seen pointed out about so-called lies doesn't make a hill of beans of difference in whether the case would have been solved then or now. Re: withholding of the body - JR was told this by Bynum after the fact. That is what caused the distrust between them and the BPD when they realized they were trying to make the evidence fit the crime instead of following the evidence. They had every right to distrust the BPD and it was within their right not to answer questions except as directed by their attorneys because they were not charged; period.

Re: the FBI. The FBI did not show up at JR's house and noone ever told him they were at headquarters. Ron Walker showed up with Mason after the body was found and NEVER identified himself as FBI. He did not exactly come in dressed with the FBI swat team gear on. How is that a lie if he did not know who the heck Walker was? He just looked like another detective. Shortly after JBR's body was found the FBI was dismissed and although they offered their help to the BPD; they were flatly refused. Where's the lie?

The body was withheld shortly while the BPD, the DA's office and the coroner's office squabbled over it. Where's the lie?

How do you know he gave the note to French? If that is true, how did John Fernie see it laying on the floor next to the door and was able to read it? Do you think the LE just flung it down on the floor?

When questioned about why he didn't tell Arndt about the window and suitcase in LE interviews, JR says he "doesn't know why". He never claimed that he did tell her until the LK interview. How is that not a lie?

JBs body was never withheld. You say that the Ramseys heard about this from Bynum after the fact but just because it was discussed does not mean that it happened. It didn't, yet JR tells LK that it did.

As I've said to Bullmoose, you do not know that Walker never identified himself to the Ramseys. You are assuming. I see no reason why an FBI agent wouldn't identify himself to the parents of the victim.

Yes, it's true that none of these things matter in terms of solving the murder but they were all self-serving half-truths or untruths told by the Ramseys to make them look victimized by the BPD. Another ploy to make the public feel sorry for them and take the "heat" off of them. IMO

I know you don't agree with me on this but the Ramseys had every avenue to get the facts straight on these things but it was their choice to avoid the BPD and their choice not to co-operate. I do not fault them for getting lawyers but they should have made themselves and their seperate statements available a heck of a lot sooner than they did without all of their "conditions". The "conditions" were another thing JR "lied" about in that interview, btw. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Why do you suppose the FBI felt that BPD was also to blame for the delay in the interviews? (PMPT)

[bullmoose]

How do you know he gave the note to French? If that is true, how did John Fernie see it laying on the floor next to the door and was able to read it? Do you think the LE just flung it down on the floor?

When questioned about why he didn't tell Arndt about the window and suitcase in LE interviews, JR says he "doesn't know why". He never claimed that he did tell her until the LK interview. How is that not a lie?

JBs body was never withheld. You say that the Ramseys heard about this from Bynum after the fact but just because it was discussed does not mean that it happened. It didn't, yet JR tells LK that it did.

As I've said to Bullmoose, you do not know that Walker never identified himself to the Ramseys. You are assuming. I see no reason why an FBI agent wouldn't identify himself to the parents of the victim.

Yes, it's true that none of these things matter in terms of solving the murder but they were all self-serving half-truths or untruths told by the Ramseys to make them look victimized by the BPD. Another ploy to make the public feel sorry for them and take the "heat" off of them. IMO

I know you don't agree with me on this but the Ramseys had every avenue to get the facts straight on these things but it was their choice to avoid the BPD and their choice not to co-operate. I do not fault them for getting lawyers but they should have made themselves and their seperate statements available a heck of a lot sooner than they did without all of their "conditions". The "conditions" were another thing JR "lied" about in that interview, btw. IMOtww1: Precisely because he was not on the case is the most logical reason for Walker 'not' to identify himself as FBI to John Ramsey, so as not to confuse the Ramseys with the idea that the FBI was in fact, still involved or to become inadvertantly entangled in a case that his agency had just been uninvited from by a glory-hungry incompetant. I might even go a little further on this line of thought; I would speculate that Walker didn't identify himself to John Ramsey so that when and if the BPD screwed the case upto the FUBAR level, none of the poop would befoul the agency. Which it didn't; rightfully the Caped Crusaders of Colorado got all the credit for the expertise they applied to the case. I, with my own unhappy experience with LE, would have done the same as the Ramseys, cops are sometimes just crooks with badges. Was it LE or the Ramseys that were breakfast buddies of Shapiro,reporter for what prestigious publication? The Globe?Oh yeah, lets cooperate, who needs conditions, cops uphold the truth, right? And everything they claim is the truth, right? Why would the cops lie about anything? Right? Even in Synthroid Stevies' book, he admittedly let another cop get blamed for his leaks to the press, right? So why not trust the cops? Ooops, I got emotional---but I meant it.JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

tww1: Precisely because he was not on the case is the most logical reason for Walker 'not' to identify himself as FBI to John Ramsey, so as not to confuse the Ramseys with the idea that the FBI was in fact, still involved or to become inadvertantly entangled in a case that his agency had just been uninvited from by a glory-hungry incompetant. I might even go a little further on this line of thought; I would speculate that Walker didn't identify himself to John Ramsey so that when and if the BPD screwed the case upto the FUBAR level, none of the poop would befoul the agency. Which it didn't; rightfully the Caped Crusaders of Colorado got all the credit for the expertise they applied to the case. I, with my own unhappy experience with LE, would have done the same as the Ramseys, cops are sometimes just crooks with badges. Was it LE or the Ramseys that were breakfast buddies of Shapiro,reporter for what prestigious publication? The Globe?Oh yeah, lets cooperate, who needs conditions, cops uphold the truth, right? And everything they claim is the truth, right? Why would the cops lie about anything? Right? Even in Synthroid Stevies' book, he admittedly let another cop get blamed for his leaks to the press, right? So why not trust the cops? Ooops, I got emotional---but I meant it.JMHO

I think you are biased towards this entire case based on your personal experience with LE. I think your entire arguement for the Ramseys innocence is based on how you personally feel about Law Enforcement.
You are very bitter. Too bad you won't share your story. I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Athena]

How do you know he gave the note to French? If that is true, how did John Fernie see it laying on the floor next to the door and was able to read it? Do you think the LE just flung it down on the floor?

TWW - you know or should know the facts of this case. French got there and searched the house. While French was searching the house the second police officer arrived and the family friends were arriving. Fernie got there while the note was still on the floor. When he came upstairs JR gave him the note.

When questioned about why he didn't tell Arndt about the window and suitcase in LE interviews, JR says he "doesn't know why". He never claimed that he did tell her until the LK interview. How is that not a lie?

You don't know if he did or did not. It is very possible that you recall events that happened later especially when faced with trauma. FACT. I've provided several links to prove this.

JBs body was never withheld. You say that the Ramseys heard about this from Bynum after the fact but just because it was discussed does not mean that it happened. It didn't, yet JR tells LK that it did.

The body WAS held. Because it wasn't held for a day, is that why you say it wasn't held. Read about the discussions between the BPD, the DA's office and the coroner's office. The body was withheld and Meyers refused to hold it any longer. He said it was unethical. If he was in teh BPD's pocket it would have been withheld from burial. I don't anywhere where JR puts a time frame on it. The point is this is what caused the distrust and I really don't understand why you don't get this.

As I've said to Bullmoose, you do not know that Walker never identified himself to the Ramseys. You are assuming. I see no reason why an FBI agent wouldn't identify himself to the parents of the victim.

He NEVER even spoke with Ramsey so tell me how he would have identified himself. He walked around the house with Mason and left. He is in about 2-3 mentions in PMPT; that's it because he role was minimal.

Yes, it's true that none of these things matter in terms of solving the murder but they were all self-serving half-truths or untruths told by the Ramseys to make them look victimized by the BPD. Another ploy to make the public feel sorry for them and take the "heat" off of them. IMO

Glad you added IMO because MOO is that they did not lie and were within their legal rights to do what they did. Doesn't matter what we think - they were entitled as any person on American soil who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I know you don't agree with me on this but the Ramseys had every avenue to get the facts straight on these things but it was their choice to avoid the BPD and their choice not to co-operate. I do not fault them for getting lawyers but they should have made themselves and their seperate statements available a heck of a lot sooner than they did without all of their "conditions". The "conditions" were another thing JR "lied" about in that interview, btw. IMO

They followed the advice of their attorneys. JR did not lie because he did not negotiate any conditions and says in the interview he followed the advice of his attorneys -- a civil right afforded again to any person in America.

We could round and round on this and you are right we won't agree. They followed the law; did not do anything illegal. Every person who has ever been wrongly accused of a crime is because they felt they had nothing to hide and BAM!!! For any person who may be wrongly accused of a crime should follow the Ramseys lead. MOO

[aussiesheila]

The point is, Shill, that John Ramsey had every opportunity and every obligation to his daughter and her murder investigation to find out if FBI had in fact been on the case and participated in the investigation and to what degree, and to make sure that what he told in his audience in his book was factual.

The FBI responded to the call from the Boulder police that there was a kidnapping by 9 am on 12/26, and Agent Walker went to BPD HQ with a four man kidnapping team, that set up taps and traps on the Ramsey house. The FBI stopped being an active part of the investigation when JonBenet's body was found, because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide. Then Sgt Mason of the BPD drove Agent Walker out to the Ramsey house, and they toured the crime scene, discussing it. JR claims that BPD never called FBI (then how did FBI know a kidnapping occurred?) and were being kept at bay by BPD (Mason drove Walker over, and Walker didn't need to be there to set up the taps and traps.)

That was 12/26/96. My copy of DOI was published in 2000. John Ramsey should have found out exactly to what extent the FBI was involved in his daughter's murder investigation, if only to honor his daughter and make sure he knew what they had done for her. He had plenty of time and every opportunity between 1997 and 2000 to find out what the truth was and make sure that he was giving out factual information in the book he wrote defending himself.

Instead of doing the research and find out personally what FBI had done in regards to crimes committed against his daughter, JR chooses to print misleading and incorrect information in DOI. Real nice. Way to honor your daughter by making yourself look like the victim and not even bother to learn who did what for her. IMO.Nuisanceposter, will you please post the quote where John Ramsey says the FBI were not called in. To my knowledge all John claimed was that they never came to the house while JonBenet was missing, presumed kidnapped, which is true. While someone on duty did call in the FBI and they turned up at BPD headquarters, someone, presumably Eller, kept them from going to the Ramsey house until AFTER the body was found and John and Patsy had left the house. It seems to me you are twisting facts again to make the Ramseys appear guilty.

[aussiesheila]

This is Patsy from DOI pg. 274 (hb version)- Then they turned to her Barbie nightgown, which had been in the windowless room where she was found. I had no idea how it could have gotten there. It certainly was not supposed to be there. I couldn't say for sure if the blanket had been on her bed that night. Often we wash our bedding in the large washer and dryer, which were in the basement, rather than use the smaller stackable unit on the second floor. Could the blanket and nightgown have been removed from that dryer?


-TeaIMO Patsy is purposely trying to create a little confusion here. IMO Patsy knew the blanket was on the bed and that she brought the Barbie nightgown down to the kitchen intending to change JonBenet into it when the photographer she thought was coming arrived. IMO she knew she herself had taken the nightgown down to the cellar after JonBenet had been murdered intending to re-dress her, but had dropped it on the cellar floor instead.

[aussiesheila]

Thank you for writing this. For ages now I have been wanting to discuss this very topic of memory.

I would love to see any one here get put through a fine tooth comb re their memory. The truth is.....people`s memory of events, places, names, times is pretty poor. Not only does the memory often fail completely, but it also tends to remember with certainty things that did not take place. You can times this by 1000 when the person has gone through a stressful event.

You can experiment with yourselves & or family members/ freinds. Do you remember what you watched on tv last night, what order the shows were on, what time each show was on???? Do you remember what you ate last night, what your spouse ate last night, what time you went to bed/ sleep etc. What about last week? Do you remember who you rang yesterday, who rang you? Do you remember what you got for your last birthday or what you gave out to your kids for theirs? Do you think your spouse or so would remember the same answers that you did?

I dont want to bore you with my own details but the other day my fil asked if we bought new couches. We had painted a large brown feature wall white. No one in our close family could tell what was different about our room that they had been in 100s of times.

We do a lot of renovating. The other day I completely forgot that we had changed our marble in the shower because it had leaked a few years ago. My dh & I had an argument about it. I was wrong.

I always question that someone has actually `lied` because they cant remember details or they remembered them wrong. I think memory should be put into perspective and not be unrealistically compared to an impossible standard that doesnt exist for anyone.

One last example, does nobody here ever remember anything wrong or ever have a disagreement with anyone about different versions of events. Doesnt anyone ever forget appointments or have the other party get the time or place wrong. I dont think we have to look too far to see evidence of this in our own lives all the time.
jmo.Another interesting thing I have read about memory and I can't remember where, it might even have been on one of the forums, and that was a comment by an experienced cross examiner who said, if when someone is made to give their story over and over again, and they make little errors here and there, that is good, because you know they are probably telling the truth. It's the people who have got their story off pat and tell it with unchanging detail, that you know are not telling the truth, that the story is fiction and had to be memorised by rote.

[aussiesheila]

No, I don't agree with that rabbit theory. ...and no, I have not taken the time to work up a timeline. I will but I can't say when, ok. I'll try to get it done in the next day or two. I'm not putting you off, I'll do it.And while andU is working on her timeline, how about one from an RDI?

[Louisadelmar]

Another interesting thing I have read about memory and I can't remember where, it might even have been on one of the forums, and that was a comment by an experienced cross examiner who said, if when someone is made to give their story over and over again, and they make little errors here and there, that is good, because you know they are probably telling the truth. It's the people who have got their story off pat and tell it with unchanging detail, that you know are not telling the truth, that the story is fiction and had to be memorised by rote.

Very true. Ann Rule mentions this in Small Sacrifices. Portraits of Guilt by Jeanne Boylan has quite a lot of information about how memory and particularly memory in a stressful situation works (or doesn't). There have also been a lot of interesting studies done.

[aussiesheila]

You would have to ask Bullmoose for further info, for he expanded on the beaver theory. :)


From aussiesheila's post:



If memory serves, Aussiesheila switched from 'beaver' to 'rabbit' after someone posted that the animal hair evidence did not conclusively point to beaver.Bloody hell rashomon, I NEVER said someone brought a beaver in. Trash my theory all you like, but for God's sake get your facts right.

[aussiesheila]

Hi Sheila--An intruder having given JonBenet the pineapple is contradicted by the following: 1) The digestive tract evidence, e.g. it's very highly unlikely that any intruder (considering the circumstances) would give JonBenet pineapple and then wait around for partial digestion to take place before killing her; 2) John Ramsey's statement that had a stranger (intruder implied) awaken JonBenet to feed her pineapple, he couldn't imagine that she wouldn't have screamed bloody murder; 3) The fingerprint evidence shows that Burke or Patsy placed the bowl of pineapple on the table; 4) There is nothing to indicate that the pineapple didn't belong to the Ramseys, e.g. it was in their bowl, on their table, with their spoon in the bowl, it was in proximity to a glass containing only Burke's fingerprints, the setting appears to be that of a domestic snack scenario (most likely supervised by Patsy), etc; 5) The position of the pineapple in her digestive tract, e.g. supporting factors indicate that she consumed the pineapple relatively shortly (possibly as early as 9:30 p.m.) after their arrival home, which means she was awake when they arrived home, contradicting John's and Patsy's claims. (IMO)Yes Tober, you see, I don't think the perpetrators intended killing JonBenet. As you know, I think they were pedophiles, and I think they wanted to have about 2 hours down in the basement with her for their own pleasure. I think the one who set it all up was Santa, I think he brought her downstairs from her bedroom at about 11.30 pm, fed her some pineapple which he brought in a sealed plastic bag and emptied into the bowl, and within about 30 minutes had started abusing her, along with about three others. I think the idea was to return her to her bed, once the two hours were up, and because the pineapple was drugged, she would have little memory of what had happened during the night. I think three of the four perpetrators thought this was all that was going to happen as well. Unfortunately, it was the fourth one, whom none of the others knew at all well, who turned out to be a violent psychopath, and bashed her over the head with a baseball bat when she screamed in pain as her shoved the broken paintbrush up her vagina.

IMO the fingerprint evidence is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I have posted what I think about it on another thread. No doubt you will come across it sometime.

[andU]

And while andU is working on her timeline, how about one from an RDI?


I'm sorry, Sheila, I have not forgotten. I moved recently and am just now getting things organized. Also, been really busy at work and with church activities, Easter programs and prepping. I will do the timeline, it is on my To Do list.

[thewhitewitch1]

Another interesting thing I have read about memory and I can't remember where, it might even have been on one of the forums, and that was a comment by an experienced cross examiner who said, if when someone is made to give their story over and over again, and they make little errors here and there, that is good, because you know they are probably telling the truth. It's the people who have got their story off pat and tell it with unchanging detail, that you know are not telling the truth, that the story is fiction and had to be memorised by rote.


That's funny because in every interview I have read or seen in the media of the Ramseys (LK, Barbra Walters etc), the story the Ramseys tell comes off sounding rehearsed and mechanical and yes, memorized "by rote". Sometimes they even launch into the story without even being asked what happened. It's only when interviewed by LE and asked for details is when they get their stories jumbled. Certain things they have total recall about but it is the questions that they weren't expecting and didn't have rehearsed into their story that they fumbled with and either "didn't remember" or changed the story later to something that favored their innocence. IMO

[bullmoose]

That's funny because in every interview I have read or seen in the media of the Ramseys (LK, Barbra Walters etc), the story the Ramseys tell comes off sounding rehearsed and mechanical and yes, memorized "by rote". Sometimes they even launch into the story without even being asked what happened. It's only when interviewed by LE and asked for details is when they get their stories jumbled. Certain things they have total recall about but it is the questions that they weren't expecting and didn't have rehearsed into their story that they fumbled with and either "didn't remember" or changed the story later to something that favored their innocence. IMOI get it tww1, if their story is consistant, it is mechanical and rehearsed, therefor they are guilty; if they don't have memorized by rote and it seems jumbled in any way, therefor they are guilty; how could I have missed their fiendish plan, act like victims to fool people.?I won't be fooled again., I can assure of that!JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

I get it tww1, if their story is consistant, it is mechanical and rehearsed, therefor they are guilty; if they don't have memorized by rote and it seems jumbled in any way, therefor they are guilty; how could I have missed their fiendish plan, act like victims to fool people.?I won't be fooled again., I can assure of that!JMHO:biggrin:

Bullmoose...that jester icon you are so fond of using is so befitting of you.

[bullmoose]

Bullmoose...that jester icon you are so fond of using is so befitting of you. Pity my wife, a sweet girl from Oak Park; she's been putting up with me for 33 years. I do.:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

Not the way I described it's use.
It would have just been pressed against her throat enough to get under the cord that was tightened into her neck.Who do you think might have done this shill? And why?

[sharlock]

Yes Tober, you see, I don't think the perpetrators intended killing JonBenet. As you know, I think they were pedophiles, and I think they wanted to have about 2 hours down in the basement with her for their own pleasure. I think the one who set it all up was Santa, I think he brought her downstairs from her bedroom at about 11.30 pm, fed her some pineapple which he brought in a sealed plastic bag and emptied into the bowl, and within about 30 minutes had started abusing her, along with about three others. I think the idea was to return her to her bed, once the two hours were up, and because the pineapple was drugged, she would have little memory of what had happened during the night. I think three of the four perpetrators thought this was all that was going to happen as well. Unfortunately, it was the fourth one, whom none of the others knew at all well, who turned out to be a violent psychopath, and bashed her over the head with a baseball bat when she screamed in pain as her shoved the broken paintbrush up her vagina.

IMO the fingerprint evidence is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I have posted what I think about it on another thread. No doubt you will come across it sometime.

Hey Aussie Sheila,
Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat yourself(Iam still relatively new here and have never heard this theory before) but in this post you seem sure there were 4 people one of which was Santa that 3 new each other and one was not as well known.
Who do you think these people were and how did you decide there was 4 people present with one of them less known?
Sharlock
Sharlock

[aussiesheila]

Hey Aussie Sheila,
Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat yourself(Iam still relatively new here and have never heard this theory before) but in this post you seem sure there were 4 people one of which was Santa that 3 new each other and one was not as well known.
Who do you think these people were and how did you decide there was 4 people present with one of them less known?
Sharlock
SharlockOh sharlock where do I start? There was a child's body with signs of a sexual attack found in the basement of her home. To me that suggests she was killed by a pedophile or pedophiles. She has a garotte around her neck, she has a lethal head wound, there are indications that she sustained stungun injuries and autopsy evidence shows the strangulation and head wound were virtually simeltaneous. So it seems to me there has to be at least two pedophiles, one who strangled her and one who bashed her over the head. There is a Santa who to my way of thinking acts very weird and the child has told one of her playmates that she is going to have a secret visit from a Santa after Christmas. So Santa has to be one of them IMO. There is a guy who is reported to LE because he was out half the night and came home very agitated. He was a former student of Santa's and in his statement he said he went for a drive the afternoon before the murder. Santa lived in the mountains, quite likely he was picked up by this former student who also acted suspiciously, so that makes two. Santa is probably pretty physically feeble, they most probably need a third person to help. There was a walker the previous day outside the Ramseys seen by a neighbour who he mistook for JAR. Photo evidence shows that a relative of FW's looks very like JAR and could have been the walker, checking out the house and surroundings. The boarder across the street who said he went to bed early the night of the murder because he was ill, gatecrashed the Ramsey party on the 23rd, possible reason - to check out the family and the layout of the house. So three of the four people I have mentioned were at the Ramsey house where I suspect they discussed their plans for the night of the 25/26th. There had to be at least three to do all that I think they did.

[sharlock]

Oh sharlock where do I start? There was a child's body with signs of a sexual attack found in the basement of her home. To me that suggests she was killed by a pedophile or pedophiles. She has a garotte around her neck, she has a lethal head wound, there are indications that she sustained stungun injuries and autopsy evidence shows the strangulation and head wound were virtually simeltaneous. So it seems to me there has to be at least two pedophiles, one who strangled her and one who bashed her over the head. There is a Santa who to my way of thinking acts very weird and the child has told one of her playmates that she is going to have a secret visit from a Santa after Christmas. So Santa has to be one of them IMO. There is a guy who is reported to LE because he was out half the night and came home very agitated. He was a former student of Santa's and in his statement he said he went for a drive the afternoon before the murder. Santa lived in the mountains, quite likely he was picked up by this former student who also acted suspiciously, so that makes two. Santa is probably pretty physically feeble, they most probably need a third person to help. There was a walker the previous day outside the Ramseys seen by a neighbour who he mistook for JAR. Photo evidence shows that a relative of FW's looks very like JAR and could have been the walker, checking out the house and surroundings. The boarder across the street who said he went to bed early the night of the murder because he was ill, gatecrashed the Ramsey party on the 23rd, possible reason - to check out the family and the layout of the house. So three of the four people I have mentioned were at the Ramsey house where I suspect they discussed their plans for the night of the 25/26th. There had to be at least three to do all that I think they did.

Wow, you've thought that one out nicely. I'm presuming the santa you refer to is the one that spoke at the funeral and gave Patsy the Fairy dust glitter and I had considered him too but not in the same way. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your theory to me.
Sharlock:beer:

[Zoey]

Photo evidence shows that a relative of FW's looks very like JAR and could have been the walker, checking out the house and surroundings.


What photo evidence?

[andU]

What photo evidence?

I must have missed this post; and I don't recall seeing a picture of FW's realative. I remember that whichever neighbor saw the walker stated that the person was built like JAR but I have seen any photos nor heard that it might have been FW's family member. Hmmmm..