Debunking The #1 Case Myth

[ralia]

To have some idea of the digestion rates and if you'd like to play doctors go to the following site and especially the section "Digestion (animation)

www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=16

[ralia]

To sum up my medical research of the day (let's see how I'll manage to go to bed after all these) see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis

My opinion, only an assumption, not a certainty is that since she was found at 1 p.m. in full rigor even with an odor of dicomposition (as Arndt said) and since full rigor needs about 12 hours to set in effect, she might have died around 1 a.m. And since a pineapple needs 2-5 hours to reach the small intestines, she might have consume it between 8-11 p.m. Either at home or at Whites.And since noone at Whites remember any pineapple ever been served and since there WAS pineapple in the kitchen table in her own house, why isn't logical to infer she ate it at home? Who gave it to her, under what circumstances, that's another matter....

[bullmoose]

I am prepared to be convinced but for the time being, I can't see a 19 inch Maglite as of adequate length or weight to have done the job.

It seems to me that it would have required a substantial force to create that huge breakage in her skull bone. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball with a great force and I'm sure people have worked out what it is when swung by an averagely athletic male. I'm sure it is a lot greater force than the same male could achieve with a Maglite, even the largest one manufactured. This is due to a combination of the extra length of the bat, the weight of the striking end and the shape of the handle which allows the batter to give it that extra flick at the end.

So what I am waffling on about is that I think a swing with a baseball bat as I've described would be adequate to inflict that head wound, but I don't think a Maglite would be anywhere adequate. I think that skull bones are alot harder than people imagine and that while I think a Maglite might be able to cause a hairline fracture of a skull, I just can't see it breaking that huge chunk of bone right out of the skull itself.I have never myself thought that a Maglite, even one 19 inches long could do the catastrophic damage to Jonbenet's skull that occurred. A baseball bat would do the job, perhaps, but IMO the dimensions are all wrong, a bat is way too wide, the shape simply doesn't match the fracture. But a crowbar or a nailbar does, Ive a crowbar out in my shed that could produce a fracture with the same dimensions with one well-aimed blow. A length of rebar or, for that matter, a short length of drillsteel[ I'm a retired hardrock miner in a mining area, so it's readily available here] would do the job. JMHO

[rashomon]

It's a slipknot! Neither is lying.
I'll spell it out for you since you seem to not understand.

The loops around her wrist can be loosened or tightened with out untying the knot. Had John created this ligature, he would not have struggled to untie the knots, but instead he would have slid open the loops around her wrists. But in his struggle to untie the knot, he inadvertently loosened up the loop

Solving a crime you need to know what the clues are, and you can't do that if you are clueless.

This post is my I'm looking at it and I see how it works opinion.
Have you ever asked yourself the question why a killer woud have used a slipknot which can be loosened or tightened to tie up a victim? For in that case, the victim could easily have loosened those ties herself, couldn't she?
You're right: "solving a crime you need to know whate the clues are", so keep you own advice and think about this.

And while we're at it: how do you explain the 15-inch of space between the wrist ties? With that much space between, a two-year-old would probably have been able to free herself from the ligatures, don't you think so?

[zippo]

Rashomon: I have been lurking here for months and just started posting. I too am RDI and I am not sure if you ever go back and read your own posts but you come accross as extremely angry and abrasive. I realize you are German and try to account for the cultural differences, but I can't help being repelled by your attitude. You are the primary one who makes me ashamed to be an RDI. Many RDIs make very intelligent and open-minded posts here, but yours are quite frankly offensive and very often mean spirited.

I am not sure if you lack intelligence or if perhaps you are just extremely passive aggressive, but I would highly encourage you to go back and read your own posts. Often times your points are valid, but you style is so repugnant. I am not speaking of any post in particular but your attitude in general.

I also realize that there are people here who post very unusual theories. I don't agree with most of these theories, but think your condescention and :( obnoxious comments to some of these posters shows a complete lack of class and compassion. From one RDI to another I beg you to rethink your approach here. If any other readers here are like me, they will reject you theories no matter how valid just because you seem so offensive.

I also believe that you mascarade as multiple personalities here which I find fascinating. I am quite sure that several of those personalities will attack me for this post, but I am willing to risk that because I think you need to hear it.

I hope you will consider my perspective. I have been thinking this for some time and just mustered up the courage to post it. Again, I am sure I will be attacked but feel you do a tremendous disservice to the RDI perspective. JMHO


Z

[zippo]

Actually, I believe one ME did match the head injury with the Maglite and said it fit perfectly. Unfortunately, I can't recall which ME it was or where I read it. Maybe someone else remembers or has read the same thing.

Thewhitewitch, I also remember an ME (I thought it was Dr. Henry Lee or Dr. Cyril Wecht...not a local guy but a nationally renowned ME)....but I also remember one of them saying that the flashlight fit like a glove. Also having read throughout t he archives here as well as having done some of my own research I agree that the weapon used was the maglight flashlight. Some people here say that it was not substantial enought to do such damage, but bear in mind that the flashlight would require 4 D batteries which are quite heavy (at least the maglite I own requires 4 Ds). And also this was the skull of a child. I have done quite a bit of research and found that a child's skull may indeed crack without as much force as that of an adult. JMHO

Z

[Sprocket]

I also believe that you mascarade as multiple personalities here which I find fascinating. I am quite sure that several of those personalities will attack me for this post, but I am willing to risk that because I think you need to hear it.

On every forum that Rashomon posts on, their hat is always the same. It's Rashomon. I have a different opinion of Rashomon's posts. Maybe that's because I've read Rashomon on every forum Rash posts on regarding this case, (and I've posted with Rashomon on other forums) and I've read some of Rashomon on the MacDonald case. The posting style is always the same.

I would have to disagree with you. I'm very familiar with the types of individuals who do the things you're describing, using multiple hats on forums. I don't see anything you see.

Rash has said that they are a kindergarden teacher. So, Rash has a job that does take up a fair amount of their time. If what you believe is true, you would need to identify hats that could actually post at, or around the same time Rash does. And, if Rash really does this, they would do it not just on one forum, but on several. The type of behavior you are describing is not something someone turns on or off at will, or, only does on one forum.

I understand that everyone has an opinion, but this is a real interesting one (well, to me at least).

[rashomon]

Rashomon: I have been lurking here for months and just started posting. I too am RDI and I am not sure if you ever go back and read your own posts but you come accross as extremely angry and abrasive. I realize you are German and try to account for the cultural differences, but I can't help being repelled by your attitude. You are the primary one who makes me ashamed to be an RDI. Many RDIs make very intelligent and open-minded posts here, but yours are quite frankly offensive and very often mean spirited.

I am not sure if you lack intelligence or if perhaps you are just extremely passive aggressive, but I would highly encourage you to go back and read your own posts. Often times your points are valid, but you style is so repugnant. I am not speaking of any post in particular but your attitude in general.

I also realize that there are people here who post very unusual theories. I don't agree with most of these theories, but think your condescention and obnoxious comments to some of these posters shows a complete lack of class and compassion. From one RDI to another I beg you to rethink your approach here. If any other readers here are like me, they will reject you theories no matter how valid just because you seem so offensive.

I also believe that you mascarade as multiple personalities here which I find fascinating. I am quite sure that several of those personalities will attack me for this post, but I am willing to risk that because I think you need to hear it.

I hope you will consider my perspective. I have been thinking this for some time and just mustered up the courage to post it. Again, I am sure I will be attacked but feel you do a tremendous disservice to the RDI perspective. JMHO


Z
Who insults whom here, Zippo?
Just read this recent one from Shill directed at me:

"Elvislives is the link you boob."

Nice, huh?

BTW, quite a few RDIs have left this forum because they have been insulted in a similar way (often far worse), by die-hard IDIs here.
My posts have been sneered at and met with condescending replies and very personal attacks quite a few times, and if you want to stay here as a RDI, it is important not to let yourself get intimidated by this tactic and not shy away from confrontation. But to me the confrontation is always connected to the facts in this case. Discussion and debate are part of a true crime forum discussion, and when things get heated, the reason is that many people (RDIs and IDIs alike) feel so passionate about this case, which is not surprising. A little girl met a horrible death in her own home, the ransom note was bogus, but who seeks justice for poor JonBenet?

[Zippo]I also believe that you mascarade as multiple personalities here which I find fascinating. I am quite sure that several of those personalities will attack me for this post, but I am willing to risk that because I think you need to hear it.

[Sprocket]On every forum that Rashomon posts on, their hat is always the same. It's Rashomon. I have a different opinion of Rashomon's posts. Maybe that's because I've read Rashomon on every forum Rash posts on regarding this case, (and I've posted with Rashomon on other forums) and I've read some of Rashomon on the MacDonald case. The posting style is always the same.

I would have to disagree with you. I'm very familiar with the types of individuals who do the things you're describing, using multiple hats on forums. I don't see anything you see.
Thanks Sprocket.
Sprocket is right, Zippo. The only poster name I use is Rashomon. I too am familiar with the kind of individuals who use different hats on one or more forums, but as rule one soon finds them out, since everyone has their unique posting style, however they may try to 'camouflage' it. These people often have a very specific agenda, in which I have zero interest.
I don't think anyone currently posting here is using several hats.

[aussiesheila]

John Ramsey said verbatim that JB's hands were "tightly bound", and tightly bound means the loop being tightly around the wrist, not loosely. He also said he couldn't get the knot untied - so the inference one can draw is that he left the 'tightly bound' ligature on her wrist.

Now who do you think was lying: John Ramsey or the coroner?I don't think either one was lying rashomon, they were both telling the truth IMO.

You just don't know what John meant by "tightly bound" rashomon, those two words are insufficient to make it clear exactly what he meant.

John said he couldn't get the knot untied, yes. We know however, from Linda Arndt's testimony, that when John brought the body up from the basement that the cord was hanging from JonBenet's right wrist. Clearly John HAD removed the loop from one of her wrists and it had to have been the left one. Then we look at the autopsy photo of the wrist ligature and what do we see? The loop that John somehow removed from the left wrist with knot still intact. So what does all that suggest?

IMO it suggests that, while the knots were tight, John was nevertheless able to pull on the left one a bit and in doing so make the loop large enough to slip over her wrist. This suggests to me that the loop was large and loose to begin with, because if it had been tight around her wrist there would not have been enough slippage in the tight knot to enable the loop to be made large enough to slip over her wrist.

[aussiesheila]

I have never myself thought that a Maglite, even one 19 inches long could do the catastrophic damage to Jonbenet's skull that occurred. A baseball bat would do the job, perhaps, but IMO the dimensions are all wrong, a bat is way too wide, the shape simply doesn't match the fractureI think you are wrong here bullmoose. I mean it's not as though whatever implement hit her had to sink right in to her skull, really all it needed to do was to make contact IMO. I think was the sheer force of the blow that broke that chunk of bone right out of her skull. I just don't think that chunk of bone has to 'fit' the shape of the implement to quite the extent that you do.


But a crowbar or a nailbar does, Ive a crowbar out in my shed that could produce a fracture with the same dimensions with one well-aimed blow. A length of rebar or, for that matter, a short length of drillsteel[ I'm a retired hardrock miner in a mining area, so it's readily available here] would do the job. JMHOI don't think either of these implements are likely to have been used, mainly because they have hard edges on them which I think would have caused breakage of the skin, which we know did not occur.

PS I'd like to know whether the bat that was found in the yard was wood or metal. What are baseball bats usually made of?

[ralia]

It was a metal bat. See more at
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%House

[ralia]

Would somebody please comment on my 517, 518, 519 posts? I'd like to hear your opinions and alternative suggestions to form a better picture of my thoughts. Thanks

[andU]

To sum up my medical research of the day (let's see how I'll manage to go to bed after all these) see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis

My opinion, only an assumption, not a certainty is that since she was found at 1 p.m. in full rigor even with an odor of dicomposition (as Arndt said) and since full rigor needs about 12 hours to set in effect, she might have died around 1 a.m. And since a pineapple needs 2-5 hours to reach the small intestines, she might have consume it between 8-11 p.m. Either at home or at Whites.And since noone at Whites remember any pineapple ever been served and since there WAS pineapple in the kitchen table in her own house, why isn't logical to infer she ate it at home? Who gave it to her, under what circumstances, that's another matter....

I have not previously commented because to be honest, I am exhausted with the pineapple issue. It may or may not be important. It has been discussed and rehashed to the point that I have nothing to say about it. IMO

[bullmoose]

Would somebody please comment on my 517, 518, 519 posts? I'd like to hear your opinions and alternative suggestions to form a better picture of my thoughts. ThanksI think your posts covered the subject of digestion well; this part of the puzzle will likely linger forever because it cannot be ascertained with any certainty when she actually ate the pineapple found in her intestine. Was it at the party at the Whites' house or at home;granted since pineapple was found in the bowl at the Ramsey's house, that would seem to be the source. If it was from that bowl, then the qustion comes up in my mind when did she eat it? If it was there all along, maybe she ate it before the party, but either before or after, why would her parents deny the knowledge and ownership of the pineapple? I don't buy into the idea that they forgot it in the rush to conceal their guilt after clubbing, then cruelly strangling their daughter for wetting the bed, then calmly sitting and writing what any person older than Jonbenet herself would see to be a phony ransom note. No, to me this was a coldly calculated murder designed in every detail to throw the BPD off any real trail, if there was one left, and onto the parents.IMHO, it worked very well.

[rashomon]

Would somebody please comment on my 517, 518, 519 posts? I'd like to hear your opinions and alternative suggestions to form a better picture of my thoughts. Thanks
Thorough research and very convincingn argumentation, ralia.
For what is often disregarded is the cracked crab JB ate at the Whites' party.
That cracked crab seems to be in the area further down in her digestive system. Therefore JB can't have eaten the pineapple before going to the Whites'. Pineapple was the last food she ate, and since a bowl of pineapple was found on the Ramsey kitchen table, it is clear where she ate it imo.
But like you said: who served it to her and why is far more difficut to find out.

[rashomon]

I don't think either one was lying rashomon, they were both telling the truth IMO.

You just don't know what John meant by "tightly bound" rashomon, those two words are insufficient to make it clear exactly what he meant.

John said he couldn't get the knot untied, yes. We know however, from Linda Arndt's testimony, that when John brought the body up from the basement that the cord was hanging from JonBenet's right wrist. Clearly John HAD removed the loop from one of her wrists and it had to have been the left one. Then we look at the autopsy photo of the wrist ligature and what do we see? The loop that John somehow removed from the left wrist with knot still intact. So what does all that suggest?

IMO it suggests that, while the knots were tight, John was nevertheless able to pull on the left one a bit and in doing so make the loop large enough to slip over her wrist. This suggests to me that the loop was large and loose to begin with, because if it had been tight around her wrist there would not have been enough slippage in the tight knot to enable the loop to be made large enough to slip over her wrist.
Aussiesheila: but isn't the large loop in the picture the cord which was on JB's right wrist?

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

From Dr. Meyer's autopsy report:

Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop .


So what Dr. Meyer called 'double loop' obviously is the ligature which we can see on the right side in the picture.
What does the ruler show? Inches? Maybe we could try to match the measurements given by Dr. Meyer with the picture to find out which wrist ligature was where. But it's the 'double loop' mentioned which I find confusing here.

[andU]

Thorough research and very convincingn argumentation, ralia.
For what is often disregarded is the cracked crab JB ate at the Whites' party.
That cracked crab seems to be in the area further down in her digestive system. Therefore JB can't have eaten the pineapple before going to the Whites'. Pineapple was the last food she ate, and since a bowl of pineapple was found on the Ramsey kitchen table, it is clear where she ate it imo.
But like you said: who served it to her and why is far more difficut to find out.

I know someone has pointed this out, but.... some foods digest faster than others, therefore, they would be gone from the stomach and into the large intestine or bowel before the things that digest at a slower rate. This is done because by the time the once food substance has passed from the small intestine into the bowel, it has little resemblence of ever being food, except perhaps color. It has become poop or feces or junk that the body has no need for. The quicker digested foods would pass up, if you will, the slower digested foods. This is my understanding, and my opinion. I am not a doctor never have been one. I have had lots of experience with problematic digestive disorders and I'm explaining it to you as it has been explained to me by a surgeon.

[aussiesheila]

It might be already tighten when JR found her then it got loosely when you said he tried to get it untied, JMO

I believe a reason for cords around JB's wrists being loosely after she was found, was from her body being shrunk after she died. Dead bodies do shrink after while, I am not medical genius on how to explain that, but I have learned that dead bodies does shrink before turn into rigid or rigor, whatever you call it. I don't understand why beat to death about cords around wrists being loosely as if it was staged, it not like we know it was loosely when JB was alive or right after she died. Thats about 12 hours difference. Maybe someone here can explain in medical details about shrinkage bodies.We did have a member here who had medical qualifications and could have answered your question Kor, but unfortunately she left, so I don't think we have anyone now who can help you.

[Athena]

<snip>

Thanks Sprocket.
Sprocket is right, Zippo. The only poster name I use is Rashomon. I too am familiar with the kind of individuals who use different hats on one or more forums, but as rule one soon finds them out, since everyone has their unique posting style, however they may try to 'camouflage' it. These people often have a very specific agenda, in which I have zero interest.
I don't think anyone currently posting here is using several hats.

I do agree with Sprocket as well. Although I don't post at other forums other than Starting Over (because registration is closed on some others) I've read many posts on other forums by Rashomon and have never suspected her to be one that changes NICS and definitely don't believe she does it here either. Whether we agree or not Rashomon appears to be Rashomon at all the forums I've read. JMO

[rashomon]

I know someone has pointed this out, but.... some foods digest faster than others, therefore, they would be gone from the stomach and into the large intestine or bowel before the things that digest at a slower rate. This is done because by the time the once food substance has passed from the small intestine into the bowel, it has little resemblence of ever being food, except perhaps color. It has become poop or feces or junk that the body has no need for. The quicker digested foods would pass up, if you will, the slower digested foods. This is my understanding, and my opinion. I am not a doctor never have been one. I have had lots of experience with problematic digestive disorders and I'm explaining it to you as it has been explained to me by a surgeon.

A member with medical knowledge (Elvislives) has stated that some foods digest faster than others, which is why they might be found further down in the digestive tract than foods eaten earlier.
But the pineapple was not found further down in the digestive tract than the cracked crab, and who would seriously suggest that cracked crab digests faster than pineapple, whose 'digestive energy' is so strong that it comes close to being a laxative ...

[Athena]

A member with medical knowledge (Elvislives) has stated that some foods digest faster than others, which is why they might be found further down in the digestive tract than foods eaten earlier.
But the pineapple was not found further down in the digestive tract than the cracked crab, and who would seriously suggest that cracked crab digests faster than pineapple, whose 'digestive energy' is so strong that it comes close to being a laxative ...

If pineapple is eaten after a meal every food eaten before the pineapple would digest faster. It is the pineapple that pushes the before eaten food down via enzymes found in the pineapple.

After doiing some research it appears the 2-3 hour digestion rate is ONLY if eaten by itself hours after a meal.

[thewhitewitch1]

If pineapple is eaten after a meal every food eaten before the pineapple would digest faster. It is the pineapple that pushes the before eaten food down via enzymes found in the pineapple.

After doiing some research it appears the 2-3 hour digestion rate is ONLY if eaten by itself hours after a meal.

Ya know...I could get past this pineapple thing and concede that she may have eaten it before the Whites party if we knew who got the pineapple out in the first place. The Rs making it seem like it just walked in there on its' own is what makes me believe she ate it after the party. IMO

[Athena]

Ya know...I could get past this pineapple thing and concede that she may have eaten it before the Whites party if we knew who got the pineapple out in the first place. The Rs making it seem like it just walked in there on its' own is what makes me believe she ate it after the party. IMO

I hear ya TWW and we may never know. Sigh......

[docg]

As I see it there can be no question that she ate pineapple after the family arrived home from the Whites. There can be no question that she would NOT have eaten pineapple served by an intruder, even if it was someone she knew. And there can be no question that, if she were fed pineapple by one of her parents, the other knew NOTHING about it. Because if they both knew about it, their story would have been different, they'd have had no reason to deny feeding her pineapple. They weren't stupid, they'd have known what the medical examiner would find.

The only other possibility was that she got up on her own and fed herself some pineapple, prior to an intruder entering the home. But since there is no evidence of such an intruder and in fact very strong evidence of staging, it looks to me like she was fed pineapple by the parent who killed her.

[bullmoose]

As I see it there can be no question that she ate pineapple after the family arrived home from the Whites. There can be no question that she would NOT have eaten pineapple served by an intruder, even if it was someone she knew. And there can be no question that, if she were fed pineapple by one of her parents, the other knew NOTHING about it. Because if they both knew about it, their story would have been different, they'd have had no reason to deny feeding her pineapple. They weren't stupid, they'd have known what the medical examiner would find.

The only other possibility was that she got up on her own and fed herself some pineapple, prior to an intruder entering the home. But since there is no evidence of such an intruder and in fact very strong evidence of staging, it looks to me like she was fed pineapple by the parent who killed her.Since the pineapple, whatever the origin, was found in the house, it seems reasonable to think she ate it there, but the when part is still questionable to me; even if she ate it herself after getting home, it was hours before she was killed, digestion had occurred already.I fail to see why the Ramseys would claim no knowledge of the pineapple unless they had no knowledge of it. Its strange but when you state there was no evidence of an intruder, I seem to remember that when Lou Smit said there was evidence pointing to an intruder, the BPD got very upset because of his obvious lack of experience in murder cases, the BPD had very experienced investigators; you know, like the Caped Crusader of Colorado, Synthroid Stevie, with his sidekick, the Globe reporter, Shapiro. Hadn't he been on murder investigation for--months, weeks, whatever? I too believe there was a great deal of staging involved in this murder, but I think it was by the killer/s, not by her parents. JMHO

[shill]

Who insults whom here, Zippo?
Just read this recent one from Shill directed at me:

"Elvislives is the link you boob."

Nice, huh?

I've known a lot of people that think they're smart and they're not.
Funny that they're not smart enough to know they're idiots.

[rashomon]

I've known a lot of people that think they're smart and they're not.
Funny that they're not smart enough to know they're idiots.
Hmm, that introspection should give you something to start with, Shill, for it is never to late to improve oneself. Good luck! :)

[Tober]

There are so many issues to dispute on and pineapple shouldn't be one of them. At what time she ate is questionable.
The time of digestion for the food to reach the small intestines ranges between 2-5 hours. It was also founf fecal material ine her large intestines which means she ate something prior to "fruit or vegetable fragment that MAY be piece of pineapple".
When you find a bowl with pineapple in the kitchen of the house where a murder has occurred and a fragment of POSSIBLE pineapple in the victim's digestion system, isn't it logical to infer that she ate some pineapple prior to death (always in mind the digestion rate) and not strawberries?

You've nailed it, Ralia.

[zippo]

Who insults whom here, Zippo?
Just read this recent one from Shill directed at me:

"Elvislives is the link you boob."

Nice, huh?

BTW, quite a few RDIs have left this forum because they have been insulted in a similar way (often far worse), by die-hard IDIs here.
My posts have been sneered at and met with condescending replies and very personal attacks quite a few times, and if you want to stay here as a RDI, it is important not to let yourself get intimidated by this tactic and not shy away from confrontation. But to me the confrontation is always connected to the facts in this case. Discussion and debate are part of a true crime forum discussion, and when things get heated, the reason is that many people (RDIs and IDIs alike) feel so passionate about this case, which is not surprising. A little girl met a horrible death in her own home, the ransom note was bogus, but who seeks justice for poor JonBenet?




Thanks Sprocket.
Sprocket is right, Zippo. The only poster name I use is Rashomon. I too am familiar with the kind of individuals who use different hats on one or more forums, but as rule one soon finds them out, since everyone has their unique posting style, however they may try to 'camouflage' it. These people often have a very specific agenda, in which I have zero interest.
I don't think anyone currently posting here is using several hats.

I did not think I would get you to listen, but thought it was worth a try. I think your own impression of yourself is way off base. As I said, I DO agree with much of what you say, but your style is just repulsive imo. And I have followed both this forum as well as others. The point I was trying to make to you, was that WHAT you say often gets lost because of HOW you say it. Interesting that you would quote Shill because I think the same applies to him. Although having followed these forums for quite some time, I sense that his attitude is based on frustration with certain posters. He does not seem to apply the same attitude towards all posters with whom he disagrees. JMO

[zippo]

You've nailed it, Ralia.


I second that. Unless she was killed before 10PM (when the Ramseys were admitedly still awake) then she HAD to eat the pineapple after she got home. I can't believe so much time is spent disputing this.

[ralia]

An interesting flaw in the intruder's theory isIMO the presence of a chair blocking the door of the train room (where the window is located).

JR verifies this presence in his 1998 police interview when he stated (p.155:lines 7-13):
"I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door."
How an intruder could have exited through the window of the very room where its door was blocked from the other side
And if there was a chair in the vicinity, what's the need to use a suitcase to step on when you can easily use the chair for the same purpose?

[rashomon]

I did not think I would get you to listen, but thought it was worth a try. I think your own impression of yourself is way off base. As I said, I DO agree with much of what you say, but your style is just repulsive imo. And I have followed both this forum as well as others. The point I was trying to make to you, was that WHAT you say often gets lost because of HOW you say it. Interesting that you would quote Shill because I think the same applies to him. Although having followed these forums for quite some time, I sense that his attitude is based on frustration with certain posters. He does not seem to apply the same attitude towards all posters with whom he disagrees. JMO
Please point out to me what exactly you found 'repulsive' in my # 525 reply to you.

[Louisadelmar]

An interesting flaw in the intruder's theory isIMO the presence of a chair blocking the door of the train room (where the window is located).

JR verifies this presence in his 1998 police interview when he stated (p.155:lines 7-13):
"I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door."
How an intruder could have exited through the window of the very room where its door was blocked from the other side
And if there was a chair in the vicinity, what's the need to use a suitcase to step on when you can easily use the chair for the same purpose?

I think the chair was blocking the doorway, not the door itself.

1998

23 If this was taken before I was down there -- well
24 I put it back. When I went down there, that chair
25 was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
0278
1 And there was something else on the other side,
2 whatever it was. But all I had to do was move that
3 chair, then I walked into the room.
4 LOU SMIT: That's the first time down?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. In this picture here,
6 I would have had to move that drum table and the
7 Easter basket in that room. So that's different.
8 LOU SMIT: So you say that that's been moved.
9 Which way would you say that's been moved?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember the Easter
11 baskets there at all. But it would have had to
12 have been moved. The drum table was over, and the
13 chair was also blocking the door.
14 LOU SMIT: So do you think that the chair
15 would block the door and nobody would have gotten
16 in there without moving it?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.

[rashomon]

I second that. Unless she was killed before 10PM (when the Ramseys were admitedly still awake) then she HAD to eat the pineapple after she got home. I can't believe so much time is spent disputing this.
The reason why this is being disputed so much is that it blew the Ramseys' given time line apart. For their story was that JB had been asleep when they got home.
TWW pointed out what it is about (#820 post on the "Pineapple" thread):
I don't understand why others don't see how the fingerprints on the bowl and glass and the fact that JB ate pineapple add up to the real possibility that she was not asleep when the family arrived home that night.
Why won't the Ramseys admit it? Because if you keep the story short and sweet - "she was asleep and she never woke up" - the less questions you have to answer that may trip up your story and get you caught in a lie. IMO
Their first statements to the LE was that she was asleep when they got home. How were they later going to "suddenly remember" that "oops, she wasn't asleep because we ate some pineapple"? I don't believe they thought anyone was ever going to think twice about that pineapple and they probably even forgot about it until it was later brought up. If you've just killed your kid (accidentally or otherwise), you aren't going to stop and think about what they had to eat before it happened. Why would you? And especially not if you are in a panic and not thinking clearly but most likely they did not know that stomach contents can help determine a persons time of death. IMO

[rashomon]

I think the chair was blocking the doorway, not the door itself.

1998

23 If this was taken before I was down there -- well
24 I put it back. When I went down there, that chair
25 was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
0278
1 And there was something else on the other side,
2 whatever it was. But all I had to do was move that
3 chair, then I walked into the room.
4 LOU SMIT: That's the first time down?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. In this picture here,
6 I would have had to move that drum table and the
7 Easter basket in that room. So that's different.
8 LOU SMIT: So you say that that's been moved.
9 Which way would you say that's been moved?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember the Easter
11 baskets there at all. But it would have had to
12 have been moved. The drum table was over, and the
13 chair was also blocking the door.
14 LOU SMIT: So do you think that the chair
15 would block the door and nobody would have gotten
16 in there without moving it?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.

You mean there was a chair right in front of the door? The door seems to have opened to the inside of the room, so all John Ramsey had to do was simply remove the chair.
Was this chair still in front of the door to the train room when the police searched the house?

[Louisadelmar]

You mean there was a chair right in front of the door? The door seems to have opened to the inside of the room, so all John Ramsey had to do was simply remove the chair.
Was this chair still in front of the door to the train room when the police searched the house?

Read the interview. Don't know whether it was there when the police searcched. We'd need their reports.

[ralia]

Read the interview. Don't know whether it was there when the police searcched. We'd need their reports.

What I know about the chair I read it in wiki

Http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Basement#TheTrainRoom

and I found it interesting.

[ralia]

Sorry. I correct

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Basement#TheTrainRoom

Either it is in police files or not, JR himself verifies its presence in the interview during his (7-8-A.M) search in the basement BEFORE the first officer (French) got down there.

[bullmoose]

An interesting flaw in the intruder's theory isIMO the presence of a chair blocking the door of the train room (where the window is located).

JR verifies this presence in his 1998 police interview when he stated (p.155:lines 7-13):
"I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door."
How an intruder could have exited through the window of the very room where its door was blocked from the other side
And if there was a chair in the vicinity, what's the need to use a suitcase to step on when you can easily use the chair for the same purpose?
Ralia, it is only a flaw in the intruder theory for a chair to be in front of the door if the chair couldn't have been moved to that position from inside the room; since the door opened inward I think that would be a doable feat. Also, your thought of it being a flaw is inconsistant with the many IDI's like myself that think it more likely for the killer/s to exit through one of the 17 doors in the house. I would have, but then thats JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

I did not think I would get you to listen, but thought it was worth a try. I think your own impression of yourself is way off base. As I said, I DO agree with much of what you say, but your style is just repulsive imo. And I have followed both this forum as well as others. The point I was trying to make to you, was that WHAT you say often gets lost because of HOW you say it. Interesting that you would quote Shill because I think the same applies to him. Although having followed these forums for quite some time, I sense that his attitude is based on frustration with certain posters. He does not seem to apply the same attitude towards all posters with whom he disagrees. JMO

Just put him on ignore if he effects you so strongly, or PM him about your feelings re his style.
jmo

[Athena]

Sorry. I correct

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Basement#TheTrainRoom

Either it is in police files or not, JR himself verifies its presence in the interview during his (7-8-A.M) search in the basement BEFORE the first officer (French) got down there.

French searched the basement immediately after his arrival at the Ramseys. He arrived at the Ramseys' home seven minutes after the 911 call. Fleet White searched the basement at 6:15AM. We don't have French's case file so we don't know if he noticed the chair or not since he was looking for points of entry/exit to and from the basement. We do know that Fleet White moved the glass and moved the suitcase so it is possible he also placed that chair there since what we do know is that JR went into the basement between 7AM -9AM and the chair was there.

Click on links within the link you provided and you will see a discussion re:this.

[ralia]

Bullmoose, Athena,

I see your point and makes sense.

[Athena]

Bullmoose, Athena,

I see your point and makes sense.

Ya know, one of the things that bugs me is that we can't read FW's depo. I just have not seen/read anything that explains his actions to me. They could be completely innocent but can also be looked at as sinister. I am so puzzled as to why he moved the glass, the suitcase and after JR found JBR's body why he went back down there and touched the duct tape; that's what we know he did admit but could possibly be more?? Then 10 years later, ST on Greta's show says he may even have opened the window. It appears as if he was "retracing" his steps in case any trace evidence found linked to him could be explained. Of course, I can also be completely wrong -- it just bugs me. JMO

[Zoey]

Ya know, one of the things that bugs me is that we can't read FW's depo. I just have not seen/read anything that explains his actions to me. They could be completely innocent but can also be looked at as sinister. I am so puzzled as to why he moved the glass, the suitcase and after JR found JBR's body why he went back down there and touched the duct tape; that's what we know he did admit but could possibly be more?? Then 10 years later, ST on Greta's show says he may even have opened the window. It appears as if he was "retracing" his steps in case any trace evidence found linked to him could be explained. Of course, I can also be completely wrong -- it just bugs me. JMO


You are not alone Athena, it bugs me too.

I never have understood the carolers that showed up on Christmas Day night, and FW leaving his own party w/son to go caroling. I just have never heard of carolers going around on Christmas day night. Were any of them questioned to colaborate FW's story? Or were they just an accuse for FW to leave his home to, I don't know, get things set up??:shrug:

[andU]

That caroling thing has always bothered me, too. Where I am from, it is unheard of to go caroling on Christmas Day night. By then, folks are settled in with families unwinding from the holiday events. Oh, yeah, I have to say that his behavior is sinister. There may very well be an explanation and my thiniking may be wrong, but I'd sure like to know more about him.

[thewhitewitch1]

You are not alone Athena, it bugs me too.

I never have understood the carolers that showed up on Christmas Day night, and FW leaving his own party w/son to go caroling. I just have never heard of carolers going around on Christmas day night. Were any of them questioned to colaborate FW's story? Or were they just an accuse for FW to leave his home to, I don't know, get things set up??:shrug:

What exactly did he have to "set up"? And since his son was with him, are you implying that his son was in on it too?
To my understanding, a group of carolers came to the Whites door and they simply joined the carolers. So...were the other carolers in on it too? :confused:

Also, as far as FW being so suspicious....if he killed JB, do you really think he would admit to moving the suitcase, picking up the broken glass and going back in the cellar after JB was found and picking up the duct tape? As far as I know, no one saw him do these things, so unless he is dumb as a stick, why would he admit to them if he was guilty of anything?

[Zoey]

What exactly did he have to "set up"? And since his son was with him, are you implying that his son was in on it too?
To my understanding, a group of carolers came to the Whites door and they simply joined the carolers. So...were the other carolers in on it too? :confused:

Also, as far as FW being so suspicious....if he killed JB, do you really think he would admit to moving the suitcase, picking up the broken glass and going back in the cellar after JB was found and picking up the duct tape? As far as I know, no one saw him do these things, so unless he is dumb as a stick, why would he admit to them if he was guilty of anything?

As I have stated before, I do not believe FW did the actual killing of JB but I, IMO, believe he may have had something to do with it. Do I believe his son was in on it? IMO, no. Do I believe the carolers were in on it, IMO, no.

I am confused as to why carolers came out on Christmas day eve. This is not the norm. Who were they? Are they part of it? Who the heck knows, as people that should have been questioned never were.

Why did Scott Peterson man phone lines, put up flyers, go on national TV? Guilty people do strange things to make them look innocent.

Why did Fleet move the glass, move the suitcase and touch the duct tape? Good questions. Too bad we are not privy to his testimony to find out if he suffered from Flamnesia when it came time to answer these questions. This post is just my own opinion.

[Athena]

TWW: Please read my post above to see why he may have admitted it.

[zippo]

[QUOTE=Sprocket;8819735]
Rash has said that they are a kindergarden teacher. So, Rash has a job that does take up a fair amount of their time. If what you believe is true, you would need to identify hats that could actually post at, or around the same time Rash does. And, if Rash really does this, they would do it not just on one forum, but on several. The type of behavior you are describing is not something someone turns on or off at will, or, only does on one forum.

QUOTE]


Not sure how much time and intellect it takes to teach 5 year olds how to count to ten, but if her posts are any indication, it doesn't take an Einstein.

I am RDI and feel that the posters here that represent RDI are pitiful. I have also followed the FFJ forum and I am embarrassed that they use the National Enquirer and the Globe as credible resources!

My concern is that these forums are read by thousands and the RDI perspective is developing the same credibility as those who think martians killed JFK.

To the many posters who read these boards: MOST RDIs are not like the nimrods who post on these forums. Most are intelligent and logical. please do not judge the RDI perspective based on the moronic posters on these forums.

There is a poster named Whiskey who disgraces the IDI perspective. Sadly many of the so called RDIs on this forum are equally foolish, but incapable of realizing their own stupidity.

[zippo]

Quote from Sprocket: "Elvislives" doesn't back up statements/theories with proof.

Finally. Somebody calling it like it really is.

My third party spitballing question would be, is this individual a retired ME? (Do they have a license somewheres that can be verified?) Because imho if this poster was a practicing physician, or even a practicing PA, I find it difficult to believe that they would have as much free time as they do posting on forums.

To Roshoman and Sprocket :beer: Finally someone calling a spade a spade. This poster has shown no credetials and everyone here just beleives everything he says no question asked. NEVER ONCE has he provided a link to support ANY of his statements. All he says is I'm a doctor so you should believe everything I say.

Well, EL, Roshoman and Sprocket have proven that you are a fraud. Why else cant you give any references for all the claims you make. You called it Roshoman, he has NO FACTUAL PROOF. Just a claim that anyone could make on the internet that he is a M.D. Well guess what I'm the cheif of the Boulder police so everyone should beleive everything I say.
ANd Sprocket you are spot on---what REAL DOCTOR has all the time in the world to be posting all the time on the internet?? :rolleyes:

What some of you so-called RDI are missing is that Elvislives' conclusions regarding the head wound coming first or at least in close proximity to the strangulation DOES NOT rule out the Ramseys as perpetrators. Sadly you lack the intellect to realize that. You seem to think she is IDI, but if you go back and read the history, she is RDI imo.

Whiskey, the same applies to you. The fact that JBR ate the pineapple 1-4 hours before death does not necessarily prove the Ramseys guilty. The fact that you are " killing the messenger" detracts from your credibility.

The head wound may in fact have preceded the strangulation. Does that exonerate the Ramseys? I think not. In fact I think it bodes even worse for them. Instead of being guilty of manslaughter, they are guilty of first degree murder imho.

[nuisanceposter]

Ooookay....so now your personal problem with Rashomon has turned into name-calling and insulting the entire RDI population.

Zippo, you're more than welcome to go back where you came from. I realize the mods have forsaken this board and are no longer paying any attention to what people are saying to each other here, but posts like the one you just made are uncalled-for, unnecessary, and an excellent example of the reason that many people have left this board recently.

[bullmoose]

What some of you so-called RDI are missing is that Elvislives' conclusions regarding the head wound coming first or at least in close proximity to the strangulation DOES NOT rule out the Ramseys as perpetrators. Sadly you lack the intellect to realize that. You seem to think she is IDI, but if you go back and read the history, she is RDI imo.

Whiskey, the same applies to you. The fact that JBR ate the pineapple 1-4 hours before death does not necessarily prove the Ramseys guilty. The fact that you are " killing the messenger" detracts from your credibility.

The head wound may in fact have preceded the strangulation. Does that exonerate the Ramseys? I think not. In fact I think it bodes even worse for them. Instead of being guilty of manslaughter, they are guilty of first degree murder imho.If you've read any of my posts, you know that I am a IDI; that being said I agree with you that the murder was not a case of manslaughter but a cold-blooded premeditated murder. We may not agree as to the culprit/s but we agree on the murder. JMHO

[Athena]

Ooookay....so now your personal problem with Rashomon has turned into name-calling and insulting the entire RDI population.

Zippo, you're more than welcome to go back where you came from. I realize the mods have forsaken this board and are no longer paying any attention to what people are saying to each other here, but posts like the one you just made are uncalled-for, unnecessary, and an excellent example of the reason that many people have left this board recently.

I do beleve Z said "some"; it was not a blanket statement. As far as the "killing the messenger" statement I totally agree. We lost Elvis as a result who was a valuable resource to this forum and never insulted anyone on this board. Rather than resort to that she left and its all of our loss.

[nuisanceposter]

The "some" refers to people who aren't getting the same impression from Elvis's posts that zippo does. The post previous to that one is definitely making a blanket statement about the RDI on this board.

She said:

"the posters here that represent RDI are pitiful."

"MOST RDIs are not like the nimrods who post on these forums."

"please do not judge the RDI perspective based on the moronic posters on these forums."

"so called RDIs on this forum are equally foolish, but incapable of realizing their own stupidity."


NONE of those comments refer to some of us, and that post is the one I was responding to with my post.

Zippo, you claim to be RDI and think you're so much better than the rest of the RDI on this board - why don't you just go ahead and show us how it's done, instead of wasting the board's time proving how vicious you are to those whom you perceive as "moronic" "nimrods"?

[zippo]

The "some" refers to people who aren't getting the same impression from Elvis's posts that zippo does. The post previous to that one is definitely making a blanket statement about the RDI on this board.

She said:

"the posters here that represent RDI are pitiful."

"MOST RDIs are not like the nimrods who post on these forums."

"please do not judge the RDI perspective based on the moronic posters on these forums."

"so called RDIs on this forum are equally foolish, but incapable of realizing their own stupidity."


NONE of those comments refer to some of us, and that post is the one I was responding to with my post.

Zippo, you claim to be RDI and think you're so much better than the rest of the RDI on this board - why don't you just go ahead and show us how it's done, instead of wasting the board's time proving how vicious you are to those whom you perceive as "moronic" "nimrods"?


Actually nuisanceposter, it is you, thewhitewitch and snarky cow who I think do justice to the RDI perspective on this board. I don't think any of you has used the Globe or the National Enquirer as sources. In no way was I casting a blanket statement on the RDIs here---just reflecting frustration that many RDI here imho use lame sources and poor logic to make their points. There are plenty of reasonable issues to convince someone that the Ramseys were involved in their daughter;s death. To use tabloids and moronic logic just makes all of us look stupid. ANd the thousands of viewers who read this forum will just equate the RDI perspective with those who think the earth is flat. jmho

[bullmoose]

Actually nuisanceposter, it is you, thewhitewitch and snarky cow who I think do justice to the RDI perspective on this board. I don't think any of you has used the Globe or the National Enquirer as sources. In no way was I casting a blanket statement on the RDIs here---just reflecting frustration that many RDI here imho use lame sources and poor logic to make their points. There are plenty of reasonable issues to convince someone that the Ramseys were involved in their daughter;s death. To use tabloids and moronic logic just makes all of us look stupid. ANd the thousands of viewers who read this forum will just equate the RDI perspective with those who think the earth is flat. jmhoAnd that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale----cheap!:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Actually nuisanceposter, it is you, thewhitewitch and snarky cow who I think do justice to the RDI perspective on this board. I don't think any of you has used the Globe or the National Enquirer as sources. In no way was I casting a blanket statement on the RDIs here---just reflecting frustration that many RDI here imho use lame sources and poor logic to make their points. There are plenty of reasonable issues to convince someone that the Ramseys were involved in their daughter;s death. To use tabloids and moronic logic just makes all of us look stupid. ANd the thousands of viewers who read this forum will just equate the RDI perspective with those who think the earth is flat. jmho


I hope I haven't fallen into "nimrod" category because I used the Enquirers interview with the Ramseys as a source of sorts. :D
I think that is a bit different from what you were talking about, though.

[zippo]

I hope I haven't fallen into "nimrod" category because I used the Enquirers interview with the Ramseys as a source of sorts. :D
I think that is a bit different from what you were talking about, though.

Thewhitewitch!: you couldn't be a nimrod if you tried!! lol. The point I am trying to make which keeps geting misunderstood is that the RDI perspective is a rational one. There are crazy RDI just like there are crazy IDI. Unfortunately many RDI who post here give us a bad name. RDI is a reasonable viewpoint. Not all of us rely on tabloid journalism. MOST of us believe the Ramseys are guilty because of the EVIDENCE. Not because the National Enquirer thinks the Ramseys are guilty!!!

There is alot of evidence to implicate the Ramseys. We DO NOT NEED the NE or the Globe to prove it!!!!!!!!

[bullmoose]

Thewhitewitch!: you couldn't be a nimrod if you tried!! lol. The point I am trying to make which keeps geting misunderstood is that the RDI perspective is a rational one. There are crazy RDI just like there are crazy IDI. Unfortunately many RDI who post here give us a bad name. RDI is a reasonable viewpoint. Not all of us rely on tabloid journalism. MOST of us believe the Ramseys are guilty because of the EVIDENCE. Not because the National Enquirer thinks the Ramseys are guilty!!!

There is alot of evidence to implicate the Ramseys. We DO NOT NEED the NE or the Globe to prove it!!!!!!!!I do hope the fact that I wear a Napoleonic hat[honest, I like the fit, thats all, I don't care what my wife says]
does not put me in the ranks of crazy IDI's. Both of us think that would be unfair[me and my imaginary friend].:biggrin: JMHO

[shill]

What exactly did he have to "set up"? And since his son was with him, are you implying that his son was in on it too?
To my understanding, a group of carolers came to the Whites door and they simply joined the carolers. So...were the other carolers in on it too?
Did he come home with the carolers? Because if he didn't, he could have easily taken a detour.


Also, as far as FW being so suspicious....if he killed JB, do you really think he would admit to moving the suitcase, picking up the broken glass and going back in the cellar after JB was found and picking up the duct tape? As far as I know, no one saw him do these things, so unless he is dumb as a stick, why would he admit to them if he was guilty of anything?
If you're worried you might have left some fingerprints or fiber evidence, what better way to explain their presence on things. Unlike the Ramseys, his fiber and fingerprints shouldn't be there. Now that he touched everything, he has an explanation for their presence.

[nuisanceposter]

Thewhitewitch!: you couldn't be a nimrod if you tried!! lol. The point I am trying to make which keeps geting misunderstood is that the RDI perspective is a rational one. There are crazy RDI just like there are crazy IDI. Unfortunately many RDI who post here give us a bad name. RDI is a reasonable viewpoint. Not all of us rely on tabloid journalism. MOST of us believe the Ramseys are guilty because of the EVIDENCE. Not because the National Enquirer thinks the Ramseys are guilty!!!

There is alot of evidence to implicate the Ramseys. We DO NOT NEED the NE or the Globe to prove it!!!!!!!!

I see what you're saying now, zippo. I had misunderstood you. My fault.

Give it up, Shill. JR looks ten times worse than FW ever could in this murder. JR was one of the ones in the house all night, not FW...JR's (and PR's) fibers were found on JonBenet, not FW's...and JR's the one who changed his stories whenever he felt like it, not FW.

[rashomon]

[Zipo] I have also followed the FFJ forum and I am embarrassed
That they use the National Enquirer and the Globe as credible resources!
I think you can trust the thorough FFJ posters to check out if what a tabloid writes has any substance. If it can be confirmed by other sources, then it is a reliable source in that specific case (I suppose you are alluding to the interview the Ramseys gave the NE).
Not sure how much time and intellect it takes to teach 5 year olds how to count to ten, but if her posts are any indication, it doesn't take an Einstein.
I love my job very much because children will be the adults of the future and we all have a great responsibility toward them. They deserve our protection and love, and what we teach them will have a profound influence.
For example, if we teach them that the top priority in life is to be constantly put on display, chances are that the child will feel more and more inwardly emtpy in the course of time, because of the emotional deprivation which goes along with such a lifestyle. Emotional wrecks like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears are living examples of the detrimental effect a life "on constant show" since childhood can have.
I believe Patsy Ramsey was using JB just like she herself had been used by her pageant-obsessed mother Nedra. Pageants where six-year-olds are put in high heels and a Las Vegas showgirl outfit are not harmless, they are a form of child abuse imo.
BTW, of the many children I have taught and cared for, not once has a six-year-old ever asked for help when it came to wiping themselves. For at that age, children already have a sense of intimate privacy. Not only was JB not able to wipe herself properly, but seems to have asked whoever was around to wipe her. This points to JB having had possible boundary issues, and it is always a red flag when a child shows boundary issues.

My concern is that these forums are read by thousands and the RDI perspective is developing the same credibility as those who think martians killed JFK.
You think the RDI perspective is not credible?
I thought you were an RDI too, or am I missing something?
Tell us what you think happened, and how it happened. Who killed JB and why?

To the many posters who read these boards: MOST RDIs are not like the nimrods who post on these forums. Most are intelligent and logical. please do not judge the RDI perspective based on the moronic posters on these forums.
I have no idea what your agenda is, but do you think trampling in here and insulting posters will do the case discussion any good?

[rashomon]

What some of you so-called RDI are missing is that Elvislives' conclusions regarding the head wound coming first or at least in close proximity to the strangulation DOES NOT rule out the Ramseys as perpetrators. Sadly you lack the intellect to realize that. You seem to think she is IDI, but if you go back and read the history, she is RDI imo.
...
The head wound may in fact have preceded the strangulation. Does that exonerate the Ramseys? I think not. In fact I think it bodes even worse for them. Instead of being guilty of manslaughter, they are guilty of first degree murder imho.

I think Elvislives is neither IDI nor RDI, but merely pointed out that in her opinion the time frame between the head blow and the strangulation must have been a very short one, since the blood in certain parts of JB's skull was fresh hemorrhage which had not clotted. Dr. Spitz on the other hand states having seen blod clots in the autopsy pictures.
Maybe there were areas in her head where the blood had clotted, and others where it did not have time to clot? Perhaps the wound continued to bleed for some time and what was then observed as fresh hemorrhage in the brain was the last blood she had shed very shortly before her death?

I mentioned in a prior post that imo the scenario of the strangulation immediately following the head bash makes an IDI theory questionable.
For which perp would smash JB's skull and then take the trouble to tie her up and 'garrote' her immediately afterward? Which perp would put duct tape on a child's mouth whose skull he just cracked?

[nuisanceposter]

<snip>

I mentioned in a prior post that imo the scenario of the strangulation immediately following the head bash makes an IDI theory questionable.
For which perp would smash JB's skull and then take the trouble to tie her up and 'garrote' her immediately afterward? Which perp would put duct tape on a child's mouth whose skull he just cracked?

This is a very good question. I'd like to know, if the perp can strike the child and cause such devastating injuries, why didn't he just keep bludgeoning her? Why stop with one shot? You'd think a person so consumed with hatred for JR and wanting revenge on him would have torn the victim up, viciously sexually assaulting (curious that the injuries were confined solely to the vagina and only appeared to have been one jab) and bludgeoning her until she was barely recognizable.

This crime just doesn't have the hallmarks of a revenge killing. The murder was too "gentle." I seriously think a psychotic person who attacked JB to get at JR would have done a much more thorough job - violated her repeatedly, and not just vaginally, smashed her skull in, ruining her face, and left her hanging by the neck and not just strangled with a double knot that never truly functioned as a garotte. I also think if this killer was indeed psychotic, he would have been unable to stop himself from repeating this type of behavior, or at least lashing out at JR again.

And why was tape put over the mouth of a child who was already dead, if not for staging? The bloody mucus under the tape tells us it was not applied while she was still conscious and alive...so why put it on at all?

[andU]

I see what you're saying now, zippo. I had misunderstood you. My fault.

Give it up, Shill. JR looks ten times worse than FW ever could in this murder. JR was one of the ones in the house all night, not FW...JR's (and PR's) fibers were found on JonBenet, not FW's...and JR's the one who changed his stories whenever he felt like it, not FW.

But, there is plenty that points to FW that is IMO incriminating. Who goes caroling on Christmas night? Where was he those hours that he has no alibi for? I know you don't believe it, but JR has an alibi and no evidence proves him lying about his whereabouts. There were several hours that FW was 'caroling' and/or 'napping' that he had opportunity.

[nuisanceposter]

Personally, I can't understand why the caroling on Christmas night is so suspicious. I didn't realize there was a cut off date for Christmas carols and that caroling on Christmas Day itself would be considered so unusual. People gather together for Christmas and listen to Christmas music on Christmas Day, they attend church services and sing Christmas hymns on Christmas Day, so why not go around in a group and sing Christmas carols on Christmas Day? It can't be that odd if there was already a group of people going around singing and FW joined them. It's not like he set it all up.

And if FW was caroling on Christmas Day and that's some kind of red flag, that still doesn't place him in the Ramsey house between 10 pm and 5 am on 12/25 - 12/26. He had house guests visiting who stayed up til 2 am talking - don't you think someone in the White's house would have noticed if FW had gone out somewhere during the night?

[bullmoose]

Personally, I can't understand why the caroling on Christmas night is so suspicious. I didn't realize there was a cut off date for Christmas carols and that caroling on Christmas Day itself would be considered so unusual. People gather together for Christmas and listen to Christmas music on Christmas Day, they attend church services and sing Christmas hymns on Christmas Day, so why not go around in a group and sing Christmas carols on Christmas Day? It can't be that odd if there was already a group of people going around singing and FW joined them. It's not like he set it all up.

And if FW was caroling on Christmas Day and that's some kind of red flag, that still doesn't place him in the Ramsey house between 10 pm and 5 am on 12/25 - 12/26. He had house guests visiting who stayed up til 2 am talking - don't you think someone in the White's house would have noticed if FW had gone out somewhere during the night?I just now realized that the caroling being referred to was supposedly on Christmas Day or that night. I have to disagree with you NP, that's odd beyond words; in my entire life in this country I have never heard of anything like what you are describing. Why not go around and sing Christmas carols on Christmas day? I'm just curious, has anybody on this board seen or heard of this being done?Anyone?
This point strikes me as very odd. JMHO

[bullmoose]

This is a very good question. I'd like to know, if the perp can strike the child and cause such devastating injuries, why didn't he just keep bludgeoning her? Why stop with one shot? You'd think a person so consumed with hatred for JR and wanting revenge on him would have torn the victim up, viciously sexually assaulting (curious that the injuries were confined solely to the vagina and only appeared to have been one jab) and bludgeoning her until she was barely recognizable.

This crime just doesn't have the hallmarks of a revenge killing. The murder was too "gentle." I seriously think a psychotic person who attacked JB to get at JR would have done a much more thorough job - violated her repeatedly, and not just vaginally, smashed her skull in, ruining her face, and left her hanging by the neck and not just strangled with a double knot that never truly functioned as a garotte. I also think if this killer was indeed psychotic, he would have been unable to stop himself from repeating this type of behavior, or at least lashing out at JR again.

And why was tape put over the mouth of a child who was already dead, if not for staging? The bloody mucus under the tape tells us it was not applied while she was still conscious and alive...so why put it on at all?
The fact that Johnbenet was given the vicious blow to the head would in
my judgment indicate a killer/s that was completely in control of his emotions, IMO this was not a blow of rage at all, but a coup-de-grace blow after garrotting her to make sure she was dead. This can be a revenge killing without it being a Jack the Ripper-style killing; you speak of a person in a rage of madness; if it had been that kind of sociopath, I think he/they would have killed the entire family; no I think Jonbenet was targeted very specifically by a careful, thinking killer. JMHO

[Zoey]

I just now realized that the caroling being referred to was supposedly on Christmas Day or that night. I have to disagree with you NP, that's odd beyond words; in my entire life in this country I have never heard of anything like what you are describing. Why not go around and sing Christmas carols on Christmas day? I'm just curious, has anybody on this board seen or heard of this being done?Anyone?
This point strikes me as very odd. JMHO

That is exactly why I find it very odd, in that I have never heard nor seen carolers out on Christmas Day night. I have belonged to church groups, neighborhood watch groups, girl scout groups, etc., and we have never gone out on Christmas Day night. IMO.

[Zoey]

I mentioned in a prior post that imo the scenario of the strangulation immediately following the head bash makes an IDI theory questionable.
For which perp would smash JB's skull and then take the trouble to tie her up and 'garrote' her immediately afterward? Which perp would put duct tape on a child's mouth whose skull he just cracked?

You can't see an intruder doing any of the above, but your mind can clearly see a father or mother doing this? I'm sorry, but no. Don't give me the parents kill their children every day thing again. Show me where any parent has bashed their childs head in, tied her up with a garrote immediately afterwards, put duct tape on her mouth, then stuck a paintbrush up in her, then went off to bed hoping the police would find her the next morning.

And don't say, well I can give you one...John or Patsy Ramsey. IMO, it just doesn't work.

[thewhitewitch1]

You can't see an intruder doing any of the above, but your mind can clearly see a father or mother doing this? I'm sorry, but no. Don't give me the parents kill their children every day thing again. Show me where any parent has bashed their childs head in, tied her up with a garrote immediately afterwards, put duct tape on her mouth, then stuck a paintbrush up in her, then went off to bed hoping the police would find her the next morning.

And don't say, well I can give you one...John or Patsy Ramsey. IMO, it just doesn't work.

Just because we can't "show" you a case where the events are identical to this one doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's a weak arguement. There are plenty of bizarre things that have happened in this world that haven't necessarily been repeated. Apparently you don't believe the old addage "there's a first time for everything". Once again your arguement is that "parents wouldn't do this". Not good enough.
I can't speak for anyone else but personally, I don't think the Rs murdered JB and then went off to bed hoping the cops would find her the next day. I don't think they could have slept at all after that.
Also, though you may find it odd that FW went caroling, don't forget that carolers came to his door. He did not go out and do it on his own. Maybe you should find this group of carolers and have them checked out. Apparently the Ramseys didn't find anything "odd" about carolers on Christmas night so maybe it isn't as weird as you think it is.
I can't believe you can accuse someone of murder just because he went caroling...with his son. Where is your source that he was gone for "hours"?
Shill....sure...he went in the basement to put his fingerprints all over things so there would be an excuse for them to be there. I would imagine his prints would be in the house anyway since he was a frequent visiter to the Rs house. Wasn't he just there for the "foyer party" on the 23rd? Why would he deliberately touch the tape or pieces of glass knowing it might implicate himself? How much sense does that make? Talk about grasping at straws. There is no evidence that FW had anything to do with JBs murder, except what yours and others over active imaginations conjure up. You seem to find something "sinister" in everything he did and give the Ramseys a free pass for everything controversial that they did. IMO

[Zoey]

Just because we can't "show" you a case where the events are identical to this one doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's a weak arguement. There are plenty of bizarre things that have happened in this world that haven't necessarily been repeated. Apparently you don't believe the old addage "there's a first time for everything". Once again your arguement is that "parents wouldn't do this". Not good enough.
I can't speak for anyone else but personally, I don't think the Rs murdered JB and then went off to bed hoping the cops would find her the next day. I don't think they could have slept at all after that.
Also, though you may find it odd that FW went caroling, don't forget that carolers came to his door. He did not go out and do it on his own. Maybe you should find this group of carolers and have them checked out. Apparently the Ramseys didn't find anything "odd" about carolers on Christmas night so maybe it isn't as weird as you think it is.
I can't believe you can accuse someone of murder just because he went caroling...with his son. Where is your source that he was gone for "hours"?
Shill....sure...he went in the basement to put his fingerprints all over things so there would be an excuse for them to be there. I would imagine his prints would be in the house anyway since he was a frequent visiter to the Rs house. Wasn't he just there for the "foyer party" on the 23rd? Why would he deliberately touch the tape or pieces of glass knowing it might implicate himself? How much sense does that make? Talk about grasping at straws. There is no evidence that FW had anything to do with JBs murder, except what yours and others over active imaginations conjure up. You seem to find something "sinister" in everything he did and give the Ramseys a free pass for everything controversial that they did. IMO

TWW...whoa...I have never accused FW of murder. I said I thought it odd that carolers were out and about on Christmas day night. So does most everyone that I have talked to about this. People from areas close by there claim it does not happen.

Me, talk to the carolers? Sure, not a problem. You find out who they were and I will talk to them. Problem is, you won't find out because no one with the BPD followed up on talking to people that may have known something; something that was out of the ordinary. John and Patsy both, in their book, thought it was strange that carolers were out that night. IMO (there, that covers me from having to provide links, according to everyone on this board).

While I am it, want to set up something for me with Fleet? I would love to have a one on one with him as well, since all his documentation is sealed up tighter than a ................well, I can't say the expession on here, I will get banned.
:biggrin:

All this post is JMO, IMO, MOO, etc.

[Sharon]

Ooookay....so now your personal problem with Rashomon has turned into name-calling and insulting the entire RDI population.

Zippo, you're more than welcome to go back where you came from. I realize the mods have forsaken this board and are no longer paying any attention to what people are saying to each other here, but posts like the one you just made are uncalled-for, unnecessary, and an excellent example of the reason that many people have left this board recently.

I agree, this Zippo oozes contempt & I will probably leave due to the tone he brings to this forum. I have no interest in anything said by this major distraction to an otherwise interesting board.
jmo.

[Sharon]

Personally, I can't understand why the caroling on Christmas night is so suspicious. I didn't realize there was a cut off date for Christmas carols and that caroling on Christmas Day itself would be considered so unusual. People gather together for Christmas and listen to Christmas music on Christmas Day, they attend church services and sing Christmas hymns on Christmas Day, so why not go around in a group and sing Christmas carols on Christmas Day? It can't be that odd if there was already a group of people going around singing and FW joined them. It's not like he set it all up.

And if FW was caroling on Christmas Day and that's some kind of red flag, that still doesn't place him in the Ramsey house between 10 pm and 5 am on 12/25 - 12/26. He had house guests visiting who stayed up til 2 am talking - don't you think someone in the White's house would have noticed if FW had gone out somewhere during the night?

It would depend on how large the house was or where the exit points are. I know people who dont know if their own spouse is home or not because the house is so huge. Also, our house is not that big & sometimes Im not aware that my dh has gone out (until I need him for something & I see his car is gone).
jmo

[andU]

Personally, I can't understand why the caroling on Christmas night is so suspicious. I didn't realize there was a cut off date for Christmas carols and that caroling on Christmas Day itself would be considered so unusual. People gather together for Christmas and listen to Christmas music on Christmas Day, they attend church services and sing Christmas hymns on Christmas Day, so why not go around in a group and sing Christmas carols on Christmas Day? It can't be that odd if there was already a group of people going around singing and FW joined them. It's not like he set it all up.

And if FW was caroling on Christmas Day and that's some kind of red flag, that still doesn't place him in the Ramsey house between 10 pm and 5 am on 12/25 - 12/26. He had house guests visiting who stayed up til 2 am talking - don't you think someone in the White's house would have noticed if FW had gone out somewhere during the night?

NP, I am not going to argue with you. I posted my thoughts and why I thought them. Do people go caroling on Christmas Day where you live? I just have never heard of it, but it could be a locality thing.

[andU]

I'm feel better that others find the Christmas Day night caroling an odd thing. I have gone caroling as late as Christmas Eve, but never done it nor heard of it being done on Christmas Day night.

[SnarkyCow]

The Christmas caroling on Christmas night may not be status quo, but I don't think it should be considered to be more than it was. Different cities, different neighborhoods, different groups of friends have different traditions & different ways of celebrating.

For example: When I was little & lived in Nebraska all the kids in my neighborhood (and several of their parents) celebrated "May Day" on May 1st. We would make little baskets full of treats for one another & leave them on each others' door steps - I have never seen this before or after this particular neighborhood - not even in the other neighborhood we lived in in the same town.

Also: How many people do you know who celebrate "Cow Appreciation Day?" Probably not many, but it's become quite the event for me & my friends (We think it's funny because of my cow obssession). :D

My point is, in my opinion, we shouldn't read too much into the Christmas Night caroling session.

The only thing I think is bizarre is someone leaving a Christmas dinner at their home, when entertaining guests, to go caroling. Does anyone know how many others, if any, from the Whites' (besides Fleet) left to go caroling Christmas night?

[nuisanceposter]

Wow. I lived in Nebraska as a little girl in the mid-70s, and I remember celebrating May Day and making a May basket out of construction paper, putting flowers I picked and a couple pieces of candy (root beer barrels) in it for the elderly lady next door. I haven't thought of that in years...but that's partly because Nebraska was the only place I ever lived where people did that. Excellent comparison.

[Zoey]

The Christmas caroling on Christmas night may not be status quo, but I don't think it should be considered to be more than it was. Different cities, different neighborhoods, different groups of friends have different traditions & different ways of celebrating.

For example: When I was little & lived in Nebraska all the kids in my neighborhood (and several of their parents) celebrated "May Day" on May 1st. We would make little baskets full of treats for one another & leave them on each others' door steps - I have never seen this before or after this particular neighborhood - not even in the other neighborhood we lived in in the same town.

Also: How many people do you know who celebrate "Cow Appreciation Day?" Probably not many, but it's become quite the event for me & my friends (We think it's funny because of my cow obssession). :D

My point is, in my opinion, we shouldn't read too much into the Christmas Night caroling session.

The only thing I think is bizarre is someone leaving a Christmas dinner at their home, when entertaining guests, to go caroling. Does anyone know how many others, if any, from the Whites' (besides Fleet) left to go caroling Christmas night?


May 1st is known as May Day all over. Many, many places celebrate May Day just how you described. But it is done on May 1st...not May 2nd or may 3rd.

What some of us find odd is caroling is done before Christmas. Not Christmas Day Evening. It was 7:30-8:00 when the carolers came over. Fleet and his son left a party at their own home to go caroling with these people. No one else went with them. They were gone for almost 2 hours. Yet people that live in Boulder and the surrounding area claim this is not the normal, and they don't remember it happening that night. It was as though the carolers showed up at the White's only. I am not saying this is a fact. I am saying what I have been told. IMO, it was not normal and it should have been looked into.

[bullmoose]

May 1st is known as May Day all over. Many, many places celebrate May Day just how you described. But it is done on May 1st...not May 2nd or may 3rd.

What some of us find odd is caroling is done before Christmas. Not Christmas Day Evening. It was 7:30-8:00 when the carolers came over. Fleet and his son left a party at their own home to go caroling with these people. No one else went with them. They were gone for almost 2 hours. Yet people that live in Boulder and the surrounding area claim this is not the normal, and they don't remember it happening that night. It was as though the carolers showed up at the White's only. I am not saying this is a fact. I am saying what I have been told. IMO, it was not normal and it should have been looked into.I do not know much about Fleet; in all the time I've followed this case I haven't learned much beyond his apparent wealth and strange behavior after the funeral until now.And his buddying up to Synthroid Stevie. This caroling is strange, like going to Easter Mass on Monday or the Mardi Gras during Lent; it just makes no sense to me. I've no idea what the significance is, it is one more strange happening that night. To leave your own dinner party to go caroling[with strangers?,or who?]on the wrong night is at least as fishy as Moby Dick ever was. JMHO

[shill]

Give it up, Shill. JR's the one who changed his stories whenever he felt like it, not FW.

Funny you say that sense there is no Fleet White stories, at least as far as police interviews in print.

We don't even know how long he waited to confess to the police he made the 911 call on the 23rd at the Ramseys to test how long it takes for the police to respond.

[shill]

I love my job very much because children will be the adults of the future and we all have a great responsibility toward them. They deserve our protection and love, and what we teach them will have a profound influence.
For example, if we teach them that the top priority in life is to be constantly put on display, chances are that the child will feel more and more inwardly emtpy in the course of time, because of the emotional deprivation which goes along with such a lifestyle. Emotional wrecks like Michael Jackson and Britney Spears are living examples of the detrimental effect a life "on constant show" since childhood can have.
I believe Patsy Ramsey was using JB just like she herself had been used by her pageant-obsessed mother Nedra. Pageants where six-year-olds are put in high heels and a Las Vegas showgirl outfit are not harmless, they are a form of child abuse imo.

To much personal information.
But thanks for showing your motive for crucifying the Ramseys.:eek:

[shill]

This is a very good question. I'd like to know, if the perp can strike the child and cause such devastating injuries, why didn't he just keep bludgeoning her? Why stop with one shot? The one shot was meant to knock her out, not kill her. He had a photo session to finish.
Ever hear the Urban legand of the campers who find their campsite ransacked but their camera was not stolen. When they developed the photos there is a picture of their toothbrush in someone's *sshole.
I think a photo of their daughter with her hands bound above her head helpless to struggle and a garrote tightened around her neck with a paintbrush for a handle stuck in her vagina in their very own house would be a shocking photo to receive from a kidnapper who has your daughter.
Had the head blow not killed her, I think we would have had a kidnapping that would have eventually led to a murder after further abuse to JB to torment John even more.
You'd think a person so consumed with hatred for JR and wanting revenge on him would have torn the victim up, viciously sexually assaulting (curious that the injuries were confined solely to the vagina and only appeared to have been one jab) and bludgeoning her until she was barely recognizable. Taking ones virginity can be done with one jab and in a photo you would just leave the paintbrush in her while you took pictures.

This crime just doesn't have the hallmarks of a revenge killing. The murder was too "gentle." I seriously think a psychotic person who attacked JB to get at JR would have done a much more thorough job - violated her repeatedly, and not just vaginally, smashed her skull in, ruining her face, and left her hanging by the neck and not just strangled with a double knot that never truly functioned as a garotte. I also think if this killer was indeed psychotic, he would have been unable to stop himself from repeating this type of behavior, or at least lashing out at JR again.
That may be what you think someone would do, but the scenario I posted above is hardly "gentle" and reflects the way that the crime happened and you have described a crime that didn't happen that way.

JB is dead, John lost millions, lost his CEO job of the company he built, was scorned by RDIs, lost friends, he was crushed.
The only thing left was to kill John, so I don't know why you would think they would need to "lash out at JR again".

[shill]

I can't believe you can accuse someone of murder just because he went caroling...with his son. Where is your source that he was gone for "hours"?
Shill....sure...he went in the basement to put his fingerprints all over things so there would be an excuse for them to be there. Why would he deliberately touch the tape or pieces of glass knowing it might implicate himself? How much sense does that make? Talk about grasping at straws.
How long does it take to get to the Ramseys from FW's and back on foot?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You could find out by going out on foot caroling the night of the crime.
How long does it take for the police to respond to a 911 call from the ramseys?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You could find out by calling 911 from the Ramseys house a couple of nights before the crime.
Where Fleet Whites fingerprints and fiber evidence already at the crime scene from that night or just that morning when he touched everything again?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You'll never know because the scene was contaminated by FW.

Sure FW's fingerprints would be in many places, but there where many places that his fingerprints and fiber evidence where found and didn't belong if he had not contaminated the crime scene that morning, and it would be impossible to explain fingerprint and fiber evidence he left that night if he hadn't contaminated the crime scene to cover his tracks.

[SnarkyCow]

May 1st is known as May Day all over. Many, many places celebrate May Day just how you described. But it is done on May 1st...not May 2nd or may 3rd.

What some of us find odd is caroling is done before Christmas. Not Christmas Day Evening. It was 7:30-8:00 when the carolers came over. Fleet and his son left a party at their own home to go caroling with these people. No one else went with them. They were gone for almost 2 hours. Yet people that live in Boulder and the surrounding area claim this is not the normal, and they don't remember it happening that night. It was as though the carolers showed up at the White's only. I am not saying this is a fact. I am saying what I have been told. IMO, it was not normal and it should have been looked into.

I realize that May 1st is May Day all over ~ my point was that not everyone celebrates every holiday the same way.

I also understand that some of you find the caroling on Christmas odd ~ My intention in posting what I did was to show that people have different traditions & different ways of celebrating. Just because we think it odd that a small group of people went out caroling on Christmas night doesn't mean it was a sinister act.

If they left to hand out Valentines on Christmas night I might find it more suspicious.

Regarding people in Boulder & the surrounding areas thinking caroling on Christmas is bizarre: People think it odd that I plan a huge celebration for "Cow Day" in July, but it has been a silly tradition for me for many years. Do you not think my neighbors would find it odd & say it isn't status quo? I'm sure they would.

Perhaps that group of carolers went out every Christmas, but that was the first year they stopped at the Whites'. Do we have any facts and not just speculation on this? Also, do we know when Fleet White returned home after caroling with his son? Were the Ramsey's still at the Whites' home when Fleet returned?

[nuisanceposter]

The one shot was meant to knock her out, not kill her. He had a photo session to finish.
Ever hear the Urban legand of the campers who find their campsite ransacked but their camera was not stolen. When they developed the photos there is a picture of their toothbrush in someone's *sshole.
I think a photo of their daughter with her hands bound above her head helpless to struggle and a garrote tightened around her neck with a paintbrush for a handle stuck in her vagina in their very own house would be a shocking photo to receive from a kidnapper who has your daughter.
Had the head blow not killed her, I think we would have had a kidnapping that would have eventually led to a murder after further abuse to JB to torment John even more.
Taking ones virginity can be done with one jab and in a photo you would just leave the paintbrush in her while you took pictures.


That may be what you think someone would do, but the scenario I posted above is hardly "gentle" and reflects the way that the crime happened and you have described a crime that didn't happen that way.

JB is dead, John lost millions, lost his CEO job of the company he built, was scorned by RDIs, lost friends, he was crushed.
The only thing left was to kill John, so I don't know why you would think they would need to "lash out at JR again".

You have no proof whatsoever that anyone took any pictures of murdering JonBenet. Complete speculation. You're so far out there with your wild theories you try to pass off as fact with no proof whatsoever to back it up. Don't think people don't notice you're just blowing smoke out your butt.

[andU]

Ok, because it seemed so odd to me, I googled the traditions of Boulder and found this: evidently it isn't so odd and I apologize for being so skeptical. But... (surely you knew this was coming, didn't you?) I am still suspicious of Fleet.

http://onlycrook.wordpress.com/2006/12/

[nuisanceposter]

Thank you, andU.

IMO, caroling on Christmas isn't that weird. Caroling the day after Christmas would be weird, but caroling is all about Christmas Day itself, the big holy day in Christianity - why wouldn't people want to celebrate Christmas Day itself by singing Christmas carols, which were written specifically because of Christmas Day? I don't think there's a more appropriate day to sing carols than Christmas Day itself, the very day all of the Christmas excitement is leading up to. It's like people think Christmas ends on Christmas Eve and that Christmas Day is the backside of the hill - when really, it's the pinnacle.

[andU]

Thank you, andU.

IMO, caroling on Christmas isn't that weird. Caroling the day after Christmas would be weird, but caroling is all about Christmas Day itself, the big holy day in Christianity - why wouldn't people want to celebrate Christmas Day itself by singing Christmas carols, which were written specifically because of Christmas Day? I don't think there's a more appropriate day to sing carols than Christmas Day itself, the very day all of the Christmas excitement is leading up to. It's like people think Christmas ends on Christmas Eve and that Christmas Day is the backside of the hill - when really, it's the pinnacle.

During my family gathering, we do sing carols; I had just not heard of a group caroling on Christmas Day... I don't get around much (LoL!) ...

[bullmoose]

Ok, because it seemed so odd to me, I googled the traditions of Boulder and found this: evidently it isn't so odd and I apologize for being so skeptical. But... (surely you knew this was coming, didn't you?) I am still suspicious of Fleet.

http://onlycrook.wordpress.com/2006/12/This blogger does not say whether they were carolling on Christmas day in Rifle, Colorado, where her blog originates, but that they did so in front of the grocery store, which would be odd indeed on Christmas day in my town, as the grocery store is closed on Christmas. Rifle is about as big as Wallace.

[andU]

This blogger does not say whether they were carolling on Christmas day in Rifle, Colorado, where her blog originates, but that they did so in front of the grocery store, which would be odd indeed on Christmas day in my town, as the grocery store is closed on Christmas. Rifle is about as big as Wallace.

Thanks Bullmoose, it is good to have that added info ... although I still don't understand why they would go to all that trouble to dress in costume and sing in choral fashion in front of a closed store... to each his/her own, I suppose... I'd rather be home with family on Christmas Day evening.

[thewhitewitch1]

How long does it take to get to the Ramseys from FW's and back on foot?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You could find out by going out on foot caroling the night of the crime.
How long does it take for the police to respond to a 911 call from the ramseys?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You could find out by calling 911 from the Ramseys house a couple of nights before the crime.
Where Fleet Whites fingerprints and fiber evidence already at the crime scene from that night or just that morning when he touched everything again?
I don't know, but I'll bet FW knows. You'll never know because the scene was contaminated by FW.

Sure FW's fingerprints would be in many places, but there where many places that his fingerprints and fiber evidence where found and didn't belong if he had not contaminated the crime scene that morning, and it would be impossible to explain fingerprint and fiber evidence he left that night if he hadn't contaminated the crime scene to cover his tracks.


Well, let's see. Since the Rs and the Ws had been friends for a while, there is a good possibility that FW had walked over there before and wouldn't have to go out "caroling" to find out.
I don't understand why anyone would need to test how long it would take for 911 to come out. 911 arrival times vary, you know. Are you thinking he needed to test it in case he got busted in the act? This "intruder" seemed to have no fear of getting caught. Also, since when the 911 call was made on the 23rd and no emergency was conveyed, how would he even have known that they would send someone out?
Where is your evidence that his fibers and prints were found at the actual crime scene? How easy is it to find your own fibers on the floor and remove them? That borders on ridiculous. Don't the LE believe that gloves were worn during the murder and before hand? So why would Fleet need to have an excuse to put his fingerprints in certain locations?
FW contaminated the evidence? Well, gee...what did Patsy and John do? Oh...that's right. They had an excuse to contaminate it. There is just no way on Earth that FW could have been even close to being as horrified and confused as the Rs were over finding this child that he knew so well dead in her own house. :rolleyes:
BTW, you seem to overlook the fact that JR closed the window and also picked up pieces of glass...and never bothered telling the LE about the open window or the suitcase until months later. Why is that?

[Zoey]

Perhaps that group of carolers went out every Christmas, but that was the first year they stopped at the Whites'. Do we have any facts and not just speculation on this? Also, do we know when Fleet White returned home after caroling with his son? Were the Ramsey's still at the Whites' home when Fleet returned?


Ramsey's were gone from the Whites prior to FW and son returning from caroling. In one of John's intervews he states that he finds it strange that FW gives a time that the Ramsey's left his home when he was not there to see when they left. IIRC and IMO, I believe FW claimed the Ramseys left at 9:30.

[nuisanceposter]

Maybe someone who was there when the Rs left, like PW, told FW when he got back and saw the Rs gone that the Rs had left however many minutes ago, and that's how he knew.

It doesn't look like he knew what time after all - in Patsy's April 1997 interview with BPD she says they got home sometime around 9 pm.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-3984

TT: About what time did you get home from the Whites that night?
PR: Well, we stopped a couple of places on the way home to drop off Christmas gifts.
TT: Okay.
PR: By the Walkers and the Stines.
TT: Um hum.
PR: And I imagine it was about nineish, something like that.
TT: Okay. Sometime, nine, after nine, something like that?
PR: Some, yeah.

[Athena]

At work so if this has been said already please forgive me. I haven't had a chance to read through most of the posts.

I believe in DOI Patsy says they all went to the door when the carolers arrived singing so I don't think the caroling was in itself "sinister".

What I do find strange is that FW would leave his household with guests to go caroling. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

<SNIP>
What I do find strange is that FW would leave his household with guests to go caroling. JMO <SNIP>

SnarkyCow
<SNIP>
The only thing I think is bizarre is someone leaving a Christmas dinner at their home, when entertaining guests, to go caroling.
<SNIP>

Great minds Athena!:beer:

[shill]

You have no proof whatsoever that anyone took any pictures of murdering JonBenet. Complete speculation. You're so far out there with your wild theories you try to pass off as fact with no proof whatsoever to back it up. Don't think people don't notice you're just blowing smoke out your butt.
And there is no proof that someone did not take photos.

The scenario fits the crime scene.
Why don't you take a big puff of my smoke!

[Athena]

Great minds Athena!:beer:

Right back atcha. :beer:

[icedtea4me]

Regarding the 911 call Fleet White made at the Ramseys' party Dec 23, 1996... Have you ever made a call in which you have one number in mind but, for some reason or another, you dial one that is very similar? His mother was in the hospital and he was calling to check on her, however it may be that he didn't have the number with him. So, what number would he call to find out the number of the hospital? He would call information, or 411. Note the similarity between the two numbers. I'll bet this is nothing more than a misdial.


-Tea

[shill]

Regarding the 911 call Fleet White made at the Ramseys' party Dec 23, 1996... Have you ever made a call in which you have one number in mind but, for some reason or another, you dial one that is very similar? His mother was in the hospital and he was calling to check on her, however it may be that he didn't have the number with him. So, what number would he call to find out the number of the hospital? He would call information, or 411. Note the similarity between the two numbers. I'll bet this is nothing more than a misdial.
-Tea
I don't think that would be a good bet.
4 and 9 are not next to each other and you see the pattern of nine numbers and know the 9 is in the lower right corner of the box of nine numbers, so a miss dial is highly improbable.

But you have to ask yourself this; if you wanted to call information you would dial 411 and wait for the operator.
Now the operator answers and says, "911 what is the nature of your emergency?" At this point you would realize you miss dialed.
What would you do?
Would you just hang up?

-I would say I'm sorry I must of made a mistake and dialed 9 instead of 4 so the operator knew that there was no emergency and handle it right then and there.
-Maybe a child would just hang up.
-Of course if I wanted to know how long it takes the police to respond and arrive at the house, I might just hang up and wait.

If you just hang up, the police are automatically going to come. If someone had answered the 911 call back and said it was a mistake, the police will still come and check it out.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't think that would be a good bet.
4 and 9 are not next to each other and you see the pattern of nine numbers and know the 9 is in the lower right corner of the box of nine numbers, so a miss dial is highly improbable.

But you have to ask yourself this; if you wanted to call information you would dial 411 and wait for the operator.
Now the operator answers and says, "911 what is the nature of your emergency?" At this point you would realize you miss dialed.
What would you do?
Would you just hang up?

-I would say I'm sorry I must of made a mistake and dialed 9 instead of 4 so the operator knew that there was no emergency and handle it right then and there.
-Maybe a child would just hang up.
-Of course if I wanted to know how long it takes the police to respond and arrive at the house, I might just hang up and wait.

If you just hang up, the police are automatically going to come. If someone had answered the 911 call back and said it was a mistake, the police will still come and check it out.


I think would feel like a jerk and just hang up. Automatic reaction. You don't know that the police respond to every 911 hang up call. FW couldn't have known it either and even if he did, don't you think his making that call would look suspicious on his behalf after the fact? Gee, didn't he even admit making it?
There could very well be an innocent reason for mis-dialing 911...for example, you have no idea what the number was that he was trying to call.
If you've explained why he had to do a trial run to see how fast the police would get there, I missed it. Please explain again.

[icedtea4me]

One can be thinking one number and inadvertently dial another. It's been known to happen.


-Tea

[icedtea4me]

I think would feel like a jerk and just hang up. Automatic reaction.
Maybe he thought he caught his error at the very last moment before the call went through.

There could very well be an innocent reason for mis-dialing 911...for example, you have no idea what the number was that he was trying to call.
I think he was wanting to dial 411 information to find out the number of the hospital where his mother was.
If you've explained why he had to do a trial run to see how fast the police would get there, I missed it. Please explain again.
It would depend on where the nearest patrol car was located, imo.


-Tea

[Zoey]

IIRC, in 1996, a person had to dial 1411 in order to get information. People did not start using 411 until the past 5 years, IMO.

[Zoey]

I think would feel like a jerk and just hang up. Automatic reaction. You don't know that the police respond to every 911 hang up call. FW couldn't have known it either and even if he did, don't you think his making that call would look suspicious on his behalf after the fact? Gee, didn't he even admit making it?
There could very well be an innocent reason for mis-dialing 911...for example, you have no idea what the number was that he was trying to call.
If you've explained why he had to do a trial run to see how fast the police would get there, I missed it. Please explain again.


Even back in 1996, when a person dialed 911 and hung up, the police would either stop by that home (depending on the town) or dispatch would call the home making sure everything was okay. This became the standard due to the increase in domestic violence.

[thewhitewitch1]

Even back in 1996, when a person dialed 911 and hung up, the police would either stop by that home (depending on the town) or dispatch would call the home making sure everything was okay. This became the standard due to the increase in domestic violence.

Ok. Point taken. It still doesn't explain why FW would need to make a "trial run" to check police response. Response times vary anyway. And why would he admit to making the call? He could have kept his mouth shut and played dumb.

[shill]

I think would feel like a jerk and just hang up. Automatic reaction. Even when I realize I have called a stranger by accident I still apologize and say, "I'm sorry, I must have dialed the wrong number" Do you never say that or do you always hang up? If a 911 Op answered, I would feel more obligated to say something.[/QUOTE] You don't know that the police respond to every 911 hang up call.
The police do respond to every 911 call hang up. They must confirm that the call was a mistake. Very often when 911 calls back a hang up, the bad guy will answer it and say there is no problem.
(This is in your tabloids all the time happening to movie stars)
FW couldn't have known it either and even if he did, don't you think his making that call would look suspicious on his behalf after the fact? Gee, didn't he even admit making it?It appears the police were not going to leave until they got an explanation. Maybe out of fear that the call would get magnified and made into a bigger issue and that everyone would get involved in, Fleet decided to just fess up to make the situation disappear.
It didn't seem to me that he came forward when the police showed up, my impression was that the police just wouldn't go away until they had an explanation to report.
He tried to downplay the situation but it came back to haunt him.
There could very well be an innocent reason for mis-dialing 911...for example, you have no idea what the number was that he was trying to call.There are no phone records showing he called 411 after dialing 911. Had he meant to call information, there would be a phone record of this.
If you've explained why he had to do a trial run to see how fast the police would get there, I missed it. Please explain again.
Setting off an alarm is how burglars test police reaction time. It gives them a time frame for their window of opportunity to escape.

Fleet would want to know how far away he could get away from the crime scene and close to home before the police would show up if he was discovered in the house (obviously he would be disguised/masked) with JB.

[bullmoose]

Regarding the 911 call Fleet White made at the Ramseys' party Dec 23, 1996... Have you ever made a call in which you have one number in mind but, for some reason or another, you dial one that is very similar? His mother was in the hospital and he was calling to check on her, however it may be that he didn't have the number with him. So, what number would he call to find out the number of the hospital? He would call information, or 411. Note the similarity between the two numbers. I'll bet this is nothing more than a misdial. -TeaTea, you've got me here; I've never before heard that Fleet's mother was in the hospital that night; was it in Boulder or Colorado or where was it? If it wasn't in Colorado, in 1996 I would've dialed 1-area code-555-1212 to get the number if, say, she was in California or another state. I still do, I think the listings are more up to date. But thats JMHO. Incidentally, welcome to the board, IDI, RDI, or fencesitter, welcome!

[Zoey]

Tea, you've got me here; I've never before heard that Fleet's mother was in the hospital that night; was it in Boulder or Colorado or where was it? If it wasn't in Colorado, in 1996 I would've dialed 1-area code-555-1212 to get the number if, say, she was in California or another state. I still do, I think the listings are more up to date. But thats JMHO. Incidentally, welcome to the board, IDI, RDI, or fencesitter, welcome!


She was supposedly in the hospital in Aspen, Colorado, which would have been a call to 1-303-555-1212 for information. 1411 was for local information in 1996. IMO.

[Tober]

Fleet White has a witness corroborated alibi. End of story.

[bullmoose]

Fleet White has a witness corroborated alibi. End of story.Of course, of course, who can doubt such an impeccable alibi; is it not byeond question? Oh, yeah, who is the witness that corroborated Fleet's alibi? Who in the BPD accepted it as beyond question; as 'end of story? Evidence, Tober, evidence? Or is it just blowhard opinion, Tober?Evidence?JMHO:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

Aussiesheila: but isn't the large loop in the picture the cord which was on JB's right wrist?
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg
Yes rashomon, I believe it is. And that is the loop Meyer removed, and although Meyer doesn't mention it, there was a second loop on that large loop which would have made the latter much smaller and much less loose around her wrist.

You need to go to the photos of the cord while it is still in place on the right wrist to see it.

http://www.realsundancekid.com/ click on ‘Photos’, go to page 2

If you look carefully at the photo of the cord still in place, you can see the second loop quite clearly on the upper side of the loop around right wrist. Although Meyer doesn't mention doing so, he must have undone that second loop on the loop around the right wrist in order to enlarge it and enable him to slip it over her hand.

It seems that John, on the other hand, did not undo the second loop on the loop around the left wrist, but simply tugged at it, thereby enlarging the loop around the wrist suffiently to slip it over her hand while leaving the second loop intact.

From Dr. Meyer's autopsy report:

Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop .


So what Dr. Meyer called 'double loop' obviously is the ligature which we can see on the right side in the picture.
What does the ruler show? Inches? Maybe we could try to match the measurements given by Dr. Meyer with the picture to find out which wrist ligature was where.

I don’t understand why you are having a problem working out which wrist ligature was where. The quote from the autopsy that you posted above states it quite clearly.

But it's the 'double loop' mentioned which I find confusing here.Again, I don't know just what it is that you find confusing. Meyer is describing exactly what he is seeing. He was not present when John removed the other end of the cord from the left hand, so what he calls a 'double loop' at the end of the 15.5 inch tail is his description of the loops that John removed from the left hand. Or so it would appear to me. John did not mention untyeing any knot, so I think he just tugged at the cord until he managed to get it just loose enough to slip over her hand.

So the point of all this is to show to you that the cords around the wrists were not that loose at all. In fact IMO, they would have been tight enough to hold her arms outstretched up over her head if the 15.5 inch length of cord between the wrist loops was hooked up to a point overhead as I have described in my scenario of the murder scene.

[nuisanceposter]

Of course, of course, who can doubt such an impeccable alibi; is it not byeond question? Oh, yeah, who is the witness that corroborated Fleet's alibi? Who in the BPD accepted it as beyond question; as 'end of story? Evidence, Tober, evidence? Or is it just blowhard opinion, Tober?Evidence?JMHO:biggrin:

Patsy believes the 911 was an accidental misdial, and knew FW was using the phone to make not just one call, but a series of calls. DOI, pb, page 101:

"During the party Fleet White used our phone to make a series of calls, trying to get some medicine to his mother in Aspen, Colorado. Apparently he dialed wrong and got 911. The police called back, but after checking with Fleet and the rest of the people in the house, Susan Stine informed them that the call was a mistake."

[rashomon]

Yes rashomon, I believe it is. And that is the loop Meyer removed, and although Meyer doesn't mention it, there was a second loop on that large loop which would have made the latter much smaller and much less loose around her wrist.

You need to go to the photos of the cord while it is still in place on the right wrist to see it.

http://www.realsundancekid.com/ click on ‘Photos’, go to page 2

If you look carefully at the photo of the cord still in place, you can see the second loop quite clearly on the upper side of the loop around right wrist. Although Meyer doesn't mention doing so, he must have undone that second loop on the loop around the right wrist in order to enlarge it and enable him to slip it over her hand.

It seems that John, on the other hand, did not undo the second loop on the loop around the left wrist, but simply tugged at it, thereby enlarging the loop around the wrist suffiently to slip it over her hand while leaving the second loop intact.


I don’t understand why you are having a problem working out which wrist ligature was where. The quote from the autopsy that you posted above states it quite clearly.

Again, I don't know just what it is that you find confusing. Meyer is describing exactly what he is seeing. He was not present when John removed the other end of the cord from the left hand, so what he calls a 'double loop' at the end of the 15.5 inch tail is his description of the loops that John removed from the left hand. Or so it would appear to me. John did not mention untyeing any knot, so I think he just tugged at the cord until he managed to get it just loose enough to slip over her hand.

So the point of all this is to show to you that the cords around the wrists were not that loose at all. In fact IMO, they would have been tight enough to hold her arms outstretched up over her head if the 15.5 inch length of cord between the wrist loops was hooked up to a point overhead as I have described in my scenario of the murder scene.
Dr. Meyer could remove the ligature around around JB's right hand without any problem.

I e-mailed Delmar England about this too, and he is of the opinion that it was the other way round: that what we can see in the picture as the right (with the two loops) ligature was the one which had been on her right wrist. He pointed out that Dr. Meyer spoke of a double-loop KNOT, which has nothing to do with the two loops.

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

Here is the text (DE's answers in italics) (bold type mine):

"Delmar, I have a question about the wrist ligatures:.

"In his autopsy report , Dr. Meyer wrote that the ligature was on JB's right
hand, on top of her sleeve, and that the 15,5 inch cord led from this
ligature to another 'double loop' ligature which was not on one of her hands."

I think you have misread this. The phrase is double loop 'knot'. The [loop] is in
regard to the knot junction - two times looped over itself to make the knot,
actually a double turn slip knot. The double loop knot junction is what created the large loop. Dr. Meyer did
not mention this large loop, so he left me hanging. It was only when I saw
the photo that it became clear. He didn't mention the large "ligature"
because is had already fallen off when he saw the body, therefore, was not a
"ligature."


"I always thought that the double loop ligature had been on JB's right hand,
and the bigger (single loop) one had already come off."

There was no double loop ligature. The photo showing a "double loop" is a
distortion that happened when the LOOSELY TIED loop over the right wrist was
removed. This cord was loosely routed as a ligature, but was never pulled
tight. That is why it changed shape during the removal creating the "double
loop.

"But Dr. Meyer wrote that the cord end with the double loop was the one
which had not been on her wrist."

See above. No double loop; just a double loop knot.

"Which cord loop in the picture was on JB's right hand hand in your opinion?"

When this cord was on her wrist over the sleeve, there was only one loop.
The second small loop in the photo happened during removal. I made a post
explaining this is some detail a long time ago, but don't recall at the
moment where it is in my file. One turn that was originally part of the
loose "tie" got pulled up to create the "double loop" situation - after
removal. There was never a double loop anywhere except in the double loop
knots. The was one large loop that had fallen off and a smaller loop over
the sleeve about 15 inches away.

Delmar

[Zoey]

Fleet White has a witness corroborated alibi. End of story.


Who was his witness corraborated alibi Tober? His wife? She was no where near him for most of the night. She was in the kitchen BS'ing. So who is his alibi????

[nuisanceposter]

And who is the witness corroborating the Ramsey's alibi? Each other? They're both proven liars who we know were in the home that night! You can't prove FW was in the house, but you can prove the Rs were. You can't prove FW had anything to do with the crime, but fibers from the Rs were found in places they shouldn't be. And here all you IDI are all over FW and coming up with things you can't even prove, like he made the 911 call to gauge the time it took police to answer a call, and you can't even place him in the house on 12/25, have no witnesses who claim he left his own house (in a house where there were extra people, staying up late who would have noticed)...but it's a proven fact that the Rs were in the house with JB when she was killed and have forensic evidence of their involvement in the crime scene and on the body - yet you all want to come up with reason after reason why it's more likely that FW killed JB rather the Rs.

Echoes of Shill: that's nothing than a witch hunt, with FW cast as the witch being hunted down. You guys need more proof than "his going caroling was weird" and "he should have called 1411 or call 1-303-555-1212 and he didn't so he made the 911 call and killed JB" (btw, it's always been just 411 where I live, and I've never heard of putting a 1 in front before you mentioned that, Zoey; and it's 1-800-555-1212 for me, and I didn't know that number in 1996.) Patsy said he was making a series of calls, not just one. Who knows what area codes he may have been dialing?

[Zoey]

And who is the witness corroborating the Ramsey's alibi? Each other? They're both proven liars who we know were in the home that night! You can't prove FW was in the house, but you can prove the Rs were. You can't prove FW had anything to do with the crime, but fibers from the Rs were found in places they shouldn't be. And here all you IDI are all over FW and coming up with things you can't even prove, like he made the 911 call to gauge the time it took police to answer a call, and you can't even place him in the house on 12/25, have no witnesses who claim he left his own house (in a house where there were extra people, staying up late who would have noticed)...but it's a proven fact that the Rs were in the house with JB when she was killed and have forensic evidence of their involvement in the crime scene and on the body - yet you all want to come up with reason after reason why it's more likely that FW killed JB rather the Rs.

Echoes of Shill: that's nothing than a witch hunt, with FW cast as the witch being hunted down. You guys need more proof than "his going caroling was weird" and "he should have called 1411 or call 1-303-555-1212 and he didn't so he made the 911 call and killed JB" (btw, it's always been just 411 where I live, and I've never heard of putting a 1 in front before you mentioned that, Zoey; and it's 1-800-555-1212 for me, and I didn't know that number in 1996.) Patsy said he was making a series of calls, not just one. Who knows what area codes he may have been dialing?


You can call for local directory assistance by dialing "1411". For long distance directory assistance, dial the area code plus "555-1212."

directory assistance is available by dialing 1411.

I apologize for not being able to copy the links. My computer is telling me they are not HTML compatible. I don't know what that is, so I just took the first lines and copied them. Where I am from, up until about 5 years ago, to get local directory assistance, 1411 was called. To get long distance directory assistance it was 1, area code, 555-1212. I can't help it that it was not this way where you were from NP. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

You can call for local directory assistance by dialing "1411". For long distance directory assistance, dial the area code plus "555-1212."

directory assistance is available by dialing 1411.

I apologize for not being able to copy the links. My computer is telling me they are not HTML compatible. I don't know what that is, so I just took the first lines and copied them. Where I am from, up until about 5 years ago, to get local directory assistance, 1411 was called. To get long distance directory assistance it was 1, area code, 555-1212. I can't help it that it was not this way where you were from NP. IMO.

Thank you for that information, Zoey, but no offense - I could care less about the phone calls. What I care about is finding some proof that FW was not in his home on Christmas night and was in the Ramsey house killing JonBenet. As I stated before, there is nothing that links him to the house that night or to the crime and the body, but there's more than one thing linking the Ramseys to the house, the crime, and the body that night. You'd do better to spend your time and energy trying to prove that FWDI than to make some point about phone call information that seems to be irrelevant to the case.

Who is the witness corroborating the alibi of the Ramseys? FW has witnesses - his wife and house guests, plus lack of forensic evidence placing him the R house that night at the time JonBenet was murdered. Not so for John and Patsy Ramsey.

[shill]

Fleet White has a witness corroborated alibi. End of story.

He was alone in his bedroom, so how could he have a witness alibi?
You can sneak out of your bedroom and back in with out someone knowing.
I have to assume that the Whites lived in a mansion since they were allegedly wealthy.

[shill]

And who is the witness corroborating the Ramsey's alibi? Each other? They're both proven liars who we know were in the home that night! You can't prove FW was in the house, but you can prove the Rs were. You can't prove FW had anything to do with the crime, but fibers from the Rs were found in places they shouldn't be. And here all you IDI are all over FW and coming up with things you can't even prove, like he made the 911 call to gauge the time it took police to answer a call, and you can't even place him in the house on 12/25, have no witnesses who claim he left his own house (in a house where there were extra people, staying up late who would have noticed)...but it's a proven fact that the Rs were in the house with JB when she was killed and have forensic evidence of their involvement in the crime scene and on the body - yet you all want to come up with reason after reason why it's more likely that FW killed JB rather the Rs.

Echoes of Shill: that's nothing than a witch hunt, with FW cast as the witch being hunted down. You guys need more proof than "his going caroling was weird" and "he should have called 1411 or call 1-303-555-1212 and he didn't so he made the 911 call and killed JB" (btw, it's always been just 411 where I live, and I've never heard of putting a 1 in front before you mentioned that, Zoey; and it's 1-800-555-1212 for me, and I didn't know that number in 1996.) Patsy said he was making a series of calls, not just one. Who knows what area codes he may have been dialing?

You believe the Ramseys did it so they are liars and you can't believe anything they say then because you believe they are liars.
This is just your circular thinking that leads to a self fullfilling conclusion.

FW lied about the 911 call therefore he is a liar and is lying about killing JB and lied about his alibi and his wife must is a liar because she covered for him.
His fingerprints were on the mouth tape, the window, the broken glass, the cellar door, and on one of the note pads which makes him one of the three people connected to the crime.

[Athena]

Thank you for that information, Zoey, but no offense - I could care less about the phone calls. What I care about is finding some proof that FW was not in his home on Christmas night and was in the Ramsey house killing JonBenet. As I stated before, there is nothing that links him to the house that night or to the crime and the body, but there's more than one thing linking the Ramseys to the house, the crime, and the body that night. You'd do better to spend your time and energy trying to prove that FWDI than to make some point about phone call information that seems to be irrelevant to the case.

Who is the witness corroborating the alibi of the Ramseys? FW has witnesses - his wife and house guests, plus lack of forensic evidence placing him the R house that night at the time JonBenet was murdered. Not so for John and Patsy Ramsey.

FW had no witnesses. His wife and the houseguests stayed up until 2AM talking to each other and thought FW to be in his bedroom. That is not an alibi. They just didn't necessarily see him leave. And if you do further reading you will find more suspects who had no eye-witness alibis. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

You believe the Ramseys did it so they are liars and you can't believe anything they say then because you believe they are liars.
This is just your circular thinking that leads to a self fullfilling conclusion.

FW lied about the 911 call therefore he is a liar and is lying about killing JB and lied about his alibi and his wife must is a liar because she covered for him.
His fingerprints were on the mouth tape, the window, the broken glass, the cellar door, and on one of the note pads which makes him one of the three people connected to the crime.


Where is your link proving his fingerprints were on these things? There were NO fingerprints on the duct tape. (Dr. Lee - Cracking More Cases)
If his fingerprints were on those other things, it's because he touched them that morning. Big deal. If his fingerprints being on those things make him the killer, then JR was his accomplice because his would be on those things too.
Prove he lied about the 911 call and his "alibi".

[shill]

Where is your link proving his fingerprints were on these things? There were NO fingerprints on the duct tape. (Dr. Lee - Cracking More Cases)
If his fingerprints were on those other things, it's because he touched them that morning. Big deal. If his fingerprints being on those things make him the killer, then JR was his accomplice because his would be on those things too.
Prove he lied about the 911 call and his "alibi".
We proved he lied about the 911 call, he's a liar, if you want to believe everything that liar says then go ahead, but I do not.

[thewhitewitch1]

We proved he lied about the 911 call, he's a liar, if you want to believe everything that liar says then go ahead, but I do not.


I must have missed something. How and where did anyone prove that he lied about the 911 call?

[shill]

I must have missed something. How and where did anyone prove that he lied about the 911 call?

We proved there was no 411 back then to dial and that the 4 and 9 buttons on the phone aren't even close to each other and he hung up when the 911 operator answered which isn't normal behavior for an adult.

[thewhitewitch1]

We proved there was no 411 back then to dial and that the 4 and 9 buttons on the phone aren't even close to each other and he hung up when the 911 operator answered which isn't normal behavior for an adult.

Give me a break. That is not proof that he lied about anything and you know it. FW didn't say he was trying to dial 411. Another poster said it.
So he hung up when the operator answered. I told you I might have done the same thing. I guess I am not normal for an adult either.
You have not proven that he lied about anything.

[icedtea4me]

So, why is it that when some people want to know more information about something they say "Give me the four one one", not "Give me the five five five one two one two"?


-Tea

[icedtea4me]

We proved there was no 411 back then to dial and that the 4 and 9 buttons on the phone aren't even close to each other and he hung up when the 911 operator answered which isn't normal behavior for an adult.
How do you know he wasn't used to dialing 411 for information out of force of habit? And how do you know he didn't hang up before there was an answer?


-Tea

[shill]

How do you know he wasn't used to dialing 411 for information out of force of habit? The 9 is not next to the 4. Even if he wanted to dial 411 he would not miss the button by that much. Maybe 111, 511, or 711 since the 1,5,7 are next to the 4And how do you know he didn't hang up before there was an answer?How else would he know he dialed the wrong number?
It's not like the 9 was the last number he dialed and then hung up right after he punched it realizing he needed a 4.


-Tea[/QUOTE]

[nuisanceposter]

We proved he lied about the 911 call, he's a liar, if you want to believe everything that liar says then go ahead, but I do not.


411 was in service back in 1996...but FW never said he was trying to call 411. That's what someone here came up with. That's not proof that FW lied about anything, but I guess that's good enough for your witch hunt mentality, Shill. You define hypocrite on a daily basis with your ignorant comments and accusations.

Technically - no one has even proven FW was the person who made the 911 call, either. Some people, such as Eagle1, I believe, suspect that one of the children, namely JonBenet, may have been the person to call 911 and hang up. And IMO, it does sound like something kids would do - call 911, then hang up when the operator answers. One time when I was a kid someone challenged me to call 911 at a pay phone and hang up. Being a kid, I did, and guess what? That pay phone began ringing again right away. 911 was calling back because the caller had hung up.

As for not believing anything liars say once that person has been proven a liar, then you can see why people question everything John and Patsy Ramsey say. They're been proven to be liars, so everything they say has to be questioned as to whether it may be the truth or not.

[shill]

I guess that's good enough for your witch hunt mentality, Shill. You define hypocrite on a daily basis with your ignorant comments and accusations.



I'm just fighting fire with fire.

[andU]

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/01/24-3.html

Boulder law enforcement officials have medical records that "show conclusively that there is no evidence ... of abuse of any kind," Korten said.

[bullmoose]

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/01/24-3.html

Boulder law enforcement officials have medical records that "show conclusively that there is no evidence ... of abuse of any kind," Korten said. I can certainly see why some RDI's are so critical of the Ramseys cynical refusal to co-operate with the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD]; here this article from the daily camera in Boulder, shows that LE was still at this late date[1/24/97] waiting on handwriting, hair and blood samples to come back from the lab. What honest-minded person can doubt for a minute the BPD claims of non- co-operation by these murdering fiends. OOPS, wait a minute, you mean they gave these samples freely, before they went to bury their daughter? You mean that Colorado's Caped Crusaders would lie about whether the Ramseys were co-operating from the start? OMIGOD! My heart is going to break; if you can't trust LE to tell their tabloid buddies[Synthroid Stevie, take note] the truth about investigations that aren't supposed to leak info to the press,wink,wink, then can you believe them at all, without evidence to back their claims? JMHO:biggrin:

[nuisanceposter]

I can certainly see why some RDI's are so critical of the Ramseys cynical refusal to co-operate with the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD]; here this article from the daily camera in Boulder, shows that LE was still at this late date[1/24/97] waiting on handwriting, hair and blood samples to come back from the lab. What honest-minded person can doubt for a minute the BPD claims of non- co-operation by these murdering fiends. OOPS, wait a minute, you mean they gave these samples freely, before they went to bury their daughter? You mean that Colorado's Caped Crusaders would lie about whether the Ramseys were co-operating from the start? OMIGOD! My heart is going to break; if you can't trust LE to tell their tabloid buddies[Synthroid Stevie, take note] the truth about investigations that aren't supposed to leak info to the press,wink,wink, then can you believe them at all, without evidence to back their claims? JMHO:biggrin:


Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

BTW, andU, this statement is coming from Pat Korten, aka Ramsey attorney, aka RST. Of course they're going to claim there was sign of previous abuse. The trick is find and quote to experts (not attorneys) unassociated with the RST who claim there is no evidence of prior abuse.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

[bullmoose]

Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

BTW, andU, this statement is coming from Pat Korten, aka Ramsey attorney, aka RST. Of course they're going to claim there was sign of previous abuse. The trick is find and quote to experts (not attorneys) unassociated with the RST who claim there is no evidence of prior abuse.

Thanks for playing, please try again.Is it okay if I use the famous LE unnamed source that is quoted here. I do not remember ever seeing any court orders for these things, I could be wrong, NP, feel free to 'link me' when you come across the court orders, okay? I'll get back to my books to see if I can give you the dates, it seems to me that the BPD was in possessian of the note on 12/26, right?Try not to pop a gasket in the meantime, OK?:biggrin: JMHO

[andU]

Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

BTW, andU, this statement is coming from Pat Korten, aka Ramsey attorney, aka RST. Of course they're going to claim there was sign of previous abuse. The trick is find and quote to experts (not attorneys) unassociated with the RST who claim there is no evidence of prior abuse.

Thanks for playing, please try again.

It was printed material. Have there been a law suits about it? Wouldn't you think if there was evidence that states otherwise that evidence would have been produced and a public announcement about it? You are not cute, and your extra little quips are not needed.

[bullmoose]

It was printed material. Have there been a law suits about it? Wouldn't you think if there was evidence that states otherwise that evidence would have been produced and a public announcement about it? You are not cute, and your extra little quips are not needed.

Hey, yeah, thats right out of the RDI playbook, isn't it? It must be the proven truth since he was never sued by the CBI or BPD for lying, right? Great point AndU!!:beer: JMHO

[Louisadelmar]

Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

[...].

ST. ppbk, pp. 60-61.
PMPT ppbk. p. 63, 65-66.

[thewhitewitch1]

I can certainly see why some RDI's are so critical of the Ramseys cynical refusal to co-operate with the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD]; here this article from the daily camera in Boulder, shows that LE was still at this late date[1/24/97] waiting on handwriting, hair and blood samples to come back from the lab. What honest-minded person can doubt for a minute the BPD claims of non- co-operation by these murdering fiends. OOPS, wait a minute, you mean they gave these samples freely, before they went to bury their daughter? You mean that Colorado's Caped Crusaders would lie about whether the Ramseys were co-operating from the start? OMIGOD! My heart is going to break; if you can't trust LE to tell their tabloid buddies[Synthroid Stevie, take note] the truth about investigations that aren't supposed to leak info to the press,wink,wink, then can you believe them at all, without evidence to back their claims? JMHO:biggrin:

Even if they freely gave hair, blood, writing samples...so what? What were hair and blood samples going to prove since it was their house and their daughter? What were the writing samples going to prove when the RN was written in an attempt to disguise the handwriting?
It's the seperate interviews that the R's didn't co-operate in giving and why do you suppose that was? Instead they made ridiculous conditions on giving them and yep, they were given special treatment because they were allowed to get away with it. IMO

[rashomon]

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/01/24-3.html

Boulder law enforcement officials have medical records that "show conclusively that there is no evidence ... of abuse of any kind," Korten said.
Not surprising that someone like Korten would say that. After all, he was a public relations pro hired by the Ramseys' lawyers, lol.
I have forgotten why they later fired Korten. Does anyone remember?

[icedtea4me]

The 9 is not next to the 4. Even if he wanted to dial 411 he would not miss the button by that much. Maybe 111, 511, or 711 since the 1,5,7 are next to the 4How else would he know he dialed the wrong number?
It's not like the 9 was the last number he dialed and then hung up right after he punched it realizing he needed a 4.
You've never ever ever made a dialing error that you caught right away? I wish I could be as perfect as you.

-Tea

[icedtea4me]

Even if they freely gave hair, blood, writing samples...so what? What were hair and blood samples going to prove since it was their house and their daughter? What were the writing samples going to prove when the RN was written in an attempt to disguise the handwriting?
It's the seperate interviews that the R's didn't co-operate in giving and why do you suppose that was? Instead they made ridiculous conditions on giving them and yep, they were given special treatment because they were allowed to get away with it. IMO
Oh, yeah. The conditions of only being interviewed for two hours together in the same room. That sounds oh, so reasonable.


-Tea

[shill]

You've never ever ever made a dialing error that you caught right away? I wish I could be as perfect as you.

-Tea
Right away yes, but not two more digits later after I hit the wrong one. And even after the third digit he would have to hesitate long enough for the call to go through and then hang up.

I wish you could get a clue.

[aussiesheila]

An interesting flaw in the intruder's theory isIMO the presence of a chair blocking the door of the train room (where the window is located).

JR verifies this presence in his 1998 police interview when he stated (p.155:lines 7-13):
"I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door."
How an intruder could have exited through the window of the very room where its door was blocked from the other side
And if there was a chair in the vicinity, what's the need to use a suitcase to step on when you can easily use the chair for the same purpose?This actually isn’t a flaw in the intruder theory at all, ralia. You assume, as many people do, that the chair was left blocking the door of the train room by the perpetrator. Now there is no reason to believe that this assumption is necessarily correct. We don’t actually know the exact time the chair came to be blocking the doorway. John is the only person to have referred to it being there and he said he noticed it the first time he went down there, which according to his evidence was some time after 8 am. So if you believe John’s testimony, it could have been moved there any time up to his going down there. I know it is possible that John was lying, but I don’t think so and I want to suggest a possible explanation for the chair being there in the doorway.

We know Officer French went down there soon after 6 am, I say 6:01 and apparently didn’t mention anything about a chair blocking the doorway. I say apparently because we haven’t actually seen his statement, just Detective Byfield’s interpretation of what he said. Now either French didn’t mention it because it wasn’t there when he went down to the basement or it was there but he didn’t see it as significant enough to mention.

So assuming that it wasn’t there, I think that FW put it there when he went down to the basement at about 6:05 am. And why do I think he put it there? Because I think he was covering up for some pedophile mates of his that he knew were responsible for JonBenet’s death. I think he hurried down to the basement immediately after arriving at the house, firstly to check that they had hidden JonBenet’s body in the cellar room as he had told them to and secondly, to clear up any incriminating evidence that the perpetrators might have inadvertently left behind. I think that that chair was one of the incriminating pieces of evidence that the perpetrators had placed in the boiler room and had stood JonBenet on while they sexually abused her. I think FW knew that was out of place there and therefore very suspicious looking, so he hurriedly moved it out of and away from that room.

So that is why I think it wasn’t there when French went down and was the reason he didn’t mention it, why Fleet didn’t mention it, and why it was there when John went down and when the photographers went down later in the morning and took the crime scene photos.

There is another IDI compatible explanation that I can give you for the ‘chair blocking the doorway’ but I’ll leave that for another time.

[bullmoose]

Even if they freely gave hair, blood, writing samples...so what? What were hair and blood samples going to prove since it was their house and their daughter? What were the writing samples going to prove when the RN was written in an attempt to disguise the handwriting?
It's the seperate interviews that the R's didn't co-operate in giving and why do you suppose that was? Instead they made ridiculous conditions on giving them and yep, they were given special treatment because they were allowed to get away with it. IMOIt was not special treatment, tww1, it was their right, as it is yours and mine to give interviews to the police, or not; or to put conditions on the interviews. The police did not have the right to compel them even to go to the police station if they were not under arrest; if arrested they have to read them their Miranda rights,and they wouldn't have had to answer a single question, if their lawyer told them not to. With the BPD's telling the press and the mayor from the beginning that it was them, it didn't their lawyers too long to see that it was a witch-hunt. That is why the BPD wanted so bad for them to come in on the BPD's conditions,so they could separate them and try to sweat a confession out of them; from what I've seen of when LE did question them, that is exactly what they tried to do. It is fortunate for them that they had the means to hire good lawyers to prevent the BPD/tabloid witch-hunt from succeeding.Nope, tww1, nothing ridiculous about asserting your rights when the cops are leading the lynch mob. IMO

[bullmoose]

Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

BTW, andU, this statement is coming from Pat Korten, aka Ramsey attorney, aka RST. Of course they're going to claim there was sign of previous abuse. The trick is find and quote to experts (not attorneys) unassociated with the RST who claim there is no evidence of prior abuse.

Thanks for playing, please try again.I love to play, NP, do you want to read it yourself, or should I? Louisdemar kindly provided the links: ST.ppbk,pp60-61; PMPTppbk.p63,65-66. I'll be awaiting your apology; I know you just didn't remember, you werent trying trying to be clever, were you?:biggrin:

[ralia]

Thank you AUSSIESHEILA for elaborating on an old post of mine. Though I find your theory IMO somehow unlikely I apreciate your taking time on explaining to me. I always though read your posts with interest.

[icedtea4me]

That is why the BPD wanted so bad for them to come in on the BPD's conditions,so they could separate them and try to sweat a confession out of them;

Here's what it would most likely be like if John and Patsy had been interviewed together...

John: And that's what happened when we got home. Isn't that right, Patsy?

Patsy: Oh, absolutely, pookie-wookie.


-Tea

[thewhitewitch1]

It was not special treatment, tww1, it was their right, as it is yours and mine to give interviews to the police, or not; or to put conditions on the interviews. The police did not have the right to compel them even to go to the police station if they were not under arrest; if arrested they have to read them their Miranda rights,and they wouldn't have had to answer a single question, if their lawyer told them not to. With the BPD's telling the press and the mayor from the beginning that it was them, it didn't their lawyers too long to see that it was a witch-hunt. That is why the BPD wanted so bad for them to come in on the BPD's conditions,so they could separate them and try to sweat a confession out of them; from what I've seen of when LE did question them, that is exactly what they tried to do. It is fortunate for them that they had the means to hire good lawyers to prevent the BPD/tabloid witch-hunt from succeeding.Nope, tww1, nothing ridiculous about asserting your rights when the cops are leading the lynch mob. IMO

It is customary for the LE to interview people at a crime scene seperately immediately so that they don't have time to "get their stories straight".
It is also the parents who are suspected first in the death of a child so I don't know how you get a "witch-hunt" out of that. I'd be suspicious of them too after their refusal of seperate interviews. If they were being honest, what would they have to lose? Seems to me that they held out on the interviews just so they could get their stories straight, and have those lawyers handy to block the questions they didn't want to answer.
I hate to say it, but if they had consented to those seperate interviews within the first day or two, they may never have had to go through the rest of the crap with the BPD and the media. I do understand the need for lawyers but I don't understand refusing to be interviewed seperately for months and asking for special conditions in order to do it. That's just made them look more guilty. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

It is customary for the LE to interview people at a crime scene seperately immediately so that they don't have time to "get their stories straight".
It is also the parents who are suspected first in the death of a child so I don't know how you get a "witch-hunt" out of that. I'd be suspicious of them too after their refusal of seperate interviews. If they were being honest, what would they have to lose? Seems to me that they held out on the interviews just so they could get their stories straight, and have those lawyers handy to block the questions they didn't want to answer.
I hate to say it, but if they had consented to those seperate interviews within the first day or two, they may never have had to go through the rest of the crap with the BPD and the media. I do understand the need for lawyers but I don't understand refusing to be interviewed seperately for months and asking for special conditions in order to do it. That's just made them look more guilty. IMO


I put all the blame for not interviewing them that day on BPD. They were in shock. I think all it needed was a bit of tact and a short explanation of the necessity of an immediate interview and they would have gone along. Instead BPD wimps out and then somehow turns that into the Ramsey's fault.

If BPD had taken a professional attitude they wouldn't have put the wind up Bynum and he might not have immediately suggested they needed lawyers.

In DOI John quotes from a letter from Eller? turning them down when they tried to set up interviews after the funeral. I posted the quote here not too long ago.

And dn't forget the FBI felt BPD was also to blame for the delay in the interviews.

[shill]

I put all the blame for not interviewing them that day on BPD. They were in shock. I think all it needed was a bit of tact and a short explanation of the necessity of an immediate interview and they would have gone along. Instead BPD wimps out and then somehow turns that into the Ramsey's fault.

If BPD had taken a professional attitude they wouldn't have put the wind up Bynum and he might not have immediately suggested they needed lawyers.

In DOI John quotes from a letter from Eller? turning them down when they tried to set up interviews after the funeral. I posted the quote here not too long ago.

And don't forget the FBI felt BPD was also to blame for the delay in the interviews.

They were interviewed separately the first day, just as Burke was.
It's not until later days when they have evaluated the crime scene and decide that they are possibly suspects that they needed to do a separate interview in an attempt to smoke them out. At this point they were focused on the Ramseys and no one else. They believed they had their killers and where doing nothing else to find the real killer.
The Ramseys, if they had a story, they would have had it worked out by then.

The LE could of interviewed them at any time. But to find the intruder they needed to get on the trail while it was still hot, but instead they let it grow cold.

[rashomon]

They were interviewed separately the first day, just as Burke was.

Where were they intervied 'separately'?

[icedtea4me]

Where were they intervied 'separately'?
That would have been in the comfort of their own home during the "6 a.m.-1 p.m. kidnapping phase".


-Tea

[bullmoose]

That would have been in the comfort of their own home during the "6 a.m.-1 p.m. kidnapping phase".


-TeaPlease elaborate on what you are trying to say; this makes no sense to me from any viewpoint.:shrug:

[bullmoose]

Here's what it would most likely be like if John and Patsy had been interviewed together...

John: And that's what happened when we got home. Isn't that right, Patsy?

Patsy: Oh, absolutely, pookie-wookie.


-TeaI suppose I can assume from this witty post that you are RDI?:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Links, please, that the Rs gave all those samples before they left for Atlanta to bury JonBenet, and that it was of their own free will to do so.

BTW, andU, this statement is coming from Pat Korten, aka Ramsey attorney, aka RST. Of course they're going to claim there was sign of previous abuse. The trick is find and quote to experts (not attorneys) unassociated with the RST who claim there is no evidence of prior abuse.

Thanks for playing, please try again.Did you find those links okay, NP?:biggrin:

[icedtea4me]

I suppose I can assume from this witty post that you are RDI?:biggrin:
Not much gets by you, does it?


-Tea

[icedtea4me]

Please elaborate on what you are trying to say; this makes no sense to me from any viewpoint.:shrug:
John and Patsy would talk with the police from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. But when JonBenet's dead body was brought upstairs it was "Sayanora! We're done talking! We're outta here!"


-Tea

[bullmoose]

: John and Patsy would talk with the police from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. But when JonBenet's dead body was brought upstairs it was "Sayanora! We're done talking! We're outta here!"


-TeaOh, I get it now, you were trying your hardest to be sarcastic, right? I find it hard to believe that one so witty as you doesn't have a job in Vegas; wait a minute, I may have caught your act at the Luxor; no, it couldn't have been you, that guy was funny. Oh well, besides the fact that the Ramseys were in deep shock at finding their daughter, dead downstairs, they probably didn't use any Japanese colloquiallisms when leaving after being told to do so by the BPD, the house now the scene of a murder investigation. When they went to their friends' house, the Fernies, would you have believed it?the BPD came with them. As protection? No, watching, listening and questioning; why else did their lawyer friend advise them to get lawyers? Not quite the same as your imaginative, though inaccurate fantasy scenario.:biggrin:

[aussiesheila]

What I know about the chair I read it in wiki

Http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Basement#TheTrainRoom

and I found it interesting.Yes fiction often is Ralia, and it's perfectly fine if you want to read interesting fiction. But IMO, the JonBenet section of pbwiki.com has been hijacked by a certain group of fanatical RDIs and has somewhat of a bias in its presentation of 'the facts'.

[aussiesheila]

Ya know, one of the things that bugs me is that we can't read FW's depo. I just have not seen/read anything that explains his actions to me. They could be completely innocent but can also be looked at as sinister. I am so puzzled as to why he moved the glass, the suitcase and after JR found JBR's body why he went back down there and touched the duct tape; that's what we know he did admit but could possibly be more?? Then 10 years later, ST on Greta's show says he may even have opened the window. It appears as if he was "retracing" his steps in case any trace evidence found linked to him could be explained. Of course, I can also be completely wrong -- it just bugs me. JMOI don't think you are the least bit wrong about FW, Athena.

[aussiesheila]

What exactly did he have to "set up"? And since his son was with him, are you implying that his son was in on it too?
To my understanding, a group of carolers came to the Whites door and they simply joined the carolers. So...were the other carolers in on it too? :confused:

Also, as far as FW being so suspicious....if he killed JB, do you really think he would admit to moving the suitcase, picking up the broken glass and going back in the cellar after JB was found and picking up the duct tape? As far as I know, no one saw him do these things, so unless he is dumb as a stick, why would he admit to them if he was guilty of anything?A lot of people find FW suspicious whitewitch, but I don't think most of them would go so far as to say that he is the perpetrator, at least that is what I have picked up from my reading here. It seems to me that people have trouble pinpointing just what it is about him and have difficulty finding reasons to explain his post-murder behaviour. But I don't at all, I am sure I know exactly why he did certain things and why he behaved so strangely, and at the risk of repeating myself, this is why: I think he masterminded the coverup for the pedophiles that I think killed JonBenet while they were sexually abusing her. The reason why I think he was motivated to do so was that one of the perpetrators was a close relative of his and also because he had himsellf sexually abused JonBenet in the past. I think he could see it was very much in his own interest to hide the fact that the murder had been committed by pedophiles. I think that making the murder look like a kidnapping was his idea, as was hiding the body in the cellar, and it all would have worked out favorably for him and the other pedophiles IMO, if only Patsy had not obeyed John and called the police before he was able to organise a clandestine dumping of the body in the mountains.

[aussiesheila]

I am confused as to why carolers came out on Christmas day eve. This is not the norm. Who were they? Are they part of it? Who the heck knows, as people that should have been questioned never were.
Really Zoey! How very interesting. Although people don't do that sort of thing in the heathen area where I live, I assumed when I read that carollers sang outside the White home that it was pretty normal in Boulder. Could they have come from the local church? I read about some guy who was a caretaker of sorts who lived there and I thought he sounded a bit suss at the time. I would be very interested to find out a bit more about each member of THAT carolling group.

[bullmoose]

It is customary for the LE to interview people at a crime scene seperately immediately so that they don't have time to "get their stories straight".
It is also the parents who are suspected first in the death of a child so I don't know how you get a "witch-hunt" out of that. I'd be suspicious of them too after their refusal of seperate interviews. If they were being honest, what would they have to lose? Seems to me that they held out on the interviews just so they could get their stories straight, and have those lawyers handy to block the questions they didn't want to answer.
I hate to say it, but if they had consented to those seperate interviews within the first day or two, they may never have had to go through the rest of the crap with the BPD and the media. I do understand the need for lawyers but I don't understand refusing to be interviewed seperately for months and asking for special conditions in order to do it. That's just made them look more guilty. IMOOf course it is customary to question people at a crime scene separately and immediately; how many of the people at the crime scene when Jonbenet was found were? Come on, we know who was there, starting naming the ones questioned immediately, separately. Frankly , I think you'd be suspicious of them no matter what the real reason, like Patsy's being heavily sedated or some other feeble excuse.Once their friend, Mike Bynum saw that the BPD was leading the lynch mob, he told the cops there would be no interviews that day at the station.You say, if they had,they mayhave never had to go through the rest of the crap; okay, why then did the BPD conduct an illegal interrogation of Burke on the morning of 12/26/96, at Synthroid Stevie's later breakfast buddies house, you know, his old buddy, old pal, Fleet White? This was tape-recorded, but illegal as no parent or relative could have given permission as they werent there? Tell me again the BPD wasn't organizing a lynch mob, come on, explain it. Jonbenet wasn't found until 1PM, the BPD was trying ,illegally to put the squeeze on Burke hours earlier.Was the BPD ever, in this case acting honorably? NO, they werent, honorable cops act within the law; they could've asked permission of John and Patsy; dishonorable cops act outside the law, if it suits them. I"ve had my own experience with the ISP and the ease with which its officers perjure themselves; in fact, the BPD report saying that Burkes grandmother gave permission for his questioning, if notarized, as it probably is, is a piece of perjury. Explain to me how this behavior by the BPD equates with your fanciful notion that it is the Ramseys fault that the BPD became suspicious.
I'd love to know. IMO

[aussiesheila]

Dr. Meyer could remove the ligature around around JB's right hand without any problem.Just so that I can check on the veracity of this statement rashomon, could you please refer me to where Meyer stated "I was able to remove the ligature around around JB's right hand without any problem". Thanks

I e-mailed Delmar England about this too, and he is of the opinion that it was the other way round: that what we can see in the picture as the right (with the two loops) ligature was the one which had been on her right wrist. He pointed out that Dr. Meyer spoke of a double-loop KNOT, which has nothing to do with the two loops.

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

Here is the text (DE's answers in italics) (bold type mine):
Ok so you emailed Delmar, great, but did you actually LOOK at (as in study carefully) the photo of the ligature around the wrist that I asked you to? It is the right wrist, no mistaking that; now do you see that the second knot is at a point on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WRIST to the other knot with a short frayed tail is coming from it??? So then go to the photo of the wrist cord after its removal from the body. If the ‘double’ loop on the RHS of the photo is the one from the right wrist, how do you explain the sudden change of position of that second loop from opposite the knot at the short frayed tail end to right AT THE SAME point as it?

If that line of argument does not convince you, then how about checking the relative lengths of the cord in the photo that you yourself posted, of the wrist loops after Meyer removed the cord from the body. Did you ever notice that the tail from the single loop on the LHS of the photo is approx 1/3 the length of the piece in between joining the right and left wrist loops (which is the 15.5 inch tail that Meyer talks about) so is likely to be about 5 inches in length?

And here is that excerpt from Meyer’s autopsy report that you posted:

From Dr. Meyer's autopsy report:

Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop .

So the single loop on the LHS of the photo must be the loop from the right wrist, wouldn't you agree?

Surely this is proof beyond doubt that Delmar is just full of it. Please, please, please spare me and don't quote him to me again, if you don't mind rashomon.

[aussiesheila]

How do you know he wasn't used to dialing 411 for information out of force of habit? And how do you know he didn't hang up before there was an answer?


-TeaHey, how do we even know if it was FW who dialled the number in the first place?

[nuisanceposter]

Hey, how do we even know if it was FW who dialled the number in the first place?

We don't. That was speculation from the party guests at the Ramsey house on 12/23/96, partly because no one knew who called 911 and people knew FW was making calls. The natural conclusion there, it seems, is that FW must have called 911 by accident...but it's just as possible that one of the other party guests, perhaps even one of the children, dialed 911 and hung up. It's not like a kid would step right up and admit to calling 911 and hanging up when someone answered, especially when the police are at the door asking about it.

[andU]

I thought Fleet admitted doing it, and stated that he had dialled the wrong number. He said he was attempting to get the number of the hospital where his mother was admitted, I think. It had something to do with her medications. I'm at work and can't search for the link at the moment. Maybe someone has it handy.

[aussiesheila]

We don't. That was speculation from the party guests at the Ramsey house on 12/23/96, partly because no one knew who called 911 and people knew FW was making calls. The natural conclusion there, it seems, is that FW must have called 911 by accident...but it's just as possible that one of the other party guests, perhaps even one of the children, dialed 911 and hung up. It's not like a kid would step right up and admit to calling 911 and hanging up when someone answered, especially when the police are at the door asking about it.

I thought Fleet admitted doing it, and stated that he had dialled the wrong number. He said he was attempting to get the number of the hospital where his mother was admitted, I think. It had something to do with her medications. I'm at work and can't search for the link at the moment. Maybe someone has it handy.

Although FW claimed it was he who made the 911 call, I don't believe him, I don't think it was him who made the call at all.

What I think happened goes like this - most adults are downstairs enjoying the party. Children are dispersed all over the house. Grandpa Paugh has slipped away from the adults and gone to where JonBenet is and starts molesting her. Some older children become aware of this and one of them (my guess is the Stine boy) dials 911 in an attempt to get help for JonBenet. Meanwhile downstairs, FW notices Paugh's absence and knowing what kind of guy he is, decides to check up on things. FW comes across the grandpa/grandaughter incident and the children at the phone, slams down the phone and threatens the children not to tell anyone about what has happened. Susan Stine feels it is incumbent on her to tell police who come to the door that it was nothing. FW tells all and sundry that he accidentally dialled 911 while trying to call his mother. JonBenet then feels pretty crappy about everything for the rest of the party and early next morning Grandpa Paugh makes a hasty exit back to Atlanta.

[thewhitewitch1]

Although FW claimed it was he who made the 911 call, I don't believe him, I don't think it was him who made the call at all.

What I think happened goes like this - most adults are downstairs enjoying the party. Children are dispersed all over the house. Grandpa Paugh has slipped away from the adults and gone to where JonBenet is and starts molesting her. Some older children become aware of this and one of them (my guess is the Stine boy) dials 911 in an attempt to get help for JonBenet. Meanwhile downstairs, FW notices Paugh's absence and knowing what kind of guy he is, decides to check up on things. FW comes across the grandpa/grandaughter incident and the children at the phone, slams down the phone and threatens the children not to tell anyone about what has happened. Susan Stine feels it is incumbent on her to tell police who come to the door that it was nothing. FW tells all and sundry that he accidentally dialled 911 while trying to call his mother. JonBenet then feels pretty crappy about everything for the rest of the party and early next morning Grandpa Paugh makes a hasty exit back to Atlanta.

Boy, Grandpa Paugh had some mighty big gonads to molest his granddaughter right there at a party with all of those people around.
According to you, it seems like virtually everyone who knew or was related to the Ramseys were pedophiles. That's one hell of an accusation against these people to which there is no basis for either fact or suspicion. IMO

[AmyW]

You can't prove FW had anything to do with the crime, but fibers from the Rs were found in places they shouldn't be.

Forgive me if this is a repeat question, I'm going blind trying to sort through all of these posts.

Where were the R's fibers found that they shouldn't be in thier own house?

[nuisanceposter]

It is my understanding that acrylic fibers microscopically and chemically consistent with the clothing Patsy wore that night and was still wearing the next morning were found in the paint tray that the paintbrush used in the ligature came from, on the sticky side of the tape applied to JonBenet's face, and caught in the cord and tied into the knot forming the ligature that killed JonBenet.

Patsy said she had never painted while wearing that article of clothing, and had never worn it into the basement. It is my personal belief that the fibers from her clothes found in those specific locations cannot be accurately accounted for by random fiber transfer. Not in those specific locations. Also suspicious is the lack of any fibers proven to be consistent with an intruder having created the ligature apparatus, tying it on and tightening it, and applying tape to JonBenet's face.

There is also a claim that fibers consistent with the clothing John Ramsey wore that evening were found on JonBenet's pubic area and in her underwear. Again, I have a hard time believing this was just random fiber transfer, especially since the JR fibers were there after JonBenet had been wiped by whoever pulled her clothes back into place.

I do not believe Levin is lying in the interviews where he questions the Rs about the fiber evidence. They had already given the Rs every allowance they could, and this was hardly a session where the interviewer manipulates the interviewee to coerce confessions. Levin has a reputation of being an honest man, and considering he was under no obligation to share potentially condemning evidence with the prime suspects in the murder, dropping the line of questioning rather than give the suspects more info is certainly not an indication that Levin made it all up. He'd been at the CBI labs in person prior to the interview.

[Louisadelmar]

It is my understanding that acrylic fibers microscopically and chemically consistent with the clothing Patsy wore that night and was still wearing the next morning were found in the paint tray that the paintbrush used in the ligature came from, on the sticky side of the tape applied to JonBenet's face, and caught in the cord and tied into the knot forming the ligature that killed JonBenet.

Patsy said she had never painted while wearing that article of clothing, and had never worn it into the basement. It is my personal belief that the fibers from her clothes found in those specific locations cannot be accurately accounted for by random fiber transfer. Not in those specific locations. Also suspicious is the lack of any fibers proven to be consistent with an intruder having created the ligature apparatus, tying it on and tightening it, and applying tape to JonBenet's face.
[...].

IIRC the paint tote had been upstairs before Christmas when LHP brought it downstairs. There is nothing to indicate when the fibers got in the tote. She didn't have to be painting for the fibers to land in the tote

I don't think you can say it's suspicious there is a lack of any fibers proven to be consistent with an intruder when there were so many unmatched fibers and no specific intruder to check them against.

[Zoey]

IIRC the paint tote had been upstairs before Christmas when LHP brought it downstairs. There is nothing to indicate when the fibers got in the tote. She didn't have to be painting for the fibers to land in the tote

I don't think you can say it's suspicious there is a lack of any fibers proven to be consistent with an intruder when there were so many unmatched fibers and no specific intruder to check them against.


Page 182, PM/PT - ISBN 0-06-019153-8

"Patsy started to take a painting class, and JonBenet drew a lot with crayons and markers. People and flowers. They had a big easel, but most of the time JonBenet painted on a card table in the butler's kitchen. Patsy had her paints and brushes in a white paint tote. Sometimes she asked me to take her paints down to the basement when she was having some kind of party. That's what she'd say about everything, any kind of clutter: "Just take it down to the basement. I don't want to see it." On the day of the Ramseys' Christmas party, I took the paint tote downstairs."
Linda Hoffman-Pugh

[Louisadelmar]

Page 182, PM/PT - ISBN 0-06-019153-8

"Patsy started to take a painting class, and JonBenet drew a lot with crayons and markers. People and flowers. They had a big easel, but most of the time JonBenet painted on a card table in the butler's kitchen. Patsy had her paints and brushes in a white paint tote. Sometimes she asked me to take her paints down to the basement when she was having some kind of party. That's what she'd say about everything, any kind of clutter: "Just take it down to the basement. I don't want to see it." On the day of the Ramseys' Christmas party, I took the paint tote downstairs."
Linda Hoffman-Pugh

Thanks, Zoey!

[AmyW]

Thanks for the info! :)

[nuisanceposter]

Yeah, way to go on the info that doesn't prove anything. So LHP put the paint tote downstairs before the R party on the 23rd. How did the fibers from the jacket Patsy wore on the 25th and 26th get in the paint tray? She didn't wear that jacket in the basement and she didn't wear it while painting, by her recollection. And how did the fibers get on the tape, and caught in the cord, and tied into the knot, in addition to the paint tote?

One of those locations, I might believe random fiber transfer...all of them, no way. IMO, her fibers were found there because she was responsible for that part of the crime.

But those aren't the only reasons I believe the Rs were involved in JonBenet's murder.

[Zoey]

Yeah, way to go on the info that doesn't prove anything. So LHP put the paint tote downstairs before the R party on the 23rd. How did the fibers from the jacket Patsy wore on the 25th and 26th get in the paint tray? She didn't wear that jacket in the basement and she didn't wear it while painting, by her recollection. And how did the fibers get on the tape, and caught in the cord, and tied into the knot, in addition to the paint tote?

One of those locations, I might believe random fiber transfer...all of them, no way. IMO, her fibers were found there because she was responsible for that part of the crime.

But those aren't the only reasons I believe the Rs were involved in JonBenet's murder.


FYI, I was not trying to prove anything. Louisa made the comment, that if she remember correctly, the paint tote had been upstairs. I was providing the information to help refresh her memory.

[aussiesheila]

Yeah, way to go on the info that doesn't prove anything. So LHP put the paint tote downstairs before the R party on the 23rd. How did the fibers from the jacket Patsy wore on the 25th and 26th get in the paint tray? She didn't wear that jacket in the basement and she didn't wear it while painting, by her recollection. And how did the fibers get on the tape, and caught in the cord, and tied into the knot, in addition to the paint tote?

One of those locations, I might believe random fiber transfer...all of them, no way. IMO, her fibers were found there because she was responsible for that part of the crime.

But those aren't the only reasons I believe the Rs were involved in JonBenet's murder.One of the problems with the acrylic fibres found in the paint tote and in the garotte that are microscopically and chemically identical to Patsy's jacket is that they are all red. Patsy's jacket was red, black and grey. If they came from Patsy's jacket wouldn't you expect to find at least a few black and/or grey fibres as well?

BTW does anyone know what kind of fibre American Santa suits are made from?

[thewhitewitch1]

One of the problems with the acrylic fibres found in the paint tote and in the garotte that are microscopically and chemically identical to Patsy's jacket is that they are all red. Patsy's jacket was red, black and grey. If they came from Patsy's jacket wouldn't you expect to find at least a few black and/or grey fibres as well?

BTW does anyone know what kind of fibre American Santa suits are made from?


Dr. Henry Lee states in his book "Cracking More Cases" that the fibers found on the duct tape were black and red.
FYI..the Ramseys had a Santa suit too.

[Jayelles]

One of the problems with the acrylic fibres found in the paint tote and in the garotte that are microscopically and chemically identical to Patsy's jacket is that they are all red. Patsy's jacket was red, black and grey. If they came from Patsy's jacket wouldn't you expect to find at least a few black and/or grey fibres as well?

BTW does anyone know what kind of fibre American Santa suits are made from?


Not if it was a mixed fibre textile. One of the experts in the David Westerfield trial explained this. There were a lot of orange fibres found at that crime scene and one of the possible sources was a multi-coloured afghan. The expert explained about different fibres shedding at different rates and how when fibres were combined to make a fabric, they retained their individual shedding characteristics.

[Sharon]

Forgive me if this is a repeat question, I'm going blind trying to sort through all of these posts.

Where were the R's fibers found that they shouldn't be in thier own house?

It`s surprising to me that if these fibers were truely sinister and out of place, why werent the R. charged on the basis of this evidence alone, if nothing else?

One of the questions in my mind is that you need to know what normal is before you can say something is abnormal. Most of us here would have no idea of what fibres are typically found around their homes. So my question is, what is normal re fibre distribution in a home where the people live? Are my fibres on my children clothes & visa versa? What about my dna, or my husbands?

We also need to consider that there was something like 4000 fibres found. I dont even know what to make of that. If the parents fibres are a few compared to 4000 unidentified fibres, does this mean anything??? The way we get to hear the story you would think that the ONLY fibres found are a few lone fibres from PR.

Clearly we need a fibre or science expert here to tell us about forensic science and how much weight we should attribute to the info we have. jmo

[Sharon]

She didn't wear that jacket in the basement and she didn't wear it while painting, by her recollection.


But those aren't the only reasons I believe the Rs were involved in JonBenet's murder.

I find it amusing that you would quote anything PR says and use it to prove a point. Surely if she is a murderer she is also a liar.

I find it also odd that anyone who is RDI would take PR word that JBR wouldnt have got up to get pineapple or a snack. I mean if shes capable of murdering or staging her daughter after death, why would you quote her word as if its gospal.

Oh yer, in these two instances it helps your case against her. jmo

[andU]

Maybe NP was trying to be objective in her post. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Athena]

Yeah, way to go on the info that doesn't prove anything. So LHP put the paint tote downstairs before the R party on the 23rd. How did the fibers from the jacket Patsy wore on the 25th and 26th get in the paint tray? She didn't wear that jacket in the basement and she didn't wear it while painting, by her recollection. And how did the fibers get on the tape, and caught in the cord, and tied into the knot, in addition to the paint tote?

One of those locations, I might believe random fiber transfer...all of them, no way. IMO, her fibers were found there because she was responsible for that part of the crime.

But those aren't the only reasons I believe the Rs were involved in JonBenet's murder.

Patsy was in the basement on Christmas Day according to the June 1998 interview. But I still do not believe that it has been proven that fibers were found in the paint tray or in the garrote.

[AmyW]

It`s surprising to me that if these fibers were truely sinister and out of place, why werent the R. charged on the basis of this evidence alone, if nothing else?

One of the questions in my mind is that you need to know what normal is before you can say something is abnormal. Most of us here would have no idea of what fibres are typically found around their homes. So my question is, what is normal re fibre distribution in a home where the people live? Are my fibres on my children clothes & visa versa? What about my dna, or my husbands?

We also need to consider that there was something like 4000 fibres found. I dont even know what to make of that. If the parents fibres are a few compared to 4000 unidentified fibres, does this mean anything??? The way we get to hear the story you would think that the ONLY fibres found are a few lone fibres from PR.

Clearly we need a fibre or science expert here to tell us about forensic science and how much weight we should attribute to the info we have. jmo

Well said and I agree. You've got a good head on your shoulders and I'm enjoying reading your posts. :beer:

[bullmoose]

It`s surprising to me that if these fibers were truely sinister and out of place, why werent the R. charged on the basis of this evidence alone, if nothing else?

One of the questions in my mind is that you need to know what normal is before you can say something is abnormal. Most of us here would have no idea of what fibres are typically found around their homes. So my question is, what is normal re fibre distribution in a home where the people live? Are my fibres on my children clothes & visa versa? What about my dna, or my husbands?

We also need to consider that there was something like 4000 fibres found. I dont even know what to make of that. If the parents fibres are a few compared to 4000 unidentified fibres, does this mean anything??? The way we get to hear the story you would think that the ONLY fibres found are a few lone fibres from PR.

Clearly we need a fibre or science expert here to tell us about forensic science and how much weight we should attribute to the info we have. jmoSharon, I too believe it would be helpful to have a fiber expert to explain the signficance, if any, of the majority of the fibers found; however I think that any expert would get run off just like ElvisLives did. Her knowledge was no defense when it didn't agree with certain RDI theories, as you'll remember. Omigod, what if we had an expert that definitively dismissed certain Imaginary Fibers? It could cause nervous breakdowns in certain posters if they found out for certain that their cherished theories were bogus and baseless. So be careful what you wish for, Sharon, and think of your fellow posters, especially certain RDI's. Just KiddingJMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

Truth about Burke and the 911 call.

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.



Police do lie when questioning suspects.

Police: “Was there any conversation immediately following your last word to the dispatcher?”

Patsy: “I don’t remember. I was out of my mind. My child was missing. I was trying to convey that to the person on the other end of the line. OK? I don’t remember. If you have it on tape, and you’d like me to hear it, I’ll listen to it and see if that jogs my memory.”

Police: “It’s on tape.”

Patsy: “OK.”

Police: “OK.

Patsy: “All right. Well if you’ve got it on the tape and we can play it, then I will try to help you. But I can’t remember which end was up about that time.”

At which point the detective changes the subject.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/

[shill]

And in a June 1998 police interrogation of the Ramseys, police seem to suggest that the DNA does incriminate them.

Police: “If I told you right now that we have — in the process of being examined — trace evidence that appears to link you to the death of JonBenet, what would you tell me?”

Patsy: “That’s totally impossible. Go re-test.”

Police: “How is it impossible?”

Patsy: “I did not kill my child. I didn’t have a thing to do with it.”

Police: “I’m talking about scientific evidence.”

Patsy: “I don’t give a flying flip how scientific it is. Go back to the damn drawing board. I didn’t do it. John Ramsey didn’t do it, and we don’t have a clue of anybody who did do it. Quit screwing around asking me about things that are ridiculous and let’s find the person that did this.”

“It’s a common investigative technique to suggest to somebody that you have more evidence than maybe you really do in order to try to get them to confess,” says Demuth.

[bullmoose]

Truth about Burke and the 911 call.

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.



Police do lie when questioning suspects.

Police: “Was there any conversation immediately following your last word to the dispatcher?”

Patsy: “I don’t remember. I was out of my mind. My child was missing. I was trying to convey that to the person on the other end of the line. OK? I don’t remember. If you have it on tape, and you’d like me to hear it, I’ll listen to it and see if that jogs my memory.”

Police: “It’s on tape.”

Patsy: “OK.”

Police: “OK.

Patsy: “All right. Well if you’ve got it on the tape and we can play it, then I will try to help you. But I can’t remember which end was up about that time.”

At which point the detective changes the subject.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079093/Great link, Shill, but gee, it makes the cops sound duplicitous and sneaky. This can't be any of Colorado's Caped Crusaders, can it? As anyone from Germany will tell you, if cops or lawyers lie when questioning a suspect, they will go to jail, right?
It was something like that, wasn't it? JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

It was a good link. Thanks, Shill.

[aussiesheila]

Dr. Henry Lee states in his book "Cracking More Cases" that the fibers found on the duct tape were black and red.
FYI..the Ramseys had a Santa suit too.IMO and that of some 'experts', the duct tape was pre-used and it had just about every fibre under the sun on it. As far as the fibres on the garotte go, they were virtually all red. If you are referring to that Santa suit in the shower room cupboard down in the basement of the Ramsey house I think that was actually a figurine of a Santa and not a Santa suit.

[aussiesheila]

Not if it was a mixed fibre textile. One of the experts in the David Westerfield trial explained this. There were a lot of orange fibres found at that crime scene and one of the possible sources was a multi-coloured afghan. The expert explained about different fibres shedding at different rates and how when fibres were combined to make a fabric, they retained their individual shedding characteristics.Yes, but I don't think this was the case with Patsy's jacket, I think it was all acrylic.

[Zoey]

IMO and that of some 'experts', the duct tape was pre-used and it had just about every fibre under the sun on it. As far as the fibres on the garotte go, they were virtually all red. If you are referring to that Santa suit in the shower room cupboard down in the basement of the Ramsey house I think that was actually a figurine of a Santa and not a Santa suit.

The police took a santa suit out of the Ramsey home on one of the search warrants.


http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.html

[aussiesheila]

The police took a santa suit out of the Ramsey home on one of the search warrants.


http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.htmlYes, I know something listed as a Santa suit was removed during one of the search warrants and I got the impression it had been removed from somewhere in the basement. I also read in the transcript one of Patsy's interviews that she had a Santa figurine stored in the basement and I am thinking that maybe it was that which was removed and described as a Santa suit. Of course I have no way of knowing if this is correct. There might have been a Santa figurine AND a Santa suit and only the Santa suit was removed during the search warrant.

[Athena]

Great link, Shill, but gee, it makes the cops sound duplicitous and sneaky. This can't be any of Colorado's Caped Crusaders, can it? As anyone from Germany will tell you, if cops or lawyers lie when questioning a suspect, they will go to jail, right?
It was something like that, wasn't it? JMHO:biggrin:

Too often misconduct by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges is routinely tolerated. This blatant tolerance by district attorneys, judges, and appellate courts robs defendants of their right to a fair trial and worse has caused people to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Prosecutors who lie, distort , or withhold evidence must be held accountable with criminal charges for their routine misconduct.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=15182

Too many to provide excerpts:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm