A new comer here

[Sharon]

Hi, I will admit that since I stumbled upon this site by accident I have been hooked. I am particularly taken with this case due to its puzzling & heart breaking curcumstances. I am relatively unread compared to you all, but maybe this makes me more `fresh`. Feel free to dismiss my opinions though due to my lack of knowledge of the details.

First off, I really want to convey my feelings about most of you. I really admire how much time, effort & commitment alot of you have displayed here. I truely hope that one day the truth is brought to light. Many of you seem so open minded in your persuit of the truth, and it is this type of information that I enjoy reading.

I am totally saddened by all cases of murder including this beautiful little girl who died in such mysterious circumstances. If you are interested, from reading much of all the theories here, I am currently voting with the IDI theory. Innitially before this site, I was probably a RDI supporter from info from the media.

In my opinion the crack to the skull was not an accident due to the necessary force of the blow. It was a blow designed to end a life.

About the pineapple.....could the medical autopsy be wrong....which means there is countless debate about something that is a mute point??? I am putting this out there because imo a tired child would not usually even want to eat after coming home from a huge dinner party late at night. Of course I could be wrong about kids appertites, but I am going by my own experiences with my 3 children.

Also, about the rn. Is it more likely to be written by a certain gender? Is the handwriting more likely to be that of a female since it does match the Mums handwiting? I am wondering if the killer/s were male & female. Also, I am wondering if the paintbrush jab is more likely to be done by a female. Sorry if this sounds like too much speculating & opinion without sites to back it up.

Lastly, I am genuinely interested in what some of you think about the clues given to us from what has gone on after the crime. Many of you will agree that the clues we have are questionable due to many factors. Some clues & or facts are not known to the public, others are lies or things remembered wrongly, other facts are argued over by top experts, let alone lay people. My point is, can we work out anything by how people have acted subsequent to the crime. In particular, I am interested in how the parents stayed together and did not seperate. Also, neither parent ever broke down & confessed even on their death bed. I may be reading too much into this, but I think after all these years one of the parents would have confessed by now or broken down???

We had a case in Australia where the mother was convicted of murdering her child Azaria. She claimed it was stolen by a dingo while they were camping. She went to jail because it was unheard of that a dingo could do this. Well she ended up being innocent after being the most hated woman in Australia. She was mainly convicted for not acting upset at the trials. This case sort of reminds me not to convict people untill they are proven guilty, and even then, sometimes even the `facts` can lie.

Sharon

[bullmoose]

Dingo eat your baby?I seem to remember that case, some years back. Welcome to the board, Sharon, I say the more, the better, whether RDI, IDI or fencesetter, I think we have a pretty good group here, I mean its balanced with no point of view dominating. If you state something, either way as fact, you likely will be challenged. I hope you enjoy it here as much as I do.Welcome,Sharon:biggrin:

[Athena]

<snip>
We had a case in Australia where the mother was convicted of murdering her child Azaria. She claimed it was stolen by a dingo while they were camping. She went to jail because it was unheard of that a dingo could do this. Well she ended up being innocent after being the most hated woman in Australia. She was mainly convicted for not acting upset at the trials. This case sort of reminds me not to convict people untill they are proven guilty, and even then, sometimes even the `facts` can lie.

Sharon

Ditto to the welcome. I remember this case very well; there was even a movie made about it. Keep reading you will see opinions on just about every question you've made. I would rather err on the side of thinking one innocent that may turn out to be guilty than thinking one guilty only to find out one was innocent. :)

[shill]

So that's where "A dingo ate my baby" came from.

[andU]

Welcome, Sharon. No matter which side of the earth a person may reside, many of us are brought together to share views regarding this case. Your opinions, your thoughts are welcome. As stated, the case may be argued, thoughts and theories disected from both sides, but that makes good sleuthing! As I have stated many times, I wish we had access to the evidence stored in a wearhouse in Colorado. It seems much of it has yet to be investigated.

[LindaA]

Let me add my welcome, Sharon. It's nice to have a newcomer who actually wants to discuss the case!

I know the case you are speaking of. Meryl Streep played her in the movie. The mother's name was Lindy, if I remember correctly. Do you remember how they finally proved she was telling the truth?

I have always thought the Ramseys' behavior in the years since the murder indicated innocence more than guilt. The RDI's see it as just the opposite -- people more concerned with their own image than with finding the killer of their daughter. That;'s the thing about this case -- almost everythng can be interpreted two ways.

My experience has been similar to yours. I was first an IDI, then and RDI, then a FS(fence sitter), and finally, and IDI once again. I'm with AndU, though -- I think the answer lies in evidence we haven't seen. I also think that the Boulder DA would not still be chasing leads on this if that evidence pointed to the Ramseys in a convincing way. JMO, of course.

[thewhitewitch1]

Just wanted to extend my welcome to you too, Sharon.
It's always nice to hear someone elses views...even if I'm going to argue with them later. :) I'm an RDI.

[Sharon]

Thanks guys for the welcome.

About the Lindsay/ dingo case.....(this is not to take away from JBR, but hopefully to be used as a comparison)....well, like JBR case a precious child was killed. The evidence was overwhelming that the Mum did it. Everything logical pointed to her being the only one with means & motive. She did an awful job at looking upset.....the Australian public basically demanded tears. The Mum Lindsay & her husband were extreemly religious (cant remember the religion) & seemed almost accepting from the beginning. I remember that a big deal was made of her demenour.
Well, the case had all this forensic evidence ie parts of the baby`s outfit etc, and even this pointed at the Mum!!! So she was 100% charged & sent to jail.

All this was pretty straight forward, you would think.....until many years later a dingo did actually snatch another child in a similar area. Despite expert evidence that dingos would never do that. From memory things snowballed from there & her guilty verdict was undone. Then in hindsite, the facts made more sence ie she had always pleaded not guilty, she was a devoted mother to her other kids, her religion was so strong that she accepted things as gods will & didnt show emotions etc. Btw, she & bher husband seperated which is what you would expect for most couples living through such a horror, even devout followers.

So, in this case it was what happened after the case that helped solve it.

In the case we have here, I have uped my reading & feel that (for me personally) it is impossible to work out what happened here. Even with all the information available to the public, you could not work it out. There are so many unanswered questions and so much debate, but are we debating things that potensially take us away from the truth? Who knows....and what of the 90% of info that is locked away, why is it so out of bounds???

Also, for me, I need to know more about the family & how they lived and related to each other......but I know them only from a few words about how they answered questions.

I admit that my heart is drawn to this little girl and I cant believe she was really murdered. Every sinario I read I pray that it didnt happen that way....I say please not that way......So maybe this effects my objectivity???

Can someone please answer this.... Having read many parts of this site about other murders & their styles, it must prove that any thing is possible when it comes to really sick people. And we know that there are countless children & adults being killed all over the world with the crimes going unsolved. There are many cases of extreemly sadistic killers who we know have no remorse & would do this for entertainment. Many (sick, evil) killers have written notes for added entertainment (Fish) even false & real ransom notes despite having a dead body, & taken risks that you would think are too risky. Many killers when caught then admit to many other murders that no one would have solved. Well, for me its not so hard to imagine an intruder or two doing this crime easily. Even putting a blanket over the victim was something I read about another murderer here who was extreemly sadistic & had no remorse till the end. Surprisingly he put a blanket over one victim, probably on a whim...who knows.

I am hoping that this crime can be worked out from how people acted since this crime. For me Patsy dying without a confession shows she is innocent all things being equal. Maybe the son will shed somje light one day.

BTw, I am leaning towards the maid and or a friend or relative of the maids. She would know more than Patsy about how the house ran. Does anyone know if she evfer looked after JBR or just did housework?

Sorry for the rambling!

[zippo]

Dingo eat your baby?I seem to remember that case, some years back. Welcome to the board, Sharon, I say the more, the better, whether RDI, IDI or fencesetter, I think we have a pretty good group here, I mean its balanced with no point of view dominating. If you state something, either way as fact, you likely will be challenged. I hope you enjoy it here as much as I do.Welcome,Sharon:biggrin:

Hi Bullmoose, I have been reading through all the archives of posts and I would like to thank you for always being so welcoming of everyone regardless of their RDI, IDI, or FS persuasion. Many on this board are very hostile and hateful to the opposing side just because their viewpoint conflicts with their theory. You always seem to welcome everyone--you don't seem to turn on them until they say something foolish, lol!! Anyway, after reading some of the unfair mud-slinging that has gone on here, I appreciate that.

I am RDI as you know but am open minded to the IDI perspective and am really irritated at the rudeness of posters on both sides here (IDI and RDI). Frankly some of the RDIs who post here make me ashamed to be RDI (and Snarky I am not saying the IDIs are saints!!). Just my newbie perspective.

Okay this edit feature is starting to really bug me! But Snarky and Whitewhich are very gracious RDI posters. Many others should follow their example. JMHO

Athena as well...God I hate this edit feature! LOL! Anyway this board would be great if everyone could get away from the insults and stick to the topics. (I am a psych major in case you couldnt tell). But this board is very balanced. Most others are heavily slanted one way or the other---you can't learn anything from that imho. Lets stick to the issues. JMHO (Hoping I wont be attacked for posting this!!!)

Z

[bullmoose]

Hi Bullmoose, I have been reading through all the archives of posts and I would like to thank you for always being so welcoming of everyone regardless of their RDI, IDI, or FS persuasion. Many on this board are very hostile and hateful to the opposing side just because their viewpoint conflicts with their theory. You always seem to welcome everyone--you don't seem to turn on them until they say something foolish, lol!! Anyway, after reading some of the unfair mud-slinging that has gone on here, I appreciate that.

I am RDI as you know but am open minded to the IDI perspective and am really irritated at the rudeness of posters on both sides here (IDI and RDI). Frankly some of the RDIs who post here make me ashamed to be RDI (and Snarky I am not saying the IDIs are saints!!). Just my newbie perspective.

Z
The only thing I'm absolutely sure about with regards this case is that SDI[somebody did it]. To me about the only consistant thing about this case is that the lines of evidence are very contradictory. I started out RDI, years ago but came to a different conclusion based on my research; I'm sure others have gone the other way. I enjoy the lively debate on this board; there are smart and articulate people here on both sides of the fence; I try my best not to get emotional and mean-spirited even with those I totally disagree with. I genuinely enjoy the company I find here[oops, I'm getting emotional]. I'm glad you're here. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

Bullmoose: Well we certainly can't argue with "SOMEBODY DID IT"

Don't lose your humor. Love it!

Who said we can't all agree? :biggrin:

[AmyW]

Welcome, Sharon! I've enjoyed reading your posts so far. I, myself, am pretty confused with all the evidence and am slowly but surely going through all of the posts. I'll catch up eventually and state my opinion.

Nice to have you on board. :seeya:

[Sharon]

Welcome, Sharon! I've enjoyed reading your posts so far. I, myself, am pretty confused with all the evidence and am slowly but surely going through all of the posts. I'll catch up eventually and state my opinion.

Nice to have you on board. :seeya:

You too Amy, I have read your posts too on other topics on this site. You are always very level headed & fair. I would be very interested on your take on this crime.

Personally, I believe that some of evidence simply does not make sense because it is not complete or it is incorrect. Apparantly we are only privey to 10% of available info.
jmo

[AmyW]

Thanks Sharon! :)

[Eagle1]

I'm a little late, but better late than never.

I keep wondering what the heck the R's and a few of their friends had been doing together. Don't know if I'm influenced by the fact the Van Dams had been doing some wife-swapping or something like that.

There's doubt about when Fernie actually arrived, why he made a point of saying he walked on the grass and left footprints or a footprint, but BPD said there were none, and like that. Why would the note have been on the floor, and near the door so that he claimed to have read some of it through the glass of the locked door?

It seems clues were not only physcially staged but also staged by statements, like JR saying a window was partly open. Something tells me nobody had to enter by a window, and once in, obviously they wouldn't need to leave by a window.

So, I'm an FS, but I do think the R's may have been regularly playing some kind of game with a few of the friends, which all would have been terribly embarrassed about. When JonBenet was evidently molested on the 23rd, and Janet McReynolds said she was found on the back stairs crying, the parents didn't seem to pay attention, and when JBR attempted the 911 call (imo) but had the phone snatched away, they did nothing. They didn't even answer the door, and S. Stine talked to police w/out letting them in. Why didn't they insist, or get a warrant? Wasn't that awfully, awfully suspicious?

[bullmoose]

I'm a little late, but better late than never.

I keep wondering what the heck the R's and a few of their friends had been doing together. Don't know if I'm influenced by the fact the Van Dams had been doing some wife-swapping or something like that.

There's doubt about when Fernie actually arrived, why he made a point of saying he walked on the grass and left footprints or a footprint, but BPD said there were none, and like that. Why would the note have been on the floor, and near the door so that he claimed to have read some of it through the glass of the locked door?

It seems clues were not only physcially staged but also staged by statements, like JR saying a window was partly open. Something tells me nobody had to enter by a window, and once in, obviously they wouldn't need to leave by a window.

So, I'm an FS, but I do think the R's may have been regularly playing some kind of game with a few of the friends, which all would have been terribly embarrassed about. When JonBenet was evidently molested on the 23rd, and Janet McReynolds said she was found on the back stairs crying, the parents didn't seem to pay attention, and when JBR attempted the 911 call (imo) but had the phone snatched away, they did nothing. They didn't even answer the door, and S. Stine talked to police w/out letting them in. Why didn't they insist, or get a warrant? Wasn't that awfully, awfully suspicious? One possible reason that the BPD said they saw no footprints even though Fernie said he went around the house to the kitchen, where he could see the ransom note on the floor may be that, in actuality, no actual walkaround inspection was done at that time by the BPD. After the sun came up, all and any footprint evidence would degrade quickly; I believe the BPD played CYA from the start. I know that the Van Damn's were swingers or swappers; yet it wasn't from their playmates that the monster that raped and killed their daughter emerged; he was a man from down the street.I have trouble believing that Patsy, fresh off all that Chemo, was letting any perverts play with her daughter; no evidence, in the past ten years has emerged of any twisted behavior, by her parents. And LE has looked hard for it, so my opinion is that it isn't there. JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

One possible reason that the BPD said they saw no footprints even though Fernie said he went around the house to the kitchen, where he could see the ransom note on the floor may be that, in actuality, no actual walkaround inspection was done at that time by the BPD. After the sun came up, all and any footprint evidence would degrade quickly; I believe the BPD played CYA from the start. I know that the Van Damn's were swingers or swappers; yet it wasn't from their playmates that the monster that raped and killed their daughter emerged; he was a man from down the street.I have trouble believing that Patsy, fresh off all that Chemo, was letting any perverts play with her daughter; no evidence, in the past ten years has emerged of any twisted behavior, by her parents. And LE has looked hard for it, so my opinion is that it isn't there. JMHO

Shouldn't we also wonder how John Fernie saw the note laying on the floor when the Ramseys claim that they handed it to LE when they came to the door?
If the LE arrived before Fernie (and I believe they did), isn't that when they checked the yard for footprints? If so, why would they go check again after his arrival?
Patsy had cancer in 1993, I believe and was long done with chemo but I don't think she would let "perverts play with her daughter" under any circumstances. IMO

[Zoey]

Shouldn't we also wonder how John Fernie saw the note laying on the floor when the Ramseys claim that they handed it to LE when they came to the door?
If the LE arrived before Fernie (and I believe they did), isn't that when they checked the yard for footprints? If so, why would they go check again after his arrival?
Patsy had cancer in 1993, I believe and was long done with chemo but I don't think she would let "perverts play with her daughter" under any circumstances. IMO


Yes, we should wonder how Fernie could see something that was not there. I believe he is lying about what he saw. But that is just my opinion.

[bullmoose]

Shouldn't we also wonder how John Fernie saw the note laying on the floor when the Ramseys claim that they handed it to LE when they came to the door?
If the LE arrived before Fernie (and I believe they did), isn't that when they checked the yard for footprints? If so, why would they go check again after his arrival?
Patsy had cancer in 1993, I believe and was long done with chemo but I don't think she would let "perverts play with her daughter" under any circumstances. IMOI am always puzzled when you state that the ransom note was 'handed to LE when they came to the door'; who was that LE person/s you blithely assure me was handed the note physically; also where does it say that , specifically? Even in the Twisterpiece Thomas says that when French arrived the Ramseys showed him the ransom note on the floor. Nowhere have I found that anyone claims to have physically handed to French. Maybe we don't need to wonder how Fernie saw the note where it was actually laying, right? And even the Twisterpiece admits that Reichenbach didn't do any walkaround outside until he did his search of the house, Synthroid Stevie doesnt say how long it took; but if the sun came up at 6:30AM and oh wait; thats right French is the one who got there first6AM, but Reichenbach got there somewhat later, was obviously busy for quite a while; oddly Thomas only gives the time when trying to make a Ramsey look bad, thats the Twister for you, just read page 19 to see all Reichenbach did before searching the house with John Ramsey. The Fernies and Whites had long since arrived before he did his famous walk around the house, and claimed he saw no footprints. If it was after 6:30 AM then maybe he didn't, but Fernie went around the house and saw the undisturbed note well before Reichenbach supposedly walked around and saw no footprints[claimed] If he didn't see the footprints of Fernie,either they were melted or its a case of CYA by the BPD, bacause he didn't do what he claimed. Remember, cops lie all the time, I have personal experience. Check out the timeline even in Synthroid Stevies book, its there. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

Maybe this will help. It is defintely possible that Fernie read the note through the door. I had posted this on the "footprints thread" when this question was raised:

Source: PMPT

p78 Fernie told the police he was the first one to arrive and was followed by Barbara (his wife) in her own car. He parks his car in the alley behind the R's house, and says he read the first few lines of the ransom note through a locked, glass-paneled door (the lights were on) which were on the wooden floor enough to make out that JBR had been kidnapped. He went around the front and once inside read the entire ransom note. Doesn't say if he picked it up or read it while it was still on the floor.
==================================================
5:52 911 Call
5:59 French arrives within 7 minutes of 911 call; he searches house for signs of forced entry

Officer Veitch (2nd officer) arrives at about the same time Ramsey friends arrive (doesn't say in which order or what time)

6:15 FW searches basement

Veitch pages victim advocates

6:45 Three more officers, Weiss, Barcklow and Reichenbach arrive.
Reichenbach searches outside and notes there is light, crusty snow on the lawn areas and no fresh footprints but the walkways are clear. (p 79)

Approximately 7AM Paterson meets Ardnt and Reichenbach comes from the Ramsey house to fill them in.

Veitch leaves with the ransom note and meets Arndt at police station. She makes 3 copies of the note. The original is booked, a copy is given to Paterson, one she leaves on her desk and brings the third with her.

8:10AM Arndt and Paterson arrive at the Ramseys house (victims advocates are there by now as is Rev Hoverstock. The other officers were upstairs and FW and JF had just returned from dropping Burke off at the Fernies'.

[bullmoose]

Maybe this will help. It is defintely possible that Fernie read the note through the door. I had posted this on the "footprints thread" when this question was raised:

Source: PMPT

p78 Fernie told the police he was the first one to arrive and was followed by Barbara (his wife) in her own car. He parks his car in the alley behind the R's house, and says he read the first few lines of the ransom note through a locked, glass-paneled door (the lights were on) which were on the wooden floor enough to make out that JBR had been kidnapped. He went around the front and once inside read the entire ransom note. Doesn't say if he picked it up or read it while it was still on the floor.
==================================================
5:52 911 Call
5:59 French arrives within 7 minutes of 911 call; he searches house for signs of forced entry

Officer Veitch (2nd officer) arrives at about the same time Ramsey friends arrive (doesn't say in which order or what time)

6:15 FW searches basement

Veitch pages victim advocates

6:45 Three more officers, Weiss, Barcklow and Reichenbach arrive.
Reichenbach searches outside and notes there is light, crusty snow on the lawn areas and no fresh footprints but the walkways are clear. (p 79)

Approximately 7AM Paterson meets Ardnt and Reichenbach comes from the Ramsey house to fill them in.

Veitch leaves with the ransom note and meets Arndt at police station. She makes 3 copies of the note. The original is booked, a copy is given to Paterson, one she leaves on her desk and brings the third with her.

8:10AM Arndt and Paterson arrive at the Ramseys house (victims advocates are there by now as is Rev Hoverstock. The other officers were upstairs and FW and JF had just returned from dropping Burke off at the Fernies'.
It is on page 60 of the hardback edition, by the way, Athena; it is hard to fathom how the Twister's version of events fail to line up with Shiller's; get them side to side and you'd think maybe Synthroid Stevie helped write the Bonita Papers, the loving attention to getting basic facts straight seem so similar. Hey, do you suppose that the Bonita Papers are an early draft of the Twisterpiece?JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

I am always puzzled when you state that the ransom note was 'handed to LE when they came to the door'; who was that LE person/s you blithely assure me was handed the note physically; also where does it say that , specifically? Even in the Twisterpiece Thomas says that when French arrived the Ramseys showed him the ransom note on the floor. Nowhere have I found that anyone claims to have physically handed to French. Maybe we don't need to wonder how Fernie saw the note where it was actually laying, right? And even the Twisterpiece admits that Reichenbach didn't do any walkaround outside until he did his search of the house, Synthroid Stevie doesnt say how long it took; but if the sun came up at 6:30AM and oh wait; thats right French is the one who got there first6AM, but Reichenbach got there somewhat later, was obviously busy for quite a while; oddly Thomas only gives the time when trying to make a Ramsey look bad, thats the Twister for you, just read page 19 to see all Reichenbach did before searching the house with John Ramsey. The Fernies and Whites had long since arrived before he did his famous walk around the house, and claimed he saw no footprints. If it was after 6:30 AM then maybe he didn't, but Fernie went around the house and saw the undisturbed note well before Reichenbach supposedly walked around and saw no footprints[claimed] If he didn't see the footprints of Fernie,either they were melted or its a case of CYA by the BPD, bacause he didn't do what he claimed. Remember, cops lie all the time, I have personal experience. Check out the timeline even in Synthroid Stevies book, its there. JMHO:biggrin:

Ya know, you could just go read the interviews yourself instead of making me go searching through them. The Ramseys were the ones who claimed to have handed the RN to French at the door. If I have time I'll go look and post a link but like I said, you could go read them yourself. Have you ever even read the Ramseys interviews??

[thewhitewitch1]

Jonhn Ramsey 1997 interview:

JR: Ah, well, it wasn’t very long before the uniformed officer showed up. And I met him, I remember talking to him in the hallway, the front hallway. And I said our daughter’s missing and I remember him saying did she run away, and I said she was only six years old. And at one point, I don’t remember if I had the note in my hand or Patsy brought it, but I showed him the note. And then some other people started to arrive.

TT: OK. You talking about the front hallway, kind of there right there at the living room entrance?

JR: Uh-huh.

TT: Is that where you showed him the note also?

JR: That’s my recollection, yeah.

[thewhitewitch1]

And if that didn't convince you, there's this -

John Ramsey 1998 interview:

5 LOU SMIT: Just try to take it in slow steps.

6 You know what you did with the officer and how you

7 proceeded then; (INAUDIBLE)?

8 JOHN RAMSEY: We were standing in the hallway.

9 We were handing him the note trying to explain and

10 convince him that we had a problem. And at some

11 point he asked us all to go into this room here

12 and stay there.

13 LOU SMIT: That's the solarium?

14 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. The Fernies and the

15 Whites were arriving at sometime between - I think

16 he got there first. But at some point he kind of

17 shepherded us all in there and asked us all to

18 stay there. (INAUDIBLE)

19 LOU SMIT: What did you do with the not?

20 JOHN RAMSEY: I gave it to him. I think at

21 that point he kept it. I mean I don't remember him

22 giving it back to me. I do remember later we had,

23 I think they made copies but we had it spread out

24 on the table back here just trying to figure out

25 what we could figure out.


So please explain how the Ramseys handed the note to French, yet Fernie read it through the door while it was lying on the floor.
Again, if Fernie was lying about seeing and reading the note on the floor through the door, someone would have caught him in that lie. Why didn't the Ramseys dispute his story?
It would be interesting to hear Frenchs' account of how he was first shown the note. Anyone know the answer to that?

[shill]

So please explain how the Ramseys handed the note to French, yet Fernie read it through the door while it was lying on the floor.
Again, if Fernie was lying about seeing and reading the note on the floor through the door, someone would have caught him in that lie. Why didn't the Ramseys dispute his story?


So why didn't Fernie (or LE) dispute John"s story?

So please explain how the Ramseys handed the note to French, yet Fernie read it through the door while it was lying on the floor.

[thewhitewitch1]

So why didn't Fernie (or LE) dispute John"s story?

So please explain how the Ramseys handed the note to French, yet Fernie read it through the door while it was lying on the floor.


For all we know, maybe Fernie did dispute JRs story. They, like the Whites, are no longer friends of the Ramseys.
That's why I asked if anyone knew what the police had to say about where the RN was when they arrived.
What do you think Fernies reason would be for lying about reading the note on the floor through the door? What would he possibly have to gain from making that up?

[Zoey]

For all we know, maybe Fernie did dispute JRs story. They, like the Whites, are no longer friends of the Ramseys.
That's why I asked if anyone knew what the police had to say about where the RN was when they arrived.
What do you think Fernies reason would be for lying about reading the note on the floor through the door? What would he possibly have to gain from making that up?


IIRC, John Fernie claims to still be on very friendly terms with John Ramsey. It was Barbara Fernie that drew away from the Ramseys. IMO.

[Athena]

In a traumatic situation, I doubt Patsy or JR recalled the sequence of events accurately. It was probably all one big blur to them at the time and their attempt at sorting it all out and recollection after the fact. I really am at a loss to understand why this is not understood. :shrug:

[shill]

In a traumatic situation, I doubt Patsy or JR recalled the sequence of events accurately. It was probably all one big blur to them at the time and their attempt at sorting it all out and recollection after the fact. I really am at a loss to understand why this is not understood. :shrug:

I've done close to a thousand weddings and one picture I would do all the time is of the recessional of the bride and groom coming down the isle at the back of the church and I would have them kiss. 90% of the time when they got their photos they would say they don't remember doing that kiss for the photo.
There are a lot of things they don't remember on their wedding day.

[rashomon]

In a traumatic situation, I doubt Patsy or JR recalled the sequence of events accurately. It was probably all one big blur to them at the time and their attempt at sorting it all out and recollection after the fact. I really am at a loss to understand why this is not understood. :shrug:
This is exactly why I (RDI) think the Ramseys did such a lousy staging job: because the traumatic situation resulting from the rage attack on JB by one of them prevented them from thinking clearly - it was all one big blur to them as they fumbled along ...

[shill]

This is exactly why I (RDI) think the Ramseys did such a lousy staging job: because the traumatic situation resulting from the rage attack on JB by one of them prevented them from thinking clearly - it was all one big blur to them as they fumbled along ...

You're so funny:lol: