Once Again

[Barbara]

I don't want to copy this directly from any forum so I will sum it up for discussion.

In the transcripts, John is being questioned about his relationship with Fleet and Priscilla since the murder. When asked if there has been any contact from the Whites to reconcile, talk, make-up, rekindle the friendship, John replies that Fleet tried to set up a meeting with John and Patsy, but at the time, "SUSAN SAID NO".

That was when they were living with the Stines. John goes on to say he only found out about that much later on.

HUH?

Somebody? Anybody? Am I missing something?

One of the explanations given that I read was to the effect that the Ramseys were trusting people and once again, "other" people made poor choices for them.

HUH? :confused:

:dontknow:

[SisterSocks]

I agree the Stines was a big part of Fleet and Johns NON friendship.

I think Jealousy was a big thing .

Cultural Ventilation was the stress that ensued after the funeral in Georiga. Patsy even spoke of this in DOI. The Whites were so shocked at the wealth that jealousy completely took over ....

There was a problem with Fleet getting on the friends plane to atlanta.... Fernie was the one to back Fleet off that flight.


Just my thoughts.
Socks

[Ivy]

If John was being truthful when he claimed he didn't know till later (how much later, I wonder) that Susan Stine had told Fleet NO when Fleet tried to set up a meeting with John and Patsy, I don't see that as evidence the Ramseys trusted Stine to make decisions for them.

Did The Ramseys chew out Stine when they found out she'd had the audacity to turn down Fleet's request on their behalf without consulting them? Did they then try to arrange a meeting with Fleet themselves?

Neither John nor Patsy is always truthful, so maybe they told Susan Stine to tell Fleet NO if he called to arrange a meeting...and when he did, Stine didn't mention it to the Ramseys right away.

[SisterSocks]

It was very hard for Patsy and John to see the Whites,because they were so close to them that Christmas ,there having children the same age and best friends all the way around ...

I can understand the Ramseys having a hard time dealing with the memories with the Whites.

I remember Patsy saying in DOI it was just so hard those memories of the children.

[Barbara]

Ivy,

I can't answer all your questions, but he did not try to arrange a meeting himself with Fleet. His next input regarding Fleet was that Fleet "barged in" on him while he was meeting with Rev. Hoverstock I believe.

It doesn't sound as if there was any "chewing out" of the Stines. It appears that while they were living there, and then possibly longer, the Stines, or Susan Stine in particular, had carte blanche to do whatever she felt was right on their behalf.

The Ramseys certainly didn't seem to mind. John's telling of that story is quite similar to the story he tells about Patsy getting rid of his stalking girlfriend while he stayed out of sight.

What a wuss

[Spade]

"The White's were so shocked at the wealth that jealosy completely took over."

The White family can buy and sell both the Ramseys and Westmorelands with pocket change. Do the names J. Paul Getty and Santa Barbara channel oil rights mean anything to you?

[Maxi]

I'd consider it more cultural collision than cultural ventilation. Pseudo old South meets left coast.

[Spade]

Excellent post!! The White family is well established socially in Newport Beach where $5,000,000 gets you a starter house. Whereas the Ramsey friends in Atlanta were obviously neuvo riche.

[Toth]

I think it more a situation similar to a secretary who responds to a letter without having first shown it to the boss because he is too busy or distracted by other matters.
John Ramsey probably was probably not the one who took the phone message and never knew about it until afterwards.

[Show Me]

Odd John (the CEO) couldn't face his old friend....John had no problem facing national cameras on CNN.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by Toth
I think it more a situation similar to a secretary who responds to a letter without having first shown it to the boss because he is too busy or distracted by other matters.
John Ramsey probably was probably not the one who took the phone message and never knew about it until afterwards.

This was not a phone message Toth. This was a request to see John and John clearly states that "Susan said no". So it was not a secretarial type situation. One has to realize that Fleet was mandated to relay to "Susan" what he wanted to talk to John about. It doesn't sound very Fleet White-ish to me to voluntarily discuss what he wanted from John with "Susan".

Read the transcripts and see for yourself.

[Jayelles]

Barbara - this is John Ramsey talking. Mr Blameless himself. When has he ever taken responsibility for any of his actions - except those that make him look good?

[candy]

That's well known. Susan Stine made people take sides; either you are on her side and Pinky Barber, et. al. or the Whites.

Lin Wood said that Fleet White didn't say anything bad about the Ramseys in his deposition in the Enquirer article, and I believe him. I hope to God that depo is released so we can see exactly what he did say and didn't.

[TLynn]

Hard for the Ramseys to see the Whites because of the closeness and children?

Nah - You'd think they'd want Burke to continue the friendship with Fleet's son.

FW just wasn't taking any of the Ramsey BS. He couldn't be easily manipulated.

Ramseys used Susan - they knew she said "no."

Just like the "secretary" who says the boss is on another phone call or not in the office - when, in fact, it's an avoidance.

[candy]

Susan Stine did the same thing about Judith Phillips. It's how they divided up sides, and I don't believe it was just her wishes or the Ramseys wouldn't have gone along with it.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by candy
Susan Stine did the same thing about Judith Phillips. It's how they divided up sides, and I don't believe it was just her wishes or the Ramseys wouldn't have gone along with it.

The Ramseys didn't have to go along with anything. It's been said over and over and made crystal clear from both John and Patsy's mouth that they let others handle everything.

They are not responsible for the lawyers
They are not responsible for the website
They are not responsible for the broken friendship with the Whites
They are not responsible for the broken friendships with Judith Phillips
They are not responsible for waiting 4 months for interviews
They are not responsible....................................... ...........

They never own up to anything

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Barbara
The Ramseys didn't have to go along with anything. It's been said over and over and made crystal clear from both John and Patsy's mouth that they let others handle everything.

They are not responsible for the lawyers
They are not responsible for the website
They are not responsible for the broken friendship with the Whites
They are not responsible for the broken friendships with Judith Phillips
They are not responsible for waiting 4 months for interviews
They are not responsible....................................... ...........

They never own up to anything

I think the height of that particular absurd behavior came when Patsy claimed in DOI that she put JonBenet into a pageant, and when it came time for the talent portion, she had no idea what JonBenet would do on stage, because Patsy took no responsibility for having taught JonBenet what to do. Apparently, she dressed JonBenet up in a red, white and blue outfit, gave her some prop American flags, then told her "You're on your own, honey."

And let us not forget that Patsy takes no responsibility for celebrating Christmas because she wants to; she does it because God told her to.

[Toth]

You see this as evidence of something, do you?

[Jayelles]

You see this as evidence of something, do you?


Yes - evidence of an inability to take responsibility for their own actions. Tendency to pass the buck. EXCEPTIONAL arrogance.

I cannot get past this. I have a femal relative who is like this and I see it as a very ugly character trait. Nothing is ever her fault - always someone else's. She is referred to by other family members as "She who shall remain blameless".

Honest people acknowledge their mistakes and when they say they didn't do something, people tend to believe them. People who deny, deny, deny ALL the time eventually find their denials taken with a pinch of salt.

People who like to blame others for their own errors are weak, despicable characters.

[Spade]

The inablility to take responsibility for your own actions is also a sure sign of immaturity. The Ramsey's have blamed the police, Mike Kane, the media, their friends, and Santa for the difficult situation they created for themselves. IMO they have the maturity of a 9 year old. Maybe that is why they haven't been charged.

[Toth]

The Ramseys take responsibility for going to sleep as a happy family at holiday time and waking up to a nightmare of reading the first few lines of a ransom note, running to check on their daughter and then immediately calling the police. Seems very mature and responsible behavior to me.
Shall we talk about Officer Donut or Linda Aarndt's behavior?
Shall we talk about the BPD's ranking officers who refuse to admit their incompetence?

[Ivy]

The Ramseys also take responsibility for calling friends over, despite the ransom note writer warning them that if they talked to anyone, even a stray dog, JonBenet would be killed. Why were they willing to risk their daughter's life just to be in the company of friends, Toth? MAKES NO SENSE.

[Spade]

The Ramsey's lied to the police starting with the 911 call. The Ramsey's tried to foul the crime scene by hosting the kidnapping brunch. The Ramsey's accused others of murdering JonBenet with no evidence to support their allegations. The Ramsey's capitalized on the tragedy of their daughter's death by writing DOI and allowing Lin Wood to shakedown the media.

Fibers from Patsy's jacket were wound into the garotte and fibers from John's shirt were in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. The Ramsey's are unworthy of your or anyone's support.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Witness2
The Ramsey's lied to the police starting with the 911 call. The Ramsey's tried to foul the crime scene by hosting the kidnapping brunch. The Ramsey's accused others of murdering JonBenet with no evidence to support their allegations. The Ramsey's capitalized on the tragedy of their daughter's death by writing DOI and allowing Lin Wood to shakedown the media.

Fibers from Patsy's jacket were wound into the garotte and fibers from John's shirt were in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. The Ramsey's are unworthy of your or anyone's support.
Kidnapping brunch... lol!

Excellent summary, Witness. :bigthumb:

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Witness2
The Ramsey's lied to the police starting with the 911 call. The Ramsey's tried to foul the crime scene by hosting the kidnapping brunch. The Ramsey's accused others of murdering JonBenet with no evidence to support their allegations. The Ramsey's capitalized on the tragedy of their daughter's death by writing DOI and allowing Lin Wood to shakedown the media.

Fibers from Patsy's jacket were wound into the garotte and fibers from John's shirt were in the crotch of JonBenet's panties. The Ramsey's are unworthy of your or anyone's support.


Excellent post, Witness. And I agree with Britt ... "kidnapping brunch" ... that's the most accurate description of what happened I've heard yet.


"More tea, dahlin'?"

"Oh yes, thank you. Is that the same red and black outfit you wore yesterday, Patsy?"

"Why yes, however did you notice?"

"Well hon, I KNOW how you like to wear the same outfit day after day, and I thought I saw you in it last night."

"Oh, well I DID want to make a good impression on Melinda's new beau, so I didn't want to wear anything clean or pressed. You know how it is."

"Yes, I do. And I hope you don't mind me saying this, Patsy dear, but you look like you've been up ALL NIGHT."




My opinion.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Ivy
The Ramseys also take responsibility for calling friends over, despite the ransom note writer warning them that if they talked to anyone, even a stray dog, JonBenet would be killed. Why were they willing to risk their daughter's life just to be in the company of friends, Toth? MAKES NO SENSE.

That makes sense except for the fact that the note also said not to call the police...was that a mistake as well? Every ransom note says not to call someone, but you most certainly will.
If that happned to my daughter, I would certainly call a friend, they wouldn't come inside, but I would need to talk to someone.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by Toth
Shall we talk about Officer Donut or Linda Aarndt's behavior?
Shall we talk about the BPD's ranking officers who refuse to admit their incompetence?

No. We're talking about John and Patsy.

"....If that happned to my daughter, I would certainly call a friend, they wouldn't come inside, but I would need to talk to someone."


Nobody took issue with calling the police. I don't think anyone would take too much issue with calling A friend to talk to IF you have a cell phone.

Let me ask you AJT:

Would you call ALL your friends and have them ALL come over?

[Britt]

Originally posted by Cherokee
... "kidnapping brunch" ... that's the most accurate description of what happened I've heard yet.

"More tea, dahlin'?"

"Oh yes, thank you. Is that the same red outfit you wore yesterday, Patsy?"

"Why yes, however did you notice?"

"Well hon, I KNOW how you like to wear the same outfit day after day, and I thought I saw you in it last night."

"Oh, well I DID want to make a good impression on Melinda's new beau, so I didn't want to wear anything clean or pressed. You know how it is."

"Yes, I do. And I hope you don't mind me saying this, Patsy dear, but you look like you've been up ALL NIGHT."
LOL Cherokee :D

Which reminds me... have you read Spade's post of the notes on the events of that morning?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3781

Question: WHY did John later change his initial story about putting JB to bed? (Was it because when the medical evidence of the prior abuse came out, it shone a big old ugly spotlight on daddy?)

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Britt
LOL Cherokee :D

Which reminds me... have you read Spade's post of the notes on the events of that morning?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3781

Question: WHY did John later change his initial story about putting JB to bed? (Was it because when the medical evidence of the prior abuse came out, it shone a big old ugly spotlight on daddy?)


No, Britt, I hadn't seen it ... thanks so much for posting the link.

Someone who posts at FFJ needs to ask Spade if he will make that same post over here at WS, or let someone copy it in total. People need to see it for themselves.

There are a few new items of note, and of course, John and Patsy changing their stories faster than they can tell them.



John says he put JBR to bed.

Patsy says SHE put JBR to bed.

Patsy says she put JBR to bed in the red top. But the red top is found by the police in a sink. So later, Patsy says she put JBR to bed in the white top JBR was wearing when found.

John says Burke and Patsy went straight to bed after arriving home at 9:00 p.m. He read to JBR, and then put her to bed.

Later, John says he helped Burke play with a Christmas toy after the arrived home and BEFORE Burke went to bed.



My, my, my ... which lie to believe first?




My opinion.

[Ivy]

Clever Patsy skit, Cherokee. :p

The Ramseys' lies are as tangled as the intact spider web found outside their basement window.

[Eagle1]

Regarding Susan Stine's take-charge bossiness, at the party on the 23rd, when police knocked because of an interrupted 911 call, probably from JonBenet although White lied that his mother was in a hospital and that he dialed them by mistake, do we remember that Susan Stine got rid of them w/out even opening the door?

I don't remember what part she played about Judith Philips. That might be another interesting story. Anyone?

So Fleet was jealous of the Stines taking over the R's?

[Toth]

The call was from FW.
The police initially misunderstood JR's comment about reading for about an hour and assumed he meant to JBR, when in fact he meant to himself in his own bedroom.
Nothing was suspicious about the events in the house the 25th except the approach of an unidentified individual describes as JAR-like but who could not in fact have been JAR.

[ajt400]

No, I definetely wouldn't call all of my friends. And to be honest, I would not have searched the house even if the detective asked me to to get my mind off things.

[FULTON]

The "kidnapping brunch" had to be held. The RN said if anyone was told, JB would be killed, and of course some people knew she already was.

[ajt400]

What are you talking about?

[Ivy]

ajt, I can't speak for Fulton, but here's my take on it: The Rs knew JonBenet was already dead and that one of them had killed her. Summoning their friends not only provided a way for the crime scene to be messed up with a lot of people's fibers, hairs and prints, but because the ransom note warned the Ramseys not to talk to anyone, summoning their friends also provided a reason for the nonexistent kidnapper/s, hiding in the basement and monitoring them, to kill JonBenet and then escape through the basement window. I think John later realized no one would buy that scenario, and so he lied and claimed that he himself had broken the window months before, instead of that morning while staging the crime scene.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
The Rs knew JonBenet was already dead and that one of them had killed her. Summoning their friends not only provided a way for the crime scene to be messed up with a lot of people's fibers, hairs and prints, but because the ransom note warned the Ramseys not to talk to anyone, summoning their friends also provided a reason for the nonexistent kidnapper/s, hiding in the basement and monitoring them, to kill JonBenet and then escape through the basement window. I think John later realized no one would buy that scenario, and so he lied and claimed that he himself had broken the window months before, instead of that morning while staging the crime scene.
Good post, Ivy.

The entourage also provided an available buffer/filter between the Ramseys and the cops.

IMO the purpose of John's claim about the window was to explain any physical evidence that might be found pointing to himself... simultaneously providing access for the 'intruder' and an explanation for why the only potential evidence found belonged to John Ramsey.

[Ivy]

Good point about the friends providing a buffer zone and about John's motive, Britt. Along the same lines as John's motive, I think that when Patsy did her Lazurus performance and threw herself on JonBenet's body, she was trying to deposit fibers and hairs on the body in case any were found there during the forensic examination. I guess she didn't realize fibers consistent with her jacket fibers would be found tangled in the neck cord knot and on the strip of mouth tape, which was in the basement at the time of her performance.

[ajt400]

Which parent do you guys think did this?

I know you think both of them staged the crime scene, I am just curious as to your idea of who actually committed the crime and what you think the motive was......just wondering...

[Ivy]

I think that Burke, without intending to, killed JonBenet, and that John and Patsy covered it up.

[ajt400]

Okay, so was Burke the molester? I find it hard to see that ngle, maybe the older brother. Does anyone know of any behavior problems with Burke @ school, church, etc? Any sort of proof that he would act out that way. (BTW, I do believe this was a sexual crime, so an accident is ruled out by me)

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Ivy
Good point about the friends providing a buffer zone and about John's motive, Britt. Along the same lines as John's motive, I think that when Patsy did her Lazurus performance and threw herself on JonBenet's body, she was trying to deposit fibers and hairs on the body in case any were found there during the forensic examination. I guess she didn't realize fibers consistent with her jacket fibers would be found tangled in the neck cord knot and on the strip of mouth tape, which was in the basement at the time of her performance.

A way of testing for this theory would be to find out whether Patsy did the same whenever she was confronted with the dead body of someone she loved. Time having passed since death should not be an issue; Lazarus had been dead for four days before he was raised up. So, when Beth died and her body was brought to Atlanta, was Patsy's first reaction to throw herself on Beth and ask God to raise her as he raised Lazarus? If not, why not? Was Patsy okay with Beth being dead? When Nedra died, did Patsy throw herself on her body and ask God to raise her as he raised Lazarus? If not, why not? Was Patsy okay with Nedra being dead?

I take as a working hypothesis that Patsy never threw herself on the bodies of other people she loved who met with death. I also believe, in a Patsy-did-it scenario, the purpose of throwing her body over JonBenet's would be to contaminate the body with forensic evidence in a witnessed context.

Coincidence or not? Lazarus came from the town of Bethany. Patsy has said her first thought when she saw the ransom note was that it was something to do with Beth. Also, Patsy told Woman's Magazine in 1996 of how she was first told she was cured of cancer (and thereby saved from death as was Lazarus?) by a nurse named Bethany, whom she took to be a manifestation of Beth watching over her. In my own constitutionally-protected opinion on the theory of the crime's motive, Patsy wanted to sacrifice JonBenet on Christmas as a way of drawing John to her side after he had begun to drift away physically and emotionally, and in this theory she would know that the most powerful button of John's she could push would be to make JonBenet's death more memorable and dramatic than Beth's on the undistinguished date of January 8th (note, that would be 1/8 when abbreviating with numbers in the US).

[Ivy]

I believe Burke was the "molester," if it could be called that. I have no proof he would "act out" in this way, but apparently visitors to the Ramsey home reported catching Burke and JonBenet playing "doctor." The Globe, which I realize is a tabloid, reported this, but so did Ryan Ross, who is a Denver-based legal affairs expert and author of crime-related articles who's even appeared on Nightline as an authority on legal matters.

Linda Hoffmann-Pugh said she sometimes found JonBenet and Burke in Burke's bed together and that she thought from the way they reacted when she walked in, that they were engaged in sexual play. She also said that once, when she walked into one of their bedrooms to put clean clothes into a drawer, Burke and JonBenet were in a blanket tent on the floor, and Burke yelled for LHP to GET OUT! She said she suspected something naughty was going on in that tent. None of this is proof of anything, especially that Burke killed JonBenet, but I don't find it hard to believe that 6- and 9-year-old siblings would play doctor.

Years ago, some posters at Justice Watch whose kids attended Burke's school said that around the time JonBenet died--before, I think--kids at the school were playing choking games. I don't know if the games were erotic asphixiation games or whether cords--or hands--were used. As far as I know, BPD didn't investigate the matter. Maybe no one told them, or, if someone did, maybe the BPD didn't bother to investigate. Why would they? The police never considered Burke a suspect in JonBenet's death.

[ajt400]

That is a good point...I have never thought of it that way. Yes, most kids do play 'doctor' or 'mommy and daddy' and such..

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
That is a good point...I have never thought of it that way. Yes, most kids do play 'doctor' or 'mommy and daddy' and such.. Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

[Ivy]

Exactly, Shylock. An adult pedophile, especially one with murder on his mind, wouldn't have "gently" molested her with the handle of a paintbrush, or any other object. (I don't recall which of the people involved in the case called the molestation "gentle," but at least one of them did when comparing JonBenet's vaginal trauma to the injuries of other victims of sex crimes.)

I think the insertion of the paintbrush handle is what made JonBenet's acute vaginal injury, which caused JonBenet to scream--or at least react by trying to flee--and that is when Burke panicked, and in a knee-jerk reaction, yanked the neck cord and pulled, and with his free hand cracked her skull with the Maglite.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

An adult could do that, but most likely an adult who had not ever had sex before, was intimidated by the act of sex, or had very little limited sexual contact.(The insertion of the paintbrush points to the need to have penetration, but by someone who was too mentally immature to use their penis...)

By the way, were cells from JonBenet's vagina found on the paintbrush? The paintbrush wasn't found inserted in the vagina was it?

Also, I think it would be necessary to find out if Burke and his classmates were playing with garrotes and exactly what kind of asphyixiation games they were playing, if any. Maybe if he had seen any movies taht involved such things.....the molestation is child like, but the garrot suggests some sort of sexual maturity.

[Britt]

Shylock and Ivy - good points and of course you could be right that it was Burke. But the described molestation could also be explained by staging to cover up previous molestation by adult digital penetration.

[Ivy]

You could certainly be right, Britt, but I would think that if the acute injury was inflicted to cover up prior digital abuse, the acute injury would have been more pronounced and caused more damage. As it was, the acute injury was relatively minor and didn't at all mask the chronic inflammation.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Shylock
Consider that the molestation of JonBenet is best described as "child-like" and not at all what you expect from an adult pedophile. While Burke might have been using the paintbrush handle to "play doctor", it's hard to believe an adult would get off by inserting it into a young girl.

This is the one aspect of the case which lends a whiff of credibility to the Burke-did-it theory. A child, whether boy or girl, has no idea that a vagina has depth and extends into the body for a distance of inches. An adult does. The abrasion which is considered evidence of sexual assault is found right at the entrance to the vagina and does not extend inwards to any appreciable measure. It is as if the abrasion was made by someone who thought just poking at the entrance to JonBenet's genitalia was as much as could be done to her. I find this indicative of either a juvenile with no familiarity with penetration, or an adult who was repulsed at the idea of penetrating JonBenet but needed to stage it anyway as part of a larger cover-up.

[Britt]

Originally posted by why_nutt
In my own constitutionally-protected opinion on the theory of the crime's motive, Patsy wanted to sacrifice JonBenet on Christmas as a way of drawing John to her side after he had begun to drift away physically and emotionally, and in this theory she would know that the most powerful button of John's she could push would be to make JonBenet's death more memorable and dramatic than Beth's on the undistinguished date of January 8th (note, that would be 1/8 when abbreviating with numbers in the US).
This theory is fascinating, why_nutt, and believable IMO... but what about John? How do you explain John's willingness to cover for Patsy? And which of them did the vaginal abuse, in your opinion? Did Patsy do it in order to implicate John and force him into the cover-up?

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
...I would think that if the acute injury was inflicted to cover up prior digital abuse, the acute injury would have been more pronounced and caused more damage. As it was, the acute injury was relatively minor and didn't at all mask the chronic inflammation.
This could be explained by the fact that the Ramseys aren't medical experts nor experienced criminals. It could also be explained by the possibility that the molester and the stager were two different people. I wonder if Burke was the molester, but had nothing to do with JB's mortal injuries... and the stager, who was also the killer (or helping the killer with staging) - John or Patsy - tried to hide the molestation done by Burke.

[Ivy]

Britt, even if John and Patsy knew that Burke and JonBenet had played sexual exploration games from time to time, why would they auomatically think that these sexual games had caused chronic inflammation in JonBenet's vagina?

[Toth]

[B]An adult could do that, but most likely an adult who had not ever had sex before, was intimidated by the act of sex, or had very little limited sexual contact.
....... or simply someone who really had no interest in perversion; just wanted to leave the Ramseys with a little thought to creep into their minds at night and to mislead the investigators into thinking this was the work of a pedophile.

>By the way, were cells from JonBenet's vagina found on the paintbrush? The paintbrush wasn't found inserted in the vagina was it?
..........No, except for a missing piece, it was found on the carpet. Birefrigent material is thought to be shellac from the paintbrush.

Also, I think it would be necessary to find out if Burke and his classmates were playing with garrotes and exactly what kind of asphyixiation games they were playing, if any.
.........No playing with garottes, no asphyxiation games.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by why_nutt
This is the one aspect of the case which lends a whiff of credibility to the Burke-did-it theory. Now add in the scenario that when the parents discover the sexual contact between the two children they are not sure if Burke can be charged with "incest"--so they look the word up in the dictionary...

[Toth]

Originally posted by Shylock
Now add in the scenario that when the parents discover the sexual contact between the two children they are not sure if Burke can be charged with "incest"--so they look the word up in the dictionary... Aside from the fact that this "dictionary open to the word incest" is pure internet myth, do you really think that ANY adult in the entire city of Boulder needs to resort to a dictionary for that word?

[Nehemiah]

Toth, how do you know there were no garrotting/asphyxiation games? I think you would have to know the family intimately to really know this for a fact. Or, are you guessing?

[ajt400]

I thought they might be smart enough to know what incest means. They were alledgedly smart enough to know what a garrote was and auto-erotic ashpysixiation as well.

Thats the thing that bothers me most about the R's did it theory--how could they be so criminally sophisticated to do certain staging elemaents, but be so stupid to not know what incest means.....

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
Aside from the fact that this "dictionary open to the word incest" is pure internet myth, do you really think that ANY adult in the entire city of Boulder needs to resort to a dictionary for that word? It's NOT an "internet myth" when it's been published in a book written by a detective on the case who had the photographic evidence right in his hand. NOBODY directly involved with the case has contradicted Thomas' story about the dictionary--not even Lou Smit.

And YES, while I think 99% of adults know that "incest" is sex between a parent and their child, I also think a vast majority of them may not be sure if the defination of "incest" includes sex between siblings--therefore they might just have to look it up.

None of the Ramsey friends have ever described John and Patsy as a "sensual" couple, or even commented about their sexual nature. They appear to be a real goody-2-shoe, Baptist holy-roller family. Just the type of people who wouldn't know the complete defination of the word "incest".
It fits perfectly with what we know of their nature--which you are usually so quick to point out, Toth.

[ajt400]

You have photographic evidence of the Ramsey's holding the dictionary open to the page incest is on???

What do you mean by photographic evidence. Just because people attend church doesn't mean that they wouldn't know what incest means....although I agree that they may not have known if it included sex between siblings. Beside, do you relly think it was actual intercourse or just playing touchy-fely?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
It's NOT an "internet myth" when it's been published in a book written by a detective on the case who had the photographic evidence right in his hand. NOBODY directly involved with the case has contradicted Thomas' story about the dictionary--not even Lou Smit.


Naybe because they thought it was pointless and there were more important points of evidence to be hashingover.....

[Ivy]

Even if John and Patsy knew the definition of "incest," Burke might not have--and JonBenet likely didn't. It's possible that at one time or another before JonBenet's death, John or Patsy, having caught Burke and JonBenet playing doctor, looked up the word to show Burke, and maybe JonBenet too, even though she was just six. It could explain why the dictionary page was dog-eared to point to "incest."

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
You have photographic evidence of the Ramsey's holding the dictionary open to the page incest is on???
What do you mean by photographic evidence. The BPD has the photographic evidence. In Thomas' book he details the story of when he and Donald Foster were looking through evidence envelopes and found a crime scene photo the technicians took which included the dictionary. It was open and the page was "dog-eared"--pointing to the word "incest".

Perhaps someone with Thomas' book handy can give you a page number.

[sissi]

There is a local guy here who spent 9 yrs on death row for the murder of a little nine year old girl. Through the innocence program he was not only released but the real perp is finally being brought to justice. I believe it's been nineteen years since the child was found.
Little Dawn was playing hide and seek along with four other little friends when a man approached,he told them to spread out to look for the "it" child. Within minutes they realized something was wrong,and ran just yards away to their backyard yelling for a mom. Later the police found Dawn,bound,strangled with a cord around her neck and molested with a stick.
During the questioning ,by police,the only things the girls could remember was his bushy red hair and freckles. Soon, Bloodsworth was picked up,his hair was consistant with hair found at the crime,fibers from blue jeans were ,as well,and although the man had no prior record ,absolutely no history,he sadly didn't have an alibi for that day. Sad day for a red head in Levis.
Amazingly, samples ,taken at autopsy ,were preserved,not degraded, and were used to match the real perp whose dna was in a dna data bank. Did this guy have a history? Yes,a history of child molestation,the rapes of two adult women,and many rehab trips for alcohol and drug abuse ,spanning two decades.
I believe when the killer of Jonbenet is found he will have this history,as well.
What I do question is this,did he commit this crime on his own,or was he a hire?

IMO JMO

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Bloodsworth_MD.htm

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
What I do question is this,did he commit this crime on his own,or was he a hire?
You should question a LOT more than just that!

How did know the amount of John's bonus?

How did he know the alarm wasn't on , or wouldn't be set when they arrived home?

How did he know the dog was no longer around?

How did he know the Ramseys wouldn't stop at the airport and return home with JAR, Melinda, and a host of other family members to spend the holidays?

How did he know how to immitate Patsy handwriting?

How did he know JonBenet liked, and would eat, Pineapple?

How did he know one of the parents wouldn't stay up until the wee hours of the night packing for their trip?

How did he know he could walk up to, and away from, the Ramsey house, without a single person in the neighborhood seeing him--on a night when virtually everyone stays up late and nobody has to get up for work in the morning?

And that's just a start. Yep, this intruder certainly new more than any other intruder in the history of modern crime.

[Ivy]

Exactly, Shylock.

And, sissi, how did the killer know that even though John wasn't a southerner, the family liked to tease him by telling him to use his "good southern common sense"?

[sissi]

A few days ago I considered the possibility,Shylock,that Wecht was right about a molestation occuring a few days before the murder. I'm not saying I believe it,however, I am considering scenarios that would include this and make sense.
If one molested her on Monday,needed her dead before Charlevoix,what steps would he take to protect himself . Would he spend his money on a hit,do the job himself, prepare the ransom note,check the 911 response and lend a key? I don't know,but I see nothing wrong with considering every possibility ,since IMO the current thinking is not solving anything.
IMO JMO

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
You should question a LOT more than just that!

How did know the amount of John's bonus?

How did he know the alarm wasn't on , or wouldn't be set when they arrived home?

How did he know the dog was no longer around?

How did he know the Ramseys wouldn't stop at the airport and return home with JAR, Melinda, and a host of other family members to spend the holidays?

How did he know how to immitate Patsy handwriting?

How did he know JonBenet liked, and would eat, Pineapple?

How did he know one of the parents wouldn't stay up until the wee hours of the night packing for their trip?

How did he know he could walk up to, and away from, the Ramsey house, without a single person in the neighborhood seeing him--on a night when virtually everyone stays up late and nobody has to get up for work in the morning?

And that's just a start. Yep, this intruder certainly new more than any other intruder in the history of modern crime.

I thought the amount of the ransom demand was resolved long ago--that number was everywhere, it was not just knowledge of the immediate family. I think alot of these things could be known by someone who had been watching the family for a few (days. months), maybe was close to the family. Stalkers have intimate knowledge of the people they stalk, why wouldn't this guy? Even someone who had molested her and planned for her to be killed would have cased the house so he would be sure not to be caught.

Secondly, about the bonus, if the Ramseys were writing a fake ransom note, why not make the amount 1 million or more? They would have known that they would never have to collect it. Also, why would the R's put a number that would be traced back to them so quickly?:dontknow:

[Ivy]

ajt, almost right away, John told LE he thought the kidnapping (JonBenet's body hadn't been found yet) was an "inside job." I think the Ramseys deliberately chose $118,000 as the ransom amount to point the finger at various people within their circle of friends and business associates (for instance, Greg Merriman) who would know, or who could find out, the amount of John's bonus.

On December 26, John gave Jeff Merrick's name to the police. Merrick was a former employee of AG and had been angry at John for having been let go at AG. Merrick had claimed AG owed him close to $118,000. He settled for around half that amount, but he was overheard by an AG employee to say he was going to get John. How Merrick "got" him was by sending a fax to Lockheed Martin critcizing the way he thought John treated employees.

It's also been speculated that the ransom note amount had something to do with Psalm 118. I remember reading in PMPT that a Bible found on John's desk was open to Psalm 118, and also that a particular verse in Psalm 118 was known to be one of Patsy's favorites.

[ajt400]

So why not $118 or $118 million for that matter? Also, if your shild were kidnapped (or so you thought) and the police asked you if anyone would have hated you enought to do something like this, would you not have told them of a disgruntled employee?

I think everyone agrees whether or not they believe the R's committed the murder or at that this was an inside job.

[twilight]

I can't resist saying just a word (make that 31 words) about that dictionary and 'incest.'

I opened my OED to see what else was on the ‘incest’ page in my dictionary. I took 15 words that proceeded ‘incest’ and 15 words that followed ‘incest’ and I would like someone to explain to me why that word…easily spelled and commonly understood, would be the more likely subject of a dictionary exploration???

I have italicized all the words with religious connotations - it being Xmas and all, and the Rams being devout whatevers...
I have underlined all the words with legal associations - oh-oh, you're sitting on a stiff and the jig will soon be up...

Then there's the Patsy - cancer survivor (medical) blah, blah, blah, and the innocuous 'incisor' which could have something to do with Burke's teething...

incantation
incapable
incapacitate
incapacity
incarcerate
incarnate
incarnation
incautious
incendiary a bit of a stretch, but if you believe in ‘hell’…
incense
incense
incentive
inception
inceptive
incessant
incest
incestuous
inch
inchoate
incidence
incident
incidental
incidentally
incidental music – this is background music
_________
incinerate - fire again
incinerator
_________
incipient
_________
incise - medical terms
incision
incisive
incisor – Burke was teething according to the Xmas letter.

My favourite is ‘inchoate’ which is an adj. meaning just begun or undeveloped. It is sometimes mistakenly used to mean ‘chaotic’ or ‘incoherent.’ hmmmm…head injury – incoherent?

I can’t define all of these for you, too time consuming, but invite you to pull out your dictionary and look them up…you’d be surprised.

Had a dictionary been used that fateful night, there would be no bussiness, no posession, and no scutiny.

Incidentally, incest is defined as: n. sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry. [Latin castus
chaste] - So, had someone proposed and been rejected, ya think?

[Toth]

>How did know the amount of John's bonus?
He may not have. Even if the ransom amount IS related to the bonus, he could have found that information inside the home.

>How did he know the alarm wasn't on , or wouldn't be set when they arrived home?
Basement windows in older homes in the area are rarely alarmed. Certainly if no cops showed up within a half hour, he was safe.

>How did he know the dog was no longer around?
He may not have known there was ever a dog. He sure didn't see or hear one.

>How did he know the Ramseys wouldn't stop at the airport and return home with JAR, Melinda, and a host of other family members to spend the holidays?
..He may not have known this.

>How did he know how to immitate Patsy handwriting?
I don't think he did imitate Patsy's handwriting.

>How did he know JonBenet liked, and would eat, Pineapple?
I doubt he knew or cared what she liked and I sure don't think he fed her any pineapple.

>How did he know one of the parents wouldn't stay up until the wee hours of the night packing for their trip?
He didn't.

>How did he know he could walk up to, and away from, the Ramsey house, without a single person in the neighborhood seeing him--on a night when virtually everyone stays up late and nobody has to get up for work in the morning?
Somebody may indeed have seen him as he approached the house; someone may have seen him leave too... BPD should have canvassed the neighborhood. Didn't.

[ajt400]

Good poins, Toth. But I stick to my post that if someone was watching the family, they would have known these things. If the person was a friend of the family, they would have known that they didn't use the alarm.

[Toth]

Yes, its true that an intruder would have had more confidence if he had prior access to the home and prior knowledge that the alarm was never used, prior knowledge that there was no dog around, etc.... but that would just make the job easier by a very little bit. It was easy to get into that home. Look at the burglary rate for the neighborhood: very high. Lots of entries into homes in daylight and at night.
But it is true: the more you know the easier it is to enter the home with confidence.

[Ivy]

LOL, Toth. Even houseguests of the Ramseys had trouble finding their way around the Ramseys' Boulder house. Patsy said on TV during an Atlanta interview (the one in which John and Patsy were outside, standing by a birdhouse) that their guests joked that they had to scatter breadcrumbs to find their way around. John gave Patsy a look that said SHUT UP, YOU STUPID WOMAN, and she did...but the damage was done.

So you think that even though houseguests had trouble navigating the house that Spazzy, or whatever you call the painter guy, could have, even in the dark?

[Toth]

Originally posted by Ivy even in the dark? Maybe he brought a flashlight... and left it on the kitchen counter?

[Britt]

Originally posted by twilight
Had a dictionary been used that fateful night, there would be no bussiness, no posession, and no scutiny.
How true, twilight....lol.

Incidentally, incest is defined as: n. sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry.
I would think that even the perfect sheltered devout whatevers (lol well put, twilight) Patsy and John would know that incest would be defined as sexual contact between parent and child OR between siblings... full siblings, that is.

Maybe the official definition was needed in order to figure out if sexual contact between half siblings counts as incest.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
...almost right away, John told LE he thought the kidnapping (JonBenet's body hadn't been found yet) was an "inside job." I think the Ramseys deliberately chose $118,000 as the ransom amount to point the finger at various people within their circle of friends and business associates (for instance, Greg Merriman) who would know, or who could find out, the amount of John's bonus.
I completely agree, Ivy.

Per the "Bonita Papers" (Spade's posts... see the Spade/FFJ thread), John said: It has to be an inside job. It has to be somebody that knows the family. Nobody knows about the wine cellar in the basement.

Both John and Patsy were helpfully offering up those inside suspects that very first morning.

[Ivy]

Toth, the flashlight (which, interestingly, was devoid of fingerprints, even on the batteries) that was found on the kitchen counter was the Maglite John Andrew once gave John as a gift. Patsy said she had never seen the Maglite in the kitchen before and that it was out of place there. It was always kept in a drawer in the wet bar and was used mainly by John in the garage.

How did the Intruder manage to slip through the basement window and make his way through the darkened, cluttered basement and up the darkened stairs and then, still in the dark, find the very drawer that happened to contain a flashlight?

Did the Intruder exit the house through the kitchen when he finished his dirty deed and wipe his prints off the Maglite and the batteries and thoughtfully leave it on the counter on his way out? If he exited the house via the basement window, why didn't he take the Maglite with him to the basement so he wouldn't trip over something in the cluttered darkness and break his freakin' neck?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Ivy
So you think that even though houseguests had trouble navigating the house that Spazzy, or whatever you call the painter guy, could have, even in the dark?

Yes, if one was trying to familiarize himself with the house as well as the people who live in it---and their schedules.

My boyfriend works as a kitchen manager at a local restaurant and 3 weeks ago he was almost robbed. On Mon. mornings he would go in at 5AM to do a food cast inventory. But when he got to work that day, the place was surrounded with cops, SLED, SWAT....they had received atip from someone that this restaurant was going to be robbed. They had just pulled 5 guys with 2 shotguns and 3 pistols out of the bushes---they were waiting for him.
He found out later that day they had been watching him for 3 weeks. They knew exactly when he would get to work, how long he would take to walk to the door, his normal procedures in the morning, what time the next manager showed up...

Where there is a will there is a way.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
>How did know the amount of John's bonus?
He may not have. Even if the ransom amount IS related to the bonus, he could have found that information inside the home.

>How did he know the alarm wasn't on , or wouldn't be set when they arrived home?
Basement windows in older homes in the area are rarely alarmed. Certainly if no cops showed up within a half hour, he was safe.

>How did he know the dog was no longer around?
He may not have known there was ever a dog. He sure didn't see or hear one.

>How did he know the Ramseys wouldn't stop at the airport and return home with JAR, Melinda, and a host of other family members to spend the holidays?
..He may not have known this.

>How did he know how to immitate Patsy handwriting?
I don't think he did imitate Patsy's handwriting.

>How did he know JonBenet liked, and would eat, Pineapple?
I doubt he knew or cared what she liked and I sure don't think he fed her any pineapple.

>How did he know one of the parents wouldn't stay up until the wee hours of the night packing for their trip?
He didn't.

>How did he know he could walk up to, and away from, the Ramsey house, without a single person in the neighborhood seeing him--on a night when virtually everyone stays up late and nobody has to get up for work in the morning?
Somebody may indeed have seen him as he approached the house; someone may have seen him leave too... BPD should have canvassed the neighborhood. Didn't.



Simple answer:

... because "HE" is a "SHE" ... and "SHE" IS THE "MOM!" IMHO... it's Patsy (plain & simple)!.

[SisterSocks]

Originally posted by Barbara
No. We're talking about John and Patsy.

"....If that happned to my daughter, I would certainly call a friend, they wouldn't come inside, but I would need to talk to someone."


Nobody took issue with calling the police. I don't think anyone would take too much issue with calling A friend to talk to IF you have a cell phone.

Let me ask you AJT:

Would you call ALL your friends and have them ALL come over?


Yes Barb, I agree I would HAVE CALLED MY BEST FRIENDS AND FAMILY

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[shamu]

Really? No matter that there were consequ-- oops! I forgot. They Ramseys didn't read the note. Why read a note when they could be calling their friends. Just because it was the only link to their daughter. Big deal. Why not call friends. Why read a note.

[Toth]

Read the first few lines of the note and madly check her room then call 911 seems reasonable, the rest sure seems in keeping with their character and prior behavior patterns. Might not be what you would do under the circumstances though.

[Show Me]

Originally posted by Toth
Read the first few lines of the note and madly check her room then call 911 seems reasonable, the rest sure seems in keeping with their character and prior behavior patterns. Might not be what you would do under the circumstances though.


Keeping with their character and prior behavior patterns....you may have something there Toth.....after all Patsy's comfort level IS more important to her than JonBenet's life.

And, of course, John agreed 'cause he didn't try to stop Patsy from calling half the town of Boulder over.

SURELY the kidnapper wasn't SERIOUSLY intent on beheading JonBenet if he saw other people showing up at the Ramsey house.....nah...even if he did warn the Ramseys they were being monitored....he wouldn't really kill her.

;) I don't know how anyone can expect Patsy to stay on the line with the 911 operator...when she had friends to call over. Heck Patsy didn't even have time to inform the police to be discrete!

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Toth
Read the first few lines of the note and madly check her room then call 911 seems reasonable, the rest sure seems in keeping with their character and prior behavior patterns. Might not be what you would do under the circumstances though.

No, Patsy's behavior in particular was unlike any behavior she had ever demonstrated prior to that morning, so you cannot say it was in keeping with her character or prior behavior patterns. Not one of her friends has ever said that Patsy's first reaction in prior years to extreme stress (such as Beth's death or her own cancer diagnosis) was to literally collapse and curl into a fetal position, praying and crying so hysterically she needed others to assist her. Let us take her reaction to her cancer. Did she start popping Valium when she glanced at her own medical records? No, she did not. Instead, she began to examine them in detail, so much detail, in fact, that she became privy to a private note within, written from one doctor to another, describing her cancer as having metastasized. Was her reaction to that news to collapse? No, it was to cannily remove the note, towards the strategic goal of forcing the next doctor in the chain to evaluate the X-rays independent of any leading diagnoses written by previous physicians. This is Patsy's character, this is an example of what her behavior should have naturally been on the morning of December 26th. That her behavior was something so unprecedented in her life speaks to me more of a need to literally become an actress in her own life, if she wanted to get away with responsibility for her daughter's murder. If Patsy is innocent, then the burden is on her defenders and herself to explain why she behaved as she had never done before, even though she had been under a far worse stress when her own life was threatened.

(I have collected enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that those who have come forth to say Patsy's behavior was not unlike their own, have also failed to note that they never follow up by saying, "And I never behaved like that before, or have behaved like that since even under similar circumstances.")

[lannie]

Why_nut, what a insightful piece, yes in there own words,they tell us about them selfs, in all the books & interviews, know wonder Fleet white saw through them ,he knew the true people althougt now he is (F. W. is not worth a flip ,unless he is saveing information for the trial ,that will NEVER ,take place,unless the preisident ,steps in ,LOL,
No they did not tackle this as they have other things in there lives, you would think John would be filled with so much anger at what someone had done to his little girl & family he would be beside him self, not wanted to run as soon as he could ,trying to get out of town not careing where his little boy was, drinking untill you could not stand , as I said in there oun words ,they have alreadt told US,so much !!& as you have pointed out WHY_NUT ,this is all so out ot character of them, with the word being ACTOR

[twilight]

The only clues to who did this were in the ransom note. It seems odd to me that the parents would not have intuitively perceived this and poured over the note. Others did, and still do. Many, many, many others. But the parents were not interested in what the note might tell them about the event. That's not reasonable. I suppose if the kidnapper had called, they'd have hung up because they didn't/couldn't stand to hear what this person/s might have to say??? Come on.

What if the note had started out as a ransom demand and then finished by saying whooops...sorry we had to kill her...or whooops, sorry, changed my mind you can pick her up at... or haw, haw, haw, gotcha... But no, they didn't want to know...not likely. Have either of them ever been institutionalized for metal deficiencies?

The only reason not to read the note was to leave it for others to interpret. They had set up a plot that they wanted others to unravel. They didn't want to have to get in there and do it themselves and then have others question their interpretation and ask them to defend it. Better if they could be the questioners asking others to defend their interpretation and defend their interpretation, as the outcome, they knew, would be death...

[lannie]

I don't have to tell you TWI ,you are right , the ranson note tells so much , it people would only tune in & listen to it , I just read that a millionair in TEXES just got off on murder even after he addmitted he had shot a man & cut his body up & dumped it & later went back to get the head, at the time of the murder in TX. he was pretending to be a deaf woman , because he was running from theNEW YORK police because his wife had been murdered & her best friend was murdered before she could testify. all this & they set him FREE,Courts,are disscusting !!

SO what chance do we have with this case??

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Show Me

And, of course, John agreed 'cause he didn't try to stop Patsy from calling half the town of Boulder over.

;) I don't know how anyone can expect Patsy to stay on the line with the 911 operator...when she had friends to call over. Heck Patsy didn't even have time to inform the police to be discrete!


And it was the BPD that actually allowed these people into the house, they even asked members of the group to search for them! That is not only ridiculous, it is ridonkulous! Everyone blames the R's for their actions, weel, what about the POLICE who should know better? Oh, don't make them answer questions and be scrutinized. Did you ever think that if they screwed the investigation up so badly in the first 2 hours, what about the rest of it? How can you trust ANY evidence they have put forth? You can't!! These people get paid to do a job, and they let the taxpayers down! (Not to mention JonBenet) Even if the R's are guilty, you should still blame the BPD for not securing the crime scene and ruining evidence that could have convicted them!

Secondly, why should Patsy have to tell the police to be discreet? That is their job! They should know better! If they cannot handle it, go tho the mall and get a job at GAP. As far as I am concerned alot of fingers have been pointed, but none at the BPD for botching an investigation that probably could have been solved, leaking information that should never have been leaked. :nono:

[ajt400]

Also, if the police had done a proper search of the house to begin with, JBR's body would have been seen. All they had to do was open a door! Maybe the reason the R's didn't pour over the letter because they put it into the polices' hands thinking they would be able to solve it. Maybe they thought the pollice were professionals who knoew how to do their jobs. Maybe they trusted these people who took an oath to find vengeance for their child. Silly them! Why would they ever expect so much from a police department!

[sissi]

Maybe she wasn't there when the police arrived?
Lord,who knows,maybe the killer was in the house when the commotion was going on?
Maybe the killer had her in a suitcase,stopped by,dropped the suitcase through the window,then went down to place her in the back,while Arndt was upstairs trying to "keep it together"?
Maybe the members of the "kidnap watch" should have had their cars checked for fibers?
Maybe anything is possible?
JMO

[ajt400]

Yes, but my point was that if the police had simply opened the door in that basement room, we would have known things like that.....

[sissi]

It is considered to be innocent,however,Fleet was out of control during a period of time following the murder.Was he having a manic episode that Christmas?
Some unfortunate things put him in the suspect pool ,the fact he accidentally found out the response time between a 911 call and police arrival,his touching the suitcase, picking up glass,touching the tape,touching the wine cellar door,was curiously with John when Jonbenet was found,he pretty much covered himself for any contamination. Then we look at his habits,panty changing,bottom wiping,and didn't he go into a room and straighten up a bed (or is this rumor),nope the man is not normal. Any ONE of you tell me a man friend wipes your kids butts,nope ,nope...never!
Why did his child hide under the bed ,pushing the family to call 911? Has anyone ever had a child that wasn't found from giggling minutes after they play hide ? Nope,not normal,I have many children,all different personalities,and never could one contain themselves from a giggle ,it's normal for them to be found by laughter within minutes. Even if this child,Daphne ,was unusual,certainly at 6 she would have heard them say they had to call the cops,that alone would have brought her out,if she hadn't feared something worse. My question, was she afraid of Fleet ,another family member,or a houseguest?


JMO IMO

[twilight]

I agree they certainly expected the police to find the body when they got there. So much simpler than having to do it yourself.

Now, I'd be curious to know what the standard procedure is in a kidnapping case. Do the police go to the scene of the kidnapping and set up headquarters...like they did in the VD case for instance, or do they communicate by what - pigeons? to avoid the kidnappers (people who abduct or steal a child) who will be lurking outside - child over shoulder - watching the comings and goings...huh?

The vast majority of kidnappings in the US are parental. Stranger abductions, although newsworthy - (fear sells) - are not at all common. Therefore, for the police to assume a typical parental kidnapping event, especially given the season, is not really that bizarre. To also assume that the parents have searched likely hiding places, is not unusual I'm sure. And to assume that parents would inform you that you have failed to search a room and to insist on looking in there anyway, is also not too unusual I'm sure. As parents, surely they went through the house with the police officer? Or were they told to stay here, I'll flush him out and you catch him if he tries to leave? Not likely. So, when the officer made the decision not to look in the wine cellar, thinking it was a closet and locked from the outside anyway, why did the Rams agree? They knew it was a room where their daughter could be tied up, possibly unconscious and cold. Why? Because they were afraid not to agree...to seem too set on looking there? They wanted the police to find the body entirely on their own. But ~alas~ they didn't. That was the biggest mistake the BPD made. And what a quandry they created for the Rams. The clock is ticking...what to do...what to do...

[TLynn]

FW opened the door to the wine cellar - that didn't result in finding her body (French opening the door may have not resulted in it either).

French didn't even see the broken window.

The crime scene was a cover-up; nobody can definitively deduce the cover-up of what? Sexual in nature, yes...but -

John
JAR
Burke

As most of the above posts point out - there may be bits and pieces of "intruder" evidence - but NOT in totality.

Those bits and pieces are the cover-up.

IT'S THE PINEAPPLE - hard evidence; JonBenet, herself, presenting it.

It's the pineapple - deal with it.

[ajt400]

Agreed, but I figured once the police entered the home they would do a prelimenary search of all rooms. Regardless of what the parents said. If she had not been there, (STS) they still should have done a prelim search to gather all evidence available. Besides, when do police departments allow the parents to classify a crime for them,also to search the crime scene. If she had been kidnapped, the house would still be a crime scene, and should have been secured.

[twilight]

Sissi - FW has never spoken to anyone other than the police. The police have not released a book, other than ST, and ST does not report any of the stuff you have in your above post...so where are you getting all this stuff?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by TLynn
FW opened the door to the wine cellar - that didn't result in finding her body (French opening the door may have not resulted in it either).

French didn't even see the broken window.

The crime scene was a cover-up; nobody can definitively deduce the cover-up of what? Sexual in nature, yes...but -

John
JAR
Burke

As most of the above posts point out - there may be bits and pieces of "intruder" evidence - but NOT in totality.

Those bits and pieces are the cover-up.

IT'S THE PINEAPPLE - hard evidence; JonBenet, herself, presenting it.

It's the pineapple - deal with it.

Then why in the police photograph of the crime scene is the door closed? When I said search thte house, I meant actually LOOK in the rooms.

When a crime scene is staged, the person staging leaves more clues behind than initially.

And if it were staged, why leave the body in the house> Why write a 3 page ransom note and then leave the body in the basement? One would think if you could stage something so well, you would remember to take the body out of the house....

[sissi]

Toth,these are the things that came out about Fleet in the beginning,if anyone can point to one particular thing they have never read concerning him ,I will take the time to source it. My days are quiet,watching hubby in his effort to recover,I will find what ya' want,just identify it.
JMOIMO

[Toth]

I would certainly be suspicious if someone called 911 and said there has been a kidnapping but please remember to come discreetly in unmarked cars and in plain clothes. Any mother who had the presence of mind to behave that way would be suspicious to me.
House wasn't really turned into Grand Central Station. The cops were controlling the doors anyway and could have had the people leave.
One aspect of the note was to make even the cops think the kid was no where nearby and so any "search" was really only half hearted anyway.
No one thought of it as a crime scene. Even that Victim's Advocate was cleaning the kitchen counter and putting out bagels and cream cheese.

[Toth]

Originally posted by sissi
Toth,these are the things that came out about Fleet in the beginning
My days are quiet,watching hubby in his effort to recover I've no idea what 'these things' refer to. I'm really not interested in FW anyway. Good luck to you and hubby.

[sissi]

Originally posted by twilight
Sissi - FW has never spoken to anyone other than the police. The police have not released a book, other than ST, and ST does not report any of the stuff you have in your above post...so where are you getting all this stuff?

OOPS..I meant to address twilight

Toth,thanks for the good luck wishes:)

[Ivy]

ajt, it's been suggested many times here at WS that the Ramseys may have initally planned to remove JonBenet's body from the house but, for any of a variety of reasons, changed their minds. Maybe they were afraid they'd be seen driving away, or that when LE arrived, they would notice the engine of one of the Rs' vehicles was warm. Maybe the Ramseys just couldn't bear the thought of dumping the body of their precious daughter. There are many reasons they might have changed their minds and decided to leave JonBenet's body in the house.

Regardless of whether they left the body in the house or removed it, they had to have some "evidence" to try to prove that an intruder was to blame for what happened to JonBenet. Without a note, there would be no way for them to deflect the finger of suspicion away from themselves. No note = no evidence of an intruder.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toth
I would certainly be suspicious if someone called 911 and said there has been a kidnapping but please remember to come discreetly in unmarked cars and in plain clothes. Any mother who had the presence of mind to behave that way would be suspicious to me.
House wasn't really turned into Grand Central Station. The cops were controlling the doors anyway and could have had the people leave.
One aspect of the note was to make even the cops think the kid was no where nearby and so any "search" was really only half hearted anyway.
No one thought of it as a crime scene. Even that Victim's Advocate was cleaning the kitchen counter and putting out bagels and cream cheese.

Okay, I read the first book Cyril Wecht published about this crime and I agreed with him when he said that even though the parents are stating that is is a kidnapping, sometimes things are not akways what they seem. A search should have been done to gather all clues they could find. Is anyone saying no to this? Who knows what could have been gathered if the police had secured the crime scene? I guess we never will, huh?

Also, if the police are not even going to do a proper search the house, why would they think they would check the hood of the car? Also, the ransom note points right back to them......

[Britt]

Originally posted by lannie
...this is all so out ot character of them, with the word being ACTOR
Exactly, lannie.

why_nutt and twilight - great posts (as usual).

[Ivy]

ajt, I believe the Ramseys thought the police would do a thorough search of the house. In fact, I think the Ramseys were counting on the police (or the Rs' friends) finding JonBenet's body very soon.

Btw, being afraid the police might notice the engine in one of their vehicles was warm is just one of the possible reasons I gave that the Rs might have decided to leave JonBenet's body in the house.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
...I believe the Ramseys thought the police would do a thorough search of the house. In fact, I think the Ramseys were counting on the police (or the Rs' friends) finding JonBenet's body very soon.
I agree, Ivy. No wonder John was getting so antsy and finally "found" the body himself.

Jeez, it's so hard to find good help. When you want something done right you've gotta do it yourself. :p

[Ivy]

Britt, ain't it the truth! :D

[Show Me]

Toth and Ajt400 you don't understand my point...forget the BPD. I am talking of the parents reaction....the parents, not the cops.

My point is the PARENTS calling the friends over when the note said the Ramsey's were being monitored and JonBenet would be killed if they talked to a stray dog.

Would you call 911 and NOT stay on the line, waiting for instructions from the operator?

Would you call all your friends over if you were being monitored by your child's kidnapper who threatened to KILL her?


GREAT POSTS Whynut and Twilight!!!

[SisterSocks]

Originally posted by shamu
Really? No matter that there were consequ-- oops! I forgot. They Ramseys didn't read the note. Why read a note when they could be calling their friends. Just because it was the only link to their daughter. Big deal. Why not call friends. Why read a note.

Well Shamu, I think you got it =)

[sissi]

What to do in an abduction ,kidnapping?
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Yf7IWKp4wN8J:www.acjnet.org/victims/first/abduct.htm+What+to+do+in+a+kidnapping&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[cookie]

JonBenet's body may have been left in the house for one simple reason. John and Patsy didn't think for an instant that anyone would suspect any one of the three of them. Then, there is the ransom note to back up the idea that it was a kidnapping-gone-bad. Remember back to their reactions from the very beginning. They went somewhere besides where the police wanted them to go, they requested and received extra time before being questioned because they were "a well-to-do" and respected family in the community. Maybe they just thought the police wouldn't really really suspect such a fine upstanding Christian family, especially if there was a ransom note from a small foreign faction left in their kitchen.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Show Me
Toth and Ajt400 you don't understand my point...forget the BPD. I am talking of the parents reaction....the parents, not the cops.

My point is the PARENTS calling the friends over when the note said the Ramsey's were being monitored and JonBenet would be killed if they talked to a stray dog.

Would you call 911 and NOT stay on the line, waiting for instructions from the operator?

Would you call all your friends over if you were being monitored by your child's kidnapper who threatened to KILL her?


GREAT POSTS Whynut and Twilight!!!


I am going to be honest and say that I don't know how I would react in that situation. I don't think anyone does. And, yes, I would call my friends, who wouldn't. Ransom notes always say not to contact the police, anyone lese, etc. This is nothing new. And I do believe most kidnappers threaten to hurt the child, too. What is the operator going to tell the R's that would have helped them? Not to touch anything? To read the letter over and over again?

And you don't get my point....this investigation was ruined because of the BPD and their juvenile attempt of solving a murder that could have been solved. Yes, I do hold the police responsible, if I lived in Boulder, I would be madder than hell! I am not saying the BPD is responsible for JBR's death, just that they should have been a bit more professional in the way they handled this investigation from the get-go. Oh, wait, I forgot, none of them had ever worked a homicide before, let's let them screw this one up.....it's just practice!

As far as parents reactions go, who is to say how you will react to something like this? You can't! And I amvery sure that they couldn't either. The Lindbergh's were long suspected in the kidnapping of their son because of the lack of emotion showed by both. We all know how that ended up, don't we.....

I don't believe the R's are guilty or innocent, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned. I just want to posee questions that I feel a jury of their peers will ask, and obviously what the Grand Jury asked themselves. Oh, and didn't they come back and say there was not enough evidence to bring them to trial? Oh, or were they paid off, too?:dontknow:

[Show Me]

Ajt400...you would call all your friends over to comfort you, when the kidnappers who took your child, and are monitoring your every move, write they will KILL her if you so much as talk to a stray dog?

I wouldn't....