PDA

View Full Version : Read this and tell me the Ramseys aren't hiding something ...


Cherokee
01-28-2004, 11:41 PM
This is cooperation from parents who wanted justice for their murdered daughter? Oh yeah. I forgot. They said they weren't angry at whomever killed "that child." They only got angry when they were asked to cooperate with the investigation.


http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/gma000411Jonbenet_trans2.html

NEW YORK, April 11 - What follows is a transcript of Thomas' interview with ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas.

ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas: In the Ramseys' own book, which came out a couple of weeks ago, they have a chapter in there called "A Chronicle of Cooperation", where they say, 'We talked to the police the 26th, the 27th, the 28th. We gave them long interviews, we gave them handwriting samples, DNA samples, pubic hair samples. We gave them everything they wanted.'

Steven Thomas: Their assertion now that they cooperated fully with this investigation, I find absurd. We had to wait four months before we could interview these people surrounding-and ask questions face to face surrounding the death of their daughter.

Vargas: What do they mean then when they say, 'We talked to police on the 26th, and on the 27th, and on the 28th?'

Thomas: On the 26th they certainly did talk to us during the kidnapping phase of this thing. On the night of the 27th, there was this limited brief exchange, which I guess they're characterizing as an interview, when in fact the detectives were there to arrange an interview.

Vargas: (VO) as for that physical evidence, what they call non-testimonial evidence, by Colorado law, the police can easily demand samples of handwriting, blood, DNA.

Thomas: They had no choice but to cooperate with the non-testimonial evidence, because in a snap we could have gotten that through a simple affidavit. But what we couldn't make them do was answer questions. Yeah, they gave us blood, gave us handwriting, gave us hair, but when the case was red hot, when we needed the parents the most in those early critical days, we had to wait four months to be able to ask them the most elementary of questions.

Vargas: You say in the book as well that when the Ramseys did agree to sit down and talk to you, there were several conditions attached. What were they?

Thomas: We did have these conditions that were just not acceptable. Which detective would do the interviewing, who would be in the room, a doctor, the attorneys, the forum and time that the questioning would continue, and Patsy's I think was not to exceed an hour. And the FBI, said 'This is absurd. You cannot interview people under these conditions.' So, again, when they say, 'We offered to come in', it was with this incredible set of parameters that were just not acceptable to a police department.

Vargas: (VO) The Ramsey legal team wanted a deal. They asked for materials rarely given to suspects in a crime & including John and Patsy's prior statements, copies of the autopsy report and the ransom note, and police reports. Thomas says the Ramseys made it clear that if, and only if, they got what they wanted would the Ramseys sit down for a formal interview.

Vargas: But if you really wanted the information, what's wrong with agreeing to some of those conditions? Does that compromise you in some way? Does that give them too much of an advantage?

Thomas: Well, I'll tell you, advantage, what do you mean advantage? When the DA's Office was shoveling by the wheelbarrow full, our case file to Team Ramsey. Yeah, you talk about an advantage. somebody that the police wanted to question, I think I would be hard pressed to say, "Hey, detective, I'll answer your questions, but let me take a look at your case file there, before I answer". Believe me, a poor kid killed in the projects, a blue-collar working stiff, you know, a guy who's a carpenter or a welder out there, are not afforded these concessions that kept being made to the Ramseys, that's not what I would characterize as their chronicle of cooperation.

Vargas: (VO) The district attorney made a deal. The police were forced to turn over the documents.

Thomas: The Ramsey experts got to come into the police department and review evidence. They got to look at the ligature and the garrote. They came in and did studies of the ransom note. We were handing over photographs of evidence, including sensitive ransom note information. And at one point I told the police department, I told my supervisor. I said, 'I am not going to participate in this.' I said, 'I want my refusal duly noted.'

Vargas: (VO) We contacted several experts in general police and investigative procedures-they say these concessions made to the Ramseys were highly unusual. Finally, on April 30th, 1997, Steve Thomas sat down in a conference room at the district attorney's office. With Patsy were her attorney and the Ramsey's own private investigator. Thomas claims the entire interview was undermined. He says the police would now question intelligent, well-coached suspects who could study for their interviews as if preparing for a high school test.

(Thanks to Peggy Lakin, author of "Journey Beyond Reason" for bringing this interview to the public's attention once again.)


IMO

Toth
01-29-2004, 12:05 AM
They were indeed cooperating and even during the non-testimonial stuff answered all questions put to them. They wanted to meet with the BPD, it was the BPD that refused. Patsy couldn't get to the bathroom without assistance and they wanted her to come down to police headquarters. how foolish is that?
meanwhile the Ramseys were talking to other investigators who were not the overly fanaticized BPD. They talked to DA investigators too, during this period I believe.

Shylock
01-29-2004, 01:01 AM
Patsy couldn't get to the bathroom without assistance and they wanted her to come down to police headquarters.
So Patsy didn't go to the bathroom for FOUR MONTHS??? Gee, no wonder she's so fat now!...LOL

Sorry Toth, but only GUILTY parents of a murdered child act like the Ramseys. Innocent parents, like the Van Damms, are relentless in doing anything they can to find the guilty person. They don't stick their head in the sand and make conditional demands before they will talk to the police.

K777angel
01-29-2004, 01:34 AM
So Patsy didn't go to the bathroom for FOUR MONTHS??? Gee, no wonder she's so fat now!...LOL

Sorry Toth, but only GUILTY parents of a murdered child act like the Ramseys. Innocent parents, like the Van Damms, are relentless in doing anything they can to find the guilty person. They don't stick their head in the sand and make conditional demands before they will talk to the police.

That's right Shylock. The Ramseys are liars if they claim the police "didn't want to talk to them." Baloney. The police desperately wanted to talk with them - the Ramseys wouldn't do it. They listed all kinds of "conditions" before they'd agree to meet with the police - and when the FBI heard about it they told the Boulder Police to absolutely NOT agree to those kinds of ridiculous conditions. And mind you - this was still FOUR MONTHS after JonBenet was murdered. FOUR MONTHS.
The parents had every opportunity to walk right up to the police station and talk with the police. It is what all innocent parents with nothing to hide of murdered children do. They HOUND the police. They beg to know what they've found out. They do not care one iota that the police might suspect them - (Ask John and Reeve Walsh and Mark Klass....) Because they know they are innocent and have nothing to hide - they are EAGER to cooperate with the police.
The Ramseys called lawyers from day one - and very possibly before they ever even placed that 911 call.
They tried to flee the state only a half an hour after finding their daughter dead and cold body.
They NEVER asked questions of the police or other authorities: "How did she die?" "What happened?" "What do you know?"

It is inexcusable how they conducted themselves in the days (and then months and then years) after JonBenet was killed.
They can't speak with the police because they are "too distraught" - but by golly they can go on national television (CNN) the DAY AFTER they bury JonBenet and talk.
And they wonder why people don't believe them.... :liar:

gretchen
01-29-2004, 02:18 AM
That's right Shylock. The Ramseys are liars if they claim the police "didn't want to talk to them." Baloney. The police desperately wanted to talk with them - the Ramseys wouldn't do it. They listed all kinds of "conditions" before they'd agree to meet with the police - and when the FBI heard about it they told the Boulder Police to absolutely NOT agree to those kinds of ridiculous conditions. And mind you - this was still FOUR MONTHS after JonBenet was murdered. FOUR MONTHS.
The parents had every opportunity to walk right up to the police station and talk with the police. It is what all innocent parents with nothing to hide of murdered children do. They HOUND the police. They beg to know what they've found out. They do not care one iota that the police might suspect them - (Ask John and Reeve Walsh and Mark Klass....) Because they know they are innocent and have nothing to hide - they are EAGER to cooperate with the police.
The Ramseys called lawyers from day one - and very possibly before they ever even placed that 911 call.
They tried to flee the state only a half an hour after finding their daughter dead and cold body.
They NEVER asked questions of the police or other authorities: "How did she die?" "What happened?" "What do you know?"

It is inexcusable how they conducted themselves in the days (and then months and then years) after JonBenet was killed.
They can't speak with the police because they are "too distraught" - but by golly they can go on national television (CNN) the DAY AFTER they bury JonBenet and talk.
And they wonder why people don't believe them.... :liar:


Very good points! K777Angel! Oh yeah, Patsy couldn't even go to the bathroom without help, but she could give a CNN interview without assistance, couldn't she?
It really amazed me that John was making arrangements to fly to Atlanta while his brutally murdered daughter was lying in their living room by the Christmas tree. What was he going to do? Leave her there alone? An innocent parent would do that? Sorry Ram's, your money isn't good enough for me.

cookie
01-29-2004, 08:01 AM
It didn't seem to bother Patsy to go storming into the Boulder police station to take up for their buddy Pasta Joe on February 9th. And she didn't ever seem to be unable to join in the fun of their trick playing on the media. Guess we all pick and choose when we are "unable to cope" with things.

tipper
01-29-2004, 08:48 AM
PMPT ppbk. p. 499:

The police then mentioned the Ramseys' behavior immediately after the body was found: the fact that John Ramsey was ready to fly to Atlanta with his wife and son and leave his daughter's body - and the investigation into her murder - behind; the refusal to cooperate with the police; and the hiring of criminal attorneys. In reply, the FBI pointed out that no two people respond to trauma and grief the same way, and that the police should not overanalyze what they had observed. Most of the time, the parents of a victim are all over the police. "Why the hell haven't you caught my child's killer?" "What's going on? I want to know everything." In this case, the police had to acknowledge that it was their own commander's actions that led to the long postponement of the parents' interviews.

BlueCrab
01-29-2004, 09:06 AM
I agree it was Commander John Eller who set the tone for the mistakes that soon followed on that first day. Eller wanted his detectives to cut the Ramseys some slack because of the Ramseys prominence in the community. As a consequence the cops on the scene violated some cardinal rules, such as not immediately separating John and Patsy and getting detailed indepenent statements from each of them, locking them into what they each perceived happened. The contradictions that would have likely gushed out between the two of them might have solved the case all by itself on that first day.

JMO

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 09:08 AM
PMPT ppbk. p. 499:

The police then mentioned the Ramseys' behavior immediately after the body was found: the fact that John Ramsey was ready to fly to Atlanta with his wife and son and leave his daughter's body - and the investigation into her murder - behind; the refusal to cooperate with the police; and the hiring of criminal attorneys. In reply, the FBI pointed out that no two people respond to trauma and grief the same way, and that the police should not overanalyze what they had observed. Most of the time, the parents of a victim are all over the police. "Why the hell haven't you caught my child's killer?" "What's going on? I want to know everything." In this case, the police had to acknowledge that it was their own commander's actions that led to the long postponement of the parents' interviews.

The "no two people react the same" sword cuts both ways. As separate individuals with separate lawyers, at any point John could have gone to police while Patsy refused, or Patsy could have gone to police while John refused. Yet, while no two people react the same, we are expected to accomodate the identical reactions of two different people, both of whom just coincidentally have the same reaction as each other of not wanting to be interviewed?

Let us acknowledge this fact: there was never any, ANY, reason for John to have put off being interviewed formally, on tape, by the Boulder police investigators. He was healthy, he was in control of his mental facilities, he had his own legal representation to protect his interests, he was signing sophisticated and complex legal documents whose validity would have been compromised if he was not capable of understanding them.

In my constitutionally-protected opinion, it is true that, even if Patsy is to be given a pass, there is no defense for the fact that John Ramsey refused to cooperate with police at points when he was fully physically, mentally, and legally capable of doing so.

Cherokee
01-29-2004, 10:10 AM
Shylock and K777Angel have already stated it well.

The Ramseys set CONDITIONS and dictated WHEN they would condescend to even speak with police regarding what they knew.

What innocent loving parents would care about terms and conditions and wait FOUR MONTHS until being interviewed by LE? And even then, the meeting was only held under terms DICTATED by the Ramseys.

And don't give me that line of bull that the poor Ramseys were suspects so they had every right to act as they did.

The Van Dams were initially suspects until they cooperated with police and helped the investigation move on. They certainly didn't set terms and conditions on when they would speak with police.

Name ONE innocent parent of a missing or murdered child WHO SET CONDITIONS ON THEIR COOPERATION WITH POLICE. Just one. Did Marc Klass? John Walsh? Samantha Runnion's parents? (If you remember, her biological father was a suspect until he cooperated and was cleared by police.)

Name ONE innocent parent of a murdered child who tried to leave the state LESS THAN ONE HOUR after their child's body was found.

Name ONE innocent parent who could not be bothered to answer police questions but could go on CNN less than a week later, and say THEY WEREN'T ANGRY AT WHOMEVER KILLED THEIR CHILD, and they just wanted to get on with their lives.

The Ramseys only agreed to questioning AFTER they knew the questions and had rehearsed their lines. The Ramseys only agreed to cooperate AFTER their lawyers had seen most of the evidence and coached their answers.

Here is the cold hard truth. Liars evade questioning. Liars have selective memory. Liars blame everyone but themselves when they are caught in the lie.

The Ramseys are lying about what happened Christmas night.


IMO

Barbara
01-29-2004, 10:10 AM
That's right Shylock. The Ramseys are liars if they claim the police "didn't want to talk to them." Baloney. The police desperately wanted to talk with them - the Ramseys wouldn't do it. They listed all kinds of "conditions" before they'd agree to meet with the police - and when the FBI heard about it they told the Boulder Police to absolutely NOT agree to those kinds of ridiculous conditions. And mind you - this was still FOUR MONTHS after JonBenet was murdered. FOUR MONTHS.
The parents had every opportunity to walk right up to the police station and talk with the police. It is what all innocent parents with nothing to hide of murdered children do. They HOUND the police. They beg to know what they've found out. They do not care one iota that the police might suspect them - (Ask John and Reeve Walsh and Mark Klass....) Because they know they are innocent and have nothing to hide - they are EAGER to cooperate with the police.
The Ramseys called lawyers from day one - and very possibly before they ever even placed that 911 call.
They tried to flee the state only a half an hour after finding their daughter dead and cold body.
They NEVER asked questions of the police or other authorities: "How did she die?" "What happened?" "What do you know?"

It is inexcusable how they conducted themselves in the days (and then months and then years) after JonBenet was killed.
They can't speak with the police because they are "too distraught" - but by golly they can go on national television (CNN) the DAY AFTER they bury JonBenet and talk.
And they wonder why people don't believe them.... :liar:

Excellent K777angel! You have said it all. The Ramseys are the only parents in history to deal with the police the way they did. The ONLY ones. So far, nobody has been able to give us any other parents of a victim who have made demands on the investigative forces working to solve their child's murder, despite the numerous requests.

Don't believe for one minute that anyone "wonders" why people don't believe them. They know damn well why people don't believe them. They have said it themselves several times that they have "made mistakes" and "we would have done some things differently", blah, blah, so when people say they can't understand why people are suspicious, they are blatantly lying

Toth
01-29-2004, 10:41 AM
they are blatantly lying I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.
As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.
And if you want to go read PMPT turn to p.499, and then see who it was who refused to allow any meetings to take place for four months!!

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 10:57 AM
I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.

It was true then and it is true now; more than 99% of children murdered in their own homes have been killed by the people who live in that home. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of children who have been killed by intruders in the child's own home while everyone else in the house has been left alive, and in all of those extremely rare cases, the intruder entered through a bedroom window, moved no more than a few feet to the child, killed it and left the child in the bedroom while leaving again through the same window. It would be stupidity in the extreme for anyone to have approached the Ramsey crime scene while ignoring the whole of history in the process.

Angelica
01-29-2004, 10:58 AM
You are entitled to your opinion, as are the rest of us. It is assumed that you are somehow connected to the Ramseys, given your refusal to grasp why others view their behavior as "hinky". For some of us, many actually, self-preservation takes a back seat to our love for our children. I would question this behavior following the death of a child if it were my very best friend or a family member. I don't hate the Ramseys because they were wealthy but I do resent the fact that they were given concessions that a less wealthy, connected family would have been given in the same situation. Why would parents of a murdered child need to view their previous statements before being interviewed by the police?? What could possibly be gained by that except making sure their stories didn't change? If they knew nothing of what happened to their daughter, this would not have been considered necessary. It's true that we all behave differently in times of crisis but there really is no good explanation for their reluctance to be interviewed.

Cherokee
01-29-2004, 11:05 AM
.... As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.


Like I said before ... "Liars blame everyone but themselves when they are caught in the lie."

So the Ramseys and (the RST) blame their attorneys for making them look bad. Oh poor Ramseys. What a bunch of bull.

Oh yeah the Ramseys insisted their attorneys arrange a meeting ... DICTATED UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THEY KNEW WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO COMPETENT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

No amount of spin can change the facts. No attorney could have kept the Ramseys from cooperating with the investigation IF THE RAMSEYS HAD WANTED TO COOPERATE.

The Ramseys refused to answer questions for over one third of a year. Think about it. Their child is allegedly murdered by an intruder, and they held out THAT LONG before they would meet with LE. Then, when they were finally interviewed (under their own terms) the Ramseys hedged, and conveniently "forgot" or "didn't know," and got indignant that they were asked to cooperate.

Their own lies convict them.




IMO

Toth
01-29-2004, 11:09 AM
It was true then and it is true now; more than 99% of children murdered in their own homes have been killed by the people who live in that home. you are drawing a very narrowly prescribed scene. Do you want to limit it to females killed in December?

As to ''murdered in their own homes'' you would have to adjust the statistics to reflect those that could have been murdered in their own home by an intruder because it was a large enough home for an intruder to take the kid to a place of seeming safety and yet still be inside the home.

Most such child murders are going to be in poor families with alcohol and drug problems... they rarely live in large homes.

Barbara
01-29-2004, 11:14 AM
I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.
As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.
And if you want to go read PMPT turn to p.499, and then see who it was who refused to allow any meetings to take place for four months!!

The police were the ones who refused to allow any meetings for four months. We all know that. What you and others refuse to view as questionable is the reason for that.

Please let me know what police department bows to demands for an interview with the prime suspects of a murder case. Even the Ramseys claim that they understand that they were legitimately the prime suspects and needed to be cleared before the police went elsewhere, so all their verbiage is all lies as is evidenced by their behavior to cooperate and clear the way for the police to look elsewhere.

Sorry, but I do not believe anyone cannot understand why the Ramseys behavior is not questionable. Nonsense! They understand but there is no proper defense of their behavior so they claim ignorance. That's my opinion, and I think in this instance, a damn accurate one. Even the Ramseys themselves state that they understand why people are suspicious of them. It's all that bad advice they got

Imon128
01-29-2004, 11:17 AM
you are drawing a very narrowly prescribed scene. Do you want to limit it to females killed in December?

As to ''murdered in their own homes'' you would have to adjust the statistics to reflect those that could have been murdered in their own home by an intruder because it was a large enough home for an intruder to take the kid to a place of seeming safety and yet still be inside the home.

Most such child murders are going to be in poor families with alcohol and drug problems... they rarely live in large homes.


Murders know no boundary of social status, large homes, etc., unless you can give us the stats on that. Also, rich people can certainly have drinking and drug problems. Large homes are not limited to the rich, either. The odds are 12 to 1 that JB was killed by a family member/caretaker. It only makes sense to look at the R family first. So far, they can't be eliminated or pulled out from under the umbrella. Also, an intruder wouldn't NEED a large home to go in do what he did to JB.

Toth
01-29-2004, 11:22 AM
>It is assumed that you are somehow connected to the Ramseys
No. My contact with John Ramsey was limited to a very few emails that were limited to factual matters dealing with one particular aspect of the investigation. Certain fundamental facts had to be established before a line of investigation was to be followed.
My contact with AuntPam took place much later and involved several chats on a variety of occasions and topics. But I am in no way connected to the Ramseys nor ever expect to meet them.

>I would question this behavior following the death of a child
I see absolutely nothing to be questioned. Surely, in hindsight, some things might have been done differently. Officer Donut probably wishes he had opened that darned door. John Ramsey probably wishes he had said to the cops: No, we are not going to a hotel as you suggested, we want to be taken to a video camera equipped room. I am very shaken but will try to talk, my wife is utterly unable to talk but you can videotape her lack of composure.
>but I do resent the fact that they were given concessions that a less
>wealthy, connected family would have been given in the same situation.
The Ramseys were not 'connected' and their wealth did not give them anything but the ability to hire lawyers that prevented their being railroaded.
>Why would parents of a murdered child need to view their previous
>statements before being interviewed by the police??
Have you tried to find a single lawyer in Colorado who would not have wanted the prior statement also?

>there really is no good explanation for their reluctance to be interviewed.
They were not reluctant to be interviewed. Patsy was not in great shape, initially she had to be helped to the bathroom, she was tanked up on drugs. All the BPD had to do was say 'sure, we will go to the lawyer's conference room, we will remain seated, we will keep our voices down, we will keep it brief and if her doctor says 'stop' we will stop.

Imon128
01-29-2004, 11:26 AM
Can you then explain how Patsy was able to ride in a jalopy to CNN to go on TV so quickly?

Jayelles
01-29-2004, 11:29 AM
Original posted by Cherokee
What innocent loving parents would care about terms and conditions and wait FOUR MONTHS until being interviewed by LE? And even then, the meeting was only held under terms DICTATED by the Ramseys.

That they did not sit down with police for 4 months is something that the Ramseys cannot deny. They had lawyers to protect their rights and no-one would really blame them for having their lawyers attend police interviews - I for one would consider that to be prudent.

Toth says that the lawyers advised them not to speak to the polcie. What? Lawyers thought that the principal witnesses should not assist a police investigation?

Above ALL else, it is the Ramseys failure to assist with the murder investigation along with their attempts to dictate how the investigation should be conducted which vilifies them in the public eye. That cannot be changed. Of course, the Ramseys could always come clean and admit fault there - OR they could sue their previous lawyers for giving them the bad advice which led to the destruction of their reputations...... Now THAT would be a big bucks lawsuit methinks. I wonder if the lawyers would settle and if not, what their defence would consist of?

Nehemiah
01-29-2004, 11:29 AM
I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.

Toth, I really don't want to suspect the parents. In fact I go from one side of that fence to the other too much. However, their behavior about setting conditions with LE, etc..is too weird. It reminds me so much of the OJ saga whereby LE was blamed to create a diversion. That bothers me very much. I honestly can't see why that would occur unless there was something to hide. Regardless of what you say about the BPD not interviewing the Ramseys, the Ramseys could have gone to the police station and talked. I think posters here make very valid points in that regard. The Ramseys are educated adults who could have taken that responsibility upon themselves, regardless of anything else. To defend themselves along those lines, makes them appear guilty. Whether they are or not, they have created their own destinies in that regard.

Toth
01-29-2004, 11:33 AM
It's all that bad advice they got
Ah, well now. You touch upon a very sensitive issue here. I am lgenerally loathe to criticize any member of the Colorado bar, however, I would point out that I would also have occasional doubts as to the wisdom of advice given to the Ramseys at certain early stages of the case. I would also point out that the primary purpose of the lawyers was to keep the Ramseys out of prison and allow Burke to raised by them rather than have merely occasional visits to a prison. The lawyers were NOT interested in the public relations aspects of the case. Perhaps they should have been more attuned to public relations, but it is no use having a very popular client in a jail cell. Its better to have your unpopular client out of a jail cell. The criminal lawyers focused on criminal law, not popularity. Perhaps this was unwise. Perhaps not.
But the function of the criminal lawyer was to keep their clients out of jail.
That is why the lawyers repeatedly advised against any meetings with the BPD but were repeatedly instructed by their clients that such meetings were to be arranged.

Toth
01-29-2004, 11:36 AM
the Ramseys could have gone to the police station and talked. And the BPD could have gone to the lawyer's conference room so that Patsy could have been questioned in a more comfortable atmosphere. They did not want to do that.

Imon128
01-29-2004, 11:39 AM
Why on earth would they do that Toth? In a law abiding society the R's go to the BPD, as requested, not the R's calling the shots. Phtt. They made themselves look desperate to hide facts and to continue to try to control the investigation.

Nehemiah
01-29-2004, 11:47 AM
And the BPD could have gone to the lawyer's conference room so that Patsy could have been questioned in a more comfortable atmosphere. They did not want to do that.

In a more comfortable atmosphere? It was an investigation into a brutal murder, not a beauty salon appointment.

That doesn't fly, Toth. You know that is not how things are done in an investigation. Bottom line is that the BPD was attempting to investigate that child's murder. The parents of that child were not doing all they could to assist in that investigation.

I think you just like to play devil's advocate, Toth. I know that you can see this side of this situation, even though you are a staunch R defender.

Jayelles
01-29-2004, 11:53 AM
That is why the lawyers repeatedly advised against any meetings with the BPD but were repeatedly instructed by their clients that such meetings were to be arranged.

Yes - the lawyers were instructed to arrange the interviews with a list of unreasonable conditions attached - as dictated by the Ramseys. Conditions which they knew would be unacceptable to the police.

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 12:09 PM
And the BPD could have gone to the lawyer's conference room so that Patsy could have been questioned in a more comfortable atmosphere. They did not want to do that.

There is no evidence that the law firm's conference room was more comfortable. Certainly John and Patsy, and Burke's legal representation, had no problem taking him to the appropriate venue of the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot for his January 1996 interview rather than insisting he be interviewed in his lawyer's conference room. Why was it okay for Burke to be interviewed outside of his lawyer's offices, but not for John and Patsy? And if Patsy was so doped up on medication, how did she manage to travel to Atlanta for JonBenet's funeral, and to Niwot, but not the few blocks to the BPD station?

Imon128
01-29-2004, 12:16 PM
Toth, can you elaborate on how it would have been more 'comfortable' for the R's to go to their place of choice, rather than comply with LE's place of choice? Or are you saying that the R's comfort rated over getting to JB's killer? Lin Wood might agree with that, but this is America. It would imply that LE was so desperate to speak with this rich, famous, belligerent, couple that LE would bow to their wishes?

K777angel
01-29-2004, 12:17 PM
Most such child murders are going to be in poor families with alcohol and drug problems... they rarely live in large homes.

Child abuse and sexual abuse know no class boundaries.

To suggest that children who live in small homes are more likely to be murdered shows your predjudice.

Rich people (who live in big homes) have the money and means to COVER UP abuses and crimes they have committed and are far less to be indicted let alone incarcerated. O.J. Simpson is a perfect example.
They have the money to hire the biggest and more influential and powerful and best attorneys who are far more likely to get them off. It happens all the time. The prisons are hardly full of rich people - and it is not because they sin less.

Human nature and sin infect us all. And it is not choosy about your bank account balance or the size of your home.

Barbara
01-29-2004, 01:25 PM
Child abuse and sexual abuse know no class boundaries.

To suggest that children who live in small homes are more likely to be murdered shows your predjudice.

Rich people (who live in big homes) have the money and means to COVER UP abuses and crimes they have committed and are far less to be indicted let alone incarcerated. O.J. Simpson is a perfect example.
They have the money to hire the biggest and more influential and powerful and best attorneys who are far more likely to get them off. It happens all the time. The prisons are hardly full of rich people - and it is not because they sin less.

Human nature and sin infect us all. And it is not choosy about your bank account balance or the size of your home.

It is a well known fact and by fact I mean that every defense lawyer and talking head on TV, along with others including prosecutors agree that if Susan Smith had a lawyer, she would be a free woman today.

Some may see that as a bad thing, others as a good thing.

The point is that the Ramseys were able to buy their way into innocence (or at least not indicted) largely because they could afford to buy the attornies who in turn, had finanial and other interests with the DA, Alex Hunter. So in short, they bought the DA.

It's really very simple for those who see

blueclouds
01-29-2004, 01:58 PM
I think Thomas is full of crap and arrogance. It was "ego" that got in his way big time. I couldn't even fathom the pain of finding your murdered child and then police wanting them to give lengthy interviews 2, 3 or 4 days after.
(I'm one of the few here who support Ramseys) and taking Thomas at his word when he had his OWN book to sell...

Imon128
01-29-2004, 02:02 PM
Thomas is one of the few who were on the inside who is NOT full of crap. He exposed many nasties about the city of Boulder, and I for one, believe he truly wanted and still does, justice for JonBenet. What a wise person he is and what a battle he fought, more or less alone, to get to the bottom of this case. I respect him immensely.

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 04:01 PM
I couldn't even fathom the pain of finding your murdered child and then police wanting them to give lengthy interviews 2, 3 or 4 days after.

It is done every day. And look at the situation from this perspective. When Patsy was trying to get her health checked out in 1993 because of confounding pains, she did not ask her various doctors to cater to her comfort levels. When the doctors wanted her to come to the hospital for tests, she went unconditionally. When the doctors wanted to shove cold metal instruments into her most private orifices, she put up with it. When the doctors asked intrusive personal questions about her most private issues like her menstrual cycles and her sexual activities, she answered without hesitation, because she knew that at the end of all these temporary intrusions into her comfortable life, she would come out with more knowledge than she had going in, and she knew that she would have a far better chance of reaching a resolution to her problems than she would have if she had simply sat stewing at home, complaining about why the doctors were asking for yet another blood sample when they had already taken several. Do you see? When Patsy saw it was in her best interests to comply with every request of her, even when that request may have ended up in her finding out she was facing a death sentence, she complied anyway, because compliance with the demands of people in authority would serve her long-term interests better than her short-term annoyances would.

tipper
01-29-2004, 04:25 PM
It is done every day. And look at the situation from this perspective. When Patsy was trying to get her health checked out in 1993 because of confounding pains, she did not ask her various doctors to cater to her comfort levels. When the doctors wanted her to come to the hospital for tests, she went unconditionally. When the doctors wanted to shove cold metal instruments into her most private orifices, she put up with it. When the doctors asked intrusive personal questions about her most private issues like her menstrual cycles and her sexual activities, she answered without hesitation, because she knew that at the end of all these temporary intrusions into her comfortable life, she would come out with more knowledge than she had going in, and she knew that she would have a far better chance of reaching a resolution to her problems than she would have if she had simply sat stewing at home, complaining about why the doctors were asking for yet another blood sample when they had already taken several. Do you see? When Patsy saw it was in her best interests to comply with every request of her, even when that request may have ended up in her finding out she was facing a death sentence, she complied anyway, because compliance with the demands of people in authority would serve her long-term interests better than her short-term annoyances would.And I would guess the lawyers told her (or perhaps just John) that that sort of compliance in this situation could result in them being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit.

Did you know that because of Innocence Projects around the country a wrongfully convicted person is released from jail every 18 days? And that figure would be higher except the evidence that would free them is discarded or destroyed on a regular basis. How many innocent people have we locked up or killed because of overly enthusiastic police and/or prosecutors or overcommitted and/or incompetent defense attorneys?

Toth
01-29-2004, 05:01 PM
Quite alot, thats why a lawyer doesn't try to win in court, he tries to keep his client out of court in the first place.
If the Ramseys suffered some slings and arrows from the public and the press, so what? The lawyer's job is to keep them from having that cell door slam shut on them and seeing Burke through thick glass once every ninety days.

Cain
01-29-2004, 06:10 PM
Talking about weird behaviour...

You find a ransom note where some kidnappers ask you for what (for you) is pocket money to have your daugther back and well... They warn you not to contact the police, nor to tell it to any people, because they would know and they would KILL your daugther, in that case.
Several secons later you are a) calling the police, b) not warning the police about the threats and not beggin for discretion, c) calling then some of your friends and ask them to come over in a rush!

For me, this is difficult to understand.

Toth
01-29-2004, 06:30 PM
Perhaps it would be less difficult for you if consider that after reading the first few lines and realizing their import, nothing further of the note was read by Patsy Ramsey until the operator asked who 'does it say who took her' and Patsy read the end of the note "SBTC,,,Victory."

why_nutt
01-29-2004, 06:48 PM
Perhaps it would be less difficult for you if consider that after reading the first few lines and realizing their import, nothing further of the note was read by Patsy Ramsey until the operator asked who 'does it say who took her' and Patsy read the end of the note "SBTC,,,Victory."

No, Patsy also read page two in the middle, because John attributes to her the statement "it says not to call the police," which is on page two. So Patsy read page one, page two, and page three.

Shylock
01-29-2004, 06:51 PM
How many innocent people have we locked up or killed because of overly enthusiastic police and/or prosecutors or overcommitted and/or incompetent defense attorneys?Just how many innocent parents do you think are locked up that went to the police station and didn't leave until the police were satisfied they had nothing to do with the crime?

The key word is "innocent". The Ramseys had something to hide so they weren't about to give the police unlimited cooperation.

imo

tipper
01-29-2004, 07:22 PM
David Dowaliby was convicted in 1990 of the murder of his adopted daughter, 7-year-old Jaclyn Dowaliby, solely on the basis of testimony by a man with a history of mental illness who claimed to have seen someone with a nose structure resembling Dowaliby’s on the night the victim disappeared near where her body was found five days later.

The witness, Everett Mann, who previously had been diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder, made the purported identification from a distance of 75 yards in an unlighted parking lot on a moonless night.

Dowaliby and his wife, Cynthia, biological mother of the victim by a prior marriage, both had been charged with the crime, based not only on Mann’s testimony but also on what proved to be an erroneous assumption about the forensic evidence: Police and prosecutors incorrectly assumed that a window through which the Dowalibys contended an intruder had entered their home in Midlothian, Illinois, to abduct Jaclyn had been broken from the inside. That was not an irrational assumption because there was more glass outside than inside the home, but forensic analysis ultimately established positively that the window had been broken from the outside.

Illinois State Police and the FBI also failed to investigate the principal alternative suspect in the case, a mentally ill relative, who offered a dubious alibi that witnesses who eventually came forward disputed.

At the Dowalibys’ 1990 jury trial, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Neville granted a directed verdict of not guilty in Cynthia Dowaliby’s case because there was no credible evidence against her. Neville allowed her husband’s case to go to the jury, even though the only difference between the evidence against the two was the so-called “nose witness” testimony.

In 1991, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed David Dowaliby’s conviction outright, holding that the evidence against him had been no more probative than that against his wife. The appellate court also held that Assistant State’s Attorneys Patrick O’Brien and George Velcich had committed reversible error during closing argument and that Neville had erred in allowing jurors to see gory crime scene and autopsy photographs.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office asked the Illinois Supreme Court to review the case, but the high court declined, thus ending the case in 1992.

Return to the Center on Wrongful Convictions Home (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions)


Last Modified: January 21, 2003

Shylock
01-30-2004, 01:11 AM
Tipper,
The only thing not mentioned in that story:

1. Dowaliby, like the Ramseys didn't fully cooperate with the police.

2. The relative mentioned in the story, who people want to point the finger at, wouldn't have know the remote location of the parking lot where her body was dumped if his life depended on it. He lived about 50 miles away from the Dowalibys and the parking lot.

3. The case is closed. Just like the O.J. case, the police know they had the right guy. He got away with murder and that's the end of the story.

4. Dowaliby changed his name, moved out of state, and got a nose job. Neither he or his wife have ever pressed any law enforcement agency to keep trying to find "the real killer". They keep their mouths shut, because unlike O.J. they can be arrested and tried again if new evidence is discovered.

Nedthan Johns
01-30-2004, 01:21 AM
Toth: Patsy couldn't get to the bathroom without assistance and they wanted her to come down to police headquarters. how foolish is that?


Ned: How foolish is that? How foolish is that? Patsy should have been drug down to the police department the afternoon they found her daughter. She was and still is a MURDER SUSPECT. You say how foolish that is, yet it doesn't appear odd to you that both the Ramsey's gave interviews to CNN 3 days after the murder? Patsy didn't have any problems going to the bathroom then did she Toth?

Nedthan Johns
01-30-2004, 01:44 AM
Toth: Perhaps it would be less difficult for you if consider that after reading the first few lines and realizing their import, nothing further of the note was read by Patsy Ramsey until the operator asked who 'does it say who took her' and Patsy read the end of the note "SBTC,,,Victory."

Ned: LOL, right, so do you think John just sat next to Patsy and stared aimlessly out the window wondering where his daughter was? Did common sense elude this man, and are you actually telling me that neither Ramsey read the ransom note in the 6 minutes it took officer French to arrive at the home? Did neither one of them think of calling that 911 operator back to tell her, wait it says here in the note NOT to call police otherwise their daughter would be be-headed?

Officer French describes John Ramsey as calm cool and collected when he arrived.

Cain
01-30-2004, 04:13 AM
Oh, God. You have your daugther missing, you have a note that will give you information about her whereabouts and fate, your only link with her, now, and you just read the "first lines". That's even weirdest.

cookie
01-30-2004, 07:43 AM
Perhaps the Ramsey's legal team believed them to be guilty also. Maybe that is the sole purpose of them keeping the family away from the police like they did. Gee, why would anyone not at least give it a passing thought that they MIGHT be guilty? After all, four of them went to bed in their home one night, the next morning there were only three of them alive. Add to that, there wasn't so much as a broken window or any obvious sign of a breakin at the home. I believe that their attorneys were convinced that someone in that home was the culprit, and it was their job to keep them out of jail. No matter what their legal team told them to do, they still could do anything they wanted. I'm sure the lawyers didn't exactly hog-tie them and keep them away.

cookie
01-30-2004, 08:13 AM
Another big thing that makes me scratch my head and wonder is, why did John hire legal representation for the rest of his family in Georgia right away? After all, they were many many miles away from the scene of the crime, and they were all supposed to have airtight stories to prove they couldn't have committed this murder. I believe that it was on the advice of their own legal team to do this, and again, I believe it was because their own lawyers believed them to be guilty so they didn't want the rest of the family to slip up and say anthing that wasn't flattering about John and Patsy. Notice how Patsy's family never seemed to have legal representation, and they were around all the time.

Barbara
01-30-2004, 08:24 AM
And I would guess the lawyers told her (or perhaps just John) that that sort of compliance in this situation could result in them being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit.

Did you know that because of Innocence Projects around the country a wrongfully convicted person is released from jail every 18 days? And that figure would be higher except the evidence that would free them is discarded or destroyed on a regular basis. How many innocent people have we locked up or killed because of overly enthusiastic police and/or prosecutors or overcommitted and/or incompetent defense attorneys?

You would guess that they put the lawyers in place within hours so that they could fully cooperate with LE to find the killer/s of their daughter in order NOT to be railroaded. See how that works? You get high powered attornies who do not allow railroading. If you're not going to talk to the police, why lawyers at all? So that doesn't fly. They were hiding, plain and simple.

As far as the Innocence Project, I am a huge supporter both emotionally and yes, it is one of my charities. There is nothing worse than an innocent person sent to prison. That has nothing to do with this case. The Ramseys are by law, innocent until proven guilty. They took it upon themselves to try to prove their innocence. Polygraph, TV appearances, interviews, lectures, etc. Nobody made them do this. They CHOSE to try to exonerate themselves and now that it didn't work and most don't believe their lies, they will blame the media and us beer can collectors.

They never own anything they do. They never take responsibility for any of their actions. Them, them, them and them. Meanwhile, there is a little girl rotting in a grave in Atlanta that they chose to put second to themselves.

Why_Nutt,

Excellent points. When things are good for them, they make the sacrifices without complaint. When it's for JBR, things become inconvenient.

Imon128
01-30-2004, 08:25 AM
Good point, cookie, I think the Atlanta lawyering up was to protect John Andrew.

Toth
01-30-2004, 09:31 AM
Good point, cookie, I think the Atlanta lawyering up was to protect John Andrew. His interests need protecting. Consider how he was still under that darn umbrella according to the BPD even though they admitted he was over 1,500 miles away at the time the crime was committed. When a reporter asked about this, the grinning Boulder PR guy ignored the question.

Note: The criminal lawyers were trying to keep their clients from being railroaded, they were not interested in the public relations aspects of the case. A publicly tarnished client can deal with the public relations aspects later, but if the criminal lawyers pay attention to public relations then the client will be likely to suffer.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with seeing that the family members who were about to have authorities and media personnel descend on them in droves being represented by counsel.

Cherokee
01-30-2004, 01:12 PM
Name ONE innocent parent of a missing or murdered child WHO SET CONDITIONS ON THEIR COOPERATION WITH POLICE. Just one. Did Marc Klass? John Walsh? Samantha Runnion's parents? (If you remember, her biological father was a suspect until he cooperated and was cleared by police.)

Name ONE innocent parent of a murdered child who tried to leave the state LESS THAN ONE HOUR after their child's body was found.

Name ONE innocent parent who could not be bothered to answer police questions but could go on CNN less than a week later, and say THEY WEREN'T ANGRY AT WHOMEVER KILLED THEIR CHILD, and they just wanted to get on with their lives.

I'm still waiting ... name ONE innocent parent. Heck, I'll even take a GUILTY parent. I'll take ANY parent who would act this way after their child was allegedly killed by an murderous intruder.

The Ramseys lied and evaded LE, and they're STILL lying and evading seven years later.


IMO

TLynn
01-30-2004, 02:18 PM
In a more comfortable atmosphere? It was an investigation into a brutal murder, not a beauty salon appointment.

That doesn't fly, Toth. You know that is not how things are done in an investigation. Bottom line is that the BPD was attempting to investigate that child's murder. The parents of that child were not doing all they could to assist in that investigation.

I think you just like to play devil's advocate, Toth. I know that you can see this side of this situation, even though you are a staunch R defender.

I totally agree :woohoo:

Toth
01-30-2004, 02:29 PM
I really do not think that I am a "Ramsey Defender".
I merely support truth and reason and common-sense and I oppose the lynch-mob. I've never met the Ramseys and have no particular reason to defend them. I acknowledge that they have their faults and have probably displayed those faults from time to time in their dealings with the obsessed and stubborn BPD.

tipper
01-30-2004, 03:15 PM
I'm still waiting ... name ONE innocent parent. Heck, I'll even take a GUILTY parent. I'll take ANY parent who would acted this way after their child was allegedly killed by an murderous intruder.

IMO
If you can't find ANY parent, guilty or innocent who behaved this way then you can't draw any conclusions about how the behavior relates to guilt or innocence.

Imon128
01-30-2004, 03:51 PM
IMO, that doesn't rule out a Ramsey family member.

Nehemiah
01-30-2004, 04:33 PM
I really do not think that I am a "Ramsey Defender".
I merely support truth and reason and common-sense and I oppose the lynch-mob. I've never met the Ramseys and have no particular reason to defend them. I acknowledge that they have their faults and have probably displayed those faults from time to time in their dealings with the obsessed and stubborn BPD.

I've never read where you have acknowledged any of their faults. Of course, I've only been here since January 2000, so perhaps you did it before then, or are doing it now?

I don't necessarily think the Rs are completley innocent, but I don't consider myself a lyncher. Many others who staunchly believe in their guilt are not of a lynch mob mentality. They just fully believe that is where the evidence takes its course. The lynch mob mentality is given credence by your friend, MissInformation, who likes to lump anyone and everyone who dares question the Rs, as being such. Create a diversion. I've had lots of experience with people who create diversions.

I respectfully disagree that you are a Ramsey Defender, but that is okay that you are; we can agree to disagree. And we can be friends even if we never shared recipes, saw one another, or know one another's hobbies. :croc:

why_nutt
01-30-2004, 05:36 PM
I've never read where you have acknowledged any of their faults. Of course, I've only been here since January 2000, so perhaps you did it before then, or are doing it now?

Here is how easy it is to be psychic. I predict Toth will respond with "Of course the Ramseys have faults. Every juror in the country would convict them of sleeping through the night in the first degree."

sissi
01-30-2004, 05:52 PM
The advice given to them by their lawyer,may have put them in a worse light than if they had no one to represent them,but could it be that he,given the footprint crap,etal,wasn't too certain his clients were innocent?
Could this be why their actions seemed to indicate guilt,because they were presumed to be so ,even by their own attorney,and he handled them as such.
JMO

Toltec
01-30-2004, 06:21 PM
The infamous CNN interview in which Patsy mentions Susan Smith and OJ...tee hee!

There is no doubt in my mind that the Ramseys are guilty. Patsy wrote the note...Patsy covered up out of a need of self-preservation.

Patsy killed JonBenet to protect her...or to protect herself.

This is my opinion and cannot be quoted or moved to another forum.

Toth
01-30-2004, 06:40 PM
The advice given to them by their lawyer,may have put them in a worse light Light? If you can turn off the light whenever you want to, its good. If the guards are the ones who control the lights, its bad.

Toth
01-30-2004, 06:46 PM
I don't necessarily think the Rs are completley innocent
I've got two pieces of news for you:
One: They are!
Two: There ain't no such thing as being only slightly guilty! They did not have any knowledge of it, they did not participate in it and there was no cover up!

sissi
01-30-2004, 06:48 PM
There is enough information that was hidden from us during the first years,information that pointed to an intruder,information that was deliberately left out of the "leaks",that indicates the Ramseys are innocent..IMO
Why the police wanted them guilty,should be of concern to all of us,if this could happen to a nice upper middle class family,it could happen to any one of us. The fact the family was horribly victimized by some evil predator was a tragedy,to compound this by influencing public opinion to believe them guilty compounded this tragedy. My hopes are with the new investigation that the fresh look will find the killer and release the family from the horror of the last seven years.
IMO

Cherokee
01-30-2004, 10:35 PM
If you can't find ANY parent, guilty or innocent who behaved this way then you can't draw any conclusions about how the behavior relates to guilt or innocence.

I didn't say I couldn't find any parent, guilty or innocent, who behaved this way. I ASKED for ONE example of any parent who would act like the Ramseys did after JBR's death. I was being sarcastic (and facetious) that there IS no other example of a parent acting as high and mighty, and devoid of true emotion, as the Ramseys. Everything they did was to protect their image, not find justice for their daughter.

There is something horribly wrong with this picture.

What parent, innocent or guilty, would say on national TV, barely a week after their daughter's alleged brutal murder and rape, that they WEREN'T ANGRY AT THE PERSON WHO DID IT?

I can draw conclusions from that statement, and I will. There are psychological norms that involve the whole of society and the individual, and don't try to excuse the Ramsey's behavior by giving me that old "everyone is different and grieves in their own way."

Of course, everyone is different, but there are certain absolutes of normal behavior and emotions. That's what psychology is all about.

I'm asking for an example of just ONE parent who would not be ANGRY at whoever killed their child ONE WEEK AFTER IT HAPPENED. If the Ramseys are innocent, they should have been, and should still be FURIOUS.

Even guilty parents know to put on a pretense of anger and grief at the loss of their loved one. But not the Ramseys. Oh no. They were above all that. Their lawyers were hired to keep their butts out of jail, and they did a darn good job. The Ramseys knew they could never be touched with a ten foot pole.



IMO

Britt
01-30-2004, 10:45 PM
Right on, Cherokee :clap:

sissi
01-30-2004, 11:06 PM
I love Barbara Bush,but had to wonder why she went to the golf course to play a few holes at her daughter's death. Everyone deals with death and grief differently,there is no right way. In the case of Patsy Ramsey it seems she suffered from something very similar to pts,and clearly didn't cope well at all. John Ramsey lost a child ,was suffering himself and didn't know how to deal with his fading wife. It is all very sad,these people are innocent and condemned by so many based on misinformation deliberately leaked to the media by a gaggle of egotistical police and investigators.
IMO

Cherokee
01-30-2004, 11:20 PM
I love Barbara Bush,but had to wonder why she went to the golf course to play a few holes at her daughter's death. Everyone deals with death and grief differently,there is no right way. In the case of Patsy Ramsey it seems she suffered from something very similar to pts,and clearly didn't cope well at all. John Ramsey lost a child ,was suffering himself and didn't know how to deal with his fading wife. It is all very sad,these people are innocent and condemned by so many based on misinformation deliberately leaked to the media by a gaggle of egotistical police and investigators.
IMO

I agree, Barbara is a class act. But she didn't just go to the golf course and play a few holes at her daughter's death. She did grieve in other ways. Her daughter had leukemia and it was not a sudden death. One of the reasons George W. developed his wise-cracking sense of humor was trying to cheer his mother up after Robin's death. It really upset him to see his mother so torn up, and depressed, after his little sister died.

Barbara DID not do a PR interview on national TV and say she was NOT ANGRY her daughter had been taken from her. Her daughter did not die a violent death at the hands of an alleged intruder and molester. Barbara was never a suspect in her daughter's death.

The death of the Bush's child and the death of the Ramsey's child are two vastly different occurances. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Ramseys SHOULD have been angry at who killed JonBenet. They could have been angry, and never had to verbalize their anger. But the fact they actually said they WERE NOT ANGRY at the killer is incomprehensible, UNLESS the "killer" was member of their family.

You said, "It is all very sad,these people are innocent and condemned by so many based on misinformation deliberately leaked to the media by a gaggle of egotistical police and investigators."

The Ramseys are not innocent.

The Ramseys are not condemned because of misinformation deliberately leaked to the media by ANYONE.

The CNN interview was NOT LEAKED INFORMATION. No one made the Ramseys do that interview. No one put words in their mouths.

Their own words condemn them.



IMO

Nehemiah
01-31-2004, 07:33 AM
I've got two pieces of news for you:
One: They are!
Two: There ain't no such thing as being only slightly guilty! They did not have any knowledge of it, they did not participate in it and there was no cover up!

There are degrees of involvement, and I sometimes think that the Rs were involved in a cover up.

Barbara
01-31-2004, 08:28 AM
Despite her desire to be like them, Patsy Ramsey is no Barbara Bush, nor is she close to being the class act Jackie Kennedy was.

I am really tired of those who will blame everyone but the Ramseys for their behavior (see my post in the Court of Public Opinion thread). Their lack of cooperation with the investigation and their BAD and SUSPICIOUS behavior is their own doing, their own doing, their own doing.

It's not BAD ADVICE
It's not LEAKS FROM THE MEDIA
It's not LEAKS FROM BPD
It's not DIFFERENT GRIEVING METHODS
It's not EVERYONE ELSE!

It's the Ramseys, end of story. The RST will continue to spout the "against their lawyers advice"..they spoke to police, they took a polygraph, they did this, they did that, etc.

But the most important thing of all, helping to find the killer/s of their daughter, they relied on bad advice? Bu*****t :liar:

John and Patsy both spent their adult lives making decisions and John, being the CEO and obvious decision maker in day to day life suddenly relied on others advice. C'mon, give us a break. Every move they made was their own, plain and simple.

The most important decision they would ever be asked to make was to do what they could to bring about justice for their daughter, who lies in the ground today, 7 + years later, without justice. They CHOSE to get stoned instead and stonewall an investigation that THEY ADMIT needed to get past them to go further, and they continued to refuse.

I believe those of us who are parents know the deal. I expect many RST here, who are parents to come back with the "everyone grieves differently", "we can't say what we would do", "you don't know how you would behave", "you can't put yourself in that position", etc. To that I say...NONSENSE! I do not believe anyone who has a child would do what the Ramseys did in that situation. NOBODY!

Cherokee,

:clap:

Nehemiah
01-31-2004, 09:47 AM
I believe that the Rs would have much more credibility if they would come forth and say "We messed up. In the initial stage of the investigation, we now realize that we didn't do everything that could have been done. We should have worked fully to get ourselves cleared, and that would have allowed the BPD/FBI to proceed...." or whatever they need to say in order to take their share of the situation. Yes, the BPD screwed up royally, but so did the Rs, for whatever reason. Why not just be humble and say they didn't do every single thing right? I think the general public would appreciate that type of transparency, and that in itself could keep the case moving forward, if that is what they truly want. Haven't we all apologized at some time for something that we don't think we were totally responsible for--just to move a relationship along? Same here. Come out and instead of blaming and suing everyone, take responsibility for their part in the bungled investigation from DAY 1. Be humble and say "we're hurting and we caused some of this pain ourselves."

Barbara
01-31-2004, 10:26 AM
I believe that the Rs would have much more credibility if they would come forth and say "We messed up. In the initial stage of the investigation, we now realize that we didn't do everything that could have been done. We should have worked fully to get ourselves cleared, and that would have allowed the BPD/FBI to proceed...." or whatever they need to say in order to take their share of the situation. Yes, the BPD screwed up royally, but so did the Rs, for whatever reason. Why not just be humble and say they didn't do every single thing right? I think the general public would appreciate that type of transparency, and that in itself could keep the case moving forward, if that is what they truly want. Haven't we all apologized at some time for something that we don't think we were totally responsible for--just to move a relationship along? Same here. Come out and instead of blaming and suing everyone, take responsibility for their part in the bungled investigation from DAY 1. Be humble and say "we're hurting and we caused some of this pain ourselves."

They have indirectly done just that. John and Patsy have openly stated that they have made mistakes and in hindsight, would have done some things differently. Of course, they were never specific about what mistakes they made or what they would have done differently.

It's the RST who won't admit the Ramseys made mistakes or SHOULD have done things differently. They will state that the only thing that should have been done differently was the parents sleeping too soundly or other such nonsensical statements.

There are none so blind.........

Toth
01-31-2004, 10:46 AM
I have been informed that John Ramsey has expressed privately an opinion that the BPD should have been more insistent on an interview on the first day and could merely have advised him that it was important to get his memories immediately.

It should be remembered that at all times John Ramsey was talking to the police and responded to all questions they chose to put to him during the early hours of the case. Including questions during the taking of dna samples and even when they went to the police station in reference to a matter involving Pasta Jay.

Ofcourse, they could have had their interview within a week if the BPD had merely agreed to come to the attorney's conference room, remain seated, keep voices down, make no interruptions, and have Patsy's doctor there. I beleive one of the requirements (it might have been a suggestion) was that all questions seeking information be asked prior to any question that was accusatorial or implied any parental involvement being asked. (This was sought so that the interview would proceed without any undue emotional strain being added to Patsy Ramsey's already fragile state). Some may view these requirements/suggestions as "unacceptable" but all that really means is the BPD did not want to do it.

Toth
01-31-2004, 10:54 AM
That is rather unlikely. The criminal lawyers knew that the parent's innocence was irrelevant. Indeed they were repeatedly telling their clients that there being innocent was meaningless; that the BPD and DA had targetted them and that if they spoke to the BPD, the BPD would not then look elsewhere but would simply use everythign that was said in their continued campaign to jail the only targets the BPD were interested in or were ever going to be interested in. It was the relatively naive John Ramsey and later the extremely naive Patsy Ramsey who simply did not believe this and wanted the interviews to take place. Patsy Ramsey even directly called the BPD and thus angered all their criminal lawyers.

Barbara
01-31-2004, 10:59 AM
Oh Toth, what a sense of humor :laugh:

I have been informed that John Ramsey has expressed privately an opinion that the BPD should have been more insistent on an interview on the first day and could merely have advised him that it was important to get his memories immediately.

It should be remembered that at all times John Ramsey was talking to the police and responded to all questions they chose to put to him during the early hours of the case. Including questions during the taking of dna samples and even when they went to the police station in reference to a matter involving Pasta Jay.

Ofcourse, they could have had their interview within a week if the BPD had merely agreed to come to the attorney's conference room, remain seated, keep voices down, make no interruptions, and have Patsy's doctor there. I beleive one of the requirements (it might have been a suggestion) was that all questions seeking information be asked prior to any question that was accusatorial or implied any parental involvement being asked. (This was sought so that the interview would proceed without any undue emotional strain being added to Patsy Ramsey's already fragile state). Some may view these requirements/suggestions as "unacceptable" but all that really means is the BPD did not want to do it.

I refuse to believe anyone other than the Ramseys REALLY believes this. And even then, I'm not so sure the Ramseys themselves believe this.

Allright, I'll repeat myself for the umpteenth time:

WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO BE ASKED AT ALL?
WHY WOULD THE POLICE MEET ANY CONDITIONS SET IN A MURDER INVESTIGATION?
PATSY RAMSEY'S FRAGILE STATE? WHAT ABOUT JONBENET'S STATE?
WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY EMOTIONAL STRAIN? THE RAMSEYS WEREN'T EVEN ANGRY AT THE MURDERER, ACCORDING TO THEM. :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

For Pasta Jay, they made their way to the police station but not for JonBenet?

Yeah, okay...........

Barbara
01-31-2004, 11:02 AM
That is rather unlikely. The criminal lawyers knew that the parent's innocence was irrelevant. Indeed they were repeatedly telling their clients that there being innocent was meaningless; that the BPD and DA had targetted them and that if they spoke to the BPD, the BPD would not then look elsewhere but would simply use everythign that was said in their continued campaign to jail the only targets the BPD were interested in or were ever going to be interested in. It was the relatively naive John Ramsey and later the extremely naive Patsy Ramsey who simply did not believe this and wanted the interviews to take place. Patsy Ramsey even directly called the BPD and thus angered all their criminal lawyers.

Naive John Ramsey? Oh please!

Funny, how they picked and chose when to listen to their lawyers. However did they decide when to do what?

Toth, you should do stand up! My goodness, is someone paying you for this?

Toth
01-31-2004, 11:15 AM
Toth, you should do stand up! My goodness, is someone paying you for this? No, but feel free to send a check to your favorite charity.

Barbara
01-31-2004, 11:21 AM
No, but feel free to send a check to your favorite charity.

I always do Toth. Usually my biggest charities are the Humane Society and ASPCA, and other animal charities but second to that is the INNOCENCE PROJECT!, believe it or not. I also send donations to Veterans' charities. They may not be large donations, but every dollar helps

Nehemiah
02-01-2004, 08:46 AM
They have indirectly done just that. John and Patsy have openly stated that they have made mistakes and in hindsight, would have done some things differently. Of course, they were never specific about what mistakes they made or what they would have done differently.

It's the RST who won't admit the Ramseys made mistakes or SHOULD have done things differently. They will state that the only thing that should have been done differently was the parents sleeping too soundly or other such nonsensical statements.

There are none so blind.........

Good point, Barbara. Maybe I am seeing this as the Rs' attitudes, when it is really just the RST, inlcuding their hired hands (Wood, et al....)

Toth
02-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Up until noon on the 26th, the ONLY thing the parents had done wrong was sleep too soundly. NOTHING else.

Now when told to search the house, should they have refused and insisted the police do it? I don't know.

Should they have hired lawyers? Yes. Clearly.

What did the Ramseys do wrong?
Blew their tops a few times during the questioning.
Trusted the BPD too much.

I can't see much else. Really!

Barbara
02-01-2004, 10:45 AM
I can't see much else. Really!

I know Toth, what a shame

BlueCrab
02-01-2004, 10:49 AM
Now when told to search the house, should they have refused and insisted the police do it? I don't know.


Toth,

If your six-year-old child was missing from her bed would you search the house for her, including the basement? Of course you would.

The Ramseys say they didn't search the basement. Common sense tells us the Ramseys searched the house, and if they searched the house then they found JonBenet long before placing the 911 call.

The Ramseys inadvertently admitted it during the 1998 interviews: "We were all screaming as John came up from the basement" (paraphrased).

JMO

Shylock
02-01-2004, 10:58 AM
Up until noon on the 26th, the ONLY thing the parents had done wrong was sleep too soundly. NOTHING else.
That's why the 911 tape proves they lied about Burke being asleep.

Imon128
02-01-2004, 11:05 AM
Up until noon on the 26th, the ONLY thing the parents had done wrong was sleep too soundly. NOTHING else.

Now when told to search the house, should they have refused and insisted the police do it? I don't know.

Should they have hired lawyers? Yes. Clearly.

What did the Ramseys do wrong?
Blew their tops a few times during the questioning.
Trusted the BPD too much.

I can't see much else. Really!

Not reading the ransom note in its entirety is just one thing that was wrong. How could you ignore the pipeline to 'that child's' LIFE? Also, they didn't ask Burke for info, they didn't check JonBenet's room, they didn't secure Patsy and Burke should the intruder still be there....just some things prior to 911 call.

Toth
02-01-2004, 11:29 AM
Even if I had memorized the ransom note's contents, I don't think I would have done anything differently if I had been in that situation.

I would never have awakened Burke either.

I would never have thought that the intruder might still be in the house once I found a ransom note.

Barbara
02-01-2004, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=Toth]Even if I had memorized the ransom note's contents, I don't think I would have done anything differently if I had been in that situation.

Especially if you wrote it.

"I would never have awakened Burke either."

Why bother? He was already awake

I would never have thought that the intruder might still be in the house once I found a ransom note.

I would never have thought there would be a body along with a RANSOM NOTE

Shylock
02-01-2004, 11:54 AM
"I would never have awakened Burke either."

Why bother? He was already awake

The big question is: What will the Ramsey excuse be if Keenan (or whoever eventually replaces her) releases the COMPLETE 911 call tape and proves a third voice is on it.

Will they pull a "we forgot he was up"?

cookie
02-01-2004, 12:58 PM
Not waking Burke up is totally out of the realm of reality for most people. Okay, they looked into his room, and saw him in his bed, presumably asleep. They couldn't tell from the doorway whether he was really asleep, faking being asleep, or for that matter, if he was even alive! There is NO excuse they can come up with that is good enough to explain away why they didn't wake him up immediately! None, nadda, zilch! Could be that they needed him to remain asleep during all the insanity of that morning to prove what a "sound" sleeper he was. They were supposedly running up and down the stairs screaming at each other, and then the cops arrive, check his room, and he is still asleep, so therefore, he would have slept through a freight train passing in his room so he couldn't have been awakened by an intruder in the process of getting his little sister down the hallway. The mere fact that ANY ten year old boy would fake sleep while any of this was going on, especially when a cop goes into his room, is completely unbelievable to me. Folks, I've raised three boys of my own and countless others grew up in our home, and this ISN'T going to happen without a very very good reason.

poco
02-02-2004, 05:00 PM
Not reading the ransom note in its entirety is just one thing that was wrong. How could you ignore the pipeline to 'that child's' LIFE? Also, they didn't ask Burke for info, they didn't check JonBenet's room, they didn't secure Patsy and Burke should the intruder still be there....just some things prior to 911 call.

That ransom note is what has me totally stumped - ransom = kidnapping. There was no kidnapping, so why a note?

Ivy
02-02-2004, 05:12 PM
Hi, poco. There HAD to be a note. The note was the only "evidence" of an intruder the Ramseys could come up with, and they knew it. No note = no "proof" of an intruder.

Toth
02-02-2004, 05:13 PM
The note was the only "evidence" of an intruder the Ramseys could come up with You mean they are incapable of smashing a window or prying a door?

Ivy
02-02-2004, 05:21 PM
Toth, John DID smash the basement window, but when he later realized LE would probably nix the idea that an intruder could have entered the house that way, he tried to pass off the broken window as something that had happened long before. If John had realized before LE arrived that they probably wouldn't buy the idea that an intruder could come through the broken window, John would likely have staged a door-prying incident.

TLynn
02-02-2004, 05:27 PM
John smashed a window -

but then changed his mind about the point of entry...that's why he never told the police he found the window ajar....closed it, but didn't lock it.

Also, the Ramseys now admit that Burke was awake - but claim they "didn't know it." It was an Enquirer story way back - may have been the one when they settled the civil case - part of the deal was a story from the Ramseys.

oops, Ivy -we was postin' at the same time.

Then, again, didn't John also say many doors and windows were left unlocked that night...?

poco
02-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Hi, poco. There HAD to be a note. The note was the only "evidence" of an intruder the Ramseys could come up with, and they knew it. No note = no "proof" of an intruder.

But why such a lengthy and detailed note --- a short "your daughter is dead and is in the basement" would have sufficed....

Ivy
02-02-2004, 05:59 PM
poco, I think that when the note was being written, John and Patsy may have been planning to remove JonBenet's body from the house for search teams to discover...but that when it came down to it, neither of them could bring themselves to dump the body of their precious daughter. Also, there was some snow around, and they may have realized their vehicle would have left tracks in the driveway and street. It's also possible they were afraid that neighbors would hear the garage door open and/or spotted them leaving. It's also possible that by the time the note was finished, JonBenet's body was in rigor and wouldn't fit into a suitcase, if that's what they'd planned to place it in to remove it from the house. Maybe the Rs were afraid the police might notice them on the street, which would make it impossible for them to deny it later. They might have also been afraid someone would see them dumping the body. The reason they didn't re-write the note, I think, was because they were pressed for time, and because they knew the original note would suffice as long as they placed the body in a secluded area of the house. This would give them an excuse for pretending to believe JonBenet had been kidnapped.

Shylock
02-02-2004, 06:31 PM
You mean they are incapable of smashing a window or prying a door?
David Dowaliby tried that--didn't work.
The fact is either of the two raises more questions about how they could have slept through the noise.

Britt
02-02-2004, 07:01 PM
The fact is either of the two raises more questions about how they could have slept through the noise.
Not to mention that they'd have to explain how the perp got TO the house in order to break in in the first place.... IOW, a credible intruder requires external evidence of the intrusion. Maybe John realized external evidence was going to be a problem, and so abandoned the broken basement window idea.

Toltec
02-02-2004, 07:04 PM
It sickens me that Patsy would run to BPD to check on Pasta Jay...

It sickens me that John would request the FBI get involved when he is assaulted and burglarized in his home....

The Ramseys believe that the BPD AND THE FBI are "biased", yet they do not think twice when it comes to getting help for themselves.

Trino
02-02-2004, 07:14 PM
Just reflecting on what I would do if my child were missing...

First, I would search the house top to bottom. I would definitely wake my other child and ask if he had seen his sibling. I would then go outside and call/yell. I would walk around the house and the streets. If I saw the ransom note before going outside, I would immediately call the police but while waiting for them to arrive, I would continue searching. No matter what size my house, I would have searched every single room, probably by the time the police arrived. Finally, I would cooperate in every way with the police. There would be no need for an attorney.

The real problem was, of course, the police. They screwed up in a major way, something that will never allow the case to be solved.

I wonder what Burke knows. How old is he now? What will he/does he think as an adult? Is it nearly time for Burke to write a book?

Toltec
02-02-2004, 08:40 PM
Burke is now a seventeen-year-old...(January 27). I can picture the Globe, Enquiror waiting one more year to pounce on the kid.

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 06:22 AM
Up until noon on the 26th, the ONLY thing the parents had done wrong was sleep too soundly. NOTHING else.

Now when told to search the house, should they have refused and insisted the police do it? I don't know.

Should they have hired lawyers? Yes. Clearly.

What did the Ramseys do wrong?
Blew their tops a few times during the questioning.
Trusted the BPD too much.

I can't see much else. Really!


Eh, no. The fact that they DIDN'T trust them at all is their defence for lawyering up and refusing to be interviewed or take polygraphs.

Which is it Toth?

Toth
02-03-2004, 07:22 AM
They trusted the BPD to handle the kidnapping properly; they didn't.
They trusted the BPD to investigate the murder properly; they didn't.
Soon they were advised that they were the targets and the only targets of the investigation; so they accepted the necessity for the lawyers.

Nehemiah
02-03-2004, 08:03 AM
They trusted the BPD to handle the kidnapping properly; they didn't.
They trusted the BPD to investigate the murder properly; they didn't.
Soon they were advised that they were the targets and the only targets of the investigation; so they accepted the necessity for the lawyers.

They supposedly lawyered up on the evening of the 26th, or at least by the 27th. How did anyone know that early that the Rs were going to be the "targets"?

Imon128
02-03-2004, 08:40 AM
They trusted the BPD to handle the kidnapping properly; they didn't.
They trusted the BPD to investigate the murder properly; they didn't.
Soon they were advised that they were the targets and the only targets of the investigation; so they accepted the necessity for the lawyers.

They WANTED the BPD to handle the fake kidnapping properly...in order to facilitate the lie.

They had no idea of everything the BPD/LE were doing to investigate the murder...unless they were heading up the investigation, and I think they wanted to control it, yes.

Who advised them they were the only targets? Also, on a TV show, they said they weren't ticked to be looked at, however, I think they secretly were really ticked as the note was supposed to present a red herring. JMO, though.

Toth
02-03-2004, 10:31 AM
Who advised them they were the only targets?Mike Bynum received a phone call from "an authoritative source whom he trusted implicitly". I'm pretty sure I know who the caller was, but until he reveals the role he played, I'm not going to.

Barbara
02-03-2004, 10:51 AM
Mike Bynum received a phone call from "an authoritative source whom he trusted implicitly". I'm pretty sure I know who the caller was, but until he reveals the role he played, I'm not going to.

Baloney! Ridiculous!

I don't believe that for one minute

Who needs a "secret" source to tell the parents that under these circumstances, they would be the initial "targets" to be interrogated, sampled and would have to be cleared before discounting them as suspects and going further outside the immediate family circle? Obviously not the Ramseys, because they have stated those exact sentiments on more than one occasion; however, still refused to cooperate.

Any lag time in the investigation elsewhere is the Ramseys own doing and as such, should never complain. It is common sense to understand why the police stayed focused on the Ramseys, as they made it pretty obvious that they must have something to hide, and plenty of it!

Maxi
02-03-2004, 11:12 AM
Mike Bynum has also said that he knew right away that the parents would be considered the first suspects. I don't think he needed someone to tell him that. Heck, the only people who have claimed NOT to know that were the Ramseys.

The Ramsey also claim that they relied on the BPD to handle the investigation properly, and the BPD let them down. Yet their actions prevented the BPD from following normal investigative procedures from the moment JBR's body was discovered, and the Ramteam hired private investigators within days.

Toth
02-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Who needs a "secret" source to tell the parents that under these circumstances, they would be the initial "targets" to be interrogated, sampled and would have to be cleared before discounting them as suspects and going further outside the immediate family circle? Your views on law enforcement are frightening. I can just see someone dialing 911 and saying my house is on fire only to hear "as soon as we clear you of suspicion of arson, we will send the firetrucks out there". Or ''someone just took my kid and drove of in an old green car": as soon as we clear you of any involvement we will sent out a car to look for your kid.

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 11:28 AM
Mike Bynum was a former prosecutor. He knew where investigations focus. As a friend of the Ramseys, he wanted to be sure they had legal representation. It wasn't something the Ramseys quickly thought of on their own--it was recommended to them by a lawyer friend they trusted.

If you've read PMPT and ST's book you can deduce that Bynum learned of JonBenét's death by way of a phone call & message left from the Whites. The Whites called friends of the Ramseys after the body was found to tell them what had happened.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 11:36 AM
I read both books and never deduced that the Whites called Mike Bynum to let him know about JB's death. Did I miss it? I don't recall reading exactly how Mike Bynum knew, only that he showed up the night of the discovery of JB's body. Also, I think others were calling friends to let them know, too, if the Whites did.

Edited to add that I believe it was Fleet White who had a message from a lawyer left on his machine. It didn't say that Fleet initiated a call to that lawyer, but I guess it's possible. I believe this info is in Steve's book?

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 11:42 AM
Do you recall that the Whites "began to notify the Ramseys' other friends that JonBenét had died"? That's PMPT p20

Remember that Pam Griffin heard a message from Priscilla White on her answering machine? PMPT p21

Remember that Bynum said in interview that he was out snowshoeing and learned of the murder only when he returned home?

I have no problem deducing from those facts that the Whites calling & leaving a message are probably how Bynum learned of the tragedy.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 11:45 AM
Bynum wasn't a close friend of the R's. Why would somebody 'just call' him? I don't want to dig through all my books, but I do believe others called friends, too. Pam Griffen, perhaps? Bynum, nor any lawyer, wasn't a close friend of John and Patsy, per John's testimony in the Miles case.

sissi
02-03-2004, 11:49 AM
I can't believe anyone who has watched this "parade" could suggest the parents weren't the initial suspects. Has anyone not watched the Linda Arndt interview,the one where she counted her bullets when she saw the evil in John's face? When she felt as though she was in the middle of a "Rosemary's Baby" scene?
How about when the officer said,"Patsy splayed her fingers",peaking through,ohhhh so guilty! Then the HUGE LIE,"snow surrounded the house,there were no footprints".
The Ramseys were given the right advice,perhaps not the best in follow up,but the initial advice to gain counsel was correct,IMO.

Barbara
02-03-2004, 11:52 AM
Your views on law enforcement are frightening. I can just see someone dialing 911 and saying my house is on fire only to hear "as soon as we clear you of suspicion of arson, we will send the firetrucks out there". Or ''someone just took my kid and drove of in an old green car": as soon as we clear you of any involvement we will sent out a car to look for your kid.

Wrong againToth.

My views on law enforcement are based in real life, real time. Yes, as soon as they put out the fire in my house and look for my kid, anybody with an ounce of common sense, would EXPECT to be looked at first before they look anywhere else. I live in the real world where those distasteful, but necessary investigation procedures are to be expected. That's why every other parent in the world has NOT done what the Ramseys have done during this investigation.

Is it really possible that the Ramseys are the only parents of a murdered child in the whole world who did the RIGHT and MORAL thing by refusing to cooperate with the police unless their "conditions" were met?

I'll come back to Susan Smith. Every expert in the country who has commented on that case agrees (prosecutors and defense) that if Susan Smith had gotten an attorney, she would be a free woman today. She would have refused to speak with police and therefore, could not have been tricked into confessing by the police. Personally, that is how I feel about the Ramseys. They will never be in prison for the murder/cover up of their daughter because they did in fact hire attornies and refuse to speak with police until they had everything well rehearsed and "forgotten" with all their dim memories and such.

That is a double edged sword that evokes different viewpoints for different people. Should Susan Smith have hired an attorney? That's a personal dilemma for each person to decide for themselves based on their own morals. It's the American way.

LP,

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in your post. I think it is pretty clear that LE was focused on the Ramseys, but in the real world, they have to be ruled out first. The point that LE focused in on the Ramseys is not denied. You and others can resent that, but hey, that's the unfairness of life. Sometimes, egos and personal resentment have to take a back seat to the things that are really important in life, like the murder of one's child.

It may not be pretty, but few things in a murder investigation are.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 11:52 AM
Isn't that NORMALLY where investigations of this sort start? With the inner circle and Patsy and John were the core of the inner circle. Humor me a little, say it were another family and they WERE involved, lied and led the police on a wild goose chase, and got away with it. Would the police be looked at as silly because they didn't look first at the family?

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 11:59 AM
Sissi- I can't believe anyone who has watched this "parade" could suggest the parents weren't the initial suspects.

Are you really suggesting that they should not have been then initial suspects?

All it took was for them to allow the investigating officers to investigate them, clear them and move on. Murder isn't nice. The Ramseys behaved exactly as though they had something to hide and that ensured that the police kept the focus on them. John Ramsey wanted police to give them a pass, not to bother them with interviews - just accept his word that they weren't that kind of people and look elsewhere. Nice defence!

Imon128
02-03-2004, 12:02 PM
Jayelles, they probably were secretly thinking...'don't you know you're supposed to believe that hinky note, darn it!?! That's why we wrote it in the first place...what part of it don't you believe? We can spruce it up, you know.' LOL

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 12:03 PM
You and others can resent that, but hey, that's the unfairness of life. Sometimes, egos and personal resentment have to take a back seat to the things that are really important in life, like the murder of one's child.


Hear hear! And here I believe may lie the fundamental key behind the mindset of RST.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 12:07 PM
For some reason, the RST seems to think the R's comfort should have come before anything else. Comfort for them was to not be 'scrutinized'. Wouldn't every criminal like that luxury? Oh, my.

BlueCrab
02-03-2004, 12:25 PM
The Ramseys were lying their heads off that morning.

The Ramseys were lying about what time they had gotten out of bed. They would have never made it to the airport, a 20-minute drive, by 6:30 A.M. if they didn't get out of bed until 5:30. That's one lie.

Another lie was when they said Burke was asleep in bed when the enhanced 911 call proved he was up and talking to the parents at 5:52 A.M. They were lying to shield Burke from something.

I think the Ramseys got up around 4:00 A.M.

Mike Bynum"s law firm represented Access Graphics and John Ramsey, IMO, called Bynum immediately after discovering JonBenet's body around 4:00 A.M. and realizing that Burke and one or two other underage kids were involved in her grisly and embarrassing death. Bynum would have been the first attorney John could think of who might be able to help. He was right.

Bynum called the powerful and politically connected Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, and the coverup was in place before the morning was over.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 12:35 PM
Imon, was Pam Griffin named as a "close friend" in that deposition? I don't recall that she was.

And the quotation doesn't say that the Whites called only "close" friends, it says that the Whites called other friends..."other" meaning other than themselves, I think.

I don't recall that Pam Griffin called friends for the Ramseys.

I don't blame you for not wanting to search through books (it gets old, year after year), but do you recall from somewhere a report that Priscilla White took Patsy's Daytimer? It seems like I remember that, and it would probably have been the source for numbers called if she did.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 12:41 PM
If I recall correctly, John's testimony as to who Patsy's close friends were, John was hesitant to name Patsy's friends. Is that your recall as well?

I don't know if Pam Griffin called folks, I was asking, more or less. I only recall that there were others making calls. Perhaps even Pam Paugh or Polly, my memory is foggy on that and I'd have to dig. As you can tell, I'm not wont to dig these days, LOL.

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 12:42 PM
Barbara, I'm not sure what post you're referring to. I've never thought parents shouldn't be an immediate focus when a child is found dead in their home. In the Ramsey case, though, I think focus should have shifted to an intruder long before the Boulder DA's office took over the case 6 years after the murder.

What Bynum said about representing the Ramseys is what we have to go on. Here's what he said to Diane Sawyer:

SAWYER: December 26,how did you hear that something had happened?

BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends, and we were.

SAWYER: When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their 9yo son Burke had gone to stay. Can you tell me about what you saw when you walked in that door?

BYNUM: I think I can. John and Patsy were there with family and friends, their minister. And just after I got there, everyone was sorry was kneeling in the living room and praying together. And when they got through, I went up and hugged John and and then I went over to Patsy. She was sitting on the couch. And I had to help her up and and give her a hug. So that was what I found when I got there. Everyone was devastated.It was difficult.

SAWYER: And there is someone else who was there that night who says Patsy Ramsey had collapsed.

BEUF: She was just lying on the floor.

SAWYER: His name is Dr Francesco Beuf. He was JonBenet's pediatrician. He talked to me by phone about whether Mrs Ramsey's grief was real.

BEUF: Oh, for God's sake, she was as devastated as anyone could be by a terrible loss like that. They called me to provide some tranquilizers for her. She was absolutely shattered by this.

SAWYER: And Mr Ramsey?

BEUF: He looked absolutely devastated. To me, they were the most appropriate reactions in the world. God knows, I wouldn't know how I'd react if one of my children had been murdered, particularly in such horrible circumstances. He paced and paced and paced. He and I went out for a walk for awhile that night. It's the wreckage of two human beings.

SAWYER: Even so, we were told the Ramseys volunteered to give hair, fingerprint, blood samples. And John Ramsey offered to be formally interviewed by the police if he could do it in the house near his family. Bynum says it didn't happen only because police wanted both parents, and Dr Beuf said Patsy Ramsey wasn't able to talk.

BEUF: I had advised that it was not good to have Patsy there because she was under heavy sedation and would not have been able to function. And then the story came out that the Ramseys had refused to be interviewed by the police. That is just flat wrong.I sat there.

SAWYER: Why did they get a lawyer?

BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice nothing more, nothing less.

SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

BYNUM: I'm the one.

SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"

BYNUM: Well

SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

SAWYER: And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news.

BYNUM: He said the police are refusing to release JonBenet's body for burial unless John and Patsy give them interviews. I have never heard of anything like that. I said to the DA, "I don't know whether or not this is illegal, but I'm sure it's immoral and unethical." I just was not willing to participate and facilitate or do anything other than to say "no." Not only no, but hell, no, you're not getting an interview. And I did say that.

SAWYER: Did they authorize you to say that?

BYNUM: John and Patsy? No. Absolutely not.They weren't in the room. They didn't know what was going on. And I wasn't going to bring them in on it. I did it.

tipper
02-03-2004, 12:42 PM
I don't see why you feel getting up at 5:30 doesn't work. The drive to the airport takes 20 minutes. Add 10 minutes for Patsy to get dressed and made up. I do it in less when I know what I'm going to wear but I rounded up for her. That leaves a half hour to get two kids, who are most likely excited about seeing their brother and sister not to mention having a second Christmas, up and out the door with a couple bags of clothes and presents.

If they got up at 4 what in the world would you have them do for 2 hours?

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 12:44 PM
The Ramseys were lying their heads off that morning.

The Ramseys were lying about what time they had gotten out of bed. They would have never made it to the airport, a 20-minute drive, by 6:30 A.M. if they didn't get out of bed until 5:30. That's one lie.


I have a 15 minute drive to work so I'm trying to equate this. I think that 1 hour is about the least time I would leave in order to get up, ready and going. If the Ramseys were packed and the kids were going in their jammys, it's not unreasonable. The only thing I would think about is that if they were actually leaving the state for a few days, did they leave enough time to go round and check doors, windows etc, but then it doesn't seem as though they were terribly security conscious.

sissi
02-03-2004, 01:01 PM
Yes ,Jayelles,I was addressing those that believe differently,those that believe Patsy and John were not suspects that first day. In a real investigation I would expect them to be considered,but not to "let go" of initial "gut feels" based on eye contact and splayed hands shows a definite lack of either imagination or training on the part of the police. Then to compound this,the egotistical BPD refused to be wrong,they kept shoving that square peg into that proverbial round hole. This is where the investigators went wrong,they didn't widen their scope ,they didn't want to find themselves wrong.
Were the Ramseys to blame for all of this? Were they not devastated? Did they know they were the suspects then and now and forever and that any personal niceties they expected were misconstrued as stonewalling? They were people of privilege and likely "banged classes" ,and instead of a real investigation it became a power war for the BPD. The Ramseys were naive and unaware of all of this at the time. They had no idea ,they knew they were innocent,and couldn't have expect the consequences that followed.
IMO

BlueCrab
02-03-2004, 01:44 PM
Estimated timeline for trying to get to the airport by 6:30 A.M. after getting up at 5:30 A.M:

1. Bathroom, shower, dress, make-up: 15 minutes

2. Make coffee, set out breakfast items, drink coffee: 10 minutes

3. Finish packing, wash and dry clothing items in second floor laundry: 15 minutes

4. Wake up kids, get them washed up and dressed; 15 minutes

5. Eat breakfast (They planned to be in the air the rest of the day and wouldn't have left home without eating something): 15 minutes

6. Straighten up kitchen, check house inside and out (they'll be gone for a long time): 10 minutes

7. Load luggage and presents into car, last call for bathroom, get kids into car: 10 minutes

8. Drive to Jeffco Airport (15 miles) 20 minutes

Total = 110 minutes, or 50 minutes late getting to the airport.

JMO

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 01:52 PM
Estimated timeline for trying to get to the airport by 6:30 A.M. after getting up at 5:30 A.M:


1. Bathroom, shower, dress, make-up: 15 minutes

ok

2. Make coffee, set out breakfast items, drink coffee: 10 minutes

maybe if she sat down and did nothing but drink her coffee. if she's like me, she would do jobs whilst drinking the coffee.

3. Finish packing, wash and dry clothing items in second floor laundry: 15 minutes

5-10 minutes to run round collecting stuff and chuck them in bag.

4. Wake up kids, get them washed up and dressed; 15 minutes
My understanding that they were travelling au-jammy. Therefore, 5 minutes to haul them out of bed and put them in the car.

5. Eat breakfast (They planned to be in the air the rest of the day and wouldn't have left home without eating something): 15 minutes

No mention of breakfast. Possibly had snacks for plane

6. Straighten up kitchen, check house inside and out (they'll be gone for a long time): 10 minutes

OK about house checks, but I doubt Patsy would have bothered about straightening the kitchen

7. Load luggage and presents into car, last call for bathroom, get kids into car: 10 minutes

John could have been loading car whilst Patsy got kids into the car - not 10 minutes

8. Drive to Jeffco Airport (15 miles) 20 minutes

Total = 110 minutes, or 50 minutes late getting to the airport.

nah, they would probably have been rushed, but I don't think it's unreasonable

JMO

SisterSocks
02-03-2004, 02:13 PM
:eek: So Patsy didn't go to the bathroom for FOUR MONTHS??? Gee, no wonder she's so fat now!...LOL



Ya know, its the statement above that SCREAMS ---Judge not; lest YOU be judge. :eek:

Toth
02-03-2004, 02:24 PM
I'm not going to quibble with your rather generous time estimates, but I do want to say that I imagine it would not have been the first time Patsy Ramsey, nor any other woman, was late for something!

Jayelles
02-03-2004, 02:27 PM
I'm not going to quibble with your rather generous time estimates, but I do want to say that I imagine it would not have been the first time Patsy Ramsey, nor any other woman, was late for something!

And when a woman is late, her husband gets irritated.

Maxi
02-03-2004, 03:51 PM
In a real investigation I would expect them to be considered,but not to "let go" of initial "gut feels" based on eye contact and splayed hands shows a definite lack of either imagination or training on the part of the police. Then to compound this,the egotistical BPD refused to be wrong,they kept shoving that square peg into that proverbial round hole. This is where the investigators went wrong,they didn't widen their scope ,they didn't want to find themselves wrong.
Were the Ramseys to blame for all of this? Were they not devastated? Did they know they were the suspects then and now and forever and that any personal niceties they expected were misconstrued as stonewalling? They were people of privilege and likely "banged classes" ,and instead of a real investigation it became a power war for the BPD. The Ramseys were naive and unaware of all of this at the time. They had no idea ,they knew they were innocent,and couldn't have expect the consequences that followed.
IMO

The police are trained to watch body language and other behaviors. There's nothing unprofessional about those observations. As for the class dynamic, my observation is that the Ramseys were treated with kid gloves because of their social standing and wealth. It's rather unusual for cops to quickly accede to a suspect's or witness's refusal to be interrogated at the station, much less to be interrogated at all.

I find it hard to believe there was anyone so naive that they wouldn't understand they would immediately be suspect when their child was found dead in their home. This was post-Susan Smith. It was post-Adam Walsh. Cop shows, movies, newpapers, and books regularly made mention of parents as first suspects. The Ramseys were certainly exposed to the same media as the rest of us.

I don't think they were so much naive as arrogant. My impression from their statements is that they thought they wouldn't, or shouldn't, be considered because they weren't the kind of people who would kill their daughter. IOW, they felt they were too good to be considered seriously. When the police didn't respond as the Ramseys thought they would, they began parading their virtues in the media so the public would exonerate them, rather than trying to assist in the police investigation.

tipper
02-03-2004, 04:05 PM
Estimated timeline for trying to get to the airport by 6:30 A.M. after getting up at 5:30 A.M:

1. Bathroom, shower, dress, make-up: 15 minutes
2. Make coffee, set out breakfast items, drink coffee: 10 minutes
3. Finish packing, wash and dry clothing items in second floor laundry: 15 minutes
4. Wake up kids, get them washed up and dressed; 15 minutes
5. Eat breakfast (They planned to be in the air the rest of the day and wouldn't have left home without eating something): 15 minutes
6. Straighten up kitchen, check house inside and out (they'll be gone for a long time): 10 minutes
7. Load luggage and presents into car, last call for bathroom, get kids into car: 10 minutes
8. Drive to Jeffco Airport (15 miles) 20 minutes

Total = 110 minutes, or 50 minutes late getting to the airport.

JMONo offense BC, but I would go NUTS traveling with you.

Since our image of the Ramsey’s departure timetable reflects our own way of doing things this is how I see it:


Up, bathroom, dress, makeup – <10 min
Downstairs, start coffee – 5 minutes
Wake kids tell them to get dressed. While kids are dressing, run down and get cup of coffee, back upstairs, throw last minute clothes in bags – 10 minutes
Herd kids out door while carrying bags. One adult loads rest of luggage while other checks house. 10 minutes.
Time: 35 minutes + 20 minute drive to airport = 55 minutes

If kids want something to eat they can get it themselves while I finish with last minute clothes. Otherwise they can eat a snack in the plane or we'd do MacDonalds drive-thru on the way to the airport and add maybe 5 minutes.

Imon128
02-03-2004, 04:44 PM
The call to 911 came in at 5:52.

Patsy got up a few minutes after John, who got up at 5:30, making it approx. 5:35 when Patsy got up. She went in to put her makeup on, go potty, wash up, put her clothes on, and if it took her 10 min, that would make it approx. 5:45. She gets up, goes down the steps, stops on the kids floor and messes with an article of clothing (in a sink?) on the next floor down. Another 5 min? 3? Let's say 3...that would then make it about 5:48 when she descended the steps. So, using that timeframe, she and John would have had approx. 5 min. to get to the note on the steps, check JB's room, summon John, John to get down the steps, do this thing, and so on and so on, read and digest the note, look around, discuss, etc. I don't think 5 min. would have been enough time for the couple to do all they supposedly did prior to the 911 call. For instance, did John have to go somewhere to get his eyeglasses? You get my drift, I hope.

Ivy
02-03-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by BlueCrab
I think the Ramseys got up around 4:00 A.M.
BlueCrab, you could be very close to right about that. John's "3 A.M." slip-of-the-tongue on LKL might indicate that things started popping at the Ramsey house at 3 A.M. That's the only reason I can think of for John to have had 3 A.M. on the brain during the LKL interview.

Anyone remember what time it was when the neighbor thought she heard a scream?

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 07:44 PM
Melody Stanton was the neighbor and she said it was about midnight.

Ivy
02-03-2004, 08:06 PM
LP, thanks. I couldn't remember her name. According to PMPT, Melody Stanton told police that she was sure she'd heard a child scream at about 2 A.M. (pb page 76)

It was sometime after the scream that Stanton's husband reportedly heard a crashing sound like metal on concrete. (pb page 531)

Again...why did John have 3 A.M. on the brain during the LKL interview? I think some serious damage control--writing the RN, contacting an attorney friend, etc.-- might have been going on in the Ramsey house at that time.

LovelyPigeon
02-03-2004, 08:31 PM
According to Charlie Brennan, who got his information from Jeff Shapiro who talked to Stanton, she heard the scream about midnight. As I recall, her woke her husband who said he then heard a noise outside (not a scream) after she went back to sleep. I think the husband may have said he looked at a clock.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1108rams.shtml
Melody Stanton, a Ramsey neighbor at the time, told police she woke with a start not long after midnight Dec. 26, 1996, to a frightening scream; her statement was first reported by the Globe supermarket weekly nearly a year later. ABC's 20/20 reported that Stanton typically slept with her window slightly open. -

According to Thomas, Stanton reneged on her story, if she had ever actually told it to police in the first place. She said something about hearing psychic energy or some such thing rather than a scream.

As for why JR said 3 o'clock in the morning, I think it was just an innocent getting flustered moment. We all have those.

Ivy
02-03-2004, 09:11 PM
I think John saying 3 AM while discussing the events surrounding JonBenet's death means that 3 AM was on his brain for a reason connected to the awful event.

Melody Stanton didn't like being hounded by the media, according to PMPT, and she even moved away to distance herself from the case. Maybe she heard a scream and maybe she didn't. If she heard one, maybe it was at midnight, or maybe it was at 2 AM. Scream aside, the fact is that John had 3 AM on his brain...and because he did, so now do I.

LovelyPigeon
02-04-2004, 05:39 PM
On the occasion when JR said 3 am it was 3 1/4 years after JonBenét was killed. Maybe JR & Patsy had gotten up at 3 am that day to fly to New York to appear on LKL. Maybe their flight landed at 3am. Maybe they were catching a 3 am flight back to Atlanta. It could be anything, but most likely is absolutely nothing.

Now, if JR has repeatedly referred to 3 am in interviews or speaking engagements, I'd say you might have something. Otherwise...not.

Imon128
02-04-2004, 06:12 PM
Good question, Ivy. Either way, John loses. If he didn't study the facts of his daughter's death any more closely, and retain those facts, that says something about him, too. I be we know more facts about JB's death, than John or Patsy allow the public to believe, they know. Sigh.

LovelyPigeon
02-04-2004, 06:21 PM
FWIW, ST says BPD put JonBenét's death between 10 pm and 1 am. p147

Imon128
02-04-2004, 06:24 PM
Wasn't Melody Stanton's reported 'hearing a scream' in a time frame of midnight to two, at least I feel I've read that midnight was the earliest time frame beginning. Also, time of death has never been determined with finality, has it?

Ivy
02-04-2004, 06:45 PM
So...there's John giving a heartfelt rendition of Patsy finding the note and how they both reacted, when he suddenly experiences a short circuit and gets the time of the happenings confused with a flight arrival, departure, or whatever? I don't buy it. I think 3 AM somehow relates to events surrounding JonBenet's death.

BlueCrab
02-04-2004, 07:30 PM
FWIW, ST says BPD put JonBenét's death between 10 pm and 1 am. p147

I don't remember anyone of authority setting the time of death, not even the coroner. JonBenet was in full rigor at 1:05 P.M. on the 26th and that would indicate she died around 1:00 A.M., 12 hours prior.

Also, she had to have eaten the pineapple after being put to bed and after John went to bed (about 10:30). The pineapple was in the upper part of the small intestine and would have taken 1 1/2 to 2 hours to get there. Therefore, if JonBenet ate the pineapple around 11:00 to 11:30 P.M., then she likely died around 1:00 A.M., but it's just an amateurish guess.


JMO

Toltec
02-04-2004, 08:01 PM
They trusted the BPD to handle the kidnapping properly; they didn't.
They trusted the BPD to investigate the murder properly; they didn't.
Soon they were advised that they were the targets and the only targets of the investigation; so they accepted the necessity for the lawyers.

That is complete and total poop! The Ramseys hired DEFENSE LAWYERS less than 24 hours after JonBenet's body was found!

Tell me Toth...who would tell John that he "was a target" so soon after the murder...when LE "gave them a day" as John requested???

BlueCrab
02-04-2004, 08:23 PM
FWIW, ST says BPD put JonBenét's death between 10 pm and 1 am. p147

LP,

I just read page 147 in Steve Thomas' book. It appears Steve has serious problems with numbers and logic. Here's what he wrote:

"The coroner also said there was acute vaginal injury that had happened around the time of death. He could not pinpoint the time of death closer than six to twelve hours before she was brought upstairs, stiff in full rigor mortis, by her father at 1 P.M.

"That would put the time of death very roughly about 1 A.M. and no later than 7 A.M. Since the 911 call had come in shortly before 6 o'clock in the morning, and the murder, staging, and the ransom note would all have required a substantial amount of time to accomplish, the earlier time was the most logical -- which would put the time of death between the time the family arrived home that night about 10 P.M. and 1 A.M."

No it wouldn't Steve. It would put the time of death at 1:00 A.M. or later (six to twelve hours before she was brought upstairs).

JMO

why_nutt
02-04-2004, 08:28 PM
That is complete and total poop! The Ramseys hired DEFENSE LAWYERS less than 24 hours after JonBenet's body was found!

Tell me Toth...who would tell John that he "was a target" so soon after the murder...when LE "gave them a day" as John requested???

Fact: The BPD did not send officers to interview and take evidence from Linda Hoffmann-Pugh and Mervin Pugh on December 26th and 27th because the BPD mistook the Pugh family for the Ramsey family and targeted them. Fact: A redacted name from the first CBI lab report of January 15th, 1997, describing DNA evidence examined in relationship to the case, is not a Ramsey name. Fact: A search warrant issued on December 26th, a warrant still sealed to this day, is not a warrant to search property belonging to a member of the Ramsey family.

Fact: Members of the BPD were examining leads other than Ramsey leads, to the extent of taking property, testimonial and non-testimonial evidence, as early as December 26th.

Shylock
02-04-2004, 09:22 PM
I don't remember anyone of authority setting the time of death, not even the coroner. JonBenet was in full rigor at 1:05 P.M. on the 26th and that would indicate she died around 1:00 A.M., 12 hours prior.

We've discussed this before. You can't guess at the time of death based on the stage of rigor because it would have been effected by her lying on the cold floor. And there is no way to know exactly when her body was moved to that location. So the 12 hours you mention might actually be 10 hours, or it might be 14 hours. Four hours is a pretty big window to work with.

LovelyPigeon
02-04-2004, 09:36 PM
Shylock, the entire basement was warm. Even if the floor had been cold, JonBenét was dressed and was inside a blanket. Rigor and livor mortis should have proceeded *normally*.

Toltec, Bryan Morgan was retained for the Ramseys, at Bynum's arrangement, on Saturday evening Dec 28. That would be 60 hours (rather than 24) after JonBenét's death.

PMPT p48(

Shylock
02-04-2004, 10:18 PM
Shylock, the entire basement was warm. Even if the floor had been cold, JonBenét was dressed and was inside a blanket. Rigor and livor mortis should have proceeded *normally*.
I don't ever remember seeing a heat duct in the little room. And a blanket wouldn't insulate a dead body lying on a cold slab for very long, certainly not 12 hours.
And as I said, we have no idea what time she died versus what time she was put in the room. Patsy might have prayed over her for a couple hours before moving her body to the basement.

tipper
02-04-2004, 10:50 PM
In which case the body would show signs of having been moved.

LovelyPigeon
02-04-2004, 11:02 PM
The material that grew in patches on the floor and walls of the windowless room was there because of the warmth and moisture in the room. The growth on the floor is how it is known that the Hi Tech bootprint was "fresh". The impression would not be permanent in the growing "fungus-like mildew", as JR described it in DOI.

The entire basement, as was the house, was kept warm. Thomas commented on that. The windowless room was also just next to the boiler room where the house's furnace sat.

Ivy
02-04-2004, 11:08 PM
Aha! So Burke could have made the boot print that night.

BlueCrab
02-04-2004, 11:57 PM
Aha! So Burke could have made the boot print that night.

Yep. The shoe print could have been from Burke or Doug; word has it they both owned Hi-Tec boots.

JMO

Ivy, I like that snapshot. You look like someone I knew who worked for the Joint Chiefs.

Ivy
02-05-2004, 01:36 AM
BC...besides Burke, a friend of Burke's also testified before the grand jury, and I've always wondered if that friend was Doug. The friend testified that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. Maybe he also mentioned that he himself did too. Hmmm.. interesting.

People do tell me from time to time I remind them of someone they know. In a town I once lived in, I had a "twin" I never saw. Even my teenage kids thought she was me the few times they saw her driving around and in stores, and friends of hers who saw me were convinced I was her...even up close and in my face! Apparently the only difference between us was that her eyes were not quite as green as mine. Weird. Anyway, by posting the photo, I was hoping to start a trend. I think it would be fun to finally be able to see some mugs to go with the hats.

Jayelles
02-05-2004, 02:32 AM
The material that grew in patches on the floor and walls of the windowless room was there because of the warmth and moisture in the room. The growth on the floor is how it is known that the Hi Tech bootprint was "fresh". The impression would not be permanent in the growing "fungus-like mildew", as JR described it in DOI.

The entire basement, as was the house, was kept warm. Thomas commented on that. The windowless room was also just next to the boiler room where the house's furnace sat.

A year or so ago, at YF, WN made a strong case for the "mould" not being fast growing mould at all.

Why_Nut posted two images of the basement "mould" which were taken some considerable time apart and they had not visibly changed. Why_Nut quizzed ******* (who had seen the "mould") about its appearance and she decribed the mould as being like 'soapy bubbles' . Why_Nut then explained about a process called saponification. This is very slow growing and not fast gowing as the RST would have us believe and it strongly supports the theory that the hi-tec print could have been there for a long time.

Blazeboy3
02-05-2004, 02:49 AM
I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.
As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.
And if you want to go read PMPT turn to p.499, and then see who it was who refused to allow any meetings to take place for four months!!

Ok, hum, maybe it's a "BLUE'S CLUE--PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAP problem / reaction / solution THING?"

LovelyPigeon
02-05-2004, 08:45 AM
ST wrote that he believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26 by a "sight-seeing law enforcement officer...he or she...didn't want to admit it."

Smit also believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26, but probably by the killer.

Gosage tried to locate the source of the print, running down 400 contacts over more than 14 months, according to ST, but never was successful.

I think the "growth" rate on the floor and walls was significant not in the rate it spread out but in the rate it replaced any impression made into it.

Imon128
02-05-2004, 08:51 AM
It would be good to know how to 'date' that footprint.

BlueCrab
02-05-2004, 09:38 AM
BC...besides Burke, a friend of Burke's also testified before the grand jury, and I've always wondered if that friend was Doug. The friend testified that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. Maybe he also mentioned that he himself did too. Hmmm.. interesting.


Burke's friend who testified to the grand jury was Doug Stine. Doug testified just prior to the GJ taking its 4-month break so investigators could follow up on what the 100 or so witnesses had told the jurors. The last witness to testify before the long break was Burke Ramsey. He testified for five hours on May 19, 1999.

When the GJ reconvened after the 4-month hiatus it brought in Susan Stine to testify on September 23. The jurors were dismissed on October 13, 1999 after its 13-month investigation.

JMO

why_nutt
02-05-2004, 10:33 AM
ST wrote that he believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26 by a "sight-seeing law enforcement officer...he or she...didn't want to admit it."

Smit also believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26, but probably by the killer.

Gosage tried to locate the source of the print, running down 400 contacts over more than 14 months, according to ST, but never was successful.

I think the "growth" rate on the floor and walls was significant not in the rate it spread out but in the rate it replaced any impression made into it.

If this material was truly mold, it was made up of living cellular material, and this material was not intelligent enough to make a decision about growing only as replacement for an impression, and not growing enough to spread out anywhere it could. She Who Must Be Paid, who has described her own experiences stepping on this material, has said it was like dry soap bubbles and it crackled when stepped on. There is a reason for this. As saponification, it would literally have been tiny, tiny soap bubbles. As mold, it would have been organic and slimy from the high moisture content it contained as an assemblage of living creatures.

And if it was truly mold, what kind of mold was it? Science is entirely capable of saying whether a mold is one of a range of common indoor molds like Stachybotrys, Alternaria, Cladosporium, Aspergillus, Mucor, Penicillium or Memnoniella. Why is it that Ramsey defenders have been unable after all this time to state definitively, "Yes, there was mold on the floor of the basement, it is X type of mold, which grows at a rate of Y distance per hour"? Did the Ramsey investigators even bother to take samples, as they could easily have done? Did Lou Smit bother to demand that samples be taken so that this "mold" could be analyzed for its known growth characteristics? And what was the food source for this supposed mold? Mold, as a set of living creatures, needs a nutrient source, and concrete contains no nutrients. Saponification, on the other hand, merely needs incorrectly-sealed concrete and some water.

For the record and for those who missed the photos the first time around, here they are again. The first photo was taken by Ramsey investigators when the house was turned back to the family in early 1997. Note the white circle area. The second photo was taken by She Who Must Be Paid, who took her photo more than a year later. Notice that the areas involved look identical from year to year, and when taking the second photo, SWMBP represented it as an example of basement mold and nothing else.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/97sapon.jpg

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/98latersapon.jpg

BlueCrab
02-05-2004, 12:00 PM
http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/97sapon.jpg

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/98latersapon.jpg


In the pictures the mold, if that's what it is, seems to be growing on the walls, not the floor. It's hard to tell where the floor ends and the walls begin.

JMO

Ivy
02-05-2004, 01:25 PM
Here's a set of pictures of the basement. One shows the white stuff on the floor and another on the wall. I agree it looks like saponification, not mold.

Set B (http://*******245_archive.tripod.com/basement-B.htm)

In the following set of pictures is a photo of the Hi-Tec print. Was the print made in the white stuff, or in something else?

Set D (http://*******245_archive.tripod.com/basement-D.htm)

The main photo index is here. (http://*******245_archive.tripod.com/index.htm)
____
IMO

Toltec
02-06-2004, 12:00 AM
I don't buy that 5:30am wake-up either. John told LE that the alarm went off, then Patsy tells LE the alarm did not go off....they are both lying.

Patsy gave Officer Trujillo a minute-by-minute replay as to what she did that morning. She said it took her 15-20 minutes to wash up and put her face and clothes on. She spent 5-10 minutes washing JonBenet's jumper on the second floor...so you have to figure that after discovering the note that she immediately dialled 911. I don't buy that for one minute.

That would mean that she would not have had time to wait for John to come downstairs...and for John to check on Burke...and for John to run downstairs to read the ransom letter....

nopey-nope.

Nedthan Johns
02-06-2004, 03:17 AM
Well all be..... There it is just staring me in the face, and was probably addressed before, yet I hadn't taken much interest in it. Look at the safe on the floor. There appears to be a lock or hinge that protrudes from the edge. Does anyone have info. regarding this safe, where it was from, did the Ramsey's purchase it, was it in the house when they bought it? And wasn't this safe REMOVED from the house when they sold it? Why? Why would anyone take the time to remove a safe from the floor in a basement?

Alarm bells are going off.

As for the time of death................the clincher for me is what was addressed on the tombstone. Christmas. The Ramsey's knew perfectly well when she died.

Blazeboy3
02-06-2004, 03:56 AM
This is cooperation from parents who wanted justice for their murdered daughter? Oh yeah. I forgot. They said they weren't angry at whomever killed "that child." They only got angry when they were asked to cooperate with the investigation.
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorningAmerica/gma000411Jonbenet_trans2.html
NEW YORK, April 11 - What follows is a transcript of Thomas' interview with ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas.
ABCNEWS' Elizabeth Vargas: In the Ramseys' own book, which came out a couple of weeks ago, they have a chapter in there called "A Chronicle of Cooperation", where they say, 'We talked to the police the 26th, the 27th, the 28th. We gave them long interviews, we gave them handwriting samples, DNA samples, pubic hair samples. We gave them everything they wanted.'
Steven Thomas: Their assertion now that they cooperated fully with this investigation, I find absurd. We had to wait four months before we could interview these people surrounding-and ask questions face to face surrounding the death of their daughter.
Vargas: What do they mean then when they say, 'We talked to police on the 26th, and on the 27th, and on the 28th?'
Thomas: On the 26th they certainly did talk to us during the kidnapping phase of this thing. On the night of the 27th, there was this limited brief exchange, which I guess they're characterizing as an interview, when in fact the detectives were there to arrange an interview.
Vargas: (VO) as for that physical evidence, what they call non-testimonial evidence, by Colorado law, the police can easily demand samples of handwriting, blood, DNA.
Thomas: They had no choice but to cooperate with the non-testimonial evidence, because in a snap we could have gotten that through a simple affidavit. But what we couldn't make them do was answer questions. Yeah, they gave us blood, gave us handwriting, gave us hair, but when the case was red hot, when we needed the parents the most in those early critical days, we had to wait four months to be able to ask them the most elementary of questions.
Vargas: You say in the book as well that when the Ramseys did agree to sit down and talk to you, there were several conditions attached. What were they?
Thomas: We did have these conditions that were just not acceptable. Which detective would do the interviewing, who would be in the room, a doctor, the attorneys, the forum and time that the questioning would continue, and Patsy's I think was not to exceed an hour. And the FBI, said 'This is absurd. You cannot interview people under these conditions.' So, again, when they say, 'We offered to come in', it was with this incredible set of parameters that were just not acceptable to a police department.
Vargas: (VO) The Ramsey legal team wanted a deal. They asked for materials rarely given to suspects in a crime & including John and Patsy's prior statements, copies of the autopsy report and the ransom note, and police reports. Thomas says the Ramseys made it clear that if, and only if, they got what they wanted would the Ramseys sit down for a formal interview.
Vargas: But if you really wanted the information, what's wrong with agreeing to some of those conditions? Does that compromise you in some way? Does that give them too much of an advantage?
Thomas: Well, I'll tell you, advantage, what do you mean advantage? When the DA's Office was shoveling by the wheelbarrow full, our case file to Team Ramsey. Yeah, you talk about an advantage. somebody that the police wanted to question, I think I would be hard pressed to say, "Hey, detective, I'll answer your questions, but let me take a look at your case file there, before I answer". Believe me, a poor kid killed in the projects, a blue-collar working stiff, you know, a guy who's a carpenter or a welder out there, are not afforded these concessions that kept being made to the Ramseys, that's not what I would characterize as their chronicle of cooperation.
Vargas: (VO) The district attorney made a deal. The police were forced to turn over the documents.
Thomas: The Ramsey experts got to come into the police department and review evidence. They got to look at the ligature and the garrote. They came in and did studies of the ransom note. We were handing over photographs of evidence, including sensitive ransom note information. And at one point I told the police department, I told my supervisor. I said, 'I am not going to participate in this.' I said, 'I want my refusal duly noted.'
Vargas: (VO) We contacted several experts in general police and investigative procedures-they say these concessions made to the Ramseys were highly unusual. Finally, on April 30th, 1997, Steve Thomas sat down in a conference room at the district attorney's office. With Patsy were her attorney and the Ramsey's own private investigator. Thomas claims the entire interview was undermined. He says the police would now question intelligent, well-coached suspects who could study for their interviews as if preparing for a high school test.
(Thanks to Peggy Lakin, author of "Journey Beyond Reason" for bringing this interview to the public's attention once again.)
IMO

...this is what I get when I try to read your above-mentioned URL:;

Sorry
This content is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience. and NOTHING...so now what???

LovelyPigeon
02-07-2004, 08:16 PM
why_nut, could you furnish some photos of saponification on cement floors/walls? I haven't been able to find one. Most of what I've seen on quick searches indicates that saponification on cement occurs when the alkaline material in cement reacts with the oil in paints used on it.

The floor and walls in the wine cellar room appear to be unpainted. I don't have any photos of saponification on cement floors or walls to compare.

I don't know if BPD or Smit or anyother agency scientically identified the material on the floor that the bootprint appeared in. Even if the material was identified as a fungus, a mold, or any other matter that doesn't mean it has to have been announced to the public what the material is.

Here are photos of the boot and foot prints online at the RMN:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img041.jpg
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img040.jpg
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img039.jpg
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img038.jpg

Ivy
02-09-2004, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the links, LP. I hadn't seen all those photos before .

why_nutt
02-10-2004, 09:20 AM
why_nut, could you furnish some photos of saponification on cement floors/walls? I haven't been able to find one. Most of what I've seen on quick searches indicates that saponification on cement occurs when the alkaline material in cement reacts with the oil in paints used on it.

Here you go.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/concrete.jpg

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/Concrete_cleaning.jpg

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/example.jpg

Edited to add:

I hope everyone can see the clear similarities between the saponification in the lower edge of the cleaning picture, and this view of Ramsey basement's "mold":

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/lwrmoldonfloor.jpg

Jayelles
02-10-2004, 11:16 AM
I hadn't seen that photo of the Ramsey basement floor before WN. You are amazing. You have certainly convinced me that it looks like saponification and that therefore, the Hi-Tec print could have been there for some time.

Have you notified any authorities on this?

BlueCrab
02-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Why Nut, I'm not convinced that we're looking at saponification on the concrete floors you showed in the pictures, since they weren't labeled by the company that furnished the pictures. LP was right when she said that all she could find in her search were pictures that showed paint problems due to saponification.

It appears that saponification only forms when alkaline from the concrete floor mixes with the chemicals of a paint or other covering that has been applied to the floor. The saponification forms between the concrete and the paint, causing the paint to peel.

The Ramsey basement floors didn't seem to be painted.

Is there any text to go with the company pictures you showed?

Jayelles, why would saponification on the floor allow conclusions to be drawn about how long it has been on the floor? Saponification is a chemical reaction that can "grow" at any time, just as mold is a biological reaction that can grow at any time.

JMO

TLynn
02-10-2004, 02:42 PM
I remember way back - John Ramsey said he had swept the "wine cellar." I remember it because it was so out of character for JR to do that - but his point was - the footprint had to be recent because of his sweeping...(can you keep a straight face on that one?!)

Ivy
02-10-2004, 02:56 PM
Now that it's been revealed (thanks to Lin Wood) that both Burke and his friend (Doug Stine?) testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes, and that investigators believe the print was Burke's, it would be interesting to know if John still claims he swept the wine cellar, and that the print had to be recent.
____
IMO

Jayelles
02-10-2004, 03:03 PM
Why Nut, I'm not convinced that we're looking at saponification on the concrete floors you showed in the pictures, since they weren't labeled by the company that furnished the pictures. LP was right when she said that all she could find in her search were pictures that showed paint problems due to saponification.

It appears that saponification only forms when alkaline from the concrete floor mixes with the chemicals of a paint or other covering that has been applied to the floor. The saponification forms between the concrete and the paint, causing the paint to peel.

The Ramsey basement floors didn't seem to be painted.

Is there any text to go with the company pictures you showed?

Jayelles, why would saponification on the floor allow conclusions to be drawn about how long it has been on the floor? Saponification is a chemical reaction that can "grow" at any time, just as mold is a biological reaction that can grow at any time.

JMO

What convinced me most about Why_Nut's theory is that when he originally posted about it at *******'s, he posted two images of the basement which were taken months apart and the mould was identical in both photos.

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 03:23 PM
That "mold" or whatever it is in the pictures why_nut posted (and the links to those are given again in this thread) are of a section of the wall.

The material on a wall isn't as likely to be disturbed as the material on a floor.

(Added information, for those who don't know: the door into the windowless room was closed up and walled over when the house was sold a couple of years ago. The room is no longer accessible to anyone)

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 03:40 PM
TY, why_nut, but I can't even tell if "saponification" is the identity of the material in the photos. Could you link us to the online site that displays those?

Each of the three photos you copied seems to have paint as a factor.

The floor and walls of the windowless room appear to be unpainted.

Jayelles
02-10-2004, 04:02 PM
The material on a wall isn't as likely to be disturbed as the material on a floor.


I agree, and I am sure YOU will agree that this very fact enables us to see just how slow-growing the mould actually was/is. had the photos been of a floor, it would have been impossible to tell what was regrowth after someone trod on it.

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 04:51 PM
No, I don't think it tells us anything about the growth of the "mold" on the floor. We don't know if the material on the wall is active or not. We don't know if disturbing the material on the wall would result in activating regrowth.

Toltec
02-10-2004, 07:14 PM
Patsy told LE that she was in the wine cellar Christmas eve AND Christmas day removing and wrapping presents...did LE find any of Patsy's footprints?

sissi
02-10-2004, 08:50 PM
Were Fleet's all over the place? He had gone down there to get a bottle of wine,
just days before. If the Pugh's weren't there,Fleet's weren't,and Patsy's weren't,it
would seem the hi-tech would be fresh?
Fleet,KNEW ,btw how to turn on the light,he did get the wine.
JMO

Ivy
02-10-2004, 09:06 PM
Maybe the Hi-Tec print was the only print that was made in the white stuff (saponification, mold, or whatever it was), and was therefore the only one that was preserved.

____
IMO

sissi
02-10-2004, 09:13 PM
Maybe the Hi-Tec print was the only print that was made in the white stuff (saponification, mold, or whatever it was), and was therefore the only one that was preserved.

____
IMO

That could ,very well,be the case. However,even though we have only dwelled on the one footprint,early reports claimed another upstairs,and a SAS one outside the grated window. IMO,there were at least two hi-tec prints in the house.(based on early reports,that I believe)
Were there sections cut out of the rug?
IMO

BlueCrab
02-10-2004, 09:39 PM
There were likely plenty of shoe prints in the wine cellar. Christmas presents were stored there. And all of the Christmas trees had been brought over from the hangar and temporarily stored there prior to taking them upstairs to be positioned and decorated. Why weren't the shoe prints from the people engaged in all of these activities found in the wine cellar?

If the Hi-Tec shoe print was "fresh", then it must have meant it was on top of the other shoe prints that had to have also covered the floor.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 10:05 PM
The basement floor was carpeted except for the boiler room and the wine cellar in a low-pile indoor/outdoor type of carpet.

Footprints wouldn't show up on the carpet, or on the bare cement floor unless there was material on the bottom of shoes, like mud or snow, to leave prints.

The material that grew on the floor of the wine cellar didn't cover the entire floor area, but it did grow in the area where JonBenét's body was left.

There appeared to be 3 prints in the "mold"--one of them with the Hi Tech logo. Two prints intersected each other. The 3rd print might have been made by a child--Smit thought it might have been made by JonBenét's bare foot.

Ivy
02-10-2004, 10:24 PM
So...there were three footprints in the wine cellar--two Hi-Tec prints intersecting each that police believe were Burke's, and one print that was probably made by JonBenet's bare foot. Interesting.
____
IMO

sissi
02-10-2004, 10:37 PM
That's right! I had forgotten about the little barefoot child's print.
I do have to disagree with your thoughts on carpet and footprints,in my experience ,shortly after vacuuming my basement carpet I can tell, by the size of the footprints and the tread patterns, who among the family members was down there. My husband has slippers that have a ridge to the tread and it shows up so well that I could measure his shoe size in every print.
JMO
It's seafoam plush....which btw..wasn't a great choice for a basement.
IMO

sissi
02-10-2004, 10:53 PM
So...there were three footprints in the wine cellar--two Hi-Tec prints intersecting each that police believe were Burke's, and one print that was probably made by JonBenet's bare foot. Interesting.
____
IMO
I'm not certain the police ever believed those prints were Burke's,that was "leading" questioning,and so far has not been stated as true. There is IMO a partial print that looks more like a man's size..maybe 9/10..where Burke at age nine likely wouldn't have worn a shoe larger than a five,and if the leading question concerned a purchase Patsy made the year before,he would have been age eight,rarely a slight child like Burke would wear anything beyond a size four at that age. (and I am going by my own family..age 17 ..size 13...age 20ish..size 12..the little one here..age 7..size 2)
.....the girl...age 18..size 9 1/2......out of the kids,the only one that reached adult sized shoes by age 10,was the girl...by 10 was an 8. We have some pretty big feet here...mine are a 9 1/2..so I am probably giving a top limit when guessing age 8 a four.
When I read that questioning concerning compass shoes,I thought,"heck no",this was not a child's print. JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-10-2004, 11:43 PM
Smit revealed those footprint photos to the public. He didn't believe they belonged to Burke.

I haven't read of any LE that believed the prints were Burke's.

The prints were unidentified, and have not been matched to any shoe, boot, or owner that I'm aware of.

Ivy
02-11-2004, 12:19 AM
sissi and LP, apparently you haven't bothered to check any links I've posted recently, nor did you catch the new flash on CNN when it was announced. BPD investigators were/are satisfied that the Hi Tec logo print belonged to Burke.
____
IMO

Shylock
02-11-2004, 08:37 AM
Smit revealed those footprint photos to the public. He didn't believe they belonged to Burke.
I don't think Smit was aware of the Grand Jury findings in regard to Burke owning the HiTec shoes.
The problem with ALL the prints found on the floor of the little room is they could never be dated to the day, or even the week, of the crime.

Maxi
02-11-2004, 10:14 AM
Since the Hi Tek print was only a partial, I think it can't be matched to any particular shoe. Wasn't it only a print of the part with the logo or something like that?

I think there is a way to get footprints from rugs while they are still in place, even if no dirt or other stuff was on the shoe. Anyone know about this?

____________
imo

LovelyPigeon
02-11-2004, 12:46 PM
Ivy, the source was anonymous. Someone might be "convinced" but I don't find any convincing evidence to persuade me.

No Hi Tech brand shoes were found in the Ramsey house during 7 days of searching.

Ivy
02-11-2004, 01:18 PM
LP, the source who gave CNN the information that investigators were confident the Hi-Tec print was Burke's was not named, but CNN would not have aired the information without knowing who the source was and checking the validity of the information.

The source of the same information given in the news article may have been the same person. Regardless, I have no doubt the source was verified as being a reliable one.
____
IMO

LovelyPigeon
02-11-2004, 03:20 PM
Ivy, Charlie Brennan wrote the article. Other media, including CNN, followed by merely reporting what Brennan had written.

The source remains anonymous.

Why not ask Brennan directly through his email if the Hi Tech print has been positively matched to any footwear?

Ivy
02-11-2004, 04:35 PM
LP, how do you know CNN took the information from Brennan's article? Do you work for CNN? Anyway, I'm satisfied with the information in the RMN article. You're the one who's not, so why don't you email Brennan?
____
IMO

Toltec
02-11-2004, 09:26 PM
Lou Smit claims that he is still investigating JonBenet's murder...so does anyone know if he is privy to new information and/or evidence? Does he have "close friends" in the DA's office that he could just pick up the phone and call them?

LE questioned Patsy regarding the hi-tecs and if Burke ever owned a pair. They also asked Patsy if she remembered purchasing a pair in a Vail Colorado shopping mall???

If LE proved that Patsy indeed bought Hi-Teks for Burke in Vail...does that make him the primary suspect? Remember Hunter saying that "you'd be surprised" at who we are focusing on?

Jayelles
02-12-2004, 05:32 AM
Ivy, the source was anonymous. Someone might be "convinced" but I don't find any convincing evidence to persuade me.

No Hi Tech brand shoes were found in the Ramsey house during 7 days of searching.

And do you take this to be proof that non ever existed?

Nehemiah
02-12-2004, 07:44 AM
And do you take this to be proof that non ever existed?

The fact that none were actually found inside the house is not proof.

I tend to think that he walked out the door wearing them on the 26th.

IMO

Ivy
02-12-2004, 10:56 AM
Regardless of whether Hi-Tec shoes were found in the Ramseys' house, or whether it was ever proved that Patsy purchased Hi-Tec shoes, Burke and his friend both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. Also, Fleet White once said to LE, "What would you say if I told you Burke owned Hi Tec shoes?" or words to that effect.

I agree with Nehemiah that Burke was probably wearing the Hi Tec shoes when he left the house on the 26th. The very fact that the print was there indicates the Ramseys didn't know about it, because if they'd known the print was there, they'd have swept it away.
___
IMO

BlueCrab
02-12-2004, 11:31 AM
Regardless of whether Hi-Tec shoes were found in the Ramseys' house, or whether it was ever proved that Patsy purchased Hi-Tec shoes, Burke and his friend both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. Also, Fleet White once said to LE, "What would you say if I told you Burke owned Hi Tec shoes?" or words to that effect.

I agree with Nehemiah that Burke was probably wearing the Hi Tec shoes when he left the house on the 26th. The very fact that the print was there indicates the Ramseys didn't know about it, because if they'd known the print was there, they'd have swept it away.
___
IMO

Burke definitely owned Hi-Tec boots. They were distinctive because a compass was built into the shoestrings of the boot. IMO you're correct, Burke was probably wearing them on the 26th. The Hi-Tec boots were likely bought by Patsy on an out-of-town shopping trip with Susan Stine, who may have purchased a similar pair of Hi-Tecs for Doug. Patsy and Susan often shopped together.

I don't think Burke went to bed that night. His bed was still made in the morning, which Patsy herself termed "unusual". IMO Burke had one or two friends over that night, and the otherwise seemingly unnecessary coverup by the Ramseys was launched, at least in part, to protect their identities as well as cover up the embarrassing EA aspects of the crime (which even John Ramsey admits occurred).

Thus, the Hi-Tec mark on the floor was probably from Burke who, IMO, was still fully dressed that night, or it could have been from Doug, who also may have owned Hi-Tecs.

JMO

cookie
02-13-2004, 08:01 AM
"Regardless of whether Hi-Tec shoes were found in the Ramseys' house, or whether it was ever proved that Patsy purchased Hi-Tec shoes, Burke and his friend both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned Hi-Tec shoes. Also, Fleet White once said to LE, "What would you say if I told you Burke owned Hi Tec shoes?" or words to that effect."

"I don't think Burke went to bed that night. His bed was still made in the morning, which Patsy herself termed "unusual". IMO Burke had one or two friends over that night, and the otherwise seemingly unnecessary coverup by the Ramseys was launched, at least in part, to protect their identities as well as cover up the embarrassing EA aspects of the crime (which even John Ramsey admits occurred)."

How does anyone really know that Burke testified before the grand jury that he owned those boots since all those records have been sealed? And, where did you read or find out that the bed was still made the morning JonBenet went missing? Can you give me somewhere to find those sources of info. Maybe I'm getting more forgetful in my old age, but I can't remember reading about either of those things. Thanks in advance.

BlueCrab
02-13-2004, 08:47 AM
And, where did you read or find out that the bed was still made the morning JonBenet went missing? Can you give me somewhere to find those sources of info.


From the 1998 interviews:

TOM HANEY: "Okay. Anything else on those photos, 41, 42?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "They made Burke's bed. That's unusual."

TOM HANEY: "I think there may be some explanation for that, but he normally wouldn' do that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No. He still doesn't."

So Burke's bed was made in the morning -- something Burke doesn't normally do. I've read in the forums that Fleet White made the bed that morning, but have never seen any confirmation of that. Besides, why would he do that? Chances are the bed was never slept in during the night, and Burke crawled under the covers in the morning to set up the alibi of seeing nothing, hearing nothing because he "slept through the whole thing" (John's words). Strangely, someone apparently tidied up the bed prior to the crime scene photos being taken after 7 A.M.

JMO

cookie
02-14-2004, 09:40 AM
I was remembeing it as you are. Fleet made the bed when he and John went up to wake him and get him ready to leave the house. I remember it as being the time when John told him that JonBenet was missing, but they didn't ask him any questions about the previous night.

Toltec
02-14-2004, 04:50 PM
What I have read about Fleet is that he was anxious and wanted to do something/anything...so he made the bed.

Charley
02-15-2004, 09:01 AM
Why is it that Patsy could remember John telling her she look beautiful on the day they were buring their baby. She had a veil around her head and thought she looked like Jackie Kennedy. She caming walking down the stairs in her Jackie 2 peice veiled skirt set,COMPLETE WITH VEIL..........

You can't remember the events surrounding the death of your child...but you can remember being told you look beautiful when your on your way to bury the same baby! No less by the baby's father!

I'm telling you....If someone told me I look beautiful when I was about to put my darling in the cold ground.....I would have slugged them. How the *ell do you look beautiful when you have tears streaming down your face with red puffy eyes and a posture that that is slouched over to hide the pain and a feeling of the need to die and be placed in the ground with that baby?

Who the *ELL tells a grieving Mom she looks beautiful when they are burying their youngest?

I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE OR HEAR THE BEAUTY IN ANYONE OR ANYTHING ON THE DAY I WAS BURYING MY BABY!

Shylock
02-15-2004, 01:26 PM
I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE OR HEAR THE BEAUTY IN ANYONE OR ANYTHING ON THE DAY I WAS BURYING MY BABY!

Yeah well, obviously you're not a former beauty queen diva that can't let go of the past.
Remember that a few years after the murder Patsy's high school reunion came up and they put on a whole seperate side show with Patsy as the star. They dragging out all her old trophys and pageant photos so her old chums could remember what a queen she was, (instead of what a murder suspect she IS...)

Patsy Ramsey is the real-life version of the movie "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?".

LovelyPigeon
02-16-2004, 12:09 PM
The first police officer to the house that morning looked in Burke's room and saw Burke in bed.

The crime scene photos, including photos taken in Burke's room, were taken after Burke's bed was made.

PMPT states that Fleet White made the bed. Apparently FW gave that information to BPD himself.

BlueCrab
02-19-2004, 07:19 AM
The first police officer to the house that morning looked in Burke's room and saw Burke in bed.


But at 5:52 A.M., 10 or 15 minutes prior to Officer French seeing Burke "asleep" in his bed, Burke was downstairs talking to his parents -- as proven by the enhanced 911 tape. The lies and coverup had already begun.

JMO

K777angel
02-19-2004, 10:50 AM
Yeah well, obviously you're not a former beauty queen diva that can't let go of the past.
Remember that a few years after the murder Patsy's high school reunion came up and they put on a whole seperate side show with Patsy as the star. They dragging out all her old trophys and pageant photos so her old chums could remember what a queen she was, (instead of what a murder suspect she IS...)

Patsy Ramsey is the real-life version of the movie "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?".

One of the girls in my high school graduating class was "Miss Oregon."
There was NO special fuss made about her at our class reunions. And she was far more beautiful than Patsy. People would have just gagged if they tried something like that in our class! ~ That is so pathetic that Patsy did that.
And remember too - During her holiday tour of homes - she LAID OUT her beauty queen junk all over her bed and bedroom to show off.

Something is whacko with her inability to LET GO of her "reign." It's called obsession.

sansoucie
02-19-2004, 11:35 AM
Were there hi tech prints in the wine cellar? If so, a defense atty could say he was sneaking a peek at presents.

Personally, I haven't a clue as to who did the actual deed, but I think the Ramseys do.

sissi
02-19-2004, 12:14 PM
Were there hi tech prints in the wine cellar? If so, a defense atty could say he was sneaking a peek at presents.

Personally, I haven't a clue as to who did the actual deed, but I think the Ramseys do.

When Patsy was asked if she purchased hi-tecs with shoe string compasses the year before the interrogation turned into stupidity ,IMO. Let's pretend he did own hi-tecs a year before the murder,a growing boy would NOT be wearing them,not even into the basement a year later.
Something perhaps to note,LWood has not said there were no hi-tecs because he isn't privy to that part of the investigation,however when Carnes made her decision ,saying she believed an intruder killed Jonbenet,the "unknown" print was part of the case for her belief.
I do believe the print was from an adult shoe,and that it was found elsewhere (meaning at least two unknown prints) in the house.
IMO

TLynn
02-19-2004, 02:27 PM
It's also been released and confirmed by the Ramseys that - Burke was faking being asleep in his bed. So, Burke was not asleep - no matter who you ask.

Shylock
02-19-2004, 06:07 PM
Let's pretend he did own hi-tecs a year before the murder,a growing boy would NOT be wearing them,not even into the basement a year later.
Sorry sissi, but that's just not the case. Most parents buy boots for kids a size or two larger so they can wear them in the winter along with one or two pairs of heavy socks to keep their feet warm. If that was the case, any boot Patsy bought Burke the year before would have easily still fit him.

sansoucie
02-19-2004, 07:17 PM
What did they say he was doing up? And why didn't he notice his sister being taken by whomever since that was the story?

Forgive my ignorance. I read a book or 2 on this case when it first happened and have not kept up on it. I have not been posting on this thread as I have been reading and trying to get a grasp on the current position of the case.

It's not unheard of for a child to commit horrid acts on smaller kids. If he hasn't been ruled out, and obviously he hasn't, I think he is a viable suspect. Could be that there are more ramseys involved than just one.....

sissi
02-19-2004, 10:48 PM
What did they say he was doing up? And why didn't he notice his sister being taken by whomever since that was the story?

Forgive my ignorance. I read a book or 2 on this case when it first happened and have not kept up on it. I have not been posting on this thread as I have been reading and trying to get a grasp on the current position of the case.

It's not unheard of for a child to commit horrid acts on smaller kids. If he hasn't been ruled out, and obviously he hasn't, I think he is a viable suspect. Could be that there are more ramseys involved than just one.....

We do not know that he was up,we do know that the leaks provided by law enforcement were intended to put the Ramseys in the ugliest light possible.
Was it an effort to get a confession? Possibly! However innocent people do not confess.
The enhanced 911 call,has never been proven to be anything other than the imaginative guesses of that same law enforcement . We know it was sent to aerospace,but........aerospace did not interpret that enhancement. This is an issue that is grossly misunderstood. They enhanced the sound and gave it to law enforcement to "hear",and LE took those rythmic sounds to make up a dialogue between the Ramseys.
Was Burke awake? He heard noises as people were filling the house,not fully awake,he did not get up,not until someone came into his room to ready him for leaving.
There is nothing about this crime that indicates any Ramsey,IMO,killed their daughter,there is much evidence to indicate she was killed by an intruder.
The evidence includes,keys out,a butler kitchen door ajar,windows unlocked in the basement,a suitcase placed to hoist one up and out,fibers that match nothing in the home,fur that can not be sourced in Jonbenet's hands,beaver fur that belongs to NOT one item in that house (patsy did not own beaver fur boots),palm prints (yes two were sourced,one wasn't),shoe prints,(both sas and hi-tec),a baseball bat with fibers found in the yard,a hair found on the blanket,rope in a bedroom,DNA in her panties and under her fingernails that can not be sourced to a Ramsey,a missing source of red marker for a heart drawn on her hand, missing part of the paint brush,tape and cord not found in the home,and there is more,more that amazingly has not been leaked to the public because of it's exculpatory value ,evidence that would change public opinion and further implicate an intruder.
Then there are lies,no footprints in the snow,a copy of "mindhunter" in the bedroom,Patsy's handwriting matches the note,Patsy owned beaver boots,Burke was awakeandthe call had his voice on it,Burke owned hi-tecs,Jonbenet was molested prior to the night of her murder,each and every one of these items,along with others of the same trend, were told to us by Steve Thomas ,too bad Steve Thomas could not repeat ONE OF THESE things in his deposition,WHY? BECAUSE he was under oath. But we are to believe it was a game he was playing,the hero was playing a game? NO,he was pushed to tell the truth,and even his ego couldn't win over that oath!
IMO

Shylock
02-19-2004, 11:06 PM
We do not know that he was up,
The enhanced 911 call,has never been proven to be anything other than the imaginative guesses of that same law enforcement .

Wrong again sissi, get the facts straight please. Keenan made a mistake and released a REDACTED version of the 911 tape on CD. It contains a 4-second gap that was purposely erased. The tape follows Thomas' transcript perfectly and the 4-second gap is exactly where John and Burkes voices are heard according to Thomas (Right after Patsy says "Help me Jesus" twice which can be clearly heard on the tape.)

The DA took the tape to the Los Alamos lab who also found a third voice on the tape.

Mike Kane also confirmed there is something on the tape on the Dan Abrams show.

So it's either Burke, or the intruder stayed for breakfast with John and Pats...TAKE YOUR PICK!

sissi
02-19-2004, 11:28 PM
Wrong again sissi, get the facts straight please. Keenan made a mistake and released a REDACTED version of the 911 tape on CD. It contains a 4-second gap that was purposely erased. The tape follows Thomas' transcript perfectly and the 4-second gap is exactly where John and Burkes voices are heard according to Thomas (Right after Patsy says "Help me Jesus" twice which can be clearly heard on the tape.)

The DA took the tape to the Los Alamos lab who also found a third voice on the tape.

Mike Kane also confirmed there is something on the tape on the Dan Abrams show.

So it's either Burke, or the intruder stayed for breakfast with John and Pats...TAKE YOUR PICK!


Sorry,I don't buy this! You have the right to believe it if you choose,but no one other than talk show "groupie types" has come forward with this information. Steve has a "need" for them to be guilty,he "needs" to be right,so why did he have "memory failure" throughout his deposition? I can't believe anyone who has ever told me ONE lie,I find it is their pattern ,hence they lose my trust. If you believe him,then you must believe he is a liar and accept this as fact. He refused to remember the information he provided within the pages of his book. Do you believe he has a memory lapse? Is saying "I don't recall" after you published a book as the leading expert,even fair to the people who shelled out the few bucks to read it? I didn't write it,yet I remember each and every factoid he produced to make us believe Patsy killed her child.
IMO

Shylock
02-19-2004, 11:55 PM
Sorry,I don't buy this! You have the right to believe it if you choose,but no one other than talk show "groupie types" has come forward with this information. Steve has a "need" for them to be guilty,he "needs" to be right,so why did he have "memory failure" throughout his deposition? I can't believe anyone who has ever told me ONE lie,I find it is their pattern ,hence they lose my trust. If you believe him,then you must believe he is a liar and accept this as fact. He refused to remember the information he provided within the pages of his book. Do you believe he has a memory lapse? Is saying "I don't recall" after you published a book as the leading expert,even fair to the people who shelled out the few bucks to read it? I didn't write it,yet I remember each and every factoid he produced to make us believe Patsy killed her child.
IMO

OK I get it, just because you don't like Steve Thomas you're not going to engage your ears and brain and listen the the redacted 911 tape yourself and find out the true facts. Smart thinking sissi, keep yourself in the dark!

And please tell me you're just playing "stupid" when it comes to Thomas' deposition. Everybody else knows exactly what Thomas was doing, how could YOU have missed the boat? Thomas HATES Limp Wood. He was being SUED by Wood. What makes you think Thomas would give Wood one moment of help by answering a question with a straight answer? Thomas was a genius at playing Wood for a fool with his answers and Wood got so frustrated that he started whining that he was going to go crying on the judge's shoulder. That's how depositions work, sissy...you don't give the other side any help...get a clue!

And I even be willing to bet you that Thomas laughed his arse off all the way home. He gave Limp Wood the same thing the Rammers gave him during their interviews--NON ANSWERS "I don't remember", "I can't recall", "You'll have to ask someone else, I'm not sure"..........Thomas got his payback, too bad it went over your head, sissi.

Jayelles
02-20-2004, 05:27 AM
We do not know that he was up,we do know that the leaks provided by law enforcement were intended to put the Ramseys in the ugliest light possible.

You mean leaks like that they refused to take poloygraphs (FACT) and that they were placing ridiculous conditions on interviews (FACT) and that John Ramsey tried to book a flight out of state just after JBR's body was found (FACT)....

Please tell us how these leaks could have been presented in a way that didn't make the Ramseys "look guilty"?

sissi
02-20-2004, 02:24 PM
Shylock quote And I even be willing to bet you that Thomas laughed his arse off all the way home. He gave Limp Wood the same thing the Rammers gave him during their interviews--NON ANSWERS "I don't remember", "I can't recall", "You'll have to ask someone else, I'm not sure"..........Thomas got his payback, too bad it went over your head, sissi.

This may be true,however it does make him a liar.
The Ramseys,were in the middle of the most traumatic situation anyone can experience,they could be excused for not remembering much of what was going on during those early days.

I do believe Jayelles that the BPD was acting as police vs the Ramseys,and by doing so harmed communications.

and..please..shy..I try very hard not to belittle others for what they believe,this is debate,not personal affronts
IMO

sansoucie
02-20-2004, 08:03 PM
Ahhh I reply like that too sometimes, personal affronts are sometimes just a way of expression. I got the gist of it Shylock.
I also agree after I checked into it. Lotta readin up to do...

Shylock
02-20-2004, 10:08 PM
This may be true,however it does make him a liar.
The Ramseys,were in the middle of the most traumatic situation anyone can experience,they could be excused for not remembering much of what was going on during those early days.

OK, so let me get this straight: The Ramseys, who probably were involved in their daughters death, can play stupid and not answer questions put to them by LE trying to solve their daughter's murder--and that's OK with you. But Thomas gets called a "liar" by you because he plays stupid when being deposed by the opposing attorney during a civil trial-something that everyone who has ever been deposed does.
I think your ideas are seriously twisted about which is the lesser of two evils, sissi.

It might help you, sissi, if you research the Van Damm kidnapping and murder to see exactly how innocent parents act versus the guilty Ramseys. When the police were done searching and testing the Van Damm house and the parents were told they could return, Damen Van Damm sealed off his daughter's bedroom on the slight chance the police might have missed something. He then went around the house testing all the doors and alarm switches to see if he could break in to his own house and trick the alarm sensors.
In comparison, not only did the Ramseys try to leave the state right after the murder, but they walked out the door and never set foot in the house again. Did John Ramsey contact the police to make sure they had searched every inch of the house and answer any questions about the house they might have had?--NO. Did John Ramsey return to the house and do any searching on his own just to be sure nothing was missed?--NO. The fact is, John Ramsey has never did anything to help find his daughters' killer--he was too busy worrying about the REAL killer being caught--a member of his own family.

Toth
03-01-2004, 11:58 AM
>The conditions by their attorneys were not "suggested", they were DEMANDED
This is as opposed to the BPD's DEMANDS?
>The Ramseys would NOT assist in the investigation of the MURDER OF THEIR DAUGHTER unless those DEMANDS were met.
Not true at all, they spoke to investigators, their attorneys, I beleive they spoke to Lou Smit prior to the interviews with the BPD, they answered all questions when they were in the police station on two separate occasions during that time interval. They had answered all questions put to them prior to learning the BPD were focused solely on them.

>everything the Ramseys do/did can and should be viewed as suspicious because they ARE suspicious.
Such as constantly insisting thier lawyers arrange a meeting with the BPD?
Such as constantly trying to get better investigators on the case?
Such as hiring private investigators?

I'll admit that John Ramsey's email to me of long ago was very terse and limited only to the facts needed to address the one particular issue that had arisen. I'm sure his reticence was justified, but he fully disclosed the relevant facts that I did need prior to investigating a certain "line of inquiry" that had atfirst appeard to be most unlikely. When the initial facts were confirmed, the line of inquiry was followed and several different persons some with professional investigative backgrounds followed it with gratitude that the initial facts had been confirmed.

When your Eight Asterisk Friend first met the Ramseys, they did not show up with lawyers in tow, they met at a coffee shop and spoke freely for hours.
When John and Patsy Ramsey met with DA-Keenan, they were accompanied by thier lawyer, Lin Wood, only as a courtesy. After the required courtesies of shaking hands with DA-Keenan and introducing John and Patsy Ramsey to her, Lin Wood took his leave and the Ramseys spoke at great length with DA-Keenan without any attorney being present on their behalf since the Ramseys felt that DA-Keenan had an open mind about the case and therefore they did not need an attorney as she was not "gunning for them" much less doing obsessively and to the exclusion of all other persons.

I don't see anything suspicious in the Ramseys behavior. Nothing.
Nothing at all.

Blazeboy3
03-03-2004, 02:28 AM
That "mold" or whatever it is in the pictures why_nut posted (and the links to those are given again in this thread) are of a section of the wall.

The material on a wall isn't as likely to be disturbed as the material on a floor.

(Added information, for those who don't know: the door into the windowless room was closed up and walled over when the house was sold a couple of years ago. The room is no longer accessible to anyone)

Yup...why?; let's now forget that the address no longer is/was changed!
http://todaysissues.net/jonbenet.html
The Ramseys have since moved to Atlanta, but the curious still seek out their former home. Its new owner recently got the address changed and young evergreen trees on the front lawn help block the view. JonBenet's grave near Atlanta also attracts visitors, many of whom leave small angels or stuffed animals.