Are the Ramseys involved or not?
- Thread starter Britt
- Start date
- Status
Always glad to be of help.
RiverRat
Patsy Ramsey to the Left
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 43
Only ONE time.....
GingBreade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 0
This is from the April 30, 1997 Boulder interview of John:
TT: Can, could you tell me step-by-step when you found her, tell me how you picked her up and tell me (inaudible).
JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that shes OK. I took the tape off her lips, and her lips were blue. And I tried to untie her hands and her arms. She was stiff, and so I was afraid that she was gone, and so I just picked her up, and screams, and the I went upstairs and laid her down on the floor and I heard Suzanne, she said shes dead.
TT: OK. Tell me, you talked about you picked her up. Again, I have to use for the tape more than anything.
Can anyone please tell me - who is this Suzanne he is talking about...I didn't think there was a Suzanne there that morning? Thanks for any help!
TT: Can, could you tell me step-by-step when you found her, tell me how you picked her up and tell me (inaudible).
JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that shes OK. I took the tape off her lips, and her lips were blue. And I tried to untie her hands and her arms. She was stiff, and so I was afraid that she was gone, and so I just picked her up, and screams, and the I went upstairs and laid her down on the floor and I heard Suzanne, she said shes dead.
TT: OK. Tell me, you talked about you picked her up. Again, I have to use for the tape more than anything.
Can anyone please tell me - who is this Suzanne he is talking about...I didn't think there was a Suzanne there that morning? Thanks for any help!
I don't think Susan Stine was there that morning (that is suspicious to me anyway) , I don't know if any of the other "guests" that morning were named Suzanne. The detective who told JR JBR was dead (when he asked) was Det. Linda Arndt.
ShesElectric
New Member
Interesting, I'll see if I can find out more for you.
I'll check into if there was a "Suzanne" there that morning,
tomorrow.
Later,
Connor
I'll check into if there was a "Suzanne" there that morning,
tomorrow.
Later,
Connor
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
suspect to me,too..perhaps that was a slip-up on John's part? The R's have had certainly their moments w/ those.. maybe SS had been there earlier,bf the 911 call? ..John did say 'well,there were a lot of ppl there at 3am' on LKL.
Yes, that was another big slip-up that NO one seemed to catch. Except us.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm
as far as Sues and Suzannes,
Suzanne Savage (babysitter) - PMPT 145
Officer Sue Barchlow (6:45 am)
the acanadyrose pages describes events as .... that sometime after (10:30am)JBR Ramsey's bedroom was sealed, all law enforcement left and ony Arndt was left with the Ramsey's and company.
JR could have misspoken or been mistaken, or misheard....
or
he could have been purposely misdirective, 'mf''n Arndt, as she suggests was his pattern?
as far as Sues and Suzannes,
Suzanne Savage (babysitter) - PMPT 145
Officer Sue Barchlow (6:45 am)
the acanadyrose pages describes events as .... that sometime after (10:30am)JBR Ramsey's bedroom was sealed, all law enforcement left and ony Arndt was left with the Ramsey's and company.
JR could have misspoken or been mistaken, or misheard....
or
he could have been purposely misdirective, 'mf''n Arndt, as she suggests was his pattern?
STGSouth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 220
I am a new member here at Websleuths, but I am a long time lurker to this site as well as Forums For Justice. I have ALWAYS believed that the Ramseys were guilty, or at the very least Patsy was guilty. I’ve always been impressed with the sleuthers here and am glad to finally be able to post with you guys!
To me, the evidence all points to someone INSIDE that house having killed her. I think its preposterous to believe that a kidnapper would break into a house to kidnap a child and bring none of the items he would need with him to get the job done. The paintbrush, the ransom note pad and pen……..for crying out loud, even the “draft” note were all from inside the home. I just don’t understand how people could get past all the evidence pointing at the Ramsey’s and scream that they should be exonerated. I might could understand some people having reasonable doubt, but to want to pronounce them innocent? I just don’t get that.
To me, the evidence all points to someone INSIDE that house having killed her. I think its preposterous to believe that a kidnapper would break into a house to kidnap a child and bring none of the items he would need with him to get the job done. The paintbrush, the ransom note pad and pen……..for crying out loud, even the “draft” note were all from inside the home. I just don’t understand how people could get past all the evidence pointing at the Ramsey’s and scream that they should be exonerated. I might could understand some people having reasonable doubt, but to want to pronounce them innocent? I just don’t get that.
Be Adequite!
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 6
After much back and forth on this case I think that Burke killed Jonbenet- probably by accident.
In my brain it's the only explanation for how John and Patsy reacted, and all the weird coincidences/actions immediately following JonBenet's death (the amount of the ransom, etc etc).
I can think of no other reason for the parents acting so strangely, other than they were both covering tracks for their remaining living child. One parent would eventually have turned on the other one, if they had committed the murder.
In my brain it's the only explanation for how John and Patsy reacted, and all the weird coincidences/actions immediately following JonBenet's death (the amount of the ransom, etc etc).
I can think of no other reason for the parents acting so strangely, other than they were both covering tracks for their remaining living child. One parent would eventually have turned on the other one, if they had committed the murder.
Brefie
New Member
My bolding. I agree, I have been parked here for some time. I am not married to it, but it seems to fit the best for me.
STGSouth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 220
Unless they both have something to hide. I have always held onto the theory that (MOO) John could have been molesting JonBenet and Patsy new about it. She caused JonBenets death on Christmas and John was aware of it, but she could have threatened to turn him in or attempt to frame him if he didnt go along with her story.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I've wondered if that's what the part of the 'ransom note' is all about,when it gets to the part that says "Don't try to grow a brain,John.You are not the only fat cat....."
IOW.........John better keep his piehole shut (per Patsy),or she will turn on him,because he is not the only 'fat cat' around...Patsy is just as big.A threat from her,included in the note.A huge reminder...that she has something on him...
Be Adequite!
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 6
Good point JM and STG...but they could also have talked it over and used the "fat cat"/ransom/molestation angle only to draw attention away from Burke, perhaps?? The devil's advocate in me, sorry-
After all this, we'll probably find out it was some shaggy haired anonymous couple that broke in and killed her...I do think this is one we'll have the answer to in years to come.
After all this, we'll probably find out it was some shaggy haired anonymous couple that broke in and killed her...I do think this is one we'll have the answer to in years to come.
That shaggy-haired couple would have to be a lot more than anonymous. There was not s single hair or fiber or print that came from ANYONE outside the family. The DNA? Well, the DNA from her fingernails has to be completely discounted because of the fact that the nail clippers the coroner used were not sterile, not used properly, and may have also been used on other bodies. That DNA found there may have belonged to the poor old man in the next drawer over.
The DNA in her panties has been referred to as the donor's BLOOD. It was not. It was DNA found on the crotch of the panties (along with fibers from JR's wool shirt) in the area where JBR's blood was also found. This, along with the "new" touch DNA from the waistband of the longjohns, may have been put there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. It was skin cells. If JBR, or someone who handled her clothing that night (both parents have stated they did so) touched something also touched by the donor, then that would be a way for the skin cells to transfer to the clothing. The DA's office has allowed the misconception that "unknown male DNA" means ADULT male DNA. It does not. DNA cannot tell the age of the donor, with the exception of certain things like semen, where the donor would have to be over the age of puberty by the nature of the sample. That DNA could have come from any of the male children at the White's that day, as well as any male child at the R home that day (The Rs have admitted that their son had friends over Christmas Day). Those children, now grown, have to be tested to be excluded as the donor as well, and this doesn't mean they were the KILLER. That's why Lacy's statement was so harmful to this case.
The DNA in her panties has been referred to as the donor's BLOOD. It was not. It was DNA found on the crotch of the panties (along with fibers from JR's wool shirt) in the area where JBR's blood was also found. This, along with the "new" touch DNA from the waistband of the longjohns, may have been put there in a way that had nothing to do with the crime. It was skin cells. If JBR, or someone who handled her clothing that night (both parents have stated they did so) touched something also touched by the donor, then that would be a way for the skin cells to transfer to the clothing. The DA's office has allowed the misconception that "unknown male DNA" means ADULT male DNA. It does not. DNA cannot tell the age of the donor, with the exception of certain things like semen, where the donor would have to be over the age of puberty by the nature of the sample. That DNA could have come from any of the male children at the White's that day, as well as any male child at the R home that day (The Rs have admitted that their son had friends over Christmas Day). Those children, now grown, have to be tested to be excluded as the donor as well, and this doesn't mean they were the KILLER. That's why Lacy's statement was so harmful to this case.
Be Adequite!
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 6
Deedee...just a sarcastic joke. I agree it's someone in the family/an acquaintance 
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
The Shaggy D.A. ..lol.sry,I just happened to think of that movie.also reminds me of Shaggy and Scooby Doo.(who would have done a better job investigating this one!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shaggy_d_a_ver2.jpg
The only candidate with a law degree and a pedigree..may have to rethink that one! LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shaggy_d_a_ver2.jpg
The only candidate with a law degree and a pedigree..may have to rethink that one! LOL
Be Adequite!
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 6
:bananalama:
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
And why would an intruder place the bowl back on the kitchen table?It seems that this intruder had a lottttttttttttttt of precious time to waste....If he was so careful,why didn't he also wash the bowl&spoon?Ah I know,he knew that LE will be sloppy and won't check the possible dna(saliva) on the spoon.
A child would be so SCARED if fed by someone wearing gloves.And how on earth did he feed her if she was stun gunned or if there was a duct tape over her mouth?
There's only one answer to it: OVER STAGING.
I think my "there could have been an intruder" 10% are going down the toilet......
- Status