Are the Ramseys involved or not?

tipper said:

If what you're saying is true (the GJ solved the case. It was Burke. etc. etc.), why would Smit have gone back on the case when the DA's office took over? Why would Keenan have had that long meeting with the Ramseys? Why would Bennett's replacement have contacted the Ramseys to introduce himself when he took over? Why would CODIS have taken the sample?

Click to expand...

tipper,

IMO it's all part of the hocus-pocus needed to pacify Colorado law requiring the identities of children to be kept confidential.

However, the unidentified foreign male DNA in the panties may be evidence of a fifth person in the house that night who is an accomplice. That accomplice COULD be the actual killer. It has to be checked out. But a Ramsey is DEFINITELY also involved or there wouldn't be any need for all of the Ramsey lies and the Ramsey coverup.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

Zman,

IMO it can't be publicly disclosed that the case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 because it would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children. If the court disclosed the truth (that it was solved), the next question from the press would be: "Well, who did it?"

Boulder authorities ( primarily the DA's office and the courts) are using smoke and mirrors to get through this catch 22 situation. Incidentally, under the Colorado Children's Code, the authorities are allowed to lawfully lie to protect the identities of the children.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Well the answer would be "We can't tell you." Case closed.

Well I'm sure not plowing through the Colorado Childrens Code so maybe you would be nice enough to show that to us.

BlueCrab said:

tipper,

IMO it's all part of the hocus-pocus needed to pacify Colorado law requiring the identities of children to be kept confidential.

However, the unidentified foreign male DNA in the panties may be evidence of a fifth person in the house that night who is an accomplice. That accomplice COULD be the actual killer. It has to be checked out. But a Ramsey is DEFINITELY also involved or there wouldn't be any need for all of the Ramsey lies and the Ramsey coverup.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Your theory has abosloutely no facts backing it up one of your suspects was in califorina and the other would never have been there at that time.

asdasd said:

Your theory has abosloutely no facts backing it up one of your suspects was in califorina and the other would never have been there at that time.

Click to expand...

Hello asdasd,

Thanks for responding and welcome to the forum. This is your first post, and it seems as though the possibility of NI a/o DS being involved has brought you out.

Sometimes the lack of something or someone's presence is as powerful as hard evidence. For instance, Larry Schiller, the author of PMPT, admits he published just a small amount of the information he really knows about this crime in order to appease local authorities who put pressure on him. Even though NI was a day to day part of the Ramsey's life right up to the murder (he babysat and drove the children to school, etc.), in Schiller's book there was not a single mention of NI's existence. His name was not even in the book's name index. The silence is deafening.

And DS's name was obviously hurriedly purged from PMPT at the last minute, and just days after the grand jury made its final report in October of 1999. DS's name appears 9 times in the book's name index, but only once in the text.

There has to be a reason for the apparent removal of NI's name and DS's name from PMPT, immediately following the grand jury's verbal report of no indictments after 13 months of investigation. The court's strict and immediate gag order on everything about the crime following the grand jury's adjournment is also revealing, as was the curious timing of the final few witnesses who testified (Melinda Ramsey and John Andrew Ramsey and Susan Stine) after about 100 had already testified. It's also interesting that the testimonies of the two most important witnesses in the murder were not needed -- John and Patsy Ramsey.

So far as the hard evidence, the long list of Ramsey lies, obfuscations, and coverups is a part of the record forever.

I think the grand jury solved this crime, children too young to prosecute were involved, and the Colorado Children's Code protecting the identities of children automatically kicked in. It has created the catch 22 situation of having solved a major crime but unable to publicly say so.

BlueCrab

my point was not that your theroy held no merit I just know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people you constantly mention could not have been involved.

asdasd said:

my point was not that your theroy held no merit I just know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people you constantly mention could not have been involved.

Click to expand...

Welcome asdasd!

Do you have a theory about what happened that night?

no theory just enough knowledge to know what isn't true

asdasd said:

no theory just enough knowledge to know what isn't true

Click to expand...

Welcome ....

Well,let's hear it asdasd.
What knowledge do you have, that makes you know beyond a shadow of a doubt,that the people BlueCrab mentions could not have been involved.

BlueCrab

Saw this quote and thought you and jayelles might be interested. It's Judith Phillips being interviewed by Mame and appears to confirm what John said in his interview. That prior to the murder they were friends with the Stines but not close.

Mame: anyway, Mr. Stine.
JP: Mr. Stine
Mame: he had quite a big position with the university, didn't he?
JP: yeah, I think he was in admissions or something like that.
Mame: what would possess him to, first of all, you talked privately before they were never that that close? Prior to the murder, right?
JP: right.

tipper said:

BlueCrab

Saw this quote and thought you and jayelles might be interested. It's Judith Phillips being interviewed by Mame and appears to confirm what John said in his interview. That prior to the murder they were friends with the Stines but not close.

Mame: anyway, Mr. Stine.
JP: Mr. Stine
Mame: he had quite a big position with the university, didn't he?
JP: yeah, I think he was in admissions or something like that.
Mame: what would possess him to, first of all, you talked privately before they were never that that close? Prior to the murder, right?
JP: right.

Click to expand...

Tipper,

I have to agree with BlueCrab and Jayelles on this one. I have re-read that interview with John several times ... and I got the distinct feeling that John was side stepping every which way he could,to not mention the Stines.Even when the LE left out "close"friends,and said who would you invite over for dinner ... John wouldn't budge.Not even a:Well,there's the Stine's,but we weren't close then.Maybe they weren't close then,but they were friends,John mentioned everyone else and their brother.

Only when the LE specifically mentioned the Stine's,did John offer a:..."actually we weren't that close."

Somethings up with that ... I wonder what it is.

I think when John says they were friends but not close and then Judith Phillips, who was no fan of the Ramseys then, confirms it by saying they were never that close, the only conclusion one can draw is that they were friends but not that close. Phillips isn't hiding anything for the Ramseys.

I think we're all in agreement that after the murder Susan Stine was thrilled to have the coveted Ramseys land on her doorstep and assign herself the job of running interference for Patsy.

capps said:

Welcome ....

Well,let's hear it asdasd.
What knowledge do you have, that makes you know beyond a shadow of a doubt,that the people BlueCrab mentions could not have been involved.

Click to expand...

Specifily I know the exact location of the people BC contantly mentions on that night beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sadly, for you at least I cannot reveal how I know where they were.

Well if you can't say, how are we supposed to believe you?

Rupert said:

Yes indeed, how did the killer know where to find the "Wednesday" panties? But then why would the R's use those panties? They were meant for a friend and it looks more like a set-up.

Click to expand...

Supposedly Patsy bought those panties for her niece and kept them in the drawer. JonBenet was with her when she bought them and had taken a fancy to them... So if John or Patsy killed her, Patsy knew exactly where the spare panties that JB loved were.

tipper said:

BlueCrab

Saw this quote and thought you and jayelles might be interested. It's Judith Phillips being interviewed by Mame and appears to confirm what John said in his interview. That prior to the murder they were friends with the Stines but not close.

Mame: anyway, Mr. Stine.
JP: Mr. Stine
Mame: he had quite a big position with the university, didn't he?
JP: yeah, I think he was in admissions or something like that.
Mame: what would possess him to, first of all, you talked privately before they were never that that close? Prior to the murder, right?
JP: right.

Click to expand...

And Capps,

I have to agree with Tipper on this one

I don’t see anything at all suspicious in the fact that a couple who were considered by John to be ‘not close’ prior to the murder of his daughter would become close afterwards.

Momentous, horrific events in people’s lives throws every aspect of their lives into turmoil. This includes the dynamics of all their interpersonal relationships both within and beyond the family. The people directly involved change and those around them change also. Nothing is ever the same as it was before.

narlacat said:

Well if you can't say, how are we supposed to believe you?

Click to expand...

Really it does not matter to me if you believe me or not I'm just lettting you know that I know that bc's "suspects" are innocent.

aussiesheila said:

And Capps,

I have to agree with Tipper on this one

I don’t see anything at all suspicious in the fact that a couple who were considered by John to be ‘not close’ prior to the murder of his daughter would become close afterwards.

Momentous, horrific events in people’s lives throws every aspect of their lives into turmoil. This includes the dynamics of all their interpersonal relationships both within and beyond the family. The people directly involved change and those around them change also. Nothing is ever the same as it was before.

Click to expand...

Aussiesheila,

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. It wasn't that John wasn't agreeing they were "close" friends ... it was the fact that he wasn't mentioning the Stine's as friends at all that bothered me.

Maybe not John's definition of "close",but they were friends. They were neighbors,they were invited to parties,they traveled together,their sons were friends.John wouldn't even acknowedge them,until the interviewer mentioned the Stine's.

That's what has me wondering why.
An excerpt of John's Oct 1998 transcript shows this. It ws too big to put in this post ... I am putting it in another post.

5 Q. As you lived in Boulder and your family sent or
6 picked up the kids to and from school, did you develop a
7 social network in Boulder?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who became your friends?
10 MR. CRAVER: At what time? 1991?
11 MR. HILL: 1991 through today.
12 A. Well --
13 MR. CRAVER: I've got to object. It's
14 over-broad. But you can answer it, John, to the extent
15 you're able.
16 Q. I'm looking for, you know, as best you can, a
17 comprehensive list of your friend and associates.
18 A. Friends -- they typically revolved around
19 children. John and Barbara Fernie, Fleet and Priscilla
20 White, Larry and Pinky Barber. I think those are probably
21 our three --
22 Q. The top of the list?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. How about any others that you would consider to
25 have been social acquaintances on a friendly basis?
Page 39
1 A. There were lots of people that would fall in
2 that category by the end of five years.
3 Q. I know it's daunting, but as best you can, if we
4 can get a list of as many of those as you recall today, it
5 would be very helpful, please.
6 MR. CRAVER: Social acquaintances on a friendly
7 basis?
8 MR. HILL: Right.
9 MR. CRAVER: People that you knew through the
10 church, activities through the church, things of that
11 nature, through work?
12 Q. Who would be invited to your house for dinner,
13 for example?
14 A. Well, our neighbors across the street, Betty and
15 Joe Barnhill. We had Betsy -- I can't think of their last
16 names. Roxy and Stewart Walker. We knew lots of people,
17 but then that's kind of the people we socialized with.
18 Q. Is that pretty much the complete list of people
19 that you would want to spend time with?
20 A. I don't know if it's a complete list. It's all
21 that comes to mind. Penny and Dr. Buff.
22 Q. If more names do come to mind between now and
23 when you review the transcript, if you don't mind just
24 inking that in so we have the best, most complete list we
25 can get, I would appreciate that.
Page 40
1 And the court reporter might leave a couple
2 blank lines to accommodate or remind you that we'd like to
3 do that, if you don't --
4 A. Yeah.
5 ( )
6 MR. GRAY: Is this the list of people that have
7 been to dinner at his house, a list of close friends, or a
8 list of -- I just want to make sure we understand what
9 you're asking him to make a list of, please?
10 MR. HILL: People Mr. Ramsey considers to be
11 social friends, including especially close friends and
12 people that the Ramseys invited to dine in their home.
13 THE WITNESS: We had, for example, a church
14 dinner at our house. There were 80 people there and I
15 didn't know --
16 Q. I'm not too worried about that. If there were
17 members of that group that came again, for example,
18 individually, I would be interested in having those
19 indicated. Does that help?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I understand a lot of people came to your house.
22 For example, from what I've read, you maintained open
23 houses from time to time?
24 A. We did an open house to benefit the historical
25 society one year.
Page 41
1 Q. Did you maintain a guest book at the house?
2 A. We didn't. I don't know --
3 Q. If the historical society did?
4 A. Yeah, if they did. And they sold tickets to go
5 through several houses at Christmas time.
6 Q. Actually, you occasionally also entertained at
7 your home, if I remember correctly?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Prior to the unfortunate tragedy, you
10 entertained at your home; is that correct?
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 MR. CRAVER: What do you mean by "prior"? You
13 mean during the years prior?
14 MR. HILL: During the month prior.
15 MR. CRAVER: Okay.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I have information that you hosed a party on
18 December 23; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Who did you invite to that party?
21 A. They were a group of friends and their children.
22 Certainly some of the people I've mentioned were there.
23 Priscilla White's parents were there. Some guests they
24 had, who we didn't know, were there. There might have
25 been others. That's all I can remember.
Page 42
1 Q. Did you send out invitations?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Or --
4 A. I don't think so. They were probably -- I don't
5 know for a fact, but I believe Patsy called and invited
6 people.
7 Q. So she would know who was invited?
8 A. Perhaps.
9 Q. I don't know, for example, if there was
10 designated seating?
11 A. It wasn't a dinner. It was just a
12 family/children's get-together.
13 Q. Were gifts exchanged?
14 A. Patsy had little gifts for each of the children
15 and at least some of the adults, just token gifts.
16 Q. So somewhere we could expect that there is a
17 record of, for example, how many people attended the party
18 and who was there?
19 A. There wouldn't be a record.
20 Q. Someone would remember? Who is the best person
21 that would remember?
22 A. I think we've gone through that, hadn't we -- I
23 don't know -- for the police, but --
24 Q. I don't know anything -- I haven't been a part
25 of that or privy to it, so that's why I'm asking you.
Page 43
1 A. I mean, the best way we would have to remember
2 is to just sit down and try to remember. I think we've
3 done that, but I don't remember what we came up with.
4 Q. There may be --
5 A. The Barnhills were there, I remember that.
6 Q. As best you can insert then a complete list of
7 people who were at the party in the deposition transcript
8 as you review it, I would ask you to do that.
9 A. All right.
10 Q. Did your circle of friends include any public
11 officials in Boulder, County or Boulder City government?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did your circle of friends include any
14 journalists?
15 A. I don't believe so, no.
16 Q. The time period that I'm inquiring about are,
17 let's say, from '94 to 1996, just to narrow it down a
18 little bit. Did your circle of friends include any law
19 enforcement officers?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Any lawyers?
22 A. Not our close circle of friends, no, that I can
23 recall. I don't think any lawyers.
24 Q. What's the first tier where a lawyer turns up?
25 A. Well, we knew people -- Noel Phillips was a
Page 44
1 lawyer, became a lawyer. That's the only one I can think
2 of that I knew.
3 Q. Were your friends the same as your wife's
4 friends?
5 A. Yeah, basically.
6 Q. Completely?
7 A. Well, within the people that we socialized with,
8 yeah. Pretty much, it was couples and family activity.
9 Q. Did either of you enjoy any degree of separate
10 social environment or milieu?
11 A. I mean, I had business entertaining that we
12 would do from time to time, which Patsy -- I never drug
13 her along, not particularly, that I can remember.
14 Q. Some couples, you know, share every friend in
15 common and others will have, you know, separate friends
16 interested in different things. I wouldn't expect you to
17 be a member of a sewing circle, for example. I don't know
18 if your wife was either.
19 What I'm asking is if -- I realize you don't
20 know who she would consider -- well, I'm asking you, do
21 you know whom she would consider to be in her close circle
22 of friends?
23 A. I think it would be the people we socialized
24 with as couples, Pinky Barber, Barbara Fernie, Priscilla
25 White, Roxy Walker.
Page 45
1 Q. Judith Phillips, would you consider her to be a
2 close friend?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I'm not asking currently, but previously.
5 A. No.

















16 A. Not -- we did for a while, only because we lived
17 with some people.
18 Q. Who were those people?
19 A. Susan and Glenn Stine.
20 Q. Should I add them to your list of close friends?
21 A. They were not close friends, believe it or not.
22 They were friends, but we didn't socialize a lot with
23 them.
24 Q. Can you help me complete a list of people who
25 would be on the same level of relationship as the Stines
Page 51
1 were to your family?
2 MR. CRAVER: At what time, Lee?
3 MR. LEE: Beginning in 1994 to date.
4 A. I can't think of the names.

10 Q. Thank you. When did you live with the Stines?
11 A. Early 1997, probably until June, July I think.
12 Q. Where do they live?
13 A. They lived at the time on 10th I think, 10th
14 Street.
15 Q. Where do they live now?
16 A. They live in Atlanta.
17 Q. Do you continue a relationship with them?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What do they do?
20 A. What do they do?
21 Q. Yes, sir.
22 MR. CRAVER: Mr. or Mrs.?
23 MR. HILL: Both.
24 A. Glenn Stine now works with me. He joined our
25 company in August of this year, and Susan takes care of
Page 52
1 her son.
2 Q. How old is their son?
3 A. He's Burke's age. He's 11.
4 Q. When did you first meet the Stines?
5 A. Gosh, I don't know. It would have been when we
6 lived in Boulder. I don't remember when we first met
7 them.
8 Q. Were they also at your Christmas party in 1996?
9 A. Gosh, I don't remember. Possibly, but I don't
1

asdasd said:

no theory just enough knowledge to know what isn't true

Click to expand...

Do you believe that an intruder killed JonBenet?

(BTW, we are not allowed to name BC's suspects on this forum).

Jayelles said:

Do you believe that an intruder killed JonBenet?

(BTW, we are not allowed to name BC's suspects on this forum).

Click to expand...

Would you please care to elaborate on the last sentence for a newbie in this forum? What are we not allowed to do? What does BC mean?

Thank you. I have followed this case in the media from Day One despite livinig in Europe where coverage was not all that good, and I am appalled that so many years later, we are still wrecking our brains on who did it.

Wuschel