Clever or Lucky?

eileenhawkeye said:

I don't think the Ramseys were lucky. They had money and connections, which is a huge reason why they were never charged. Luck is a force that is (mostly) out of someone's control. There are a lot of people who have gotten away with murder, simply because the victim's body hasn't been found. I would consider people like that, lucky, instead of the Ramseys.

Click to expand...

There was never any evidence to convict any of the Rs, therefore, no one was charged. Even in this forum, filled with RDIs, there are dozens of theories. "It was Patsy", "It was John", "It was Burke", "It was Burke and Patsy", "It was Burke and John"...

Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial. I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.

Even if one of the Rs did do it, it is not likely they would have been convicted. And now it appears, whatever one thinks of spacy Lacy, that there is at least a chance a male intruder committed this heinous crime.

Clever to cover up so much.

Lucky to be wealth and well connected.

mtwentz said:

There was never any evidence to convict any of the Rs, therefore, no one was charged. Even in this forum, filled with RDIs, there are dozens of theories. "It was Patsy", "It was John", "It was Burke", "It was Burke and Patsy", "It was Burke and John"...

Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial. I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.

Even if one of the Rs did do it, it is not likely they would have been convicted. And now it appears, whatever one thinks of spacy Lacy, that there is at least a chance a male intruder committed this heinous crime.

Click to expand...

To me, there is not much chance a male intruder committed this crime, because the DNA appears ONLY on her clothing and no where else on the body or crime scene. If there was another male there that night as the crime was committed, it was someone known to the Rs. There is simply no way there would be no other evidence of an intruder OTHER than a few skin cells, which could have been picked up by her parents. They likely shook someone's hand at that party or touched door knobs, etc. And both parents admitting to handling the longjohns- Patsy claimed to have pulled them on her and JR was seen carrying her body holding her upright with his hands around her waist. Then there are his shirt fibers inside the panty crotch (not on the waistband where the skin cells were found).
As far as AH is concerned- he wasn't about to charge ANYONE- ever. It wasn't just the Rs case he was reluctant to prosecute- he never prosecuted ANY case, preferring to plea-bargain rather than risk losing in court.
With his links to the defense team, he should never have been on this case at all.
You are completely correct about the lack of evidence pointing to a single R. I have never understood how all it takes to get away with murder is to have an accomplice. I see other cases all the time where ALL involved are considered equally guilty, it need not be exclusively the one who actually committed the murder. The inability to state with certainty who did what to JB may have clouded the jury's decisions, but it really upsets me that people get away with a crime like this because there are no other witnesses.
Had the police been allowed to separate the Rs for questioning, they may have gotten one to point a finger at the other, but as we all know, spouses cannot be made to testify against one another (another big mistake as far as I am concerned). A marriage license shouldn't be a license to commit murder together.

DeeDee249 said:

To me, there is not much chance a male intruder committed this crime, because the DNA appears ONLY on her clothing and no where else on the body or crime scene. If there was another male there that night as the crime was committed, it was someone known to the Rs. There is simply no way there would be no other evidence of an intruder OTHER than a few skin cells, which could have been picked up by her parents. They likely shook someone's hand at that party or touched door knobs, etc. And both parents admitting to handling the longjohns- Patsy claimed to have pulled them on her and JR was seen carrying her body holding her upright with his hands around her waist. Then there are his shirt fibers inside the panty crotch (not on the waistband where the skin cells were found).
As far as AH is concerned- he wasn't about to charge ANYONE- ever. It wasn't just the Rs case he was reluctant to prosecute- he never prosecuted ANY case, preferring to plea-bargain rather than risk losing in court.
With his links to the defense team, he should never have been on this case at all.
You are completely correct about the lack of evidence pointing to a single R. I have never understood how all it takes to get away with murder is to have an accomplice. I see other cases all the time where ALL involved are considered equally guilty, it need not be exclusively the one who actually committed the murder. The inability to state with certainty who did what to JB may have clouded the jury's decisions, but it really upsets me that people get away with a crime like this because there are no other witnesses.
Had the police been allowed to separate the Rs for questioning, they may have gotten one to point a finger at the other, but as we all know, spouses cannot be made to testify against one another (another big mistake as far as I am concerned). A marriage license shouldn't be a license to commit murder together.

Click to expand...

Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.

Assuming that is how she would have been charged, then her lawyers could have used a Casey Anthony defense: John did it and Patsy covered up for him with the letter. Or they could simply have put Lou Smit on the stand to say a stun gun had been used by an intruder. Either way, the chances for a conviction were probably less than 50/50.

As for the DNA, my understanding is that the touch DNA was only searched for in places the killer was likely to have touched. They did not test every article and piece of clothing for it. But they did test for it on the longjohns, and this touch DNA on the longjohns apparently matches the DNA found on Jon Benet's panties. Do I have that part correct?

Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.

Click to expand...

If that were true the JR could not have been involved in any staging. That means PR did all the staging herself. If find that hard to believe.

mtwentz said:

Actually, if I am reading Steve Thomas' book correctly, his main theory was that Patsy committed the crime alone, while John was asleep in bed, and that John did not figure out Patsy was guilty until sometime in the morning when the Boulder Police were in the house. So my assumption is that the Boulder Police would have wanted to charge only Patsy.

Assuming that is how she would have been charged, then her lawyers could have used a Casey Anthony defense: John did it and Patsy covered up for him with the letter. Or they could simply have put Lou Smit on the stand to say a stun gun had been used by an intruder. Either way, the chances for a conviction were probably less than 50/50.

As for the DNA, my understanding is that the touch DNA was only searched for in places the killer was likely to have touched. They did not test every article and piece of clothing for it. But they did test for it on the longjohns, and this touch DNA on the longjohns apparently matches the DNA found on Jon Benet's panties. Do I have that part correct?

Click to expand...

I'd have LOVED for Lou Smit to have been put on the stand. If he'd blathered about a stun gun there, he'd have had to back it up with PROOF that a stun had been used. Proof the R family refused to allow to be obtained. Proof the DA refused to order to be obtained. In other words, proof they KNEW they could not obtain. He could SAY anything he wished. But in a trial, you need FACTS and the use of a stun gun was not factual.
As far as looking only at the places a killer would have touched- shall we add to the clothing waistbands (which the parents also were KNOWN to have touched) the cord, tape, paintbrush pieces, door to the wineceller, wooden latch to the wineceller, pineapple bowl (IDI claims the "intruder" fed her the pineapple- her OWN prints were not on he bowl but Patsy's were).
Because those places SHOULD have been tested. The "killer" SURELY had to touch those items. Yet- no "killer-unknown - male DNA" there.

madeleine said:

Another thing,it's been said that while waiting for the kidnappers to call they never stood together comforting and supporting each other.Some see this as sign of guilt,like they did something bad together.I see it as one hiding and not being able to face the other.Maybe he wasn't eager to "find" the body because he was afraid of LE but was afraid of HER reaction (is this was FW knows and was ticked off by?JR not telling PR the truth?

why did PW tell PR she doesn't know some things?)

Click to expand...

Who was it more convenient for that the friends were called over?How nice that she had someone ELSE to comfort her and be present when the body is found.

Click to expand...

Can someone steer me to the source or documentation for PW's statement to PR? Or any documentation concerning the rift that developed between the W's and the R's? I tried with the search feature but gave up. Thanks!

DeeDee249 said:

I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.

Click to expand...

This is where LE really let JonBenet down and made this an unsolvable case. They not only did not question the Ramseys alone, PRIOR to JonBenet being found, but more importantly, they didn't do so after. I have read in so many kidnapping cases, of children that were home with their parents, that they felt like suspects. That they were questioned at length alone, and often more than once, until they had proof the parent was not involved.

Yes, they were distraught and grieving, but they also had a responsibility to help find JonBenets killer.

BPD had a wealth of information from JonBenets body, vs her parents statements. Why didn't they pursue answers to what the evidence showed?

Then when they did 'interview' the R's, there hands were tied so far behind their backs, that it was actually useless fluff, since they didn't pursue answers to scenarios that were presented vs the evidence. Very sad and this let a killer go free no matter if you believe IDI or RDI, as clearing the Ramseys would have widened the net to catch someone else responsible.

Instead, there is no justice to this day.

Lucky, Clever and lots of money

SunnieRN said:

This is where LE really let JonBenet down and made this an unsolvable case. They not only did not question the Ramseys alone, PRIOR to JonBenet being found, but more importantly, they didn't do so after. I have read in so many kidnapping cases, of children that were home with their parents, that they felt like suspects. That they were questioned at length alone, and often more than once, until they had proof the parent was not involved.

Yes, they were distraught and grieving, but they also had a responsibility to help find JonBenets killer.

BPD had a wealth of information from JonBenets body, vs her parents statements. Why didn't they pursue answers to what the evidence showed?

Then when they did 'interview' the R's, there hands were tied so far behind their backs, that it was actually useless fluff, since they didn't pursue answers to scenarios that were presented vs the evidence. Very sad and this let a killer go free no matter if you believe IDI or RDI, as clearing the Ramseys would have widened the net to catch someone else responsible.

Instead, there is no justice to this day.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, however, I just want to point out that the Rs were under no legal obligation to be questioned, separately or together, at any time. Not while waiting for the fake ransom call, not after the body was found, not the next day, or the day after that. To me the thing that really separates this case from others is that the Rs knew their rights and exercised them.

That doesn't mean the cops should not have tried, but we'll never really know if trying would have made a difference.

Chrishope said:

I agree with you, however, I just want to point out that the Rs were under no legal obligation to be questioned, separately or together, at any time. Not while waiting for the fake ransom call, not after the body was found, not the next day, or the day after that. To me the thing that really separates this case from others is that the Rs knew their rights and exercised them.

That doesn't mean the cops should not have tried, but we'll never really know if trying would have made a difference.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Many people do not realize that people are not required to speak to police, even people who are suspects and even suspects who have been arrested. (you have the right to remain silent, etc....). But if an INNOCENT person with a murdered child was asked to speak to police, I am sure they would and their lawyers would want them to. Look at how differently the parents of other murdered kids acted with LE. Some of them were initially suspects, too. But they were innocent and were quickly cleared.
The Rs have never been cleared except in the (scary and muddled) mind of former DA ML. And that was just lip service, not a legitimate clearing. The fact is that when it is known that people were present at time and place of a murder, NO ONE is truly cleared until a suspect has been identified BY NAME as being the donor of DNA or any other evidence left at the crime scene and pertinent to the crime.
However- when someone is given a subpoena- THEN they are required to testify. People MUST speak to a Grand Jury, but they can refuse to answer questions by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. It should be obvious that "taking the Fifth" is tantamount to being guilty or involved somehow or having knowledge of the guilty party. By your very words "on the grounds that it may incriminate me" you are stating that you were a part of that crime in some way or have knowledge of who committed it. Innocent people do not "take the Fifth".
With this crime, we have the added problem of a married couple (the parents) who may each have their own part in the crime or where either parent may have knowledge of the other's part in the crime. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. (you know, I really don't understand why this has to be so). The parents may be covering for another family member as well, and even if they are not guilty of the killing, they are guilty of the coverup. Tampering with evidence is a crime in its own right.

DeeDee249 said:

I don't care what he said. Her arms were most certainly NOT tied behind her head or they would have still BEEN behind her head when she was brought up/ and they would have still been tied behind her back when that crime photo was taken of her on the living room rug. And that photo shows her arms in FRONT.
JR can spin that death scene any way her wants, but science doesn't lie. Bodies in rigor mortis remain in rigor mortis until it is broken, either by decomposition or a coroner or undertaker tearing the muscle fibers.
The same goes for the tape on her legs. If there had been, her legs would remain in that position even after the tape was removed, and NO other tape was found except the small piece on her mouth.
How I wish someone had pushed JR further and asked where he put the tape from her legs and why it wasn't there in the crime pics and why her arms "magically" moved into a different position in the few seconds it took to carry her upstairs.

Click to expand...

This is kind of interesting.....notice what they say about children and rigor mortis.


http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/rigor-mortis-cause2.htm

EllaMae said:

This is kind of interesting.....notice what they say about children and rigor mortis.


http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/rigor-mortis-cause2.htm

Click to expand...

I had read that before. The progression may be a bit quicker, but not so much that it would matter all that much. In JB's case, we also have the pineapple in her small intestine to go by. This type of analysis is unrelated to rigor mortis. Fruit such as pineapple will take about 2 hours to move from the stomach to the small intestine (right below the stomach and the "next stop" in the digestive process. Then there are also known factors, such as the time the family left the party and arrived home. Put all of it together, and you have a reasonably accurate timeline- leave the White's between around 9-9:30 pm, Make a few tops to deliver gifts, arrive home by 10 pm. Pineapple snack not long after. Scream heard around midnight, also "strange moving lights" seen in the kitchen around the same time. The "moving lights are consistent with someone walking carrying a flashlight- a flashlight was found in the kitchen. Death likely occurred around then, between midnight and 1 am. Rigor progresses in stages, body found in FULL rigor at 1 pm the following day. Full rigor takes approx. 12 hours to form, maintains for 12 hours and passes off over the next 12 hours. JB was in diminishing rigor at the time of the autopsy at 8 am on the 27th. At this point it was about 18 hours since she was FOUND and about 30 hours since she had died. While these times are approximate, they follow close enough from a scientific or forensic aspect to presume death occurred between midnight and 1 am that night (though it was Christmas night, it was probably technically the 26th when she died.
Had the coroner performed two IMPORTANT and STANDARD procedures when he first examined the body around 8 pm the evening of the 26th, we woudn't need to have this discussion.
Algor mortis is also an excellent indicator of time of death especially when a person died indoors at a stable temperature. Again, a child's body mass loses heat through algor mortis at a slightly different rate, but it is still a reliable indicator. The Coroner did not take a core body temperature, though it is standard procedure to do so. Neither did he take a sample of the vitreous fluid of the eyeball, where potassium levels are also used as an indication of the time of death.
LE did not ask the coroner why he failed to do these things, but had the coroner been put on the witness stand, I would HOPE someone would have had the sense to ask those questions.
The coroner spent only about 10 MINUTES examining the body that night in the home. Either he was already sure of the time of death, or he wished NOT to determine it. Either way-something smelled fishy, and it wasn't just the body.

horatio said:

They were incredibly lucky. There are numerous instances of 'If X happened instead of Y' they would've been caught. They aren't master criminals who planned 50 moves ahead and for every single possible outcome. They hastily hatched/threw together a crummy plan and lucked out that the case was bungled from the outset.

Click to expand...

That's the way I look at it. It helps that none of the tactics a rookie walking a beat would know were done.

mtwentz said:

Alex Hunter was not about to charge the Ramseys and then end up looking like the fool prosecutors from the L.A. D.A.'s office from the O.J. Simpson trial.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that was part of the problem. I think the OJ Simpson case scared the you-know-what out of Alex Hunter.

I am sure the Ramsey's lawyer's connections probably did not hurt them, but the lack of clear evidence pointing to a specific person (s) in the household made it a very difficult case to prosecute.

Click to expand...

For a minute, I thought my eyes were playing tricks! That's what I've been saying for a long time now!

They were just lucky..the RN was not extremely clever.
and lucky enough to have enough money to hire lawyers to deflect.

Super Dave, I was looking at the basement photo's and vidieo (start at the 27 mark) that are in the Daily Beast and noticed that in two of them it shows an electrical cord that has two ends laying on the floor with the ends almost touching and it leads back to what I think is a train transformer. I went looking and found one that looks pretty damn close. It's a Lionel type R Trainmaster Transformer. There is also two pieces of train track on the floor and I noticed what looked like a rail car on the desk (?) with a girls pink purse next to it. Is that the train room? There is also a picture of an elephant that looks like a young child would color. It looks like a marker (sharpie?) on the floor
I still can't make out the whatever it is that's to the right of the elephant.

I'm still not oriented to the basement, but this room is to the left of the Officer and a Gentleman poster (One man hung himself from a shower curtain rod in that movie) and to the left again after LE looks in the closet with the wrapping paper, and then they move further into the room and look to the left lower corner and the transformer is sitting on the edge of a white desk ? In light of the questions about Burke and a child's toy what do you think? Could Burke stuck the ends of that electrical cord to JonBenet face and back,causing the marks?

A shock would of made JonBenet scream and she could of hit her head on something hard enough to cause the head bash and appear to be dead.

ILikeToBendPages said:

Super Dave, I was looking at the basement photo's and vidieo (start at the 27 mark) that are in the Daily Beast and noticed that in two of them it shows an electrical cord that has two ends laying on the floor with the ends almost touching and it leads back to what I think is a train transformer. I went looking and found one that looks pretty damn close. It's a Lionel type R Trainmaster Transformer. There is also two pieces of train track on the floor and I noticed what looked like a rail car on the desk (?) with a girls pink purse next to it. Is that the train room? There is also a picture of an elephant that looks like a young child would color. It looks like a marker (sharpie?) on the floor
I still can't make out the whatever it is that's to the right of the elephant.

I'm still not oriented to the basement, but this room is to the left of the Officer and a Gentleman poster (One man hung himself from a shower curtain rod in that movie) and to the left again after LE looks in the closet with the wrapping paper, and then they move further into the room and look to the left lower corner and the transformer is sitting on the edge of a white desk ? In light of the questions about Burke and a child's toy what do you think? Could Burke stuck the ends of that electrical cord to JonBenet face and back,causing the marks?

A shock would of made JonBenet scream and she could of hit her head on something hard enough to cause the head bash and appear to be dead.

Click to expand...

NO fall would have caused that hole in her skull and that fracture. I don't care what she hit. The coroner said it was "blunt force trauma" and that means she was HIT with something. She didn't hit something with her head- something hit her.

If JonBenet's head was pushed/shoved or otherwise made to contact a hard surface with a protrusion of some kind penetrating her skull it would still be blunt force trauma.

They were both clever and lucky. Lucky to have money for attorneys and clout affecting the DA and able to avoid questioning for so long and then dictated by them. They were very clever at avoiding the real clues. It is almost unbelieveable that a family member immediately knew the nature of injuries without seeing the body or knowing autopsy results yet the family was never questioned about that and many other things.