1385 users online (346 members and 1039 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    230

    $2000 loan

    Early in the Kolar book, it is claimed that PR suggests the housekeeper as a possible and mentions the loan request. Also that JR suggests the housekeeper and mentions the loan request to a different officer. IIRC the concenseous is that PR and JR were usually separate from each other on the morning of 12/26. It's somewhat interesting to me that someone would link domestic help requesting a small loan from affluent employers, to breaking in and kidnapping a child. Seems a stretch, but possible. But for BOTH to make the same suggestion wih the same reasoning seems odd.
    So, I wonder - did they discuss it, and if so when? Does anyone on the scene claim to have seen JR and PR discussing possible perpetrators? Did anyone hear one Ramsey make the claim within earshot of the other? Have the R's ever addressed the issue themselves?
    Seems to me that it's coincidence or it's not. If it's not, they likely discussed it. If they discussed it after French's arrival we should know. If they discussed it prior to French's arrival, then it would tend to be between the 911 call and French's arrival. Possible of course. What I'm considering is that if we assume it was discussed, and if it was unlikely that it was discussed after PR discovered the note, then it was discussed prior - making the JR did not know until he started to put it together in the morning aspect of the ST theory unlikely.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by wengr View Post
    Early in the Kolar book, it is claimed that PR suggests the housekeeper as a possible and mentions the loan request. Also that JR suggests the housekeeper and mentions the loan request to a different officer. IIRC the concenseous is that PR and JR were usually separate from each other on the morning of 12/26. It's somewhat interesting to me that someone would link domestic help requesting a small loan from affluent employers, to breaking in and kidnapping a child. Seems a stretch, but possible. But for BOTH to make the same suggestion wih the same reasoning seems odd.
    So, I wonder - did they discuss it, and if so when? Does anyone on the scene claim to have seen JR and PR discussing possible perpetrators? Did anyone hear one Ramsey make the claim within earshot of the other? Have the R's ever addressed the issue themselves?
    Seems to me that it's coincidence or it's not. If it's not, they likely discussed it. If they discussed it after French's arrival we should know. If they discussed it prior to French's arrival, then it would tend to be between the 911 call and French's arrival. Possible of course. What I'm considering is that if we assume it was discussed, and if it was unlikely that it was discussed after PR discovered the note, then it was discussed prior - making the JR did not know until he started to put it together in the morning aspect of the ST theory unlikely.
    wengr,
    Its likely everything was talked over, prior to the 911 call. Including Burke Ramsey's intended role, i.e. just play act asleep, then we will move you to a safe house.

    Possibly the principle reason that the R's version of events, took its particular form, was it meant there were less things required to remember.

    Remember the R's more or less claimed they were all asleep when JonBenet was abducted.


    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by wengr View Post
    Early in the Kolar book, it is claimed that PR suggests the housekeeper as a possible and mentions the loan request. Also that JR suggests the housekeeper and mentions the loan request to a different officer. IIRC the concenseous is that PR and JR were usually separate from each other on the morning of 12/26. It's somewhat interesting to me that someone would link domestic help requesting a small loan from affluent employers, to breaking in and kidnapping a child. Seems a stretch, but possible. But for BOTH to make the same suggestion wih the same reasoning seems odd.
    So, I wonder - did they discuss it, and if so when? Does anyone on the scene claim to have seen JR and PR discussing possible perpetrators? Did anyone hear one Ramsey make the claim within earshot of the other? Have the R's ever addressed the issue themselves?
    Seems to me that it's coincidence or it's not. If it's not, they likely discussed it. If they discussed it after French's arrival we should know. If they discussed it prior to French's arrival, then it would tend to be between the 911 call and French's arrival. Possible of course. What I'm considering is that if we assume it was discussed, and if it was unlikely that it was discussed after PR discovered the note, then it was discussed prior - making the JR did not know until he started to put it together in the morning aspect of the ST theory unlikely.
    They discussed it after JB was killed, LONG before police arrived at the house. They likely decided on several "patsys" (no pun intended), because JR also pointed a finger at a former employee who left under disagreeable circumstances. LHP was a perfect patsy. She was relatively uneducated and financially strapped. She had a key to the home and intimate knowledge of the family and the home. They thought she wouldn't have the financial means to fight back. One problem with their plan- there was not one single thing at the crime scene or on the body that linked LHP to this crime. Yet- there was PLENTY of fiber and other evidence from the parents.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    They discussed it after JB was killed, LONG before police arrived at the house. They likely decided on several "patsys" (no pun intended), because JR also pointed a finger at a former employee who left under disagreeable circumstances. LHP was a perfect patsy. She was relatively uneducated and financially strapped. She had a key to the home and intimate knowledge of the family and the home. They thought she wouldn't have the financial means to fight back. One problem with their plan- there was not one single thing at the crime scene or on the body that linked LHP to this crime. Yet- there was PLENTY of fiber and other evidence from the parents.
    Despite the lack of evidence, the R's made things quite difficult for both LHP, her family, Santa Bill and his family also, later FW and others.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    They discussed it after JB was killed, LONG before police arrived at the house. They likely decided on several "patsys" (no pun intended), because JR also pointed a finger at a former employee who left under disagreeable circumstances. LHP was a perfect patsy. She was relatively uneducated and financially strapped. She had a key to the home and intimate knowledge of the family and the home. They thought she wouldn't have the financial means to fight back. One problem with their plan- there was not one single thing at the crime scene or on the body that linked LHP to this crime. Yet- there was PLENTY of fiber and other evidence from the parents.
    This very thing has always bothered me, for a couple of different reasons. Was the staging truly designed to implicate a specific person, or to make the entire world a suspect?

    I have often heard the theory that LHP was the intended "patsy"--that the Rs were trying to set her up as the prime suspect. Admittedly, LHP was a good "patsy" just for the reasons that DD mentions. If we accept that premise, we are left with several issues. If that had been the plan, and it worked and LHP became the prime suspect, how far would the Rs let it go? I've asked others this question many times: would the Rs, Patsy in particular, have let LHP actually go to prison, possibly to Death Row, for a crime they knew she did not commit? Because, to paraphrase a poster I used to know, that would take the Rs beyond simply covering their own butts to being outright evil. And frankly, I'm not ready to make that leap yet.

    Which brings me to the second thing. As I say, i'm not ready to believe that the Rs would let LHP--who they CLAIMED was their friend--go to prison for this to save them. But I MIGHT be willing to accept the idea that they intended to set her up as a decoy. That is to say, someone they could point the finger at to raise reasonable doubt. But even then, even if LHP was not charged with anything, she'd still have to live with people thinking that she did do it. And to hear the Rs tell it, they didn't like that one bit when it happened to them (not that I totally believe that, mind you--I think Patsy enjoyed the attention on some level).

    I think these points are worth discussing.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    This very thing has always bothered me, for a couple of different reasons. Was the staging truly designed to implicate a specific person, or to make the entire world a suspect?

    I have often heard the theory that LHP was the intended "patsy"--that the Rs were trying to set her up as the prime suspect. Admittedly, LHP was a good "patsy" just for the reasons that DD mentions. If we accept that premise, we are left with several issues. If that had been the plan, and it worked and LHP became the prime suspect, how far would the Rs let it go? I've asked others this question many times: would the Rs, Patsy in particular, have let LHP actually go to prison, possibly to Death Row, for a crime they knew she did not commit? Because, to paraphrase a poster I used to know, that would take the Rs beyond simply covering their own butts to being outright evil. And frankly, I'm not ready to make that leap yet.

    Which brings me to the second thing. As I say, i'm not ready to believe that the Rs would let LHP--who they CLAIMED was their friend--go to prison for this to save them. But I MIGHT be willing to accept the idea that they intended to set her up as a decoy. That is to say, someone they could point the finger at to raise reasonable doubt. But even then, even if LHP was not charged with anything, she'd still have to live with people thinking that she did do it. And to hear the Rs tell it, they didn't like that one bit when it happened to them (not that I totally believe that, mind you--I think Patsy enjoyed the attention on some level).

    I think these points are worth discussing.
    I think the reason why the ransom note cast suspicions at SEVERAL suspects (LHP, Access Graphics employees, a SFF, a terrorist group, etc) is because the Rs knew there WAS no other perp and could not point to any person or group specifically because they knew there was no evidence linking them to the crime. Had LHP (or employee JM or former friend FW or Santa Bill, etc) actually been arrested, it would not have proceeded very far, as there was NO evidence linking any of them to the crime. Then- the falsely accused may have filed a lawsuit against the Rs, and information they wanted kept secret might have come out.
    LHP probably still lives with having people think she had something to do with it, as does FW. Santa Bill and his wife did too, though they are now both dead.
    Believe me, if their neighbor (the late) Joe Barnhill had been more vocal about seeing JAR walk into the R house when he was supposed to be in Georgia, the Rs would have pointed a finger of blame at him too.
    The Rs knew people thought they were guilty too. They just didn't care. Still don't. Their lawyers put up a wall of threats around them, which stands fast to this day. Added to that wall is Colorado's law preventing children under 10 from being associated with ANY crime and the protection is pretty much foolproof.
    I think they'd have gone as far as they needed to go to keep this away from themselves. And I am certain they'd have let someone else go to death row to protect their son(s).
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 01-19-2013 at 07:17 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,697
    SuperDave, I tend to agree with DeeDee on this. My own opinion is anyone who tries to place any level of blame on a known innocent party will likely do anything if they think it will keep them out of the pen.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mid-North Coast, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    SuperDave, I tend to agree with DeeDee on this. My own opinion is anyone who tries to place any level of blame on a known innocent party will likely do anything if they think it will keep them out of the pen.
    I'm with DeeDee on this, too; she stated it well. The R's wanted to stay out of jail, that was the most important factor to them, seconded by worry of "appearances". They used a "shotgun" approach to blaming anyone but themselves. But like you Dave, I don't think the R's were outright "evil" (that is a strong word and a very rough ethical measurement to take) but I do think they usually acted in only their own self interests, including not taking responsibility for the crimes, the sorry state of the family and their own flawed characters. If other evidence came to light either way on their moral compasses, well, perhaps I'd change my mind. As it stands now I think they are simply vile, ethically repugnant, and not at all the sort of people with whom I'd have any dealings.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by wengr View Post
    Early in the Kolar book, it is claimed that PR suggests the housekeeper as a possible and mentions the loan request. Also that JR suggests the housekeeper and mentions the loan request to a different officer. IIRC the concenseous is that PR and JR were usually separate from each other on the morning of 12/26. It's somewhat interesting to me that someone would link domestic help requesting a small loan from affluent employers, to breaking in and kidnapping a child. Seems a stretch, but possible. But for BOTH to make the same suggestion wih the same reasoning seems odd.
    So, I wonder - did they discuss it, and if so when? Does anyone on the scene claim to have seen JR and PR discussing possible perpetrators? Did anyone hear one Ramsey make the claim within earshot of the other? Have the R's ever addressed the issue themselves?
    Seems to me that it's coincidence or it's not. If it's not, they likely discussed it. If they discussed it after French's arrival we should know. If they discussed it prior to French's arrival, then it would tend to be between the 911 call and French's arrival. Possible of course. What I'm considering is that if we assume it was discussed, and if it was unlikely that it was discussed after PR discovered the note, then it was discussed prior - making the JR did not know until he started to put it together in the morning aspect of the ST theory unlikely.
    Its been a while since I last posted on the JBR case but yes, of course JR knew prior to the 911 call. I'm undecided as to whether he knew prior to her death though.

    LHP was the only scapegoat that they could point physical evidence to. The paint tote and the swiss army knife were both handled by LHP just days before and perhaps the Rs were hoping her fingerprints would still be on them. The placement of the RN on the spiral staircase is something that they also hoped would link LHP. Then there is the oversized bloomies. Not many people agree, but LHP's had a daughter who would fit those and I feel it is possible that PR had this in mind when she put them on her.

    LHP was the first suspect and she was lucky that the Rs acted so suspiciously themselves, otherwise things may have gotten a bit tougher for her. And for what its worth, I feel the Rs would have sat back and let it all happen if it did. jmo

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    This very thing has always bothered me, for a couple of different reasons. Was the staging truly designed to implicate a specific person, or to make the entire world a suspect?

    I have often heard the theory that LHP was the intended "patsy"--that the Rs were trying to set her up as the prime suspect. Admittedly, LHP was a good "patsy" just for the reasons that DD mentions. If we accept that premise, we are left with several issues. If that had been the plan, and it worked and LHP became the prime suspect, how far would the Rs let it go? I've asked others this question many times: would the Rs, Patsy in particular, have let LHP actually go to prison, possibly to Death Row, for a crime they knew she did not commit? Because, to paraphrase a poster I used to know, that would take the Rs beyond simply covering their own butts to being outright evil. And frankly, I'm not ready to make that leap yet.

    Which brings me to the second thing. As I say, i'm not ready to believe that the Rs would let LHP--who they CLAIMED was their friend--go to prison for this to save them. But I MIGHT be willing to accept the idea that they intended to set her up as a decoy. That is to say, someone they could point the finger at to raise reasonable doubt. But even then, even if LHP was not charged with anything, she'd still have to live with people thinking that she did do it. And to hear the Rs tell it, they didn't like that one bit when it happened to them (not that I totally believe that, mind you--I think Patsy enjoyed the attention on some level).

    I think these points are worth discussing.
    Good points. John remarked: "This is an inside job" I'm sure he wasn't fingering one of his own household so we can assume that everyone else was fair game especially the housekeeper.

    How would one know this was an "inside job" when one was fast asleep and completely taken unawares? Was it because all the doors were locked and there was no entry to the house? Well, John knew the basement window was a possible entry point because FW pointed it out to him before John found the body. John even replied: "Damn it!" Obviously FW thought it significant and so did John as they even bent down to look for glass.

    I think it became an "inside job" because they needed suspects and the more the merrier if you know what I mean. The Ramseys needed diversion; time, if you will in order to put the legal team in place and distance themselves from the police. Without an "inside job", police have no one to question but the Ramseys; few leads to track down.

    SuperDave, I tend to agree with you. I don't think the Rams wanted any person to be charged in this case, no, they just needed suspects.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    DD, BOESP, SunVenus, I have nothing but respect for your ideas. But I'm just not ready to accept the notion.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    DD, BOESP, SunVenus, I have nothing but respect for your ideas. But I'm just not ready to accept the notion.
    Do you mean, for example purposes only, say Linda Hoffman-Pugh had been indicted you think Patsy and/or John would have stepped up to the plate and said, "No. We take it back. We didn't mean we thought it was her!" (I want it very clear that I in no way believe Ms. Hoffman-Pugh had anything to do with JonBenet's death.)

    There's an old saying about extremely successful people: if you reach the top of the mountain, you had to step on a lot of people on your way up so be careful who you step on. You might meet them on your down.