1286 users online (189 members and 1097 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Which Ramsey Is Benefiting From The Coverup?

    There's been a blatant coverup going on with this case from day one. The Ramsey lies, the lack of cooperation with the investigators, the footdragging, the loss of memories, and the obfuscations, are all classic by now.

    The Ramseys are covering up for someone, and that someone isn't an intruder. It has to be a Ramsey family member. They wouldn't cover for anyone but a family member.

    So which Ramsey are they covering for?

    JOHN RAMSEY was in the house on the night of the murder, but he has DNA evidence, strong handwriting evidence, and polygraph evidence in his favor. He has some fiber evidence not in his favor.

    PATSY RAMSEY was in the house on the night of the murder, but she also has DNA evidence, reasonably strong handwriting evidence, and polygraph evidence in her favor. She has a lot of fiber evidence not in her favor.

    BURKE RAMSEY was in the house on the night of the murder, but he has DNA evidence and weak handwriting evidence in his favor. He has strong fingerprint evidence not in his favor.

    JOHN ANDREW RAMSEY had an alibi about being at a movie in Atlanta on the night of the murder. His suitcase in the basement containing a blanket and sham from his bed, his semen on the blanket, fibers from JonBenet on the blanket, and a Dr. Seuss book, is evidence not in his favor. He has a friend, Brad Millard, who was with him that night and who is a pilot.

    JEFF RAMSEY had an alibi about being in Atlanta on the night of the murder, but he can pilot either of John's two airplanes.

    DONALD PAUGH had an alibi about catching a standby flight to Atlanta and therefore not in town on the night of the murder.

    IMO the evidence of a coverup is clear and convincing. Therefore, one of these Ramsey family members likely murdered JonBenet and the rest of the family members are involved in the coverup. They wouldn't be covering up to protect an intruder. So which Ramsey did it? And why are the rest of the Ramseys covering for him (her)?

    BlueCrab

  2. #2
    The one that should be in jail.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by twilight
    The one that should be in jail.
    the person that matches the DNA......

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,661
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    IMO the evidence of a coverup is clear and convincing. Therefore, one of these Ramsey family members likely murdered JonBenet and the rest of the family members are involved in the coverup. They wouldn't be covering up to protect an intruder. So which Ramsey did it? And why are the rest of the Ramseys covering for him (her)?
    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab,

    I wish it was that simple. But nobody has said it was me, the evidence you cite is non-specific and open to other interpretations, e.g. Burke's fingerprints may not have been laid down at the same time JonBenet was snacking pineapple, thats if it was snacked in the breakfast bar????

    If you reject the intruder scenario, and think only a Ramsey did it and you consider that the evidence of a coverup is clear and convincing then the only convincing rationale for them all to close ranks and collude is if they were all at some point a witness to a criminal act, so here a RDI must mean them all and some form of familial conspiracy that invokes the kind of coverup described.

    The constraints that keep the Ramseys inside the house that night also apply to any intruder or any Ramsey associates, so an intruder or associate can be expected to leave a forensic trail in and out of the house e.g. footprints in the snow!
    Last edited by UKGuy; 04-03-2005 at 06:06 AM. Reason: spelling error

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    the person that matches the DNA......
    blueclouds,

    The DNA of all Ramseys is known, with the possible exception of one -- Jeff Ramsey. Were the DNA specimens of Jeff Ramsey and Brad Millard ever obtained? They were both pilots and could have flown a plane, by themselves or with a passenger, from Atlanta to Boulder and back again within the window of time to commit the murder.

    Since the DNA of all Ramseys is likely known, are you, with your DUH comment, saying the Ramseys are covering up to protect the identity of an intruder?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy

    The constraints that keep the Ramseys inside the house that night also apply to any intruder or any Ramsey associates, so an intruder or associate can be expected to leave a forensic trail in and out of the house e.g. footprints in the snow!

    UKGuy,

    It's not known what time of the night that light dusting of snow occurred. A snowfall that leaves only a dusting on the ground would take but several minutes -- no longer than 10 or 15 minutes at the most.

    Let's hypothesize the snow fell around 3:30 A.M. If there was a fifth person in the house that night and he left at 3:00 A.M., then there would be no footprints in the snow. He carried incriminating crime scene evidence, now missing, with him.

    But when the Ramseys finished staging the crime scene and were ready to take the body out of the house at 4:00 A.M. to complete the plan in accordance with the wording in the ransom note, they looked outside and the fresh snow was everywhere -- trapping them in the house. Footprints in the snow from the house and back again would reveal everything. The killer was trapped in the house with the body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

    BlueCrab

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    No one knows for sure what happened in regard to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. There's been enough lies told to win a thousand liar's contests. But from what I believe to be credible evidence I put Burke as my number one suspect and John Andrew as my number two suspect.

    With respect to a sibling killing JonBenet, jealousy has to be considered as part of the equation. That brings me to something Patsy said in the '98 interviews.

    It's no secret the parents spent a lot of money on JonBenet and her pageant aspirations. The various costumes alone must have cost thousands.

    Tom Haney and Patsy Ramsey were discussing JAR's belongings:

    TOM HANEY: "Did he keep clothes or -- "

    PATSY RAMSEY: "No, I don't think he had many clothes."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,661
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    UKGuy,

    It's not known what time of the night that light dusting of snow occurred. A snowfall that leaves only a dusting on the ground would take but several minutes -- no longer than 10 or 15 minutes at the most.

    Let's hypothesize the snow fell around 3:30 A.M. If there was a fifth person in the house that night and he left at 3:00 A.M., then there would be no footprints in the snow. He carried incriminating crime scene evidence, now missing, with him.

    But when the Ramseys finished staging the crime scene and were ready to take the body out of the house at 4:00 A.M. to complete the plan in accordance with the wording in the ransom note, they looked outside and the fresh snow was everywhere -- trapping them in the house. Footprints in the snow from the house and back again would reveal everything. The killer was trapped in the house with the body and a ransom note that now didn't make any sense.

    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab,

    Thats entirely possible, but if they left successfully leaving no observable trail, why did they not take the body with them?

    Does this suggest a scenario that we have no knowledge of, since either the fifth person left in a state of panic, or in accordance with some defined plan.

    I think there was likely three separate stagings of JonBenets body that night, the last two may have been the consequence of the snow fall you suggest, causing a revision of their plans.

    Now if they were trapped in a house with a ransom note that did not make any sense, why did they not revise again, as we know they did before??

    Something does not add up, as if there was either fourth or fifth person invited in, who committed the deed but whose subsequent confession and evidence may extend to exposing the Ramsey's lifestyle which they wish to remain private?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    blueclouds,

    The DNA of all Ramseys is known, with the possible exception of one -- Jeff Ramsey. Were the DNA specimens of Jeff Ramsey and Brad Millard ever obtained? They were both pilots and could have flown a plane, by themselves or with a passenger, from Atlanta to Boulder and back again within the window of time to commit the murder.

    Since the DNA of all Ramseys is likely known, are you, with your DUH comment, saying the Ramseys are covering up to protect the identity of an intruder?
    NOT IN A MILLION AND A HALF YEARS............. the DNA belongs to the INTRUDER who killed JB. I thought you knew my position on this story.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,661
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    No one knows for sure what happened in regard to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. There's been enough lies told to win a thousand liar's contests. But from what I believe to be credible evidence I put Burke as my number one suspect and John Andrew as my number two suspect.

    With respect to a sibling killing JonBenet, jealousy has to be considered as part of the equation. That brings me to something Patsy said in the '98 interviews.

    It's no secret the parents spent a lot of money on JonBenet and her pageant aspirations. The various costumes alone must have cost thousands.

    Tom Haney and Patsy Ramsey were discussing JAR's belongings:

    TOM HANEY: "Did he keep clothes or -- "

    PATSY RAMSEY: "No, I don't think he had many clothes."
    My current number one suspect is an associate or known intruder who is familiar with the house layout.

    My second suspect is any Ramsey that was in the house that night.

    My rationale for the above is that no ramsey needed to murder JonBenet she was a loyal loving daughter and sister.

    I cannot see a guy being jealous over a little girls clothing budget, well not to the extent that it becomes the twisted rationale for a slaying!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    Choice of words

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    No one knows for sure what happened in regard to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. There's been enough lies told to win a thousand liar's contests. But from what I believe to be credible evidence I put Burke as my number one suspect and John Andrew as my number two suspect.

    With respect to a sibling killing JonBenet, jealousy has to be considered as part of the equation. That brings me to something Patsy said in the '98 interviews.

    It's no secret the parents spent a lot of money on JonBenet and her pageant aspirations. The various costumes alone must have cost thousands.

    Tom Haney and Patsy Ramsey were discussing JAR's belongings:

    TOM HANEY: "Did he keep clothes or -- "

    PATSY RAMSEY: "No, I don't think he had many clothes."
    The choice of words in the note, and its arrangement, is more consistent with an experienced adult who isn't from around here. "Be sure to bring an adequate size attache to the bank" is an expression that of an adult that is used to giving instructions. An authority figure. Nobody says 'attache' without saying 'attache case' around here, you know. Furthermore, nobody says 'attache case' around here either.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    No one knows for sure what happened in regard to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. There's been enough lies told to win a thousand liar's contests. But from what I believe to be credible evidence I put Burke as my number one suspect and John Andrew as my number two suspect.

    With respect to a sibling killing JonBenet, jealousy has to be considered as part of the equation. That brings me to something Patsy said in the '98 interviews.

    It's no secret the parents spent a lot of money on JonBenet and her pageant aspirations. The various costumes alone must have cost thousands.

    Tom Haney and Patsy Ramsey were discussing JAR's belongings:

    TOM HANEY: "Did he keep clothes or -- "

    PATSY RAMSEY: "No, I don't think he had many clothes."
    Bingo. This has been my contention for years.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    motive, but opportunity?

    regarding JAR...the general consensus is that he was in atlanta and could not possibly have committed the crime. i know some have alleged that he may have flown in and out through the night, but i thought that steve thomas addressed this. i can't find the source at the moment, but i thought that ST said somewhere that regardless of JAR's alibi, he looked into every possible flight combination to see if he could/did fly in and out of boulder that night, and it was not the case...i agree there may have been motive for JAR, but i'm not sure about opportunity.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    regarding JAR...the general consensus is that he was in atlanta and could not possibly have committed the crime. i know some have alleged that he may have flown in and out through the night, but i thought that steve thomas addressed this. i can't find the source at the moment, but i thought that ST said somewhere that regardless of JAR's alibi, he looked into every possible flight combination to see if he could/did fly in and out of boulder that night, and it was not the case...i agree there may have been motive for JAR, but i'm not sure about opportunity.

    Voice of Reason,

    What if JAR was in Boulder on Christmas night and was flown to Atlanta during the night in one of John's two planes, piloted by Jeff Ramsey or Mike Archuletta?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    My current number one suspect is an associate or known intruder who is familiar with the house layout.

    My second suspect is any Ramsey that was in the house that night.

    My rationale for the above is that no ramsey needed to murder JonBenet she was a loyal loving daughter and sister.

    I cannot see a guy being jealous over a little girls clothing budget, well not to the extent that it becomes the twisted rationale for a slaying!
    UKGuy,

    These are my current suspects as well.

    In one of your above posts you mentioned perhaps one piece of knowledge that hasn't come to light. That's what it appears to be to me also. It's reasonable to assume this is by design. We know there's unidentified DNA. We DON'T know if other evidence like a partial finger print or hair is locked away now by LE or the grand jury....something being withheld for future investigation/prosecution or something only known to the killer.

    I don't believe the Ramsey's staged anything.

    Can you imagine?: "OMG, John! wake up! Burke has killed JonBenet! We've got to make this look like an intruder kidnapped and killed her...a sexual assault...violate her body,write a note, hide her body fast!..we'll get rid of it later.. and give me a minute to put on my makeup before the police arrive''!! hmmmmm

    I can imagine someone known to the family who knew the layout of the unusual floor plan, knew Patsy kept a key outside because the front door locks automatically when closed. The person who told JonBenet to expect a secret visit from Santa was the killer?.. someone who hated John..maybe hated the entire family and everything they represented..went into their home early in the evening (or even later) with the purpose of vicously murdering and violating their child as the ultimate assault and insult on and to them...after writting the fake ransome note..with all things pointing toward the Ramseys. Staging to imply staging? And it worked.

    Burke fits into the intruder theory, IMO. Not as party to the murder perhaps (don't think he could keep that secret or trusted by an adult killer) but culpable in having knowledge of it or having seen the perp in the house that night. He may have let him in by revealing the hidden key. He may have given the "all clear" after his parents were sleeping. Whether true in fact, his parents implicate someone/something questionable by their actions after the fact, IMO. I can imagine they'd cover for Burke. But I can't imagine Patsy going along with a cover up to protect JAR, her step-son, or any other adult.

    It's likely in identifing the DNA or the secret Santa, the missing link would be found to solving this murder...unless Burke was the lone killer protected by the court because of his age. But that doesn't seem reasonable, IMO.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast