Neighbours reports

New Posts

P

Plenum7

New Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
I have been assessing the reports from the neighbours about the fateful night. The only ones I am aware of are:

*Report of a child's scream at some time between midnight and 2am.
*Report of the sound of metal on cement.
*Report of lights on in the kitchen of the Ramsey house around midnight.
*Report that the light in the SE corner of the house was off when usually it was always left on.

Are they all the reports?

Evaluating these, there is a golden rule: sounds are not as reliable as sights. It is very easy to mishear sounds.

I think rather too much has been made of the report of the scream and the metal on cement. (They even reenacted the scream to prove that the Ramseys could have slept through it upstairs.) Neither of these reports seem very solid as evidence and so I am dubious of theories that depend on them.

The reports about lights are, to my mind, far more interesting, and I am especially taken by the report of the light being off. So, in order of importance, I think these clues should be ranked as follows:

*Report that the light in the SE corner of the house was off when usually it was always left on.
*Report of lights on in the kitchen of the Ramsey house around midnight.
*Report of the sound of metal on cement.
*Report of a child's scream at some time between midnight and 2am.

I don't put much store in the scream report especially. But the light being off deserves some attention as a clue.
 
I don't know what to make of the scream - apparently the hearer of the scream, Melody Stanton, later recanted and said it may have been negative energy. I believe she said her husband heard the metal on cement sound, but I'm not sure if he himself said he heard the sound.

I also don't know what to make of the outside light that was usually on being off - it could be as easy to explain as the bulb burned out that night.

The kitchen lights don't bother me - people are up and have lights on at night all the time. It's the report of seeing strange lights on in the house that I ponder - as if someone was moving around with a flashlight. And we know someone was, the flashlight was left on the counter and found there in the morning.
 
I thought there was a map on this page showing who lived where, but that must be a different site. I was interested in the neighbors with dogs that were known barkers but that didn't bark that night.

If there were someone walking around one of my neigbor's houses looking for a way in, I wouldn't be able to shut my dogs up.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence#WhatRamseysReported
 
Jolynna said:
I thought there was a map on this page showing who lived where, but that must be a different site. I was interested in the neighbors with dogs that were known barkers but that didn't bark that night.

If there were someone walking around one of my neigbor's houses looking for a way in, I wouldn't be able to shut my dogs up.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence#WhatRamseysReported
Click to expand...

Yesiree...the barking dogs near the alley. The neighbor said that she did not hear her dogs bark that night.....

The next door neighbor who witnessed the "strange" light in the kitchen around midnight said that it "looked like someone was moving around as not to wake anyone."
 
Thanks to posters. Yes, I had forgotten. The report of NO DOGS BARKING is another report from the neighbours and worth adding to the list. It must count very strongly against any intruder theory. No footprints. No car tracks. No dogs barking. (And, imo, no point of entry.)

Wasn't the Ramsey's own dog being kep[t at the neighbours in anticipation of them going away the next day? Which neighbour had the Ramsey dog?

Regarding the "strange lights" reported in the kitchen, can someone give me a direct quote of what that neighbour actually said in their own words?
 
I don't know the exact quote, but the neighbours name was Scott Gibbons.

Unless the R's have said they kept the kitchen light on at night, why would the light be on when they were all supposed to be asleep?

I've never read anything where the R's said they left lights on.
PR did say she kept JBR's bathroom light on..
 
In one of Patsy's interviews, she said that the family was not good about leaving lights off.
 
The fullest account available seems to be in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" page 58. I've been searching for original accounts but everything seems to echo PMPT:

"At about midnight, Scott Gibbons, a neighbor, looked out his kitchen window toward the Ramseys' house and saw a light on in the kitchen area. Sometime later, Adam Fermeire, another neighbor, who was up watching TV, said he didn't notice anything strange through the window that faced the Ramseys' house."

"Diane Brumfitt, another neighbor, told Detective Barry Hartkopp on December 31 that on Christmas night she did not see a light on at the southeast corner of the Ramseys' house, though there had been a safety light in that spot for years. She remembered thinking that it was unusual."

Nothing in this report about "strange lights" in the kitchen - just the kitchen light was on.
 
Steve Thomas' report on the neighbours:

"While the house search went on, other cops fanned out to canvass the neighborhood and conduct more interviews. A resident directly to the south reported that the light was off in the southeast corner sunroom of the Ramsey home and thought that was odd because it was the only time she was aware in th3e past few years that it did not burn all night. A neighbor to the north would say that the butler kitchen lights were on around midnight and considered that unsual since it was the first time he had noticed that light being on in the Ramsey home. A third neighbor, to the west, said that her dogs, who barked at anyone walking in the alley, just as they did when the police officer came to question her, made no noise Wednesday night."
 
I'm an FS, fence sitter, considering both sides fairly, I like to think.

The walker seen by the Barnhills before dark, right after the R's left, could have been assigned by someone to turn off that outside light, a mistake, probably in that it alerted a neighbor, unless someone else was arriving on foot from that direction.

The Barnhills across the street were keeping the Rs' dog.

Judging by the way Barnhill and the Stantons backed off their stories, it's conceivable that someone somehow made them do that, and/or maybe even drugged some dogs when the dogs were let out for a final bathroom break, or something like that. It would have been pretty easy to put out an extra dish in the dark and no dog would tell it's owner. If the Barnhills and Stantons could be made to retract their stories, obviously dog owners could also have been influenced somehow to say their dog didn't bark.

Seen the commercial for beans, where the dog supposedly runs a printing press to give away the secret recipe from the bsmt of his doghouse?
 
Who's going to do all that - extra dog dishes, drugged dog food, and threatening witnesses to retract stories? A foreign faction?

Did the same person who did all that also make the Rs tell contradicting stories and outright lies? Hinder police investigation?
 
Eagle1 said:
I'm an FS, fence sitter, considering both sides fairly, I like to think.

The walker seen by the Barnhills before dark, right after the R's left, could have been assigned by someone to turn off that outside light, a mistake, probably in that it alerted a neighbor, unless someone else was arriving on foot from that direction.

The Barnhills across the street were keeping the Rs' dog.

Judging by the way Barnhill and the Stantons backed off their stories, it's conceivable that someone somehow made them do that, and/or maybe even drugged some dogs when the dogs were let out for a final bathroom break, or something like that. It would have been pretty easy to put out an extra dish in the dark and no dog would tell it's owner. If the Barnhills and Stantons could be made to retract their stories, obviously dog owners could also have been influenced somehow to say their dog didn't bark.

Seen the commercial for beans, where the dog supposedly runs a printing press to give away the secret recipe from the bsmt of his doghouse?
Click to expand...


I started determined to be a fence sitter but have very quickly come to the conclusion that RDI. Or, aty least, I think the evidence is overwhelming - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Ramseys attempted to cover up and obfuscate the crime. Why did they do this? (a) To protect themselves or (b) to protect someone else. Of these (a) seems by far the most likely. So, for me, the case is not a great mystery. I think Ramseys did it. But which of them, why? how? What happened? I am really unimpressed with the Intruder Did It theories. I can still be persuaded but so far the IDI arguments that I've seen are very thin and not at all persuasive. Not enough to create reasonable doubt, IMO.

The neighbours evidence is important. The Ramseys seem to have done everything possible to muddy the waters in this case. I am working through it methodically to try to get it clear (something Law Enforcement don't seemed to have done at any stage!)

My method is to start at the crime scene as if you are the first cop on the scene. First thing, then, is the ransom note. The note in itself convinced me that Ramseys were covering the crime. Now, second thing, what did the neighbours have to say?

I'm convinced that this case is entirely crackable. There is a plethora of clues, but some of them are decoys. We need to work through it again methodically and try to rank the evidence in a coherent, logical order, distinguishing true clues from bogus ones.

The reports of the neighbours are important for establishing a time frame into which we can place the crime.

Can you tell more about "The walker seen by the Barnhills before dark, right after the R's left..."??? What time was that? Walking in what direction?
 
"We need to work through it again methodically and try to rank the evidence in a coherent, logical order, distinguishing true clues from bogus ones."

We do what we can.
 
SuperDave said:
"We need to work through it again methodically and try to rank the evidence in a coherent, logical order, distinguishing true clues from bogus ones."

We do what we can.
Click to expand...

Plenum7,

Concerning your above comment,I'm pretty sure that's what most posters here have been doing for almost ten years.

As for SuperDave's comment,correct,we have been doing what we can ...and may I add ... with what we have to work with.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
Who's going to do all that - extra dog dishes, drugged dog food, and threatening witnesses to retract stories? A foreign faction? Did the same person who did all that also make the Rs tell contradicting stories and outright lies? Hinder police investigation?
Click to expand...

lol, I meant to edit out the ridiculous part about dog dishes, if I even said that, just warming up my thinker.

But at least two witnesses backed off their stories, which imo means so could others, about their dogs barking or not barking. Everyone's pretty tired the night after Christmas and in the O.J. Simpson case, for one example, no dogs made any noise except Nicole's akita. Doesn't mean much.

We've discussed all the human lies and bungling, almost seems like dogs do it too, on such special occasions, right?
 
I don't know, Eagle1. The dog next door barks at his OWN master.
 
Plenum7 said:
I started determined to be a fence sitter but have very quickly come to the conclusion that RDI. Or, aty least, I think the evidence is overwhelming - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Ramseys attempted to cover up and obfuscate the crime. Why did they do this? (a) To protect themselves or (b) to protect someone else. Of these (a) seems by far the most likely. So, for me, the case is not a great mystery. I think Ramseys did it. But which of them, why? how? What happened? I am really unimpressed with the Intruder Did It theories. I can still be persuaded but so far the IDI arguments that I've seen are very thin and not at all persuasive. Not enough to create reasonable doubt, IMO.

The neighbours evidence is important. The Ramseys seem to have done everything possible to muddy the waters in this case. I am working through it methodically to try to get it clear (something Law Enforcement don't seemed to have done at any stage!)

My method is to start at the crime scene as if you are the first cop on the scene. First thing, then, is the ransom note. The note in itself convinced me that Ramseys were covering the crime. Now, second thing, what did the neighbours have to say?

I'm convinced that this case is entirely crackable. There is a plethora of clues, but some of them are decoys. We need to work through it again methodically and try to rank the evidence in a coherent, logical order, distinguishing true clues from bogus ones.

The reports of the neighbours are important for establishing a time frame into which we can place the crime.

Can you tell more about "The walker seen by the Barnhills before dark, right after the R's left..."??? What time was that? Walking in what direction?[/QUOTE]


I don't think the R's would cover for anyone other than themsleves.
Why risk all that for someone else?

I think it was in the morning sometime and he was walking towards the house.
Click to expand...
 
The importance of the neighbour's reports is that they allow us to establish some type of time frame of events. The question is - at what time did events go pear-shaped? The Ramsey's left their Christmas party, made a few visits on the way home and - by their own accounts - went to bed as normal, nothing unusual, well before midnight. They were due to get an early start the next day.

The question I am pondering is whether they actually made it to bed that night before events went astray? Because it is possible that things went bad at bedtime, not later. For example, some theories suppose that the death of Jonbenet happened not long after the Ramsey's arrived home, or even on the way home. In the sexual abuse theories the Ramsey's (one or both) did not go directly to bed but were up late indulging in their perversions.

But the neighbour's reports seem to indicate that things went wrong somewhat later - say 12:20ish to 1am. The reports allow us to narrow the time frame down. And they suggest (but don't prove) that events went askew after bedtime and that people in the Ramsey house were up and around having been woken or at least roused from bed.

That is, as far as RDI theories go, the reports of the lights and noises *suggest* a scenario in which everyone went to bed but were woken in the early AM. This would favour bedwetting scenarios, for example.

The whole testimony of the neighbours counts strongly against any intruder theories. Admitted - dogs not barking is not solid evidence in itself. But along with the other reports from the neighbours it counts against IDI theories. The neighbours tell us that something was amiss inside the house at say 12:20ish to 1am. And the nature of the trouble in the house does not seem to suggest a stranger - the interior lights have been manipulated. All points to an "inside job". None of the testimony from the neighbours in any way corroborates the very, very meager evidence indoors that might possibly point to an intruder.

Some scenario in which the Ramseys went to bed and were then woken up after which the victim was slain is suggested by the evidence provided by the neighbours. The autopsy does not seem to provide an accurate TOD - quite a large window for possible time of death. The neighbour's evidence allows us to narrow it down. There are good reasons to believe Jonbenet was already dead by the time the neighbours saw the lights rearranged in the early AM and that the cover-up is under way.

If Ramsey's did it then it must have been a very, very long night for them, because they couldn't call 911 till early morning. A long, long night.
 
I think the Barnhills saw the walker going to the house in the late afternoon, right after the R's had left to go to, I think, Pasta Jay's and THEN to the FWs'. The houses are very close together, posters say who've been there, and Barnhill had a good look, thought it was JAR. Later backed off, and so did Melody Stanton who was awakened by a scream, and MAYBE even some others that we haven't even heard about.

So does this mean there's a JAR lookalike in the story? And if so, did one approach the sometimes-reliable informant in SE Mich.? Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 190 more.
Total: 4,386 (members: 191, guests: 4,195)

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
4,195
Total visitors
4,386
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,559
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top