Ned's Final Theory-Lou Smit are you still reading here?

[UKGuy]

I actually think we are all closer today to solving this case then we were years ago and here’s why:

...

continued...

Nedthan Johns,

Your theory is interesting particulary regarding the possibility that Patsy may have been medicated for some form of mental ilness?

But some other points conflict with the forensic evidence:

I explained to my friend the garrote handle and he brought up an important observation. First of all he felt as I did that a woman would be much more likely to have used a handle for more leverage to strangle a child. A man would not have needed to tie on a piece of wood for that.

Neither Patsy or John required a ligature or garrote to kill JonBenet, a pillow, plastic bag, or hand would have smothered JonBenet just as efficiently. The violence JonBenet was subjected to reflects a profile of a late teenager or older male. The garrote was applied after, JonBenet was dead, it is staging. The forensic evidence suggests that the person who did this was Patsy. Lou Smit does not have a theory it has been discredited and refuted. JonBenet could never have been engaged in EA, her hair was tied into the garrote handle knotting, her necklace was intertwined under the ligature, there was a fixed knot used to apply the garrote, so EA activity was not possible!

We know for a fact that JB was strangled from behind and that there appeared to be a foot print on her back. Again something a woman would need to do or someone with less strength. John Ramsey would not have needed to do this. Not under any circumstances. Therefore in my book, it rules out the possibility that John Ramsey strangled JB.

That JonBenet was strangled from behind, is not a fact, what evidence do you have to support this assertion? There is forensic evidence from the autopsy and the photographs that suggest she was manually strangled at the front, and the ligature, patently with its lack of physical trauma, was applied afterwards. JonBenet was a six-year old girl any one of the residents was physically capable of overpowering her, no feet are required. This includes John Ramsey.

Now it was said that JB was molested with the BROKEN END of the paintbrush. Where was this stated as fact? Can someone help me here? Is this certain? Reason is my buddy brought up a good point, that wouldn’t there have been more bleeding from a jagged paintbrush stuck up in such a small area?

Nope, Coroner Meyer stated verbally during the autopsy that JonBenet's genital injuries reflected that of a digital penetration, e.g. he is implying chronic abuse. There was residue from the paintbrush recovered from her genitals, but this may have travelled there via the person's finger who assaulted her, also even if the paintbrush handle was used, it need not have been the broken end, but the SMOOTH END, and the broken handle may have been left inside her to simulate an intruder assault? This may have been redacted from the autopsy report.

And if they were “simulating rape” as a form to cover for the head trauma, why then wipe the child down and re-dress her? So this was NO staging. Whoever was molesting her, didn’t want others to know.

The skull fracture was not visible until Coroner Meyer conducted an internal investigation. JonBenet was likely wiped down and redressed to make her appear as if she had been abducted from her bed, so to reflect the ransom note, there was more than one staging, this may be why John stated that the door according to him was BLOCKED by a chair and other “stuff” as he put it and that he had to actually MOVE the chair before getting into the train room where the basement window was located when he went down to the basement alone around 10am., he may be the person who dressed JonBenet in oversized underwear, and wiped her down, possibly using his Israeli manufactured black cotton shirt, in doing so, depositing the fibers on JonBenet's genitals?

If John was the molester, he wouldn’t have needed the garrote handle or used his foot for leverage.

The garrote handle is staging, that a foot was used is uncorroborated speculation.

This is huge because to me it means JR couldn’t have been the molester. Because look at it this way, if he was and Patsy came in and caught them, and struck at John but missed and hit JB as many here once believed, he would have had to of made Patsy finish off JB off by strangling her instead of doing it himself because all the evidence found on the cord, tape and paint tote only point to Patsy.

There is forensic evidence that links John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey to the wine-cellar crime-scene, it can be demonstrated that this is a staged crime-scene, so the evidence you adduce pointing to Patsy may only implicate her in fabricating JonBenet's final resting place. JonBenet may have been murdered while engaged in illegal sexual activity, it may have been this that led to a lustful assault, during which she recieved her neck and head injuries, the rest being staging?




.

 

[BBB167893]

As to the fibers, were they an exact match? I thought Lou Smit stated they were missing the black. There was red but no black.

I think he was confused.

Add to the mix, her cancer and chemo. Does horrible things to the body, and the mind as well, I am sure the stress is unbearable. It takes a toll on your mind and if that mind is already ill...well...you get the picture.

I can confirm that.

Damn good stuff, Ned.

 

[JMO8778]

Let me tell you a little bit about what it must be like to be the husband. Quiet ...yes withdraw probably. You wouldn't believe the trainwreck that is their life. If Patsy decided that note was brilliant you can bet that is the one that was presented.

Knowing just how pushy someone with bpd can be,I think you're right on.Either that letter went,or the whole house would have been brought down.

 

[JMO8778]

No but what I recognize is quite possibly Bipolar from even knowing about her need to show the house and showcase their lives and her activity such as trying to put on that perfect front and yet behind the scenes is clutter and choas. Also reading the transcripts of the interviews. She would try to charm the interviewer failing that she would fire up to BUSTER your going down the wrong road. The reason I have pinpointed that is quite frankly we have a member of our extended family that is BP. It can be like living with a train wreck. Sweetest person and then in a spit second she can knock out the softball coach or something. You go along pretty good then POW. Most we can do as a family is encourage this person to stay on her meds. Continue therapy. Be a support system and try to see the cycles coming We cope with the rest. I can tell you absolutely suicidal thoughts and homicidal rage can exist. Yet they can be brilliant go getters, Or so disorganized you can't make heads nor tails. I believe it was possible to even see the clues this if you look close in the pagentry .... Stage mommy. Need for control. It can be scarey as lightening strikes usually before you hear the thunder! We pretty much know the signs to watch for now. Holidays or anything that can cycle up a manic episode ....well what goes up must come down. Unfortunately sometimes the whole deck comes crashing down with it. We know, that Patsy was on medications. Basically from her battle with cancer. Paxil is one I read she was taking . Granted again maybe Patsy was not even diagnosed. Wouldn't have been on medications if she had not been diag. Depression associative to diagnosis of cancer? What I am saying is there are things I have questioned through the years in hearing and reading on Patsy. Obsessive Compulsive jumps right out. Most are BPolar or Borderline Personality issues ....I have wondered enough about it to try to google it time and again. But can find no trace of therapy or treatment ever discussed other than depression and anxiety meds . Anyone ever see Patty Dukes movie regarding Bi polar. Interesting and I think if you did. You'd see why I have wondered.

Great post,I thought that too,about her being so showy and extravagant.Add perfectionism to the bunch.And I don't think her maturity level was all that high...even at her age,she seemed like she was just like the high school girls who always have to have attention and be the most popular,and the best at everything.The 'look at me,look at me,it's all about me' syndrome,and being overly concerned about what other ppl think.
I suspect the video of Xmas morning disapeared b/c PR threw a fit over something that happened that morning and flew off the handle,probably at JB.In DOI,JR says JB didn't like the Twinn Doll,but that PR blew it off.I bet she didn't just blow it off.It probably set her off.JR probably realized she was at her wits end by then,and thought the White's party would be a good chance for her to get out of the house and calm down.(Like I stated before,ppl with bpd can do a good job of hiding their illness around others.It can be part of being manipulative sometimes).
I think it was said no one saw JB outside that day,as she was sick?That makes me wonder if she wasn't feeling well b/c of something PR did.
Just a few thoughts there.

 

[Solace]

You say "The window did three things for me. It made it clear to me that John Ramsey was LYING. That the door according to him was BLOCKED by a chair and other “stuff” as he put it and that he had to actually MOVE the chair before getting into the train room where the basement window was located when he went down to the basement alone around 10am. He is VERY CLEAR on this. Neither Fleet nor detective French mention having to move items to get into that room, and even if they did WHY would they replace them to re-block the door? Doesn’t make sense. It proves to me that John Ramsey was IN the basement prior to the 911 call."

Just to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that John was down in the basement before the call and found a chair blocking the back door where JonBEnet would be placed.

John is remembering the first time he went down there before the 911 call. He is not remembering the 10:00 time. You are saying that he moved the chair before the call and that is why Fleet White and French did not see the chair there.

Am I correct in that is what you are saying? I would like to read Fleet White's testimony. Anyone have anything on this whether Fleet White saw a chair blocking that door and had to move it. I find nothing on this. He is explicit with moving the shards of glass so I am sure he would have mentioned a chair. Where are we going to get his testimony???????

 

[rashomon]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that John was down in the basement before the call and found a chair blocking the back door where JonBEnet would be placed.

Solace, I think John stated that the door to the so-called 'train room' (called 'hobby room' in PMPT's drawing of the basement layout) was blocked by the chair. The broken window was also located in this room.

Lastly what idiot would find an open window when his daughter is still presumed missing at this point and not only NOT report it, but close it and then return quietly back upstairs flipping through the mail???? Why would ANYONE be looking through their mail when they are supposedly waiting for a call from a kidnapper??

This alone proves to me that John Ramsey must have been involved: for there is just NO explanation why he, after finding a basement window open WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HAD OBVIOUSLY BEEN KIDNAPPED, simply closed it and did not not report it. No way.

 

[Solace]

Solace, I think John stated that the door to the so-called 'train room' (called 'hobby room' in PMPT's drawing of the basement layout) was blocked by the chair. The broken window was also located in this room.

This alone proves to me that John Ramsey must have been involved: for there is just NO explanation why he, after finding a basement window open WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HAD OBVIOUSLY BEEN KIDNAPPED, simply closed it and did not not report it. No way.

Rash,

Thanks for your reply. It has been a while since I picked up PM/PT. Rash, as I recall John said there was a chair in front of the room where Jon Benet's body was found. I also remember Larry King saying to John - "don't you think it strange that the killer would close the door and put a chair in front of it". So I am assuming we are talking about the room where JonBenet was found and that Ned is saying that John was referring to the time where he first went down to the basement, before the 911 call. I believe I understand what he is saying. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same room, the room where JonBenet was found.

I did not think Jon Benet was found in the train room, was she? As I recall John said, it was a very damp and cold room and dark, a nasty room. I can't see them letting Berke set up his trains in there?

Also Rash, why do you think he did not mention the window when he came up stairs. It would have been to his benefit, yes?

 

[Charlie]

Quick question:

Does anyone have the exact testimony of john telling investigators of the chair and other 'stuff' blocking the entry to the train room? I have nagging question i want answered but need to see the exact words John used.

Also When was the last time burke was in the train room too.

Thanks to anyone that can scrunge it up for me

 

[rashomon]

Rash,

Thanks for your reply. It has been a while since I picked up PM/PT. Rash, as I recall John said there was a chair in front of the room where Jon Benet's body was found. I also remember Larry King saying to John - "don't you think it strange that the killer would close the door and put a chair in front of it". So I am assuming we are talking about the room where JonBenet was found and that Ned is saying that John was referring to the time where he first went down to the basement, before the 911 call. I believe I understand what he is saying. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same room, the room where JonBenet was found.

I did not think Jon Benet was found in the train room, was she? As I recall John said, it was a very damp and cold room and dark, a nasty room. I can't see them letting Berke set up his trains in there?

Also Rash, why do you think he did not mention the window when he came up stairs. It would have been to his benefit, yes?

JB's body was found in the so-called wine cellar, a windowless room at the far end of the basement.

The train room/hobby room was the room where the broken window was.
And if memory serves, John said that the door to this train room was blocked (others correct me if I'm wrong) as he first went into the basement.

Solace, I've been thinking about this question too: why didn't John Ramsey simply leave the window open? Why instead did he feel it necessary to tell the police he had closed it?
For it would only have served his purpose to have opened the window (or leave it open), wouldn't it?

Imo for some reason John Ramsey must have gotten cold feet which led him to revise his staging plans. I think he initially had indeed opened the window to provide a "point of entry" for the mythical intruder. And maybe he then became afraid his fingerprints might be found on the window handle and implicate him, which is why he came up with the story of "finding the window open and then closing it".

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Quick question:

Does anyone have the exact testimony of john telling investigators of the chair and other 'stuff' blocking the entry to the train room? I have nagging question i want answered but need to see the exact words John used.

Also When was the last time burke was in the train room too.

Thanks to anyone that can scrunge it up for me

I'm not sure about Burke and when he was last there, but here's JR's own words about the train room door and the chair.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4708


The Chair Against the Train Room Door


From JonBenet, The Police Files (Gentile, Wright, 2003)

Page 314 (06-25-1998 interviews)

Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

John Ramsey: “Correct.”

Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?”

John Ramsey: “Uh huh.

Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"

John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."

 

[Solace]

JB's body was found in the so-called wine cellar, a windowless room at the far end of the basement.

The train room/hobby room was the room where the broken window was.
And if memory serves, John said that the door to this train room was blocked (others correct me if I'm wrong) as he first went into the basement.

Solace, I've been thinking about this question too: why didn't John Ramsey simply leave the window open? Why instead did he feel it necessary to tell the police he had closed it?
For it would only have served his purpose to have opened the window (or leave it open), wouldn't it?

Imo for some reason John Ramsey must have gotten cold feet which led him to revise his staging plans. I think he initially had indeed opened the window to provide a "point of entry" for the mythical intruder. And maybe he then became afraid his fingerprints might be found on the window handle and implicate him, which is why he came up with the story of "finding the window open and then closing it".

Rash, I think you are right about his changing his mind. There is absolutely no valid reason for his keeping this information to himself. If my child had been kidnapped and my husband went downstairs and found a window open and did not mention it, I would think he was out of his mind, unless something else was going on.

Also, do you think he just forgot that he actually moved the chair prior to the 911 call and not around 10:00? That is pretty bad.

 

[Charlie]

I'm not sure about Burke and when he was last there, but here's JR's own words about the train room door and the chair.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4708


The Chair Against the Train Room Door


From JonBenet, The Police Files (Gentile, Wright, 2003)

Page 314 (06-25-1998 interviews)

Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

John Ramsey: “Correct.”

Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?”

John Ramsey: “Uh huh.

Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"

John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."

Thanks Nuisanceposter for the transript.

Below is a map of the basement

The first question is why would an intruder leave a chair blocking the door to the hobby room, for once i agree with smit that is very illogical, the intruder has nothing to gain from this except to hide his point of exit. The intruder could have just as easily walked out the front door and no-one would have known, heck hes been through most of the house without any conncern of being seen or heard. By blocking the hobby room door the intruder is actually leaving breadcrumbs as to where he has been, why would he want to do that?
The intruder has just murdered his ransom and would want to distract the ramseys or anyone for that matter from looking through the basement. The intruder's plan from this murder onward is to get the ramseys to still believe the ransom note and pay the money before they find thier child. This is doesnt make sense, the intruder is going against everything an intruder would do if they wanted ransom.

John told invesigators he saw the blocked chair when he came down at 10am. But as others have pointed out, officer French and Fleet White came down to the basement earlier than 10am and saw no blocked chair, both men went into the hobby room as evidenced by fleet reporting the broken glass. Obviously fleet would at least would remember having to remove this chair. So this leads us to believe that John had been down to the basement before the 911 call.

So far this proves that john was lying and why would he lie if he wasnt covering up something. He could have said to officer french if he was innocent that "Ive checked everywhere even in the basement and i cant find her", but instead he lies....just another in the mountain of unnesscary lies for an "innocent man".

So lets assume now the ramseys are guilty an no intruder exists. Why on earth would john volunteer the information about the blocked chair it only goes against his cause for an inturder doing this is bizaree act. Why on earth did he say this?

 

[Chrishope]

Thanks Nuisanceposter for the transript.

Below is a map of the basement

The first question is why would an intruder leave a chair blocking the door to the hobby room, for once i agree with smit that is very illogical, the intruder has nothing to gain from this except to hide his point of exit. The intruder could have just as easily walked out the front door and no-one would have known, heck hes been through most of the house without any conncern of being seen or heard. By blocking the hobby room door the intruder is actually leaving breadcrumbs as to where he has been, why would he want to do that?
The intruder has just murdered his ransom and would want to distract the ramseys or anyone for that matter from looking through the basement. The intruder's plan from this murder onward is to get the ramseys to still believe the ransom note and pay the money before they find thier child. This is doesnt make sense, the intruder is going against everything an intruder would do if they wanted ransom.

John told invesigators he saw the blocked chair when he came down at 10am. But as others have pointed out, officer French and Fleet White came down to the basement earlier than 10am and saw no blocked chair, both men went into the hobby room as evidenced by fleet reporting the broken glass. Obviously fleet would at least would remember having to remove this chair. So this leads us to believe that John had been down to the basement before the 911 call.

So far this proves that john was lying and why would he lie if he wasnt covering up something. He could have said to officer french if he was innocent that "Ive checked everywhere even in the basement and i cant find her", but instead he lies....just another in the mountain of unnesscary lies for an "innocent man".

So lets assume now the ramseys are guilty an no intruder exists. Why on earth would john volunteer the information about the blocked chair it only goes against his cause for an inturder doing this is bizaree act. Why on earth did he say this?

First we need to consider that there may never have been a chair with "stuff" piled on it. He may not have confused his 10am trip to the basement with an earlier trip, he may just be making stuff up.

Second, he may have realized by then that the more things don't make sense, the less likely the Rs will be arrested.

 

[Nehemiah]

So this leads us to believe that John had been down to the basement before the 911 call.

If before the 911 call, wouldn't French have seen the chair when he arrived first thing that morning? Just trying to figure this out in my mind. Thanks for posting the map.

 

[Solace]

Ned Says: That the door according to him was BLOCKED by a chair and other “stuff” as he put it and that he had to actually MOVE the chair before getting into the train room where the basement window was located when he went down to the basement alone around 10am. He is VERY CLEAR on this. Neither Fleet nor detective French mention having to move items to get into that room, and even if they did WHY would they replace them to re-block the door? Doesn’t make sense. It proves to me that John Ramsey was IN the basement prior to the 911 call and to me this implicates him in the crime prior to the 911 call, which I previously did not believe."

Okay, here we go. John is being interviewed by LS. He is shown crime photographs, which HAD TO BE TAKEN AFTER THE 911 CALL. One shows a chair blocking the wine room entryway. He explains he went down to the basement the first time between 7 and 9 and there was a chair blocking the wine room and he moved it and when he left he REPLACED the chair. MY QUESTION IS THIS: How does this prove that he was down there before the 911 call. Even if Fleet White was there as early as 6:30, he says he went down there immediately, I believe. He does not mention the chair blocking the door. But even so, there are crime scene photos of the chair. John says he went down there between 7 and 9. It is driving me crazy. Please Ned I cannot go another night trying to figure out how this chair being there and Fleet White not noticing it proves that John was down there before the 911 call. Anyone, Anyone??????

AS A PREVIOUS POSTER SAYS: Why on earth would john volunteer the information about the blocked chair it only goes against his cause for an inturder doing this is bizaree act. Why on earth did he say this?

And anotehr says: "John told invesigators he saw the blocked chair when he came down at 10am. But as others have pointed out, officer French and Fleet White came down to the basement earlier than 10am and saw no blocked chair, both men went into the hobby room as evidenced by fleet reporting the broken glass. Obviously fleet would at least would remember having to remove this chair. So this leads us to believe that John had been down to the basement before the 911 call."

My question is why does it lead us to believe that he was down there before just because Fleet White and French do not mention it. The fact is there are crime scene photos of the chair blocking the door. John admits he moved it when he went down there between 7 and 9 that morning.

 

[coloradokares]

Ned Says: That the door according to him was BLOCKED by a chair and other “stuff” as he put it and that he had to actually MOVE the chair before getting into the train room where the basement window was located when he went down to the basement alone around 10am. He is VERY CLEAR on this. Neither Fleet nor detective French mention having to move items to get into that room, and even if they did WHY would they replace them to re-block the door? Doesn’t make sense. It proves to me that John Ramsey was IN the basement prior to the 911 call and to me this implicates him in the crime prior to the 911 call, which I previously did not believe."

Okay, here we go. John is being interviewed by LS. He is shown crime photographs, which HAD TO BE TAKEN AFTER THE 911 CALL. One shows a chair blocking the wine room entryway. He explains he went down to the basement the first time between 7 and 9 and there was a chair blocking the wine room and he moved it and when he left he REPLACED the chair. MY QUESTION IS THIS: How does this prove that he was down there before the 911 call. Even if Fleet White was there as early as 6:30, he says he went down there immediately, I believe. He does not mention the chair blocking the door. But even so, there are crime scene photos of the chair. John says he went down there between 7 and 9. It is driving me crazy. Please Ned I cannot go another night trying to figure out how this chair being there and Fleet White not noticing it proves that John was down there before the 911 call. Anyone, Anyone??????

AS A PREVIOUS POSTER SAYS: Why on earth would john volunteer the information about the blocked chair it only goes against his cause for an inturder doing this is bizaree act. Why on earth did he say this?

And anotehr says: "John told invesigators he saw the blocked chair when he came down at 10am. But as others have pointed out, officer French and Fleet White came down to the basement earlier than 10am and saw no blocked chair, both men went into the hobby room as evidenced by fleet reporting the broken glass. Obviously fleet would at least would remember having to remove this chair. So this leads us to believe that John had been down to the basement before the 911 call."

My question is why does it lead us to believe that he was down there before just because Fleet White and French do not mention it. The fact is there are crime scene photos of the chair blocking the door. John admits he moved it when he went down there between 7 and 9 that morning.

Sorry it makes even less sense to put the chair back where he had moved it from. Unless again it was to justify prints being on the chair they now had a picture of. Oh what a tangled web we weave..... comes to mind regarding this thing. Of course he admits moving it his prints were on it ...nice fresh ones.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

UK Guy: True, neither one needed to kill JB in this fashion. However we are talking about someone here that was trying to “cover” a crime. Make it look like something it wasn’t. JB was certainly ALIVE when the rope was pulled tight. Otherwise there would have been no red marks to her neck area. It didn’t happen post mortem. The marks to the neck also coincide with the belief that she was strangled from behind, the rope riding up higher on her neck as it comes to its final resting place. Also her urine stains from her losing bladder control are to her front and thighs, also suggesting she was strangled from behind. I do agree however there was NO EA activity.

Where do you find the evidence that she was strangled from the front? There was evidence to suggest someone used their foot for leverage on her back.

With regards to digital penetration. I agree with Meyer. I agree with chronic abuse. However digital doesn’t necessarily imply fingers. Patsy could have been abusing the child as a form of punishment. A splinter from the paintbrush was found lodged in her vaginal wall suggesting it was used to molest her. I agree it could have been transferred there from someone’s finger, but I don’t know how likely that would have been.

I agree the original crime here was the molestation. The whole crime was to cover that.
I also agree that JR could have been the one to re-dress JB.

I would like to know more about those shirt fibers from John, where they were found, etc..

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I most definitely think John Ramsey was down in that basement prior to the body being discovered. I believe it was most likely prior to the 911 call, because he had very little time from the time the police were called until they arrived at the home. He lied about many things. First of all both Fleet and detective French searched that basement prior to John disappearing at 10am and both of them entered the room with the window that led outside. Neither one of them reported having to move items to get into that room, and neither one of them reported finding the window open. In fact Fleet White looked closely enough at the window that he reported that it was closed but not locked. So how could it have gotten open a 1/8 of an inch and items were actually blocking the entrance of that room when John searched the area as he reported at 10am? It suggests to me he was down there prior to that time, and in his testimony got caught in a lie. And who in their right mind would search that basement find an open window and NOT report it? John was trying to suggest when he was being questioned that an intruder may have gotten through that window, that’s WHY he mentioned finding it open. Now WHY DIDN’T Lou Smit catch this and call him on it?

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I am talking about the "train room" correct

Rash: The train room/hobby room was the room where the broken window was.
And if memory serves, John said that the door to this train room was blocked (others correct me if I'm wrong) as he first went into the basement.

Ned: This was my belief as well

Rash: Solace, I've been thinking about this question too: why didn't John Ramsey simply leave the window open? Why instead did he feel it necessary to tell the police he had closed it?
For it would only have served his purpose to have opened the window (or leave it open), wouldn't it?

Imo for some reason John Ramsey must have gotten cold feet which led him to revise his staging plans. I think he initially had indeed opened the window to provide a "point of entry" for the mythical intruder. And maybe he then became afraid his fingerprints might be found on the window handle and implicate him, which is why he came up with the story of "finding the window open and then closing it".

Ned: I think during his questioning it was becoming blanently obvious to JR that investigators weren't "buying" their story. This is when John also admits be broke the window to enter his home in the Summer and never fixed it. So was this staging that JR later refuted because he felt they weren't going along with it? Again, If the story was true that he broke that window to enter his home, why leave it broken for so long? The Important point to remember however in his testimony is that John stated he had to move a “chair” and stuff to enter that room. This alone PROVES there was NO intruder and that John was lying.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: So you couldn’t have gotten in without moving the chair?”

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"

John Ramsey: "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."


Thank you for that post. My apologies to Lou. Lou did pick up on that. Strange that after this testimony Lou would still support the intruder theory. I find John’s answer just completely absurd and foolish. Now either I was blind to this years prior, but to me, why is this so clear to me now? BTW, HOW DOES JOHN KNOW THERE WASN’T ANY GOOD EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND BY THE KILLER? DOES THAT STATEMENT JUST NOT JUMP OUT AT YOU? He even admits that there were “funny clues” around.