Was the Ramsey house typically a mess?

[Meara]

I feel very strongly that the Boulder PD knows pretty much what happened and who did it. There must be a reason why they are still holding onto evidence and not releasing it to the public. And I think it's probably because it would implicate some heavy hitters who I believe were involved in a cover up.

Do you think Boulder PD personnel who testified before the Grand Jury told them everything they knew?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I spoke about this on page 4 (so no point repeating myself). I cannot help that you do not like it. I suggest finding interviews of JR & PR to get your answer. I don't know what was going on in their heads and which rooms they had or had not searched etc.

Again, like removing unnecessary person's (family and friends) from the house aka the crime scene, it ought to be basic police work to check behind all doors, especially of rooms. So my response is: for the simple fact of it being their duty.
There was said to be debris from outside in the room/s. So who is right actually?



Because I was going to correct myself about it, I will say first: I did find out later (not because of Websleuths) that the ceiling structure obstructed full opening of the basement window.
Again, people are excusing why police weren't more thorough. "Assess the scene" and "gather information" one would think encompasses checking for her presence as standard. To say otherwise excuses it from being done in future. Which the R case shows is not the correct action to take. Comes back to a procedural thing.
There is no logical fallacy in applying common sense which I see LS argue there is a lack of concerning a parental strangulation-cover-up. There is nothing in the R's background and past behaviour to indicate they could strangle the life out of their daughter as a means of covering up. So much simpler to take JB to hospital and call it an accident.
Unless there is something none of us know like JR is a psychopath or PR a devil worshipper.
If there was a cover up, it doesn't seem likely it played out via a parent finishing her off, on the face of it.
Sounded weird she was found in a "locked" cellar. That she was in there to begin with was the first odd thing looking at the basement layout. A latch above the door is not something I think is easily seen/known by an outsider. Is this common to similar homes in the area? Did the door have another lock and which lock was in use? Someone else said officer R felt resistance at the door (was it because of the wooden block?). Again, this is conflicting information to yours. Could it be to stop BR getting to where JB was.
Have you read the Ramseys book or others that think it's an intruder as well?

So according to you, the only reason one would look at a murdered child parents as suspects is if there was history of their past behavior to indicate they could.
If that logic was applied to all murder cases, there would be a lot of killers on the loose.
For everyone that kills someone, there is always a first time.
You still have not answered why the Ramseys didn't look for JBR in their own home. Your best attempt was they were busy calling police except that there were 2 of them. Did one dial the phone while the other held the receiver? Did JR not worry that someone could be in the house at that very moment with JB. Could he have stopped that mysterious intruder in his/ her tracks?
We do agree on one thing that I don't accept your reasoning and that is because it defies logic.

 

[Choices]

So according to you, the only reason one would look at a murdered child parents as suspects is if there was history of their past behavior to indicate they could.
If that logic was applied to all murder cases, there would be a lot of killers on the loose.
For everyone that kills someone, there is always a first time.
You still have not answered why the Ramseys didn't look for JBR in their own home. Your best attempt was they were busy calling police except that there were 2 of them. Did one dial the phone while the other held the receiver? Did JR not worry that someone could be in the house at that very moment with JB. Could he have stopped that mysterious intruder in his/ her tracks?
We do agree on one thing that I don't accept your reasoning and that is because it defies logic.

It no more defies logic than believing the parents strangle to cover up theory. The "first time.." under the conditions alluded to makes no sense. As I said, go look at what the Ramseys have said, and report back. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It no more defies logic than believing the parents strangle to cover up theory. The "first time.." under the conditions alluded to makes no sense. As I said, go look at what the Ramseys have said, and report back. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

Which interview? We would need to pin point that because the story changes with every interview.
I did see the one where Larry King asks JR why he didn't look for JB to which he answers " I wish I had".

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

That's an interesting thought as to why JR has been vocal lately. And I do agree the question is which RDI?

I often wonder why might come to light after JR is no longer of this earth. It's possible that JAR will take up the torch, although it's hard to say how important it will be to him at that point. BR remains quiet as usual, he got a settlement from his lawsuit against CBS, which my guess is JR encouraged him to file. BR has been happy to just live his life quietly and have little to no involvement in JR's efforts. It feels like he wants very much to put all of that behind him, and I certainly can understand that.

I feel very strongly that the Boulder PD knows pretty much what happened and who did it. There must be a reason why they are still holding onto evidence and not releasing it to the public. And I think it's probably because it would implicate some heavy hitters who I believe were involved in a cover up. The R's reportedly spent most of their fortune on all the lawyers, investigators, etc., and the business was sold / traded and JR was out of a job. He did go to work for another computer company after having moved back to Atlanta, but certainly did not have the status that he once did, and apparently not the income either. I have no idea what his financial status is now, or whether he could afford an expensive lawsuit if certain information became public. The threat is probably still there though, as long as he is alive.

The point about the co- conspirators is really good. I kept focused on the child under age 10 law keeping them silenced. Could be either or both!

 

[Choices]

Which interview? We would need to pin point that because the story changes with every interview.

Any and all of them if you can find them, if you're serious. Source information would help too. Up to you. Always best to hear it from the horse's mouth. They're not off the hook as far as an element of suspicion goes.

 

[Meara]

That Patsy was devoutly religious throws the PDI theory into serious question.

Would that it were so. Below is a short list of killers who were known to be religious.

Gary Ridgway
Dr. Harold Shipman
Janie Lou Gibbs
John Wayne Gacy
John Bodkin Adams
John Reginald Christie
Judy Buenoano
Peter Manuel
Karen Dobrzelecki
Elaine Campione
Andrea Yates

Here are a few sobering facts about filicide:

• Children are more likely to be killed by a parent than by a stranger.
• For children under the age of one, the leading cause of death is homicide.
• Although, overall, far more men than women commit murder, mothers are as likely as fathers to kill a child in the home.
• People of faith are more likely than atheists to be killers.

Sources:
Why Some Mothers Kill Their Children
Serial Killers, Murderers and their Religion / Faith
https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/324769/ShouseJL2013.pdf?sequence=1
The Serial Killer Test: Biases Against Atheists Emerge in Study (Published 2017)

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Any and all of them if you can find them, if you're serious. Source information would help too. Up to you. Always best to hear it from the horse's mouth. They're not off the hook as far as an element of suspicion goes.

Why would I bother to look?
Using your logic. If they said it, it must be true.
What's to argue? We probably should empty the jails if we are going off of what a suspect says to be factual even if it defies logic and does not make sense. Why should we give a second thought to anyone who gives a poor excuse for their actions? We should completely do away with the word suspicious while we are at it.

 

[Meara]

Again, like removing unnecessary person's (family and friends) from the house aka the crime scene, it ought to be basic police work to check behind all doors, especially of rooms. So my response is: for the simple fact of it being their duty.
There was said to be debris from outside in the room/s. So who is right actually?

There was no outside debris found inside the house.

Because I was going to correct myself about it, I will say first: I did find out later (not because of Websleuths) that the ceiling structure obstructed full opening of the basement window.
Again, people are excusing why police weren't more thorough. "Assess the scene" and "gather information" one would think encompasses checking for her presence as standard. To say otherwise excuses it from being done in future. Which the R case shows is not the correct action to take. Comes back to a procedural thing.

I wasn't excusing the police; I was disagreeing with you. In your first statement you said that their main job was to find JBR. You're speaking from the POV of someone who knows the body was in the house all along. On the morning of Dec. 26th, Boulder PD had every reason to believe JBR had been removed from the home by kidnappers, and that led to the actions I've already stated. It sounds like what you really meant was that BPD should have looked inside the wine cellar. I agree; they should have done. However, it's disingenuous of you to fault BPD for not searching one room while you excuse JR and PR for not searching at all.

There is no logical fallacy in applying common sense which I see LS argue there is a lack of concerning a parental strangulation-cover-up. There is nothing in the R's background and past behaviour to indicate they could strangle the life out of their daughter as a means of covering up. So much simpler to take JB to hospital and call it an accident.
Unless there is something none of us know like JR is a psychopath or PR a devil worshipper.
If there was a cover up, it doesn't seem likely it played out via a parent finishing her off, on the face of it.

You’re shifting the ground of the argument. Here you say it doesn’t seem likely one of the parents killed JBR, but there may be unknowns. Your original statement was:

To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me.

In other words, you don't find it believable that either of JBR's parents could have brutally murdered her as part of a cover-up because they were loving parents. Sorry to be tedious but, yes, this is a logical fallacy. It’s called Fallacy of Personal Incredulity, and it means that because you personally don’t think it’s believable that either of the parents strangled JBR, it is therefore not true that one of them did. No need to take my word for it on this, though. Here is (in part) what Logical Fallacies - List of Logical Fallacies with Examples has to say:

The Personal Incredulity Fallacy is a logical fallacy which occurs when someone dismisses a claim without providing evidence or logical reasoning to support their disbelief…..This type of fallacy is often used as a means of avoiding the need to provide evidence or logical reasoning to support one’s own beliefs or opinions…..The fallacy relies on the notion that if something seems too unbelievable to be true, then it must not be true. It is an example of confirmation bias…..The fallacy is a type of Informal Fallacy and it is important to remember that just because something seems unbelievable does not mean that it is false.

Originally, you argued that JR and PR were loving parents. Here you add an appeal to common sense and the supposition that nothing in the parents’ background and past behavior suggests they could have strangled JBR, etc.
Unfortunately, these aren’t logically valid arguments. Loving parents have been known to kill their children. Common sense in this context is confirmation bias. We don’t know enough about either parent’s background to rule out the possibility of filicide; and Linda Hoffmann-Pugh stated that during some of the toileting clean-ups PR took JBR in the bathroom, and Linda could hear JBR screaming behind the closed door. Maybe she was just protesting, the way PR said she did if someone tried to drag her out of bed. But, it's possible PR was punishing her in some cruel way.

Sounded weird she was found in a "locked" cellar. That she was in there to begin with was the first odd thing looking at the basement layout. A latch above the door is not something I think is easily seen/known by an outsider. Is this common to similar homes in the area? Did the door have another lock and which lock was in use? Someone else said officer R felt resistance at the door (was it because of the wooden block?). Again, this is conflicting information to yours. Could it be to stop BR getting to where JB was.

So sorry, I don’t know whether other homes in the neighborhood also used the rotating wood block as a latch. We do know the wine cellar was not locked with a conventional lock that morning because Fleet White went to the basement alone as soon as he arrived and opened the wine cellar door, remember?

 

[Choices]

Okay I have no time right now other than to throw a shocker out there which occurred to me in bed last night as I thought about why the parent theories did not work - because it lacked reason so far as I was concerned. Not that it was impossible. Drill that down and find fault in it all you like but that’s the deal. Now the shocker to everyone (inasmuch as I’m considering a RDI theory, as it is the idea) which I believe somebody similarly and recently posted a thread about. Could Patsy in the throes of tumultuous grief and fear after finding JB’s body have been pushed to extreme irrationality as to want to hasten her death through garrotting, so she can quickly pray to bring about her resurrection. And somehow in her mind, not touching her with her hands (using the garrotte instead) helped distance her from the act? The reason behind this idea is from a supposition a parent perp needs to meet a certain threshold to fit a psychological criminal profile and with consideration to the circumstances. I’d still want the alternate reasons for the abrasions demonstrated.
One more thing @Meara. You’re right, I totally forgot about FW opening the door.

 

[Meara]

Okay I have no time right now other than to throw a shocker out there which occurred to me in bed last night as I thought about why the parent theories did not work - because it lacked reason so far as I was concerned. Not that it was impossible. Drill that down and find fault in it all you like but that’s the deal. Now the shocker to everyone (inasmuch as I’m considering a RDI theory, as it is the idea) which I believe somebody similarly and recently posted a thread about. Could Patsy in the throes of tumultuous grief and fear after finding JB’s body have been pushed to extreme irrationality as to want to hasten her death through garrotting, so she can quickly pray to bring about her resurrection. And somehow in her mind, not touching her with her hands (using the garrotte instead) helped distance her from the act? The reason behind this idea is from a supposition a parent perp needs to meet a certain threshold to fit a psychological criminal profile and with consideration to the circumstances. I’d still want the alternate reasons for the abrasions demonstrated.
One more thing @Meara. You’re right, I totally forgot about FW opening the door.

Well, there's a million details to remember. I already need to make a small correction to my comment. It was not PR but Nedra who said JBR would scream if someone tried to drag her out of bed.

As for RDI, I theorize that the person(s) responsible either acted in organically rooted rage, dissociated, had a psychotic break, or had a personality disorder, or some combination thereof - something along those lines. There is some key piece of information missing related to motive and intrapsychic processes.

 

[Meara]

Okay I have no time right now other than to throw a shocker out there which occurred to me in bed last night as I thought about why the parent theories did not work - because it lacked reason so far as I was concerned. Not that it was impossible. Drill that down and find fault in it all you like but that’s the deal. Now the shocker to everyone (inasmuch as I’m considering a RDI theory, as it is the idea) which I believe somebody similarly and recently posted a thread about. Could Patsy in the throes of tumultuous grief and fear after finding JB’s body have been pushed to extreme irrationality as to want to hasten her death through garrotting, so she can quickly pray to bring about her resurrection. And somehow in her mind, not touching her with her hands (using the garrotte instead) helped distance her from the act? The reason behind this idea is from a supposition a parent perp needs to meet a certain threshold to fit a psychological criminal profile and with consideration to the circumstances. I’d still want the alternate reasons for the abrasions demonstrated.
One more thing @Meara. You’re right, I totally forgot about FW opening the door.

I was pressed for time yesterday, too. You said you're considering an RDI theory "which I believe somebody similarly and recently posted a thread about," and I wondered, Why the pretense? You're clearly referring to fellow WS'er bugis, who posted the thread M for Murder: The Death of JonBenét Ramsey ReexaminedM for Murder: The Death of JonBenét Ramsey Reexamined detailing a new and intriguing PDI theory he/she's been working on for a year. If you're trying to say you arrived at your PDI theory on your own, fine, but it's best to give credit where it is due. We're all working on this case together.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

I was pressed for time yesterday, too. You said you're considering an RDI theory "which I believe somebody similarly and recently posted a thread about," and I wondered, Why the pretense? You're clearly referring to fellow WS'er bugis, who posted the thread M for Murder: The Death of JonBenét Ramsey ReexaminedM for Murder: The Death of JonBenét Ramsey Reexamined detailing a new and intriguing PDI theory he/she's been working on for a year. If you're trying to say you arrived at your PDI theory on your own, fine, but it's best to give credit where it is due. We're all working on this case together.

I am still trying to work my way through that analysis and the one you bumped last week. Both require a lot of time to read through and process. Both very well put together as well.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Follow up question regarding the soda cans in BRs sink.
I am curious if testing could be or was be done on the urine soaked longjohns to determine what she last had the drink. Perhaps not definitively but say if she had caffeine in her system ect. I guess caffeine could be found with blood analysis if they were looking for it . I'm thinking of a timeline..
Those long johns make me think possibly she may have dressed herself and was not put to bed at all. They remind me of the Mish mash a 6 year old may grab if in a hurry and told to put their PJs on . This would explain her hair still in ties also. She certainly had a full bladder. It would seem like a child that had a bed wetting problem would be taken to the bathroom whether they had been asleep in the car or not.
Especially, if leaving early in the morning because then the child for sure would need to be bathed

 

[Meara]

Follow up question regarding the soda cans in BRs sink.
I am curious if testing could be or was be done on the urine soaked longjohns to determine what she last had the drink. Perhaps not definitively but say if she had caffeine in her system ect. I guess caffeine could be found with blood analysis if they were looking for it . I'm thinking of a timeline..
Those long johns make me think possibly she may have dressed herself and was not put to bed at all. They remind me of the Mish mash a 6 year old may grab if in a hurry and told to put their PJs on . This would explain her hair still in ties also. She certainly had a full bladder. It would seem like a child that had a bed wetting problem would be taken to the bathroom whether they had been asleep in the car or not.
Especially, if leaving early in the morning because then the child for sure would need to be bathed

Great question. Caffeine can be found in blood tests. Whether it was tested for or found, I couldn't say, but we can check the autopsy report.

I like your theory that JBR may have changed into pajamas herself and/or went/was taken to the bathroom before going to bed. Very sleepy little ones can be helped to sit on the toilet and go before being carried to bed without fully waking up. The idea that PR would be very motivated to get JBR to the bathroom to avoid adding bathing her to the tight morning schedule makes a lot of sense.

Stray thought - I wonder whether those Coke cans form part of the theory that Doug Stine went home with the Ramseys for a sleepover with Burke.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

Great question. Caffeine can be found in blood tests. Whether it was tested for or found, I couldn't say, but we can check the autopsy report.

I like your theory that JBR may have changed into pajamas herself and/or went/was taken to the bathroom before going to bed. Very sleepy little ones can be helped to sit on the toilet and go before being carried to bed without fully waking up. The idea that PR would be very motivated to get JBR to the bathroom to avoid adding bathing her to the tight morning schedule makes a lot of sense.

Stray thought - I wonder whether those Coke cans form part of the theory that Doug Stine went home with the Ramseys for a sleepover with Burke.

It would seem odd for a sleepover the night before an early morning flight. Unless he was going along on the trip. Not impossible but odd.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It would seem odd for a sleepover the night before an early morning flight. Unless he was going along on the trip. Not impossible but odd.

This was my initial thought until I discovered how close that he lived. He could have been dropped home on the way or ridden his bike home.
I forget the distance to be exact but it was blocks. Another thought, the Ramseys had their own plane and were used to travel. I wonder if that made check in ect easier than commercial flight. Less stress than what we may be used to.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Great question. Caffeine can be found in blood tests. Whether it was tested for or found, I couldn't say, but we can check the autopsy report.

I like your theory that JBR may have changed into pajamas herself and/or went/was taken to the bathroom before going to bed. Very sleepy little ones can be helped to sit on the toilet and go before being carried to bed without fully waking up. The idea that PR would be very motivated to get JBR to the bathroom to avoid adding bathing her to the tight morning schedule makes a lot of sense.

Stray thought - I wonder whether those Coke cans form part of the theory that Doug Stine went home with the Ramseys for a sleepover with Burke.

I wonder what date LHP had last been in the home to clean? Those cans do raise questions. They could indicate 2 children drinking from them either BR/DS or BR/JBR or BR could have been too lazy to throw his cans in the trash or been told to put them in the sink due to say an ant problem.. I'm not sure that that would be better than ants in the wastebasket though.
The longjohns and urine reinforce my thought that she never went to bed or soon got back up. They left the the Stines and made one stop within a very short distance to the Walkers, then home. Did she really fall asleep in that amount of time?

 

[Meara]

It would seem odd for a sleepover the night before an early morning flight. Unless he was going along on the trip. Not impossible but odd.

I believe it was WS'er Bluecrab who developed the Doug Stine theory, which proposes that Doug accompanied the Ramseys home, and that he and BR played a sex game with JBR that went horribly wrong and then staged the basement scene and wrote the RN. Allegedly, DS borrowed BR's bicycle to ride the six blocks home; and this is why police found a fresh bicycle track across the Ramsey's yard, and why they did not find BR's bicycle at the house. The theory would help explain the sudden close alliance between the Ramseys and the Steins. I have always found the theory intriguing but think it is so unlikely that the parents would agree to have DS stay over when they had to get up at 5:30 AM to meet their flight schedule.

 

[Meara]

This was my initial thought until I discovered how close that he lived. He could have been dropped home on the way or ridden his bike home.
I forget the distance to be exact but it was blocks. Another thought, the Ramseys had their own plane and were used to travel. I wonder if that made check in ect easier than commercial flight. Less stress than what we may be used to.

Just FYI, commercial and private aviation are always in separate locations at an airport that handles both, so there was no check-in procedure for a private flight. Just meet your pilot on the tarmac and go. Those were the days.