Lies point us to the truth #2

[UKGuy]

What trick? The NE is trying to make it sound like they changed the story to accomodate the phantom voices supposedly on the 911 call, but their words are plain as day - Burke was in his bed the whole time, they thought he was asleep but he was actually awake. This was confirmed by the Schuler interview where Burke says the same thing.

Since none of the Ramseys claim Burke was present for the call, there's no point to them "changing" (i.e. adding information they didn't have earlier) the story. It's just the NE's dishonest framing of the story, and I'm only too happy blaming the messenger here - NE is trash.



That wasn't exactly his own choice.



Since they didn't know he was awake in bed, but pretending to be asleep until much later. Burke being asleep or awake doesn't affect their version of events, since he faked being asleep - the only thing that changes is Burke's perception of events, not the accounts of his parents.



It does no such thing.



Well, Steve Thomas claims that's what Burke said. The relevant part of the Schuler interview transcript has never been released. I'm a bit skeptical since Thomas fudged the accounts from the Schuler interview elsewhere, but it'd be interesting to read the full transcript.



I'd say the pineapple is a red herring. Either way, it hardly contradicts JonBenet being asleep when she arrived home.

FergusMcDuck,
You are claiming the NE's account is invalid. That's is called Blaming The Messenger, so to place the Ramsey account in a more favorable light.

You are also assuming the Ramsey REVISED Version Of Events is TRUE.

i.e. The parents never knew BR was awake, this is an unsubstantiated statement.

I'd say the pineapple is a red herring. Either way, it hardly contradicts JonBenet being asleep when she arrived home.

It contradicts the PARENTS version of events, they say they put JonBenet to bed SLEEPING.

Yet at some point close to her death she snacked on Pinapple. The evidence is on the table in the breakfast bar, complete with Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints.

Also there is NO Third Party touch dna, fingerprints or fibers, e.g. Foreign Faction.

JonBenet was found with her hair dressed in Ponytails, obviously done before she went to bed.

All three Ramsey's colluded in the postmortem staging of JonBenet.

There is far too much evidence to suggest otherwise, other than citing opinion.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,
You are claiming the NE's account is invalid. That's is called Blaming The Messenger, so to place the Ramsey account in a more favorable light.

Like I said, happy to blame the messenger here, since it is NE. I thought it was common knowledge that NE is a trashy tabloid with little relation to the truth.

But even discounting that, look at what the Ramseys are actually quoted as having said, compared to what NE says it means. The editorializing by the NE is obvious.

You are also assuming the Ramsey REVISED Version Of Events is TRUE.

i.e. The parents never knew BR was awake, this is an unsubstantiated statement.

I see no reason to disbelieve it. Quite frankly, I don't see what it is suppose to change. In both "versions" Burke remains where he is, in both "versions" the parents think he's asleep, in both "versions" Burke says or does nothing. So NE's claim that the story "changed" because of the so-called "voices" falls flat on its face since the "new" Ramsey account does nothing to support it. There is no reason for the Ramseys to change their story to this, unless if what they're telling is the actual truth.

It contradicts the PARENTS version of events, they say they put JonBenet to bed SLEEPING.

Well, there are some assumptions that have to be made to consider it a contradiction.

Yet at some point close to her death she snacked on Pinapple.

"Close to" is a variable time-span, considering digestion and its varying factors. It is well within reason that she ate it sometime during the evening. But then, she also ate grapes and cherries.

The evidence is on the table in the breakfast bar, complete with Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints.

I mean, that's not really evidence, since it comes with its own complications. First of all, it's a serving bowl with a serving spoon. That isn't consistent with a parent preparing a snack for a child, and also seems highly unlikely for a child to make themselves (why put a bunch of pineapple chunks in a bowl with a serving spoon, when they could just eat out of the container it came in?). We also know that the victim advocates left the house early in the morning to by "bagels and fruit" for everyone. Some of their other purchases can be seen in the kitchen close by the flashlight. Victim advocates putting pineapple chunks in a serving bowl with a serving spoon, to serve multiple people, is really the only thing that explains the whole setup.

Second, there were no grapes and cherries in the bowl, and JonBenet had all three in her system "together". If the bowl was the source of the pineapple, where did the grapes and cherries come from?

Third, the pineapple in JonBenet's system was tested by experts and found to be "consistent" with that in the bowl. But as Thomas says, that really only means that it was fresh and not canned.

Also there is NO Third Party touch dna, fingerprints or fibers, e.g. Foreign Faction.

Which doesn't really mean anything, since it is far from certain that any of those is deposited perfectly in any scenario.

JonBenet was found with her hair dressed in Ponytails, obviously done before she went to bed.

And to be fair, that hardly contradicts her being asleep when someone put her hair up like that.

All three Ramsey's colluded in the postmortem staging of JonBenet.

I've never been impressed with the idea of "staging" in criminal investigations, since it all too often means that the evidence doesn't fit with the scenario the LEOs favor. But even here, I see no actual evidence of staging.

 

[proust20]

The half-digested pineapple is evidence that was revealed at autopsy. It is not a red herring. The Rs never offered an explanation for it. Although, Patsy did object to the inappropriate spoon! The pineapple is not relevant as to whether JonBenet were asleep when she arrived back home, but rather, to her actions afterwards. As it was eaten around midnight, JB was not upstairs in bed for long, if ever. The bowl and glass also locate Burke in the kitchen. JonBenet could not get the pineapple from the fridge by herself. TOD is about two hours after the snack. However, JB was struck over the head well before her demise.

If Dr. Beuf's files had supported the parents claims/denials about JB, they'd not have been destroyed. The Rs gladly would have shared them.

The crimes to which JB had been a victim flow directly into Christmas night. IMO the chronic abuser is also the killer. What occurred was not of a sudden. Perhaps not surprising to some in the home?

The prolix RN, over-elaborate staging, and multiplicity of violence all share the same complicated, tied up in knots style. It's all a mess, but of a piece.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

proust20,
Sure JR knows all about the SA. So he wipes JonBenet down. Is Patsy next in sequence to add the ligature and paintbrush, then tidy it all away into her pain-tray?

IMO, what you have is the parents tweaking BR's schoolboy staging, including the broken window?

That how I see it.

Its mostly all BR, with the parents playing out the last act, tweaking here and there, along with giving BR his instructions.

So the simple explanation fails due to crime-scene complexity and what we know about the postmortem events.

Basically one person would not need all that stuff used upstairs and down in the basement.

The staging does not link back to JonBenet's bedroom and any home invasion, as the staging is intended to move the focus away from the bedroom and offer an explanation, unstated of course, why JonBenet moved from her bedroom to the basement?

JR can be cool and analytic as he has so few options, he picked the option that he hoped would buy time, and planning ahead he intended to flee Colorado interstate on his private plane.

Its all there if you care to look.

The big Q is will any of the forensic evidence linking to BR ever surface or will he always be protected under Colorado's Child Protection Statutes?

Note how BR NEVER does public appearances or appear on talk shows. He's innocent, right, so why the lack of visibility?

Once JR goes, how will he deal with it all? LW is getting on, and his relationship with DT takes up a lot of his time.

.

Hope you hold your cards closer to the vest than you do your political leanings. If you don't, perhaps one day if I find myself in the UK, we can play a friendly game or two of cards?

I find it fascinating when one from another country takes a particularly dedicated (2 years) interest in an American political happening. Credit for working in your disdain at the end there; however, I doubt that LW is the one holding together the house of cards. BR does do talk shows occasionally. The fairly recent Dr. Phil show comes to mind.

There are 4 behavioral analysts experts who have a channel on YouTube and broke down that interview. To a man, they contend that BR isn't being evasive or dishonest. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not an expert at anything. So, I could likely be wrong just as readily as I could be right. MOO

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Read the last few posts on here.

Its important to point out that when someone is questioned by the police, and the answers they give don't match with evidence; that is not same thing as "Contradicting a story".

There are also a number of bombastic claims that are stated as fact, that there is NO VERIFICATION for Whatsoever, except reddit.

Would you be so kind as to give two or three of the most bombastic claims stated as fact, please? Thank you. (For the edification of all.)

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Like I said, happy to blame the messenger here, since it is NE. I thought it was common knowledge that NE is a trashy tabloid with little relation to the truth.

But even discounting that, look at what the Ramseys are actually quoted as having said, compared to what NE says it means. The editorializing by the NE is obvious.



I see no reason to disbelieve it. Quite frankly, I don't see what it is suppose to change. In both "versions" Burke remains where he is, in both "versions" the parents think he's asleep, in both "versions" Burke says or does nothing. So NE's claim that the story "changed" because of the so-called "voices" falls flat on its face since the "new" Ramsey account does nothing to support it. There is no reason for the Ramseys to change their story to this, unless if what they're telling is the actual truth.



Well, there are some assumptions that have to be made to consider it a contradiction.



"Close to" is a variable time-span, considering digestion and its varying factors. It is well within reason that she ate it sometime during the evening. But then, she also ate grapes and cherries.



I mean, that's not really evidence, since it comes with its own complications. First of all, it's a serving bowl with a serving spoon. That isn't consistent with a parent preparing a snack for a child, and also seems highly unlikely for a child to make themselves (why put a bunch of pineapple chunks in a bowl with a serving spoon, when they could just eat out of the container it came in?). We also know that the victim advocates left the house early in the morning to by "bagels and fruit" for everyone. Some of their other purchases can be seen in the kitchen close by the flashlight. Victim advocates putting pineapple chunks in a serving bowl with a serving spoon, to serve multiple people, is really the only thing that explains the whole setup.

Second, there were no grapes and cherries in the bowl, and JonBenet had all three in her system "together". If the bowl was the source of the pineapple, where did the grapes and cherries come from?

Third, the pineapple in JonBenet's system was tested by experts and found to be "consistent" with that in the bowl. But as Thomas says, that really only means that it was fresh and not canned.



Which doesn't really mean anything, since it is far from certain that any of those is deposited perfectly in any scenario.



And to be fair, that hardly contradicts her being asleep when someone put her hair up like that.



I've never been impressed with the idea of "staging" in criminal investigations, since it all too often means that the evidence doesn't fit with the scenario the LEOs favor. But even here, I see no actual evidence of staging.

So, you advocate taking things at face value? How do you possibly explain that ransom note? It's absurd by any measure.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The half-digested pineapple is evidence that was revealed at autopsy. It is not a red herring. The Rs never offered an explanation for it.

I think the simplest answer is the likeliest one. They had no explanation for it since they had no idea who did it, or when.

Although, Patsy did object to the inappropriate spoon!

I personally think the spoon is the biggest clue of what it is. A serving bowl filled with chunks of pineapple and a serving spoon? That is a setup for multiple people to take from, and the only context in which it makes sense is the victim advocates setting it up the morning of the 26th, after they had bought and brought back "bagels and fruit". Remnants of their purchases are likely in the kitchen (where the flashlight was).

The pineapple is not relevant as to whether JonBenet were asleep when she arrived back home, but rather, to her actions afterwards. As it was eaten around midnight, JB was not upstairs in bed for long, if ever. The bowl and glass also locate Burke in the kitchen. JonBenet could not get the pineapple from the fridge by herself. TOD is about two hours after the snack. However, JB was struck over the head well before her demise.

Two hours is by no means a certain time. The pineapple, along with the grapes and the cherries, were found in the duodenum. That means first digestion in the stomach, and then a variable time in the duodenum for absorbing the nutrients, time depending on things like the nature of the food and whether the person was asleep or awake.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

So, you advocate taking things at face value? How do you possibly explain that ransom note? It's absurd by any measure.

Regardless of the facts of the case I think it's clear that the note was deceitful, so that might qualify as staging, but not really what I think of as that term.

There are plenty of ways in which it could have been deceitful, though. Did the intruder intend to kidnap JonBenet and collect the ransom, but for some reason (she wasn't as biddable as he hoped, he couldn't get her out the way he intended, he was overcome with urges, etc) he killed her instead? Or did he always intend to kill her and the note was either an attempt to collect a ransom before the body was discovered, or just as a cruel joke towards the parents? Without knowing who the killer was, it's unlikely we'll ever know. But I do know there was a precedent.

In 1924, two young men named Leopold and Loeb, affluent sociopaths (Loeb's family even had a summer house in the same place as the Ramseys later would), decided to abduct and murder a young boy, and send a ransom note to his family. The (pre-typed before the crime) ransom note is very similar to the Ramsey note. It's almost the same length (310 words versus 353), has similar content and even similar phrases. They lured a 14-year old boy into their car and struck him in the head with a chisel, then gagged him. He died shortly after, and Leopold & Loeb sent the note to his father.

I've always thought it likely that someone like Leopold and Loeb wrote the note - a young man, his criminal activity heavy on the theory and light on the practice, the transgressive nature of the act being vital to him. There are plenty of things in the note that hint to that - like the paraphrased quotes from movies, mostly action or violent thrillers, the kind mostly directed at (and usually obsessed over by) young men. Or the Die Hard riff with "foreign faction" and "S.B.T.C" ("Asian Dawn?"). The shallow knowledge of the Ramseys in the note hints at another transgressive element - a person entering and roaming someone else's house. Such a person could find a pay stub with the 118000 sum on it (apparently there were several) and think that was a likely sum to ask for (the Ramseys had much more money), or finding connections to Atlanta and mistakenly thinking John was southern. It's the surface details one can pick up by simply observing.

There were sightings of young men near the house that day, a “tall thin blond male wearing glasses [and] thought to be John Andrew.” (BPD Reports #1-690, #5-690.) and “an unknown neighbor supposedly saw a person outside the door of the Ramsey house (during the night).” (BPD Report #1-771). Couple this with the young blond offender in the "Amy" assault seven months later, and I do think this is the solution to the case.

Hopefully the DNA will yield some clue.

 

[UKGuy]

Like I said, happy to blame the messenger here, since it is NE. I thought it was common knowledge that NE is a trashy tabloid with little relation to the truth.

But even discounting that, look at what the Ramseys are actually quoted as having said, compared to what NE says it means. The editorializing by the NE is obvious.



I see no reason to disbelieve it. Quite frankly, I don't see what it is suppose to change. In both "versions" Burke remains where he is, in both "versions" the parents think he's asleep, in both "versions" Burke says or does nothing. So NE's claim that the story "changed" because of the so-called "voices" falls flat on its face since the "new" Ramsey account does nothing to support it. There is no reason for the Ramseys to change their story to this, unless if what they're telling is the actual truth.



Well, there are some assumptions that have to be made to consider it a contradiction.



"Close to" is a variable time-span, considering digestion and its varying factors. It is well within reason that she ate it sometime during the evening. But then, she also ate grapes and cherries.



I mean, that's not really evidence, since it comes with its own complications. First of all, it's a serving bowl with a serving spoon. That isn't consistent with a parent preparing a snack for a child, and also seems highly unlikely for a child to make themselves (why put a bunch of pineapple chunks in a bowl with a serving spoon, when they could just eat out of the container it came in?). We also know that the victim advocates left the house early in the morning to by "bagels and fruit" for everyone. Some of their other purchases can be seen in the kitchen close by the flashlight. Victim advocates putting pineapple chunks in a serving bowl with a serving spoon, to serve multiple people, is really the only thing that explains the whole setup.

Second, there were no grapes and cherries in the bowl, and JonBenet had all three in her system "together". If the bowl was the source of the pineapple, where did the grapes and cherries come from?

Third, the pineapple in JonBenet's system was tested by experts and found to be "consistent" with that in the bowl. But as Thomas says, that really only means that it was fresh and not canned.



Which doesn't really mean anything, since it is far from certain that any of those is deposited perfectly in any scenario.



And to be fair, that hardly contradicts her being asleep when someone put her hair up like that.



I've never been impressed with the idea of "staging" in criminal investigations, since it all too often means that the evidence doesn't fit with the scenario the LEOs favor. But even here, I see no actual evidence of staging.

FergusMcDuck,

I've never been impressed with the idea of "staging" in criminal investigations, since it all too often means that the evidence doesn't fit with the scenario the LEOs favor. But even here, I see no actual evidence of staging.

Sure, but the staging scenario here, arrives courtesy of Websleuths, not any LEO.

You appear to have a decidedly naive approach to crime-scene analysis, e.g. believing the statements issued by the prime suspects including the revisions.

Not a good look and at complete variance with the forensic evidence, and many seasoned detectives opinions.

where did the grapes and cherries come from?

Cite a source as the above was not detailed in the autopsy report.

Victim advocates putting pineapple chunks in a serving bowl with a serving spoon, to serve multiple people, is really the only thing that explains the whole setup.

Wonderful, another fairy tale scenario with nothing to back it up.

There is no reason for the Ramseys to change their story to this, unless if what they're telling is the actual truth.

Sure, not many folks on here are going to take you seriously when you claim the prime suspects are telling the truth!

There was NO forensic evidence found in the Ramsey House that links to ANYONE outside the house.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Hope you hold your cards closer to the vest than you do your political leanings. If you don't, perhaps one day if I find myself in the UK, we can play a friendly game or two of cards?

I find it fascinating when one from another country takes a particularly dedicated (2 years) interest in an American political happening. Credit for working in your disdain at the end there; however, I doubt that LW is the one holding together the house of cards. BR does do talk shows occasionally. The fairly recent Dr. Phil show comes to mind.

There are 4 behavioral analysts experts who have a channel on YouTube and broke down that interview. To a man, they contend that BR isn't being evasive or dishonest. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not an expert at anything. So, I could likely be wrong just as readily as I could be right. MOO

GoBuckeyes,
Websleuths is not a political forum, so I would never opinionate here.

I doubt that LW is the one holding together the house of cards.

Of course he does as long as JR retains him for legal advice, etc.

The fairly recent Dr. Phil show comes to mind.

Sure, but that was not a social outing by BR. It was a premptive move by LW and JR to get their rebuttal in ahead of the CBS Documentary.

In the Dr. Phil interview JR revised his version of events yet again, e.g. claiming to use the flashlight to put BR to bed, really?

BR answers the questions as he has been coached to do. Both BR and JR have colluded to back up each others version of events. e.g. Burke states he was present when JR climbed into the house via the basement window, thereby breaking it.

That is JR covers for BR on Christmas Night and BR covers for JR on his lockout experience!

.

 

[Eddie99]

Whats truly mind-boggling I'd that these various threads go into painful details regarding pineapples & underwear sizes.

But completely and utterly overlook.

The unknown dna.
The haphazard investigation. When I say that, what I mean is that I think a 16 year old could have made better decisions that morning, than the police.

People will parce every word in the interviews, and make incredible leaps of logic. While simultaneously taking Linda Arndt seriously when she said on national TV she thought she would have to kill people that morning (counting her 18 bullets). Considering nothing happened, she was obviously wrong.

Veterans of WS, that follow cold cases know very well, People are taken from and killed in their homes fairly regularly.

Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klass, and that Jamie closs girl, to name a few. But there are many more. And of those that were solved it WAS an intruder.

Unless you are a movie star, athlete or musician, there is a loathing of successful people. I think that's what's happened here. There was someone in this very thread that stated as a fact, pasty insisted on wearing a mink coat for the news media that was outside the house when police told them to leave. No such thing happened.

I just hope to God this case gets solved. To put an end to this once and for all.

 

[InstantProof]

Whats truly mind-boggling I'd that these various threads go into painful details regarding pineapples & underwear sizes.

But completely and utterly overlook.

The unknown dna.
The haphazard investigation. When I say that, what I mean is that I think a 16 year old could have made better decisions that morning, than the police.

People will parce every word in the interviews, and make incredible leaps of logic. While simultaneously taking Linda Arndt seriously when she said on national TV she thought she would have to kill people that morning (counting her 18 bullets). Considering nothing happened, she was obviously wrong.

Veterans of WS, that follow cold cases know very well, People are taken from and killed in their homes fairly regularly.

Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klass, and that Jamie closs girl, to name a few. But there are many more. And of those that were solved it WAS an intruder.

Unless you are a movie star, athlete or musician, there is a loathing of successful people. I think that's what's happened here. There was someone in this very thread that stated as a fact, pasty insisted on wearing a mink coat for the news media that was outside the house when police told them to leave. No such thing happened.

I just hope to God this case gets solved. To put an end to this once and for all.

When this case first happened and I wasn't paying much attention, I thought the general public were just being quick to lump the R''s in with the likes of Susan Smith, and that the R's were being judged for the pageant photos. Funny enough, it was watching Lou Smit explain how an intruder did it on TV that made me think this is complete nonsense, and I looked into the case some more. I don't have a like or dislike for the R's but the impression I always get is that they are being manipulative and covering for something. It just seems blatant. I can't find any way around that.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Sure, but the staging scenario here, arrives courtesy of Websleuths, not any LEO.

LEOs are far from the only ones who can commit this fallacy. I still don't see any sign of staging with regards to JonBenet.

You appear to have a decidedly naive approach to crime-scene analysis, e.g. believing the statements issued by the prime suspects including the revisions.

The point is that it doesn't matter if they are truthful or not. What matters here is that this:

It matters because the parents said BR had been in bed all night until he awoke to the noise of the responding officers. The parents retracted the above account, after listening to the enhanced 911 call, and agreed BR was awake before, during and after the 911 call!.

Makes no sense with regards to what the Ramseys have said, regardless of the veracity of either version. By their own words these are the two accounts that they supposedly changed between:

1. Burke was in his bed until the police arrived, sleeping.
2. Burke was in his bed, awake but pretending to be asleep until the police arrived, letting no one know he was awake.

Please tell me, how is this change in any way related to the supposed "enhanced" call and the phantom voices therein? If the Ramseys were confronted with evidence that Burke was up and talking to them, captured on sound, why on earth would their new story still have him in bed, away from everyone else and not participating in any conversation?

Even if the National Enquirer wasn't a disgusting and deceitful gossip rag for gullible people (and it is), their editorializing would still be wrong because what they write does not follow from what the Ramseys said.

Not a good look and at complete variance with the forensic evidence, and many seasoned detectives opinions.

What's the forensic evidence for staging? As far as I can see, there is nothing that goes against what's plainly there.

Cite a source as the above was not detailed in the autopsy report.

It wouldn't be in the autopsy report. Few coroners are capable of spotting and identifying all material found in the duodenum on sight without actual testing. The further data comes from the index prepared by the DA's office from police and expert reports. Two pages were scanned and published in Paula Woodward's book Unsolved. Here is the transcription:

Pineapple
Opinions of Dr [Redacted] [1-1118]
Tom Foure reports that the pineapple was found in the duodenum of the small intestine. [1-1119]
During autopsy mention of pineapple at the proximal end [1-1208]
Followup on the stomach contents, re: the Pineapple. Contacts with Dr [Redacted], Dr [Redacted] [Redacted], Dr Meyer. Other item besides pineapple was cherries. [1-1348]
Followup by Det. Weinheimer on the pineapple recovered from the Ramsey house. Also letter (report) from Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] re: their findings. Grape skin also found. [1-1448]
Report of Det. Weinheimer re: pineapple found in house given to Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] for further testing. [1-1450]
Evidence sheet [2-42]
JonBenet loved pineapple. [5-1054]
According to [Redacted], JonBenet would eat pineapple because it tastes good. [5-1653]
Per Dr [Redacted] pineapple could have been eaten even the day before. [26-193]
Report from Dr [Redacted] and Dr [Redacted] regarding the pineapple and grape in the intestine as requested by Det. Carey Weinheimer [42-78]
[1-106, 1-119, 26-81]
6/03/98

JonBenet Ramsey
Civilians/Items
December 25, 1996 – [Redacted] said that JonBenet Ramsey didn’t have anything to eat at his house because she had crab at her house. [5-3529]
December 30, 1996 10:17 – The following items were received into property: pineapple-70KKY; bowl found on north dining room table-71KKY; roll of film-72KKY. [2-42]
October 15, 1997 – Det Sgt Tom Wickman and Det Weinheimer met with Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado about the contents found inside the small intestine. [1-1156]
October 15, 1997 – Det Sgt Tom Wickman and Det Weinheimer met with Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado about the contents found inside the small intestine. [1-1156]
October 15, 1997 – Sgt Wickman and Det Weinheimer met Dr [Redacted] at the University of Colorado and Dr [Redacted] concerning the identification of the contents found in JonBenet Ramsey’s small intestine. [1-1348]
October 16, 1997 14:45 – Det Weinheimer retrieved the test tube containing the intestine contents from the Coroner’s Office. [1-1348]
October 16, 1997 14:59 – Det Weinheimer put the intestine contents into the freezer in the evidence section of the Boulder Police Dept. [1-1348]
October 17, 1997 09:54 – Det Weinheimer checked the intestine contents out of the Boulder Police Dept evidence and took to to Dr [Redacted] office at the University of Colorado. [1-1348]
October 17, 1997 12:01 – Det Weinheimer returned the test tube of intestine contents to the Boulder Police Department evidence lab after observing Dr [Redacted] remove approximately 2 grams of substance from the test tube. [1-1349]
November 5, 1997 – Det Weinheimer also discussed with Dr [Redacted] the cronology of events leading up to JonBenet Ramsey’s murder as well as the meaning of the pineapple that was located in the small intestine and how long it may have been there. [1-1159]
November 5, 1997 – Det Weinheimer also discussed with Dr [Redacted] the cronology of events leading up to JonBenet Ramsey’s murder as well as the meaning of the pineapple that was located in the small intestine and how long it may have been there. [1-1159]
November 18, 1997 – Det Harmer interviewed Officer Lisa Cooper about the contents in a tupperware container within JonBenet Ramsey’s bedroom which Cooper states consisted of popcorn. [1-1104]
December 25, 1997 – Dr [Redacted] informed Det Weinheimer that the intestine contents included pineapple and grapes including skin and pulp. [1-1349]
January 22, 1998 – Det Weinheimer received a report from Dr [Redacted] and [Redacted] concerning their findings from the examination of the contents of the intestine. [1-1349]

Wonderful, another fairy tale scenario with nothing to back it up.

"As the morning wore on, the victim advocates, Jedamus and Morlock, decided to go out and get bagels and fruit for everyone." - Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller

You can see stills from the crime scene video showing the kitchen counter here and here. Clearly there are bagels and other traces of the things bought (like a paper bag), and clearly they have been placed on plates from the kitchen. There's little trace of anything having been actually eaten, meaning it is highly unlikely (even aside from the obvious reasons) that they had been there since the day before. So obviously someone placed food on the counter that morning, and we know the victim advocates went out to buy these things. No one at any point made the claim that the Ramseys did so - regardless of which scenario you believe there's no time or opportunity for them to do so.

I'd say that takes it far beyond a fairy tale.

Sure, not many folks on here are going to take you seriously when you claim the prime suspects are telling the truth!

Well, that's one way, I suppose. I prefer to look at the facts, and let them judge if they're telling the truth or not.

There was NO forensic evidence found in the Ramsey House that links to ANYONE outside the house.

There was DNA found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties. This DNA is currently in CODIS, and everyone in the house have been excluded. That, by definition, means that it links to SOMEONE outside the house. Whatever this DNA ends up actually showing, that's not nothing.

 

[UKGuy]

LEOs are far from the only ones who can commit this fallacy. I still don't see any sign of staging with regards to JonBenet.



The point is that it doesn't matter if they are truthful or not. What matters here is that this:



Makes no sense with regards to what the Ramseys have said, regardless of the veracity of either version. By their own words these are the two accounts that they supposedly changed between:

1. Burke was in his bed until the police arrived, sleeping.
2. Burke was in his bed, awake but pretending to be asleep until the police arrived, letting no one know he was awake.

Please tell me, how is this change in any way related to the supposed "enhanced" call and the phantom voices therein? If the Ramseys were confronted with evidence that Burke was up and talking to them, captured on sound, why on earth would their new story still have him in bed, away from everyone else and not participating in any conversation?

Even if the National Enquirer wasn't a disgusting and deceitful gossip rag for gullible people (and it is), their editorializing would still be wrong because what they write does not follow from what the Ramseys said.



What's the forensic evidence for staging? As far as I can see, there is nothing that goes against what's plainly there.



It wouldn't be in the autopsy report. Few coroners are capable of spotting and identifying all material found in the duodenum on sight without actual testing. The further data comes from the index prepared by the DA's office from police and expert reports. Two pages were scanned and published in Paula Woodward's book Unsolved. Here is the transcription:







"As the morning wore on, the victim advocates, Jedamus and Morlock, decided to go out and get bagels and fruit for everyone." - Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller

You can see stills from the crime scene video showing the kitchen counter here and here. Clearly there are bagels and other traces of the things bought (like a paper bag), and clearly they have been placed on plates from the kitchen. There's little trace of anything having been actually eaten, meaning it is highly unlikely (even aside from the obvious reasons) that they had been there since the day before. So obviously someone placed food on the counter that morning, and we know the victim advocates went out to buy these things. No one at any point made the claim that the Ramseys did so - regardless of which scenario you believe there's no time or opportunity for them to do so.

I'd say that takes it far beyond a fairy tale.



Well, that's one way, I suppose. I prefer to look at the facts, and let them judge if they're telling the truth or not.



There was DNA found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties. This DNA is currently in CODIS, and everyone in the house have been excluded. That, by definition, means that it links to SOMEONE outside the house. Whatever this DNA ends up actually showing, that's not nothing.

FergusMcDuck,

I still don't see any sign of staging with regards to JonBenet.

Not seeing any "sign of staging" does not mean that there is none.

1. Burke was in his bed until the police arrived, sleeping.
2. Burke was in his bed, awake but pretending to be asleep until the police arrived, letting no one know he was awake.

This is the parents REVISED account which was never tested in court.

It states BR was AWAKE just located in his bedroom.

This can be considered an aspect of the postmortem staging employed by the Ramsey's.

Since BR may have been present at the 911 call, then given a script by the parents which he then followed?

why on earth would their new story still have him in bed, away from everyone else and not participating in any conversation?

This is why its called postmortem staging, so folks like you can be FOOLED into assuming there is nothing to see, so just move on!

Two pages were scanned and published in Paula Woodward's book Unsolved.

If its not in an Autopsy Report or a follow up publication due to test-lab issues. It is just not credible since anyone can publish whatever they want and use it to backup whatever position they hold.

Paula Woodward claims to have privileged access to BPD forensic evidence, to date she has not made it available for public scrutiny.

I'd say that takes it far beyond a fairy tale.

Its all Smoke and Mirrors. It does not relate to the contents of JonBenet's stomach which demonstrates she snacked pineapple after arriving home.

Nobody is interested in bagels, fruit, and cherries. The pineapple is sufficient to show JonBenet was awake and snacking pineapple AFTER the White's Party.

Well, that's one way, I suppose. I prefer to look at the facts, and let them judge if they're telling the truth or not.

Yet, your FACTS are subjective, i.e you believe what the Ramsey's tell you.

There was DNA found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties. This DNA is currently in CODIS, and everyone in the house have been excluded. That, by definition, means that it links to SOMEONE outside the house. Whatever this DNA ends up actually showing, that's not nothing.

NO, because it was a partial sample, i.e. incomplete, and was only added to CODIS after it had been tinkered with so it could meet the CODIS guidelines.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was an admixture of more than one person's DNA.

So provisionally it can never be used in a court of law, particularly once you learn it was tweaked to meet the CODIS guidelines.

.

 

[Tricia]

Short Version of the post below. If you would like to donate to our volunteer moderator staff please do so at Pay Websleuths.com using PayPal.Me
Venmo name Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

Hey Everyone,
Forgive me for interrupting but this is important. Please do not post questions about this post on this thread. Go to THIS THREAD to ask questions.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

One of the biggest things I am thankful for is our wonderful moderators on Websleuths.

On a holiday like today, our mods will be here working hard to make sure your experience on Websleuths is the best experience you can have on any discussion forum,

You don't see the drama and the problems that our mods handle every minute on Websleuths. That's because our mods work to make sure to solve problems quickly so you can get back to discussing true crime;

If you can spare a dollar or more to donate to our moderators I would greatly appreciate it.

All of the money raised will go to the moderators.

If you are thankful to our mods and can make a donation that would be wonderful.
If you would like to donate to our volunteer moderator staff please do so at Pay Websleuths.com using PayPal.Me
Venmo name Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

If you cannot make a donation could you please go to THIS THREAD and leave a kind comment for our mods.

In closing I want you to know how thankful I am to all of you who participate on Websleuths. You make Websleuths the most respected true crime discussion forum on the Internet. Thank you for all you do.

Sincerely,
Tricia Griffith/Owner Websleuths.com

 

[Eddie99]

Uk,

Nowhere has it been said that it's a partial sample. They eliminated at least 2 people (along with the ramseys) by comparing the samples.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

Not seeing any "sign of staging" does not mean that there is none.

I'd love to see a sign of staging.

This is the parents REVISED account which was never tested in court.

It states BR was AWAKE just located in his bedroom.

This can be considered an aspect of the postmortem staging employed by the Ramsey's.

Since BR may have been present at the 911 call, then given a script by the parents which he then followed?

I really don't see the logic in this. We still end up at the main point - the idea that the Ramseys changed their story in the face of the 911 "voices" can't be sustained because the "change" in the Ramsey's account (which isn't a change in their story, but incorporating Burke's account with their own) is doesn't relate to Burke being present for the 911 call.

If they had said - "yes, Burke was up and walking, we just forgot" - that would support the claims of the National Enquirer, but that's not what they said. We can't just say "they lied" and make up whatever facts we want.

This is why its called postmortem staging, so folks like you can be FOOLED into assuming there is nothing to see, so just move on!

I don't think that answers my question.

If its not in an Autopsy Report or a follow up publication due to test-lab issues. It is just not credible since anyone can publish whatever they want and use it to backup whatever position they hold.

Paula Woodward claims to have privileged access to BPD forensic evidence, to date she has not made it available for public scrutiny.

You are of course free to disregard this if you want to. I'd say the idea that Woodward fabricated the scanned documents strikes me as highly unlikely.

Its all Smoke and Mirrors. It does not relate to the contents of JonBenet's stomach which demonstrates she snacked pineapple after arriving home.

Nobody is interested in bagels, fruit, and cherries. The pineapple is sufficient to show JonBenet was awake and snacking pineapple AFTER the White's Party.

People should be interested in evidence. The contents of JonBenet's duodenum having fruits in addition to the pineapple while her digestion could well stretch back to the White's dinner, in connection to the irregularities of the fruit found at the house (a serving spoon used, other plates with food set up) as well as the acknowledged account of the victim advocates going out and buying bagels and fruit?

It does raise a fair amount of doubt that the pineapple found at the breakfast table was the source of the contents of JonBenet's duodenum. Too many things have to be disregarded otherwise.

Yet, your FACTS are subjective, i.e you believe what the Ramsey's tell you.

If the Ramseys say something and I find the facts agree with them, yes, I'd believe them.

NO, because it was a partial sample, i.e. incomplete, and was only added to CODIS after it had been tinkered with so it could meet the CODIS guidelines.

If by "tinkered with" you mean "tested again a few years later when the methods had advanced", sure. By 2004, the Denver PD had identified unique alleles, unrelated to JonBenet, at 10 loci out of 13. That meets the demands of CODIS, which is strict about these things, and would not accept something that was "tinkered with".

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was an admixture of more than one person's DNA.

That is not true. The UM1 profile and JonBenet's DNA does not at any loci exceed 4 alleles in total, and at no point is the number of non-JonBenet alleles three or more. That means there's no other profile hidden in the tested blood. You might have it confused with the tested longjohns, where two (faint) alleles were found in addition to those compatible with JonBenet and UM1.

So provisionally it can never be used in a court of law, particularly once you learn it was tweaked to meet the CODIS guidelines.

I don't think UM1 is enough to convict the killer (not on its own), but I do think it is enough to identify him. That alone would open up avenues for further investigation.

 

[UKGuy]

I'd love to see a sign of staging.



I really don't see the logic in this. We still end up at the main point - the idea that the Ramseys changed their story in the face of the 911 "voices" can't be sustained because the "change" in the Ramsey's account (which isn't a change in their story, but incorporating Burke's account with their own) is doesn't relate to Burke being present for the 911 call.

If they had said - "yes, Burke was up and walking, we just forgot" - that would support the claims of the National Enquirer, but that's not what they said. We can't just say "they lied" and make up whatever facts we want.



I don't think that answers my question.



You are of course free to disregard this if you want to. I'd say the idea that Woodward fabricated the scanned documents strikes me as highly unlikely.



People should be interested in evidence. The contents of JonBenet's duodenum having fruits in addition to the pineapple while her digestion could well stretch back to the White's dinner, in connection to the irregularities of the fruit found at the house (a serving spoon used, other plates with food set up) as well as the acknowledged account of the victim advocates going out and buying bagels and fruit?

It does raise a fair amount of doubt that the pineapple found at the breakfast table was the source of the contents of JonBenet's duodenum. Too many things have to be disregarded otherwise.



If the Ramseys say something and I find the facts agree with them, yes, I'd believe them.



If by "tinkered with" you mean "tested again a few years later when the methods had advanced", sure. By 2004, the Denver PD had identified unique alleles, unrelated to JonBenet, at 10 loci out of 13. That meets the demands of CODIS, which is strict about these things, and would not accept something that was "tinkered with".



That is not true. The UM1 profile and JonBenet's DNA does not at any loci exceed 4 alleles in total, and at no point is the number of non-JonBenet alleles three or more. That means there's no other profile hidden in the tested blood. You might have it confused with the tested longjohns, where two (faint) alleles were found in addition to those compatible with JonBenet and UM1.



I don't think UM1 is enough to convict the killer (not on its own), but I do think it is enough to identify him. That alone would open up avenues for further investigation.

FergusMcDuck,

It does raise a fair amount of doubt that the pineapple found at the breakfast table was the source of the contents of JonBenet's duodenum. Too many things have to be disregarded otherwise.

It raises no doubt at all. All you are doing is attempting to muddy the waters by instantiating unrelated postmortem forensic evidence which was NEVER detailed in any of the Autopsy Reports.

The bottom line is that JonBenet snacked on pineapple AFTER arriving back from the Whites.

The usual riposte to this observation is that an Intruder prepared JonBenet's pineapple snack.

If the Ramseys say something and I find the facts agree with them, yes, I'd believe them.

This demonstrates how naive you are.

I really don't see the logic in this.

The Ramsey's CHANGED their version of events from BR being ASLEEP to him being AWAKE.

If they had said - "yes, Burke was up and walking, we just forgot"

Of course they were never going to say that, so they replaced "forgot" with "ignorance", which is a standard Ramsey move, it usually takes the form of AMNESIA.

BR being AWAKE means he could have been present during the 911 call.

Something the parents are unlikely to self-report.

Your assumption that the parents account is truthful is fanciful.

Particularly as the Grand Jury levelled Assisting an Offender and Child Abuse Counts at both parents!

The DNA was an admixture of incomplete profiles which had to be subjected to further analysis so they could meet the CODIS guidelines. i.e. the dna report was tweaked.

Nobody will ever be identified via the entry in CODIS as it is incomplete.

Like I said before there is ZERO forensic evidence linking to anyone OUTSIDE the Ramsey household.

All three remaining Ramsey's were PRIME suspects in the Murder and Sexual Assault of JonBenet.

.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

FergusMcDuck,

It raises no doubt at all. All you are doing is attempting to muddy the waters by instantiating unrelated postmortem forensic evidence which was NEVER detailed in any of the Autopsy Reports.

Like I said, it would not be in the autopsy report, hence the further testing and additional reports referenced in the DA office's index. If you want to ignore them, feel free, but they're still there.

The bottom line is that JonBenet snacked on pineapple AFTER arriving back from the Whites.

There has never been a consensus on this. The pineapple (and cherries and grapes) were in her duodenum with nothing in her stomach, meaning gastric emptying was complete. That can take several hours, a process slowed down by certain conditions (like being asleep), not to mention the additional hours the food stays in the duodenum where the actual nourishment is being absorbed into the body.

The usual riposte to this observation is that an Intruder prepared JonBenet's pineapple snack.

It's not one I'd make, since that doesn't explain the serving spoon (or the absence of cherries and grapes) anymore than a Ramsey being responsible for the bowl would.

This demonstrates how naive you are.

Well, I haven't accepted the framing of the National Enquirer, one of the most dishonest publications in history, so I'd call that a point in my favor.

The Ramsey's CHANGED their version of events from BR being ASLEEP to him being AWAKE.

Their version actually never changed. Burke being asleep and pretending to be asleep makes no practical difference to their story, it just adds Burke's perspective. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone; calling it "changing their story" is just not true.

Of course they were never going to say that, so they replaced "forgot" with "ignorance", which is a standard Ramsey move, it usually takes the form of AMNESIA.

BR being AWAKE means he could have been present during the 911 call.

Something the parents are unlikely to self-report.

Then what is the point of "changing" their story?

Your assumption that the parents account is truthful is fanciful.

There's nothing contradicting it.

Particularly as the Grand Jury levelled Assisting an Offender and Child Abuse Counts at both parents!

Lots of ham in this sandwich.

The DNA was an admixture of incomplete profiles which had to be subjected to further analysis so they could meet the CODIS guidelines. i.e. the dna report was tweaked.

No, this is not true. It was a mixture of two profiles, one being JonBenet and the other (UM1) being a male individual represented by unique alleles in 10 out of 13 loci. It wasn't reports being tweaked, it was renewed testing when methods were improved. Had there been more than one non-JonBenet contributor to the DNA, there would have been more alleles in at least some of the loci, or a pronounced increase in the peak heights of some alleles. But we don't see that, not in any of the loci.

That's why UM1 was accepted into CODIS.

Nobody will ever be identified via the entry in CODIS as it is incomplete.

It can exclude people, though, like the Ramseys. And should a match occur with the 10 out of 13 loci, the rest of the investigation can (finally) begin.

Like I said before there is ZERO forensic evidence linking to anyone OUTSIDE the Ramsey household.

You can't discuss a piece of forensic evidence linking to someone (by definition) outside the Ramsey household, then in the next sentence say it doesn't exist. You can give an alternate explanation for it, if you wish, but it does exist.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

911 call on the 26th

Audio Analyses of 911 Tape​

There have been at least 10 audio analyses of the 911 tape used to determine whether there are additional voices that can be recovered from garbled portions of the tape.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Washington, DC; requested by BPD (1997).
• United States Secret Service (Washington, DC); requested by BPD (1997).
• Aerospace Corporation (El Segundo, California); requested by BPD (1997).
• Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, NM); requested informally by Pete Hofstrom.
• Legal Audio (New York, NY); requested by MSNBC (2003).
• Team Audio (Toledo, OH); requested by MSNBC (2003).

Key Areas of Controversy​

• Is Burke's Voice on an "Enhanced" Tape? There is a major dispute about whether Burke's or John's voices can be heard at the end of the tape. RDI theorists argue that if such voices can be heard, this is proof that the Ramseys were lying about events that morning since they assert Burke was asleep in his bed when the 911 call was made.
• Was an "Enhanced" Tape Ever Aired on TV? Because there is a question about the authenticity of the tape, there is also a major dispute about whether the enhanced tape ever was aired on TV. Believers are certain that it was (in which case there can be less doubt about the tapes' existence) where skeptics are certain it was not. *I heard the enhanced recording a long time ago. The internet has since erased said material.

Aerospace Corporation Analysis

• Analysis Requested by BPD. At the request of BPD, Aerospace Corporation, which reportedly had more advanced equipment for such analysis, conducted a test of the 911 tape. The official report from Aerospace was given to BPD in May 1997, but has never been released to the public.
• No Comment by Aerospace. On August 21, 1998, it was reported "Robert Pentz, director of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center for the Western Region, operated by Aerospace Corp. for the National Institute of Justice, said the company had no comment on the tape. "Even though we acknowledge the fact we do work for law enforcement agencies ... it is a matter of policy we don't comment on cases that are open without written permission of the affected law enforcement agency," Pentz said."
• Aerospace Stands Behind its Work. However, in 2003, according to the National Enquirer (see below), in response to claims that two firms hired by NBC to analyze the tape had found no evidence of Burke's voice, "the renowned high-tech company that enhanced the tape for the Boulder police says its original findings that Burke's voice is on the tape is correct. We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer. The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide. "We are top shelf," said Brill.
• Burke Granted Access to Enhanced Tape. According to lawyer Darnay Hoffman, Boulder judge Roxanne Bailin ruled that Burke was entitled to receive a copy of the 911 tape prior to his testifying before the grand jury. Hoffman posed the rhetorical question: "Does this mean that Judge Roxanne Bailin LISTENED to the 911 tape and made an independent assessment that Burke's voice was on it and therefore was a "prior statement?"
• National Enquirer (1998). The National Enquirer leaked the Aerospace findings in a world exclusive appearing in its September 1, 1998 issue. In a later article written by Don Gentileappearing in July 2003, the following was leaked:
  • "Boulder Detective Melissa Hickman took the tape to the Aerospace Corporation for enhancement. There, experts enhanced the tape. At first they heard Patsy saying "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus," and Burke saying, "Please, what do I do?" according to a source."
  • "After further analysis, they heard three distinct voices, then gave the enhanced recording to Det. Hickman. "Hickman heard John Ramsey say, "We're not speaking to you," in what sounded like a very angry voice," the source said. "Patsy then says, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus," and finally Burke is clearly heard to say "Well what did you find?" with an emphasis on the word "did."
  • When the original leak appeared in 1998, the Boulder Daily Camera reported: "The general content of the transcript in the supermarket tabloid is accurate, according to sources familiar with the investigation."
  • But the same article also reported: "Spokeswomen for the Boulder police and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office would not comment on the 911 tape from Dec. 26, 1996."
• Lawrence Schiller Book (1999). A slightly different version of this conversation is reported in a review by the Boston Globe: ``[Boulder Police Detective Melissa] Hickman listened to the tape and wrote down what she heard.
  • " 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice. Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother.
  • " 'Please, what do I do?' Burke said.
  • " 'We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say.
  • " Patsy screamed again. 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.'
  • " And then, more clearly, Burke said, 'What did you find?' "
• Steve Thomas Book (2000). The purported Aerospace findings also were leaked by Steve Thomas in his book and another book by Henry Lee (2001): "For a few tantalizing seconds, police heard background sounds that they could not understand. Detectives sent this tape out to the best electronic experts in the region and, still, save for Patsy Ramsey's sobbing and prayers, nothing more could be made out of the background noise. Then the police discovered a new and expert electronics company, Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California, that they provided with a copy of the tape. What came back was worth all of this trouble. When these sounds were brought up many times over, police heard Burke and John Ramsey in an exchange. The child said, "Please, what do I do?" To this John Ramsey replied, "We are not speaking to you." Finally, Burke is heard to ask, "What did you find?"
• Accuracy of Transcripts Disputed. According to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's case against CBS, "These “transcripts” have always been the subject of dispute, with their accuracy being denied by members of law enforcement investigating the case and by John, Patsy, and Burke"

Things that make you go hum …