Observations About Boulder (and a theory)

[cynic]

Wrong.

Cord Fibers Found in JBR Bed. "fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF P 168; PSMF P 168.)
Discovery of cord fibers, used to tie JonBenet's hands, in the latter's bedroom arguably undermines plaintiff's sequence of events." (Carnes 2003:93).

This supports the idea that JBR was kidnapped from her bed.

Wrong? Maybe, maybe not

You often chide posters for their sources, but quotes from the civil case presided over by Carnes has the same credibility level as quoting from the lowest of tabloids, IOW, you may find some truth, but you can’t be sure.
For example, it appears from the following that there was a rope found in a suspicious paper bag/sack in JAR’s bedroom.

The above evidence arguably suggests that whoever tied up JonBenet used some items brought from outside the home to do so. In addition, other fiber evidence supports an inference that some of these items from outside the home were, at one time, in the second floor area near JonBenet's bedroom. That is; fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)
A rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom of defendants' home, neither of which belonged to defendants. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.) Small pieces of the brown sack material were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body. (SMF 181; PSMF 181. )

Trip DeMuth: "Okay. And that, that particular piece of rope, do you ever remember seeing anything like it around? And if you look at photo 115, you notice the... ends are unusually secured... can you think of any reason to have that kind of rope around?"
Trip DeMuth: "You don't remember that being used anywhere in the house or yard or - "
Patsy Ramsey: "No"
Trip DeMuth: "Would you think that unusual to be found in the house?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, I mean, Burke had some ropes that he would play with through something out on the playground, you know, in that, in that picture yesterday the rope around the, the fort, you know, or something."
Trip DeMuth: "Right"
Patsy Ramsey: "Always trying to make a boat or something like that."
Trip DeMuth: "This was found inside the house"
Patsy Ramsey: "Inside the house?"
Trip DeMuth: "In John Andrew's room?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Oh. Maybe it was a, some rope he used for camping or something, I don't know."
…
TOM HANEY: Next we have photos that are numbered 113.
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: Which is a paper bag.
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
TOM HANEY: And then 114 is the contents of that.
TRIP DeMUTH: The paper bag is a police bag and this came out of here.
PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, this was in here?
TRIP DeMUTH: Correct?
PATSY RAMSEY: Oh.
TRIP DeMUTH: And there's another picture of that same item in 115 and 116. Why don't you look those over at your leisure.
PATSY RAMSEY: I don't recognize it, specifically.
Patsy Ramsey Interview, 1998


MICHAEL KANE, FMR. RAMSEY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Hi, Dan.
ABRAMS: All right. So, what do we make of this? I mean a federal judge ruling that she believe it’s more likely than not that an intruder committed this crime.
KANE: "Well I think as you said at the top of the show, the federal court was making a ruling based on the civil case and the civil case presented the evidence that had been gathered in discovery in that case. And given what was agreed to by both parties in the presentation of facts to the court, I think that the court made the right decision. I guess the bigger question then is were the facts presented to the court in the context of the civil case consistent with the facts that were developed in the police case, and I don’t think you can draw that correlation, because there was no access that the parties had been given to information that had been contained in the police files."
…
KANE: "Well I don’t know where this information about the sack and fibers from the sack that were found-I mean, I can tell you, that’s news to me. Number two, it wasn’t just a guest bedroom, it was John Andrew’s bedroom."
KANE: "It had a lot of his stuff in there, and he was a backpacker, and the fact that there was a sack-it was a rucksack is what it was, with a rope in it.
Dan Abrams Report -- July 17, 2003

For those unfamiliar with the Carnes Comedy of Errors:
But Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, L. Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer, Darnay Hoffman - and not on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000-plus pages of evidence.
…
"The facts that were provided to the court were, in many cases, not consistent with the facts that were developed in the criminal investigation because the civil litigants understandably didn't have the resources available to them that the police department did," said a source close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.
…
Critics of the Carnes ruling point more often to the failure of Hoffman, Wolf's lawyer, to effectively challenge or counter Wood's assertions on behalf of the Ramseys.
Carnes' ruling reveals at least 16 occasions in which the judge indicates that a fact alleged by the Ramseys and their lawyer goes virtually unchallenged by Hoffman.
…
"There are dozens of points that Hoffman has either A, conceded, or B, doesn't understand, or C, has ineptly presented."
…
Boulder lawyer Ben Thompson, who campaigned against Keenan during the 2000 Democratic primary on a platform that included his pledge to make arrests in the Ramsey case, said the judge didn't have all the facts.
…
"He (Wolf) did not produce sufficient evidence to the judge of the guilt of the Ramseys," Thompson said. "He is not a prosecutor, and he didn't have any cooperation from the district attorney's office. For everybody to say the judge cleared them is just wrong."
Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News, April 25, 2003

Carnes, herself, a number of years later seemed to acknowledge that her ruling was based on a, more or less, one-sided presentation:
Reflecting on the opinion, which she issued in 2003, Carnes said she treated it as she would have any other summary judgment motion, noting that "the plaintiff made very little effort to offer any facts" to support his allegations that the Ramseys were killers.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429072171&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

There was a post about the civil case and Carnes from a number of years ago that summed it up well:

Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?

 

[otg]

(Read above post.)

Very good, cynic. Two thumbs up. Thank you.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you for that post Cynic. I stand behind my own post, where I claimed that it wasn't fibers from the cord at all, but common rope fibers, that were found in her bed and that type of rope was common in the house, and by Patsy's own words (re BR "always trying to make a boat or something") something that was sourced to the house.
Also, NONE of those rope fibers were found at the crime scene or on the body. They came from the rope found in JAR's room, and the fibers could have been all over the rugs and floors and picked up on JB's feet as she walked barefoot, THAT is how they got in her bed.

 

[feddup]

Uh, basic criminal behavior? I think they call it casing.

Sd, are you not from around here or something?

Its a pretty well known fact that a house without a barking dog is more likely to be a target. The R's didnt have one. I do believe that people case house. Called: casing the joint? Didnt the Ramseys have a Christmas
Tour and allow people in? Perfect opportunity.
And...being in Boulder the so called Perfect city I can see why the R's wouldve had a false sense of security and not bother setting the alarm just the way the Smart family didnt set theirs.

 

[Agatha_C]

Feddup,

Your post makes perfect sense and I would agree, if thats all there was too it. Now rationalize the rest of it (Not being rude) just asking you to help me make sense of all that happened on a normal casing and break in like this. How did all of that play out and no one but the neighbors heard a thing? If you could help make sense of the rest of the scene for me, I might just buy IDI again. The problem is, you can't make sense of it, no one can.

Casing the place, does not mean the perp, knew how long the R's would be gone.

How did he know just by casing, that JB, liked pineapple and how did he get BR to drink tea and not alert his parents?

How did he spend all that time inside of the house and left no DNA or fibers anywhere but on JB and very little at that?

How did he undress her, rape her, redress her and stage her, too only get his touch DNA on the outside of her pants and small trace maybe on her panties?

How many kidnappers leave the child behind?

What parent does not cooperate with the police when their child has been murdered violently? If not to find who hurt their baby, but to protect the other children they have.

How many cases where pedo's are involved are about money and RN's. A pedo is after the child and kidnappers with RN's are after the money. How does one make sense of that?

When parents lie to police what could their motives be? To find justice or to hinder it?

If someone could give me common sense answers to just half of those questions, I might and I said "might", rethink my position.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Its a pretty well known fact that a house without a barking dog is more likely to be a target. The R's didnt have one. I do believe that people case house. Called: casing the joint? Didnt the Ramseys have a Christmas
Tour and allow people in? Perfect opportunity.
And...being in Boulder the so called Perfect city I can see why the R's wouldve had a false sense of security and not bother setting the alarm just the way the Smart family didnt set theirs.

Well they did have a dog, but it a) liked to spend a lot of time with the neighbor and b) was already at the neighbor's in preparation for the Rs to go on their 12/26 trip. So an intruder would have to be aware of the fact that the dog was not there that particular night.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Feddup,

Your post makes perfect sense and I would agree, if thats all there was too it. Now rationalize the rest of it (Not being rude) just asking you to help me make sense of all that happened on a normal casing and break in like this. How did all of that play out and no one but the neighbors heard a thing? If you could help make sense of the rest of the scene for me, I might just buy IDI again. The problem is, you can't make sense of it, no one can.

Casing the place, does not mean the perp, knew how long the R's would be gone.

How did he know just by casing, that JB, liked pineapple and how did he get BR to drink tea and not alert his parents?

How did he spend all that time inside of the house and left no DNA or fibers anywhere but on JB and very little at that?

How did he undress her, rape her, redress her and stage her, too only get his touch DNA on the outside of her pants and small trace maybe on her panties?

How many kidnappers leave the child behind?

What parent does not cooperate with the police when their child has been murdered violently? If not to find who hurt their baby, but to protect the other children they have.

How many cases where pedo's are involved are about money and RN's. A pedo is after the child and kidnappers with RN's are after the money. How does one make sense of that?

When parents lie to police what could their motives be? To find justice or to hinder it?

If someone could give me common sense answers to just half of those questions, I might and I said "might", rethink my position.

Excellent post, Agatha!

 

[otg]

Its a pretty well known fact that a house without a barking dog is more likely to be a target. The R's didnt have one.

JonBenét and Jacques:

​

During Patsy’s illness, JonBenét had repeatedly asked, “Mommy, can we have a dog?”

Patsy would always answer, “Yes, when Mommy gets better.”

​

Well, Patsy did get better, and JonBenét did not forget her promise. One afternoon she was bugging her mother, “Please, can we go to the pet store?”

​

“Okay,” Patsy said. "But just to look.”

​

They went to a small pet store at Crossroads Mall, and JonBenét found this bichon frise that looked more like a stuffed animal than a dog. She looked up at Patsy, with this pleading look on her face and this little white puppy in her arms, and what was Patsy to do? They bought the dog on the spot. They named him “Jacques.” (French name pronounced like: “Jock.”)

​

About two or three weeks later, they noticed that Jacques didn’t seem to be acting right, so Patsy took him to the vet. After examining the dog, the vet shook his head and said, “You have a problem. Jacques is a very sick dog and probably won’t survive.” Patsy was devastated. Now the kids, who had fallen in love with the little puppy, would have to deal with his impending death. That just seemed like too much to put on these little ones who had already lost a sister and seen their mother ill with cancer.

​

Patsy asked the doctor to write down the dog’s ailment, and then went back to the pet shop and explained the dilemma. There was another bichon frise puppy available, and the pet shop manager suggested that they trade. They would do what they could for Jacques, and Patsy would take a healthy puppy home to her kids.

​

The new dog was a month younger, so he was smaller. But Patsy hoped they could pull off the transfer without JonBenét and Burke knowing. First Patsy took Jacques II to the vet and had the doctor run all kinds of tests to make sure they wouldn’t be in the same situation a few weeks earlier. He was given a clean bill of health. Patsy told the kids, “Jacques hasn’t been feeling well, so he’s at the vet. He’ll be home in a couple of days.” If Jacques II passed the JonBenét test (she was down on the floor all the time, playing with him), they’d be home free.

​

As soon as Patsy brought Jacques II to the house, JonBenét looked at him quizzically and then said, “He looks skinny.” Patsy explained that he might have lost weight because he had been sick. Soon JonBenét noticed that he didn’t seem to recognize his name, he didn’t know where the door was to go outside, and he didn’t remember the little games they always played, and, most important, he didn’t light up when he saw her. “I think maybe Jacques has a little amnesia from being so sick,” Patsy said with her fingers crossed. Thankfully, JonBenét seemed to accept that. Jacques II became as much a part of the family as Jacques I.​

.

 

[otg]

However, I should add that on the night before they were to leave for Michigan, Jacques had already been turned over to the Barnhills, who often took care of the dog while they were away.

But... would an outside intruder have known that?
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Thank you fort that post Otg....

 

[feddup]

Well they did have a dog, but it a) liked to spend a lot of time with the neighbor and b) was already at the neighbor's in preparation for the Rs to go on their 12/26 trip. So an intruder would have to be aware of the fact that the dog was not there that particular night.

I dont think so. They did but then an older neighbor really liked it so they decided to let him keep it? JBR would go over and visit it.
I own dogs, if ANYONE is outside they bark. I dont even know what they'd do if anyone tried to get in the house but my feeling is if people have children they should definately bother to turn the alarm system on.
That is why I prefer owning dogs, you dont have to remember to "set them"

 

[feddup]

Feddup,

Your post makes perfect sense and I would agree, if thats all there was too it. Now rationalize the rest of it (Not being rude) just asking you to help me make sense of all that happened on a normal casing and break in like this. How did all of that play out and no one but the neighbors heard a thing? If you could help make sense of the rest of the scene for me, I might just buy IDI again. The problem is, you can't make sense of it, no one can.

Casing the place, does not mean the perp, knew how long the R's would be gone.

How did he know just by casing, that JB, liked pineapple and how did he get BR to drink tea and not alert his parents?

How did he spend all that time inside of the house and left no DNA or fibers anywhere but on JB and very little at that?

How did he undress her, rape her, redress her and stage her, too only get his touch DNA on the outside of her pants and small trace maybe on her panties?

How many kidnappers leave the child behind?

What parent does not cooperate with the police when their child has been murdered violently? If not to find who hurt their baby, but to protect the other children they have.

How many cases where pedo's are involved are about money and RN's. A pedo is after the child and kidnappers with RN's are after the money. How does one make sense of that?

When parents lie to police what could their motives be? To find justice or to hinder it?

If someone could give me common sense answers to just half of those questions, I might and I said "might", rethink my position.

No problem, this case has me baffled, too. My prob with it is there really isnt a motive. I dont buy the bed wetting theory.
but....it seems in a town where there are very few murders, police not having to handle them, I dont think the crime scene was preserved enough. It seems like from the VERY beginning the house shouldve been searched thouroughly and no one allowed in. The kitchen counter was wiped down, etc. Just not right IMO
If PR were as good at public relations as some people think she was, dont you think if tere was an accident (her hitting JBR in a rage) that she wouldve called 911 instead of putting the whole family through this nightmare? She couldve just said JBR fell and talked herself out of any trouble. IF JBR were being molested, I am surprised her Dr didnt recognise any signs in her. He would not have had to do an internal on her, there are psychological signs and she was 6 yrs old, very verbal and probably very advanced.

 

[DeeDee249]

No problem, this case has me baffled, too. My prob with it is there really isnt a motive. I dont buy the bed wetting theory.
but....it seems in a town where there are very few murders, police not having to handle them, I dont think the crime scene was preserved enough. It seems like from the VERY beginning the house shouldve been searched thouroughly and no one allowed in. The kitchen counter was wiped down, etc. Just not right IMO
If PR were as good at public relations as some people think she was, dont you think if tere was an accident (her hitting JBR in a rage) that she wouldve called 911 instead of putting the whole family through this nightmare? She couldve just said JBR fell and talked herself out of any trouble. IF JBR were being molested, I am surprised her Dr didnt recognise any signs in her. He would not have had to do an internal on her, there are psychological signs and she was 6 yrs old, very verbal and probably very advanced.

Right about the crime scene. VERY poorly preserved. If Patsy thought JB was dead (that head bash would have made her instantly collapse, maybe lapse into a coma) she may have been too frightened to call 911. No point lying about her "falling". The Rs were smart people, they knew any emergency room doctor could tell she didn't fall. An MRI or X-ray would show the horrific fracture, which would look exactly like what it was. Blunt force trauma. You can't talk yourself out of an autopsy report like that.
We've been over her doctor's handling of any suspicion a million times here. But I'll do it the millionth and one. JB's doctor was a good friend of Patsy and JR. They socialized at the same Country Club. They played golf. He NEVER did an internal exam on JB and had no way to see any evidence of abuse. If he suspected anything, he did not act on it. I am sure he wouldn't have wanted to be in a position to turn his friend in.
Whatever JB's verbal skills are or are not, she was ONLY 6 and rarely do kids that age speak about being abused. When they are older, many will, but some NEVER do, even when they become adults. Many ARE adults when they finally speak about it, even for the first time.

 

[cynic]

I dont think so. They did but then an older neighbor really liked it so they decided to let him keep it? JBR would go over and visit it.
I own dogs, if ANYONE is outside they bark. I dont even know what they'd do if anyone tried to get in the house but my feeling is if people have children they should definately bother to turn the alarm system on.
That is why I prefer owning dogs, you dont have to remember to "set them"

I know that PMPT gives that impression, however, this is what PR says in her 1998 interview:
THOMAS HANEY: You say you got a dog. You had a dog up here, right?
PATSY RAMSEY: We have a dog in Boulder that we bought.
THOMAS HANEY: And what -- what happened, I guess the dog was somewhere else?
PATSY RAMSEY: He -- he had to have a Bichons Frise.
…
He had had him running across the street to the Barnhills, that was the couple that lived across the street. And they had had a couple of small dogs that they had to put to sleep, so they became very fond of Jacques. So when we would go out of town for any length of time, they would dog-sit for us. And we were getting ready to leave early, early the next morning, so Jacques went over to Joe's. God, I wish he had –
TRIP DeMUTH: Went to Joe's?
PATSY RAMSEY: He was over there.
TRIP DeMUTH: Where was he usually?
PATSY RAMSEY: He was usually at our house. I mean it was 50-50, you know. He just --
TRIP DeMUTH: Now explain that 50-50 to me. I mean is that kind of -- would he stay overnight at Barnhills or was it just 50 percent of the day?
PATSY RAMSEY: No. Some nights he would spend the night over there. And, you know, if I was going to be gone all day, maybe two -- rather than leave him in the house alone, they liked to have him over there and they played with him all the time. So I would say Betty Ann, I am going to Denver, I won't be back until 5 o'clock or something, do you want Jacques? Oh, yes. And then the kids usually went over and get him and (INAUDIBLE). So it
was kind of --
25 TRIP DeMUTH: 50 percent of the time he was not spending the night in your house?
PATSY RAMSEY: Right. Maybe not quite 50 percent, maybe 40 percent.
TRIP DeMUTH: And would he bark when strangers came around?
PATSY RAMSEY: He didn't bark a lot, but he would, yeah. Uh-hum. He could bark, yeah. I think, I think when -- you know, he just was so good with the kids and the kids were romping all over, you know, playing with him, I think when he sensed danger, probably
would have.

 

[feddup]

Thanks for clearing that up Cynic. I dont know why but I was under the impression they had given him to a neighbor because they were so busy.

 

[Agatha_C]

That would make it hard for someone casing the place. How would he have known if the dog was coming back or not? Or how could he have chosen that night to break in not knowing if the dog would be gone or even the R's for that matter.

 

[feddup]

That would make it hard for someone casing the place. How would he have known if the dog was coming back or not? Or how could he have chosen that night to break in not knowing if the dog would be gone or even the R's for that matter.

I just remembered that the Lindburgs had alot of dogs. We do know that the guy put a ladder up to the babys window and went into his room and stole him. This is amazing if you think of it.
People get BOLD.
I do remember seeing ALOT of dogs in one of their books. Surely one of them mustve barked?? Its off topic but interesting....

 

[Agatha_C]

Feddup,

Have you notice the similarities between the Lindbergh's and the R's. Very interesting and its suspect that the father killed that baby. You really should read about them, theres a link posted here, if I can find it I'll repost for you.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm!

 

[DeeDee249]

I just remembered that the Lindburgs had alot of dogs. We do know that the guy put a ladder up to the babys window and went into his room and stole him. This is amazing if you think of it.
People get BOLD.
I do remember seeing ALOT of dogs in one of their books. Surely one of them mustve barked?? Its off topic but interesting....

The Lindburg "kidnapper" wasn't THAT bold- didn't need to be. That was an inside job, too, if you ever study the case.
That was the first famous case of an accidental death staged to look like a kidnapping/murder. Same thing- missing child, RN, no family member contacted, and the child later found dead with no ransom money changing hands.

 

[Agatha_C]

JR, used that case as a script. You know he knew about it. They were both into aviation.