Miz Adventure
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2016
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 20
It sounds plausible to me. But would a 9 year old be able to lift a heavy metal grating right away from the basement so it wouldn't fall back in on him?
John Ramsey Fabricated Open Basement Window "Evidence"
- Thread starter BlueCrab
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182- Latest: girlhasnoname
It sounds plausible to me. But would a 9 year old be able to lift a heavy metal grating right away from the basement so it wouldn't fall back in on him?
I'm not sure but here's Lou "I'm No Midget" Smit climbing in. It doesn't appear to be all that heavy and I think he could have slipped in pretty easily.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
It was broken from the inside out. If Burke broke the window, it was an accident. If John broke the window, it was on purpose. Broken glass found in the wine cellar was taken into evidence.
cottonstar
cottonstar
Breaking glass is loud. So is lifting that big grate. Neighbors heard neither.
Sadly this is an argument that was probably solved by those who saw the glass. Collected dust would easily give them an idea of whether the break was new or old. And the answer is probably there, it just has never been released. Even a good clear photo would reveal the truth.
Sadly this is an argument that was probably solved by those who saw the glass. Collected dust would easily give them an idea of whether the break was new or old. And the answer is probably there, it just has never been released. Even a good clear photo would reveal the truth.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Neighbors did hear metal banging. More than likely this was Patsy's softball bat being thrown outside.
cottonstar
cottonstar
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
One of the problems with DocG's window theory is that he relies on JR gaslighting Patsy into falsely remembering doing something that never happened. While this is possible in theory, the devil is in the details.
Patsy could not have helped LHP clean up the glass until she (PR) and the kids returned from vacationing in MI (duh). We don't know the exact date of their return (well, at least I don't) but it's a cinch it was before labor day so the kids wouldn't miss the first day of school.
The glass was supposedly broken anytime from June to July. So, if it really happened (I don't think so) then the glass lay on the floor for anywhere from a few weeks to several weeks. This would have caused irritation for Patsy. Why should she have to come home from vacation and do a job that the housekeeper should have done weeks prior? So if Patsy is having a false memory event she's having it w/o the attendant memory of irritation one would expect had the event actually happened.
IOWs gaslighting is possible but in this instance pretty unlikely given it would be a highly memorable event, not a vague memory. JR would have needed to not only gaslight her about cleaning up the glass, but would have had to gaslight her about the irritation she felt having to do the housekeeper's job immediately upon return from vacation. Patsy says nothing in her police interviews about being put out with Linda for leaving the job for her to do when she got home.
Doc originally had a different explanation of Patsy innocently backing JR's story. That explanation didn't stand up to examination. He then concocted the gaslighting theory. The advantage of the gaslighting theory is that it can't actually be disproven. Many of his readers accept it uncritically. Doc's solution for the case depends very much on Patsy being not only innocent but completely naive. Gaslighting, if one accepts it, maintains a theory he'd already put a lot of very good analysis into. If one doesn't accept gaslighting, then Patsy surely knows the window wasn't broken before the night of the murder. Why she's supporting JR's story is an open question, depending on who you think killed JBR. Rejecting gaslighting would force Doc to rework at least some parts of his overall theory of the case.
I should mention that I think Doc has done a lot of excellent analysis on the case. But I think his gaslighting theory is weak and improbable. The whole event JR describes (JR opening the grate, jumping down, kicking out the window......) is improbable and that the glass lay on the floor for weeks despite the family having a housekeeper is improbable. It would strike Patsy as improbable as well, and thus the gaslighting fails, imo. IOWs that which tends to indicate JR is lying also tends to make gaslightinng improbable, imo.
Again the real benefit for Doc is that gaslighting cannot be disproven. It's not falsifiable.
Another problem with Doc's window theory is that he maintains that the window wasn't sufficiently staged to be believeable as an entry point. I don't think that's really true, but even if I accept that part, I've never been convinced it wouldn't be faster and easier to complete the necessary staging than to pick up the glass. And then of course he has to make the glass disappear which means either he flushed it (risking the noise of flushing the toilet in the basement) or in Doc's theory, he's running around outdoors placing glass in neighbor's trash can risking being spotted.
Dynamic88,
I reckon you are right and DocG has it all wrong. DocG's theory has far to many ad hoc assumptions, and the broken window along with Patsy's acceptance, i.e. in either instance, is unfeasible.
Another of DocG's ad hoc explanations is that JR and PR communicate via telepathy, and at every critical point, either JR or PR read the others mind and do or say the right thing?
Here is a counter-example: The original Ramsey version of events had the parents dialing 911 while BR slept soundly in his bed. The R's maintained this for a while until the 911 tape was released and people thought they heard BR's voice, then the R's changed their story and said BR was wide awake?
This means all three R's knew what was going on at that point in time. Next one or both parents directed BR to fake being asleep when law officers came into his room.
You can conclude JR and PR colluded along with BR to stage a postmortem crime-scene that included a 911 call.
So far from either PR or JR, depending on your favorite theory, not knowing anything, both parents knowingly contrived the 911 call scenario, along with making sure BR knew what his role was.
It appeared as if the GJ did not think the case was either JDI or PDI, since there were no murder one indictments for the parents, so who does that leave?
Arthur Conan Doyle
That's why I think the case is BDI.
.
Doc's gaslighting is the 'god of the gaps' in his theory. Wherever there are huge logical holes in his theory he just inserts gaslighting. I did share his analysis of John's statements regarding the basement window because I do believe it to be a fantastic contribution to the overall study of the case.
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 556
You're just going to keep ignoring the fact that a count I exists, aren't you?
There were 9 Counts for each parent. Correct? And from what I understand, only copies of those Counts which were signed were released. So Count 1, being not signed, is meaningless.
PR sure had a great story about picking up all that glass. "Chunks", she said, I mean "glass was everywhere" and we wanted to be real sure it was all up because the kids play down there. And LHP vacuumed and we got it all up. You would think this was a huge break, not the tiny one we see in one small pane of glass. Always dramatic, always the extremely safety conscious mother.
But not enough to replace the glass pane, just leave the jagged edged, broken window there, right where the kids play.
So over the top.
But not enough to replace the glass pane, just leave the jagged edged, broken window there, right where the kids play.
So over the top.
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 556
The only reason why count I for John and Patsy wasn't signed was because neither one received the required nine votes. (The same also applies to counts II, III, IV, IVb, V, and VI.) Count I for John and/or Patsy could have received up to eight votes.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
"In the end, we can say the Grand Jury saw far beyond probable cause. Rather than one indictment they issued four, and two of those indictments included a reference to knowing a third person had committed murder, as well as knowing that that third person was also a child abuser. Even though they acknowledged a murder had occurred, and appeared to suspect who it was, the Grand Jury nevertheless(correctly in my view)didn't accuse the parents of First Degree murder, but as accessories after the fact."
cottonstar
cottonstar
BoldBear
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 181
Out of curiosity, would the cross finger pointing argument still apply? If the GJ believed that one of the parents may have murdered their daughter and the other one's covering it up, would they have come to the same conclusion hoping that a trial would flush-out what parent committed the murder?
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
I think they would have voted to indict them for murder, as well as accessories if that were the case.
cottonstar
cottonstar
The Grand Jury counts are interesting in that people seem to infer BDI from the charges, but it's important to place them in the context of when they were made. The Ramseys were preparing for Patsy to be indicted and the crux of LE's case centered around PDI. LHP said after she testified she felt certain they were looking at Patsy due to the direction the GJ investigation was taking. Most people working on the case at the time didn't consider Burke a suspect -- BDI was tabloid fodder at this juncture. I think there is something to the argument that the charges were written in a manner that left both parents open to being charged with her murder. The juror who spoke out on 20/20 under a condition of anonymity said they didn't know which person did what (just like the rest of us!). While it's possible the counts mean BDI it's also likely that the GJ felt one parent may have abused/killed her and the other knew about it and helped cover it up.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Perhaps, your right. But, I do believe since Burke was a minor, and under the age of 10, which means Colorado legally speaking considered him an infant, is the reason for the the third person not being named. It may have also been part/most of the reason Hunter didn't sign the true bills. Could you imagine the media **** storm it would have been putting on a trial, trying to prove a 9-yr old killed JonBenet? I think Burke is the reason for the ultra secrecy surrounding this case. Ever since we found out 4 years ago that the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramsey's as accessories to the murder, there has been this slow and steady tilt towards BDI. I believe it's because people are starting to talk and tip off the right people. There is more circumstantial evidence in my opinion that points to Burke.
cottonstar
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Also, if you believe what is transcribed on the enhanced 911 call, you have to ask yourself this question. When John authoritatively barks at Burke when he says "We're not speaking to you" with an obvious parent-child angry tone, why would there be such contempt for Burke? The statement is full of venom. Why would there be any anger or contempt for Burke if it was PDI?
In my opinion there wouldn't be. It would be the exact opposite in my view.
cottonstar
In my opinion there wouldn't be. It would be the exact opposite in my view.
cottonstar