Paradise Lost

"Something old; something new; something borrowed and blue":

The parents--"Your daddy's rich and your ma is good lookin'." No history of criminality or abusiveness toward the children or each other. No history of psychological problems. Normally loving, nurturing and caring. Lots of friends. Respected in the community. Socially and financially successful. Ambitious. Generous. God-fearing. High profile.

The pre-murder publicity--JonBenet, a "pedophile's dream", was crowned Little Miss Colorado in 1995 and Colorado's Little Miss Christmas in Dec. of 1996. She appeared in a December child beauty pageant at Boulder's Southwest Plaza Mall. She appeared in Boulder's Dec. 6 Lights of December parade at Boulder Mall where her presence was trumpeted by a Little Miss Colorado float and signs on the side of the car in which she rode and waved to paradophiles along the route. She participated in (was the star of) an all-day Rock Around the Clock performance at her school, High Peaks Elementary on Dec. 20.

At a Dec. 13 party at the Ramsey Home, 150 friends from Church were in attendance. A Christmas party for friends was held at the home on Dec. 23. Several friends and their relatives were in attendance, including McSanta and wife. Santa (Bill McReynolds) is dead. God rest his soul.

At a Christmas party on Dec. 20, at a local hotel, John Ramsey praised the approximately 300 Access Graphics employees in attendance, for their part in attaining a $1 billion mark in sales that year. The next day, a local newspaper, the Daily Camera, reported the financial success of the Ramsey family. The family's residential phone number and address was listed in the phone directory.

Prior to December of 1996, the Ramseys had participated in open house tours which allowed several strangers to enter their home, roam around, and view their private areas. A command center for one of these open house tours was set up in the basement.

Suspicious vehicles--A suspicious blue van had been reported parked across the street from the Ramseys' residence at 755 15th Street, on Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar (vehicle) had been seen by a friend attending a nearby Christmas party on Dec. 25.

Secret visit--JonBenet told Megan Kostanik and her mother, Barbara, in a conversation on Dec. 25, that Santa was coming to visit her after Christmas, and it was a secret. When questioned by Barbara, an engineer, who wondered if JonBenet was confused about the date of the expected visit (Santa's coming tonight), JonBenet repeated her expectation: he's coming after Christmas and it's a secret.

Snow cover--Much of the perimeter of the house, including the walkways, were free of snow in photos taken before 9 AM, Dec. 26. Per Lou Smit, you can't make tracks in what isn't there.

Means of ingress--A broken basement window had been found open that morning. The window had no alarm sticker. The grate over the window well had been moved.

Other evidence suggesting intrusion--Leaves and debris, similar to that in the window well, were observed on the basement floor under the broken window. There was contrast between the window well debris--to the left and right, and the debris toward the center, which was minimal.

There were smudge/wipe marks on the sill in front of the center window, which could have been caused by someone sliding in. There was a raised section of the center sill that could account for why the sill hadn't been wiped clean during the entry process. There was a shard of glass on the sill that had been recently bumped.

Grime on the window glass and frame had recently been disturbed, maybe by someone who had pushed against the window to open it.

There was a scuff mark on the wall below the window. There were no cobwebs hanging from the bottom of the window. There were no photographs of cobwebs attached to the grate. Per Lou Smit, even if there had been cobwebs attached, where one officer said one had been, entry could have been made without disturbing it.

Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the wine cellar, including a fall leaf, like those in the window well, next to a fresh bootprint, and a foam peanut, despite that the wine cellar was over 60 feet away. When Smit entered through the window, a foam peanut clung to his clothing.

A blue, hard-sided suitcase was found positioned against the wall under the window. The suitcase would make it easier to get out; an experiment demonstrated this.

The suitcase was normally kept elsewhere in the basement room, and the lack of dust and debris on the suitcase suggested it had been placed against the wall recently. A pea-sized shard of glass on top of the suitcase could have been transferred there by a boot when someone stepped onto the suitcase.

Many significant hairs and fibers at the crime scene have not been sourced to either John or Patsy Ramsey or to clothing items, etc., in the house. CBI analysts determined that fibers from the pillow sham and comforter found in the suitcase, were found on JB's shirt, on her vaginal area, on the duct tape, on her hand, on the hand ligature and inside the body bag. The FBI analysts said these fibers hadn't come from the items in the suitcase, but could not be sourced to anything in the house.

A hair, possibly a pubic hair from a caucasian male, was found on the blanket which had covered JonBenet. This hair has not been sourced to John. Light brown cotton fibers were found on wood splinters from the broken paintbrush, the duct tape, the nylon cord and on JB's body. These have not been sourced to the house. Per Lou Smit, the killer may have worn gloves.

Red fibers, similar to those from Patsy's clothing, which was constructed of both red and black fibers, were found on the duct tape. Lou Smit asks, why no black fibers? Similar red (only) fibers were found entwined in the knot at the stick.

Smit says he has more hair and fiber clues which he will not share with the public for fear that in so doing, the perpetrator will be alterted.

Stun gun--some believe a stun gun was used on JonBenet; hence, the mystery marks on her face, back, and leg.

There were unknown shoe prints and boot prints in the fresh, fast growing mold in the wine cellar. There was a small foot print which was about the size of a six-yr-old girl child; it might have been JonBenet's.

A neighbor reported hearing a scream around midnight; her husband reported subsequently hearing what he thought might have been steel scraping against concrete.

There is, according to Smit, evidence that the garrote was made in the basement and applied there.

Smit said the knot-tying took special knowledge. The stick handle was like that of a lawn mover engine starter. Smit says someone knew exactly what he was doing and had probably done something like it before.

On the chin of JonBenet was found a "strip" of green paint which had come from the contents of the paint tray found next to the wine cellar door. A fiber was also found on her chin that had apparently come from the carpet outside the room where she was found.

Smit theorizes that the garrote was constructed on JonBenet while she lay on the carpet next to the door of the wine cellar.

Dark animal hairs (brown and black from Thomas depo.) were found on the duct tape and on JonBenet's hands. A hair from a beaver was found on the duct tape. The victim's injuries were all made while she was alive, according to Smit. This is not a kid knocked out and her death staged, nor near death when the ligature is applied; she is fighting to stay alive, says Smit, as evidenced by the fingernail marks and other injuries on her neck. The deep ligature marks indicate brutal strangulation, says Smit.

Something, possibly the end of the broken paintbrush was forced into JonBenet's vagina, leaving a cellulose fragment similar to the cellulose of the wood which comprised the paintbrush handle. The head blow was a coup de grace, says Smit.

The butler pantry door was found ajar by a friend who arrived shortly after 6 AM. Two baseball bats were found, one outside in an area where the children seldom played; it had a fiber on it consistent with fibers from the basement carpet. Its ownership has never been established.

A heavy police-style maglite flashlight was found on the kitchen counter. It's ownership has never been established. There was no sign of struggle in JonBenet's bedroom. The dust ruffle on the bed in JAR's room had been disturbed. The remainder of the ruffle was neatly tucked in.

The missing piece of paintbrush has never been found on the premises, nor has any similar cord, nor duct tape, nor stun gun. The missing pages from the notebook haven't been found. The slip-knots are consistent with a bondage fantasy, says Smit. Smit says staging is rare and only performed on dead victims. He has seen only one or two cases, in his entire long career, where a gun is placed in the dead victim's hand, e.g.

Smit doesn't believe the note could have been written by either parent after having just killed their child. He says it must be taken seriously unless and until there is proof to the contrary.

You can read about Smit's theory at:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

"Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth"....

with all due respect, i think you bring up some very significant facets of the case. however, virtually all of your analysis of the evidence comes from lou smit. personally, i am very open-ended on everyone and anyone's analysis, but i think that many people dismiss smit as a ramsey proponent. i don't personally feel this way, but i also don't feel that to imply a particular theory while, for the most part, using all of smit's theory, and not incorporating any of the other detectives' and police officers' observations, which were taken firsthand, well before such public opinion had weighed in on the matter, is a fair assessment.

just my $.02

Does anyone know whether a theory has been put forth regarding the beaver hair that was with the body? Is this an undisputed fact? How exactly was it determined that said hair once belonged to a beaver?

This has always puzzled me.

Voice of Reason said:

with all due respect, i think you bring up some very significant facets of the case. however, virtually all of your analysis of the evidence comes from lou smit. personally, i am very open-ended on everyone and anyone's analysis, but i think that many people dismiss smit as a ramsey proponent. i don't personally feel this way, but i also don't feel that to imply a particular theory while, for the most part, using all of smit's theory, and not incorporating any of the other detectives' and police officers' observations, which were taken firsthand, well before such public opinion had weighed in on the matter, is a fair assessment.

Click to expand...

Smit-filled my foot! Listen carefully!

This thread isn't soley about Smit's opinion. Also this thread is NOT my analysis of the evidence. This thread contains a little of Smit's analysis and mostly facts. Why should I incorporate the work of other dectectives in my opening remarks? That's for you and others to do; those who find fault with the intruder theory. If I were to post an intruder theory in the moderator's thread, I wouldn't be wishy-washy, now would I? You wouldn't be either with your BDI, or PDI or JDI. You can't have your cake and eat it too, eh. There are plenty of other threads that draw from the work of other detectives, eh? Fair and balanced. Leaving out Smit's analysis isn't fair either, now is it. He was/is by far the most experienced detective on the case. Most folks engage in Smit bashing because they're convinced there was no intruder. It's the age-old, time-honored method--if you don't like the message, kill the messenger. heh heh

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

As for taking whacks at my list of evidence, have at it. I'm anxious to be shown where it is wrong and where it is not. I'm here to find the truth, not to tout one theory or another. G'day!

a few things here...first of all, i did not in any way suggest that anything you said is unfair or untrue. i also did not express any personal distaste for smit's point of view. finally, i never suggested my own theory, which, if you must know, is not PDI, BDI, or JDI.

my only point, was that if you are going to promote ANY theory, you should incorporate ALL the evidence from ALL the people involved. otherwise, it looks biased. you can certainly support an intruder theory with evidence other than smit's, and for the doubters of an intruder theory out there, arguments seems more plausible when they're not filled with smit observations...

Voice of Reason said:

a few things here...first of all, i did not in any way suggest that anything you said is unfair or untrue. i also did not express any personal distaste for smit's point of view. finally, i never suggested my own theory, which, if you must know, is not PDI, BDI, or JDI.

my only point, was that if you are going to promote ANY theory, you should incorporate ALL the evidence from ALL the people involved. otherwise, it looks biased. you can certainly support an intruder theory with evidence other than smit's, and for the doubters of an intruder theory out there, arguments seems more plausible when they're not filled with smit observations...

Click to expand...

Voice, why don't you comment on the information that I've provided, rather than suggesting what I should or shouldn't include. I think that's the rules we're supposed to be operating under. Find fault with the facts and analysis, if you must. Leave off criticizing the poster for his approach to the topic.

You've made two posts now, and you've yet to include any refutation of the facts or analysis. What you have done is accuse me of relying too heavily on Smit's analysis. I think I answered that criticism in my previous post, though I shouldn't have had too. Stick to the responding to the facts and the analysis and you'll be glad you did. Let your refutations be your contribution. Let your affirmations be your contribution. Don't be criticizing the poster's approach. That gets us nowhere. So let's see your support of the intruder theory with evidence other than Smit's, since you said such support is possible.

Fair enough?

Red, some of your evidence cuts more than one way. That the house had been full of friends and strangers means people other than the Rs were familiar with the layout. But the fact that the house was the "Grand Central Station" of Boulder can also serve to explain the apparent profusion of non-Ramsey artifacts, including foot prints and fibers. (This confusion may make it impossible to ever prosecute an R or anyone for the crime, but I assume we are concerned with actual guilt or innocence here, not what is legally provable in a court of law.)

Some of the Smit-sourced items depend entirely on Smit's subjective interpretation of the evidence. I'm no Smit-basher either and certainly his experence commands respect. But respect is not the same as believing him to be omniscient. I don't know why we should accept as factual his highly subjective opinions, derived largely from photos and his brief personal experience with the Rs, on whether the Rs were capable of fashioning the so-called garrotte or penning the RN after the death of JBR.

Other items - wasn't it JR who reported that one baseball bat was found where the children seldome played? - depend in whole or in part on the corroborating testimony of the Rs themselves. Whether JR and/or PR are guilty and lying to cover themselves, or whether JR and PR are wholly innocent and believe themselves the victims of an LE and media "rush to judgment" (as DOI and other remarks suggest), neither has much incentive to be candid. In fact, I think there's significant evidence they have not been candid. (Again, if they were not involved in the death or cover-up, they may have perfectly understandable reasons to dissemble.) "The pageants were just a few afternoons."

"But respect is not the same as believing him to be omniscient." Yes, "teach", I agree wholeheartedly and I'm not aware that I or anyone on this forum has said they consider Smit omniscient. Are you aware of such blind respect on the part of any poster on this forum?

"Red, some of your evidence cuts more than one way." Yes, it certainly does; I'm well aware of that. Which evidence in particular do you think cuts both ways, other than that which you've addressed in your post above?

I'm well aware of what folks think of the Ramseys' testimony; but thanks for reminding me.

Now as to this "profusion" of non-Ramsey artifacts; would you be so kind as to elaborate? I agree that some of these artifacts are not sterling evidence of an intruder; nor are they sterling evidence of Ramsey participation in the crime. They are, in a word, equivocal.

"Grand Central Station of Boulder"? I think that may be a slight exaggeration? As you so aptly pointed out in an earlier post, we are not jurors, but speculators.

"...highly subjective opinions... and his brief personal experience with the R's..." Yes, and his opinions are those of an experienced homicide investigator whether subjective or not, and his brief experience with the R's is infinitely more experience with the R's than you or I have, right? But, nevertheless, I tend to agree with you about his assessment of the note writer, though I don't really have a clearly formed reason for doing so--just gut, I guess...and lack of experience. I don't think they, nor any parent, after having just killed their child, could write the note. That's a high hurdle for me to jump. But, you never know.

Yes, Ramsey behavior is suspicious, but let's stick to the evidence that I've presented if we might. Let's debate that. We can debate Ramsey behavior on another thread. Now, precisely what are these "Smit-sourced" items of evidence that you refer to?

For the sake of a proper discussion of the evidence, let's leave aside an opinion of the one who proffers it, OK. Let's discuss what has been proferred on it's own merit. Let's don't try to defeat the proffer by killing the proferrer (to coin a word), OK. Personally, I think Smit's been bashed enough; I have been among the bashers. But, it's not Smit bashing that this thread was meant to deal with, nor it it his high subjectivity. Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

If there is a supposed fact that I've presented that you don't agree with, please be so kind as to point it out, so we can hurriedly eliminate it.

For example, JonBenet wasn't crowned Little Miss Colorado of 1995. Scratch that off. There was no disturbance of window well debris at the center window. Scratch that off. And so on.

Just for the record (though I'm violating the spirit of the thread and should be severely punished), what do you think is Smit's agenda? Wouldn't that make a nice thread all its own! Start one, will you.

Now, this Mr. Steve Thomas, I had high hopes for him. He didn't exactly pan out. Shucks, here I go polluting the thread again. Why wasn't he called to testify before the Grand Jury? Another great idea for a thread?

Thank you for your thoughtful and provocative response.

I'm not sure of RedChief's intent in this thread, but if it was supposed to be a recap of known and undisputed evidence, which it implies, then it is misleading.

I fully agree with Voice of Reason that RedChief's thread starter is taken primarily from Lou Smit's tortured views of the evidence. There's at least a dozen items in RC's piece that appear to be listed as facts, but are seriously disputed. For instance:

SNOW: Lou Smit, viewing photos "taken before 9 AM" but in which the shadows in the photos show the sun was overhead and therefore probably taken around noon when the temperature had risen into the 50's, and thus melted the dusting of snow, says "You can't make tracks in snow that wasn't there". But no mention of Sgt. Paul Reichenbach's written report that when he arrived at 6 AM the air temperature was 10 degrees and there was a light covering of fresh snow on the grass, covering old patches of thick snow, and there were no footprints in the snow; and

GRATE: "The grate had been moved". But Smit had no evidence of that. The unbroken Agelendidae species spiderweb, studied by a scientist, was evidence the grate HAD NOT been moved; and

FLASHLIGHT: Smit says ownership of the flashlight on the kitchen counter was never established, trying to make it appear it was left behind by an intruder. But that's incorrect. The light belonged to the Ramseys, and this was established in the interviews when it was revealed the photo of the flashlight viewed by the Ramseys was taken after the light had gone through laboratory chemical tests that changed its exterior surface appearance. That's the only reason why the Ramseys questioned the flashlight shown in the photo. It belonged to the Ramseys.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

I'm not sure of RedChief's intent in this thread, but if it was supposed to be a recap of known and undisputed evidence, which it implies, then it is misleading.

I fully agree with Voice of Reason that RedChief's thread starter is taken primarily from Lou Smit's tortured views of the evidence. There's at least a dozen items in RC's piece that appear to be listed as facts, but are seriously disputed. For instance:

SNOW: Lou Smit, viewing photos "taken before 9 AM" but in which the shadows in the photos show the sun was overhead and therefore probably taken around noon when the temperature had risen into the 50's, and thus melted the dusting of snow, says "You can't make tracks in snow that wasn't there". But no mention of Sgt. Paul Reichenbach's written report that when he arrived at 6 AM the air temperature was 10 degrees and there was a light covering of fresh snow on the grass, covering old patches of thick snow, and there were no footprints in the snow; and

GRATE: "The grate had been moved". But Smit had no evidence of that. The unbroken Agelendidae species spiderweb, studied by a scientist, was evidence the grate HAD NOT been moved; and

FLASHLIGHT: Smit says ownership of the flashlight on the kitchen counter was never established, trying to make it appear it was left behind by an intruder. But that's incorrect. The light belonged to the Ramseys, and this was established in the interviews when it was revealed the photo of the flashlight viewed by the Ramseys was taken after the light had gone through laboratory chemical tests that changed its exterior surface appearance. That's the only reason why the Ramseys questioned the flashlight shown in the photo. It belonged to the Ramseys.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

"Known and undisputed"? I didn't say that. I think we all know that anything Smit says is roundly disputed by the BDIers and the PDIers and the JDIers.

It would be important to know what a poster's intent was in order to decide how to respond, right? Everyone knows that we all have ulterior motives for what we say. Everyone knows we all have agendas. Everyone knows that we are advocates for one theory or another.

"There's at least a dozen items in RC's piece..." "...Lou Smit's tortured views of the evidence." Here we are again, bashing Lou Smit. This is the best refutation you can come up with, BC? It's not a refutation at all, sorry.

Now Lou Smit, he's a liar, he's a liar, he's a liar. How many times have we heard that refrain? Refute the evidence. Refute the analysis. Don't bash the detective, OK?

It's interesting that you've chosen two of the most talked about and least resolvable issues--the "no footprints" and the "grate hadn't been moved", but both of these issues have been refuted over and over again by those who objectively say it's possible that someone could have been on the premises that night/morning without leaving footprints (or bicycle tracks?), and there is evidence to suggest that the grate HAD been moved--the crushed vegetation under the edges of the grate. Obviously neither of these issues has been definitively decided, so there is still controversy surrounding them. Now, if Thomas had opined that the grate had been moved, instead of Smit, you wouldnt be contesting this issue, right? Let's leave aside whose opinion it is and look at what they claim is evidence pro or con and make our analyses and render our opinions based on that. "The grate had been moved." "But Smit had no evidence of that." Not true, he did see what he thought was evidence that the grate had been moved. We all know this. Don't be misleading. BTW, do you think Smit, a long-time resident of the area, might not be totally ignorant of weather issues? Let's get off Smit and get onto the evidence.

I'm sure Voice of Reason appreciates your pat on the back--your seal of approval.

The flashlight: The ownership of the flashlight hasn't been established. That's a fact. It may have belonged to a police officer who was there that morning/day and is reluctant to admit that he left it there. It may belong to the Ramseys. It may belong to the intruder. Its ownership hasn't been established, except in the minds of a few posters, who insist it belongs to the Ramseys, for no good reason.

Next.....

now for the 3rd time, i will reiterate, i didn't post in this thread to dismiss your evidence. i think it is all legitimate. i just think that as it stands alone, it reeks of bias.

allow me to elaborate on how, if you choose to look at this case, or even smit's evidence, in a different light, this all shows something quite different than what you seem to suggest...

"The family's residential phone number and address was listed in the phone directory."
-most people's name and number are in the directory. i guess if nicole simpson's address were in the directory, we could be sure that OJ was innocent, eh?

"Suspicious vehicles--A suspicious blue van had been reported parked across the street from the Ramseys' residence at 755 15th Street, on Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar (vehicle) had been seen by a friend attending a nearby Christmas party on Dec. 25."
-with all due respect, i find this tidbit of info useless. i can't imagine what unknown cars would be doing in the neighborhood over xmas!

"Snow cover--Much of the perimeter of the house, including the walkways, were free of snow in photos taken before 9 AM, Dec. 26. Per Lou Smit, you can't make tracks in what isn't there."
-i think bluecrab spoke quite nicely in addressing this, but if i may expand on that...before the body was found, and everything was a bit more "logical", if you will, why would a police officer make something like this up?

"Means of ingress--A broken basement window had been found open that morning. The window had no alarm sticker. The grate over the window well had been moved."
-JR has left open the possibility that he broke the window much earlier in time. the window was not discoverable from any public area on the street, so to suggest it was broken to obtain entry by an intruder is wrong. it is possible that he knew it was broken, and entered through it, but the grate being moved is far from an undisputed fact.

"Other evidence suggesting intrusion--Leaves and debris, similar to that in the window well, were observed on the basement floor under the broken window."
-well if the window was open and broken, doesn't the wind blow?

"There was a shard of glass on the sill that had been recently bumped."
-JR had been to the basement earlier in the morning and noticed the window, correct? he said he closed it. that could have very easily put that piece of glass there.

"A blue, hard-sided suitcase was found positioned against the wall under the window. The suitcase would make it easier to get out; an experiment demonstrated this."
-if you are of the "a ramsey did it" camp, this is just as easily all a part of the staging.

"A hair, possibly a pubic hair from a caucasian male, was found on the blanket which had covered JonBenet. This hair has not been sourced to John. Light brown cotton fibers were found on wood splinters from the broken paintbrush, the duct tape, the nylon cord and on JB's body. These have not been sourced to the house. Per Lou Smit, the killer may have worn gloves."
-we're all aware of the number of people who come and go at the ramsey household. regardless of who the perp is, i would find it very strange if EVERY SINGLE FIBER in the vicinity of JBR would be sourced to the perp.

"Smit says he has more hair and fiber clues which he will not share with the public for fear that in so doing, the perpetrator will be alterted."
-brilliant! i'm convinced!

"Stun gun--some believe a stun gun was used on JonBenet; hence, the mystery marks on her face, back, and leg."
-some very reputable people have also taken great issue with this suggestion. it seems a rather difficult issue to tackle, since nothing can be done scientifically at this point to prove 100% either perspective.

"A neighbor reported hearing a scream around midnight; her husband reported subsequently hearing what he thought might have been steel scraping against concrete."
-i think the scream is a bit more solid than the "steel against concrete" claim, but it still gets us nowhere. JBR was murdered. she screamed. that no more suggests PDI than it does you or I did it. however, if her mouth was taped with duct tape when she was found, might a scream suggest the duct tape was staging?

"There is, according to Smit, evidence that the garrote was made in the basement and applied there."
-and how does this suggest an intruder? if he could prove it was made elsewhere, than you could eliminate a ramsey. this does absolutely nothing.

"Smit said the knot-tying took special knowledge. The stick handle was like that of a lawn mover engine starter. Smit says someone knew exactly what he was doing and had probably done something like it before."
-JR was in the navy. BR was in the boyscouts. in both places, people learn how to tie knots. a better question on the garrotte, which i haven't seen asked, is why were both ends of the paintbrush broken off? the garrotte would be equally effective had the paintbrush remained intact. but then it would be immediately sourced to the ramseys. anyone discuss that before?

"This is not a kid knocked out and her death staged, nor near death when the ligature is applied; she is fighting to stay alive, says Smit, as evidenced by the fingernail marks and other injuries on her neck. The deep ligature marks indicate brutal strangulation, says Smit."
-i think smit may be alone on this one. all medical evidence i've read states that either the strangulation or blow to the head could have been fatal, and it is unsure which came first, and which did the job. whether a ramsey did it or an intruder, i don't doubt that JBR struggled. she certainly would have struggled against a sexual assault. again, this is evidence that does nothing to suggest a perp.

"The missing piece of paintbrush has never been found on the premises, nor has any similar cord, nor duct tape, nor stun gun. The missing pages from the notebook haven't been found."
-just for argument's sake, let's assume that a ramsey did this, and tried to cover it up. why is it so outlandish to figure that they were able to hide evidence? police arrived at 6 in the morning. it wasn't a murder investigation until 1pm. detectives admit that JR was not in their site at all times, and burke left the house permanently during the morning.

"Smit doesn't believe the note could have been written by either parent after having just killed their child. He says it must be taken seriously unless and until there is proof to the contrary."
-first of all, this is weak. anyone who is capable of killing a 6-year old child so brutally, is certainly capable of writing a note afterwards. besides, the whole accident turned cover-up theory is not the only way that the ramsey's could have done this. perhaps, they are sick people, and they killed their daughter in cold blood. could the whole thing have been planned and the note written earlier?

finally, i think the note is an excellent place to start this investigation. someone mentioned on another thread a point i found to be quite telling. let's assume PR wrote the note. numerous experts have stated that she cannot be eliminated as the writer, but doubters are always quick to point out that there are many reasons she could not be the writer. however, the main point is that the handwriting was DISGUISED! it's not supposed to look exactly like the author's writing.

for me, one of the most telling clues that patsy wrote it, is the fact that she used those fancy a's, and when she gave a handwriting sample, she NEVER used a fancy a. however, all of her previous handwriting was found, and it was much more telling than her "test."

in conclusion, let me just say, that this case is one big mystery! there is no secret piece of evidence, or obvious answer. this happened over 8 years ago, and we're still here, not just analyzing evidence, but actually debating its existence! i do not want to give off the impression that i am implicating anyone in this message. i am just responding to your original post, which, IMO, slanted the evidence to hard in an unfair way. you asked me to show flaws, and that's what i did. i'm just trying to be objective, because if anyone ever is charged, that is what a jury must do...

also, if a ramsey did this and staged it, or an intruder did this, both could leave the evidence in a very similar fashion.

Is all that comes to mind............. :liar:

RiverRat said:

Is all that comes to mind............. :liar:

Click to expand...

Are you capable of elaborating?

"...it reeks of bias." What a wonderful constructive criticism. Of course, it's biased. Now, for the third time, it presents a list of evidence that is suggestive of and compatible with an intruder. It's not a list of evidence supporting RDI, for example. Those RDI lists have occurred in other threads and have also been biased, understandably in favor of the theory which they are offered to substantiate. It's your job to refute the items in the list I've provided; i.e., to show that they aren't supportive of intrusion, after which you can hop on over to Burke Did It and show why the evidence presented there is flawed. That's the way it works.

About your response to the phone number: You've examined this information out of context. It was supplied to show that someone who had become aware of the Ramsey's wealth and/or of their child pageant queen daughter, could easily locate them by looking up their address in the phone book. Some folks do have unlisted numbers, you know. That is often true of the wealthy. So, you're comparing apples to oranges with the OJ thingy.

"Suspicious vehicles--A suspicious blue van had been reported parked across the street from the Ramseys' residence at 755 15th Street, on Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar (vehicle) had been seen by a friend attending a nearby Christmas party on Dec. 25."
-with all due respect, i find this tidbit of info useless. i can't imagine what unknown cars would be doing in the neighborhood over xmas!

I have to admit that the suspicious vehicle item is a bit flimsy on the surface. However, if none of the neighbors recognized the vehicles then maybe their presence was cause for suspicion. I assume these reports filtered in after the homicide. Police often do ask people living in the area of a crime what unfamiliar vehicles, if any, they may have seen. Someone living nearby may have seen the vehicle and wondered what it was doing there.

I wouldn't think an officer would make up any of his testimony, and that was not the implication. The officer probably correctly reported that he saw no tracks in whatever snow and/or frost he may have encountered. Smit's point was that you can't make tracks in what isn't there. We have all heard the reports that at varioius places around the house there was little, if any, snow and the driveways and walkways were clear of snow. So, you believe whom you want to believe, and you interpret how you want to interpret to suit your own theory. I would think the area adjacent to the window well would be critically important as regards whether there was snow or frost there when the officer investigated. There is also the possibility that the intruder entered and left BEFORE any snow or frost occurred. Keep an open mind.

I don't see how to suggest (if that were the case) that the window had been broken to gain entry would have anything to do with whether it was discoverable from any public area on the street. This is a non-sequitur. Also, I didn't say that the intruder had broken the window; I mentioned the broken window to distinguish it from other windows; i.e., THE broken basement window. That John says he broke it has nothing to do with whether it had been open or closed when the intruder got there, nor whether the intruder went through it or not. What it does show is that the intruder COULD have entered (and exited) the house through the window. It doesn't demand it; it makes it possible. The grate being moved is a disputed fact, yes. So? Aren't most of the "facts" disputed?

The debris on the floor in the basement under the window might have been deposited by the wind; it also might have been deposited by the movement of the intruder through the window. Two alternative explanations. Also, there were no leaves and debris on the suitcase. So, for your explanation to work would require that the suitcase had been moved into its location against the wall AFTER the leaves and debris had been deposited. This would be consistent with the intruder having first entered through the window, then exited through it with the assistance of the suitcase. So, the intruder isn't ruled out. Further these items of evidence, as Smit and others, including Ainsworth, see them (let's bash Ainsworth) aren't to be viewed in a vacuum. Look at them from the perpective of all the evidence together.

John did say that he "sort of" closed the window (whatever that means), but he didn't mention moving a shard of glass. Whether the shard of glass was in a place where it could have been moved by closing the window is something I don't know. I assume Smit does though.

The suitcase could certainly be part of Ramsey staging; however, John did admit to breaking the window some months earlier. He sure passed up a good chance to blame the broken window on an intruder, didn't he.


I agree that it would be unlikely that EVERY SINGLE FIBER in the vicinity of JonBenet would be sourced to a perp, intruder or otherwise, but the fibers and hairs, etc., in question are all right there ON the body and/or the clothing. Quite a coincidence, eh.

Oh, so the officer wouldn't lie, but Smit would? I'm just as exhilarated as you are. I don't think Smit gains much credibility by making a statement like this, about having evidence that he hasn't revealed, although he may be telling the truth.

The stun gun hypothesis is not hugely popular; I, for one, have my doubts.


The scream is more solid that the steel against concrete? How so? The steel against concrete is more solid than the scream for the simple reason that when the husband heard it he was wide awake, and when the wife heard the scream, she was awakened by it. How often is it the case that when you are awakened by a sound, you are able to identify the sound? Usually all you know is that you are awake and something has awakened you, but what? The duct tape over the mouth, in conjunction with the scream, might indicate staging, but it might also be the case that the perp replaced the tape after it had become detached, as a precaution, to prevent further screaming, and before he clubbed her or strangled her.

"There is, according to Smit, evidence that the garrote was made in the basement and applied there."
-and how does this suggest an intruder? if he could prove it was made elsewhere, than you could eliminate a ramsey. this does absolutely nothing.

That Smit thinks the garrote was made and applied in the basement, doesn't necessarily suggest an intruder, but I found it interesting. I had previously thought that JB had been bound, and possibly garroted in her bedroom. Once he gets into the house, anything the intruder does could also be done by a Ramsey, unless the trace evidence suggests otherwise. And what about that pesky male DNA in her panties.

The knot-tying hypothesis isn't especially convincing; however Lou Smit was in a position to closely examine the knots; we aren't. That the paintbrush handle was broken twice, producing three segments, has been debated ad nauseum. There as many theories about this as there are posters. The stick would be eventually sourced to the Ramseys, even if not immediately, don'tcha think. Boy, for an experienced homicide investigator, Smit is sure easily fooled by the evidence, isn't he!

The fingernail marks, etc., on her neck and the ligatures do nothing to suggest a perp? You think JBR strangled herself?

Ah, yes, I'm sure Burke took the missing items with him. You're right. It's possible that the Ramseys secreted those items; maybe even burned them in the fireplace. It's also possible that there were no leftovers. So, I don't see this as convincing evidence in itself, but maybe when viewed along with all the rest of the evidence?

Yes, I agree that anyone capable of brutally killing a 6-yr-old child might be capable of writing the note afterward. That's one facet that makes me suspect an intruder. I don't think the Ramseys would even gently kill their child, let alone brutally. I'm not sure I agree with Smit on the note. I'm still unsure about that. I think we have to give the matter more thought. He has seemed a bit naive in his RN analysis.

Yes, the handwriting appears to be disguised. PR could have written it with a gloved and/or non-dominant hand. When I try to print with my left hand (I'm right handed) I make f's similar to many of those in the note. My left-hand writing is generally much cruder than with my right hand. The disguising effort appeared to peter out toward the end of the note. Still the experts were unable to identify Patsy as the author. Wonder why?

I think anyone could have used fancy a's in order to disguise his/her handwriting. Someone once opinied that no stranger wrote the note, for the simple reason that a stranger would have no need to disguise his handwriting. This argument has some merit but isn't totally convincing. The perp can't know that he won't be collared eventually and forced to give a handwriting sample. Also it isn't necessary that the non-Ramsey note writer be a stranger. There are several aspects of the note that make it a mystery. These same aspects don't necessarily point to Patsy as the author.

"...we're still here, not just analyzing evidence, but actually debating it's existence!" Truer words were never spoken. Forming opinions based on evidence that might not even exist is risky business. If I were a juror, I know what my vote would be.

Looks like we're getting there. Three cheers for objectivity.

RedChief said:

The flashlight: The ownership of the flashlight hasn't been established. That's a fact. It may have belonged to a police officer who was there that morning/day and is reluctant to admit that he left it there. It may belong to the Ramseys. It may belong to the intruder. Its ownership hasn't been established, except in the minds of a few posters, who insist it belongs to the Ramseys, for no good reason.

Click to expand...

The Ramseys owned a 3-cell black Mag-Lite. A 3-cell black Mag-Lite was found on the kitchen counter, taken in as evidence, and processed for fingerprints and any other forensic evidence that may have been on it. It's not a mystery. It belongs to the Ramseys.

TOM HANEY: (looking at crime scene photos) "Flashlight. Do you recognize that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I tlooks similar to one that John Andrew gave to John for Christmas, birthday, or something."

TOM HANEY: "Okay. Do you recall when it was he gave it to him?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Not exactly, no. Although it looks kind of dirty there."

TOM HANEY: "It looks different?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yeah."

TRIP DEMUTH: "Okay. Describe how it looks different."

PATSY RAMSEY: "Well, the one that I remember John having was pretty slick black, you know, and that looks kind of smudgy or gray or something."

TRIP DEMUTH: "Okay. That's been processed, so it has been changed."

PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh, okay."

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

The Ramseys owned a 3-cell black Mag-Lite. A 3-cell black Mag-Lite was found on the kitchen counter, taken in as evidence, and processed for fingerprints and any other forensic evidence that may have been on it. It's not a mystery. It belongs to the Ramseys.

TOM HANEY: (looking at crime scene photos) "Flashlight. Do you recognize that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I tlooks similar to one that John Andrew gave to John for Christmas, birthday, or something."

TOM HANEY: "Okay. Do you recall when it was he gave it to him?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Not exactly, no. Although it looks kind of dirty there."

TOM HANEY: "It looks different?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yeah."

TRIP DEMUTH: "Okay. Describe how it looks different."

PATSY RAMSEY: "Well, the one that I remember John having was pretty slick black, you know, and that looks kind of smudgy or gray or something."

TRIP DEMUTH: "Okay. That's been processed, so it has been changed."

PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh, okay."

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Yes? Where does she say that she recognizes it as her flashlight??????

I think you may have terminated the interview transcript a little prematurely. Patsy is responding "Oh, okay" to Demuth's explanation that the flashlight has been processed, not agreeing that it's the Ramseys.

Also, what is the point in showing Patsy a photo of "processed" flashlight, which processing makes it hard to identify??? Great police work.

It's not a mystery that in your mind it belongs to the Ramseys, that's for sure.

well, RedChief, i think you've done a nice job twisting and turning what i've said to fit your theories, but that's neither here nor there. at this point, i think we'll be going in circles if we continue to debate and dispute evidence and its proper interpretation.

i think if we look at all of what we've both said, and take it in as a whole, unfortunately, it gets us nowhere. and i guess, really, that was sort of my point. lou smit did a great job of presenting the intruder theory as something to be seriously considered. the ramseys have been dragged through the mud since their daughter died, as if that wasn't enough, and i think it took smit's work to open some people's eyes.

however, i do not think that smit's evidence suggests an intruder any more than it does a ramsey. there are only so many pieces of evidence that really do all that much in eliminating one theory or the other. for example, if you could prove PR wrote the RN, you could eliminate the intruder theory. likewise, if there were footprints in the snow leading up to the grate, you could eliminate the ramseys. but that is not the case. i am of the opinion, that about 99% of the evidence could be interpreted to promote either theory. it all depends on how you want to see it. lou smit did a great job, of entering an extremely one-sided investigation, looking at it objectively, and drawing a completely different conclusion. it is what it is...

Voice quote"however, i do not think that smit's evidence suggests an intruder any more than it does a ramsey. there are only so many pieces of evidence that really do all that much in eliminating one theory or the other. for example, if you could prove PR wrote the RN, you could eliminate the intruder theory. likewise, if there were footprints in the snow leading up to the grate, you could eliminate the ramseys. but that is not the case. i am of the opinion, that about 99% of the evidence could be interpreted to promote either theory. it all depends on how you want to see it. lou smit did a great job, of entering an extremely one-sided investigation, looking at it objectively, and drawing a completely different conclusion. it is what it is..."

What?
Clearly Patsy has never been named as the note writer. Many however hold on to this null possibility to strengthen their "guess".
Footprints can not be made in the snow , if there is no snow. This has been proven. Again some choose to hold on to false notions.
There is no evidence, none that points to a Ramsey as being responsible for the murder, however there are volumes that point away. Again, blinders?

Smit, yeah, he did his job! Can't fault him for this, unless your ego is tied into premises based on other's gut feelings ,which was the case with the Boulder PD. He interviewed, and reinterviewed people that were involved, asking how they came to their conclusions, he quickly became aware of the weaknesses and the third hand accounts that grew into the case against the Ramseys, and yet ,being soft and not wanting ill feelings, he never tore the inept bpd down. Quietly he would make suggestions, ask for second looks, talk to people such as the locksmith who bpd claimed stated the damage was old, yet told Lou they never said that! Cops said, house was tight, months went by before they were forced to "take back the lie" and admit that at least one door and many windows were unlocked. He had no agenda, other than to find the killer of Jonbenet, while others were forcing their agendas down the throats of the public using the media at every turn to defile the Ramseys. If Smit saw the evidence, recorded the evidence and publicly released the same, why then would anyone say people believe HIM, instead of People believe that the available evidence , not bpd opinion, points to an intruder. No one would believe the Ramseys were guilty if this evidence had been made publicly available early on. We all bought into the media's account according to Thomas, and evidently there are many who can't let it go, for fear of not being "right".

Maybe it would be interesting to address the reasons behind anyone believing Patsy did it. I'm not suggesting a personality study, I am suggesting physical evidence that would lead one to think she did this. I have never seen anyone present a solid case against a Ramsey without "suggesting a disorder" , well guys, there is no history, so lets get to something strong, maybe you'd like Jonbenet's fingernail clippings to contain tons of Patsy's scratched off skin. They didn't! Perhaps some would like to harp on the four fibers, FOUR! I would think I would have 100's all over my child if I hugged her. Anything substantial,please?

I know that I haven't twisted and turned what you said to fit my theories, because I know I don't have a theory. Smit saw what he thought was evidence of an intruder, so a lot of people who wanted a simple case--the Ramseys are the Killas, villified him. I think it took a lot of guts on his part to even bring up the intruder possibility, let alone promote a theory. Of course, having a theory doesn't mean it will pan out. Maybe he was/is overly affected by his success in the Heather Dawn Church case. He's human.

"however, i do not think that smit's evidence suggests an intruder any more than it does a ramsey"

So you think a Ramsey crawled through the basement window and murdered JonBenet?

"for example, if you could prove PR wrote the RN, you could eliminate the intruder theory."

Not if she were colluding with the "intruder". Then you'd have a unified theory involving Patsy and the perp. Some actually think this is possible. Maybe it's a sign of desperation.

" likewise, if there were footprints in the snow leading up to the grate, you could eliminate the ramseys." It would be a little hard to suspect Ramsey involvment under that circumstance. But, I suppose if you were clever enough you could even fit that into an RDI theory.

"lou smit did a great job, of entering an extremely one-sided investigation, looking at it objectively, and drawing a completely different conclusion. it is what it is..." Yes, but they can't both be right--the intruder theorists and the Ramsey theorists, so is there something in between?

It seems to me that the best way to approach this case is to pin down the facts regarding the "evidence" and evaluate them as best one can, without regard to which theory they may or may not fit. See what's possible and what isn't. Confront our prejudices and biases. Then out of the possible, pick what's most plausible and discard the rest. A winnowing process which involves not looking back. That's why I think closely examining every little detail of the evidence is important. For example, the vaginal injury: we haven't even reached a concensus as to whether it was minor or major, and whether it was for someone's sexual satisfaction or just done maliciously to inflict pain, or was staging. We won't get anywhere as a group, until we can reach concensus on matters like this.

You're right--we keep going around in circles; time to get out of orbit. Cooperate and graduate.

sissi said:

Clearly Patsy has never been named as the note writer. Many however hold on to this null possibility to strengthen their "guess".
Footprints can not be made in the snow , if there is no snow. This has been proven. Again some choose to hold on to false notions.
There is no evidence, none that points to a Ramsey as being responsible for the murder, however there are volumes that point away. Again, blinders?

Click to expand...

i don't know, sissi. i think you're really reaching here. there is no evidence that points to the ramseys? give me a break! even lou smit wouldn't say that!

as for your assessment of my analysis, those two situations i gave were HYPOTHETICALS. i am not suggesting either was or could be true. i was merely showing how most of the evidence can lead you either way, depending on your personal opinion and interpretation.