Best book for facts and details?
- Thread starter MariageFreres
- Start date
New Posts
-
IA IA - David Schultz, 53, Wall Lake, 21 November 2023 #3
- Latest: Frostysucker
I guess John Ramsey visited prior to Fleet White as the suitcase is shown in the crime-scene photograph as outlined by Fleet White, i.e. perpendicular to the wall
The window is open in the photograph yet JR says he closed it? Basically Fleet White's account appears consistent where as JR's is not.
So concluding that JR was in the wine-cellar before Fleet White does not tell us anything new....
The crime scene photo would have been taken after Fleet White moved the suitcase (as he admits doing).
As everybody knows, the ransom note was moved from the floor by the patio door, placed on the spiral staircase and photographed there even though no one saw it there except Patsy (she said). The crime scene photos don't necessarily reflect the actual scene.
Ramsey says the window was just slightly open when he was there. He says he closed it and he thought he latched it. I read somewhere that White found the window closed. That's further corroboration that Ramsey was there first. I'm not suggesting that it's particularly important one way or the other.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Let me first point out that Steve Thomas was a willing participant in The Case of JonBenet Ramsey. He was part of the process in the reinvestigation of the murder.
Secondly, I want to say I respect the work you’ve done on the ransom note and religious aspects in it.
However, all good investigators and sleuths alike, must get over their own cognitive dissonance at some point. It’s has almost been 22 years years JBR death. We fortunately have been provided a steady steam of evidence and revelations since then. One must change their theory when new evidence comes to light, or when previously oppressed evidence becomes known.
The group of world renowned investigators who reinvestigated this case did just that. Including some of which who worked on this case from the beginning and made several trips to Boulder in doing so. Dr. Henry Lee considers Alex Hunter a good friend. Hunter relied on Dr. Lee heavily during the first few years of the case.
Chief Kolar has also changed his stance on who was involved in the cover-up. Near the end of the CBS reinvestigation, he speaks at the round table of experts and stated the following:
KOLAR: And I know there was some debate as to whether or not both parents are involved in the cover-up right away. But, I think the mixed motives in the ransom note, you know, whether it’s a sexual assault, pedophile, political, or terrorism, mixed motives make it pretty clear that both parents were involved in the cover-up.
CLEMENTE: Ya, I mean, I think from a profiling perspective that mixed motives tells us that it’s a high probability that’s it’s more than one person involved in the staging. Right?
SSA JIM FITZGERALD: Arguably, yes. That’s been the experience that we’ve had looking at staged crime scenes over the years. I think that’s what we have here in the language utilized as well as the crime scene itself, the body, and everything else.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
FITZGERALD: Within an hour of this crime being committed, there is probably the cover-up starting with whatever they did to the body and certainly the writing of this letter, the 911call, and everything that happened later. But, I don’t think Burke was involved in the cover-up, he was not directly involved in writing letters. He certainly didn’t do the phone call to 911, he may of been there, as we found out later.
Now, was he interviewed later on by investigators and child psychological experts, and did he perhaps, say some things that perhaps, were not exactly true of what happened that night, that’s very possible. But, as far as the cover-up itself, I would say primarily it’s John and Patsy, that were involved in that.
“What did you find?”
CLEMENTE: I think the most likely probability is that the adults in that family-John and Patsy Ramsey, and this is consistent with what the GJ wanted to indict them for, staged this to look like a monster predator had come in their house and killed their daughter. It’s my opinion, the Ramsey family didn’t want law enforcement to solve this case, and that’s why it remains unsolved.
FITZ: 100% agree.
KOLAR: Shakes his head in the affirmative.
Now, was he interviewed later on by investigators and child psychological experts, and did he perhaps, say some things that perhaps, were not exactly true of what happened that night, that’s very possible. But, as far as the cover-up itself, I would say primarily it’s John and Patsy, that were involved in that.
“What did you find?”
CLEMENTE: I think the most likely probability is that the adults in that family-John and Patsy Ramsey, and this is consistent with what the GJ wanted to indict them for, staged this to look like a monster predator had come in their house and killed their daughter. It’s my opinion, the Ramsey family didn’t want law enforcement to solve this case, and that’s why it remains unsolved.
FITZ: 100% agree.
KOLAR: Shakes his head in the affirmative.
Please provide examples of the new evidence. I only know what's in the public domain and maybe not all of that.
Kolar is free to change his opinion on whether John slept through the night. (In Kolar's "Ask me anything" he still thought that John woke up in the morning unaware of what had happened. The"mixed motives in the ransom note" suggests one author who was throwing in the kitchen sink--to me. YMMV) But I've been talking here about Kolar's opinion at the time he wrote his book.
Kolar devotes twelve pages to the chair in front of the train room door. The chair only became significant when Lou Smit came on the scene claiming that the intruder left via the train room window so it's not surprising that the subject didn't come up in Ramsey's first interview. Contrary to Kolar's claim that the chair in front of the door supported Smit's hypothesis that an intruder left via the train room, Smit is dismayed when Ramsey brings it up.
"LOU SMIT: In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the training room, gets out, let's say, that window?
JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
LOU SMIT: How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"
and
"LOU SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him.
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. That's correct.
LOU SMIT: Because that would have been his exit?
JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
LOU SMIT: Okay.
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It was blocked. He'd have to move something to get into the room.
LOU SMIT: And he would have had to move it back, if he was in there trying to get out, is that correct?
JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
LOU SMIT: So that's not very logical as far as --
JOHN RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny little clues around, they certain are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left."
A few things suggest that John wasn't involved from the beginning, ie, that he slept through the night and became complicit at some later point. The first for me is how they presented themselves to the police. Neither one of them looked like they'd just gotten out of bed. Why did Patsy answer the door to the police looking like she'd been up all night? She was wearing the same clothes she'd been wearing the night before. Her makeup no doubt looked well-aged. It made Ofc. French instantly suspicious. Her incongruous appearance can be explained if she lost track of time. The simplest explanation is that John getting up forced her hand.
If they were in it together, they would have taken an extra five minutes before making the 911 call so that Patsy could put on pajamas and take off the previous day's makeup. If they were trying to establish an alibi that they had been asleep, they would present themselves as having been asleep. Neither of them did.
To me the above is more persuasive than the eggheady, contrived explanations about "mixed motives in the ransom letter" and such.
If they were in it together, they would have taken an extra five minutes before making the 911 call so that Patsy could put on pajamas and take off the previous day's makeup. If they were trying to establish an alibi that they had been asleep, they would present themselves as having been asleep. Neither of them did.
To me the above is more persuasive than the eggheady, contrived explanations about "mixed motives in the ransom letter" and such.
For the record, this is the reason Kolar thinks that Patsy didn't kill JonBenet: "I just couldn't reconcile the fact that Patsy was, by all accounts, a loving and doting mother, and I had difficulty envisioning her ever brutalizing one of her children." The reason Kolar didn't think it was John that killed JonBenet is...not given in his book, but he said it in an interview (the one with Tricia, I think): because John had slept through the night. So if it's not an intruder and it's not John and it's not Patsy, that leaves one person as the murderer: Burke. Then it becomes a matter of Kolar compiling evidence against Burke.
Thomas's and Kolar's theories about why the crime happened are at odds with each other: Thomas thinks Patsy became enraged when JonBenet wet the bed. He cites the urine-soaked red turtleneck and bed sheets. Kolar ignores those items and opines (without evidence, imo) that Burke became enraged when JonBenet stole a piece of pineapple from him.
It's hard for me to believe that Thomas is in Kolar's camp. He mentions Kolar in the acknowledgements in JonBenet so I think he feels friendship and affection for him. I haven't actually heard him say that he's convinced by Kolar's arguments.
Thomas's and Kolar's theories about why the crime happened are at odds with each other: Thomas thinks Patsy became enraged when JonBenet wet the bed. He cites the urine-soaked red turtleneck and bed sheets. Kolar ignores those items and opines (without evidence, imo) that Burke became enraged when JonBenet stole a piece of pineapple from him.
It's hard for me to believe that Thomas is in Kolar's camp. He mentions Kolar in the acknowledgements in JonBenet so I think he feels friendship and affection for him. I haven't actually heard him say that he's convinced by Kolar's arguments.
I didn't watch much of Kolar's tv program, but from what I saw it omitted a critical element of his theory: the feces-smeared "pajama bottoms thought to belong to Burke." These are necessary to tie feces-smearing in Burke's bathroom years earlier to the feces-smeared candy box in JonBenet's room. The idea is that the feces on the (uncollected) candy box belonged to crazy Burke. With "Burke's pj's" mysteriously gone, no connection can reasonably be made.
But there was a feces-smeared garment in the bedroom: JonBenet's velvet pants. In the absence of other information, we might suspect that feces on the candy box belonged to JonBenet and may have been connected to the feces in her pants. Perhaps an enraged Patsy wiped JonBenet's soiled pants on her candy box when she was undressing her?
But there was a feces-smeared garment in the bedroom: JonBenet's velvet pants. In the absence of other information, we might suspect that feces on the candy box belonged to JonBenet and may have been connected to the feces in her pants. Perhaps an enraged Patsy wiped JonBenet's soiled pants on her candy box when she was undressing her?
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Perhaps, not. There are numerous references to BR scatalogical behavior. Out of respect for privacy, I don’t feel the need to list them on this forum.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Perfect example of what I was referring to before, regarding new evidence and revelations that come to light as the years pass.
It is a fact that JonBenét’s bed sheets found on her bed were not urine stained. It is also a fact, that the red turtleneck sweater was neither wet or soaked with urine as Steve Thomas postulated many years ago. Steve Thomas has admitted as such. But, you already know that.
fr brown,
I agree, the importance of the glass and the movement of the suitcase allows us to test John Ramsey's claims, since they differ from that of Fleet White.
.
But you don't mind accusing him of murder publicly? You are in that camp, right?
I'm not aware of other instances of scatological behavior, but I may have forgotten them. Please list them if you can.
No, I don't know that. From Thomas's deposition, 2001:
"Q[Wood]. Was there any test that you're aware of that indicated the presence of urine on those sheets?
A[Thomas]. Detective Trujillo imparted to me that he had learned or believed that there was not a presumptive test for urine according to the CBI.
Q. Were they wet?
A. When?
Q. That morning. Did --
A. Unknown.
Q. -- you ask? Did you ask any of the officers there, hey, by the way, were the sheets on JonBenet's bed wet? Did you ask that question of anybody?
A. I did not.
Q. Do you know if anybody else did?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know the answer to whether they were wet or not?
A. I have been told that they were urine stained.
Q. Who told you they were urine stained?
A. Detective Trujillo, Detective Wickman.
Q. Have you seen the photographs of the sheets?
A. It depends on which photographs you're talking about.
Q. Of her sheets, of the bed.
10 MR. DIAMOND: Have you seen any.
11 A. Crime scene photographs, yes.
12 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did they say they could smell urine?
A. I have been told that CBI says, yes, those sheets which are still in evidence smell urine stained."
That JonBenet wet the bed that night is a reasonable inference given that she was put to bed in the red turtleneck (found on the bathroom vanity after the murder) and given that a package of pull-up diapers was hanging out of the cabinet. She was put to bed without going to the bathroom, it seems, so it's reasonable to assume she did wet the bed since she had an on-going problem with that. Patsy probably rolled in to take her to the bathroom and found out she was too late.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
From the same deposition in 2001:
16 Q. Page 286, you make reference to a
17 red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet
18 when it got wet from I guess her bed
19 wetting.
20 MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?
21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph
22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn
23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother
24 originally said, and that it was stripped off
25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet
1 from urine?
2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking
3 about, yes.
4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder
5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have
6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom
7 tested forensically to determine if it had
8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence
9 on it?
10 A. Again, it sounds like you know
11 otherwise but I was under the impression from
12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test
13 for urine.
14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they
15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
16 A. No, this is what I am surmising
17 in the hypothesis.
18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into
19 evidence?
20 A. I certainly believe it was.
21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.
25 Q. Where did you get the statement
1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture
2 that out of whole cloth?
3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a
4 reasonable explanation for the final resting
5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may
6 have indeed worn home.
7 Q. But you had no evidence to support
8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,
9 true?
10 A. No, I don't know that it was
11 urine stained.
12 Q. Or wet?
13 A. Or wet.
Well, that about sums it up. Again, this is what Thomas theorized may of happened, not actually what happened. Again, there is no evidence of urine on the red turtleneck sweater or the sheets. Did JBR wet the bed on a consistent basis? Yes.
16 Q. Page 286, you make reference to a
17 red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet
18 when it got wet from I guess her bed
19 wetting.
20 MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?
21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph
22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn
23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother
24 originally said, and that it was stripped off
25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet
1 from urine?
2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking
3 about, yes.
4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder
5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have
6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom
7 tested forensically to determine if it had
8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence
9 on it?
10 A. Again, it sounds like you know
11 otherwise but I was under the impression from
12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test
13 for urine.
14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they
15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?
16 A. No, this is what I am surmising
17 in the hypothesis.
18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into
19 evidence?
20 A. I certainly believe it was.
21 Q. Did it have any type of urine
22 stain on it?
23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never
24 have looked at it personally.
25 Q. Where did you get the statement
1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture
2 that out of whole cloth?
3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a
4 reasonable explanation for the final resting
5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may
6 have indeed worn home.
7 Q. But you had no evidence to support
8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,
9 true?
10 A. No, I don't know that it was
11 urine stained.
12 Q. Or wet?
13 A. Or wet.
Well, that about sums it up. Again, this is what Thomas theorized may of happened, not actually what happened. Again, there is no evidence of urine on the red turtleneck sweater or the sheets. Did JBR wet the bed on a consistent basis? Yes.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
I have followed the evidence. Even if I may think BR might have done it. I don’t hold him responsible.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
The crime scene photo that you are referring to, was taken at approximately 10pm on Dec 26 1996. When FW first inspected the train room at around 6:30am, the window was closed, but unlatched. The suitcase was in a different position because FW moved it. JR are lied about the window being open, because he had no clue FW had been down there before his first “official” trip to the basement.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Patsy Ramsey does not fit the psychological profile.
Why do you post in such a dishonest way? The excerpt I included from that same deposition says this:
"Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did they say they could smell urine?
A [Thomas]. I have been told that CBI says, yes, those sheets which are still in evidence smell urine stained."
That's an opinion from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation that the sheets have urine on them. That's evidence that the sheets have urine on them. According to Thomas there was no presumptive test for urine, so it's basically the smell test. That JonBenet wet her turtleneck can be inferred by it being found on the bathroom vanity when Patsy told LE that she had put JonBenet to bed in that turtleneck.
Please provide additional instances of "scatological behavior"on Burke's part for those of us not as knowledgeable. To save your blushes, you can just limn them and provide book and page number. I can find them from that.
Cottonstar
Case Analyst | Expert in Staged Crimes
Actually, it cannot be inferred. It wasn’t wet and there is no evidence that it was. I posted the interview. Thomas isn’t sure of anything because he doesn’t know. It’s like Lou Smit saying, “Well someone could of come through the window”.