If It Weren't For....

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by K777angel, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is there about the crime and your theory that prevents you from changing your theory to the 'other side' - in other words, Ramsey Guilt vs. Ramsey Innocence. Either way. Just a couple of facts will do.

    For me, if it were not for the note and Patsy's clothing fibers entwined in the knot in the cord around JonBenet's neck and on her body, blanket and paint tote - I could perhaps entertain more reasonably the idea that some intruder came in to molest and then kill JonBenet. But that note DOES exist and is the biggest 'mistake' they made in the staging of the crime. And of course Patsy's fibers all over the crime scene prevent a logical person from dismissing her involvement in the crime.


    ~Angel~
     
  2. Loading...


  3. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Angel,

    My answer would have to be the LIES.

    I could never change my theory of Ramsey guilt to Ramsey innocense because of the endless stream of lies, refusals to fully cooperate, and coverup maneuvers by Ramsey family members.

    It started with the 911 tape eventually revealing that Burke was wide awake and talking with his parents at 5:52 A.M. and not asleep in bed as claimed by the Ramseys. Why were they shielding Burke even in the opening minutes of the police investigation?

    John blatantly testifying under oath in a deposition that the Stines were not close friends, even after the Ramsey family spent five months living with the Stines following the murder, was an insult to the intelligence of everyone. The lie was an apparent attempt to keep Doug Stine's name out of the investigation (Doug was Burke's best friend and the Stines and Ramseys partied together, visited New York and Charlevoix together, etc.).

    JMO
     
  4. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BC, speaking of the Stines, it is clear that John Ramsey tried very hard to avoid mentioning them in his October 20, 1998 deposition.

    Excerpt:

    Page 38

    16 Q. I'm looking for, you know, as best you can, a

    17 comprehensive list of your friend and associates.


    18 A. Friends -- they typically revolved around


    19 children. John and Barbara Fernie, Fleet and Priscilla


    20 White, Larry and Pinky Barber. I think those are probably


    21 our three --


    22 Q. The top of the list?


    23 A. Yeah.


    24 Q. How about any others that you would consider to


    25 have been social acquaintances on a friendly basis?

    Page 39




    1 A. There were lots of people that would fall in


    2 that category by the end of five years.


    3 Q. I know it's daunting, but as best you can, if we


    4 can get a list of as many of those as you recall today, it


    5 would be very helpful, please.


    6 MR. CRAVER: Social acquaintances on a friendly


    7 basis?


    8 MR. HILL: Right.


    9 MR. CRAVER: People that you knew through the


    10 church, activities through the church, things of that


    11 nature, through work?


    12 Q. Who would be invited to your house for dinner,


    13 for example?


    14 A. Well, our neighbors across the street, Betty and


    15 Joe Barnhill. We had Betsy -- I can't think of their last


    16 names. Roxy and Stewart Walker. We knew lots of people,


    17 but then that's kind of the people we socialized with.


    18 Q. Is that pretty much the complete list of people


    19 that you would want to spend time with?


    20 A. I don't know if it's a complete list. It's all


    21 that comes to mind. Penny and Dr. Buff.


    22 Q. If more names do come to mind between now and


    23 when you review the transcript, if you don't mind just


    24 inking that in so we have the best, most complete list we


    25 can get, I would appreciate that.


    Page 40


    1 And the court reporter might leave a couple


    2 blank lines to accommodate or remind you that we'd like to


    3 do that, if you don't --


    4 A. Yeah.


    5 (Blank line)


    6 MR. GRAY: Is this the list of people that have


    7 been to dinner at his house, a list of close friends, or a


    8 list of -- I just want to make sure we understand what


    9 you're asking him to make a list of, please?


    10 MR. HILL: People Mr. Ramsey considers to be


    11 social friends, including especially close friends and


    12 people that the Ramseys invited to dine in their home.


    13 THE WITNESS: We had, for example, a church


    14 dinner at our house. There were 80 people there and I


    15 didn't know --


    16 Q. I'm not too worried about that. If there were


    17 members of that group that came again, for example,


    18 individually, I would be interested in having those


    19 indicated. Does that help?


    20 A. Yes.


    21 Q. I understand a lot of people came to your house.


    22 For example, from what I've read, you maintained open


    23 houses from time to time?


    24 A. We did an open house to benefit the historical


    25 society one year.


    Page 41


    1 Q. Did you maintain a guest book at the house?


    2 A. We didn't. I don't know --


    3 Q. If the historical society did?


    4 A. Yeah, if they did. And they sold tickets to go


    5 through several houses at Christmas time.


    6 Q. Actually, you occasionally also entertained at


    7 your home, if I remember correctly?


    8 A. Yes.


    9 Q. Prior to the unfortunate tragedy, you


    10 entertained at your home; is that correct?


    11 A. Uh-huh.


    12 MR. CRAVER: What do you mean by "prior"? You


    13 mean during the years prior?


    14 MR. HILL: During the month prior.


    15 MR. CRAVER: Okay.


    16 A. Yes.


    17 Q. I have information that you hosted a party on


    18 December 23; is that correct?


    19 A. That's correct.


    20 Q. Who did you invite to that party?


    21 A. They were a group of friends and their children.


    22 Certainly some of the people I've mentioned were there.


    23 Priscilla White's parents were there. Some guests they


    24 had, who we didn't know, were there. There might have


    25 been others. That's all I can remember.

    ~~~~

    John mentions the Stines only when he can't avoid it, and he downplays their relationship.

    ~~~~~

    Page 50

    13 Q. Do you have anyone running interference for you


    14 with respect to social contacts or attempts? Anyone


    15 taking calls or screening calls?


    16 A. Not -- we did for a while, only because we lived


    17 with some people.


    18 Q. Who were those people?


    19 A. Susan and Glenn Stine.


    20 Q. Should I add them to your list of close friends?


    21 A. They were not close friends, believe it or not.


    22 They were friends, but we didn't socialize a lot with


    23 them.

    ~~~

    How interesting that John didn't include the Stines when naming friends and aquaintances, but he did name Betsy-he-can't remember-their-last-names.

    imo
     
  5. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could buy this, if it weren't for the fact the fibers were red, she had on a tri-colored top, why did only the red "shed"? Quote (Atlanta meeting taped August 29, 2000 9:34am) "It's kind of a black and red and gray fleece"
    "There is no scientific evidence that these red fibers came from any other source than the tri-colored jacket. " This means ONLY that there were no other red fibers analyzed. IMO we must be careful considering these kinds of details. It was Christmas, many had red outfits on, including Santa Claus.
     
  6. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ivy,

    Thanks for the transcript. If anyone can honestly interpret John's responses in the deposition as anything but a brazen attempt, UNDER OATH, to cover up the truth about the very close Ramsey / Stine friendship, then I have a couple of bridges to sell them. There's only one reason I can see for risking jail time and telling a lie like that under oath -- a desperate attempt to keep Doug Stine's name out of the investigation.

    IMO Burke Ramsey and Doug Stine either killed JonBenet or they know who killed her, and the parents are covering up.

    JMO
     
  7. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sissi, do you think McReynolds wore his Santa suit when he broke into the house and did the dastardly deed? As hairy as he was, it sure seems he would have left some hair behind.

    imo
     
  8. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BC, you're welcome. The deposition is one thing that keeps me from disregarding your theory that Doug Stine was involved.

    imo
     
  9. twizzler333

    twizzler333 Inactive

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The thing about whether the Stines were "close" friends or not can be interpreted different ways. Men, don't tend to place the same value on friendships as women do. Had they asked Patsy the very same question, she probably would consider the Stines very close friends, however, a man may interpret that differently. He may not have had as much in common personally with Mr. Stine (I don't know this for a fact, just speculating on why he may give such an answer) and therefore, would not consider the friendship as significant as others he has with other families. He may consider them people he knew and did things with but not necessarily people HE personally enjoyed spending time with. He may have been completely bored or less conversational with this particular couple, whereas Patsy may have really had a closeness with Mrs. Stine and therefore the men were kind of thrown into a "relationship".

    So I think it really would depend on the depth of the true relationship the men had as to how he answered. He may be covering up and lying about it but then again, with men, it is really hard to say. We all know men see things quite differently from women on a lot of different things. IMO

    Hope everyone is having a great day!
     
  10. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some of the items taken.
    - A 5-inch by 8-inch legal pad and various notepads, one of which police believe is the pad the ransom note was written on; pens and pencils; the white blanket that was over JonBent's body when she was found in the wine cellar; a Santa Claus suit; newspaper and magazine articles; a sleeping mask; golf clubs; U.S. Navy Officer Candidate school book; a toilet seat lid; cigarette butts; a letter to Santa; "My Science Project'' from Burke's room; window grate and pieces of a broken window in the basement; JonBenét's bedding; a broken paint brush; rope from the backyard; pink Barbie nightgown that was reportedly found next to JonBenét's body; carpeting; green garland, like that found in JonBenét's hair; articles of JonBenét's clothing; baseball bats; a flash light; and door locks.

    His hair surely was everywhere, he was in that house two days prior,why wouldn't it be there? IMO
     
  11. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did the Ramseys take Betsy-but-John-can't-remember-their-last-names a Christmas gift as they did the Stines? No. But John includes the Betsys in his list of friends and acquaintances, even though he didn't know them well enough to remember their last names. Why didn't he include the Stines? The purpose of the questions about friends and acquaintances was to provide a list of people whom investigators should question. Obviously John didn't want the Stines to be questioned.

    imo
     
  12. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sissi, the Santa suit belonged to the Ramseys. It wasn't McR's Santa suit.

    Yes, McR's hair could have been "everywhere" in the Rs' house...so it's indeed remarkable that it wasn't found on the body or anywhere near the crime scene. The only hair found at the crimes scene was on the blanket, and that hair belonged to Melinda Ramsey. (Even Lin Wood acknowledges that.)

    imo
     
  13. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep,it belonged to the Ramseys, I don't question this as fact.

    I question ambiguous statements...
    such as..
    during Patsy's questioning
    the pad was yours...pretty sure
    the pen was yours..pretty sure
    the fibers were similar..consistent..

    that Melinda hair..I'm not certain about that..was that not a rumor? The same type of rumor that leads some to believe Burke owned the hi-tecs?

    SMF - Statement of Material Fact
    PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
    PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact

    In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.) Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF 179-180; PSMF 179-180.)

    Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155
     
  14. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Sissi,

    It was no rumor. Burke did indeed own Hi-Tec boots, and the police attributed the Hi-Tec boot print next to JonBenet's body as belonging to Burke. Patsy bought the Hi-Tecs, which had a compass built into them, during a shopping visit to Atlanta.

    Ryan Ross; April 14, 2003 in Crime Magazine:

    "And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots -- something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot."

    JMO
     
  15. twizzler333

    twizzler333 Inactive

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So are we now saying Burke got out of bed, put on his hi-tek boots, went to his sister's room, took her downstairs, and molested/murdered her? Why put shoes on at all? I wonder if he dressed out of his PJ's and put on clothes too? Was he wearing these same boots the morning when Fleet took him to his home to avoid the chaos at the house that day?
     
  16. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sorry, I will accept material facts in a court of law over crime magazine at this point. I may be wrong,however we can ,and do, pick our sources.
    IMO
     
  17. tuppence

    tuppence New Member

    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ransom note, the fact that the body was in the house, and the weird behavior by the Ramseys (calling everyone they know over to the house, refusing to help the police)

    #1 biggest red flag is the ransom note - makes no sense except as an attempt at decoy by someone in the house trying desperately to throw suspicion elsewhere
     
  18. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sissi, I knew you would say that. When are you going to wake up and accept the facts? It doesn't matter that BC quoted the info from Crime Magazine. The information is common knowledge accepted by even Lin Wood, the Rs' lawyer!

    The logo print found on the floor near the body was made by Burke.

    The hair found on the blanket JonBenet was wrapped in was Melinda Ramsey's.

    The phony ransom note was written on paper from Patsy's notepad, and the writing utensil used to write the note was Patsy's.

    imo
     
  19. eliza

    eliza New Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The pineapple to me is that one piece of evidence that is the key. Somehow Jbr was able to have a snack of pineapple after returning home and was dead just a few hours later. Had the parents known about that snack surely they could have found a simple way to explain this fact in the cover-up. To me that leaves only one family member left as a possibilty of being with Jbr and knowing about the pineapple snack, but neglecting to let his parents know until it was too late to add it into the cover-up.
     
  20. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    eliza...bingo! I completely agree.

    imo
     
  21. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Eliza,

    You are on target. The pineapple in JonBenet's digestive system, eaten about 2 hours before she died, and the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table with Burke's fingerprints on it, and the water glass with a spent teabag in it (Burke was the resident tea drinker) also on the table, points exclusively to Burke.

    The pineapple also eliminates the intruder theory. JonBenet would not have willingly come downstairs in the middle of the night to snack on pineapple at the breakfast room table with an intruder. JonBenet was obviously secretly downstairs with Burke after the parents had gone to bed.

    JMO
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice