If It Weren't For....

[TLynn]

Camper,

"Killer Boatman" and the young man Barnhill saw walking up to the house are two STRONG LEADS if the Ramseys were serious about finding the killer. They announced hiring detectives to help find the killer, yet, ignore these two leads.

Oh, yeah, it came out later that it was never their intention - the detectives were hired the very next day to build a defense for the Ramseys.

"Boatman" was a snitch for the police - so when he "snitched" about this murder - they suddenly dismiss him?!

Barnhill was an eyewitness to someone approaching the house - they dismiss him - NO, actually, they told him he was wrong! I guess the detectives did their job in protecting the Ramseys.

 

[Nehemiah]

Well then...why does anyone think they are such seasoned criminals as to "fool" the test? Clearly they do not know who killed their child! One surprise,however, is that question " do you know who killed your child", I would have expected them to feel strongly that they must have known him,causing problems with their response. The way Fleet acted, the way the Pughs and Santas seemed, would have made me think it was one of these families ,leaving me to respond, "maybe". imo

They weren't asked simply if they knew who killed JB:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

I have always thought the questions posed in this manner make it seem that there were at least 2 possible perps and the Rs didn't know for sure which one caused the actual death.

IMO

 

[Camper]

They weren't asked simply if they knew who killed JB:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

I have always thought the questions posed in this manner make it seem that there were at least 2 possible perps and the Rs didn't know for sure which one
caused the actual death.

IMO

----------Camper reply is this = IF IF my theory is a correct one, it is not a matter of WHO killed JonBenet but WHAT killed her.

On the question of WHAT killed her, in the R's minds, an alcoholic accident prevailed in the death, imop. ie the Old saw, the 'demon rum' was to blame.

I can see a mental mind set for them, which may in fact have been 'the truth', and could have enabled them to pass the 'test', imop.


All thoughts expressed on my posts are based on media reported information over the years, and my structured thinking in connecting the apparent missed dots.




.

 

[BlueCrab]

They weren't asked simply if they knew who killed JB:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

I have always thought the questions posed in this manner make it seem that there were at least 2 possible perps and the Rs didn't know for sure which one caused the actual death.

IMO

Nehemiah,

You are 100% correct. IMO the FOR SURE clause inserted into those questions allowed the Ramseys to answer the two questions without showing deception. There were two or more perps, the Ramseys know that ONE of them killed JonBenet, but they don't know "for sure" which one.

This scenario was backed up by Pam Paugh when she told Greta VanSustern on nation-wide television that she knows who killed JonBenet, but there was more than one involved and she didn't know which one actually did the killing. Aunt Pam also said she had told Alex Hunter who killed JonBenet.

JMO

 

[Camper]

Nehemiah,

You are 100% correct. IMO the FOR SURE clause inserted into those questions allowed the Ramseys to answer the two questions without showing deception. There were two or more perps, the Ramseys know that ONE of them killed JonBenet, but they don't know "for sure" which one.

This scenario was backed up by Pam Paugh when she told Greta VanSustern on nation-wide television that she knows who killed JonBenet, but there was more than one involved and she didn't know which one actually did the killing. Aunt Pam also said she had told Alex Hunter who killed JonBenet.

JMO

----------<><BlueCrab, you did not say whether you thought Pam was correct, apparently she wasn't, er huh? I guess that would indicate that Pam and Alex know, but they did not talk through the media anymore to us, hmmm.

I betcha that Pam thought it was Santa Claus, er, another hmmm from me.


.

 

[BlueCrab]

----------<><BlueCrab, you did not say whether you thought Pam was correct, apparently she wasn't, er huh? I guess that would indicate that Pam and Alex know, but they did not talk through the media anymore to us, hmmm.

Camper,

I tend to think that Pam Paugh was correct because her comments dovetail with the "for sure" polygraph questions that John and Patsy answered without showing deception.

It means that John, Patsy, and Pam likely know there was more than one perp, they know their names, but they don't know "for sure" which one actually did the killing.

JMO

 

[Camper]

Camper,

I tend to think that Pam Paugh was correct because her comments dovetail with the "for sure" polygraph questions that John and Patsy answered without showing deception.

It means that John, Patsy, and Pam likely know there was more than one perp, they know their names, but they don't know "for sure" which one actually did the killing.

JMO

---------Forgive my wonderment, IF IF Pam knew the name of the killer, and the Ramseys didn't, then perhaps Pam 'jumped to the conclusion' on the WHO that did IT.

OR perhaps Pam was the one other person, that the killer as proposed by the Ramseys on CNN, had confided with.

OR perhaps Pam was the one selected to spirit the golf bag out of the house with incriminating evidence in it, as many supposed here on WS, that could have pointed to the real killer/s. I am supposing that the death was a group effort with that scenario. Which by the way fits your theory quite nicely.

Then to further guess what was in the golf bag and clubs that were asked to be retrieved in the dead of winter from the home by dear Auntie Pam, while BPD stood by and even gave her a ride in their car. Hmmm

The 'WHAT' killed JonBenet question remains. Alcohol, or tutored young boys, on uses of a garrote sp? an accident if you will. IF IF the boys learned about garotes on their own, they had too much unsupervised time on their hands.

Kids and boys in particular love playing with rope.



.

 

[BlueCrab]

Then to further guess what was in the golf bag and clubs that were asked to be retrieved in the dead of winter from the home by dear Auntie Pam, while BPD stood by and even gave her a ride in their car. Hmmm

Camper,

It's only a rumor that the golf clubs were asked by John Ramsey to be retrieved from the house. Also, it's irrelevant anyhow because the golf clubs were among the items listed on the search warrants to be confiscated by the BPD.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

I too used to think the "for sure" part of the questions asked the Ramseys during their polygraph test were very suspicious and gave them an "out" to answer truthfully (sort of) and pass or at least not "fail."
BUT - since then I've seen stories done on Crime TV and A&E on other cases where the polygrapher also phrased the questions to the suspect in the exact same way and wording of "for sure."
So it's probably not anything to point out as it's obviously a standard way of asking a question of a suspect during a polygraph exam.

 

[twizzler333]

OK- you are sitting there taking a polygraph, you don't really know "for sure" which questions are going to be coming at you, you think you have an idea of who killed your child because it is either the person you love that did it or their accomplice, but not absolutely positive who, you just know they were both involved and one of them did it....you are nervous because you do have this knowledge in your head and are afraid they may ask you if these people were involved or not, so you do have a somewhat more rapid heart rate and you more than likely have a little more brain activity going on because you are speculating in your mind about how you should answer the questions as to deceive this lie detector test or pass it because you KNOW you didn't do the killing.....NOW with all these things you do know and have in your mind, how does one pass a polygraph even IF they don't know FOR SURE who did this to JonBenet? I would think your mind would flash up to these people you know are involved and you would appear to be deceptive at this point in the polygraph unless you have really absolutely no idea who did this. You may have the picture in your head of some *advertiser censored* crazed psycho in your head that you don't even know but if in your mind you can picture people you know and that you truly suspect and possibly know for sure were involved somehow, I just don't see how you can pass the polygraph with this knowledge you carry.

Besides, if Patsy and John found out it was either Burke and a friend OR JAR and a friend, don't you think that while they were in the process or covering up this crime they would have drilled them as to what happened and who did what? I know I would want to know. If I found out one of my children had killed the other with a friend, I would be having a freaking fit trying to get to the bottom of it. Cannot imagine me wanting to try and cover it up, especially since young children that age cannot be prosecuted anyway. I think I would have told the truth to avoid the media. They surely would have known that at the very least the local media would have picked up on this kidnapping scenario and it would have caused too much bad attention to be drawn towards their family. I just don't see it. This just doesn't make any sense to me. I am trying hard to see it though, but nothing is so far.

I mean, we are not talking about a bunch of idiots here. These are people who obviously have some sense about them, otherwise, they would not have achieved as much and accomplished the successes they have in life if they were complete idiots.

 

[TLynn]

The Rameys hired their own polygrapher - they knew exactly what the questions were going to be - Patsy had "inconclusives" three times before she passed. That's a nice way of saying "didn't pass." Which is a nice way of saying "failed."

Isn't Pam also the one that said there was a note in the Santa Bear pouch...which was wrong!

 

[twizzler333]

Even so, I just don't see how they could have the knowledge of knowing the people involved in the death of their child and being able to pass no matter what questions were asked or HOW they were worded. You would have that guilty feeling going in to the thing and that would somehow come out. How does one get an inconclusive finding on a polygraph? I'm curious. I have never heard of that before but would like to see more on this. That might be something to change my mind, but I really need to see the facts of this first.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Camper]

BlueCrab, I seem to remember there were two sets of clubs. The set that went out the door was the monogrammed fancier set, am I wrong?

As for the polygraph test, as I recall it was YEARS later before the R's had the test. I would think that could, might or would have dimmed the results when they finally did take the test. BlueCrab do you remember the year they finally took the test?

I also remember a flap about Johns secretary volunteering to take a poly test also, and I seem to remember that the result of that test was slammed shut shortly after.


.

 

[KATKAT19691]

Actually, as explained to me by my poly admin. an incon. could mean one of two things, the first that the person being test is to emotional. This would cause very little movement so you can't tell if they are lying or telling the truth. Second and I suspect this was what happened with Patsy, you can not be taking any kind of drug that supress. emotion. As in prozac, valium, as a matter of fact they wont test you if tell them you have taken anything within the last 72 hours. But as I suspect in Patsy's case you could lie and say you had not. We all know she was medicated right after JBR was killed who's to say she did not have some left over or was still taking them. So incon., means exactley that. They can not tell.

IMO
Kat

 

[twizzler333]

I am not sure if I have followed this thread correctly regarding Pam Paugh but I don't think she believes any of the Ramsey's to be involved. In the March 2000 interview with Greta on Burden of Proof, she is supporting the Ramsey's and Burke. She does state again that she knows who killed JonBenet and that she did tell Alex Hunter and that he was committed to finding justice for JonBenet.

That tells me that the Grand Jury did not find juveniles involved, otherwise, I highly doubt this interview would have even taken place to begin with. It also tells me that possibly the person Pam thinks killed JonBenet maybe didn't, otherwise, I think we would have heard more on this by now. I think she has a person or persons in mind that she finds highly suspicious and she honestly believes they did it but if she KNEW who did it because she was confided in or something, this case would be solved by now.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/20/bp.00.html

GRETA: Pam, let me go first to you. The book, "The Death of Innocence," written by your sister and brother-in-law, why did they write it?

PAM PAUGH, SISTER OF PATSY RAMSEY: Well, Greta, first of all, I think it was time. Obviously once the grand jury was finalized and they came back with no indictment against the appropriate killer or killers, I think it was clear that it was time for Patsy and John to speak out. We have known all along that evidence existed of an intruder, even the evidence that is out today vis-a-vis the "Newsweek" article and Lou Smit. There is more on top of that, and we know that we must find this killer. And, secondly, I think that Patsy and John felt somewhat that the public did want to know them as people instead of the suspected suspicious murderers that they had been portrayed to be unfairly. And so they were trying to give the public a glimpse of who they really are and what they've been through.

GRETA: Pam, what do -- do your brother-in-law and sister have a sort of a universe of people who they think are suspects the police should follow?

PAUGH: Well, in our minds, there has always been a university of people, because as Patsy and John have said many times, we would like to believe that we don't personally know anyone in our circle of friends who would commit this heinous crime, or who would hate us enough to want to destroy us by taking our beautiful JonBenet.

But we do have, based on tips, leads, evidence, et cetera, we do have in our minds a rather short list of a dozen or so suspects that we feel should be looked into far beyond asking the question just where were you that night, and do you have the alibi of a spouse or something such as that. These are suspects with clearly historical things in their lives that could lead potentially up to the psychological ramifications that it would take to commit this sort of crime.



Those comments alone make me think she suspects someone else, not anyone in their family. Personally, I think she thinks it is FW, but that is just speculation on my part.

 

[BlueCrab]

As for the polygraph test, as I recall it was YEARS later before the R's had the test. I would think that could, might or would have dimmed the results when they finally did take the test. BlueCrab do you remember the year they finally took the test?

Camper,

The polygraph examinations given to John and Patsy Ramsey by private examiner Ed Gelb occurred between May 6 and May 17, 2000.

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

Maybe we should ask this group to give a look at the taped interviews....

http://reuters.excite.com//article/...N14206870_RTRIDST_0_ODD-SCIENCE-LIARS-DC.html

 

[ManInTheBox]

The inconsistency in the Ramsey parent's stories and some other pieces of evidence that seem to me to be a bit more that coincidence.

 

[sissi]

The inconsistency in the Ramsey parent's stories and some other pieces of evidence that seem to me to be a bit more that coincidence.

This is an interesting argument, however I never "got it", someone please source and detail these inconsistencies. (if ya find the time)
I have read information by two sources, one Lou Smit, the other John Douglas, two men who have established careers in LE and neither found these "inconsistencies".
I have read some pitiful "police reports" that were full of errors and inconsistencies, are we confusing a cop's mistaken account, one who thought he heard John say he read to his sleeping child, with the truth?

 

[ManInTheBox]

This is an interesting argument, however I never "got it", someone please source and detail these inconsistencies. (if ya find the time)
I have read information by two sources, one Lou Smit, the other John Douglas, two men who have established careers in LE and neither found these "inconsistencies".
I have read some pitiful "police reports" that were full of errors and inconsistencies, are we confusing a cop's mistaken account, one who thought he heard John say he read to his sleeping child, with the truth?

Simple inconsistencies. I for one know that the Ramsey's said one more than one account they drove straight home that night where was Burke countered that by saying they stopped by numerous houses to deliver presents. Also they said JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home when Burke says she walked upstairs by herself...is there any reason to lie about these things?