Lies point us to the truth

[LinasK]

I just would like to know why everyone has such a hard time believing that John and John alone could have done this? It’s the simplest explanation by far. His lies are the number one smoking gun. I guess I am just frustrated that we all go down all these rabbit holes to explain something that can very easily be explained by John and John alone doing it. Thoughts?

I'm in the John murdered her, Patsy helped with the coverup camp.

 

[LinasK]

Perhaps SBTC and victory beforehand is a clue itself.

Victory Shall Be The Conquerer, from the Bible.

Quite a few clues here!

Romans 8 NIV

At the time, there were other interpretations of the SBTC besides Saved By The Cross, Subic Bay (where John had served), Southern Bell... (can't remember what the TC stood for in the other interpretations)

 

[LinasK]

PR admitted she bought the days of the week panties in NYC in Nov. '96. It isn't clear what she bought for JB, if anything. PR also stated that they were to be a Christmas gift for her niece. The reason she didn't send them, she said, was because the package of the panties had been opened, implying that JB had done this. So, PR decided to keep them and put them away in JB's drawer.
PR also stated that after returning to the house on the night of the 25th, JB was wearing panties when she took off the sleeping JB's black velvet pants. She was not specific as to what type of panties these were. Was this pair one of the many pairs removed by LE?
For me, the big question is why. Why was JB dressed in the size 12 Wednesday? Staging, of course. But what is this element of the staging meant to suggest. As it is plainly out of place, it is immediately noticeable. I don't understand the obviousness of the move. There isn't anything about it that suggests a kidnapping by an intruder. Of course, the lack of coordination between much of the staging and the RN is bizarre.
Something unknown was being covered up. An important aspect of the killing was being disguised. This seems like a good indication of BDI as it is so clumsy. But why the Rs would leave it that way throughout the rest of the staging is most perplexing.

To me putting size 12's on JB doesn't indicate Burke over John or even Patsy. Clumsy, ill-fitting? Yes, but a murderer isn't thinking about the proper sized underwear for a little girl-in a haste, or grabbed whatever was quickly available.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I've always believed that it was John who committed the murder, despite Lou Smits new show on it. He lost all credibility when he prayed with the Ramseys.

LinasK,

Sure JDI is a possibility.

IMO, which RDI really boils down to motive. This was an act of rage. Which one was this angry with JB?

 

[UKGuy]

The case on the surface looks like it should be JDI. A no brainer or a CSI 101 case.

Yet when you take a closer look at the forensic evidence it does not all match up.

This aspect needs to be squared with any JDI theory, the KISS or Occam take is that JR just dressed JonBenet with whatever came to hand?

Anyone believe that?

.

 

[LinasK]

The case on the surface looks like it should be JDI. A no brainer or a CSI 101 case.

Yet when you take a closer look at the forensic evidence it does not all match up.

This aspect needs to be squared with any JDI theory, the KISS or Occam take is that JR just dressed JonBenet with whatever came to hand?

Anyone believe that?

.

Actually I do. I don't see why a grown man would be any more attentive to the correct size of a little girl's underwear than her brother would be. (He's not buying the underwear and he shouldn't be changing her). IMO it'd be a very sick sign if my husband actually knew what size underwear my daughter wore once she was no longer a baby whose diaper he changed.
Plus you have the fibers present from John's Israeli woolen shirt. I really don't believe that these got there from the laundry. I think John carried her up the stairs to contaminate the evidence.

 

[LinasK]

LinasK,

Sure JDI is a possibility.

IMO, which RDI really boils down to motive. This was an act of rage. Which one was this angry with JB?

Sexual assault is usually an act of rage/power. I think John had more motive than Burke, and she was a mini-Patsy with the seductress outfits and behavior, and Patsy wasn't available to him in that way then. Maybe JB decided to fight back and not cooperate this time.

 

[otg]

Proof of a call in any form yes. Thus far, I have only seen proof of people saying that supposedly someone said they saw the record of 3 calls prior to the 911 call. If there is more than that, I would be very interested but I haven't been able to find it or find anyone who has.

The issue of pre-911 calls has long been something we would all like confirmed. Steve Thomas only said that the phone records had been obtained illegally by Rapp (Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap). He wrote that BPD had the records in evidence but weren't allowed to view them because of their origin. But I wonder if someone might not have looked at them for informational purposes without acknowledging it -- knowing whatever information was in them couldn't be used in court.

Local radio host Peter Boyles claimed to have seen them and said that the Ramseys had called a lawyer (Bynum) and a doctor (Beuf) before dialing 911.

There was also a poster who posted on early forums and was in the legal field (not sure if she was lawyer or paralegal). She claimed to have been told about the calls by an insider before the DA's office was aware of them.

The following is a post where she (Ginja) was asked to confirm what she had earlier posted:

From: Ginja (Ginja54) 8/15/2003 1:49 pm
To: LSW1 (419 of 553)

1230.419 in reply to 1230.392

"Are you saying that John Ramsey called Bynum and Dr. Buef before Patsy called 911 on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996????? "

Yes.

"Is this a supposed situation or a real truth? If it is true, does the police and DA have proof of this happening?"

Without getting into the kinds of details that would result in sanctions, being fired, and losing a pension, suffice it to say I believe the source(s) to be most reliable. I'm sure I was given the information before the BDA as it was long before Wood threatened Keenan into taking the case over.

I'm wondering how much of the official file has been transferred from the BPD to the BDA. I know Wood went to Boulder last fall and met with the BPD and heard, first hand, the original "enhanced" 911 call. Next thing you know, Wood is threatening Keenan and making outrageous allegations that the BPD fabricate evidence. Knowing he's got Keenan in his back pocket, it's a wonder the BPD would release the entire official file to her. So I don't know if she has this info. If she does, she doesn't know it because she always handed "anything Ramsey" to I think it was Bill Nagle. She doesn't deal with Ramsey evidence...just RST fabrications.​

This old, long re-post from another forum is an interesting read for anyone wanting to take the time to read it. It can be found here at FFJ:

https://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/threads/dna-revisited-in-light-of-james-kolar%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-book.10137/page-3#post-193723

She also had an interesting take on the reason for Beuf's behavior:

Dr. Beuf is required by LAW to report any SUSPICIONS of child abuse of any kind. If he missed it, intentionally or innocently, he makes himself look either incompetent or negligent because he didn't see it and/or didn't report it.
We also have to take into account Beuf's relationship with the Ramseys. He was a close personal friend of the family's. He was also a member of the Ramseys' church, thus sharing friends and activities as regards Church 'business.'

We also need to look at the fact that Beuf was called in to treat Patsy the night of 12/26. Query why a pediatrician was the only medical help the Ramseys could get. Didn't Patsy have her own doctors? Or John?

Jmho, but Beuf was in over his head with this family. He knew them well...better than many pediatricians know the families of their patients. He was involved with them socially, through church, and medically through the kids.

He took a walk with John Ramsey and Mike Bynum (and/or Fernie, can't recall at this moment if it was Fernie or Bynum). The point here is...what were they talking about? How Beuf should treat an adult? I don't think so. He was brought into the 'fold' that night to discuss anyone's guess. My guess is that it was at that point he realized he was in trouble. As a "friend", he ignored the obvious signs of trouble in JonBenet. And once that autopsy came out with the facts of prior sexual abuse, he knew he could be held legally responsible as being irresponsible and negligent.​

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Here is a post from BlueCrab in reference to the phone records:

Well, if Steve Thomas is telling the truth, it's pretty clear that Air-Touch was likely lying. The cell phone records for December had been wiped clean, and the only way Air-Touch would do such a thing is if high-level pressure had been put on them -- such as from the Governor's Office and the Boulder D.A.'s Office.

John Ramsey's cell phone records for December would have likely blown the case wide open and revealed the high-level coverup put in place beginning on day one.

IMO John's cell phone records would have revealed calls to Mike Bynum around 3 or 4 AM; and calls to Glen and Susan Stine's house; and calls to the lawfirm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman; and calls to the D.A.'s Office -- all of the calls prior to the 911 call at 5:52 AM. IMO the coverup was in place before the sun came up on December 26, 1996, and hours before the body was "found" at 1:14 PM that afternoon.

By 5 o'clock on the afternoon of the 26th Hal Haddon had Fleet White, the most important witness other than the three Ramseys in the house that night, in his office telling him in no uncertain terms to stay out of things. Doesn't that alone tell us the coverup was probably already in place and they didn't want any trouble from Fleet White?

BlueCrab

EDITED to say it was attorney Mike Bynum, not Hal Haddon, who called Fleet White to his office.

 

[root661]

This is what I can find from Steve Thomas:
"Touch Tone Information Acquisition, Inc., sold private information on people, including cops, to anyone who would buy it, such as the supermarket tabloids. Home addresses, names of wives and kids, credit bureau reports, bank statements, and unlisted telephone and pager numbers were all for sale. Touch Tone was pulling in more than $1.5 million a year for their information, and a prisoner had tipped us that a Boulder cop was among those selling data and that there had been an attempt to purchase the ransom note. We could not ignore such serious allegations. Among the dossiers we found on celebrities, cops, and business executives in several cities—including Boulder detectives—were the very things the DA had been blocking us from obtaining: the Ramseys’ long-distance telephone and itemized credit card records. But our legal adviser Bob Keatley jerked them from our hands, saying the credit cards had been specified only as a target of the Touch Tone warrant, and we could not use them in another investigation. He was right, but you can’t unring a bell. I walked around for days thinking of what I had seen on those records from hardware stores and marine supply outlets in various states. Such places sell duct tape and cord like that used in the murder. But the Touch Tone material went into the Boulder Police Department’s evidence storage, where it sat useless right under our noses, and we couldn’t touch it. It might as well have been stored on the moon. Our DA’s office did nothing further with Touch Tone, and DeMuth waved it off with another “So what?” But selling private data on detectives and undercover cops was extremely dangerous, and we later learned that undercover cops with the Los Angeles Police Department had been compromised by Touch Tone. Two years later, prosecutors from neighboring Jefferson County, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Trade Commission built on my original warrant and grabbed Touch Tone’s owners, James and Regana Rapp, on felony racketeering charges."

I have also read the testimony from James Rapp for congress where it also mentions "John Ramsey long distance phone records and credit card statements" but I can't find anything about cell phone records or calls prior to the 911 call. I would assume, which could be wrong, that those early morning calls would be on a cell phone. Based upon information from Steve Thomas and James Kolar we know that BPD did not get anything from the cell phone records and I can't find anything that says Touch Tone (DDDC) got the cell phone records either. Maybe they did but I can't find anything conclusive that says so.

This is why I keep asking about the Peter Boyles radio show that has been mentioned on this forum. If there was audio or a transcript perhaps we could find more details.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Based upon information from Steve Thomas and James Kolar we know that BPD did not get anything from the cell phone records and I can't find anything that says Touch Tone (DDDC) got the cell phone records either. Maybe they did but I can't find anything conclusive that says so.

root661,
Perhaps this helps a wee bit.

Regardless of how the records were obtained, this is what they found:

Thomas' book, pg. 259
Quote:
The AirTouch cell phone records were useless. Ramsey started the service in January 1994. AirTouch said that 91 minutes of use were logged during the August--September billing period of 1996, and 108 minutes were used in September--October. October--November was just as busy.

December, however, the only period we were allowed to see, was empty. No calls at all. I asked if someone could have removed the billing records from the computer? "No way," the AirTouch source told me.

"All these months preceding December are busy, and not one call was logged for that entire month?"

The representative was firm. "There ain't no way anybody altered those records." Unquote

My understanding is the cell phone was lost. If anyone finds that wierd, I spoke to a woman today who 'lost' her cell phone--and killed it (her words) when it fell into her coffee cup. She didn't realize what had happened until she drank half the cup. The woman told me she went approximately a month before replacing it because of her work schedule.

Rainsong

 

[root661]

root661,
Perhaps this helps a wee bit.

Yes I agree but wasn't there a second cell phone? In the 06/23/1998 interview Patsy mentions:

• The house phone and fax machine lines. Based upon the books of ST and JK the BPD have those records. I believe that TT/DDDC have those also based upon congressional testimony records.
• Her cell phone
• John's personal cell phone, of which I think it says there are two
• John's work cell phone

I have seen references by ST/JK that BPD had the cell phone records of 1 cell phone but it had no calls listed for the month of Dec. What about the other phones? Perhaps I misunderstand they have all the records but I haven't seen that anywhere in writing or video or audio. All that I have seen are some folks posting that Peter Boyles said he saw it but I haven't seen any details, like what day or etc.

" TOM HANEY: Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--

PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at
Christmas, little teeny one.

TOM HANEY: Was it activated?

PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's activated when you buy it.

TOM HANEY: It's not much of a present if it doesn't work?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, I think it was activated.

TOM HANEY: Probably. Do you recall the phone number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: How about John's cell phone, do you recall that number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.

TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?

PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.

TOM HANEY: And where were they normally kept?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: His--

PATSY RAMSEY: His was usually charging somewhere, probably in his briefcase or something.

TOM HANEY: Did he have a charger set up somewhere though or--

PATSY RAMSEY: Um, I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no."​

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

 

[David Rogers]

Here is a post from BlueCrab in reference to the phone records:

There you go. This is about the last thing blue crab said before they left the forum. There was another adult in the house and another minor. Funny that blue crab was on this forum for about 6 months after their last available comment. The coverup runs deep.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes I agree but wasn't there a second cell phone? In the 06/23/1998 interview Patsy mentions:

• The house phone and fax machine lines. Based upon the books of ST and JK the BPD have those records. I believe that TT/DDDC have those also based upon congressional testimony records.
• Her cell phone
• John's personal cell phone, of which I think it says there are two
• John's work cell phone

I have seen references by ST/JK that BPD had the cell phone records of 1 cell phone but it had no calls listed for the month of Dec. What about the other phones? Perhaps I misunderstand they have all the records but I haven't seen that anywhere in writing or video or audio. All that I have seen are some folks posting that Peter Boyles said he saw it but I haven't seen any details, like what day or etc.

" TOM HANEY: Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--

PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at
Christmas, little teeny one.

TOM HANEY: Was it activated?

PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's activated when you buy it.

TOM HANEY: It's not much of a present if it doesn't work?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, I think it was activated.

TOM HANEY: Probably. Do you recall the phone number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: How about John's cell phone, do you recall that number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.

TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?

PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.

TOM HANEY: And where were they normally kept?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: His--

PATSY RAMSEY: His was usually charging somewhere, probably in his briefcase or something.

TOM HANEY: Did he have a charger set up somewhere though or--

PATSY RAMSEY: Um, I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no."​

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

root661,
You have to check the ramnesia along with the don't know answers.

1. John's cellphone, allegedly lost.

2 Patsy's cellphone, which she says John requisitioned?

3. John's Access cellphone # 1.

4. John's Access cellphone # 2.

Patsy says she cannot remember the numbers precisely so you cannot distinguish which cellphone is which.

Speculating, John uses cellphone 1. to make pre 911 calls, he then hides this cellphone where ever, and takes cellphone 2.?

No calls for December might be for Patsy's Panasonic, identify this cellphone and you can break the logjam!

So I reckon there were 4 cellphones on the go?

 

[icedtea4me]

Sexual assault is usually an act of rage/power. I think John had more motive than Burke, and she was a mini-Patsy with the seductress outfits and behavior, and Patsy wasn't available to him in that way then. Maybe JB decided to fight back and not cooperate this time.

John and Patsy did this interview with WSMV-TV in Nashville, TN in Nov 1999. The interviewer asked if they ever found themselves wearing disguises and John replied [paraphrased from memory]: "We did discuss Patsy wearing a blonde wig, but then people would see me having an affair with a blonde" to which Patsy interjected "We know how that would go". Not a hat or a red wig or a black wig, but a blonde wig.

 

[Cottonstar]

LinasK,

Sure JDI is a possibility.

IMO, which RDI really boils down to motive. This was an act of rage. Which one was this angry with JB?

Conflict is found in the empirical data in 100% of all staged homicides.

 

[Dreacol23]

Actually I do. I don't see why a grown man would be any more attentive to the correct size of a little girl's underwear than her brother would be. (He's not buying the underwear and he shouldn't be changing her). IMO it'd be a very sick sign if my husband actually knew what size underwear my daughter wore once she was no longer a baby whose diaper he changed.
Plus you have the fibers present from John's Israeli woolen shirt. I really don't believe that these got there from the laundry. I think John carried her up the stairs to contaminate the evidence.

unrelated, but what about single dads? How is it sick if a husband knows what size underwear his young daughter wears? Not every man is sick minded.

 

[LinasK]

unrelated, but what about single dads? How is it sick if a husband knows what size underwear his young daughter wears? Not every man is sick minded.

Doesn't apply to John Ramsey. He wasn't a single dad at that point. Patsy was in charge of her daughter, so there's no reason for him to know her underwear size.

 

[UKGuy]

Doesn't apply to John Ramsey. He wasn't a single dad at that point. Patsy was in charge of her daughter, so there's no reason for him to know her underwear size.

LinasK,
Have to agree here. IMO JR was CEO, plain and simple. Underwear sizes and lugging suitcases, e.g. Samsonite, about the house was either left to the housekeeper (LHP) or Patsy.

In short John Ramsey never bothered with underwear details, so it is possible he found the size-12's and thought These will do, they are panties?

Still he has to know where to look for them, does anyone know where they were stored?

Anyone guess: Ask Patsy?

.

 

[Forever Young]

LinasK,
Have to agree here. IMO JR was CEO, plain and simple. Underwear sizes and lugging suitcases, e.g. Samsonite, about the house was either left to the housekeeper (LHP) or Patsy.

In short John Ramsey never bothered with underwear details, so it is possible he found the size-12's and thought These will do, they are panties?

Still he has to know where to look for them, does anyone know where they were stored?

Anyone guess: Ask Patsy?

.

I heard something about this just recently on a YouTube podcast, and I believe the source was one of Patsy's police interviews.

The story was that yes, the panties were purchased for Patsy's niece, but when JonBenet saw them, they were so pretty, she wanted them for herself. She threw a fit and Patsy gave into her. Patsy decided to hold them back for JonBenet to grow into, and they were placed on a shelf in JonBenet's closet.

Supposedly Patsy found the story funny and shared it with a couple of her friends and the story was well known, according to this podcast.

My question would be if it was the same shelf where the housekeeper had hid Burke's knife, or the same location as the pullups? Or was it Patsy's way of letting JonBenet wear the panties that she would never grow into?

Or, when JonBenet was moved into the winecellar, were the panties with the wrapped packages that were for extended family, and someone knowing that new panties were in one of the packages, ripped the paper looking for specifically for them?