The Boarder Across the Street

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by RobertStJames, Apr 23, 2005.

  1. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not going to use his name, since the "theories" thread said not to, but here is it. Some of you who follow the case will know who this guy is:



    The one dude that keeps sticking out is XXXX. Barnhill's downstairs boarder whose alibi is that he was sick with the flu down in his room that night. It's worth noting that JonBenet also seems to have been ill right before the murders. But nobody else at either residence.
    -- He's right across the street from the Ramseys
    -- He'd gone to that open house
    -- He must have seen JonBenet on numerous occasions as her dog stayed at the Barnhills
    -- He would have known the Ramseys were going to be out that night
    -- A figure was seen approaching the Ramsey house around 9pm, from the 15th street (front) side. That figure was thought to be Ramsey's older son until it was finally
    proven (not that it should ever have been in doubt) the son was in Atlanta. So, whomever the witness saw was a young male and this is after the time XXXX went to his room. BPD seems to have been very interested in this lead until they figured out it couldn't be Ramsey's son, at which point, they dropped it completely. So the sighting of someone approaching the Ramsey house that night is for real. Otherwise, BPD never would have bothered establishing that Ramsey's older son was in Atlanta.

    -- The perp didn't take JonBenet out of the house. Well, XXXX could hardly bring her across the street, could he?
    -- His handwriting *could not be excluded* (bet we've heard that before).
    -- BPD claims he was DNA'd out. BPD didn't do
    a bit of DNA testing after the material under JonBenet's
    fingernails and from her panties came back negative for Ramsey DNA. I don't care what they say. They also said they'd tested another suspect (seen on the 48hrs show) and they hadn't.

    -- He seems to have all but vanished shortly after the case.
    -- Shapiro thinks he was "harmless." Yeah, Jeff Shapiro's opinion has been shown to be so accurate throughout the years.



    As we saw in the Jessica Lunsford case, and the Van Dam case, when a child disappears (or is killed) in their own home when parents are there, you start looking in the immediate area. Like within 200yds. It was cold that night. I don't see a perp coming from across town to do
    the crime, nor casing the place out. Nor having any way to know the Ramseys were not home because they had a garage. But XXX knew they were going to be out. He would have known that from the Barnhills. That's why JonBenet's dog was over there so often. They left him there when they were going to be out.


    "
    COURIC: You also mention XXXX, who was a boarder at your neighbor's house. He stopped by at your Christmas party...
    Mr. RAMSEY: Mm-hmm.
    COURIC: ...just a few days before.
    Mr. RAMSEY: I mention him because he's been mentioned, also, publicly. We didn't know XXXX lived across the street from us until after JonBenet was murdered.
    "


    So, he was probably quite a recent addition to the Barnhill residence, seeing as how John knew the Barnhills quite well, but:


    "LOU SMIT: Were the kids developing a


    2 relationship with this fellow, XXXX, do you
    3 think or has that ever been discussed?
    4 JOHN RAMSEY: It's never been discussed.
    5 I don't know. To my knowledge anyway. As I say, I
    6 didn't even know he lived there. They had an
    7 apartment in the basement.
    "
    You're looking for a perp, you look at this guy living in Barnhill's basement..

    Or you could spend the next ten years "analyzing" that ransom note trying to "prove" Patsy Ramsey wrote it.

    That's always been good for some laughs.

    RstJ
     
  2. Loading...


  3. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was he from San Francisco? SFPD=0 ...ya never know!
    Of course they should have looked at him, as well as looked at the twins in Melody Stanton's house. Who were the two men referred to on the program, the two that disappeared shortly after the murder. Two with extensive criminal records that were not checked out!
     
  4. Bobbisangel

    Bobbisangel New Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It sounds like the BPD had one focus and that was it. Sounds odd that this man left town right after the murder. If he had a basement apt. who would know if he was home sick or not. I'm sure the home owners didn't go down and check on him.

    I wonder why the FBI didn't come in and take over the case when it became known that the BPD had botched the whole investigation? This little girl deserves justice.

    Didn't the BPD turn their noses up at Lou and the things that he came up with? It sounded like he was right on track. Those big egos get in the way regardless if it has to do with the murder of a little girl. The BPD would rather the killer is never found then for someone else to discover who did it.
     
  5. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I totally agree with your post. The ransom note 'tells' the FBI to put the killing on the front burner: "Speaking to anyone about your situation such as police or F.B.I. will result in your daughter being beheaded."

    The author uses FBI and beheaded in the same sentence.
     
  6. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An interesting comparison can be made w/the Jessica Lunsford case. As we saw there, the crime was committed by a guy who'd recently taken up residence not far from the victim's home. A guy who hardly knew the victim, and perhaps only noticed her at a garage sale a month earlier. But a guy who would have seen her many times from that creepy tweaker pad he lived in. He took the victim all of 100yds away. And remember how the focus was on the Lunsford family at the beginning? I'm embarassed to admit that I was speculating along those same lines too.

    I've always wondered: why didn't the Ramsey perp just take her out of the house? Because he was clearly planning to do just that in the suitcase that was found "Fibers from inside the suitcase were found all over JonBenet's body." But he didn't. I've always believed this was because he did not have a vehicle. And he really didn't have anywhere to take her, ie a homeless guy. Yet the Lunsford case showed us that a child can be abducted and taken a very short distance away, and not found. Even with dogs and FBI! So the perp could very well have been planning to take her somewhere. In that suitcase. But he couldn't have been planning to take her very far. How about right across the street? To a downstairs room he rented. A guy John Ramsey didn't even know, wouldn't obviously suspect. And a place LE doesn't seem to have ever bothered to search.

    I've also wondered about the note. No, not whether Patsy wrote it or not (she obviously didn't). But someone did. Someone who was originally going to address it to both parents, then thought it over again, and just wrote it to John. Ok, John didn't know the guy across the street, but the guy across the street obviously knew who John was. John Ramsey came over to the Barnhills. He'd been there as recently as Xmas eve. And this boarder guy had been at that open house. I very strongly suspect he was the guy who called 911 that night just to see what the response would be, how fast police would arrive. And just to be a creep, too. Alarm people. Anyway, why write the note? It's obviously a bogus ransom note. The perp was never going to try to collect on that thing. So why?

    I think it was to freeze the Ramseys into not calling the police, or even if they did, to throw LE off the track. Nothing more than that. A ruse by a guy who knows he has plenty of time in the Ramsey house and figures he'll have some fun pointing them the wrong direction. Just like that 911 call. And a guy who obviously watches a lot of lousy movies and TV. And what was our boarder doing before he went downstairs with a tummyache? He was watching TV with the Barnhills.

    If Lunsford taught us anything, it's that you look *nearby* You look in the immediate area. And Smit was obviously quite interested in Meyer, and seems to have found out that he did have contact with JonBenet.

    That makes him one very interesting guy indeed.

    RstJ
     
  7. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The boarder at the Barnhills fitted the police profile of the killer and his handwriting resembled that in the ransom note. He also likely had access to the Ramseys house-key kept by the Barnhills. The reason the cops let him go was because he passed a lie-detector test.

    But he didn't kill JonBenet. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up to protect him. The Ramseys would lie and cover up only to protect a Ramsey.
     
  8. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ??

    Where do you have that from? And if it's from a book, did they footnote that? I've heard he gave a handwriting sample, refused a poly, and LE never followed up because he *didn't* fit the profile because BPD had decided that anything w/o Patsy or John Ramsey in it, wasn't part of any profile.


    RstJ
     
  9. bensmom98

    bensmom98 Former Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am reading PMPT right now so I will answer this one. On pp. 86-87 it says he was offered a polygraph, took it, and passed. He also gave handwriting samples and fingerprints. On p. 182 it says that about a month later he was asked for another handwriting sample as his first showed similarities to the note. Then he made Ramseys' lawyers' list of suspects and about 1 1/2 mos. later he was checked out further and it was found that he was 10's of thousands of dollars in debt. Thomas questioned him further about his whereabouts on the nights in question and he was asked to and agreed to submit another blood sample.

    I am not as well versed as some of the others who follow this case, but this all that is said about him that I can find in Schiller's book. None of it is footnoted.

    Can anyone else add to this from other sources?
     
  10. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All that interest in a guy who passed a poly? Sounds like someone's trying to explain why a serious suspect was allowed to melt away. Anyone know if he's in ST's book? I don't have that one handy.


    RstJ
     
  11. Camper

    Camper New Member

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good to resurrect dead issues, and re look at them again.

    I just posted on the thread 'Didn't live in the house' er something like that.

    I am wondering IF IF a psychotic killer could PASS a polygraph test?

    I recall reading about XXXX that his son had been murdered NOT long before ?? did it involve drugs ?? I cannot remember.

    Since Jessica Lunsford case, interesting comparative here, about distance from the Ramsey home. I am wondering IF IF IF the BPD even considered or looked at whether XXXX might have been registered as a sexual deviant in another state? Florida sure slipped up!

    I am not getting too deep into this idea, because I remain so suspicious about any grief from the Ramseys - being chaneled into helping other families, such as Mark Lunsford, Samantha Runnions Mom, Danielle Van Dam parents, Elizabeth Smarts parents, the Walsh family, and that so many many others have done. Nada from the Ramseys. Please enlighten me IF I err on this.

    I am guessing even Mr. XXXX tells his story to friends etc, about having lived across from the murder house, along with his story about his own son being murdered, my pondersome thoughts continue.

    :boohoo:


    .
     
  12. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was reading "The Cases that Haunt Us", again, last night, one thing that Douglas is clear on is the lack of trust that can be put into a lie detector test. He claimed not only can sociopath/psychopaths pass lie detector tests, they most often DO with ease! On the flip side of this, when offering a test to 20 suspects in one particular crime, SIX failed!! None was the killer!
     
  13. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Regardless of how accurate they are, I'd be interested to know the extent to which suspects are asked to take polygraphs JUST to gauge their reaction to the request?

    I note rom reading Catherine Crier's book about Scott Peterson that he initially agreed to take a polygraph but backed out.

    Polygraphs aren't used here in LE (to the best of my knowledge) but I've seen them on programmes like "Trisha" and "Ricki" (neither of which I watch on a regular basis I hasten to add!). I would imagine that properly administered, polygraphs have some merit. However, I would also imagine that the sooner they are administered, the better.
     
  14. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's generally accepted that lie-detector examinations, conducted by qualified polygraphers, are about 95 % reliable.
     
  15. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, there it is. ST pg. 71. He's discussing the Barnhills. This is the source for the polygraph story, and the murdered son (in Boston) and the heavy debt load. According to Thomas, the Barnhills and XXXX somehow "alibi'd" each other, which doesn't make a whole lotta sense seeing as how XXXX went to bed in his basement room after watching TV with them at 9pm (how is this an "alibi" when the murder took place later that night?) Thomas also comes to the utterly bizarre conclusion that XXXX can't be a suspect because "his son had been murdered." Huh? How does that clear XXXX?

    Thomas mentions writing and hair samples (no blood samples) but says nothing about XXXX not being excluded as the writer of the note. Nor does he mention the second handwriting sample. He also says that Barnhill is the source of the JAR rumor (that Ramseys older son was in Boulder) and then goes on to say that Barnhill realized he'd made a mistake, and probably couldn't pick the guy out of a crowd. Thomas assures us that this helps confirm JAR's alibi (like he needed one seeing as how there was never any doubt he was in Atlanta).

    Thomas never says what the results were on the hair samples.

    The entire page is a perfect example of Thomas' extremely scrambled logic. But it raises one very fascinating point: where did Joe Barnhill think he saw JAR on the evening of Dec 25? It was freezing outside, certainly "JAR" wasn't somebody at Barnhill's own house and they were home watching TV. So where did he see this person and why on earth would he think it was Ramsey's son?


    "Barnhill also said he saw JAR, Ramsey's son from a previous marriage, a student at CU, come to the house."

    But that was not JAR. So who did Barnhill see come to the house the evening of Dec 25th? ST and BPD obviously put credence in this sighting as they went to ridiculous lengths to verify that JAR was really in Atlanta. And he was. So Joe Barnhill, directly across the street, saw a young adult male approach the Ramsey house on the evening of Dec 25th, come *to the house* and thought it was somebody it could not have been.

    So who was it?

    (note: supposedly Barnhill has retracted his statement and said it wasn't him who thought he saw JAR. I've never found a cite for that. BPD obviously believed whoever gave them that sighting since they spent days verifying that JAR was, in fact, in Atlanta.)



    Barnhill's really one of the few people with a view of the front of the house, and one of the few who would even take an interest in it, and one of the few people who would jump to JAR as the guy. And we know he was upstairs watching TV that evening. So I think it's certainly possible that he saw "JAR" out his window, approaching the Ramsey house. Again, this is the *evening* of Dec 25, only hours before the murder.



    PMPT takes up XXXX in an interesting context. John Ramsey shows up at the Barnhill's at 9pm to get JonBenet's bike. This is Dec 24th. Schiller then jumps immediately to discussing Dec 25th and the Barnhills. Weird. I've never understood why in all accounts of that bicycle I've read, it's always discussed in the context of John picking it up Dec 24th, and then suddenly it's Dec 25th. Nobody saw JB riding a bike that day, although Burke was seen. The only other report about the bike is JB riding it on the back patio just shortly before leaving for the Whites on Dec 25th. Seeing as how every other object in that house has been the source of endless discussion, what about that bike? Where did it go, where was it found?


    PMPT confirms that ST had XXXX take a poly, but *after* the poly, ST is back asking for handwriting and hair samples. ?? Why? XXXX is mentioned as being at a Christmas party at the Ramseys, but that he was never introduced. Problem is, the Ramseys had three parties, and it's not clear which one XXXX went to, although my assumption is that it would have been the same one as the Barnhill's went to--Dec 23rd, two days before the murder.

    So we've got some guy in Barnhill's basement with a heavy debt load, a murdered son in Boston, no alibi, a sighting of someone who was not JAR near the Ramsey house the evening of Dec 25th, and handwriting, hair samples, and polys, the results of the latter apparently not conclusive enough to stop ST from going *back* to the guy for more handwriting samples and hair.


    RstJ




    RstJ
     
  16. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To all the doubters of LE,

    I'm not defending the job that they did on this case, for really, I am not privy to enough information to properly assess their work. However, I would like to ask you all a question. If someone is considered a suspect (outside of the family) and investigated and cleared, do you expect LE to come out and discuss this? Think about what that means. Someone is WRONGLY accused of being involved, LE thoroughly investigates them and determines they are not involved. Why should LE have to give the public every last detail? Doesn't this ruin that person's life? I agree the same can be said about the Ramseys, but I would like to address this question to those who accuse others, such as Helgoth, neighbors, friends, etc...just because you haven't been able to read about every single lie detector test, DNA test, and interview, does that mean that these people have not been properly cleared by LE?
     
  17. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Steve Thomas is going to bring the guy up *by name* in his book (which was read by tens of thousands of people) don't you think he owes it to the guy to say that he was cleared and say *how* he was cleared? Seriously, just how fair is it to toss the guy's name up and then never refer to the results of the tests? The thing that becomes clear is that ST was still interested in the guy even after the poly, but he doesn't say why, and doesn't say anything about the results of the tests. Don't you think it's fair to expect that the author of a book, working from police files, the former lead investigator, who brings up a suspect, should at least say how and by what method the guy was cleared of suspicion?


    RstJ
     
  18. RobertStJames

    RobertStJames Inactive

    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A bit more on XXXX:

    This is John Ramsay discussing the Xmas party, looking at pictures w/Smit.

    4 That's Betty Barnhill, I believe, from
    5 across the street.
    6 The Barnhills, somebody came looking for the
    7 Barnhills later in the evening, knocked on the
    8 door. I let him in, he said he was looking for Joe
    9 and Betty, he was worried about them. I said, well
    10 they're in the next room and we invited him in and
    11 we made him feel at home. I think we learned later
    12 that he was a tenant they had living in the
    13 basement. But he was there for a while.

    I guess I don't see why the Barnhills didn't say who the guy was. But in any case, it makes the "he had never been introduced to John Ramsey" part seem more than a little questionable. Yes, technically he hadn't been introduced formally, but he certainly met the guy.

    Then there's this:

    "Boulder police dispatch records show that on December 23 someone in JonBenet's home called 911 then hung up, the Post reported. It was not clear who placed the call or if there was any connection to the killing, the paper said. "

    Hm. So we have XXXX over at the Ramsey house for quite some time, and someone that night calls 911. We have XXXX "worried" about the Barnhills for no reason that I can see, and using this as an excuse to get inside the Ramsey house and hang around...doing what?

    JonBenet's bike was kept either in the Barnhill garage, or in the basement. A secret bike, an Xmas bike. And JonBenet was going around telling people that "Santa" had promised her a special visit, *after* Christmas. That person has never been identified and no, I don't think JB was making it up.

    And lastly, the most disturbing part:

    3 LOU SMIT: But didn't you board your dog over
    4 at the Barnhill's?
    5 JOHN RAMSEY: We did. They became attached
    6 to him.
    10 they took care of him and the kids could play with
    11 him.

    Play with him...at the Barnhills? That part isn't clear. But Smit asks about whether the children had formed any kind of relationship w/XXXX and that makes me think Smit had reason to believe JB had been over at the Barnhill's playing with her dog, because there's never been any indication XXXX ever spent any time at the Ramsey house except on the night of Dec 23.


    Things that make you wonder....



    RstJ
     
  19. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    "So, whomever the witness saw was a young male and this is after the time XXXX went to his room."

    I thought Meyer was an older man.
     
  20. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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

    Nehemiah,

    Correct. GM was an older guy.

    Two possibilities:

    JAR, age 20

    NI, age 21
     
  21. Camper

    Camper New Member

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact is that Barnhill DID see a male walk up to the RAmsey house on Christmas Day.

    Barnhill thought it was JAR.

    The street the Ramseys and Barnhill lived on is sooooooooooo narrow, someone who was half blind could have been certain of the approximate age of 'the' person at that distance. Barnhill as I recall was IN HIS OWN FRONT yard.

    The pitchers mound in a professional baseball game is farther from home plate than Barnhills house and Ramseys front door, imop.

    NO ONE, BPD or the Ramseys ever explained who the WHO was that came to their door on CHRISTMAS DAY!!

    Only thing we heard via the media was that it was NOT JAR, '''''cuz he warent''''' NOT in Boulder, bad grammar, and BAD investigation/explanation. BUT would you not think they would offer through the media just who the WHO was that Barnhill saw? Barnhill must surely still have bus wheel marks on him.

    Really how ODD to have someone come to your door on Christmas Day, IF IF you were not having them for Christmas lunch, er why would anyone NOT be in their own home for Christmas, instead of walking up to someones house and being seen in broad daylight, yet being denied that they even existed.

    Color me coo coo.



    .


    .
     

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