Was This Ever Asked?

[Lacy Wood]

Blue Crabb, you keep saying that part of the proof that the Ramseys were covering for someone is because they hid behind their attorneys for so long. Again, I strongly disagree with this reasoning. I don't think it proves anything. There may be other events that show they were covering up, but I still say that they hired attorneys right away because they were educated and weathy and smart.

Again, if someone had died in my home and I were rich, I would immediately hire attorneys to advice me. The problem of overzealous cops and overzealous prosecutors is very, very real. And with the way that the Boulder cops honed in on the Ramseys so intensely, if they hadn't hid behind their lawyers, they could have been arrested and possibly even convicted on flimsy evidence because of media and public pressure.

Don't get me wrong; I don't know and can't decide either way on their guilt or innocence, but this one point I feel very sure about.

Kaly

BC can speak for himself, but I'd like to agree in principle while offering a parallel view. Getting lawyers was fine. It was the fact they were witnesses with integral knowledge and factual data needed for the investigation but withheld it, that suggested they had something to hide. It's a bit different from cases of a detached possible suspect who remains silent. The family and lawyers want us to believe the failure to cooperate was because the police went after the family. That is out of sequence. The family wanted to get the h out of Dodge immediately and would not be interviewed. They like to claim they "spoke" to police that morning, but what occurred was unofficial, incomplete, and prior to locating the body and knowing there was even a death. Most of the data specific to the body and its related evidence was thereby withheld. Their uncooperative conduct was the principal cause of expanding suspicion, not vice versa. Their claim they believed cooperating would have led to an unjust arrest "begs the question" by integrating a hypothetical result with its cause, and is misleading reasoning. While it is not assured, "guilt" is a more likely reason to withhold facts.

 

[BlueCrab]

While it is not assured, "guilt" is a more likely reason to withhold facts.

Lacy Wood,

Correct. Withholding facts suggests guilt, as does fleeing (to buy time to get your story together).

But the most powerful indicator of guilt is LYING. The enhancement of the final four seconds of Patsy's 911 call captured Burke having a conversation with his parents. All three Ramseys, in separate police interviews, told investigators Burke was in bed sleeping (or faking sleep) until 7:00 AM when he was awakened and taken to the White's house. All three Ramseys conspiratorily lied by giving the same answer to the identical question asked in the three separate interviews (the cops had not yet told them all three were caught on the 911 tape).

Burke was downstairs talking with John and Patsy at 5:52 AM, and not in bed. Why did the Ramseys conspiratorily scheme to lie? Doesn't it appear they were trying to distant Burke from the crime scene?

The Ramseys were lying even before the investigation got underway on day one. Only the guilty lie in a murder investigation. Catch the liar and you've caught the killer.

BlueCrab

 

[capps]

Okay capps,

I agree none of us have all the answers. However, I'm trying to follow Occam's Razor principles and select the simplest and most obvious scenarios based on the credible evidence of which we are aware. For instance, here's three givens:

1. We know the Ramseys are covering up something. Wouldn't they do this ONLY if a Ramsey family member was involved in the killing?


2. We know the CBI handwriting experts said John didn't write the ransom note and it was unlikely Patsy wrote it, but they couldn't eliminate BR as the writer. Wouldn't this strongly suggest BR was the writer, but who apparently had help with the wording from an older person ?

3. We know the DNA eliminates JR, PR, and perhaps BR (the authorities are allowed to legally lie to protect the identity of a juvenile), so that leaves the DNA of an unidentified fifth person in the house that night. Wouldn't the fifth person in the house that night likely be the older person who helped BR with the wording?

The only way to reconcile these three givens is to accept the theory that BR and an unidentified older person were likely involved in the writing of the ransom note and in the murder of JonBenet.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

To answer your three givens:

1. We know the Ramseys are covering up something. Wouldn't they do this ONLY if a Ramsey family member was involved in the killing?

I see it more as the Ramsey's being evasive,than a "cover up".Some people understand "cover up" as "staging" ... I don't believe the Ramsey's did any staging,maybe the paid low life (intruder) did though.I believe the Ramsey's are being evasive for fear of these powerful business associates/friends because of more revenge,or some kind of back lash,some thing in that vein,
that may hurt John even more etc.We cannot rule it out,and accept it as ONLY family.

2. We know the CBI handwriting experts said John didn't write the ransom note and it was unlikely Patsy wrote it, but they couldn't eliminate BR as the writer. Wouldn't this strongly suggest BR was the writer, but who apparently had help with the wording from an older person ?

It was "unlikely" Patsy wrote it. "Unlikely" tells me ...gee,it looks sort of like Patsy's writing,but not quite. Seems to me that SOME ONE was trying to copy Patsy's handwriting/style.Surely,with Patsy knowing her "social graces",there were plenty of thank you notes,invitations,etc.to business associates/friends to go around and copy from.True,they couldn't eliminate Burke,but they couldn't eliminate Patsy either.

3. We know the DNA eliminates JR, PR, and perhaps BR (the authorities are allowed to legally lie to protect the identity of a juvenile), so that leaves the DNA of an unidentified fifth person in the house that night. Wouldn't the fifth person in the house that night likely be the older person who helped BR with the wording?

No one knows the DNA of the intruder ... maybe the fifth person is the low life.

Let's also talk about the enchanced few last minutes of the 911 call. I honestly am not convinced. Only a very few select people have heard a good copy of it,that's not enough to sway me. But ... for the sake of argument ... let's say it was BR. Why after some believe the family had all night to stage and plan this kidnap/murder cover up,would BR,just minutes before the police are to arrive,be saying:"Please,what do I do?" and "What did you find?" Doesn't fit in. I believe IF BR came down stairs,the Ramsey's in their hysteria,wanted BR out of the way .... and not involved in this horrible situation,and told him to stay upstairs in bed,and lied about it,to protect him from the crazy situation tat was only going to get worse. He was only 9 years old and his sister was just kidnapped.

I want to set the record straight ... BC, I am not trying to prove you wrong.that is not my intent.In fact your theory is very good,and I do not rule it out. But IMO,my theory is just as credible.

 

[Kaly]

Capps, your conspiracy theory is very interesting; I will say so again. And I do agree with all of you that the Ramseys lied and that makes them look guilty, and those lies don't make much sense.

One thing that struck me hard was when I was reading DOI and it lingers with me, for some reason. They described how frightened they were as they were driving over the crest into Boulder after returning from JB's funeral in Georgia. I believe they said they were coming back to "help find the killer" and to get their son back in his school to make his life seem more normal.

It really felt to me like their attorneys must have had practically forced them to return and face the music. I'll bet that if it hadn't been for their attorneys, they would have stayed in Georgia and hid their head in the sand just like ostriches as long as they could. And that they wouldn't have taken a second thought about putting Burke into a new school in the middle of the semester. So, I felt that was yet another lie in DOI.

 

[narlacat]

>>Why after some believe the family had all night to stage and plan this kidnap/murder cover up,would BR,just minutes before the police are to arrive,be saying:"Please,what do I do?" and "What did you find?" Doesn't fit in.<<

I've thought that myself and wondered why noone had brought that up here before now.

>>I want to set the record straight ... BC, I am not trying to prove you wrong.that is not my intent.In fact your theory is very good,and I do not rule it out. But IMO,my theory is just as credible.<<

None of us were at the Ramsey house that night.
None of us really knows what happened.
What we are doing here is speculating and anyone one of you could be right.

 

[Toltec]

The Ramseys were/are lying and covering up.

Patsy discovers the note on the spiral staircase. She "thinks" this is a note from LHP....BALONEY! The Ramseys used the spiral stairs the night before.

Patsy undresses JonBenet and leaves her white shirt on....BALONEY. She slipped up and told LE that she pulled everything off of JonBenet, catches herself, and then says she left her white shirt on.

When asked by LE if she normally keeps JonBenet's door open she claims that she does... Then she said I closed it because of the bright light in the landing.

Patsy was in the basement wrapping presents AFTER returning from the Whites.

Patsy was in JAR's room packing three suitcases.

Patsy was on the second-floor landing packing clothes for the trip to Charlevoix.

Patsy claims that she normally closes JonBenet's door if the light is on in the landing. Well it was on because Patsy was working there Christmas night. So JonBenet's door was closed. She said it was ajar but it was not....she was lying to LE.

WHY LIE ABOUT SOMETHING SO PETTY?

 

[sissi]

We all have our theories and opinions, it's obvious to so many that Patsy was lying, that John was lying, yet some of us, including myself, have seen no lies, confusion that often follows a traumatic even, yes, lies, no!