Why doesn't anyone think it could've been John.

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Swirlz, Feb 14, 2018.

  1. proust20

    proust20 Active Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    33
    UKGuy

    What I meant in my previous post is that when it comes to the days-of-the-week Bloomis, I didn't think that there were both a size 12 of them and another set for JB. PR was, of course, vague about the purchase of them, as she referred to how much JB liked them, which convinced PR to buy them. Then, PR switches over to these being her niece's gift. More ambiguity on purpose.

    However, as I am writing this, I may be changing my mind. After all, if JB had her own set of them, that could explain why she was redressed in the size 12s. Her own pair could have been tainted with some body fluids, etc. which necessitated the change. Picking the correct Wednesday pair in the wrong size could have been an ill-guided attempt at cover up, maybe by BR? That many of JB's panties were taken by LE indicates that they were of forensic interest.

    No size that would fit JB were found; but then, no size 12s were found in the house either. So that is the same outcome, even if there were sets in different sizes.

    I believe that it is likely that BR initiated the staging, which the Rs began to revise? This involvement of many hands seems to account for much of the confusion, that ultimately proved to be beneficial for the family. If BR did in fact say "What DID you find?", he could be inquiring as to how his parents rearranged things after his departure from the staging activity. He wouldn't know what his parents had been up to after he was sent to his room. BTW I am not confident about what is being said on the 911 call after the mistaken hang up by PR.
     
    Venom likes this.


  2. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proust20,
    Yes, Patsy is attempting to avoid any reference to the size of the underwear. Patsy does not declare what size she purchased for JonBenet, she was hoping to avoid the issue by implying they were size-12!
     
  3. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proust20,
    Parsing The Underwear Sizes
    Atlanta 2000 BPD Patsy Interview Excerpt
    So Patsy states:
    Patsy says unequivocally that she purchased the size-12 Bloomingdale's.

    Patsy can say yes here as the size is not specified only the brand.

    Bottom Line is Patsy purchased a set of Bloomingdale underwear for her niece, i.e. size-12, and a set of Bloomingdale underwear for JonBenet, i.e. size-6.

    Patsy cannot remember the sizes, but if she had purchased Bloomingdale underwear size-12 for JonBenet, then not only would JonBenet not need to request Jenny Davis' gift, but there should be two sets of Bloomingdale size-12 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

    So the intruder went into JonBenet's underwear drawer and removed only her size-12 underwear and proceeded to redress JonBenet in a pair of size-12 Bloomingdale's, then left the house with the remaining 15 pairs?

    Note: there are 15 pairs in both instances.

    So with no size-12's found in the house and if you assume there was no intruder, then 6 pairs of the underwear taken by BPD will be Bloomingdale's size-6, the rest can be any combination of size-6 or size-4 underwear in any brand.

    That is the remainder of the Bloomingdale's size-6 purchased by Patsy in New York were left in her underwear drawer.

    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
  4. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proust20,
    Some forensic details in this account:

    Fox 31 News, Nov 13, 2006
    Not only was Holly Smith removed from the case, but she had all the material relating to the Ramsey's redacted from her autobiography. What does that tell you?
     
    Denisedyann likes this.
  5. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proust20,
    Yes, I reckon you are on the right track here. Yet note how Burke does not ask Did you find JonBenet?

    He is acting dumb, e.g. uninformed, even casual like You find anything interesting? whilst the latter is not accurate, its safe to assume he knows JonBenet's disposition.

    So it might be Burke is thinking he has fooled his parents and subsequently that he has got away with it?

    What else might explain his casual attitude from here on in the case, even during the Dr. Phil interview where he describes JonBenet as flaunting herself at pageants, along with his trademark smirking.

    Obviously not much has changed?

    .
     
    Venom likes this.
  6. proust20

    proust20 Active Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    33
    UKGuy

    My question that still remains is WHY was JB left to be found wearing the size 12s. With all the staging that took place that night, it seems absurd that such an obvious error was overlooked, particularly so as the panties had to be pulled down, so that she could be wiped. There is the possibility that the size 12s were intentional?

    The entire crime seems so bound up with celebrating Christmas. PR and JB go to NY to shop for the Holidays. It is there that the size 12s are bought for PR's niece as a Christmas gift. Yet, if this is true, the size 12s were never sent to Jenny. PR said that this was because JB had opened the package with them. If this is not the case, why did PR not send them out? Then, somehow, JB winds up wearing the size 12s on Christmas. Are they meant to be a bizarre present for JB?
    Of course, there is the matter of the secret Santa. Also, the Santa bear. Plus, the Rs listed the man who dressed up as Santa to amuse JB as a suspect. Finally, JB's body is laid beneath the Christmas tree, which is something that one would expect in a work of fiction.

    When people discuss the case, most theories tend to accidental death followed with a cover up by the Rs. However, it ought not to be disregarded that the murder could have been premeditated, and planned to happen on Christmas? Although, it is most likely that JB died in the early hours of the morning of the 26th, her headstone gives the date of death as the 25th of December. IMO this is rather macabre. It's as if the Rs wanted her to have died on Christmas, which has a quasi-Victorian sentimentality to it, at the very least. There are elements which could be interpreted as ritualistic? In this vein, bringing JB to NY to buy the panties could have been the first step in this ritual? I know this is far out; but, I just want to point out that her accidental death is only theoretical. I was intrigued by a recent post here that suggested that JB's death was sacrificial in nature.
     
    Denisedyann, Emerald2 and Venom like this.
  7. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proust20,
    It was Christmas so it will be a factor real or imagined.

    If you accept neither parent dressed JonBenet in the size-12's, i.e. Patsy knows they are a red flag, and John neither knows nor cares about their existence, then this leaves Burke as the remaining candidate for dressing JonBenet in the size-12's which aligns with JonBenet also wearing Burke's long johns, again not something either parent would wish to dress JonBenet in for the purpose of staging.

    Patsy must be lying about the size-12's, anyone surprised? Gift for Jenny, whatever, they are unlikely to have been intended as part of a crime-scene staging.

    What Patsy and John say about the basement and the wine-cellar is mostly fabricated to match their imaginary version of events, so deciding what Patsy's intentions or plans might have been is a guessing game.

    The Secret Santa might have been another Christmas celebration intended for their vacation? It might be the reason they celebrated Christmas in Boulder, i.e. there might have been an ulterior motive in play?

    It's likely that John made the mistake of overlooking the size-12's, all needed to do was pull down Burke's long johns and the size-12's, clean JonBenet and pull them backup?

    John never noticed the obvious error whilst Patsy would have, so JonBenet was left wearing them?

    I'm assuming the parents were late to find JonBenet, probably long after she had been assaulted then staged in her bedroom, consider the blood stain on her pillow, or Burke's pajama bottoms found on her bedroom floor.

    This will be the reason she was moved along with a Samsonite suitcase of incriminating items down to the basement, then blamed on a fictional Intruder?

    The size-12's are intentional, just not for the purpose of staging a crime-scene, the motivation was something else.

    If they are intended as part of a staged crime-scene, then so presumably must be Burke's long johns, suggesting that he was to be the original prime suspect?

    If it had been premeditated by either parent then the crime-scene staging would be more sophisticated and whilst signs that it was staged might be discernible, it would not resemble the disorganized crime-scene left both in the bedroom, basement and breakfast bar, all the little details would have been taken care of, i.e. no ponytails!

    Well sacrificial rites incorporating a sexual element have long been known to exist in the middle east, so an interpretation along these lines could be made, although given the actual forensic evidence it appears tenuous.


    .
     
  8. JimL2020

    JimL2020 New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I firmly believe that both parents played a role in this. One did the killing and the other knew or found out about it and both covered it up. Too many things make no sense in this case for it to be an intruder.
    1) no random intruder would write such a long ransom note inside house, then kill the victim. They would have wrote note, kidnapped child and left quickly as possible. To kill the child and yet leave a ransom note is just not how that works and stinks of cover up.
    2) everyone of any intellegience knows that when you are the victim of a crime you dont call all your freinds over and let them clean up the house while there is an ongoing crime at your house.
    3) everyone also knows that if you find a body inside your house you dont pick the said body up and carry it upstairs. You leave everything as is and notify the police of what you found and where. This is common sense and everyone knows this.
    4) the ransom note was too long, had details in it only known to a few people, and wrote inside the house with items from the house. No intruder would spend that kind of time inside the house doing writing that note and then killing the kidnapping victim, would be pointless and increase your odds of getting caught
    5) The dna found while does not point to anyone in the immediate family, i am not sure plays any role in this as it could have came from anywhere and anyone, from investigators, freinds, transfer at morgue, transfer during testing or many other ways.
    6) if they dna was from the killer, which i dont think it is, as anyone who kills in such the fashion that JBR was killed, has done it before and done it since. How many killers kill using this method, sexual and with a garrote have not and havent done it since. I dont believe this DNA is particular to the actually killer, it is in the data base and not returned any results in this long of time. No random child killer who kills in this manner only done this type of crime once.
    7) The parents really did not cooperate in a way that would tell me they are innocent. Face it if it was my child i would give statements, dna, anything they needed to get my child back and to help rule me out asap, this was not the case with them.
    8) someone knew the layout of the house. While the house was not huge the layout was odd..and to be able to get in, take JBR out her room, kill her, hide her in basement and no one wakes up is far fetched to believe.

    Sadly this is only a few reasons I think the parents were involved. At any rate i dont see this case ever being solved as first the BPD botched this case from the start by allowing people in the crime scene, letting the JR search the house instead of them, not collecting all the evidence and so on.
     
    Denisedyann, dgfred and Venom like this.
  9. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JimL2020,
    Assuming there was no intruder, then there are only three suspects left.

    1. PDI: Patsy Did It.

    2. JDI: John Did It.

    3. BDI: Burke Did It.

    With the Grand Jury hitting both parents with assisting an offender and child abuse True Counts, but not homicide counts this suggests the case is BDI with the parents staging for Burke Ramsey.

    Also the use of the Grand Jury underpins the above as there was enough forensic evidence to simply charge both parents with First Degree Homicide and let the jury decide?

    i.e. no BDI means you do not need a Grand Jury and its accompanying secrecy also mandated by Colorado State statute in relation to underage children.

    Could be the Grand Jury never turned out as expected for Hunter so he never filed the True Bills as a bureaucratic move to avoid scrutiny?

    Again it helps to keep in mind, that alike Coroner Meyer and Dr. Andy Sirontak, the Grand Jury had access to evidence that has been sealed ever since, including questioning Burke Ramsey.

    .
     
  10. fr brown

    fr brown Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    742
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Michael Kane doesn't think that Burke did it so why would he be presenting evidence to the grand jury that implicated Burke? Dan Abrams said that the grand jury evidence was against Patsy and John. (Lou Smit and one(?) Ramsey handwriting expert presented an "intruder did it" scenario--against Kane's objections, as I understand it.)

    If Burke were a target or a subject of the grand jury, his lawyer would have told him to take the fifth. He didn't.

    The grand jury indictment is probably a compromise verdict. The grand juror who appeared on 20/20 is quoted as follows: ”There is no way that I would have been able to say, ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person,’” the juror said. And if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.” That sounds like he's talking about Patsy and John.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
    dgfred likes this.
  11. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fr brown,

    Which is of no substance to the question, as Burke Ramsey is appearing before a Grand Jury, i.e. Secret Meeting, and Burke being underage at the time of JonBenet's homicide, as per Colorado Statute, will never appear in any criminal court nor shall his name be listed as being linked or appearing in the commission of JonBenet's homicide.

    You reckon if the case is BDI that Burke is going to admit to Jonbenet's homicide so requiring The Fifth if he were above the age of criminal responsibility?

    Could be, depends if its the one Hunter was hoping to engineer? Which I doubt hence the no file maneuver.


    Sure and that is a legalese style opinion.

    Hunter never filed because he did not want the case to go public which would mean the discovery phase of any trial would reveal all the Ramsey backdoor moves, e.g. Island of privacy, etc along with damning forensic evidence, i.e. CSI photographs of JonBenet, her bedroom, the clothing etc.

    Why did the parents not have First Degree Homicide counts leveled against them?

    They both colluded as per the other True Counts according to the Grand Jury, so if any one was guilty of First Degree Homicide then the other was also similarly implicated to a lesser degree but still a Homicide count.

    As far as the Homicide Count goes its a binary option, either its the parents or it's Burke Ramsey?

    The cost of a trial is a valid argument against proceeding, but this does not explain why the Grand Jury never leveled any First Degree Murder Counts?

    Unless they did and due to Colorado Statutes they cannot make them public?

    .
     
  12. icedtea4me

    icedtea4me Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Do we know that Murder in the First Degree wasn't on any of the following counts: I, II, III, IV-b, V, or VI, yes or no?

    Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death – Boulder Daily Camera

    According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet’s parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered “official actions” of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages — two pages for each parent — were released.
     
  13. David Rogers

    David Rogers Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    355
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do you think this plays into the scenario that she was attacked in her room but released her urine (died?) in the basement? How did she get to the basement? Drug down two flights of stairs?
     
  14. fr brown

    fr brown Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    742
    Trophy Points:
    93
    So John and Patsy are targets of the grand jury and they don't appear. Their minor son is subpoenaed and, following websleuth logic, they know he's guilty of murder, but they don't even fight his subpoena. They just let him toddle along and give testimony that they know will incriminate them (and him). Doesn't make much sense.
     
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113

    David Rogers,
    Your own reasoning tells you why?

    JonBenet was still alive when she was moved from her bedroom to the basement, patently with a bladder containing urine.

    As you suggest, once asphyxiated, probably by Patsy, she evacuates her bladder!

    Who moved JonBenet to the basement is an open question. It might have been Burke, or one of the parents.

    It all depends on your favorite scenario so it could go something like this:

    1. Burke whacks JonBenet, putting her into a coma, then he moves her down to the basement where he amateurishly stages her.

    2. Early next morning Patsy discovers JonBenet in the basement, (Burke: What did you find), she then changes the crime-scene, possibly redressing JonBenet, consider the pink barbie nightgown.

    3. John after wiping JonBenet down and leaving fibers from his Israeli shirt on JonBenet's genital region, then decides to tweak the crime-scene further, changing it from an intruder scenario to that of a kidnapper, hence the RN?

    This is just a general outline, you could come up with additional variations.

    .
     
  16. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fr brown,
    Yeah, Kinda, see we all know one of the Ramsey's did it.

    The Grand Jury knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

    Hunter knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

    BPD knew one of the Ramsey's did it.

    Each one of the Ramsey's know one of them did it.

    The parents may have been advised that a Grand Jury would be the best move for the family as it would protect Burke on two levels, e.g. no publicity, no prosecution.

    The Grand Jury was a bureaucratic device, the money spent on it could easily have funded a few weeks in court where the parents would have faced First Degree Homicide charges.

    .
     
    dgfred likes this.
  17. dgfred

    dgfred Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,867
    Likes Received:
    4,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I mostly fall under the #2 scenario.

    The who did what problem was going to always be there... so no prosecution.
     
  18. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    icedtea4me,
    We do not know, but the GJ do so it will be leaked eventually.

    The release of the True Bills is surrounded by legalese, e.g. official actions then there is the consideration that only specific True Bills were considered, i.e. not everything was put in front of the judge.

    All of which underpins the assumption that Hunter was just using the Grand Jury as a legal vehicle to arrive at a particular decision.

    Whether he got what he wanted I'm not certain, this is what might have prompted the No File move?

    Or it was always the end game as far as Hunter was concerned, i.e. the legal procedures would be followed as required, then regardless of the result Hunter would opt for No File?

    If the case is not BDI then why were the parents not hit with First Degree Homicide True Bills?

    They were charged with assisting JonBenet's killer, so who is the Third Party mentioned in the True Bills, e.g. the person?

    .
     
    dgfred likes this.
  19. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,308
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dgfred,

    Sure, but not knowing who did what is not the same as no prosecution.

    This is why we have prosecuters and juries.


    The not knowing aspect is only implicit in the True Bills, i.e. person or third party, e.g. did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

    With Patsy's fibers embedded into the knotting of the ligature she could easily have been indicted for Murder In The First Degree with John participating in some other degree, etc.

    It's a binary choice, it's not a three way bet, as the evidence implicates both parents and the Grand Jury do indict them for assisting an offender and child abuse, so either both parents should have been indicted on First Degree Homicide or the case is BDI and the prosecuter is under a legal obligation to let the case slip out of sight, by any means whatever?

    The case can be BDI with everyone involved happy with an indeterminate outcome that points to the parents?

    .
     
  20. dgfred

    dgfred Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,867
    Likes Received:
    4,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I meant was no jury was likely to convict one of the parents 'if' they could not decide which person did what regarding - blow to head, actual murder

    From the outside it looks like the GJ decided BDI... and the parents let it happen.

    IMO
     

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