Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Drogo

JonBenet Ramsey

Recommended Posts

I still want to know what kind of hold the Ramseys had on Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. Have yet to find a good discussion of this. Was Boulder such a small town/county that wealth could have had that kind of influence?

Am about halfway thru "Foreign Faction" and find it very interesting. So far I'm still in the BDI camp, and was before reading the book.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, torqy said:

I still want to know what kind of hold the Ramseys had on Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. Have yet to find a good discussion of this. Was Boulder such a small town/county that wealth could have had that kind of influence?

Am about halfway thru "Foreign Faction" and find it very interesting. So far I'm still in the BDI camp, and was before reading the book.

Apparently Alex Hunter was linked politically and financially to the Ramsey's defense team.  In addition, the DA's office had a reputation for plea bargaining EVERYTHING.  They had one guy who slashed another's throat (and killed him), and it was plea bargained down to a much lesser charge, and the guy was given 12 years probation, which he was allowed to serve out on a Caribbean island.

Mary Lacy was just an idiot.  

And yes, wealth had an impact.  Ramsey's company was owned by a larger company (sorry, names escape me right now), and they were major employers in the area.  Members of the DA's office often referred to this as a "VIP" case which needed to be handled with kid gloves.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, torqy said:

I still want to know what kind of hold the Ramseys had on Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. Have yet to find a good discussion of this. Was Boulder such a small town/county that wealth could have had that kind of influence?

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town makes it pretty clear that the Boulder County DA's Office was always extremely deferential to the wealthy.  You know, like every other district attorney ever.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think Foreign Factuon and Who Killed JonBénet Ramsey both address the environment at that time. Steve Thomas' book discusses a prostitution sting he was a part of when he first joined the police department, but the prosecutor's office didn't want to charge any of the johns with any crimes.  "We don't have a prostitution problem in Boulder," he was told.  The sting was dropped. He gave many examples of the unwillingness on the part of the D.A.'s office to go to trial on what seemed like open and shut cases, and the frequently outrageous plea bargains which were made. 

The grand jury returned a true bill against the Ramseys but Alex Hunter chose not to change them, seemingly because his standard of proof before charging the Ramseys seemed to be "proof beyond any shadow of a doubt" rather than the standard "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  I think, too, that John Ramsey was close friends with the Lieutenant Govenor and the LG almost certainly applied pressure on the D.A.'s office.  Plus, you had people like Lou Smits working for Hunter--don't even get me started on his total lack of objectivity and ridiculous behavior.

IMO the Ramseys' attorneys understood the climate better than anyone, and to say they took advantage of the situation would be a gross understatement. Unchanged persons/parents do not--in any other city in America--drive investigations and the release of investigative materials, but the Ramseys did. There was one piece of evidence mentioned in one of these books that went untested because the Ramseys wanted their experts present for the testing and the FBI told them to pound sand. 

No one will ever be charged in this case (I moved from the Burke did it camp to the Patsy did it camp after reading these books) but it's interesting to speculate about what-ifs. The defense attorneys would have definitely moved for a change of venue because of pretrial publicity, but I wonder how successful they would have been. One would have had to have lived in some remote South Pacific island not to have heard about the case. 

I don't understand--given the discord between the BPD and Hunter's office--why the State Attorney General's Office didn't move to have the investigation and charges moved to a state level. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Court said:

It's also been rumored that Mary Lacey and John Ramsey were having an affair. 

A further example of what my best friend's granny told him when he was young: "Sonny, the whole world revolves around a stiff prick." (True story!)

Putting on the tinfoil hat, I wonder if John initiated the affair with the intention of scuttling the investigation right from the get-go...wouldn't put it past him.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I always had the impression that John was oblivious to everything going on around him. For example, on Christmas night he took a sleeping aid so that he would be totally knocked out, leaving Patsy to deal with the almost certainty of JB's bed wetting, packing for herself and the children for the trip to Michigan and the Red Boat cruise, etc. This seems incredibly selfish to me.  Plus,I think he was used to having people handle stuff for him--she probably had to pack for him too.  After all, he was a muckety-muck in his company--doesn't seem like a hands-on leader in ANY arena. He's what my husband and I--former NCOs in the service--used to refer to some of the officers in the Army: an educated idiot. 

Do I understand they were going to leave all that food out when they departed on the plane in the morning for the housekeeper to clean up?  Ugh. 

Edited by Ilovecomputers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Court said:

It's also been rumored that Mary Lacey and John Ramsey were having an affair. 

I have read thousands of pages and websites about this case, and have never seen anything about such a rumor.  Can you provide references?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

AZChristian, my friend, it is awfully early for you to be up and around!  Wanted to share with you my latest obsession:. DYATLOV PASS.  If you haven't read up on this, you really should.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I have read thousands of pages and websites about this case, and have never seen anything about such a rumor.  Can you provide references?

I'll look! I read it somewhere when all these documentaries were being aired. No concrete evidence, just rumors!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I have read thousands of pages and websites about this case, and have never seen anything about such a rumor.  Can you provide references?

I'll look! I read it somewhere when all these documentaries were being aired. No concrete evidence, just rumors! Ok, I have no idea where I read it. Maybe I dreamed it.

However, I did just read this article about Lacey that I found interesting. This passage, particularly. It also says Lacy knew the first time she walked through the house that the Ramsey's were innocent because of a butt print in the carpet.

"People who worked with Lacy remember her bringing John Ramsey into the Boulder County prosecutor's office around the time she exonerated the family. "She wanted us all to shake hands with him. We didn't know what to say ... it was like an apology tour," said one of Lacy's former DA investigators, Gordon Coombes."

"Coombes, who worked in the Boulder prosecutor's office from 2008 to 2011, said he feels Lacy got too close to the family and lost her objectivity. "It was understood that if you didn't fall in line with the intruder theory, you were out," he said."

 

ETA: https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/da-opens-cleared-ramsey-family-jonbenets-murder/story%3Fid%3D43106426?client=ms-android-verizon

Edited by Court
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be more likely to consider that Mary Lacy was having an affair with Lou Smit; they both refused to consider any evidence against the Ramseys, because they had made up their minds that the Ramseys were innocent, and twisted everything to fit that assumption.

An interesting quote from the link:  "That note referenced several lines from movies. "The Boulder police should have checked all of the video stores to see who was renting those movies and they never did," said Lacy."

The Boulder police could not get the DA's office to issue a warrant for the Ramsey's phone and credit card records.  What chance was there that they could have gotten a warrant for movie rentals?  Sheesh.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

This slideshow had a couple things I didn't know. That the Ramsey's lawyers from the beginning wanted the investigation away from the Boulder police. Also, that Lacy flew to Georgia to attend Patsy's funeral. While I wss searching for the affair rumors that I apparently dreamed, I discovered that even Lacy's coworkers/employees didn't seem to like her. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/shakedowntitle.com/2016/10/30/did-john-ramsey-and-mary-lacy-intentionally-misdirect-the-case-jonbenet/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2016 at 8:33 AM, AZChristian said:

Apparently Alex Hunter was linked politically and financially to the Ramsey's defense team.  In addition, the DA's office had a reputation for plea bargaining EVERYTHING.  They had one guy who slashed another's throat (and killed him), and it was plea bargained down to a much lesser charge, and the guy was given 12 years probation, which he was allowed to serve out on a Caribbean island.

Mary Lacy was just an idiot.  

And yes, wealth had an impact.  Ramsey's company was owned by a larger company (sorry, names escape me right now), and they were major employers in the area.  Members of the DA's office often referred to this as a "VIP" case which needed to be handled with kid gloves.

The company was Lockheed Martin.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

New DNA testing is being done.

The article says that Mary Lacy may have been wrong to exonerate the Ramseys.  I'm not in the legal profession.  She couldn't/didn't grant some type of irrefutable immunity, did she?  This DNA testing apparently will only determine if it was random DNA, probably from multiple people, thereby disproving the intruder theory.  If they do ever come up with something substantive on John or Burke, can't they still be held accountable?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

New DNA testing is being done.

The article says that Mary Lacy may have been wrong to exonerate the Ramseys.  I'm not in the legal profession.  She couldn't/didn't grant some type of irrefutable immunity, did she?  This DNA testing apparently will only determine if it was random DNA, probably from multiple people, thereby disproving the intruder theory.  If they do ever come up with something substantive on John or Burke, can't they still be held accountable?

Not Burke, because he was under the age of legal culpability. I'm not sure about John. I sure hope that this brings closure to the case. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone watch the 20/20 episode about JonBenet last night? A grand juror appeared (his face in shadow, his voice altered) and claimed to have a strong suspicion about who killed her. But then he refused to say who he suspected. Like thanks, dude, that's super helpful. He must have just been looking for a paycheck, because why else would he go on camera and provide this non-information. Even under a cloak of anonymity, he wouldn't speak his mind. The entire episode was a rehash of all the other specials, I didn't learn anything new.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

@Linny, I agree, there was nothing new on 20/20.  It was ridiculous to go to all the trouble to show the juror in shadow and alter his voice then have him say nothing we didn't already know. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Linny said:

Did anyone watch the 20/20 episode about JonBenet last night? A grand juror appeared (his face in shadow, his voice altered) and claimed to have a strong suspicion about who killed her. But then he refused to say who he suspected. Like thanks, dude, that's super helpful. He must have just been looking for a paycheck, because why else would he go on camera and provide this non-information. Even under a cloak of anonymity, he wouldn't speak his mind. The entire episode was a rehash of all the other specials, I didn't learn anything new.

It was pointless.  Nothing new was learned from this. Interesting that 20/20s handwriting expert said Patsy was most likely the writer of the ransom note based on the handwriting samples.  Not that anything will ever come of it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/8/2016 at 6:47 AM, Court said:

This slideshow had a couple things I didn't know. That the Ramsey's lawyers from the beginning wanted the investigation away from the Boulder police.

Considering how badly they screwed things up, I think it's pretty reasonable to want to get it away from them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason I still think Patsy did it. Not on purpose but I think she lost control and something went terribly wrong. I dont think she ever went to bed that night and was up trying to stage the whole scene. Who knows what John knew or when he knew it. He seemed like just a pawn in her life.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder why the Ramseys had such pull in Boulder?  I know they were rich, and had rich friends, but that doesn't seem like enough to warrant covering up the murder of a child.  

They had only lived in Boulder for about 5 years, so It's not like they had lifelong connections to the inner circle/high society folks.  It would be easier to understand if, say, John and the police chief played little league together, and Patsy's mother and the mayor's older brother were in high school choir.   Connections that go back to childhood, if not generations, would seem less likely to be strained, under the dire circumstances.

Also, I wouldn't think the Ramsey's incrowd friends would feel such loyalty, to people they have only known a relatively short time, that they wouldn't cooperate with police.  Again, we are talking about the murder of a small child, not tax evasion or some white collar crime.

Edited by Mittengirl
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I wonder why the Ramseys had such pull in Boulder?  I know they were rich, and had rich friends, but that doesn't seem like enough to warrant covering up the murder of a child.  

I wouldn't necessarily say they had pull.  What happened was a perfect storm.  The Ramseys retained lawyers for the entire family (I think for John's first wife too), their lawyers made unreasonable demands, and the prosecutor's office (which had never really vigorously prosecuted many serious crimes) didn't stand up to the lawyers' demands.  In turn, the relationship between the prosecutor's office and the Boulder police department was marked by distrust and a lack of support.  So, the PD was hamstrung in its efforts to, for example, obtain records by subpoena which would have aided in its investigation, the prosecutor's office was asleep at the wheel, and the lawyers took advantage of the situation. 

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 2:25 AM, Mittengirl said:

Also, I wouldn't think the Ramsey's incrowd friends would feel such loyalty

You wouldn't think so, but investigators did try to talk with people in the Ramsey circle and were not met with much cooperation.  One woman, who dared to talk to the press (I can't remember her name, but her daughter was friends with JB), was shunned by the group for "daring" to speak publicly.

For those who believe the Ramseys covered up their daughter's death (and I am one), some might say that the family has suffered enough from all the constant public and media scrutiny, but I don't agree.  They told the police that an intruder, Santa Bill, the Whites, et al. should be viewed as suspects and they hid behind their attorneys.  I wonder when the truth will ever come out about this travesty.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/14/2016 at 3:51 PM, ghoulina said:

His older children were QUITE a bit older. I don't know that they ever lived in the house with his second wife and youngest two children. It still might be interesting to see what John was like as a father, but I think A LOT of the dysfunction came from Patty, who isn't their mother. At any rate, all the people close to the Ramseys seem, unfortunately, very tight lipped. If it weren't for the housekeeper and the beauty pageant mom, I doubt we'd know anything about these people. 

There was a book written by Linda McLean, now out of print, and in that book there were plenty of quotes from people who knew the Ramseys.   There were also times when the children did speak out - - check out transcripts for the older documentaries.   I will post a few here - these are mostly about Patsy as she was the focus of the book.

Melinda Ramsey:
I've never called her mother, because I already have a wonderful mother; I call her Patsy. But I think of her as my "special mom". I first met Patsy when I was 7 or 8 years old, after my parents had been divorced for a couple of years. For some reasons, one of my first impressions was that she seemed so full of energy. As we got to know each other, we grew very close and still are. We are not related by blood but we are related by love. 

"Patsy was always so much fun to be around! I vividly remember the family playing Bingo and Charades together. When it was our birthday, she always made a fuss. This was our "special day' and the birthday child was the center of attention. Patsy was always interested in whatever I was doing at school. I remember when I ran for student council in junior high, she helped me make posters and buttons and practice my speech. Patsy always thinks of others. She always puts other people's feelings, wants and needs above her own. It makes her happy to make other people happy. And that's what makes her so special.

I know it's hard to be a step-parent. You are somewhere in the middle - like a "fill-in". But Patsy was always genuinely glad to see us; she treated us like her own children. It meant a lot to me as a child when she introduced me to people as "my daughter, Melinda". She didn't make the distinction of step-child. But she also didn't cross the line and try to become our mother. She didn't discipline us. For my upcoming wedding, she and my mother are working as a team. Patsy helped Mom select the invitations and organize my engagement party. I know I am fortunate to have a family like this.

On day as we were driving in the car, Dad asked, "What would you think about having another brother or sister?" It really caught me off-guard and I was shocked; I guess I just never thought about it. But I was really happy and when Burke and JonBenét were born, it was so exciting! They were both so much fun to be around. Burke liked to play with John Andrew, always looking for him to play matchbook cars, etc. JonBenét and I liked to paint together or play dress up. Each year we colored Easter eggs and we had a Christmas tradition of baking cookies together.

Since I grew up in Georgia, I wasn't used to snow. One day in Boulder, there were little patches of snow on the ground and JonBenét and I went out to "build a snowman". I soon realized it would be almost impossible to do this with the little bit of snow that was left. But JonBenét was determined. "I know we can do it!" And so, of course, we worked and worked until we had a two-foot-high snowman. I'd do anything to make her happy.

One of my strongest memories is how she always ran to greet me. Her pig tails were flying, her hands were outstretched and she screamed, "Be-winda, Be-winda." It is this memory that I cherish the most.

It breaks my heart to see these horrible accusations being made about Dad and Patsy. They are wonderful parents! Patsy helped raise Beth and John Andrew and me. I watched them with Burke and JonBenet. I know! And yet people who don't know them who have never even met them, are saying absolutely horrible things! They have no right to!!

I'm their daughter. I've lived under the same roof as them. I've had the same parents as JonBenet. I have such a hard time understanding why the public refuses to believe me -- why my word just isn't enough.

I'm glad Dad and Patsy are strong people. They have withstood a lot and they can withstand this too. But it isn't fair. It just isn't fair.

(Melinda was crying as the interview ended)

John Andrew said:  all quotes
I was very young when Dad met Patsy and I don't remember much about the first years. I know I was comfortable in both homes and, although I knew Patsy wasn't my mom, she had that role when I was with her and my dad. She encouraged us in our activities but never pushed us into anything. She was interested in all that I did , whether it was Boy Scouts, sports or school activities. I have good memories of growing up. It's not just the vacations and special times, but it's the general everyday things that made a loving and caring family relationship.

I am 10 years older than Burke, but we can still enjoy Play Station together! I was 14 years older than JonBenet and I loved her very much.... we made lemonade together. I know it is accurate to call them "half" brother and sister, but none of us has ever felt we have half a relationship. Burke and JonBenet are my brother and sister. They've never called me "half" brother, they call be "big" brother.

And I resent having to even talk about Dad and Patsy like this I don't see a need to defend our family. Why do we keep having to say we are a normal family? The outlandish, false things that are said are just what the media has made up about us. There is nothing previously in our lives to indicate that we are anything but a loving family yet we have to keep defending ourselves. Dad and Patsy are great parents. What else can I say?

JAR - 22 years

 

 

Patsy's sister Pam said,
"Did we argue like most siblings? No. But it wasn't because I didn't try. It's just that it takes two to argue and Patsy wouldn't. From childhood she's been one of those peacemakers who seem to have the ability to calm a storm. I can't remember hearing her yell; I have often envied her inner peace. She is more than just polite; she doesn't like to see anyone upset and would rather give in than fight."
There are pages of memories, she clearly loved her sister, not just as a sister but as a friend.
On John, Pam writes, "He is non-judgemental, he is fair; he always looks for the positives in other people." "WE have gone through the best of times and the worst of times and I have witnessed what a truly remarkable man he is." "... a thoughtful and caring man."
She ends describing Patsy as "... the daughter every mother wishes she had, the wife every man dreams of, the mother every child deserves."

 

On 10/18/2016 at 11:58 AM, AZChristian said:

I just can't forget that the grand jury VOTED TO INDICT John and Patsy in such a way that it looks like they were charging them with not protecting JonBenet from an in-house abuser.  There was only one other person in that house.

And still, Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy FAILED in their elected duty.

Actually, some very close to the investigation - a couple men who fought to bring evidence to the grand jury and were denied access - made a strong case for the intruder being part of a pedophile ring that was active in the area at the time.  The theory some pushed was that the Ramseys were aware of the ring and so should have been more careful allowing their daughter to be  - - a public figure is all I can say.  The parents were guilty of letting her do pageants, sing at the mall, appear in the holiday parade.    The investigators supposedly looked into this after Steve Singular brought this ring into public discussion - but they found no reason to think the Ramseys knew anything about such a ring.  STILL, going into the grand jury where the truth takes a back seat to theory and hearsay....  that may be the reason the gj voted to indict the way they did.

 

On 10/18/2016 at 1:02 PM, ari333 said:

What's the point of a grand jury voting to indict if the DA can just ignore it... veto it..

A grand jury is set up to hear the prosecution's case, there is no defense given and they don't have to share exculpatory theories or evidence.  (Ever hear the old saying - a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich?  it's old and true.)    On the other hand, the district attorney is obligated NOT to bring anyone to trial if he knows he can not - - CAN NOT - - get a conviction.  Since Alex Hunter knew "the other side of the story", he did the right thing and did not indict the Ramseys.  One thing you might want to note - - Steve Thomas was the biggest leader of the group who REALLY thought it was the parents and wanted them jailed regardless of what the evidence might say.  (That group, in shorthand, is called the BORG - - Bent on Ramsey Guilt)  Well, he wrote a book and in his book the key witness in his view was a Vassar professor named Donald Foster.  Well, Foster went on 20/20 to point at Patsy as the author of the ransom note - - and a few weeks later I personally went on 48 Hours to discredit Foster as a witness in this cse.  Both author Lawrence Schiller and Reporter Carol McKinley said on national TV that Foster ws the "key witness" going into the grand jury.  But after I appeared on TV, he was not called on to testify.  (Still could have had police state his theory - - but the point is, the District Attorney Alex Hunter KNEW he would be discredited in a heartbeat if this was taken to trial.

 

 

FACT - the grand jury COULD have been used to get testimony from uncooperative witnesses and could have served a GREAT PART in getting this solved if the peresecutors weren't BORG and unwilling to look at the evidence honestly - - to look for the man who left his DNA co-mingled with JonBenet's blood in her panties.

 

On 10/18/2016 at 3:53 PM, ari333 said:

How are we, the public, able to see Burke's interview with that... Dr? social worker? whoever it was? He was a nine year old. Why weren't the parents allowed to be there? Is that not a private interview? (if it were a doctor, IDK) I'm confused.

 

The first interview done with Burke was at the Whites' house on the 26th at about 2 pm.  There is a transcript of it but no video or audio was released.  The second was with the female psychologist for DSS to determine if Burke was in a dangerous situation and needed to be taken from the home.  They foundhe was safe at home and the report said he certainly did not witness his sister's murder.    The third was a couple years later in Atlanta with the man who reminds me of Mr. Rogers.     The parents could not be at any - - really for obvious reasons, they wanted him to "feel safe" if he wanted to say anything about how things were at home.  Why have any of us seen any of those tapes?  Damn good question and the only answer is someone leaked who should not have.  (My bet is on the police officer who wrote a cartain book that became the basis of the CBS special and is now named in a lawsuit for the misinformation included in the show.

 

Reading the lawsuit against CBS is quite amazing - - I think they have a BIG legal issue ahead of them.

 

On 10/20/2016 at 8:53 AM, ghoulina said:

The weird part comes in where JB is wearing those much larger panties. And the rest of the pack is missing. 

 

The rest of the pack was not missing, it was found in her room with the rest of the panties in it.  I have often thought how proud JonBenet must have felt that day when she changed to go to the party - - she left her play pants on the bathroom floor with other panties still inside - she slipped them off together - - and she KNEW which were the right day to wear.  She had learned that in kindergarten.

 

On 11/10/2016 at 1:16 PM, TattleTeeny said:

You guys, I am having a memory lapse regarding John Ramsey's super-weird call to his pilot that morning, and his even weirder "business meeting" excuse, even though it had already been established that the family was leaving for a vacation that day. Can anyone tell me if the cops (or anyone) ever asked how this Michigan trip was possible if he'd already had scheduled a business meeting that was so very pressing that even his daughter's murder took a back seat, yet so trivial that he...

double-booked with a trip to Charlevoix?

I'm not asking if there was a business meeting, just if anyone on the scene said, "What the hell are you talking about? You guys just said you were leaving for vacation!"

Have to say it - - there was no business trip other than - - he wanted to go to Atlanta to attend to the business of arranging his daughter's funeral.  He "had business to attend to" - - that isn't the same as having to attend a business meeting as in - - relating to AG.

 

On 11/10/2016 at 11:43 PM, Ilovecomputers said:

 Thomas' book says you can hear everything from anywhere in the house (or you could before Rev. Schuller 's daughter renovated).

Not so.  I have been in that house, spent time there after the murder and been with investigative reporters who were doing experiments on how much anyone could hear.  The basement is literally three floors away from the bedroom and someone in the basement can be screaming and banging on pipes (as I did with Erin Moriarty of 48 Hours) and NO ONE in the bedroom could hear a thing.  On the other hand, a pipe running from the boiler room to the front yard was open and acted as a megaphone so our normal conversations could be heard on the street during a quiet winter night.  SO - I believe Melody Stanton heard the scream - - and I know the parents could not.

 

On 11/11/2016 at 10:33 AM, AZChristian said:

And Mark Klaas - Polly's father - practically lived at the police station, constantly pushing them to find out what happened to her.  What a difference between the behavior of an innocent father and . . . 

REALLY?    I am going to make a few enemies here but - - Mark Klaas wasn't up for any "father of the year" awards.  He wasn't around a lot and he wasn't a real suspect for more than a minute because he was nowhere near Polly when she was victimized.    He is no hero in my book.  The father of a murdered child, yes, and I am sorry he is - - sorry ANYONE is - - - but he is no poster child of what a father should be in any child's life.  Read the details in that case to see what I mean - - the man was no community leader and just went for a ride when he saw opportunity.  JMO, of course.

On 11/11/2016 at 3:25 PM, glowlights said:

Wasn't it John Andrew's room where they found the backpack with some rope?

JAR lived in the dorm - HIS room in the Ramsey house was mostly a guest room - - and when Patsy was very sick it was HER room and her mother shared JonBenet's room to be close.    There was a bag (not backpack) found in that room with rope in it and the rope was not the same as that used in JonBenet's photo shoot.  No one claimed ownership of the rope or bag.

 

On 11/12/2016 at 11:33 AM, glowlights said:

I was flabbergasted to hear Patsy describe the pageant thing as just a couple of Sunday afternoons. Was she delusional or just a damn liar?

 

A quote from the book by Linda Mclean:

Linda Mason met Patsy in Charlevoix and spent time visiting the family in Boulder for extended times. She describes a family that is normal, all-American, loving. But she makes a point to say Patsy always did just a bit more than someone might. Instead of going to school to pick up the kids and waiting in line, Patsy got out of the car to meet the kids, hugging and asking how their day was. She speaks about how both kids were involved in multiple activities and excitement and support was there for both kids.
On the pageants:
"Once I walked into their living room and saw JonBenet in Patsy's lap. They were talking about a contest JonBenet had been in and I asked her, "How did ypu do?" She didn't answer me but looked shyly at her mom. Finally, when Patsy encouraged her to answer, she said simply, "I won," and then hopped down and went outside to play. I had no idea until later that it was the Little Miss Colorado Pageant. Other than that one instance, in all the time I've known them and have been in their home, I have never heard any mention of pageants or competition. It just wasn't a focal point of JonBenet's life and I hate that it has become a focal point of her death."

 

 

And in Burke's interviews with the psychologists - he told the doctors he didn't think his parents loved JonBenet more - - he was not jealous - - they each had plenty of activities and the family supported both in whatever they wanted to do.    Until that Christmas night, both of those kids had a great life and that was known to all who were in contact with them.  The housekeeper and photographer who supported them strongly inthe first days only changed their minds when they found their friends GONE and the tabloids came around with checkbooks open.  If you doubt this, try to find the original LEEZA and Geraldo transcripts.  Both LHP and Judith were strong supporters - - and then.....

 

On 12/7/2016 at 11:41 PM, Court said:

It's also been rumored that Mary Lacey and John Ramsey were having an affair. 

OMG _ _ that's real news to me!

Here is a bit you may find interesting on the north side door that went tothe Butler's pantry/kitchen: 

  That door was normally locked and unused - - after the murder, a reporter told me he had jimmied that lock and gotten in fairly easily, though. I don't know if he told the cops, but I did report that later.

On the 26th, Fernie said he found that door open - and Scott Gibbons reported the same thing - - so two people reported seeing the door wide open. But I see a problem - - the cops were there before Fernie - - and I believe before Gibbons saw it. So I would really like to hear from the cops exactly what they did before depending on the information pointing to an intruder leaving that way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, jameson245 said:

Have to say it - - there was no business trip other than - - he wanted to go to Atlanta to attend to the business of arranging his daughter's funeral.  He "had business to attend to" - - that isn't the same as having to attend a business meeting as in - - relating to AG.

I don't know what "AG" is. I might not be understanding what you're saying (don't mind me, I've bene doing errands and standing in stupid lines all day); I just meant why on earth would he say he had something, anything, whatever, in Atlanta at all after everyone already knew the family was going to Michigan. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The story is that when the Ramseys were in Boulder on the 26th, after the body had been found and the police told John the house was a crime scene and they had to leave.... John called his pilot and asked for him to make arrangements to fly the family to Atlanta.  He wanted to take Patsy to her family, her parents and sisters, he wanted to be near his brother and he knew that they would bury JonBenet there next to her sister Beth.  Police officer said NO, need you to stay here, and John agreed so they went to the Fernies' house until it was time to go for the funeral. I honestly don't know what exact words were said as there was no recording and police reports were written sometimes days after events.  But John was military and a business man and I can see him saying he wanted to go to Atlanta to take care of business, and later Steve Thomas or another LE person of similar mind twisting that to say John had said he wanted to attend a business meeting related o AG - - his business Access Graphics.

 

On 12/7/2016 at 1:36 AM, torqy said:

I still want to know what kind of hold the Ramseys had on Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy. Have yet to find a good discussion of this. Was Boulder such a small town/county that wealth could have had that kind of influence?

Am about halfway thru "Foreign Faction" and find it very interesting. So far I'm still in the BDI camp, and was before reading the book.

The Ramseys had no hold over either DA.   They were legally obligated to look at all the evidence and only bring charges if they believed they could get a conviction.  Unlike the grand jury (who did not indict anyone for killing JonBenet) they saw the defense side of the case and all the evidence that clearly pointed to an intruder - so they did the right thing and refused to take innocent people to trial. 

Think of what the killer carried in and google rape kit.  Stun gun, cord, tape. knife (The one they found was not Burke's)

 

Kolar's book was the basis for the CBS show and now both Kolar and CBS are being sued for the program - - you should consider that when judging the integrity of the show. 

 

On 10/9/2016 at 10:49 AM, Chai said:

From what I read online once a child has mastered toilet training and returned to bed wetting and especially soiling during the daytime it is a huge indication of sexual abuse. 

I agree that something was happening to JB right before the murder happened. It's so sad that this was happening to her, and no one was ever charged with this abuse. 

In my own opinion, I don't think there was ever an intruder. I think it probably was her father or brother and her mother was protecting Burke. That's why the staged crime scene and why Patsy never got undressed that night. I believe the grand jury got it right by wanting to charge the parents with child abuse resulting in death.

The truth is, if you study the case documents, the search warrants and returns, the depositions, interviews... if you look at the crime scene photos - - you will find the only mention of feces is something found in the basement toilet which was unflushed - - and some "skid marks" on the underwear found in JonBenet's bathroom - - she had taken off her play pants and panties together and they were found on her bathroom floor - - she had redressed to go to the Whites' and likely was proud to be able to identify the  Wednesday panties on her own, thanks to kindergarten.    Only much later, in publications now being sued for the lies, did feces appear on walls and candy.  But the documents we have discredit the rumor and misinformation out there now (that was NOT there 20 years ago, because it did not exist.)

 

On 12/14/2016 at 8:56 AM, AZChristian said:

  This DNA testing apparently will only determine if it was random DNA, probably from multiple people, thereby disproving the intruder theory.  If they do ever come up with something substantive on John or Burke, can't they still be held accountable?

There is DNA from a Hispanic male mixed with "co-mingled with" the blood that ended up in JOnBenet's panties as a result of the sexual assault.  They are now accepting "familial" samples to compare with that profile which means if a son or daughter were to give a sample, it might make their father a number 1 suspect very quickly.     They found this same DNA on the longjohns - - and  yes, there was more.  I can see innocent DNA on the sides of the longjohns (Who folded that laundry?)  but not mixed with her blood.  That is why I put up a reward for the ID of the source of the DNA that was mixed with her blood.   

But for the rest of your question - - there is no time limit for the crime of murder.  No matter how the evidence goes, this is still an open investigation that could go to trial.

(But the Ramseys have been cleared of being the source of the DNA found in her panties - so I don't think the evidence goes anywhere near them as real suspects.)

 

On 12/17/2016 at 4:10 PM, Mittengirl said:

The grand jury met for over a year.  How does that work - surely that does not mean every weekday?  

No, they'd meet for a few days and take a LONG time off, then meet again for a day or two and - - time off.  They met for 13 months and I would love to know just how many days they did meet - - I know it seemed to take forever for them to get together.  Meanwhile they could read whatever they wanted, listen to Peter Boyles, watch TV shows - -  and I think they HAD to be affected by what they saw.

 

On 9/22/2016 at 6:11 PM, LGGirl said:

Wasn't John gone/missing for 90 minutes?  Pretty sure it would have been done at that time.  

I can't believe one of their friends doesn't know the truth.  And they just won't say anything as to protect Burke and the family.  

John was in the house, moving between the phone in the den and Patsy in the sunroom.  I understand he also went off for a few minutes alone to break down, maybe use a toilet.  He was NOT missing for 90 minutes as in he was GONE.  But Linda Arndt lost track of him as she was in over her head from the beginning.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, jameson245 said:

 But Linda Arndt lost track of him as she was in over her head from the beginning.

This is the truest statement in this entire case. I am astounded by this woman's level of incompetence, I was watching one of the many recent show on JonBenet & they had Arndt on it & she explained how she looked into John Ramsey's eyes & knew he was guilty. She looked into his eyes & knew he was guilty????? WTH kind of police work is that? Don't need to investigate or interview anyone, just look in their eyes & you'll know. And since she said this 20 years after the crime occurred, I can only assume that she is just as incompetent now as she was then. The Boulder PD should keep this woman away from anyone with a microphone, she's an embarrassment.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Later she helped not solve the sexual assault of a teenager that took place just a few miles away.  The intruder had entered that house while the mother and daughter were out.  They got home and turned on the security alarm system so we know he didn't come in after.  The mother and girl watched TV and went to bed - - then the intruder went to the girl's room and sexually assaulted her.  The mother herd something nd interrupted.  The intruder fled, jumping out a window.    I have read reports by the father and he was furious at how little was done to solve that crime.  They did not check the yard, they did not do the proper canvas of the neighborhood.  They did not return calls.  And guess who was in charge of that case?  Linda Arndt!  She didn't return the family's calls for weeks and when she did she kind of said OOPS, sorry, I was busy painting my house.    Any wonder cases don't get solved in Boulder? 

Share this post


Link to post

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.acandyrose.com/0408199948hrs6.htm

Also:

Take the case of Susan Bennett who went by the alias “Jameson” online. Bennett speculated so prolifically online on the popular Websleuths forum and on pages she herself set up, that she ended up becoming a figure in the case herself. Despite the fact that Bennett was a housewife living in North Carolina with no legal training whatsoever, her prolific online postings established her as an authority in the case. She was quoted in innumerable newspaper articles in the late 1990s and appeared on television. Bennett was the first online amateur sleuth to be given such a prominent platform. (Attempts to reach Bennett, if she is still alive, were unsuccessful. Her website is still up, but her email address is defunct and her common name makes her difficult to locate.) Three years after the case opened, Bennett appeared on a CBS 48 hours segment about the case to discredit a so-called handwriting expert’s claim that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note. It was a curious choice for the television producers to make, given that Bennett herself had no expertise or evidence to counter the findings. She was a civilian, like anyone else who’d followed the Ramsey story – but there she was on national television, presenting herself as an authority.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/09/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-20-year-anniversary-online-detectives

Seems we have a Jonbenet celebrity posting here! :)

Edited by glowlights · Reason: added quote
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Clearly I am not dead, the email still works, same as I have had for over 20 years.  That writer didn't ever learn how to research a subject.

As for me discrediting the expert (Vassar professor Donald Foster) having no expertise or evidence to counter his findings - - judge that for yourself after eading the page I have dedicated to him.  You can find it at www.jameson245.com/foster_page.htm

Clearly 48 Hours, the producers and legal team, felt I had what it took, and so did DA Alex Hunter because - as described in Steve Thomas' book - - once I stepped up and exposed him he was no longer the "key witness going into the Grand Jury" but .... just NOT!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please remember this thread is to discuss the case.  It is not a place to discuss yourselves and/or your fellow members.

I will also remind everyone of the following:

  1. There is an ignore feature for people that bug you.
  2. If you have questions, please PM a mod and do not question moderation decisions in the forums.
  3. If you see a post that you believe is breaking a rule, please report and then move along.

Thanks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

When DA Alex Hunter first called Lou Smit in for an interview - - Lou had a stellar reputation as one of the best investigators in the country - - the first thing Lou told him was that the note was written before the murder. Lou said even the most cold blooded killer would not have been able to sit down after all that had happened in the course of the murder and written that rather calm and thoughtful note. I mean, it was three pages - it had references to movies, possible old documents related to old true crimes like the Leopold and Loeb confessions (which few people have read).


My theory is that the killer entered the house while the family was out for dinner at their friends' - Fleet and Priscilla White. I think he played what has been described before as "creepy crawley" in the house while it was still light outside. During that time he may well have come across John's desk with his pay stubs - and every stub listed his January 1996 bonus for 1995 - - just a bit over $118,000. I imagine the killer didn't have that kind of money and to think someone got it as a BONUS - - that must have smarted.

I think the intruder carried in a "rape kit" fully expecting to do all he wanted in the house - - if he thought he was really kidnapping, he didn't need all that. She was 45 pounds - - the stun gun alone and his hands could get her to his car, if he had one. But he didn't carry in a note because - - this was never a kidnapping for such a silly amount of money. The Ramseys had millions and everyone knew it.

So as it got dark he turned off the light in the sun room (reported by neighbor, that light was always on 24/7, every night - - but that night it was off. Probably so neighbors wouldn't be able to look in as easily. I think he realized he had a long time to wait for the family to get home, settle in, go to bed, fall asleep - - and he decided to play a bit of a fantasy game with the note. Writing it simply because he had time to kill and had to stay in one place. Finding the pad and pen was easy - - each an arm's length from the wall phone in the kitchen. So he wrote the note - - I don't know where he was when he did that or why he returned the pad and pen. Maybe that's something in his personality, everything in it's place? Only he can tell us that.

 

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

To me, David Foster has never been discredited. I'm not going to bother to read the page posted above about him, but it seems that there was a document he says was penned by Shakespeare, and others disagree. That does not mean he couldn't have had the ability to determine the writing on the "Hostage letter" was penned by Patsy. He has other successful examples in his past, too.

This investigation was so completely screwed up by law enforcement and the District Attorneys Office that there will never be a prosecution in this case. Hidden video or photographs of the crime taking place would have to appear out of nowhere for anything to happen. If they did get a match to that DNA, I think we will find out it isn't anything, or at least, not enough to get an arrest or conviction.

This case brought everyone out of the woodwork. Journalists, retired law enforcement, psychics, con men, and true crime aficionados. So many people have poured through the materials and still come up with different conclusions. I've been on the Ramsays did it since the beginning, and have not yet seen anything the make me think different. Even when that loon was brought back from Thailand, John Ramsay gave a statement to a news reporter that they had to wait for the facts to come in, and it shored up my opinion that he knows what happened, and he knew it wasn't Karr(?).

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I am BDI, but I can be open to other Ramseys being involved. I don't think I'll ever be able to believe an intruder did it, unless some pretty damning evidence comes forward. The person who committed this heinous crime just did not act like an intruder. Every single item use that night came from the house. That's awful freaking risky, whether you are planning a kidnapping OR a rape OR a murder. How do you know what they have? 

I also can't get past the length of the ransom note that was written IN the home. Was this done before or after the murder? How would you feel comfortable just hanging around for that long? Why even write a note if you weren't planning a kidnapping? If it did, and it went wrong, why not just hightail it out of there? If you had enough time to write that long-ass note, surely he would have had the time to move her body out of the house. The note just seems like staging, to point away from what really happened, and points TO the Ramseys, if you ask me. 

Then there's the fact that that house was a rabbit warren of non-sensical passageways and rooms off of other rooms. It was crazy-making. Only someone super familiar with that house would have easily made their way around in there with a child. The room she was found in? I don't think anyone would have just stumbled upon that room. They would have had to know it was there. So who was THAT close to the family, that they intimately knew that house, but didn't have an alibi for that night? I believe all their closest friends and family members were cleared. 

The duct tape on Jon Benet's mouth - that only could have been put there after her death, IMO. It had dried snot under it - meaning she had already been crying when it was placed there. But then lip imprint was perfect, no struggling what-so-ever. So why put it there at all? To STAGE a kidnapping. Likewise, the cord on her wrists was for show only. It was so loose, not effective at restraint at all. More faux-kidnapping staging. A true stranger would not tried to make it look like a stranger. If THEY were going to stage it (if they even had the time or forethought), they'd want to make it look like a family member. So it just doesn't make sense. 

Then, of course, there was the way the Ramseys acted after the fact. I don't like to judge parents' grief, and many of the cops completely bungled this case. But the Ramseys were zero help. At all. If someone murdered my child, I'd give them all the help they needed. John, IMO, knew exactly where that body was and "found" it very deliberately. Patsy watching the cops through the cracks in her fingers. John suddenly making arrangements to go to Atlanta instead of Michigan. 

There's so much more, that I've posted in this thread and others, but those are the main things I can think of right now. I just really can't see any way this was the work of someone outside the home. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

To Christina:

His name is Donald and I am sorry you don't care to read the page.  The truth is there.

To make my response here short and not take up too much of your time, Donald Foster admitted he was wrong about the Shakespeare he incorrectly attributed to Shakespeare.  But he was OK with that.  To quote him, "No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar."

In Ramsey he was totally discredited.  He won't talk about it but it was made clear in both Steve Thomas' book and in the depositions given in the Wolf lawsuit. 

But feel free to ignore all that and hold whatever position you choose.  I won't do more to change your mind.

Edited by jameson245 · Reason: to direct to Christina since another post is between her comment and mine.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

I am BDI, but I can be open to other Ramseys being involved. I don't think I'll ever be able to believe an intruder did it, unless some pretty damning evidence comes forward. The person who committed this heinous crime just did not act like an intruder. Every single item use that night came from the house. That's awful freaking risky, whether you are planning a kidnapping OR a rape OR a murder. How do you know what they have? 

 

 

No, there is no evidence linking the Ramseys to a stun gun but if you read this transcript you will see the expert will testify there was one used.  http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm

The cord and tape found on the body matched nothing in the house and the police, try as they might, could not link either item to the family.

There was a Hi-Tec bootprint found near the body.  Still unsourced.  No one in the family owned that brand and the proof it is important to the case is how the police went all over trying to prove the boots were bought by the Ramseys - - and they took in a couple pairs from reasonable suspects, two I can name are McElroy and Helgoth.  If the boots belonged to a cop or the family, they would not be looking for them.

I will answer your long email in parts.  more to come.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

 

I also can't get past the length of the ransom note that was written IN the home. Was this done before or after the murder? How would you feel comfortable just hanging around for that long? Why even write a note if you weren't planning a kidnapping? If it did, and it went wrong, why not just hightail it out of there? If you had enough time to write that long-ass note, surely he would have had the time to move her body out of the house. The note just seems like staging, to point away from what really happened, and points TO the Ramseys, if you ask me.

The note - - I can't think of a single house that doesn't have some kind of paper and pen in it - - but I don't think the crime was ever a kidnapping and the note was an after thought.  Actually, it was more of a distraction taken on while the killer waited for HOURS for the family to get home, go to bed, go to sleep.  He had to be still and quiet so... why not indulge in a bit of a different fantasy and write the note?  he had the time - - and I think leaving his own handwriting - 3 pages worth, shows he was not worried about anyone recognizing it.

 

To me, it makes a lot less sense for a family member to write a note like that to leave with the body.  We may not have known a lot about DNA evidence in 1996 but we ALL knew about handwriting comparisons.  And the words in the note - - not using JonBenét's name, asking for a mere $118,000 when everyone knew the family was rich.  A cool  million would make more sense.   But why leave ANY note?  with a body? 

Share this post


Link to post

1. There have also been those who said it was likely those marks were not made by a stun gun, and actually matched rather well with the ends of the train tracks found in the basement. 

2. The cord and tape could have been bought recently. Patsy had visited a hardware store prior to that night. I don't think it was premeditated, but people pick up things all the time. And there was some time John was unaccounted for, and the golf bag that was ferried out of there. I think it's quite possible that the items were taken away in there. 

3. Burke actually owned a pair of those hi-tec boots. Fleet White told the cops that both his son and Burke owned a pair. I think they were pretty popular at that time.

4. So when did the intruder place the note on those back stairs? Before he went up and got Jon Benet? After? They were laid out all smooth, hadn't been stepped on. Those back stairs were narrow and winding, also apparently pretty noisy. So he's stumbling down with a little girl in his arms; he'd break his neck trying to step over that note. Did he kill her and leave her in the basement then go BACK up and place the note? Why? Why risk being caught? Why not leave right after the killing? Why leave a note at all? He didn't kidnap her. Clearly. I think the parents wanted the crime to seem like a kidnapping to buy time. I think they still thought maybe they could get the body out. But it didn't work. John got more and more antsy, and eventually had to "find" the body. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

Well, look at this thread!

And, oh my goodness, it's finally happened in my everyday life and you all are a part of it -- "it" being that I can say, "just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

(I apologize if I've misquoted; I've never seen The Godfather, if you can believe that. And, let's face it, that quote is hyperbolic; when it comes to this case, I doubt I'll ever be "out.") 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

@jameson245 For future reference, if you type someone's username with the @ symbol in front of it like I did with yours, it will send an alert to the person so they know that there was a comment made. I thought my post was in a completely different forum, and just now saw your response. Once you start typing, it will show you choices of the username, so you have to make sure you have the right person. There are quite a few similar names. And, of course, that doesn't always work.

On 1/19/2017 at 11:00 AM, jameson245 said:

In Ramsey he was totally discredited.  He won't talk about it but it was made clear in both Steve Thomas' book and in the depositions given in the Wolf lawsuit. 

The reason I won't read the site is because almost all of them that have been linked in these threads are either poorly laid out and hard to read, completely biased, or suck me in and I lose hours of time reading and re-reading things I've read many times before. I'm days behind in my reading here on PTV as it is, but refuse to admit I have a problem. : )

I remember the Shakespeare issue, and remember the issue someone here posted, possibly you but I didn't go looking for it again, where he had sent the Ramseys a letter saying he wanted to help because he could tell Patsy didn't write the letter, only to later state that she clearly did. I do not in any way doubt that he is a bit of a famewhore and wanted the attention from being involved in this situation. I also don't doubt that he was given additional handwriting samples when he made his second opinion that it was her handwriting. On one of these shows many years ago, he suggested that she was on medications that cause people to handle the pen differently, and he had additional examples in the end. There was some other expert that agreed medications can cause that, and I think that man was a doctor who was discussing Patsy's behavior on the Today (?) interview where she appeared to be under the influence of an anti-anxiety medication, because it apparently wasn't obvious to the entire viewing public. I don't remember what show that was, but I remember it being quite the Patsy-bashing show, being super critical of her every movement, statement and behavior, all to a ridiculous degree. "Oh my God, Becky! Look at her on an anti-anxiety med before giving an interview! How could she do such a thing?" It was quite absurd, and I was shocked because it was more like a tabloid than a respectable show.

In any case, I don't think there is enough evidence available to fully prove any theory is correct or incorrect, and as we can see just here on PTV, the same evidence means different things to different people, and leads them to different conclusions. I remember that I never bought the intruder theory, and thought it was probably Burke accidentally hurting her and her family covering it up from pretty early on, but don't remember when I came to that conclusion. It was definitely based on the actions of John and Patsy, though.

After the new round of shows, which I swore I was not going to watch, but some I did, I am now leaning toward Burke doing it intentionally. I skipped his Dr. Phil appearance, since Dr. Phil has been frustrating me more and more and I didn't trust him to treat the interview as anything other than a fluff piece, but also wouldn't have liked it if he tore into him for his behavior as a child. The only thing I was certain about was that Burke was not going to say, "I killed JonBenet."

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Christina said:

The reason I won't read the site is because almost all of them that have been linked in these threads are either poorly laid out and hard to read

Oh, amen--what the hell is with these 1997-lookin' sites? I just can't sometimes!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:41 AM, ghoulina said:

1. There have also been those who said it was likely those marks were not made by a stun gun, and actually matched rather well with the ends of the train tracks found in the basement. 

2. The cord and tape could have been bought recently. Patsy had visited a hardware store prior to that night. I don't think it was premeditated, but people pick up things all the time. And there was some time John was unaccounted for, and the golf bag that was ferried out of there. I think it's quite possible that the items were taken away in there. 

3. Burke actually owned a pair of those hi-tec boots. Fleet White told the cops that both his son and Burke owned a pair. I think they were pretty popular at that time.

4. So when did the intruder place the note on those back stairs? Before he went up and got Jon Benet? After? They were laid out all smooth, hadn't been stepped on. Those back stairs were narrow and winding, also apparently pretty noisy. So he's stumbling down with a little girl in his arms; he'd break his neck trying to step over that note. Did he kill her and leave her in the basement then go BACK up and place the note? Why? Why risk being caught? Why not leave right after the killing? Why leave a note at all? He didn't kidnap her. Clearly. I think the parents wanted the crime to seem like a kidnapping to buy time. I think they still thought maybe they could get the body out. But it didn't work. John got more and more antsy, and eventually had to "find" the body. 

Expert Mike Dobersen said he would swear to a medical certainty the marks were made by a stungun.  They were electrical burns, not jabs or scratches or anything that could have been caused by a bit of toy railroad track.

Someone must have bought the tape close to the time of the murder since it was manufactured in NC just weeks before.  Point is the police could never link any Ramsey to the purchase and they tried their best.

Burke owned some high tech boots, not the brand Hi-Tec.  Again, police tried to prove otherwise but failed so they are still speaking to tipsters about boots, still willing to look at the boots of possible suspects.

I honestly don't know WHEN the killer left the note on the stairs.  Neither dows anyone else - - - only the killer knows when - or why.    The stairs were tight, not noisey at all.  I know because I used them.  Why leave a note at all?  Because he was being a smart-ss?  Seriously, leaving a body and a note makes it clear this was not a kidnapping OR a staged kidnapping but a crime where someone didn't really follow a perfect plan but was acting ut a few fantasies at once.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

@Christina - thanks for the tip.

Foster was a renowned LINGUISTICS expert which is nothing like a handwriting expert.  So when his linguistics attribution fell apart his attempt to nail her based on an opinion on her handwriting was just ridiculous.

I think my page on him is pretty easy to follow and actually quite amusing.  He contributed more than he could imagine to that page. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/21/2017 at 6:44 PM, jameson245 said:

Expert Mike Dobersen said he would swear to a medical certainty the marks were made by a stungun.  They were electrical burns, not jabs or scratches or anything that could have been caused by a bit of toy railroad track.

That train tracks in the basement WERE from an electric train set. If it had recently been in use, it could be warm still. That being said, the autopsy report says "abrasions", not burns. And the fact is, that if you look at pictures of the stun gun lined up with the marks on her body, the spacing does not match. Kolar had some pretty definitive photos AND videos showcasing this. The train track does match. 

 

On 1/21/2017 at 6:44 PM, jameson245 said:

Burke owned some high tech boots, not the brand Hi-Tec.  Again, police tried to prove otherwise but failed so they are still speaking to tipsters about boots, still willing to look at the boots of possible suspects.

No, I believe it was stated that it was the BRAND Hi-Tec. They were bought on a shopping trip in Atlanta. Fleet White's son had the same pair. Why would he say that if it wasn't an actual brand? 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Burke, Fleet White's son and Doug Stine said Burke owned Hi-Tec boots during the grand jury testimony. Burke also said it in the Dr. Phil interview. Just because they weren't recovered doesn't mean he didn't own them. While I think one of the Ramsey's did it and all were involved in some way, I don't think the boot proves or disproves anything at all. Burke lived there so his footprint being there isn't unusual.

 

And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size