JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Exactly - and if they were innocent then why fight the police? You would have thought they would want to answer ALL questions for two good reasons.

1. So that police could eliminate them from their list of suspects.

2. So that, once eliminated from enquiries, the police could get on to find the real killer of their beloved daughter.

But no, they continued to hide behind their lawyers and that, for me, is the most damning behaviour of all.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman -Here are some questions for you. If you can answer them I would be obliged.

1. As you yourself have stated, it would be absurd for a murderer to kill their victim and then leave a ransom note and leave the body in the house.

Why would an intruder do this?

As I've said elsewhere, common sense dictates that if Patsy wrote the ransom note, then it was written after JonBenet's death, but if an intruder wrote the ransom note then it was written before the death.

So lets accept a modicum of common sense here, and I will not ask you why Patsy wrote the note before JonBenet was dead, and you will not ask me why an intruder wrote the note after JonBenet died.
Deal?

2. The ransom note specifically stated that they should NOT contact the police "otherwise their daughter would be beheaded". What did the Ramseys immediately do? They contacted the police. Plus phoned four friends and their lawyers.

I would have called the police straight away, I expect the police to be able to handle the discreet management of the situation. As for calling friends, no, but my wife and I do not belong to a wide circle of friends either.

John did not call his lawyers, according to what I've learned, they called him.
A successful businessman is in frequent contact with lawyers they are often counted among the family friends, whereas someone like myself has only ever spoke to a lawyer twice in my life.
So an average person interested in this case cannot appreciate a comparison with someone who has lawyers among their friends.

3. Am I right in thinking that you believe an 'intruder' lurked for hours in the Ramsey home on that freezing Christmas night, just hoping for a chance to murder JB and leave a ransom note?

What does "freezing" have to do with it, are you suggesting the heating system was turned off? He obviously was not waiting outside, so why mention the temperature?
I have made this point elsewhere, it makes far more sense to break in to an empty house and wait, rather than an occupied house and risk waking someone up.

4. You honestly believe that this 'intruder' sat down at the kitchen counter and leisurely wrote a few attempts at a kidnap note, before settling on a rambling three page epic which managed to squeeze in praise for John's business acumen and "good southern common sense"?

That's one way of putting it, and the few examples of sarcastic praise suggest to me the intruder did know John personally, but John Ramsey was not an insignificant figure either.

He had NO idea how long before the Ramseys would be back.

Why would that matter, it's not like he had to be back home by midnight.

5. Why would an intruder/kidnapper not take the body with him? Even when dead a body is collateral for a kidnapper because the parents will assume their child is still alive.

I don't think that question applies. I believe the intruder first planned to kidnap the girl, which is why he wrote the note, but then changed his mind. I don't think it is reasonable to assume he killed her in that basement by accident.
Maybe his warped desire got the better of him, hence the sexual attack and the repeated use of the garrotte.

6. Why would he stop to close the basement window and replace the grating on the basement area?

I thought John said the window was open when he found the body?
Lowering the steel grate to leave the place looking as you found it is a normal reaction.

7. Once JB's body was removed for autopsy neither John nor Patsy asked the police what the cause of death had been. If your child had been murdered would you not be asking the police this question?

John found her with the garrotte still tight around her neck, what was their to ask?

8. John stated, just a few days after JB was murdered, that he was "not angry" with his daughter's killer. Most people would find that strange, don't you think?

I understand they were quite religious, it has always amazed me why devoutly religious people choose to project this image of forgiveness after they have become victims of some heinous crime.
Yes, it is strange to me, but the Ramsey's are not alone in this type of attitude.

9. Why would the Ramseys wish to fly hundreds of miles away to Atlanta while the body of their murdered little girl was still in the house in Boulder, being guarded by a single police officer?

They didn't.
That was one of those false statements by the Boulder Police, though the Ramsey's did fly to Atlanta to bury JonBenet there, they obviously attended the funeral.

10. Why would the Ramseys refuse to talk to the police?

11. Why did they 'lawyer up' on the same day their daughter was found murdered? (instead of talking to the police)

I thought they were advised to get lawyers the next day?
John Ramsey received a phone call from a lawyer associate, who in turn had received a tip from someone inside the Boulder Police that the Ramsey's are being targeted.
The associate advised him & Patsy to get their own lawyers. That being the case, they lost faith in the Boulder Police, only talking with them through their lawyers.

12. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?

Wasn't all that in response to questions?
I thought they were asked to name anyone, absolutely anyone who might have done this.

13. The Ramseys did a very good job of trying to turn everyone they knew against the police department, saying they were being 'harassed'. Anyone would think, to read the load of lies that they later wrote in the fiction that passed as their book about the case, that it was Police vs. Ramseys. That was far from true.

I think you are making a case for it being the Police against the Ramsey's. You believe the police, even thought the police bungled the case, even thought the police were proven to have lied to the media to falsely implicate the Ramsey's.

The police had no reason to want to pin it on the Ramseys, just the opposite in fact, but they could not ignore the amount of circumstantial evidence.

No reason?, they had every reason. They were well aware of the statistics, some 70?% of child murders are committed by the parents. Though in most of these cases it is one or both of the parents who view the child as an inconvenience.
This was far from the case with the Ramsey's.

14. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?

Didn't you ask that in No. 12 above?

When the police went to talk to their pastor, I think his name was Hoverstock?, they came up against another strange thing. They wanted to ask him a few friendly routine questions but he immediately stated he was not going to talk to them and said he would ring his lawyers before being questioned. Was that not more strange behaviour? The Ramseys and their people had instilled in anyone around them that the police were out to 'get them'.

Have you ever wondered WHY they were so against talking to the police and why every tiny thing they uttered was re-written by their lawyers?

Presumably you are going to say it was normal behaviour? If you think any of the above was 'normal behaviour' then I have to presume you yourself have some strange thought waves.

People can form a closed society without actually being implicated in a murder. It isn't normal to my way of thinking but the 'clanning' together of church members or religious groups, which is so common in the states is not normal to me anyway.
I don't think it's normal to carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but a lot of Americans do.

You obviously believe all this (well the Ramseys said it happened that way so it must have!) but it takes some explaining away for the rest of us.

It doesn't matter what the Ramsey's say, the burden of proof lies with the authorities - innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

You state it was the fault of the police that this was not investigated properly and I agree, but they DID try - most of them anyway - and came up against a brick wall.

It was their collective incompetence that set the ball rolling down this path in the first place. Everything that has happened since Linda Arndt was left alone in the house has contributed to this mystery.

[Wickerman]

And a few other oddities....

JB had been put to bed wearing a red turtle neck sweater yet when she was found she was wearing her white long sleeved top with silver stars (the top she had been wearing during the Christmas party the day before). The red turtle neck sweater was found damp and bundled up on the side of the basin in JB's bedroom.

I'm not sure how the above question implicates Patsy?

Patsy's mother told police that somebody would need to be extremely familiar with the house in order (even) to find the door to the basement because there were about 15 doors that could have been basement doors. The light switch to the basement was not in a place where one would expect a basement light to be (at the top of the stairwell) but was outside the basement, on a wall in the main room, around a corner.

The room where the body was found was down a maze of hallways that few people knew was there. The 'intruder' stopped to latch the door on his way out (the latch being very stiff and hard to turn, according to police and Fleet White).

But, as he came in that way, then he knew where the room was.
It's not like he entered the house through the front door then looked for a basement room. He came in through the basement room, so what is the question?

The sexual assault is another bizarre occurrence. If we are to believe the intruder theory then presumably sex was the motive for the killing?

What kind of sex maniac is content to insert part of a THIN artist's paintbrush handle into the vagina, and leave it at that? No semen or any other bodily fluids were found on the body or surrounding areas.

Semen was traceable, like fingerprints, which he also avoided leaving.
Though why no evidence of penetration, even if he used protection, is a question worth asking.

I have my own theories, most of which make sense if you take the notion that the Ramseys were responsible.

Please share...
.
.

Do you think a mother who worshiped her daughter could fabricate a garrotte and strangle her beloved daughter?
Put on workboots and walk about the basement, cut some duct tape and stick it over the mouth without leaving fingerprints in the adhesive - did she also have the forsight to wear gloves?
Tie the girls hands up with the same parachute cord.
Then dispose of the rest of the cord used to make the garrotte, dispose of the duct tape, dispose of the workboots and the murder weapon?
Or, if the torch was the weapon, clean it and place it on the counter in the kitchen?
Then go outside and open & close the steel grate - because obviously she needs to show weeds being trapped under the grate to 'prove' her argument.

This is one hell of an elaborate subversion of justice, more like a movie script than the actions of a grieving mother.

[Wickerman]

Exactly - and if they were innocent then why fight the police? You would have thought they would want to answer ALL questions for two good reasons.

1. So that police could eliminate them from their list of suspects.

Are you saying the police would eliminate the Ramsey's as suspects based on what they say?

2. So that, once eliminated from enquiries, the police could get on to find the real killer of their beloved daughter.

The Boulder Police have always maintained they investigated approx. a hundred or more suspects, so the Ramsey's being quiet did not create a problem in that direction.

But no, they continued to hide behind their lawyers and that, for me, is the most damning behaviour of all.

They were not hiding behind their lawyers when the were interviewed by CNN, a week or so after the murder.
The Ramsey's did not appear to be concerned with talking about the case, they were concerned about talking with Boulder Police. And, if I'm not mistaken, they had a constitutional right to say nothing.

In the majority of murder cases we would think the family would only be too eager to talk with the police, but in the majority of cases the police do not enter a murder investigation with the intent of charging the family.
It would seem like the police let statistical evidence guide their investigation. They knew that in most cases like this the family were responsible, all they have to do in this case is find out how.

The Ramsey's position would only have been strengthened when the police published lies about them, not that the press or public would have known they were lies, but the Ramsey's did.

So, why would you trust a police force who are openly telling lies about your involvement?

[louisa]

Apologies in advance for my clumsy copying and pasting but I am not really used to doing this.


Posted by Wickerman:

John did not call his lawyers, according to what I've learned, they called him.

Incorrect. John called his lawyers the same day that JB's body was found.


Posted by Louisa:

3. Am I right in thinking that you believe an 'intruder' lurked for hours in the Ramsey home on that freezing Christmas night, just hoping for a chance to murder JB and leave a ransom note?


Posted by Wickerman:

What does "freezing" have to do with it, are you suggesting the heating system was turned off?

It makes far more sense to break in to an empty house and wait, rather than an occupied house and risk waking someone up.


Posted by Louisa:

When someone talks about a freezing Christmas night they are usually referring to the temperature outside.

And it makes NO SENSE to break into an empty house and wait in hope for a chance to do some dastardly deeds to one of the children whilst her parents and brother sleep nearby. This bogus intruder DID risk waking someone up.


Posted by Louisa:

4. You honestly believe that this 'intruder' sat down at the kitchen counter and leisurely wrote a few attempts at a kidnap note, before settling on a rambling three page epic which managed to squeeze in praise for John's business acumen and "good southern common sense"?

Posted by Wickerman:

That's one way of putting it, and the few examples of sarcastic praise suggest to me the intruder did know John personally.

I do not believe the words were intended to be sarcastic.


Posted by Louisa:

He had NO idea how long before the Ramseys would be back.



Posted by Wickerman:

Why would that matter, it's not like he had to be back home by midnight.


Posted by Louisa:

He had no idea how long before the Ramseys would be back so therefore he had NO way of knowing how long he had got to write the ransom note. He did not know if he would start to write and they would return home before he finished it. He did not know anything at that time. He had - presumably - already taken time to familiarise himself with their house and all it's nooks and crannies. Have you ever heard of an intruder taking this kind of time in a house?

The Ramseys could have returned home early if one of them had been feeling unwell.


Posted by Louisa:

5. Why would an intruder/kidnapper not take the body with him? Even when dead a body is collateral for a kidnapper because the parents will assume their child is still alive.


Posted by Wickerman:

I don't think that question applies. I believe the intruder first planned to kidnap the girl, which is why he wrote the note, but then changed his mind. I don't think it is reasonable to assume he killed her in that basement by accident.
Maybe his warped desire got the better of him, hence the sexual attack and the repeated use of the garrotte.

So why didn't he take the note with him when he went? Instead he left it to be analysed.

Posted by Louisa:

6. Why would he stop to close the basement window and replace the grating on the basement area?


Posted by Wickerman:

Lowering the steel grate to leave the place looking as you found it is a normal reaction.


Posted by Louisa:

It wasn't on a hinge but was a heavy iron grille. It had to be picked up and replaced.

It may be a normal reaction to leave the place 'looking as you found it' but we're not talking about a trip to a friend's bathroom where you want to leave the towels looking neat, we're talking about somebody who has just committed the heinous murder of a little girl in her own home. Presumably he would have been in a bit of a hurry?

Posted by Louisa:

7. Once JB's body was removed for autopsy neither John nor Patsy asked the police what the cause of death had been. If your child had been murdered would you not be asking the police this question?


Posted by Wickerman:

John found her with the garrotte still tight around her neck, what was their to ask?


Posted by Louisa:

So he just took it for granted that what he saw was all there was? She could have been horribly mutilated underneath her clothes for all he knew.

Or her skull could have been crushed.


Posted by Louisa:

8. John stated, just a few days after JB was murdered, that he was "not angry" with his daughter's killer. Most people would find that strange, don't you think?


Posted by Wickerman:

I understand they were quite religious, it has always amazed me why devoutly religious people choose to project this image of forgiveness after they have become victims of some heinous crime.
Yes, it is strange to me, but the Ramsey's are not alone in this type of attitude.


Posted by Louisa:

If you have studied the psyche of crime, especially the ones in the USA you will see that the bible thumping religious nuts are the worst ones for committing 'sins'. I watch Crime and Investigation constantly and have, over the course of 30 or so years, watched thousands of case history reconstructions and it always amazes me at the number of religious murderers there are.

So whenever I hear people, like Patsy Ramsey, calling to God and professing to be good, honest Christian people, it tends to rise my hackles.

And it irritates the heck out of me when I hear relatives of murder victims saying they 'forgive' the murderer. Nobody (not even a parent) has the right to 'forgive' on behalf of the murder victim.

Posted by Louisa:

9. Why would the Ramseys wish to fly hundreds of miles away to Atlanta while the body of their murdered little girl was still in the house in Boulder, being guarded by a single police officer?


Posted by Wickerman:

They didn't. That was one of those false statements by the Boulder Police, though the Ramsey's did fly to Atlanta to bury JonBenet there, they obviously attended the funeral.


Posted by Louisa:

I didn't say they did. I asked why would the Ramseys WISH to fly.....?

As it happened the flight was cancelled by Fleet White later that afternoon.

The fact remains that John DID contact his pilot and arrange the flight for that same day.

Louisa:

10. Why would the Ramseys refuse to talk to the police?

11. Why did they 'lawyer up' on the same day their daughter was found murdered? (instead of talking to the police)

Posted by Wickerman:

I thought they were advised to get lawyers the next day?
John Ramsey received a phone call from a lawyer associate, who in turn had received a tip from someone inside the Boulder Police that the Ramsey's are being targeted.


Posted by Louisa:

No it was the same day as their daughter's body was discovered.

As for getting a tip that the Ramseys were being targeted - well of course they were the first suspects. The parents are always the first suspects in the murder of a child. What did they expect?

Louisa:

12. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?

Posted by Wickerman:

Wasn't all that in response to questions?

I thought they were asked to name anyone, absolutely anyone who might have done this.


Posted by Louisa:

Yes and they named every single person they knew. A classic case of mis-direction. This was in order to keep the police looking at everybody else rather than at themselves.

Louisa:

13. The Ramseys did a very good job of trying to turn everyone they knew against the police department, saying they were being 'harassed'. Anyone would think, to read the load of lies that they later wrote in the fiction that passed as their book about the case, that it was Police vs. Ramseys. That was far from true.


Posted by Wickerman:

I think you are making a case for it being the Police against the Ramsey's. You believe the police, even thought the police bungled the case, even thought the police were proven to have lied to the media to falsely implicate the Ramsey's.


Posted by Louisa:

Yes the police bungled the case. If they hadn't then the Ramseys would have been put behind bars, where they belonged.

How did the police try to falsely implicate the Ramseys?

Posted by Louisa:

The police had no reason to want to pin it on the Ramseys, just the opposite in fact, but they could not ignore the amount of circumstantial evidence.

Posted by Wickerman:

No reason?, they had every reason. They were well aware of the statistics, some 70?% of child murders are committed by the parents. Though in most of these cases it is one or both of the parents who view the child as an inconvenience.
This was far from the case with the Ramsey's.


Posted by Louisa:

Now you are being ridiculous. Making excuses for the Ramseys yet again.

You do not know what went on behind closed doors in the Ramseys residence or what the true dynamics of the family were.

The ONLY reason they had for not wishing to co-operate with the police is the obvious one. There can be no other. They knew that even the bungling Boulder police department would find out the truth, especially if they talked.

Are you saying that if your child had been sexually interferred with and brutally slain you would not wish to talk to the police simply because at least 70% of child murderers turn out to be the parents?

Posted by Louisa:

Presumably you are going to say it was normal behaviour? If you think any of the above was 'normal behaviour' then I have to presume you yourself have some strange thought waves.


Posted by Wickerman:

People can form a closed society without actually being implicated in a murder. It isn't normal to my way of thinking but the 'clanning' together of church members or religious groups, which is so common in the states is not normal to me anyway.
I don't think it's normal to carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but a lot of Americans do.


Posted by Louisa:

That's not an answer, is it? The police couldn't believe that a man of God would not wish to get to the bottom of this heinous crime.

Louisa:

You obviously believe all this (well the Ramseys said it happened that way so it must have!) but it takes some explaining away for the rest of us.


Posted by Wickerman:

It doesn't matter what the Ramsey's say, the burden of proof lies with the authorities - innocent until proven guilty, and all that.


Posted by Louisa:

Yeah right.

If the case had been tried in court it would all have come out. The Ramseys would have been cross examined. As it turned out that did not happen and JB never got the justice she deserved.

Louisa:

You state it was the fault of the police that this was not investigated properly and I agree, but they DID try - most of them anyway - and came up against a brick wall.


Posted by Wickerman:

It was their collective incompetence that set the ball rolling down this path in the first place. Everything that has happened since Linda Arndt was left alone in the house has contributed to this mystery.


Posted by Louisa:

The ball started rolling once the media got wind of this juicy story and the unsavoury strange parents.



I'll refer to your other points in another posting. I'm off to have my tea now.

[louisa]

But, as he came in that way, then he knew where the room was.
It's not like he entered the house through the front door then looked for a basement room. He came in through the basement room, so what is the question?

Semen was traceable, like fingerprints, which he also avoided leaving.
Though why no evidence of penetration, even if he used protection, is a question worth asking.

The room where JB was found had no windows in it.

Your second paragraph is certainly a question worth asking. The police came to the same conclusion that I did - that it could just as easily have been a woman staging the scene to make it look as though a sex fiend had been at work.

Do you think a mother who worshiped her daughter could fabricate a garrotte and strangle her beloved daughter?
Put on workboots and walk about the basement, cut some duct tape and stick it over the mouth without leaving fingerprints in the adhesive - did she also have the forsight to wear gloves?
Tie the girls hands up with the same parachute cord.
Then dispose of the rest of the cord used to make the garrotte, dispose of the duct tape, dispose of the workboots and the murder weapon?
Or, if the torch was the weapon, clean it and place it on the counter in the kitchen?
Then go outside and open & close the steel grate - because obviously she needs to show weeds being trapped under the grate to 'prove' her argument.

This is one hell of an elaborate subversion of justice, more like a movie script than the actions of a grieving mother.

The answer to all those questions is YES, YES and YES.

When Patsy realised that JB was dead she had to try and think quickly but because her head was muddled (and whose would not be at a time like that?) she and John agreed it would be best to cover it up, so they staged an elaborate scenario.

The duct tape had all kinds of stuff on it. John had removed it from JB's mouth and so contaminated what could have been good forensic evidence.

No workboots were needed. I don't believe the Ramseys left the house.

The bits and pieces of incriminating evidence were, I believed, put into one of John's golf bags, the specific one he asked Pam Paugh to retrieve when she went back to the house to get funeral clothes for the family.

Why else would he want golf clubs, at a time like that? It struck the police as odd.

Patsy knew the police wanted the clothes she and John (and Burke) had been wearing that night but when the police took them they found they had been laundered.

[louisa]

Are you saying the police would eliminate the Ramsey's as suspects based on what they say?

The Boulder Police have always maintained they investigated approx. a hundred or more suspects, so the Ramsey's being quiet did not create a problem in that direction.

Of course it created a problem! When the prime suspects in a murder enquiry refuse to talk to the police it creates a heck of problem.

(Wickerman, I don't know whether you're saying stupid things to wind me up now).

The "hundred or more suspects" were created by the Ramseys themselves in order to throw the eye of suspicion away from themselves. They wanted the police to be on a constant wild goose chase. Yes, the police followed up all leads, but they lead nowhere. The evidence always pointed back to the Ramseys.

They were not hiding behind their lawyers when the were interviewed by CNN, a week or so after the murder.
The Ramsey's did not appear to be concerned with talking about the case, they were concerned about talking with Boulder Police. And, if I'm not mistaken, they had a constitutional right to say nothing.

The TV presenter had been given a list of questions beforehand and was told not to ask specific questions about the murder.

Yes they WERE concerned about talking to the Boulder police and we have to ask ourselves WHY?

Yes they had a constitutional right to say nothing but what parent in such circumstances would NOT wish to give all the help they could possibly give to the police and to the people investigating this crime?

They knew that in most cases like this the family were responsible, all they have to do in this case is find out how.

Exactly!

So, why would you trust a police force who are openly telling lies about your involvement?

What lies had been told, other than the monstrous ones by Patsy and John?

[Wickerman]

There were NO fibres of any kind found within that suitcase that came from JonBenet's body.

I refer back to the above because I could not remember the source I used which contained this fact.

Here, below, is a summary of many points of evidence, with official references bracketed. I should correct my previous statement to say that fibers from articles found inside the suitcase were also found on the body.
See point 6.


Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

1 - "the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90).

2 - "There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

3 - "Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

4 - "In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

5 - "the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

6 - "The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32).

7 - "Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

8 - "Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89).

9 - "the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).



What Other Evidence May Have Been Left by an Intruder?

1 - Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

2 - Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10).

3 - Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

4 - Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

5 - Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF P 151; PSMF P 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF P 152; PSMF P 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF P 153; PSMF P 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 155; PSMF P 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF P 154, 155; PSMF P 154, 155.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

6 - Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a 20 palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)" (Carnes 2003:19-20). Internet poster Mame asserts: "the story suggesting the handprint is confirmed to be Melinda's is just that....a story. If I recall the report came via a reporter, Charlie Brennan. Remember his footprints in the snow story??? A totally false story."

7 - Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).

8 - Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94).

9 - Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

10 - Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

There is also some evidence against an intruder, you can read for yourself at this link:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder

[Pcdunn]

Louisa, I posted that same link earlier in this thread, and I do recommend it, as it has a lot of interesting information there.

[louisa]

Anything entitled The Intruder Theory, and especially anything written by Lou Smit is going to be biased to the Ramseys cause.

There could be a hundred Lou Smits all saying the same thing but it wouldn't alter my opinion that this murder was an inside job.

Fibres from JB will be found all over that house because she lived there and played in the basement.

Lou Smith - didn't he get his brother to hit him on the head with a baseball bat so that the resulting lump would make him tall enough to get enlisted into the armed forces? I'm going from memory. And wasn't he the investigator who proclaimed that JB had been tasered?

I could counter ever single item on that list that biased list you copied and pasted, in fact I might just do that.


Alex Hunter did NOT want the Ramseys to go to trial because of the cost and he did everything within his power to ensure that no trial would take place.

Lou Smit was taken onto the case because Alex Hunter knew he would find favourably for them.

Expert witness will find for the person who is employing them. Probably if the county of Boulder DA's office had been wealthy enough they would have pursued the Ramseys and Lou Smit would have been employed to find evidence that the Ramseys committed the murder. And of course he would have!

[louisa]

I'll reply to the points as I read them, not in the order you C & P'd them. This is the first point I read ......

1 - Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

Black duct tape WAS found inside the house that matched the tape found in the basement.

On the framed photo of JB that hung on her bedroom wall. The back of it was criss crossed with black duct tape.

[louisa]

Was all this biased (mainly hearsay) 'evidence' C & P'd from Lou Smit's book by any chance? Or maybe the one written by the Ramseys, because we have some blatant misinformation.

1 - "the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found.

And the point of this is? Don't you ever leave doors open inside your home? Or do you meticulously close all the internal doors before you go to bed?

"There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

The author of this little gem is obviously casting about for something to write. Even if what he says is correct (and I dubious) what exactly does it matter? The kids were playing around the house on Christmas morning. JB had her new bike that she was riding around the garden.

3 - "Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently.

Define "recently". No-one in that house is going to admit being anywhere near that grate are they?

"In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it.

It had a broken pane because John said he had broken it a few months prior. The suitcase was moved by Fleet White when he and John initially did a tour of the house and he could not remember where it had originally been before he moved it.

It is quite possible a glass shard was found beneath it because the glass from the broken window had not been cleared up. John stated it was something he had been intending to do.

"the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window.

And because a person could enter the window that proved the 'intruder theory' did it?

"The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar.

Well the Defendants can - and will - say anything that they think will get them off the hook don't they? Wickerman - you're going to have to wake up to the fact that just because John and Patsy say so doesn't make it true. Those items could have been in the suitcase for a while and if there were fibres on JB's shirt (and I'm starting to seriously doubt ALL the 'facts' in this idiotic report) then they could have got there when the shirt was washed with other items.

If your clothing was analysed it would probably contain all kinds of odd fibres from sources that could be found all around your home and some that couldn't be found in your home.

8 - "Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. " This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point.

This is the first I have heard of leaves being in the wine cellar and I'm inclined not to believe it because so many other of Lou Smit's statements have been found to be erroneous.

Even if true it is possible leaves may have been present but it isn't clear how old they were. they could have been there for months. They could even have been put there by hand. Smit doesn't say 'new foliage'. He's fitting the facts to his theory.

"The lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day.

I would have been surprised if they had NOT been on. John and Patsy would have been up and down those stairs quite a bit in the early hours of that morning.

Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home."

Jeez - of course they were never located nor sourced to the defendants' home. Patsy and John made a lot of stupid mistakes during that morning (the 'ransom note' being just one of them) but they would have had the savvy to get rid of the cord.

Remember that I mentioned John asked specifically for one of his golf bags to be retrieved from the house, just days after JB had been killed?

A perfect place to hide stuff. As the Ramseys were not officially suspects in the killing they were not searched. Patsy could have concealed anything she wanted in her handbag. They left the house that same day in the clothes they had been wearing and without being searched. Wonderful.

3 - Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair.

4 - Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home.

Patsy had a number of fur coats and she was wearing one of them when she left the house. That coat has never been found and Patsy never wore it again.

I would take issue with the fact that animal hairs were not found within the Ramseys home.

As an armchair criminologist I know that matching animal hair forensically is not really possible and scientists can only make educated guesses as to whether animal hairs are a 'match' or not. In 1996 it would have been even more difficult.

Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified.

What size were the shoe prints? Burke Ramsay walked out of the house that day wearing trainer type shoes that were never recovered. All his clothes were taken a few days later by Pam Paugh when she came back to the house to load the car. Another lapse in police protocol.

6 - Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a 20 palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints.The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. Internet poster Mame asserts: "the story suggesting the handprint is confirmed to be Melinda's is just that....a story. If I recall the report came via a reporter, Charlie Brennan. Remember his footprints in the snow story??? A totally false story."

You did know, didn't you, that just a few days earlier the house had been thoroughly tramped through by over 2,000 people didn't you? The house had a Christmas open day whereby people could visit interesting houses in Boulder. The Ramseys house was on the list. I'm actually surprised the police didn't find a lot more unidentified palm prints. Although......Lou Smit would have mentioned just that one, on the cellar door - wouldn't he? Just to bolster his case.

7 - Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found.

Who says it wasn't owned by the Ramseys? The Ramseys themselves I presume?

'The basement where JB's body was found'- not the actual room where she was found?

I'm sorry but that doesn't mean a thing. The kids' toys were stored in the basement and it's highly possible that Burke and/or JB played baseball in the yard during the warm weather. That bat belonged to Burke, you can be sure of it.

When you say it was found on the north side of the house are you saying it was found INSIDE or OUTSIDE? Either way it is not conclusive because even if the intruder theory is true why would he bring a bat with him? He intended to kidnap JB, not kill her.

Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them.

Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

"The Defendants have indicated......" Well then it must be true then, mustn't it?

I have stuff stored on top of the bed in my spare room, probably includes rope. I'm not a tidy person, and neither was Patsy. The downstairs was a manicured showpiece but upstairs was a mess - probably like her mind.

If JB had fibres from ANYTHING in the house it wouldn't be odd - she lived there for heaven's sake!

Another case of bending the facts to fit the theory.

Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home.

As you well know, Wickerman, JB's body was touched by a lot of people in that house before her body was removed. The body should have been preserved as a crime scene but unfortunately it wasn't.

Clothing from these people was never asked for (until it was too late for analysis). The fibres could have come from any of the people in the house that day.

Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body.

You did know, didn't you, that people used to stay in JB's bedroom and even sleep in her bed, when the family were away?

I think it's strange why a family would let people do this but the Ramseys were strange folk.

The housekeeper, and I think other people the housekeeper knew, stayed there. The housekeeper probably wouldn't want to tell the police that she had allowed her relatives to sleep at the house.

[Abby Normal]

I refer back to the above because I could not remember the source I used which contained this fact.

Here, below, is a summary of many points of evidence, with official references bracketed. I should correct my previous statement to say that fibers from articles found inside the suitcase were also found on the body.
See point 6.


Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

1 - "the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90).

2 - "There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

3 - "Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

4 - "In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

5 - "the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

6 - "The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32).

7 - "Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

8 - "Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89).

9 - "the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).



What Other Evidence May Have Been Left by an Intruder?

1 - Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18).

2 - Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10).

3 - Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

4 - Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

5 - Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF P 151; PSMF P 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF P 152; PSMF P 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF P 153; PSMF P 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 155; PSMF P 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF P 154, 155; PSMF P 154, 155.)" (Carnes 2003:19).

6 - Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a 20 palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)" (Carnes 2003:19-20). Internet poster Mame asserts: "the story suggesting the handprint is confirmed to be Melinda's is just that....a story. If I recall the report came via a reporter, Charlie Brennan. Remember his footprints in the snow story??? A totally false story."

7 - Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).

8 - Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94).

9 - Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

10 - Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

There is also some evidence against an intruder, you can read for yourself at this link:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...0an%20Intruder

Hey wick
Thanks for posting all this. The unidentified bag with rope found in the home is the first time of heard of it!

One of the things that's occurred to me is the apparent amount of stuff the alleged intruder brought to the crime scene is piling up. Duct tape, rope and bag, taser, baseball bat, large flashlight. I mean really? What's he carrying it all in? And how is he carrying it?
And then he's going to use one of the Ramsey's suitcases to carry some of her belongings, and possibly her out of the house also? Why not just throw her belongings into the bag he brought with him?

Just seems like a lot of stuff going on for an intruder to bring into and out of the house. No?

[louisa]

I'd just like to add that those beaver hairs found on JB's body probably came from Patsy's sweater because she had been wearing her fur coat earlier that day. The police desperately wanted that sweater for forensic analysis but when she eventually handed the clothes over they had been professionally laundered.

Patsy said she put on exactly the SAME clothes that she had been wearing the night before. Maybe she hadn't taken them off?

[louisa]

Hey wick
Thanks for posting all this. The unidentified bag with rope found in the home is the first time of heard of it!

One of the things that's occurred to me is the apparent amount of stuff the alleged intruder brought to the crime scene is piling up. Duct tape, rope and bag, taser, baseball bat, large flashlight. I mean really? What's he carrying it all in? And how is he carrying it?
And then he's going to use one of the Ramsey's suitcases to carry some of her belongings, and possibly her out of the house also? Why not just throw her belongings into the bag he brought with him?

Just seems like a lot of stuff going on for an intruder to bring into and out of the house. No?

Ridiculous isn't it?

If something doesn't sound right then it probably isn't right.

I'm surprised that nobody spotted a bushy haired stranger lurking around the neighbourhood.

There's always a bushy haired stranger isn't there? This case is unusual in that nobody saw one.

Obviously Lou Smit and the Ramseys had never heard of this or they'd had conjured one up.