JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Harry D]

And Harry - you are still talking about Patsy 'torturing' her child. A notion that is frankly ridiculous.

I certainly never said such a thing because I believe the blow to the head was an accident. The garrotting - also - was not to torture but to 'cover up'. The child was already unconscious and comatose by then.

Wasn't the cause of death strangulation? As I informed you before, even if JonBenet had been unconscious when the garroting occurred, there's a good chance she would've suffered from air hunger. And I never said she tortured JonBenet deliberately, but she created a device that's used to torture. I just can't imagine a panicky mother coming up with something like that in the heat of the moment.

[louisa]

Wasn't the cause of death strangulation? As I informed you before, even if JonBenet had been unconscious when the garroting occurred, there's a good chance she would've suffered from air hunger. And I never said she tortured JonBenet deliberately, but she created a device that's used to torture. I just can't imagine a panicky mother coming up with something like that in the heat of the moment.

No, the strangulation came 45 mins - 1 hour after the head trauma.

Chief Mark Beckner:

"We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad."


Harry, my opinion today is that Burke did everything and his mother wrote the ransom note to cover up for him. His parents lied and continued to lie.

You made a good point in one of your early posts on this thread. You stated that 9 year old boys (he was almost 10) are sexually curious and I would probably agree with that statement. I think he did the sexual stuff to JB.

A boy of that age would not have been prosecuted, but he may have been removed to an institution to be assessed and most likely kept there for a good long while. The Ramseys may have considered all of this in those frantic hours and then made their decision.

I suspect that when the Ramseys realised all the mistakes they had made (the idiotic kidnap note was a classic) they thought the game would be up for them before long. I bet they never thought that people would believe their ridiculous intruder theory, but strangely enough, a lot of people did believe it (simply because the public were unable to accept the idea that parents could cover up the murder of their child, even if it was an accident initially)

The police were not fooled though, and neither should we be.
.
.

[Hannibal Hayes]

I’m not too up on the way the investigation was handled so apologies if this has been covered before.

Interview techniques were obviously vastly different back then to today’s process & nowadays I don’t believe an interview can take place with a minor without a consenting adult (solicitor, family representative etc) present.

I’ve read on here how the Ramsey’s behaved during the investigation but I don’t know whether Burke was interviewed separately (away from his parents).

So my question is: If Burke was interviewed without his parents present, how could they guarantee that he wouldn’t crack?

Under pressure from authority, most children would spill the beans, even if it meant they were found out.

[louisa]

I’m not too up on the way the investigation was handled so apologies if this has been covered before.

Interview techniques were obviously vastly different back then to today’s process & nowadays I don’t believe an interview can take place with a minor without a consenting adult (solicitor, family representative etc) present.

I’ve read on here how the Ramsey’s behaved during the investigation but I don’t know whether Burke was interviewed separately (away from his parents).

So my question is: If Burke was interviewed without his parents present, how could they guarantee that he wouldn’t crack?

Under pressure from authority, most children would spill the beans, even if it meant they were found out.

Hi Hannibal!

Burke was questioned very gently (as you would expect). He wasn't on the stand and there was no cross examination. I would call it a "soft" question and answer session, and it didn't last long. The police said they would have liked to have been able to question Burke more fully but they were never given the opportunity.

I expect that his parents were present - possibly in the next room observing through a window/mirror. I will have to go back to the official websites to see who was present.

I presume the parents instilled into the boy that on no account was he to tell anything he knew about that night. If you look at Patsy's deposition on YouTube you will see what a formidable woman she was. A woman with a temper.

I suspect both her children were frightened of getting on her wrong side. I wouldn't want to have argued with her.

And I am certain the Ramseys watched the video with trepidation.

The boy had already been schooled in one lie that we know of. He was told to say he was asleep in bed the entire night. He recently admitted that he was awake and heard all the commotion. He told investigators "I was worried about what might happen to my parents"

For the last 20 years Burke seems to have been kept away from the world because no one has emerged that can say where he was over that time.

He is currently suing CBS for $150M - Yes, one hundred and fifty million dollars! A CBS documentary pointed the finger at Burke as being the killer of his sister.

If he wins his case and is awarded damages then NO WAY will he ever come clean and tell the truth about what happened that night, especially if he was the perpetrator of the crime. If he did then he would have to re-pay CBS because they would have been right about him.

And Hannibal - if you want to read books about the case, don't buy anything written by the Ramseys or anyone connected to them, for the same reasons you wouldn't buy an autobiography.

The Steve Thomas book 'JonBenet' is a good one - (an interesting theory), so is the Police Files. The James Kolar book 'Foreign Faction' is also a fairly good one. The Cyril Wecht book is okay but some facts are incorrect and I don't agree with his theory.
.
.

[louisa]

Fingerprints (Absence of)

PR had told police (in two separate and different versions) that on the morning of the 26th she had come down the spiral staircase and had seen the ransom note spread out on the second step from the bottom. She said she had stepped over the three pages (which FBI investigators later found to be an impossibility) - and had turned around to read it, saw the words "We have your daughter". She screamed and John came downstairs to find out what was wrong.

One of them then presumably took the ransom note and spread it out in the hall where John told police he got down on his knees to read it. Patsy said she read some of the note over his shoulder. Then she phoned the police.

The problem with this is that the police and the investigators found NO fingerprints on the ransom note.

Is it possible that the parents could have handled the note and not left their fingerprints? Or that the paper for some reason didn't retain that kind of print?"

No, because when the sergeant touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. When the CBI examiner touched the same pad, he left a fingerprint on it. Patsy had left previous fingerprints on that pad, five that were identified. So that remains one of the mysteries in this case. How come there's no identifiable fingerprints on this thing if one or both parents handled and grasped it that morning?

And the other question is - Why didn't Patsy pick up the ransom note and carry it to the telephone and read the pertinent parts over the phone to the police? It was the only real link to her missing daughter.

My theory is that the note was never on the stairs but was spread out on the floor by the Ramseys, who made sure their prints would not be found on the ransom note. Which left investigators wondering Why?

-----------------------------------------------------------

From the movie "Dirty Harry"

Movie Lines:

'If we catch you talking to a stray dog,
she dies'
'The delivery will be very exhausting so I advise you to be well rested.'
'If I even think you're being followed,
the girl dies'
'It sounds like you had a good rest. You'll need it.'

On November 29, a month before JonBenet's death, the movie 'Dirty Harry' had aired on CBS in Boulder.
.
.

[Wickerman]

Please stop quoting excepts from that bungling cop.

That comment pretty well rules out all the Boulder P.D. then, Thomas & Kolar included.
Though I have not seen where Kolar made any errors, but we both have Thomas admitting he made mistakes.

'Suspect' books should always be treated with a degree of skepticism, which is why Kolar's book (Foreign Faction) & Schiller's book (Perfect Murder, Perfect town) stand heads above the crowd.

Whitson didn't even know the house was a crime scene before allowing the public to tramp all over it!

Whitson was not even present until 2-3 hrs after the 911 call. He wasn't in a position to keep anyone out of the house.

He was in awe of the Ramsey's wealth. No wonder John was happy for him to write a book about the case.

ALL the Boulder Police were "in awe" of the Ramsey's once they found out who they were dealing with.
Alex Hunter had never heard of them.

If you remember - Patsy threw herself on top of JB's body in the living room, thus contaminating the crime scene (probably intentionally). A body is classed as a crime scene.

Oh right, a typical grieving mother wouldn't do that I suppose!

Well in that case they should have simply co-operated with whatever the police requested of them.

How does that reply make any sense?
The Ramsey's feared they were being railroaded, so why give their accusers more ammunition to shoot them with?
The police had not even processed the evidence when they were treating the Ramsey's as guilty.

....if they were innocent they would have had no problem with that.

Good grief Louisa, have you explained that to The Innocence Project?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Wrongful Convictions is their claim to fame - but according to you they shouldn't be needed. Innocent people have nothing to fear!!!!

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicksy!

Your first point (made in that rather rambling paragraph) was to basically say how incompetent the police were in the handling of the initial investigation.

The worst of the bungling cops was the person you tend to quote the most - Bob Whitson. Strange.

I'm beginning to suspect your so-called knowledge on this. Bob Whitson didn't investigate the Ramsey case.
His book came as a result of his PhD in Psychology and the investigation by Lou Smit.

There's no doubt that things were handled very badly. If they hadn't been then the perpetrators would not have been free to take shelter behind their lawyers. So in truth, the Ramseys had everything to be thankful for, regarding the mis-handling of the case by the Police.

My point was that search warrants had to be obtained. The Ramsays did not want to give permission for their house to be searched, or have items removed, so search warrants had to be obtained.

Obtaining search warrants is normal procedure.

Beckner didn't do anything early in the case because he wasn't even there!

Beckner was a Commander of Police at the time, I think the equal of John Eller.

I didn't say 'Ramsey' I said 'the Ramseys'. Well you seem to make a lot of quotes from John Ramsey. "John said...." "John stated..." And I really don't think you would be fighting the Ramseys corner unless you had read that fictitious nonsense.

I'm not so easily suckered into believing the pompous speculations of the Boulder Police Dept. They didn't know what they were doing, consequently any conclusions they arrived at were not based on fact.
What Judge Carnes said about Steve Thomas could be applied to the whole investigation team.

I only read FACTS about this case, not fiction.

It's not what you read that seems to be your problem.

Your above post is a sweeping statement that you cannot corroborate. "All the other lies and exaggerations" doesn't cut it for me, sorry. You would need to be more enlightening.

This older post.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=394165&postcount=416

As for Paula Woodward - she was trying to sell a book, which, incidentally, was pulled due to factual inconsistencies.

Well maybe you need to read the update...

http://www.wehaveyourdaughter.net/

You know....the book that wasn't pulled!

"But Boulder City Police Chief Mark Beckner slammed the exposé, saying, “I know the case intricately, inside and out. And nothing could appear in a book written by a third party uninvolved with the investigation that I wouldn’t already be aware of. And, if it’s something I’m not aware of, it’s probably not factual.”

What would you expect him to say?

If you are interested I could give you a load of quotes and paraphrases by witnesses who tell of Mark Beckner where he informs his detectives he doesn't want anyone talking about an "intruder", Patsy is responsible and anyone who thinks different will be off the case!!!

There's no wonder the Ramsey's didn't feel like trusting the police.

Everything I stated was true. The Grand Jury was convened and made it's decision. DA Alex Hunter did not like the verdict and refused to sign the Indictment.

You said he lied!
He didn't.

Alex Hunter withheld the Grand Jury's verdict (to prosecute the Ramseys) from the public. This fact was discovered in 2013.

You also don't seem to know what 'confidential' means.

The conclusion of the Grand Jury is CONFIDENTIAL.

Proving that money talks. If you're rich you can get away with murder.....

Another one of your unfounded accusations?

Like I said above, it isn't what you read that is your problem, it's how you process that information.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I can see what you are saying. However the Ramseys were not 'normal' as we know the meaning of the word. They were extremely wealthy business people, which I think gave them a certain smugness regarding their belief in themselves over others.

Then why are you judging them by 'normal' standards?

I already explained to you that you have no appreciation of the social class they belonged to.
You might want to read Schiller's book, at least we do get a more human side of John & Patsy not covered in many other books. How John would be stoic in front of people, but out of sight he was seen to shake and tremble, sobbing to himself. He even cried himself to sleep on occasion, he was witnessed crying in his sleep.
You seem to be promoting a side of John Ramsey that suits your theory, not an even evaluation of a man who lost two daughters, and then a wife to cancer.

[Wickerman]

No, the strangulation came 45 mins - 1 hour after the head trauma.

It was 45 mins to 2 hours actually.


Isn't "45 mins - 2 hours", guessing?

Why don't you quote Ronald Wright. MD, who guessed "20 mins - 1 hour" ?

Which suits your theory best?

[Wickerman]

I’m not too up on the way the investigation was handled so apologies if this has been covered before.

Interview techniques were obviously vastly different back then to today’s process & nowadays I don’t believe an interview can take place with a minor without a consenting adult (solicitor, family representative etc) present.

I’ve read on here how the Ramsey’s behaved during the investigation but I don’t know whether Burke was interviewed separately (away from his parents).

So my question is: If Burke was interviewed without his parents present, how could they guarantee that he wouldn’t crack?

Under pressure from authority, most children would spill the beans, even if it meant they were found out.

Probably the best book if you are not interested in theories is by Laurence Schiller, Perfect Murder Prefect Town, 1998/9.
A used copy on line is only a few dollars - great value at 600+ pages.

The book takes the reader through each day chronologically, and each hour of the day when events happened.
Often he provides some controversial statements or scenes, but makes no comment, and moves on to the next day.
The author is not promoting a theory, his intent was to provide as near accurate record of the events & investigation up until 1998.

James Kolar's, Foreign Faction, 2012, is good for accuracy and also brings the reader up to date, with details discovered after 1998, thats about 500 pages.

[Wickerman]

Burke Ramsey was overheard explaining to a school friend how he thought his sister died; hit with a hammer, manually strangled, stabbed with a knife.....

If he was involved in his sisters death in any way the odds are favorable that he will at least get one detail correct.

[Pcdunn]

Paula Woodward is a very well-known investigative reporter out here in the Denver metro-area, and I can't imagine that she would need to put lies in any book about this case. (Thank you for the link to "We Have Your Daughter", by the way Wickerman.)

[louisa]

Louisa:

Whitson didn't even know the house was a crime scene before allowing the public to tramp all over it.

Whitson was not even present until 2-3 hrs after the 911 call. He wasn't in a position to keep anyone out of the house.

Then why did he state - on television - that it was his biggest mistake?

He was in awe of the Ramsey's wealth. No wonder John was happy for him to write a book about the case.

ALL the Boulder Police were "in awe" of the Ramsey's once they found out who they were dealing with.

Alex Hunter had never heard of them.

Were they really? Including Steve Thomas?

Alex Hunter was John Ramsey's golfing buddy.

---------------------------
Louisa:

If you remember - Patsy threw herself on top of JB's body in the living room, thus contaminating the crime scene (probably intentionally). A body is classed as a crime scene.

Oh right, a typical grieving mother wouldn't do that I suppose!

This couple knew that nothing should have been touched. They were not stupid people after all.

I honestly believe that John would have left the body where it was and called for help, not picked JB up.

That is of course, if he honestly wanted forensics to be able to do their job.

----------------------
Louisa:

Well in that case they should have simply co-operated with whatever the police requested of them.

How does that reply make any sense?
The Ramsey's feared they were being railroaded, so why give their accusers more ammunition to shoot them with?
The police had not even processed the evidence when they were treating the Ramsey's as guilty.

Railroaded? Stop quoting Lou Smit. You are so very wrong. That is the nonsense the Ramseys spout in their self-serving book. Why should we believe anything this couple has to say when I can give you a whole list of their lies? And I will happily do so upon request.

-------------------------------------------

January 1 1997 - the Ramseys kept refusing the police requests for a formal interview - yet 24 hours after they had buried their daughter the Ramseys chose to go to the TV studios of CNN in Atlanta where they were interviewed by Tom Koebel.

John Ramsey :

"The Boulder police have been marvellous. They've been caring and compassionate. I know this has hurt them in their hearts. They're parents as well and I know they're working very hard."

Patsy:

"The Boulder Police were very compassionate and tried to help"

They changed his tune when they started getting nervous about how close the police were getting in their quest for the truth.

-------------------------------------

Louisa:

....if they were innocent they would have had no problem with that.

Good grief Louisa, have you explained that to The Innocence Project?

Wrongful Convictions is their claim to fame - but according to you they shouldn't be needed.

The Ramseys were not even arrested, let alone convicted, you silly man. They didn't even get to trial - their lawyers made sure of that.

On Planet Wickerman nobody would ever get arrested.

I suspect that if Ted Bundy had had the Ramseys' money (and their lawyers) he would never have got arrested either.

Burke Ramsey was overheard explaining to a school friend how he thought his sister died; hit with a hammer, manually strangled, stabbed with a knife.....

If he was involved in his sisters death in any way the odds are favorable that he will at least get one detail correct.

Oh, he was "overheard" was he? That's not heresay or anything then? I would like to see some qualification for this nonsense.

I'm beginning to suspect your so-called knowledge on this. Bob Whitson didn't investigate the Ramsey case.
His book came as a result of his PhD in Psychology and the investigation by Lou Smit.

Well that says it all doesn't it? Another book from Team Ramsey. Lou Smit speaks from beyond the grave.

If I wanted to read fairytales I would buy Cinderella. No thanks.

.
.

[louisa]

The police released several false points to the press, enumerated below.

- Absence of footprints in the snow lead police to suspect the parents.
- John Ramsey left the crime scene for 50 minutes.
- That Det. French said, Patsy made an awkward attempt to conceal her grief, by peering at him through splayed fingers held over her eyes.
- John Ramsey flew his private jet back to Atlanta after the murder.
- Police leaked a belief that John Ramsey's had sexually abused his daughter, and they searched for pornography in the house.

Footprints:

It has been established that any footprints found outside the Ramsey residence could have been made any one of the one HUNDRED guests who had attended their Christmas party on the 23rd.

The official line about the condition of the ground around the Ramsey house on the murder night was "patchy snow and frost"

Patsy

Officer French wrote in his notebook that he observed Patsy making crying noises but no tears were ever visible. He found it unnerving to see her looking through her fingers at him whilst her eyes were covered by her hands.

The Plane Trip

John made an early morning call to his pilot Mike Archeluta cancelling the planned trip to Charlevoix.

Later - at 1.30pm - just half an hour after he found his daughter's body - he was on the phone again to his pilot informing him to have the plane ready as the family was flying to Atlanta.

On the advice of detectives Fleet White rang the pilot and cancelled the flight.

Nowhere did the police ever state that the family flew to Atlanta that day, only that it had been arranged, which was true.

Pornography

The facts of the case naturally became public - people wanted to know exactly what had happened to JonBenet. They knew sexual molestation had taken place and there was a lot of speculation.

Naturally the police did a search of the house and computers but no pornography was found.

Where is the lie in that?

-----------------------------------------

I don't understand why you keep insisting that the police were lying.

Why would the police lie? They had no interest in prosecuting the wrong person/people for this horrendous crime. They simply wanted the truth, as we all do.

However, the Ramseys had every reason to lie. I can give you a list of their lies, as long as your arm. Verified ones as well.

The police did not have to 'leak' anything - why would they? That is what the Ramseys liked to tell people but it was totally untrue.

The couple did a good enough job of incriminating themselves without any outside help.

And the only 'false points' are those that you yourself keep raising.

Try keeping to the facts instead of relying on heresay.

Can we now put this "police lies" business to rest?


.
.

[louisa]

Louisa: Beckner didn't do anything early in the case because he wasn't even there!

Beckner was a Commander of Police at the time, I think the equal of John Eller.

Incorrect (again!) As I have already stated Beckner took over from Chief Koby in 1998. Stop making me repeat myself.

-----------------------------------

Louisa:

Alex Hunter withheld the Grand Jury's verdict (to prosecute the Ramseys) from the public. This fact was discovered in 2013.

You also don't seem to know what 'confidential' means.

The conclusion of the Grand Jury is CONFIDENTIAL.

Nobody was asking for anything confidential.

The DA has an obligation to disclose whether or not the Grand Jury voted to Indict.

Originally Posted by louisa

Yes, I can see what you are saying. However the Ramseys were not 'normal' as we know the meaning of the word. They were extremely wealthy business people, which I think gave them a certain smugness regarding their belief in themselves over others.

Then why are you judging them by 'normal' standards?

I already explained to you that you have no appreciation of the social class they belonged to.
You might want to read Schiller's book, at least we do get a more human side of John & Patsy not covered in many other books. How John would be stoic in front of people, but out of sight he was seen to shake and tremble, sobbing to himself. He even cried himself to sleep on occasion, he was witnessed crying in his sleep.
You seem to be promoting a side of John Ramsey that suits your theory, not an even evaluation of a man who lost two daughters, and then a wife to cancer.

He was witnessed crying himself to sleep? Who by - Patsy?

Just another bit of heresay.

You're really dredging the barrel now with that post.

I feel sorry for anyone who has lost a child but this man lied and continued to lie - blaming everyone he could think of in order to send the police off in a wild goose chase, rather than focusing on themselves.

And who said he was crying himself to sleep - Patsy? Yes, we believe everything she says, don't we?

I already explained to you that you have no appreciation of the social class they belonged to.

I have no appreciation of their social class? Really? And you would I suppose?

And what would you know of my social class? You would probably be surprised if you knew my background.

That is the second time you have made that horribly derogatory comment, the first time I let it go.




This is the John's Deposition. This version actually shows the exhibits that John is commenting upon. The exhibits are a Christmas card and a montage of photos that Patsy had written on. One of them shows Patsy holding JB soon after she was born with words like "Here I am, new to the world" (jokingly supposed to be the baby talking). It was obviously Patsy who wrote it yet John says he has no idea who wrote it. Why? Because the writing is similar to that of the ransom note.

Does he seem like a grieving father to you? More smug than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl5Ll3sLFs8

.
.