JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

You too Wicksy old boy.

NEW YORK (NBC) – In her first-ever television interview, former Boulder, Colorado police department detective Jane Harmer tells “Dateline NBC” correspondent Josh Mankiewicz that she agreed with the grand jury recommendation to indict JonBenét Ramsey’s parents, saying: “I think that the grand jurors heard the evidence and came up with that conclusion and I would agree with their conclusion"
.
.

Hold on there, that remark does not conflict with Harmer agreeing that the B.P.D. did not have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

Yes, she may have agreed with the G.J.'s conclusion, however she did not say they had enough evidence to convict the Ramsey's "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Which is in agreement with Alex Hunter.

So, what Harmer said on camera still stands.

[Wickerman]

Nice try Wicksy!


No Ramsey prints were found on the ransom note.

(Yes, prints were found on the notepad - at least one made by that bungling cop Bob Whitson).


.
.

Listen Carefully....
If you are not prepared to read up on this subject, don't expect me to write a 101 tutorial.

[louisa]

Hello Wicksy - can you please try and leave personal comments out of your replies in future? Thank you.

----------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by louisa:

Hold on Wicksy, you're making some statements that seem very unfounded.
What school did Burke attend?

High Peaks Elementary School, the same as JonBenet. The Principal was Charles Elbot.

I'm talking about AFTER the murder, not before it. The family de-camped to Atlanta.

----------------------------------------
Originally posted by louisa:

As for Burke talking to schoolmates - you said previously that "he was overheard talking to a schoolfriend" - well that is a lot of baloney heresay which we can discount immediately if we want to deal with facts.

I thought you were well-read on this subject?
I think it was in Kolar's book, but it could be in Schillers.
I don't mind finding the quotes but you don't seem to be prepared to accept the argument anyway. So why should I take the time?
When a poster kicks up a fuss over every issue they are not familiar with there's a lack of incentive to do the search.
I'll look, but I know you are still going to reject it.

I did not ask where you read it.

I am saying that what Burke allegedly said to a school friend is HERESAY. Whichever way you look at it. So we can discount it straight away.

I am not 'kicking up a fuss" as you call it. I am simply questioning the heresay that you call facts.

And insults will get you nowhere. I can see you don't like me challenging your theories but they are so ridiculous that I feel obliged to.

-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by louisa:

I honestly believe that Burke was kept away from others. If, as I suspect he was the perpetrator, then he would have been totally and absolutely TOLD in no uncertain terms NEVER to talk about that night to ANYONE. He would have been supervised around other children.

He wasn't supervised though, thats the point.
Who's going to do the supervising???
It would have to be someone who knew the truth. So outside of Patsy & John, who on earth are you now including in this conspiracy???

How do you know he was not supervised? Stop making things up as you go along.

Who did the supervising? Well the couple had a LOT of relatives. They also had a lot of money.

It's a theory and I'm happy to say so.

-----------------------------------------
Originally posted by louisa::

There was no intruder! That was a fabrication of his parents to cast suspicion away from their son and themselves.

No matter which way you look at it, the intruder theory holds no water and is actually laughable that people believe it.

You don't 'know' that though, it's only your belief.
And, as several very experienced detectives arrived at that conclusion based on the evidence, then it might be wise of you to take that into account.

Well of course I don't know, and yes it's only my belief. In the same way that this idiotic intruder theory is YOUR belief.

I think you'll find that more police and investigators discounted the intruder theory than believed it - based on the evidence.

In fact more people generally, across the globe, did. You can see that if you read the forums associated with this case. Anyone can see how ridiculous it is.

.
.

[louisa]

Listen Carefully....
If you are not prepared to read up on this subject, don't expect me to write a 101 tutorial.

All I'm asking is that you get your facts straight.

I was going to say grow a brain Jon.


And I'm not going back to the boring stuff about the Police and the DA. We've done that.


I'm still waiting for an intelligent reply to why you think JR was in the basement before 6am yet told police he looked down there between 7 and 9am.

I might have to wait a long time though.

.

[Wickerman]

And Wicksy, I'm not going to let you slide off the hook again.

I keep asking if you can explain this....

John stated to the police, and to the investigators, that he first visited the basement room "between 7am and 9am" on the morning of the 26th (in his very first search for his daughter). Which in itself is strange because the kidnapper was supposed to call between 8 and 10am!

However, John must have visited the basement before either Fleet White or Officer French since he told police he found a chair in front of the train room door and there's no good reason to believe White or French would have re-blocked the door with the chair after they entered the train room (which both did according to their own accounts). If so, John's first trip would have been before 6:00 AM.
.
.

I'm aware of that, but how does John making that claim, right or wrong, make him or Patsy into killers?

It's no different to Patsy claiming she never put the bowl of grapefruit there, when her fingerprints were found on it.
Of course she is mistaken, or worse, lying.

Their housekeeper told police she was always cleaning up after Patsy. The whole family, except John, were very messy and would leave plates, dishes, kitchen stuff out all the time.
Nedra would keep reminding Patsy she should not expect the housekeeper to clean the house AND pick up after them too.

So, possibly Patsy just never cleared that bowl of grapefruit away before they left about 5:00 pm for the White's Christmas dinner?

Likewise then, John was down in the basement before Det. French, sometime early in the morning. John did say he was running around the house frantic, but couldn't recall exactly where he went, or words to that effect.

[louisa]

I'm aware of that, but how does John making that claim, right or wrong, make him or Patsy into killers?

It's no different to Patsy claiming she never put the bowl of grapefruit there, when her fingerprints were found on it.
Of course she is mistaken, or worse, lying.

Their housekeeper told police she was always cleaning up after Patsy. The whole family, except John, were very messy and would leave plates, dishes, kitchen stuff out all the time.
Nedra would keep reminding Patsy she should not expect the housekeeper to clean the house AND pick up after them too.

So, possibly Patsy just never cleared that bowl of grapefruit away before they left about 5:00 pm for the White's Christmas dinner?

Likewise then, John was down in the basement before Det. French, sometime early in the morning. John did say he was running around the house frantic, but couldn't recall exactly where he went, or words to that effect.

Grapefruit?

My point was that pineapple was found in JB's small intestine and I know that pineapple breaks down quite quickly due to the enzymes in it.

It was also found in a bowl on the counter. Patsy denied ever touching the bowl yet her fingerprints were on it, so were Burkes.

No, John told police and detectives, a number of times that he first went into the basement between 7am and 9am.

What you're referring to is when he said he did a quick check around the house, looking in JB's bedroom etc. I can find exactly what he said.

.

[louisa]

In order to lighten the mood, here's a little scenario for you….

If you've ever watched that old detective series Columbo on TV (and who hasn't?) you will know that there are scenes where the suave male culprit always incriminates himself by offering clues to conundrums. Instead of just saying "I don't know, yes, that is strange" which is what most people would say when faced with something odd about the crime scene.

Columbo: "Sir! Just one more thing before I go…….There's something that's bothering me. It won't take a moment".

Culprit: (exasperated tone of voice) "Oh really? And what would that be?

Columbo: "Let me get this straight. You had to move the chair away from in front of the door before you could get into the room?"

Culprit: "Correct…..I had to move the chair".

Columbo: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd have to pull the chair behind him….because that would have been his exit…so that's not very logical as far as……."

Culprit (interrupting): "I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they…are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.

There, I've solved it for you. Can I go now? I have a business luncheon at the golf club."


.
.

[louisa]

I forgot to mention.....that was part of an interview between between Lou Smit and JR, dated 24 June 1998.
.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wicksy - can you please try and leave personal comments out of your replies in future? Thank you.

----------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by louisa:

Hold on Wicksy, you're making some statements that seem very unfounded.
What school did Burke attend?


I'm talking about AFTER the murder, not before it. The family de-camped to Atlanta.

The family arrived back from Atlanta on Jan. 3rd, and they stayed at "Pasta Jay" Elowski's home in Boulder.

The principal at Burke's school wrote to the Ramsey's on Jan. 27th to suggest Burke returns to school.
The Ramsey's were concerned for Burke's safety so they negotiated with the principal to have an alarm installed at the school and volunteer parents would all be issued with a hand-held alert.
One parent was also posted outside Burke's schoolroom door, and another was to be with him, within a few feet, when outside in the playground.

The actual date Burke returned to school had to be some time after Jan. 27th, but I have not seen the date.

There was no other school.

And, there obviously was no "supervision" watching for what he said to friends.

----------------------------------------
Originally posted by louisa:

As for Burke talking to schoolmates - you said previously that "he was overheard talking to a schoolfriend" - well that is a lot of baloney heresay which we can discount immediately if we want to deal with facts.

Heresay only applies in a court of law.
The police took a statement from one female parent/friend of Patsy, who in turn named Susan Stine as the other parent who had overheard Burke.
This is all included in the police statement, if it was baloney the police wouldn't be interested in taking it down.
You are confusing "heresay" in a court of law as if it is applicable in a witness statement, well, that is not true.

-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by louisa:

I honestly believe that Burke was kept away from others. If, as I suspect he was the perpetrator, then he would have been totally and absolutely TOLD in no uncertain terms NEVER to talk about that night to ANYONE. He would have been supervised around other children.

That's what you think/feel, which is not indicated by any evidence.
In other words, you are making it up.
Believe the evidence Louisa, not what you feel.

I think you'll find that more police and investigators discounted the intruder theory than believed it - based on the evidence.

In fact more people generally, across the globe, did. You can see that if you read the forums associated with this case. Anyone can see how ridiculous it is.

Anyone can see "group-think" at work, all jumping off the theory-cliff like lemmings.
Numbers have never been a reliable indicator to what is true.

[louisa]

Heresay only applies in a court of law.
You are confusing "heresay" in a court of law as if it is applicable in a witness statement, well, that is not true.

No. Heresay is heresay in any language, in any setting, in any place. In fact, any way you look at it.

But then, Wicksy, you also think that sexual molestation is the same as rape, don't you?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay

1. Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2. An item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.



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

Posted by louisa:

I think you'll find that more police and investigators discounted the intruder theory than believed it - based on the evidence.

In fact more people generally, across the globe, did. You can see that if you read the forums associated with this case. Anyone can see how ridiculous it is.

Anyone can see "group-think" at work, all jumping off the theory-cliff like lemmings.

Maybe it might be best to assume that the majority opinion may be the correct one?

Numbers have never been a reliable indicator to what is true.

But only when they work in favour of your theory. Correct?

Numbers are always a good indication of what the public think. Why else are there opinion polls? Good politicians rely on them.


Wicksy, you're something else.

.

[Wickerman]

Grapefruit?

My point was that pineapple was found in JB's small intestine and I know that pineapple breaks down quite quickly due to the enzymes in it.

It was also found in a bowl on the counter. Patsy denied ever touching the bowl yet her fingerprints were on it, so were Burkes.

No, John told police and detectives, a number of times that he first went into the basement between 7am and 9am.

What you're referring to is when he said he did a quick check around the house, looking in JB's bedroom etc. I can find exactly what he said.

.

Right, Pineapple. I knew grapefruit didn't sound right. I wouldn't know the difference as I can't eat either of them.

Yes, Patsy was clearly mistaken if she was under the impression she cleared up before they went to the White's, or she was lying to save face.
Either way this contradiction did not mean Patsy was guilty of murder.

The point about John's claim, from what I have read is, he did not know the time he went down the basement - so he couldn't have given one to police.
The actual time Det. French, and for that matter Reichenbach, went down the basement is also not known for certain.
Reichenbach is believed to have been the first to go down, sometime between 06:10-06:30.
French being the second officer to go down, time unknown.

I'd be surprised if you find John giving a time, other than "sometime after 10:00 am".

I think John was in the kitchen at 05:55 am when Det. French arrived, and he saw John there. So if he went down at all it must have been before French arrived.
But this again, is merely conjecture.

[Wickerman]

I forgot to mention.....that was part of an interview between between Lou Smit and JR, dated 24 June 1998.
.

I did recognise it.

[louisa]

I did recognise it.

I should have added "And by the way, my wife thinks you're terrific"
.

[louisa]

The point about John's claim, from what I have read is, he did not know the time he went down the basement - so he couldn't have given one to police.


The actual time Det. French, and for that matter Reichenbach, went down the basement is also not known for certain.
Reichenbach is believed to have been the first to go down, sometime between 06:10-06:30.
French being the second officer to go down, time unknown.

I'd be surprised if you find John giving a time, other than "sometime after 10:00 am".

I think John was in the kitchen at 05:55 am when Det. French arrived, and he saw John there. So if he went down at all it must have been before French arrived.
But this again, is merely conjecture.

LOU SMIT: "Any other areas you looked at? You walked into that train room? Did you look in any of the closets or in any other areas?"
JR: "No, I don't remember doing that".
LOU SMIT: "When was this?"
JR: "....It was probably some time between seven and nine"

Here's something else....just after 6am

Sergeant Reichenback found no evidence of forced entry during a walk through of the house, then went outside. A light dusting of snow and frost lay atop an earlier crusty snow in spotty patches on the grass. He saw no fresh shoe impressions, found no open doors or windows, and nothing to indicate a break in, but walking on the driveway and sidewalks left no visible prints.

It was frigid, about nine degrees and Reichenback returned inside.

He went into the sprawling basement and walked through it....found nothing out of the ordinary.....
.
.

[Pcdunn]

Tonight I watched two television programs about this case.

"Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" -- a movie on Lifetime Channel, aired again tonight. It takes a docudrama approach to the case, using the character of the child JonBenet as a narrator. Follows the development of the case from Christmas Day, in chronological order. Presents Detective Steve Thomas and some of the Boulder P.D. in a sympathetic light. The Fleet Whites also seem to come off as rather heroic. I noticed it didn't show a door blocking the room at the end of the basement hallway, but this was the door that a police officer did not open. Did depict tension between Thomas and Lou Smit over the intruder theory. Mixed dramatic recreations of events with some real video clips and photos. Was pretty instructive to me about why the Fleet Whites ran a full page letter in the local papers. Linda Arndt quit after being taken off the case, Steve Thomas and Lou Smit likewise quit, though for different reasons. No firm culprit presented, but enough of the curious things said and done by Burke and Patsy to leave us wondering. Even showed Linda Arndt going to Patsy on her deathbed and inquiring if she has anything else to say... She is interrupted by John Ramsey walking into the room, so neither she nor we as the audience ever learn anything. Steve Thomas left law enforcement completely, after becoming too obsessed with this case and its victim.

The movie was followed on Lifetime by a documentary titled "JonBenet's Mother: Victim or Killer?" which did a very straightforward job of presenting the various reasons why the police began to suspect Patsy Ramsey. But also balanced that view with the truth of the constant media bombardment the family was subjected to, from the funeral onward. And, as a friend says, during that CNN news conference Patsy was definitely on "some sort of calming-down drug", which I agree-- tranquillizers would undoubtedly account for the slow, flat tone of Patsy's voice.

I recommend both programs. The more information we can get, the better.