JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Example: Two trees have fallen down during a windy night. Think about these two possible explanations:

Logical theory: The wind has blown them down.

Wicksy's theory: Two meteorites have each taken one tree down, and after that they hit each other and removed any trace of themselves.

And here's a good one....

When you hear the sound of hooves, think horses, not zebras.


.
.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by louisa:

No they can't. But the killer was either Patsy or Burke.
Who is correct? One of them is correct and that's for sure.



Hellooooo - here's something you should know……We're ALL "guessing"!

"That's for sure".
So perhaps it would be better to tone down the pretense of certainty.

If Spitz is correct then Burke murdered JonBenet. If Thomas is correct then Patsy murdered JonBenet. This is surely what I have been saying?

I have also stated, many times, that my money is on Burke. And PR and JR covered up for him.

The Grand Jury appeared to agree and charged both parents with Child Abuse and Assisting an Offender, so who was the Offender the parents assisted, i.e. staged for? Let's take a guess....somebody a bit too young to stand trial maybe?

The Grand Jury did not hear any competing evidence. They were not judging between theories, only whether they saw "probable cause" to indict the Ramsey's for something. And even they could only agree on two Counts out of seven. So five other Counts which we do not have the wording for, were set aside.
The Grand Jury apparently did not believe either of the parents directly killed JonBenet, but they were responsible in some way by rendering assistance.

Yet, the B.P.D. who provided the evidence for the Grand Jury have maintained from the start that Burke Ramsey was never considered a suspect.

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

I don't offer a solid argument? !

Have you not been reading my posts over the last week or so? They contain nothing BUT solid arguments. Let's look at your efforts. All you have been doing is nit-picking my posts.

It's called taking issue over the details, something many theorists tend to avoid. It's the details that show the worth of a theory.

Which brings me to this……yesterday you stated there was plenty of evidence of an intruder. I asked you to supply this evidence. You haven't managed to come up with anything.

Why would you ask?, you have claimed to be well-read on the subject, which I do not doubt. So the question was rhetorical - you already know what this evidence is.

Judge Carnes is not dismissing Thomas's theories in favor of intruder evidence that never existed, surely you have enough respect for a Judge to acknowledge that.
Even this website listed the majority of points in favor of the Intruder theory.

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

Unless you were asking for my own personal list, assuming it differs from what is known?
Well, I readily accept the majority of points, with the exception of the "point of entry", I don't think Smit was aware that a key was missing.

Patsy had an extra front door key made because the door would close automatically when she stepped outside, she kept it near the front door, but it vanished. So, maybe there is no need to look for a breaking-in, he/they could have walked in the front door.

And of course the same DNA on two separate items of clothing. Yet the parents DNA was not found on these same two sets of clothing, indicating that any DNA transfer via laundering is unlikely.
Plus, this stranger DNA was found nowhere else on those same items, nor on any other tested items.
Therefore, the 'laundering transfer' argument is redundant.

There are problems with the Ransom note, problems with the sequence of events (garrote/head trauma/abrasions) which lean more in favor of an intruder than a family member.

Can I just say that, as the case stands at present, there is NO evidence or confirmation that a stun gun was used.

Without an exhumation there never will be evidence.

However, there is compelling evidence that a stun gun was not used….

The melted adhesive photographed covering the smaller abrasion on her right cheek must surely confirm some electrical discharge device was applied to her face.

As for Lou Smit - your hero - he was employed by the Ramseys.

You're conflating two events, this is one method I've noticed where you fudge the facts to favor your theory.

Smit had developed his intruder theory long before he resigned his position, and subsequently went to work for the Ramsey's.
In fact Alex Harvey brought Smit in because he believed the Ramsey's were involved, but the B.P.D. were unable to get sufficient evidence to use in a court of law.
THAT, is why Lou Smit was brought in.

Harvey was stunned when Smit uncovered contrary evidence which pointed to a third party. As Smit couldn't get the B.P.D. or the D.A.'s office to listen to his argument, he resigned. Only to later then join with the Ramsey's.
These are the specifics you try to ignore.
This is what you might describe as 'nit-picking', but to me they are the details you prefer to ignore.

Incidentally, Lou Smit, in his reconstruction of how this 'intruder' gained access to the house, shows the suitcase under the window that he claimed this person 'used as a step'. In fact if you look at the crime scene photos the suitcase is at a completely different angle and location. The man was all smoke and mirrors and just so thrilled to be one of Team Ramseys spin doctors.

The position of the suitcase in the photo's was not where it was when first noticed. I think it was Fleet White who said he moved it.
I think White said it was initially parallel with the wall, not perpendicular to it, or words to that effect. It might be detailed out in Kolar's book.

Regardless, the footprint only suggests someone used it to step up, as if to exit through that window. It doesn't show this attempt was successful, nor does it provide evidence of entry through that window.
Only an "attempted" exit.


I know you've expressed what "people think" (that seems to matter to you). I talk about experience, you talk about what people think - duh!
Though you have not provided opinions from both sides, from the people who actually worked with these men (Smit/Ainsworth/DeMuth) for extended periods of time.
Maybe you should read Schiller's book for a more balanced perspective?

The very FACT that the Ramseys felt the need to hide behind this amount of lawyers and spin doctors and refused to give the police the interview they wanted, until 16 months after the murder, should tell us all we need to know.

So you keep repeating, yet the police were quite hostile to the Ramsey's. They suspected them and wanted them charged. The Ramsey lawyers didn't think their client would be treated fair by a police force who had no experience in murder cases, and just wanted this embarrassing case ended ASAP.

[louisa]

Originally Posted by louisa:

No they can't. But the killer was either Patsy or Burke.
Who is correct? One of them is correct and that's for sure.

Hellooooo - here's something you should know……We're ALL "guessing"!

"That's for sure".
So perhaps it would be better to tone down the pretense of certainty.

I have always stated that my theories are my opinions (see my standard phrase below the last line). You seem certain that there was an intruder.

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

Originally posted by louisa:

The Grand Jury appeared to agree and charged both parents with Child Abuse and Assisting an Offender, so who was the Offender the parents assisted, i.e. staged for? Let's take a guess....somebody a bit too young to stand trial maybe?

The Grand Jury did not hear any competing evidence. They were not judging between theories, only whether they saw "probable cause" to indict the Ramsey's for something. And even they could only agree on two Counts out of seven. So five other Counts which we do not have the wording for, were set aside.

The Grand Jury apparently did not believe either of the parents directly killed JonBenet, but they were responsible in some way by rendering assistance.

Yet, the B.P.D. who provided the evidence for the Grand Jury have maintained from the start that Burke Ramsey was never considered a suspect.

He was considered to be a suspect, along with his parents but they knew he was too young to prosecute.

And the Grand Jury spend THIRTEEN MONTHS of their lives weighing up this case. They heard evidence from both sides, and considering how biased the DA was, they still returned a verdict to INDICT.

And if as you say the GJ thought they were guilty of rendering assistance, then that means they thought the R's were GUILTY. Which rules out this 'intruder'.

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

Originally posted by louisa:

Which brings me to this……yesterday you stated there was plenty of evidence of an intruder. I asked you to supply this evidence. You haven't managed to come up with anything.

Why would you ask?, you have claimed to be well-read on the subject, which I do not doubt. So the question was rhetorical - you already know what this evidence is.

That's a pathetic response to a legitimate request.

If I already KNEW what evidence there was of an intruder then I wouldn't be asking you, would I?

So let's have it…..give me evidence of an intruder.

Judge Carnes is not dismissing Thomas's theories in favor of intruder evidence that never existed, surely you have enough respect for a Judge to acknowledge that.
Even this website listed the majority of points in favor of the Intruder theory.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...0an%20Intruder

You should go back to that page and scroll down a bit. You will then see this section:

Evidence Against an Intruder - with a list underneath it.

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

Originally posted by louisa:

Can I just say that, as the case stands at present, there is NO evidence or confirmation that a stun gun was used.

Without an exhumation there never will be evidence.

However, there is compelling evidence that a stun gun was not used….

The melted adhesive photographed covering the smaller abrasion on her right cheek must surely confirm some electrical discharge device was applied to her face.

You are talking about the photo the sheriff stole (and was later prosecuted for?)

Meyer does not mention anything of the kind in the autopsy report.

In any case how can you say that a sticky mark on her right cheek CONFIRMS that an electrical discharge device had been applied to her face? Idiotic!

You have got to get over this idea that a stun gun was used because it clearly was not. Did you read my link?

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

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

Originally posted by louisa:

As for Lou Smit - your hero - he was employed by the Ramseys.

You're conflating two events, this is one method I've noticed where you fudge the facts to favor your theory.

Smit had developed his intruder theory long before he resigned his position, and subsequently went to work for the Ramsey's.
In fact Alex Harvey brought Smit in because he believed the Ramsey's were involved, but the B.P.D. were unable to get sufficient evidence to use in a court of law.
THAT, is why Lou Smit was brought in.

As Smit couldn't get the B.P.D. or the D.A.'s office to listen to his argument, he resigned.
Only to later then join with the Ramsey's.
These are the specifics you try to ignore.

I don't need to ignore them. What you are saying is not correct. Except for the fact that Smit resigned when his theories were not being taken seriously by people who had some sense. They knew he would be laughed out of court and he would not be able to ride out any type of cross examination because his theories would fall flat.

Yes he joined the Ramseys because they needed him as their spokesperson. A useful nut who was mad enough to believe their cockeyed intruder theory.

The position of the suitcase in the photo's was not where it was when first noticed. I think it was Fleet White who said he moved it.
I think White said it was initially parallel with the wall, not perpendicular to it, or words to that effect. It might be detailed out in Kolar's book.

No he did not. He said he could not remember exactly where it was when he first saw it.

Regardless, the footprint only suggests someone used it to step up, as if to exit through that window. It doesn't show this attempt was successful, nor does it provide evidence of entry through that window.
Only an "attempted" exit.

Okay then. Explain how this 'intruder' managed to close the basement door as he was leaving - but not before putting a chair behind it in the hallway?

I know you've expressed what "people think" (that seems to matter to you). I talk about experience, you talk about what people think - duh!

Though you have not provided opinions from both sides, from the people who actually worked with these men (Smit/Ainsworth/DeMuth) for extended periods of time.
Maybe you should read Schiller's book for a more balanced perspective?

This Lawrence Schiller?.......

"From my investigation of the Ramsey murder, Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case from the beginning and may know what happened better than anyone"

Lawrence Schiller, New York Times bestselling author of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.


I have have provided opinions from people who worked with DeMuth. I can post them again if you like.

The very FACT that the Ramseys felt the need to hide behind this amount of lawyers and spin doctors and refused to give the police the interview they wanted, until 16 months after the murder, should tell us all we need to know.

So you keep repeating, yet the police were quite hostile to the Ramsey's. They suspected them and wanted them charged. The Ramsey lawyers didn't think their client would be treated fair by a police force who had no experience in murder cases, and just wanted this embarrassing case ended ASAP.

Yes, you can see why they wanted the case ended.

Right from the start when the FBI viewed the crime scene they knew it was wrong. In a murder investigation detective always start in the middle, not at the outside.

The Ramseys were treated more fairly than they should have been considering when a child is murdered in their home the parents are 9 times out of 10 responsible. And then there was that ransom note!

They were treated fairly and you know it, and so did they, but they used that excuse to dodge having to talk to the police. It just makes you wonder WHY?

If they had been just an ordinary couple they would have been separated and interviewed separately to see if their stories matched. That is procedure. The Ramseys were let off to go and do their own thing, which was to lawyer up and go into hiding. They were treated with kid gloves. All the police wanted was an interview! And that took 16 months!

The Ramseys would keep stalling the police by saying they wanted all the questions written down and given to them beforehand! Has anyone ever heard of such nonsense?!

What did they have to hide? The Ramseys themselves told the media that they were treated very well by the police to begin with.

The police didn't have to 'frame' them, they put themselves in the frame by behaving oddly and writing that idiotic ransom note. And hiding behind friends, family and lawyers.

.

[louisa]

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE 'INTRUDER' THEORY

The fact that the Ramseys invited friends into the house after the note was "found." This showed that they knew there wasn't an intruder. If they had really believed there was an intruder, they would have done everything possible to preserve evidence and would have insisted that the police do so too. That they did the exact opposite, despite being intelligent people, shows me that they were trying to contaminate the scene to protect themselves.

There is no and I mean zero forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey house. Most of the available forensic evidence links all three resident Ramseys directly to the wine cellar.

The Grand Jury appeared to agree and charged both parents with Child Abuse and Assisting an Offender, so who was the Offender the parents assisted, i.e. staged for?

Who was this third party resident in the Ramsey household, one that due to legal statute the Grand Jury could not name?

Parent lies & behaviors on Dec. 26: As others have noted, if you found a note saying your daughter had been kidnapped, wouldn’t you be frantically running all over the house yelling her name over and over and searching desperately for her? Wouldn’t you wake her supposedly sleeping brother to make sure he was okay and then find out if he had seen/heard anything?? Yet PR & JR both said BR slept through all of this. (Did anyone else catch that BR himself debunked this statement on the A&E documentary when he said that PR *did* come into his room that morning and flipped on the lights?) In their initial police statements, they both said BR “was sleeping.” Why lie about this unless you are hiding something?

Same goes for the 911 call – if other voices are on that tape and those voices include BR, he wasn’t sleeping. Again – why lie unless you have a reason to do so?

I find it very peculiar especially after seeing just how cavernous that house was that neither JR or PR ever yelled out for her. Fleet White was the only person who did. Even in receiving a note- I would have woke my son up and ran around that huge house yelling for JBR.

After searching high and low inside the home, I would have fled from my house and searched outside to try and find any evidence of my daughter.

There was no action on the part of the parents and they didn't even interact much with one another. Just phone the police and go and sit in separate rooms.

The sticking point is that JBR was found inside. If you're an intruder and you're leaving a note for ransom, toss the body ANYWHERE outside on your way out. That at least gives you a tiny chance they'll pay the ransom before finding her. But you leave her in the house, there's no chance of getting the ransom. Not that anyone ever called to set up the drop off, yet another sticking point.

Moving JBR and making a huge scene.............I would of hoped a father would of sobbed and called the police down to the cellar.

The Rs showed no real sense of worry about the intruder that could have still been in the house and showed no real worry about their other son being kidnapped too.

Overall, it's the sheer implausibility of everything this intruder must have done that gets me. Talk about an idiot savant. He commits the crime of the century without leaving a trace besides one of six highly degraded incomplete touch DNA samples on her clothing, gets in and out like a ghost...but does every convoluted unnecessary thing he can think of during the hours spent in the house.

After loosely binding her, putting tape over her mouth and stun gunning her he feeds his victim pineapple from a bowl that somehow already has her brother and mother's fingerprints on it. He sits down to read their bible and circle a certain passage and moves some Kleenex boxes and whatever else the Ramseys accused him of messing with. Like the flashlight: he takes it from the drawer in the hall where it was kept and moves it a few feet over to the kitchen table, wiping it for prints inside and outside (because he had to remove the batteries with his bare hands that night?) - except wasn't most of his crime committed in the dark basement anyway?

If you believe Patsy's initial statement that she changed JB into her red turtleneck before bed, he must have changed her back into the shirt she wore to the Whites' and left the old one on the bathroom sink. Of course Patsy changed her story later. When does he leave his entirely useless ransom note on the spiral stairs? Not before he abducts JB from her bed. He would have to hop over it in the middle of the night holding a child. The police questioned if Patsy could hop over the note unencumbered in daylight!

If he did it after killing JB, does that mean he murdered her in the basement, ran upstairs to place the note, then went back down to the basement to climb out the window (without disturbing any spiderwebs)? And for that matter, we know he replaced her underwear. Did he grab the underwear from her drawer, hide the rest of the package somewhere in the house for some reason, then abduct JB? Or does he get down the basement, murder her, decide he wants to clean her up and replace her underwear, and run back upstairs to find a pair. At some point he stops to get JB's blanket out of the dryer. Why bother to do any of that? I could expound on this subject for days but you get the picture.

And then there's the issue of motive. We have a kidnapper who doesn't kidnap but does murder and molest. He leaves a ransom note threatening to withhold her body for "proper burial" and then leaves her body in the basement! Never tries to collect the ransom money and barely asked for anything anyway.

We have a murderous pedophile who gets his jollies with a paintbrush (seriously?) and cares for the victim after she dies, cleaning and redressing her and wrapping her up in a blanket to look like she's sleeping when she's found. And we have a murderer who murders twice: first with a blow to the head and then when that didn't finish her off (or produce any visible damage) he takes the time to seek out materials to stage a bizarre, amateurish & highly visible secondary mode of death with the "garrote" instead of just bopping her on the head again and getting it over with.

If a kidnapping gone wrong scenario, she had to have died accidentally, and you don't get garroted accidentally, so why take the time to throw that in? If it's a pedophile, why do both when either one would be sufficient? And if it's a pedophile, why go through the elaborate kidnapping ruse? Strangers don't stage, people close to the victim stage to deflect attention. And that has been the Ramseys' MO since day one: deflect, distance themselves, obfuscate.

No intruder will stay in the house and write a 2 hour plus 3 page ransom note before or after a murder.

No case like this ever.

If a molester wants a child, they run with them, use them, kill and dump them

The DNA is touch DNA, there is no DNA directly linking an intruder to the crime scene. No foreign fibres, no hair, no fingerprints, nothing. Touch DNA is common, particularly on unwashed and clean from factory clothing. Without a source it has no real meaning and is not strong enough to prove any intruder or Ramsey innocence.

Touch DNA is essentially meaningless in this case. Now I may be wrong in the way I explain this but as I understand it, it's like you and I shaking hands. I'd leave touch DNA on your hand, you then touch your clothes and transfer my DNA to your clothes. Does that mean if you turn up dead, and they found my DNA on your clothes that I killed you? No. That DNA on JBs underwear most likely came from somewhere in the manufacturing/retail process, imo.
.
.

[Wickerman]

That's a pathetic response to a legitimate request.

The question is only legitimate if you do not know the answer.

If I already KNEW what evidence there was of an intruder then I wouldn't be asking you, would I?

You've been arguing against the various pieces of 'intruder' evidence for the past few weeks. Now you claim to not know what the evidence is that you have been arguing against?
So you are not sufficiently well informed after all?
Interesting.
The link I provided must have been an eyeopener then.

You should go back to that page and scroll down a bit. You will then see this section:

Evidence Against an Intruder - with a list underneath it.

Yes, I am well aware of what I post.
If you choose to contest any of the various points of 'intruder' evidence then I'm sure we can explore the details.
Maybe you would like to familiarize yourself with them first?

I could provide Whitson's list, straight from the horses mouth.

You are talking about the photo the sheriff stole (and was later prosecuted for?)

Meyer does not mention anything of the kind in the autopsy report.

No, he doesn't.
The exchange I quoted took place in an interview some time after the autopsy.

In any case how can you say that a sticky mark on her right cheek CONFIRMS that an electrical discharge device had been applied to her face? Idiotic!

It was reported to be melted glue from the back of the adhesive tape that had been taken off her face.
Injustice, pp. 158/9, 208, 213.

I don't need to ignore them. What you are saying is not correct.

I'd like to know what you say "is not correct", and why.

Okay then. Explain how this 'intruder' managed to close the basement door as he was leaving - but not before putting a chair behind it in the hallway?

Considering I wrote that the footprint on the suitcase only showed that someone stood on it, which indicates an "attempted" exit, not an actual exit, I fail to see the point of your objection.
Obviously, he left via the door, not the window.

This Lawrence Schiller?.......

"From my investigation of the Ramsey murder, Steve Thomas was the lead detective on the case from the beginning and may know what happened better than anyone"

Lawrence Schiller, New York Times bestselling author of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.

Yes, and Schiller also wrote that, "There were few police officers who could match Thomas's encyclopedic knowledge of the case." (p.367).

And, further, Schiller wrote:
"One detective stood out in Smit's mind. Steve Thomas was a professional. He was dedicated and, like Smit, only wanted justice for the victim. Thomas knew the case from every angle, and he was in the field, where detectives should be. The only fault Smit could find in Thomas's thinking was that he'd started, like Eller, from the position that the Ramsey's must have been involved in JonBenet's murder. Like most narcotics officers once he found his target he never let go.
Thomas's lack of experience as a homicide detective seemed to prevent him from stepping back and looking at all the evidence from a different perspective." (p.354).
[my bold]

So, case knowledge was not the issue, it was what he did with that knowledge that makes Thomas's book just another suspect theory. Not actual evidence.
Thomas began from the perspective that the Ramsey's are guilty. He invested his time in trying to find out how.


That aside, I didn't ask you to cherry-pick a comment off a website.
I suggested you read Schiller's book so you can obtain a more balanced view of the detectives who worked on the case.

[Wickerman]

I originally wrote:
The position of the suitcase in the photo's was not where it was when first noticed. I think it was Fleet White who said he moved it.
I think White said it was initially parallel with the wall, not perpendicular to it, or words to that effect. It might be detailed out in Kolar's book.

No he did not. He said he could not remember exactly where it was when he first saw it.

James Kolar covers this incident and mentions that Fleet White gave four interviews. On the afternoon of Dec. 27th he was interviewed by Ramsey's attorney's. Later that evening he was interviewed by the B.P.D., and subsequently gave two further interviews to police.
So, four interviews in all.

White, on his first trip to the basement, about 15 minutes after he first arrived, he was in the Train room, and...
"The window was closed, but not latched, and he observed a hard-sided Samsonite suitcase standing flush against the wall directly beneath the window. He spent some time inspecting the area for signs of freshly broken glass and moved the suitcase to get a better look at the floor." (p.84)

Your move...

[louisa]

Wicksy -

I have asked you, over and over, to give your evidence of an intruder. You keep skirting the issue. You give no specifics but simply post a link with theories that we have already discussed and ones that I have already demolished. You also ignored the list of 'Against An Intruder' theories in that same link.

I have given pages of evidence that support my theory that NO intruder was present in the Ramsey home that night. You have supplied NONE and keep skirting the issue.

Why? Because there is No evidence - ZERO - to support your theory.

If you have reasons for believing an intruder was present that night then state them, in your next post. Don't just give an ambiguous link.

It was reported to be melted glue from the back of the adhesive tape that had been taken off her face.
Injustice, pp. 158/9, 208, 213.

"It was reported" By whom? That bungling copy Whitson whose book was written with the help of John Ramsey, whose pocket Whitson was in from the moment he knew he could make money out of this?

I find it hilarious that you can say "a sticky mark on her right cheek CONFIRMS that an electrical discharge device had been applied to her face! Idiotic!

The footprint only suggests someone used it to step up, as if to exit through that window

John found a chair in the hallway, blocking the door to that room. I am asking how this intruder managed to block the door on the other side, before climbing out of the window?

The exchange I quoted took place in an interview some time after the autopsy.

Not good enough. An "exchange - some time after the autopsy"? Between whom?

So, case knowledge was not the issue, it was what he did with that knowledge that makes Thomas's book just another suspect theory. Not actual evidence.
Thomas began from the perspective that the Ramsey's are guilty. He invested his time in trying to find out how.

It was Lou Smit who invested his time in attempting to make his idiotic 'intruder' theory fit a crime that was obviously an inside job.

Steve Thomas was an experienced investigator - I can give you his experience details if you wish. It didn't take the investigators long to establish that this was an inside job. The FBI knew as soon as they saw the ridiculous 3 page ransom note.

However, the absurd 'intruder' theory was fully investigated until all 'suspects' had been eliminated….except the ones who could NOT be eliminated - the family.

I suggested you read Schiller's book so you can obtain a more balanced view of the detectives who worked on the case.

That's a bit rich isn't it, coming from somebody who admitted yesterday that he hasn't even read the most famous book on the case, the one he keeps criticising? (see remarks above). "JonBenet - Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" by Steve Thomas.

And I have read Schiller's book AND seen the movie, thanks. In fact I gave a bit of a review of it in an earlier post.


Good-day.
.
.

[Abby Normal]

The only solid evidence I can see for an intruder, is the basement window being open(ajar) and the suitcase under it. even that's weak.

maybe the cord around her neck, and anything similar not found in the house, but that's even weaker.

what for sure did an intruder leave behind? nothing that's rock solid IMHO.

id like to see anyone else list what they think is evidence of an intruder?
I keep an open mind.

[louisa]

The only solid evidence I can see for an intruder, is the basement window being open(ajar) and the suitcase under it. even that's weak.

maybe the cord around her neck, and anything similar not found in the house, but that's even weaker.

what for sure did an intruder leave behind? nothing that's rock solid IMHO.

id like to see anyone else list what they think is evidence of an intruder?
I keep an open mind.

There's some interesting reading here.......

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

JR otherwise known as "Mr. Can't Remember".

On the morning of the 26th when Fleet White went down to the basement with John, FW made no mention of an open window. He simply noticed that one of the small panes was broken (a baseball size hole in it).
.

[louisa]

THE WHITES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES………..

Vanity Fair….

The Whites were the first of what the police have come to call "the throwaway friends." Anyone suspected of the vaguest disloyalty to the Ramseys soon showed up on a list they gave to the police.

"Ramsey panicked and started throwing all his friends under the bus," says radio host Peter Boyles, "beginning with his best friend." Jeff Merrick, Mike Glynn, and Jim Marino were all horrified to learn that Ramsey had placed them on the suspect list. All of them were questioned by detectives and asked to give blood and/or hair samples. Later they learned that Haddon's team had identified them to police as 'disgruntled former employees." Access employees were told that anyone who spoke with the press without permission would be fired.

FLEET AND PRISCILLA WHITE

"They tried for years to dig up dirt on us using tabloid reporters and private investigators".

There wasn’t any. But, in February 2000, at a critical time for the Ramseys, (Stephen) Singular, with the assistance of the Daily Camera and District Attorney Hunter, publicized the story of “very believable” Nancy Krebs who was willing to spend hours telling lies about the Whites to Boulder detectives, the Boulder District Attorney, and journalists.

It was not a coincidence that the February 25, 2000 Daily Camera article appeared just days before the Ramsey’s first book, “The Death of Innocence ”, was published and the Ramseys embarked on a media blitz to promote their book, proclaim their innocence, and further discredit Boulder police officers and their investigation."
.
.

[Abby Normal]

There's some interesting reading here.......

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

JR otherwise known as "Mr. Can't Remember".

On the morning of the 26th when Fleet White went down to the basement with John, FW made no mention of an open window. He simply noticed that one of the small panes was broken (a baseball size hole in it).
.

Thanks!
yup-no sign of forced entry anywhere!

I used to think that the bag with rope found in the guest bedroom was evidence of an intruder as the Ramseys claimed it wasn't theirs, but considering there apparent cluelessness about the flashlight which turned out to be theres, I cant really place faith in what they say about items being not theirs anymore.

[louisa]

Thanks!
yup-no sign of forced entry anywhere!

I used to think that the bag with rope found in the guest bedroom was evidence of an intruder as the Ramseys claimed it wasn't theirs, but considering there apparent cluelessness about the flashlight which turned out to be theres, I cant really place faith in what they say about items being not theirs anymore.

They also claimed the pineapple wasn't theirs either! PR stated she had never seen the pants that JBR was wearing yet friends remember her buying them in Bloomingdales.

So many lies. Innocent folks don't lie. Not in my experience anyway.

Remanants of the cord and tape could have been concealed in Patsy's purse/handbag when they left the house on the 26th. She knew they would not be searched as they were not suspects at that time.

.

[louisa]

Another item of interest concerning the Ramseys' friends......


Remember the Stines? The Stines were the couple that the Ramseys went to stay with when they went into hiding.

Well in 2003 people in the media started receiving emails (regarding the Ramsey case) from police Chief Mark Beckner.

It turned out they emanated from the computer of Susan Stine - best friend of the Ramseys!



The document is very long, but this is part of it..............

Search warrants were obtained and executed for MSN Hotmail in California. According to MSN Hotmail, the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account was established in 2000. The account creator provided information stating that the owner was "Chief Beckner" from "Boulder, Colorado," and furthermore, provided an accurate birth year for the Chief.

Further investigation led police to the Internet Protocol (IP) numbers from where the suspect had been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account. Since early March 2003, all access to the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account were from a single Netcom (now owned by Earthlink) dial-up account.

A search warrant was obtained and executed for Earthlink in Georgia. According to Earthlink's records, the account holder that has been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com e-mail account is Susan B. Stine, 5760 Long Grove Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Susan Stine is known as a close friend of John and Patsy Ramsey and has been interviewed as a witness in reference to the Ramsey investigation.


The search warrants also yielded other messages that had been received by the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account. A number of these messages indicate that the becknerbpd@hotmail.com user had been attempting to convince others that he/she was Chief Mark Beckner. Others appeared to be nonsensical. Please note that investigators were able to confirm that the messages to and from Rocky Mountain News reporter Charlie Brennan and Rita Johnson were received/sent by those individuals. The other messages were not confirmed as received or sent by those parties.

At the request of the Boulder Police Department, members of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) went to Ms. Stine's residence in an attempt to interview her on June 3, 2003. However, she refused to talk with the GBI agent.

On June 3, 2003, Chief Beckner did receive an e-mail from Susan Stine in which she apologized for using the hotmail account, describing it as a sophomoric prank and apologizing for any distress she may have caused.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Louisa-- This "long document" with the information about the Stines and the faked e-mail for Beckner-- what is it called, and where can we find it?

I notice that the jonbenet case wiki at pbworks, as well as the review of case evidence at the link you posted earlier (about the stun gun), both seem rather old.

I'd recommend looking at the WebSleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forum.php

It requires registration to read and post, and has rules:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

This is an internet community of users interested in current crimes, missing person cases, and so forth. They communicate with each other and the authorities in an attempt to solve crimes and mysteries. (Not unlike what we do here, for that matter.)

I'm getting confused by the differing opinions on who, what, where, etc. and thought I'd search for articles from the time and place that might help us figure the timeline out.

This is a 2014 story from a Denver paper called Westword which is known for its investigative reporting.

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

I'll try and locate more in the future.

[louisa]

Hi, Louisa-- This "long document" with the information about the Stines and the faked e-mail for Beckner-- what is it called, and where can we find it?

I notice that the jonbenet case wiki at pbworks, as well as the review of case evidence at the link you posted earlier (about the stun gun), both seem rather old.

I'd recommend looking at the WebSleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forum.php

It requires registration to read and post, and has rules:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

This is an internet community of users interested in current crimes, missing person cases, and so forth. They communicate with each other and the authorities in an attempt to solve crimes and mysteries. (Not unlike what we do here, for that matter.)

I'm getting confused by the differing opinions on who, what, where, etc. and thought I'd search for articles from the time and place that might help us figure the timeline out.

This is a 2014 story from a Denver paper called Westword which is known for its investigative reporting.

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

I'll try and locate more in the future.

Hi Pat,

I'm already a member of Websleuths. I mentioned it last week in one of my posts. Great website! I haven't been on there very long. There's a lot to read but I'm gradually getting through it all.

I was telling Wicksy that they are much further ahead in their 'investigations' than we are - they've been going for years! I also mentioned that very few people on that forum take the 'intruder' theory seriously.

And your Westword link - here's a coinicdence. I think I may have already posted some parts of it on here. If I haven't posted it then I intended to. I have a whole list of links etc., and a file of interesting stuff, but I don't want to swamp this thread with my posts.

Re: The Stine emails. I think I copied that onto my file from a post on Websleuths, but I honestly don't know which one because I didn't make a note of it. I normally make a note of where I get quotes from, but I'm pretty sure it was off Websleuths. I wish I could remember which thread.

Here is the article in it's entirety:

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

2003-06-04: BPD Press Release: Unlawful e-mails sent under Chief Beckner's name

Wednesday, June 4, 2003
Contact: Mark Beckner, Police, (303) 441-4370
Jodie Carroll, Media Relations, (303) 441-3155
City Web site: www.ci.boulder.co.us

Unlawful e-mails sent under Chief Beckner's name

The Boulder Police Department recently became aware that someone was unlawfully sending e-mails using the name of Chief Beckner. On April 25, 2003, Rocky Mountain News columnist Charlie Brennan received an e-mail titled as being from "Chief Beckner" complementing Mr. Brennan for a recent column he had written on the JonBenet Ramsey case. According to embedded information within the message, the e-mail was sent from a MSN Hotmail account, becknerbpd@hotmail.com. The e-mail was then signed off with "Regards, Mark." Please see below message text:

From: Chief Beckner [mailto:becknerbpd@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 1:16 PM
To: brennanc@rockymountainnews.com
Subject: Great articles!

Charlie,

Just want you to know I thought those two articles you wrote today were excellent.
You got everything right, as you always do.

Thanks for all your support. Eventually, we'll be proven right.

Regards,
Mark

Being skeptical of the message's authenticity, Mr. Brennan telephoned Chief Beckner to ask him about the message. Chief Beckner confirmed that he did not send the message. The Chief was alarmed that someone was apparently using his title and name without authorization to communicate about the JonBenet Ramsey case with members of the media.

Search warrants were obtained and executed for MSN Hotmail in California. According to MSN Hotmail, the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account was established in 2000. The account creator provided information stating that the owner was "Chief Beckner" from "Boulder, Colorado," and furthermore, provided an accurate birth year for the Chief.

Further investigation led police to the Internet Protocol (IP) numbers from where the suspect had been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account. Since early March 2003, all access to the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account were from a single Netcom (now owned by Earthlink) dial-up account.
A search warrant was obtained and executed for Earthlink in Georgia. According to Earthlink's records, the account holder that has been accessing the becknerbpd@hotmail.com e-mail account is Susan B. Stine, 5760 Long Grove Drive, Atlanta, Georgia. Susan Stine is known as a close friend of John and Patsy Ramsey and has been interviewed as a witness in reference to the Ramsey investigation.

The search warrants also yielded other messages that had been received by the becknerbpd@hotmail.com account. A number of these messages indicate that the becknerbpd@hotmail.com user had been attempting to convince others that he/she was Chief Mark Beckner. Others appeared to be nonsensical. Please note that investigators were able to confirm that the messages to and from Rocky Mountain News reporter Charlie Brennan and Rita Johnson were received/sent by those individuals. The other messages were not confirmed as received or sent by those parties.

At the request of the Boulder Police Department, members of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) went to Ms. Stine's residence in an attempt to interview her on June 3, 2003. However, she refused to talk with the GBI agent.


Chief Mark Beckner is alarmed by the discovery that his name and position as Boulder Police Chief has been used in an effort to communicate with others. "Given the history of the Ramsey case and the concerns we have had with information being distributed to the public, often times inaccurate information, this discovery is disturbing," stated Chief Beckner. "I want the media and public to know that if they have received communications from this e-mail address purporting to be me, that it is bogus. My official e-mail address is public and is becknerm@ci.boulder.co.us."

Under Colorado law, Criminal Impersonation is a class 6 felony and Impersonating a Police Officer is a Class I Misdemeanor.

The Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office have agreed to issue a letter to Susan Stine advising her of the unlawful conduct and that the use of Chief Beckner's name in such a manner must cease immediately. The becknerbpd@hotmail.com account has been frozen by MSN Hotmail.

The Boulder Police Department would like anyone receiving e-mail messages from any reported member of the Boulder Police Department to know that official e-mail addresses use the members last name and first initial followed by @ci.boulder.co.us. If you are not sure that a message is legitimate, please call the department member to confirm that they did in fact send the message. "We are concerned that there could be other messages out there reportedly from either me or other department members that are fake in an attempt to either receive information or communicate false information," stated Beckner.

On June 3, 2003, Chief Beckner did receive an e-mail from Susan Stine in which she apologized for using the hotmail account, describing it as a sophomoric prank and apologizing for any distress she may have caused.
.
.