JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Now, the police decided, everyone who disliked John Ramsey for any reason had to be interviewed without delay.
Jeff Merrick was someone Ramsey had mentioned to the police on Dec. 26.
Ramsey had met Merrick when they both worked at AT&T in 1971.

In 1994 Ramsey found Merrick a job at Access Graphics, but he didn't fit in.
Ramsey tried Merrick in different positions and eventually demoted him from Director of Distributions to Director of Security, while letting him keep his six-figure salary.

In March 1996, Ramsey could no longer justify Merrick's salary to Lockheed-Martin (parent company of Access Graphics), and told Merrick he would have to take a large pay cut or leave by April 30.
Merrick chose to leave.

Later, he claimed the company owed him close to $118,000. He settled for half that amount, but one director of the company heard him say he was going to get Ramsey.

Jeff Merrick remained a suspect.
Perfect Murder / Perfect Town, Schiller, p.67.

The above post is as much rubbish as anything that has been written on this thread so far and goes to show how biased a book or article can be on a subject.

Facts are twisted out of all proportion as you will see from the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN LOU SMIT AND JOHN RAMSEY......

LOU SMIT: I just have another question on Jeff Merrick. I have something in the report, and I'm going to have to do just a little research on it but I think that there was something about A a $100,000 figure (INAUDIBLE) was what his payoff was. And I kind of compare that with a $118,000 just to see if there was any correlation there?

JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but if you took that number and subtracted what he actually got left, a hundredish thousand but I think that there was something about a $100,000 figure (INAUDIBLE) was what his payoff was. And I kind of compared that with a $118,000 just to see if there was any correlation there?

JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but if you took that number and subtracted what he actually got left, a hundredish thousand about.

LOU SMIT: That's what I was wondering about, because it could have been 118 that you owed him or something. And he just figured that.

JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember exactly. I remember coming up with around a hundred.
(INAUDIBLE) but I don't remember any kind of 118. We gave him the severance. We paid for outsource or outplacement counseling. There were a number of things that we did in that up to the $250,000.

LOU SMIT: Is there a way of determining that?I mean, I'm thinking he told me 118 thousand.

JOHN RAMSEY: I think Gary Yearman, he was HR director, and still is. He would have remembered it very well, because he handled it.

MIKE KANE: Access is still (INAUDIBLE) is still (INAUDIBLE)?

JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I guess he was (INAUDIBLE) the whole episode. Don Paugh also because he was the supervisor.


You now can see that how they managed to arrive at the figure of $118,000 is farcical. For a start a disgruntled employee would have asked for a least a million dollars from his multi millionaire boss.

As it happened, he got the settlement he wanted and moved onto a higher paying job, where he was employed at the time of JBR's death.

.
.

[Harry D]

How about one or more of the family members were sexually assaulting, torturing and killed her?

That's the only reconciliation for the use of the garrote. However, where is the evidence for systematic physical/sexual abuse? Usually there's an escalation in violence that precedes deadly force. I don't think that John or Patsy woke up one early Christmas morn and violently strangled and molested their little girl. Could someone else (other than Burke) have been responsible and they were forced to cover for them?

And yeah the enhanced audio isn't very convincing. It almost sounds too perfect, if you get me. We supposedly have Patsy, John & Burke's voices all detected on each frame. All of whom make potentially incriminating remarks. Right.

[louisa]

That's the only reconciliation for the use of the garrote. However, where is the evidence for systematic physical/sexual abuse? Usually there's an escalation in violence that precedes deadly force. I don't think that John or Patsy woke up one early Christmas morn and violently strangled and molested their little girl. Could someone else (other than Burke) have been responsible and they were forced to cover for them?

And yeah the enhanced audio isn't very convincing. It almost sounds too perfect, if you get me. We supposedly have Patsy, John & Burke's voices all detected on each frame. All of whom make potentially incriminating remarks. Right.

Why would the family 'cover' for an intruder who murdered their beloved child? Would you?

I think that PR was as mad as a box of frogs, but not as crazy as that.

I've thought hard and long about this and come to the conclusion that the only person the couple would 'cover up' for is their son.


As for the garbled dialogue on the end of the 911 call, surely if the police were going to make something up, surely they would have said they were able to hear something a bit more incriminating than "What did you find?"

I'll have to look at my notes but I believe Burke later admitted he was up that night anyway.


Harry - have you read my theory? Post #1114? Page 112. (It still needs a bit of work)
.
.

[Abby Normal]

That's the only reconciliation for the use of the garrote. However, where is the evidence for systematic physical/sexual abuse? Usually there's an escalation in violence that precedes deadly force. I don't think that John or Patsy woke up one early Christmas morn and violently strangled and molested their little girl. Could someone else (other than Burke) have been responsible and they were forced to cover for them?

And yeah the enhanced audio isn't very convincing. It almost sounds too perfect, if you get me. We supposedly have Patsy, John & Burke's voices all detected on each frame. All of whom make potentially incriminating remarks. Right.

I agree somewhat. But She had a history of bedwetting, Burke was a weird kid who apparently was violent, and struck her with a golf club. The parents pimped her out and whored her up in the pageants.
Patsy's a freak, and everything I've read about Jon does not leave that great of an impression. I think there was serious issues in that home.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Is it really that hard to conceive that a family member sexually assaulted and killed her? Happens all the time and the evidence seems to point to it.

[Abby Normal]

The 911 operator was not a sound witness. She told investigators there was a distinct change in Patsy's voice, then after she hung up the phone the operator heard Patsy say, "Ok, I've called the police, now what do we do"?

No such exchange is evident on the recording, neither is there a change in Patsy's voice.
The operator was creating her own drama, her claims were dismissed.
Likewise, the background noises at the end of the tape are just that, background noises.

She had a more visceral emotional reaction to the call when being interviewed than I have ever seen from the Ramsey's. As did one of the detectives.

I can't discount what she said she felt and what she said she heard on that call.
It's witness evidence.

But I agree, the enhancement stuff is nonsense, but with the operator, she says she heard Patseys entire tone change and say something along the lines of well we called police, now what.

It's witness evidence. It has the ring of truth to it. At the very least I think the 911 operator is being sincere.

[The Good Michael]

The above post is as much rubbish as anything that has been written on this thread so far and goes to show how biased a book or article can be on a subject.


You now can see that how they managed to arrive at the figure of $118,000 is farcical. For a start a disgruntled employee would have asked for a least a million dollars from his multi millionaire boss.



.
.

Now that's nonsense. You actually know what amounts people ask for because all people are the same in their demands?

Mike

[louisa]

I did say at least a million dollars.

[louisa]

Patsy's a freak, and everything I've read about Jon does not leave that great of an impression. I think there was serious issues in that home.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Is it really that hard to conceive that a family member sexually assaulted and killed her? Happens all the time and the evidence seems to point to it.

There is actually no evidence to support JBR being sexually molested on the night she died. The blood smears and vaginal abrasions could have been caused by the vigorous wiping by her mother, after JBR had once again wet the bed.

It has been suggested that there may have been prior sexual contact though, but even that is hazy. I think the coroner called it 'chronic' but again, there may have been an explanation. Without reading the notes again I can't really remember all the details.

Burke used to wet and soil his bed as well.



This is what their housekeeper had to say about the Ramseys' marriage.......but she sounds rather odd as well.

Read from paragraph 4 onwards.......

http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/death-of-innocent.html

.
.

[Wickerman]

As for those other people you name, they were Ramsey employees, so what can you expect. Hunter was one of Ramseys golfing buddies.,

So you have said, yet Hunter was on holiday in Hawaii when this murder began and he said he'd never heard of John Ramsey.
So what is the point of you making that contradictory claim?
And, why should anyone believe you when you don't post a reference.
Is there a photo of Hunter & Ramsey stood together at the same golf club? - what is your evidence, and why does it matter?

It is overwhelmingly apparent that many of your posts are peppered with these petty little irrelevant comments about different people, which have nothing to do with the case.

Your posts consist of nit-picking mine.

Precisely because of the above, you contest some reference I post, but you don't provide a reference - all we have is your opinion.
Here's a hint, please try in future to remember that etiquette(?) requires you respond with a reference, when contesting a reference.

And when I ask for evidence you then start repeating rubbish about stun guns and sticky tape. We've heard all of that over and over. It is now boring, very boring.

You asked for the list, so don't whine about getting what you asked for.

Try posting something about the case that we haven't heard before.

I'm probably asking too much.

What do you think could possibly be new in a 20 year old case?
All the latest evidence concerns the DNA but you choose not to believe that.
Everything else is old news by now.

[Wickerman]

JEFF MERRICK - "Thrown Under The Bus"

This is an important article from 2006 about one of the first people under the bus, Jeff Merrick. Many people believe the ransom note was specifically written to frame Merrick for the crime. The article shows John Ramsey's viciousness in naming Merrick repeatedly to the police, without any merit whatsoever:

Named in Ramseys' book

Some suspects were publicly named by the Ramsey family or legal experts they hired. One was Jeff Merrick, who was described as a suspect in a book by John and Patsy Ramsey.

"I was flabbergasted I had been named. I was fingered for a horrendous crime," said Merrick, a former employee of John Ramsey's at Access Graphics. "It had a tremendous impact on my life."

Merrick said John Ramsey three times asked authorities to investigate him, apparently on a theory that Merrick was a disgruntled former employee seeking revenge.

But Merrick said that he was laid off by Access Graphics, which has since changed its name, only because he was a whistle-blower and he received a settlement from Ramsey's company. By the time of JonBenet's murder, he had a higher-paying job at another company, he said.

"There was no reason at all that I would be motivated to kill his daughter," Merrick said. "I was a very, very unlikely suspect. Maybe (John Ramsey) wanted to take revenge."

Lin Wood, John Ramsey's attorney, did not return phone calls.

Merrick said he found it odd that the Ramseys would so freely throw his name around as a suspect, knowing how devastating the accusations against them had been.

"My wife was subjected to a lot of this stuff," he said. "The media was tough on us. The police delved into my past as deeply as anyone."

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jeff-kathy-merrick.htm

.
.

I don't read anything there that suggests Merrick could not be guilty.
He didn't have a solid alibi.

And this...

"There was no reason at all that I would be motivated to kill his daughter," Merrick said. "I was a very, very unlikely suspect. Maybe (John Ramsey) wanted to take revenge."

Revenge, for what?

[Wickerman]

The above post is as much rubbish as anything that has been written on this thread so far and goes to show how biased a book or article can be on a subject.

Schiller's book promotes no particular theory, it's just a record of events.

Facts are twisted out of all proportion as you will see from the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN LOU SMIT AND JOHN RAMSEY......

LOU SMIT: I just have another question on Jeff Merrick. I have something in the report, and I'm going to have to do just a little research on it but I think that there was something about A a $100,000 figure (INAUDIBLE) was what his payoff was. And I kind of compare that with a $118,000 just to see if there was any correlation there?

JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but if you took that number and subtracted what he actually got left, a hundredish thousand but I think that there was something about a $100,000 figure (INAUDIBLE) was what his payoff was. And I kind of compared that with a $118,000 just to see if there was any correlation there?

JOHN RAMSEY: See, when he first demanded what he wanted, to leave without making a fuss, I think it was $250,000. And I forget the logic, but if you took that number and subtracted what he actually got left, a hundredish thousand about.

LOU SMIT: That's what I was wondering about, because it could have been 118 that you owed him or something. And he just figured that.

JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember exactly. I remember coming up with around a hundred.
(INAUDIBLE) but I don't remember any kind of 118. We gave him the severance. We paid for outsource or outplacement counseling. There were a number of things that we did in that up to the $250,000.

LOU SMIT: Is there a way of determining that?I mean, I'm thinking he told me 118 thousand.

JOHN RAMSEY: I think Gary Yearman, he was HR director, and still is. He would have remembered it very well, because he handled it.

MIKE KANE: Access is still (INAUDIBLE) is still (INAUDIBLE)?

JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. I guess he was (INAUDIBLE) the whole episode. Don Paugh also because he was the supervisor.


You now can see that how they managed to arrive at the figure of $118,000 is farcical. For a start a disgruntled employee would have asked for a least a million dollars from his multi millionaire boss.

As it happened, he got the settlement he wanted and moved onto a higher paying job, where he was employed at the time of JBR's death.

.
.

You've told me more than once, John Ramsey is a liar, YOU do not believe anything he says, have you changed your mind now?
You quote him when it suits you, but if anyone else quotes him you dismiss it as all lies - go figure...
.
Besides, John Ramsey's bonus was not $118,000 either, that's just a rounded number.
So, no-one is looking at an exact amount.

[louisa]

Here's a hint, please try in future to remember that etiquette(?) requires you respond with a reference, when contesting a reference

Oh, right - just like You always do, you mean?

What do you think could possibly be new in a 20 year old case?
All the latest evidence concerns the DNA but you choose not to believe that.

I'm talking about something NEW to this thread, not just re-hashing the same old stuff; asking the same old questions.

And as if to demonstrate the point you talk again about DNA in this case. Lordy I've explained the DNA many times, but here goes again……

The DNA in this case is touch DNA, there is no DNA directly linking an intruder to the crime scene. No foreign fibers, 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.

I don't read anything there that suggests Merrick could not be guilty.
He didn't have a solid alibi.

And this...

"There was no reason at all that I would be motivated to kill his daughter," Merrick said. "I was a very, very unlikely suspect. Maybe (John Ramsey) wanted to take revenge."

Revenge for what?

He did have a solid alibi - just like everyone else who was eliminated. Only three people didn't have solid alibis - the Ramseys.

And you ask "revenge for what?" - You are going to have to read my post. Merrick went to John's bosses, Lockheed Martin, to complain about the way he was being treated. You'll have to read what he says in the link.

Besides, John Ramsey's bonus was not $118,000 either, that's just a rounded number.
So, no-one is looking at an exact amount.

You know full well that John's bonus was $118,000

You were looking at an "exact amount", weren't you, when you stated this in one of your posts yesterday…....

Later, he claimed the company owed him close to $118,000. He settled for half that amount, but one director of the company heard him say he was going to get Ramsey.

So please stop trying to back pedal on what you posted.
.
.

[louisa]

A few items of interest.........


June 25th 1998...Interview with Tom Haney and Patsy….


TOM HANEY: "Could it have been an accident?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I -- don't know."

TOM HANEY: "Well, you and I don't know because we weren't there?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Right."

TOM HANEY: "So do you think it could have been, he could have pushed her down the stairs -- "

PATSY RAMSEY: "Burke Ramsey did not do this, okay. He did not do this. Get off it."

TOM HANEY: "How do you know that, though? I mean, have you talked to him about it?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."



HI TEC BOOTS

http://tamaratattles.com/2016/09/21/lin-wood-on-behalf-of-burke-ramsey-sues-cbs-over-jonbenet-ramsey-series/

The Ramseys' lawyer, Lin Wood, stated emphatically on the Dr. Phil show that no one in the R family owned Hi Tec boots, when he knew very well that Burke testified to the Grand Jury that he did have those boots and he got them on a shopping trip to Atlanta with his mother.



Burke Ramsey talking to Dr.Phil....

Burke: "Mom came in the room to see if he was awake , and seemed upset" -the doctor asked him what he heard - he stated " She was going psycho all night."

Dr. Phil: "I think your dad had said he used the flashlight to put you to bed that night and then you snuck downstairs to play."

Burke: "Yeah. I had some toy I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was kind of in bed..."




.
.

[Wickerman]

There is actually no evidence to support JBR being sexually molested on the night she died. The blood smears and vaginal abrasions could have been caused by the vigorous wiping by her mother, after JBR had once again wet the bed.

As with a number of issues in this case, the evidence for sexual assault is ambiguous. Maybe yes, maybe no.
The wiping around her genitals is not consistent with the actions of an intruder, but the cellulose found inside her is not consistent with parental care from Patsy.
If, the evidence is being interpreted correctly, what we have is in conflict. Which suggests something is being interpreted incorrectly.

It has been suggested that there may have been prior sexual contact though, but even that is hazy. I think the coroner called it 'chronic' but again, there may have been an explanation. Without reading the notes again I can't really remember all the details.

And this is one example of an incorrect interpretation.
The Coroner was not aware that JB had vaginits, which accounts for the apparent swelling in that region.

Which means we should not always take the conclusions of the Coroner as the last word.

[louisa]

Here's an interesting link with some soundbite interviews.

Listen to the one titled "Burke doesn't have to get a job"....

John states that in the years 2000 and 2001 the family (on behalf of Burke) sued the tabloids (around 7 of them). They got so much money that Burke didn't need to ever get a job.


And the other soundbite of JR constantly contradicting himself.

Including this strange remark....."Yes my daughter was murdered but the real crime was the injustice the family went through."

https://soundcloud.com/juror13

.
.