JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

As I mentioned earlier, Bob Whitson published a list of evidence that may point to the involvement of an intruder.
I have omitted any superfluous wording contained in each point in the original. Also omitted two or three points entirely that were in conflict with known evidence.

- Six handwriting experts and one linguistic expert analyzed Patsy's handwriting with the ransom note. None of these experts concluded Patsy wrote the ransom note.

- A DNA profile was developed from jonBenet's underwear, pajamas, and fingernails which does not belong to John or Patsy Ramsey. The source of the DNA which came from a male has never been identified.

- A climbing rope in a paper bag was found in the spare bedroom adjacent to JonBenet's bedroom. The Ramsey's said the rope did not belong to them. To my knowledge, this rope was never tested for DNA.

- According to Lou Smit and Forensic Medical Examiner Michael Doberson, two sets of stun gun marks were located on jonBenet's body, but a stun gun was not found inside the Ramsey's home, nor is there any information indicating the Ramsey family ever owned a stun gun.

- A white piece of adhesive was found on JonBenet's face, indicating the stun gun was applied over the duct tape placed on her face. The stun gun melted the adhesive from the duct tape.

- A baseball bat, with fiber consistent with the carpet in the Ramsey's basement, was found in the Ramsey's yard near the butler's door on the north side of the Ramsey's home. The Ramsey's said the bat did not belong to them. Two photographs exist of this butler's door, in one it is open, in the other it is closed. No records exist to indicate which photograph was taken first.

- Black duct tape was placed over JonBenet's mouth. The source (roll) of the duct tape was never found.

- Brown fibers found on the same duct tape, the source for these fibers was never found.

- White cord (olefin) was used to bind JonBenet's hands & to make the ligature around her neck. The source for the white cord was never found.

- Red marks, indicating JonBenet was alive when the marks were made were on JonBenet's neck. The half moon shaped marks were above the white cord indicating JonBenet was trying to release the pressure from the cord (garrotte) and the red marks were made by her fingernails.

- Beaver hair was found on JonBenet's thigh. The source for this beaver hair was not found anywhere in the house.

- Animal hairs were found at the crime scene and their source was never found.

- Fibers found from inside the (train room) suitcase were found on JonBenet.

- A piece of glass & a bootprint found on top of the (train room) suitcase.

- A disturbance in the debris outside the train room window indicates someone passed through this space.

- A Hi-tec brand boot print was found in the mold/dust in the wine cellar where JB's body was found. The source for this print was never found.

- JonBenet's eyes showed petechiae, indicating JB was alive when she was being choked by the cord/garrotte.

- Trip DeMuth reported a neighbor of the Ramsey's saw someone trespassing in their yard and storage shed (on xmas night). Cigarette butts were supposedly collected in connection with this trespass. It is unknown what happened to these cigarette butts, or if they were ever tested for DNA.

- Neighbors reported two suspicious vehicles in the neighborhood, one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day. One neighbor observed a white male walking around the Ramsey's home at dusk on Christmas Day.

[louisa]

Hi Wicksy,

I have already countered ALL your so-called "evidence" many times before, but I will do so again.

I am going to answer all the items in your post, one by one, starting with this......


HANDWRITING

At Least 10 Professionals Concluded Patsy Was Author

While an original document is preferable for analysis, in this case it was not necessary. This particular ransom note was written with a thick felt tip pen which, even on an original document, will give no indication of the pressure used by the writer.

For information: Chet Ubowski was the only Forensic Document Examiner who testified before the Grand Jury. He was chosen because he was considered to be the foremost leader in the field of document analysis

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation

Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters stated “I believe she wrote it.”

"We had noticed earlier that in prehomicide writings, Patsy consistently used the manuscript “a,” but posthomicide, it disappeared from her samples of writing. This was a major find, for it looked as if she was consciously changing her lettering. She had more handwriting styles than a class of sixth graders and was seemingly able to change as easily as turning on and off different computer fonts. I thought about how big a mistake it had been to provide the defense lawyers with a copy of the note. A suspect could study it prior to giving writing samples and consciously avoid certain characteristics, such as the style of writing the first letter of the alphabet".

Gideon Epstein - Forensic Document Examiner

"Based on the presently available documents, there are strong indications that Patsy Ramsey is the author of the ransom note".

David S. Liebman - Certified Document Examiner

"There are far too many similarities and consistencies revealed in the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note for it to be coincidence. In light of the number of comparisons and similarities between Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note writer the chances of a third party also sharing the same characteristics is astronomical. In my professional opinion Patsy Ramsey is the ransom note writer".

Tom Miller, Attorney, Court Qualified Expert Witness in Questioned Documents

"Based upon available exemplars, compared to the purposed "ransom note" in the JonBenet Ramsey murder, the handwriting is probably that of Patsy Ramsey".

Cina L. Wong - Certified Document Examiner

"I have made a careful examination and comparison of the 'ransom note' and the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey. I have reached the conclusion that the handwritings and the 'ransom note' were written by the same person. It is my professional opinion that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the 'ransom note'".

Larry F. Ziegler - Forensic Document Examiner

"It was determined, and is still determined by myself that Patsy Ramsey is the writer of the ransom note".

Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14). Speckin's report stated: "When I compare the handwriting habits of Patsy Ramsey with those in the questioned ransom note, there exists agreement to the extent that some of her individual letter formations and letter combinations do appear in the ransom note"

(Epstein Deposition (p. 138:9-14) "When this agreement is weighed against the number, type and consistency of the differences present, I am unable to identify Patsy Ramsey as the author of the questioned ransom note with any degree of certainty. I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author." (Epstein Deposition (p. 138:25 through p. 139:1-6). Infinitesimal Chance of Intruder Match to Patsy. However, Speckin reportedly was ready to testify that "there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs".


ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE





PATSY RAMSEY'S WRITING SAMPLE

[Wickerman]

"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?

And yet you don't think Thomas saw a chance to make some money, especially as he quite his job?
Interesting.

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?

WHO, went out this window?

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

Clearly it isn't good enough if you don't read what was written.
Go back and read it, then ask your questions.

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.

"Obviously an inside job"?
Yesterday you admitted "we are all guessing", now "it's obvious"....
Which is it?

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.

I already know how inexperienced Thomas was with homicide, thankyou.

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

The case is still open. If the killer is truly dead (Patsy), and Burke can never be charged with anything, then why continue the investigation?

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.

The phrase, Tunnel Vision, comes to mind.
When a person writes a book with the sole intent of incriminating one particular person, the evidence offered in the book is by defacto 'biased'.

[louisa]

- A DNA profile was developed from jonBenet's underwear, pajamas, and fingernails which does not belong to John or Patsy Ramsey. The source of the DNA which came from a male has never been identified.

DNA

The DNA 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, imo.
.
.

[louisa]

Originally Posted by louisa .....

"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?

And yet you don't think Thomas saw a chance to make some money, especially as he quite his job?
Interesting.

I will be posting Steve Thomas's letter of resignation so that you will understand the reasons.

He never expected to make money because he knew he would get sued by the Ramseys as soon as the book hit the bookstalls, and that is exactly what happened.

He just wanted to get the unfairness and the injustice out of his system. He was frustrated that there might never be justice for JonBenet. And he was probably right.

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

Originally posted by louisa........

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?

WHO, went out this window?

Here you are Wicksy, just to jog your memory......

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.

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

Originally posted by louisa..............

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

Clearly it isn't good enough if you don't read what was written.
Go back and read it, then ask your questions.

Why not just answer the question? Or maybe you cannot.

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

Originally posted by louisa...................

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.

"Obviously an inside job"?
Yesterday you admitted "we are all guessing", now "it's obvious"....
Which is it

It was an inside job of course, but we're guessing as to which family member did what.

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

Originally posted by louisa.................

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

The case is still open. If the killer is truly dead (Patsy), and Burke can never be charged with anything, then why continue the investigation?

What makes you think Burke can never be charged with anything?

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

Originally posted by louisa.................

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.

The phrase, Tunnel Vision, comes to mind.
When a person writes a book with the sole intent of incriminating one particular person, the evidence offered in the book is by defacto 'biased'.

Idiotic remark. You have admitted that you have never even bothered to read the book so how can you criticize it?

If you had read Steve Thomas's book before you read that self serving fiction written by the Ramseys then you would be singing from a different hymn sheet, as they say.

You could say that every single person who wrote anything about the Ramseys being guilty was 'biased'. You could say that anyone who thought an intruder was the murderer was 'biased'. Some people might call that 'tunnel vision'.


.
.

[louisa]

- A climbing rope in a paper bag was found in the spare bedroom adjacent to JonBenet's

The rope was found to be unimportant. Just because the R's stated they had never seen it before did not mean it was not theirs. The R's house was messy upstairs and there was a load of stuff and miscellaneous junk kept in the spare bedroom.

If you remember they also stated that the flashlight was not theirs.

PR also stated that the pants JBR was wearing were not theirs yet family and friends remembered Patsy buying them in Bloomingdales. The were called 'Bloomers'.

They also stated that Burke had been asleep all night.

They also stated they had no idea where the pineapple came from.

And so on.

According to Lou Smit and Forensic Medical Examiner Michael Doberson, two sets of stun gun marks were located on jonBenet's body, but a stun gun was not found inside the Ramsey's home, nor is there any information indicating the Ramsey family ever owned a stun gun.

- A white piece of adhesive was found on JonBenet's face, indicating the stun gun was applied over the duct tape placed on her face. The stun gun melted the adhesive from the duct tape.

You're not back to this stun gun thing again, are you? "According to Lou Smit" - that's a joke. He left the case because he knew his bosses thought he was incompetent.

Until JBR's body can be exhumed and tested, the official line is that there is no proof that a stun gun had been used. I am going to post a whole list of reasons why a stun gun could not have been used in this case, written by the man who invented the machine.

As for this 'adhesive' that you keep mentioning………..you must know more than the Coroner, Dr. John Meyer, who performed the autopsy, because he makes no mention of any white tape or "sticky marks" being found on the body of JBR.

And can I ask you this while we're on this subject:

The duct tape. When it was analysed there was NO marks of JBR's tongue or any marks of resistence to the tape, as there would be if it had been applied to somebody who was still alive. JBR was clearly dead when the tape was applied so why in the world would somebody need to use a stun gun, if the victim was already comatose?

- A baseball bat, with fiber consistent with the carpet in the Ramsey's basement, was found in the Ramsey's yard near the butler's door on the north side of the Ramsey's home. The Ramsey's said the bat did not belong to them. Two photographs exist of this butler's door, in one it is open, in the other it is closed. No records exist to indicate which photograph was taken first.

The baseball bat could have belonged to Burke, Patsy stated this herself. She wasn't certain.

All doors had been closed when the police looked around the kitchen and basement. Only JR stated that he thought he had seen the butler door open (and that was much later). And we believe everything HE says, don't we?

Black duct tape was placed over JonBenet's mouth. The source (roll) of the duct tape was never found.

White cord (olefin) was used to bind JonBenet's hands & to make the ligature around her neck. The source for the white cord was never found.

As stated in a post that I made earlier today, the tape and the cord could have been removed from the house on the 26th inside Patsy's purse/handbag. The couple knew they would not be searched as they were not suspects at that time.

Or these items could have been put into one of JR's golf bags (kept outside the wine cellar door - according to crime scene photos). He specifically asked for a particular golf bag when Pam went to collect items from the house. Did he really intend to play golf when his daughter had just been murdered?

- Brown fibers found on the same duct tape, the source for these fibers was never found.

They were red and black fibres from Patsy's jacket, the one she wore to the party on the 25th.

- Red marks, indicating JonBenet was alive when the marks were made were on JonBenet's neck. The half moon shaped marks were above the white cord indicating JonBenet was trying to release the pressure from the cord (garrotte) and the red marks were made by her fingernails.

Any marks on her neck that resembled scratch marks could have come from the necklace she was wearing, or from someone else scratching at her neck during the party games at the Whites' house.

The skin cells found under JBR's fingernails (at the autopsy) were deemed to be hard and calcinous, denoting that they were old skin cells.

- Beaver hair was found on JonBenet's thigh. The source for this beaver hair was not found anywhere in the house.

- Animal hairs were found at the crime scene and their source was never found.

- A piece of glass & a bootprint found on top of the (train room) suitcase.

- A disturbance in the debris outside the train room window indicates someone passed through this space.

PR owned a number of fur coats. And I'm not sure that animal hairs were found. If they were then they were not deemed to be important.

The glass was from the broken window. JR broke the window the previous summer. Fleet put the piece of glass on top of the suitcase.

The 'disturbance in the debris outside the train room' would have been from JR gaining entry during the summer.

- JonBenet's eyes showed petechiae, indicating JB was alive when she was being choked by the cord/garrotte.

The presence of petechiae have been used by some as proof that JBR was still alive while strangled, but if death occurred during strangulation, this would imply the head blow came first.

- Trip DeMuth reported a neighbor of the Ramsey's saw someone trespassing in their yard and storage shed (on xmas night). Cigarette butts were supposedly collected in connection with this trespass. It is unknown what happened to these cigarette butts, or if they were ever tested for DNA.

- Neighbors reported two suspicious vehicles in the neighborhood, one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day. One neighbor observed a white male walking around the Ramsey's home at dusk on Christmas Day.

"Trip DeMuth reported…" did he? Did you know this man was in partnership with one of the Ramsey's lawyers?

As for the rest of your paragraph it actually made me laugh out loud. "People saw this, people saw that"…"neighbours saw a suspicious vehicle, etc. and so on"

You haven't even mentioned the names of these people who supposedly saw these 'suspicious' people. If it was important evidence then the people would have been named.

Whenever there is a murder there will always be people who 'saw' odd people in the neighbourhood. It's normally a 'bushy haired stranger' that people see - which the police now refer to as 'a BHS' in their reports. No credence is ever given to this kind of rubbish. It's 'par for the course'.

The bottom line is that NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTRUDER HAS EVER BEEN FOUND.
.
.

[Abby Normal]

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."
.
.

Hi Louisa
What was the nature of the Ramsey's accusation against the Whites? I mean these are there best friends and they were at their house when the alleged intruder first got in the house? Did they think they hired someone?
How could the whites have anything to do with it?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicksy,

I have already countered ALL your so-called "evidence" many times before, but I will do so again.

I didn't bother to post them because you knew them already, but claimed you didn't.
Now you claim you did know them.
This flip-flopping doesn't inspire confidence.

Oh, I noticed you posted a bunch of names of people who looked over photo-copies of the ransom note.
Their opinions do not count because none of them worked from the originals. Pressure points from the pen are not detectable from photo-copies, or maybe you didn't you know that.

[Wickerman]

I will be posting Steve Thomas's letter of resignation so that you will understand the reasons.

No need, I have it.

He just wanted to get the unfairness and the injustice out of his system. He was frustrated that there might never be justice for JonBenet. And he was probably right.

Yet, he resigned, how did that accomplish anything?

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

Originally posted by louisa........

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?

I know what you're asking, but where did I say anyone went out the window?????

Why not just answer the question? Or maybe you cannot.

Because it is already posted.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=400103&postcount=1064

What makes you think Burke can never be charged with anything?

The law.

Idiotic remark. You have admitted that you have never even bothered to read the book so how can you criticize it?

It's a "suspect" book, and like all suspect books there is only one aim.

If you had read Steve Thomas's book before you read that self serving fiction written by the Ramseys then you would be singing from a different hymn sheet, as they say.

Like I said before, I have not read any Ramsey books.
The reason is the same, the reader only gets one side of the story.
The rule I apply to Thomas is also applicable to the Ramsey's, in my view.
What's wrong with that?

If it wasn't for the fuss you create over "what Steve Thomas wrote", I wouldn't have bothered ordering it.
But I still have no intention, as yet, of ordering the Ramsey books.

You could say that every single person who wrote anything about the Ramseys being guilty was 'biased'. You could say that anyone who thought an intruder was the murderer was 'biased'. Some people might call that 'tunnel vision'.

It would be, on both points.
Which is why I prefer to use the books by Kolar & Schiller, they are more balanced, more impartial.
I don't recommend Whitson's book to the general reader, it's too focused.
I bought it to find out specifically what the intruder argument was all about.
I don't agree with all of it, and contrary to much of what has been written here, I am not 100% convinced.

Some evidence points to Patsy, yet some points to Burke, but still some points to an intruder.
Evidence which is hard to visualize as belonging to Patsy or Burke, is better explained by an intruder.
Nothing exclusively indicates Patsy, Burke or an intruder.

It is understandable for an intruder to cover his tracks, wear gloves (no fingerprints), clean up, put things back where he got them (pen/pad/flashlight).
Yet if it was Patsy/Burke, then why was it not possible to come up with physical evidence somewhere in their own home?

It's incredulous.

[louisa]

Originally posted by louisa:

Idiotic remark. You have admitted that you have never even bothered to read the book so how can you criticize it?
(Steve Thomas 'JonBenet - Inside the Murder Investigation')

It's a "suspect" book, and like all suspect books there is only one aim.

To get to the truth? Steve Thomas was lead investigator on the case.

It is a 'theory' book. Just because it puts your beloved 'innocent' Ramseys on the spot - and you can't bear to see them criticized.

Buy it, read it and who knows? You might learn something from it.

It's a puzzle to me why you think the police and the FBI had some kind of vendetta against the Ramseys. They were neutral and had nothing to gain or lose. They simply wanted to get to the truth. Unfortunately they were prevented from doing so.

Another ex-detective, your little hero Bob Whitson, wrote a grovelling book telling us how innocent the R's were. You lapped that one up okay, didn't you? And he had also been a police detective.

Twitson was in the pocket of the Ramseys. He surely knew they were guilty as heck but he saw a way of making money out of this. As did the Ramseys with their book. It's upsetting to think good trees were cut down to make that pile of fiction.

I have not read any Ramsey books. The reason is the same, the reader only gets one side of the story.

Well I think you have read the Ramseys book. Early on in this discussion I think you mentioned it.

And how about the book you keep quoting from….that bungling cop Bob Whitson's book 'Travesty'? It couldn't be more one-sided! And the only real 'travesty' is that people like him are helping to prevent the killers of JonBenet to get away with murder! Where is the justice in that?

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

Originally posted by louisa:

What makes you think Burke can never be charged with anything?

The law.

There is no statute of limitations on murder, but it all depends on whether or not he can be prosecuted on an “accessory” charge if their son is immune from prosecution for murder, which I believe is possible.

It is understandable for an intruder to cover his tracks, wear gloves (no fingerprints), clean up, put things back where he got them (pen/pad/flashlight).

It isn't 'understandable' - it's preposterous!

I'm sorry Wicksy but you've just gone down a notch or two. You actually think it's quite 'understandable' for a kidnapper/sexual molestor/murderer to do these things? Clean up? Put things back where he got them?!!!

You've finally lost it, man.

Yet if it was Patsy/Burke, then why was it not possible to come up with physical evidence somewhere in their own home?

How much more physical evidence do you need?
.
.

[louisa]

I didn't bother to post them because you knew them already, but claimed you didn't.
Now you claim you did know them.
This flip-flopping doesn't inspire confidence.

Oh, I noticed you posted a bunch of names of people who looked over photo-copies of the ransom note.
Their opinions do not count because none of them worked from the originals. Pressure points from the pen are not detectable from photo-copies, or maybe you didn't you know that.

Yes, I already knew your ridiculous 'evidence of an intruder', full of holes and contradictions.

I was hoping you would have managed to find a few new, and more plausible, theories since then. Obviously not.

As for the ransom note, the 'bunch of names' that I supplied were the top handwriting experts in the USA. Chuck Ubowski was the only expert who gave evidence before the Grand Jury.

As I stated, a note written in thick felt tipped pen is not going to give clues about pressure because pressure is not required when writing with such a pen.

Your 'intruder' had a heck of a lot of similarities in his writing to the woman sleeping upstairs, didn't he?


How many people do you know write q as a figure 8?



.
.

[louisa]

Hi Louisa
What was the nature of the Ramsey's accusation against the Whites? I mean these are there best friends and they were at their house when the alleged intruder first got in the house? Did they think they hired someone?
How could the whites have anything to do with it?

Hi Abby,

When the Whites heard that the R's had 'lawyered up' on the day after JBR's body was found, they tried to talk to the R's - to advise them they were making a big mistake and they should talk to the police. That was when the R's turned against them.

After this, there were some horrible smears made against the Whites which many people think emanated from the R's.

It's all here, in these pages.......

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbene...tters-6053856#!
.
.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

When the Whites heard that the R's had 'lawyered up' on the day after JBR's body was found, they tried to talk to the R's - to advise them they were making a big mistake and they should talk to the police. That was when the R's turned against them.

After this, there were some horrible smears made against the Whites which many people think emanated from the R's.

It's all here, in these pages.......

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbene...tters-6053856#!
.
.

Thanks Louise
But if the ramseys pointed the finger at the whites the police would naturally ask-"why or how do you think they had anything to do with it?"
Do we know if the Ramseys got more specific on why or how they thought any of the whites could have done it?

[louisa]

Thanks Louise
But if the ramseys pointed the finger at the whites the police would naturally ask-"why or how do you think they had anything to do with it?"
Do we know if the Ramseys got more specific on why or how they thought any of the whites could have done it?

The Whites became Enemy No. 1 with the Ramseys. I believe the Ramseys became frightened about what they knew and went all out to discredit them.

Why? Well it's a bit of a mystery but something has occurred to me. It's my own theory. See what you think....

Maybe Fleet knew too much about what really happened that night? At around 6am Fleet had gone down to the basement to check for JBR and to look for points of entry into the house. He opened the cellar door (the one where the body was later found) but could not find the switch (which was situated in the hallway outside the room (not many people would know about this). He looked in the room but saw nothing so shut the door and secured it with the peg.

I actually believe that Fleet would have seen JBR's body, at least seen the white blanket covering her, but he saw nothing.

Later, as we know, John and Fleet went down there together and John made a bee-line for that tiny room. According to John (!) he opened the door and 'screamed'. According to Fleet, John screamed as he was opening the door. John had not switched the light on. The rest we know.

Now this is where it gets complicated.....At that time John had no idea that Fleet had looked in that tiny room earlier that morning. He was told this quite a bit later.

Fleet must have known, at that moment, that something wasn't right. John was discovering a body that had not been in that room earlier. He decided not to say anything until he had mulled this information over in his mind.

Once John found out that Fleet had already checked in that room he knew that Fleet had something on him (as the cops would say).

If Fleet were to ever state that he knew the body was not in the wine cellar then it was going to look bad for the R family. He had to be discredited.

If The Whites were seen as dishonest paedophiles then anything they subsequently said against the R's would be taken with a HUGE pinch of salt by the authorities - the R's would say it was just sour grapes - they were saying it just to get back at the R's for kicking them out of their 'inner circle' of friends.

And for that reason the Whites can never tell what they know. They just want to get on with their lives, and who can blame them?


"Fleet and Priscilla suspected that more than coincidence was involved in the trashing of their reputation, just as the mini-series was hitting the airwaves (based on a book the Whites had denounced as riddled with inaccuracies) and the Ramseys were preparing to launch their own book. "The 'umbrella of suspicion' needs to reach beyond the heads of John and Patsy Ramsey," huffed an editorial in the Camera -- and that wider net had ensnared and befouled the entire White family.

"We really don't know where Nancy Krebs came from," Fleet says now. "I can't prove this, but I believe that one reason people came after us is to demonstrate to the world that there were other suspicious people out there. We were already in the crosshairs. We were the flavor of the month."
.
.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Louise
But if the ramseys pointed the finger at the whites the police would naturally ask-"why or how do you think they had anything to do with it?"
Do we know if the Ramseys got more specific on why or how they thought any of the whites could have done it?

The police asked John for any ideas who might have done this. To which he said he had none.
The police always pressure the victims to think, anyone, friends, neighbors, employees, anyone...

That's normal procedure, and that's how the White's, along with all the rest became involved. It wasn't a case of John fingering the White's for anything specific, the police insisted he "think of people, anyone" whom they can investigate.