Was the Ramsey house typically a mess?

[skoogmagoo]

I recall reading that the Ramsey house was typically a mess with clutter and things left lying about.
The children were said to have just left toys where they were and dropped clothing on the floor.

Why do we find Burke's bed made and his bedroom look pretty normal on the day she was discovered?

It would seem that if an ordinarily disheveled room is suddenly normalized, there has to be a reason.
Could it be to draw attention away from that room as a potential crime scene?

They had a housekeeper, I doubt the house was a mess.

 

[Meara]

They had a housekeeper, I doubt the house was a mess.

If only! The front rooms "for show" were kept fairly tidy, but multiple people, photos, and videos confirm that the rest of the house was typically a mess. Housekeepers said they couldn't keep up with it. PR did not teach the children to pick up after themselves, and they left toys and clothing, and random objects strewn everywhere. Nedra scolded her for it, essentially saying that PR's expectations of what one housekeeper could do were unrealistic, given the constant mess and clutter. BR whittled wood with his pocket knife and dropped shavings all over the house until Linda Hoffmann-Pugh protested and hid the knife. Both children were said to have left messes on the kitchen counters when they fixed food for themselves and didn't bother to put lids back on containers, and so on. Crime scene video reveals mess and clutter in the upstairs rooms; and the basement is such a tip that IDI theories falter as one begins to question whether an intruder could have gotten in the window and navigated the space in the dark without breaking his neck.

 

[Choices]

Investigations rely on human interpretation of information. Law enforcement didn't believe them then, people don't believe them now even more after 27 years digesting what is factually known. The Grand Jury didn't believe them and chose to indict. Everytime you post about LE, you post as though there were only 2 cops on the case. It was a case that garnered world wide attention. Many LE were involved and the amount of man hours put into this case were astronomical. The mistakes made by law enforcement were mostly driven by a kidnapping narrative and the Ramsey's doing everything to convolute the crime scene. Everything they did worked against ever getting the case solved. JR became dumber than a rock that morning but was bright enough to run a multi million dollar company with government contracts and you are going to tell me this bright man didn't look for his daughter? He didn't look for his own daughter but the police were inept and myopic? Please don't use the poor excuse that he was in shock. He was on the phone planning, arranging, talking to attorneys, pilots ect but had to be told to look around his own home. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would think anything was strange here ( sarcasm) or why the police looked at them with disbelief. You can explain away a few things in the Ramseys favor due to emotional distress but the majority of what the Ramseys did, their own behavior created suspicion. Why are you asking the police to keep looking the other way. It is not hard to know what one would do in that situation. That's a very convenient excuse. When your child is missing, you look for them. That RN reads like a creative writing story. That alone should have created enough doubt to make them wake BR and ask if it was a joke, or did he know where his sister is, were they hiding last night ect but JR did not grow a brain that morning. He seemed to drop several IQ points when it came to doing anything proactive to look for her. It is clear to most why their actions and story felt grossly insincere. But no one was supposed to notice and unfairly look at them. SMH as I recall every inconsistency.

It was supposedly a kidnapping, thus an intruder presumed to have gotten in, making the whole house a crime scene. That should be taught in police training 101 IMO. Anyway, they were ill-equipped to handle it. How about having help so they're not just looking one way. Don't forget too, the police themselves did not look in the cellar. Went right past it assuming it was a cupboard door! That is an assumption about a deliberately convoluted crime scene. Investigators working privately without pay said multiple people missed being questioned, four were mentioned, including two convicted paedophiles. A couple of them left the area right after the crime. Basic door to door checks not done properly of people living within 100 metres or something. That Patsy was devoutly religious throws the PDI theory into serious question.
MOO

 

[Choices]

A good investigator uses a set of skills that includes their own gut feelings and perceptions based upon careful observation.There was a lot going on that morning at the R house that simply did not add up. Did the police make some mistakes? Yes. In the grand scheme of things I think that can probably be said about most similar investigations. Police after all, despite training are human beings. What police were faced with that morning was initially a kidnapping, and Linda Arndt walked into a scene that had already been compromised by the actions of the R's, who had invited a plethora of friends and associates into the house who were milling about, cleaning up and contaminating everything.

I also have to concur with Ispy here, in it being absolutely suspicious that the R's did not conduct a complete and thorough search of that house to try and find their daughter. Calling 911 is just a step in the process and should not have stopped them from looking into every nook and cranny. Their reaction to the ridiculous RN has always puzzled me and strikes me as suspicious. They were supposedly so invested in believing that their daughter had been kidnapped that it prevented them from doing a thorough search, and yet disregarded all the warnings the note included about what not to do.....like calling the police. Instead they called the police and then invited half the neighborhood over, creating a scene full of people and activity that surely any "foreign faction" that was watching them would be aware of, putting their daughter at risk of being killed.

We must also remember that once this case morphed from a kidnapping into a murder, with the body of the child being found in the home, the parents / family is always going to be the first suspects for the police to investigate, especially since there really were no signs of a break-in and an intruder. And again, the RN comes into play here in its sheer bizzarness. The R's then went on to pronounce that they had been interviewed for 8 hours that day, and an additional 2 hours the next day, which simply is not true. They answered some questions throughout the time they were present at the scene along with police, which would be normal. That does not equate to an 8 hour interview. By the end of that day, they were lawyered up. They also claimed that they understood that they would be suspect. JR kept saying it out of one side of his mouth and then complaining that anyone would suspect them out of the other side of his mouth, throwing in that police were out to get them and not looking at anyone else. This again is not remotely true, it's twisting the truth to suit his specific purpose of avoiding the facts and maligning the ongoing investigation. Of course the family has to be thoroughly investigated and cleared for the investigation to then widen. The familiar R cry of "we're cooperating" was a smoke screen. Yes, they gave blood samples, handwriting samples, DNA, etc. because they HAD to....that's something they couldn't control. But all the roadblocks began to go up by the end of that first day, and they did not sit for interviews for another four months. Just think about that.....when the first 48 hours after a crime are so very important to gather clues, evidence and witness interviews, to find the killer of their own daughter, and they refused to cooperate. They chose instead to give a televised interview in order to gain sympathy. They wasted valuable time hiding behind their team of high priced lawyers and PR people and throwing out smokescreens about how they were unjustly being targeted by police, oh but they were cooperating! When those interviews finally did happen, it's no wonder so many answers by that time were "I don't remember", "I can't recall". They insisted upon being given copies of the RN, copies of everything they had said to police up to that point, those were just some of the demands to agree to be interviewed. It was unprecedented. Who else would be afforded those concessions? But had the police not agreed, they would never have been able to interview the R's. Oh, but we're cooperating!!

During this time, despite the BS narrative being pushed by the R's and team R, the police did investigate other people, other leads. The R's had given them a long list of people they felt should be looked at, and LE performed due diligence in doing so. Some people's lives were ruined because of the scrutiny under which they were placed. But the fact remains.....until such time as the R's really cooperate and sit for interviews they could not be ruled out. So yes, they remained under the umbrella of suspicion due to their own actions, their steadfast refusal to not fully cooperate. During this time, it was the DA's office who was responsible for much of the leaking that was going on. DA Hunter and his office engaged in a very calculated effort to not only handcuff the PD's efforts to properly investigate this case, but also to publicly cast doubt on their reputation(s). DA Hunter was in contact with a tabloid reporter on almost a daily basis feeding him information about the case and enlisting this reporter to publish negative stories about certain investigators. This is all on record and is factual. The actions of the DA and his office were why more than one investigator not only quit this case but quit the force, giving up their careers after being maligned and attacked by the DA. Again, unprecedented.

To describe the police as being "myopic" is again not factual, it's R Team spin. The need to focus on the family and rule them out is not unusual nor was it unfairly targeting them. It had to happen. And if they were innocent they should have fully cooperated from the very first moments as this case unfolded. As uncomfortable and excruciatingly painful as it is, innocent people allow themselves to be investigated to the full degree necessary in order to be ruled out so that the investigation can focus its efforts elsewhere. Look at Mark Klaas. He truly understood this and cooperated. And the true perpetrator of his daughter's killer was found. You don't go on a publicity campaign paying lip service to this and disparage the very people who are trying to find your daughter's killer if you are truly invested in finding the truth. Team R hired their own investigators by 12/27/96, supposedly to "assist" the police whom they had already concluded with no evidence of why, were both incompetent and targeting them. It's on record that the private PI team in some instances beat the police to talking to potential witnesses, but weren't sharing information. Interesting that some witnesses told different stories to police than what they said to the private PI's. Melody Stanton, who heard the scream that night and described it as clearly being that of a child's, ended up questioning her own recollection. That is rather suspicious in my book.

The video I posted above takes many of the R team talking points one by one and shows the dishonesty. It's factual and eye opening. Again, if you are truly interested in this case and its truths, I highly recommend watching it. The highly respected investigator and former police officer H. Ellis Armistead was hired by the R's to investigate for them. He ended up resigning and although he has not shared any details, he did at one point say that the intruder theory just doesn't add up. Lou Smit also was not able to solve this case, hanging his hat on a theory that other investigators, the police and a Grand Jury agreed "just doesn't add up". So much of what he came up with has been debunked and explained, and yet he continued to echo the R's claims that no one is looking seriously at the IDI theory. If that were true, then how is it that so much of that theory has been debunked? Because it was investigated and explained. If anyone is guilty of myopia, it's Mr. Smit who became so imbedded with the R's that he lost his ability to remain objective. I think it's also a rather telling side note that as time went on, the majority of the close knit circle of Boulder friends began to fracture away from the R's as they were thrown under the bus of suspicion by the R's, and also began to recognize that the lack of cooperation with the investigation and the PR machine that was churning out misinformation about the investigation and the investigators was not in line with how innocent people should behave. The police were appropriately investigating them. The narrative of being falsely targeted is just that....a narrative put out by a highly paid PR team created for the sole purpose of creating doubt about the investigation and proclaiming the R's innocence without real evidence to prove that narrative. Smoke and mirrors.

Why didn't LE play hardball and arrest them on suspicion or murder or whatever they needed to do to compel them to be interviewed. Handing them evidence beforehand. What is that about? Its inexcusable and sounds like incompetence. JR claims there was no PR team, just somebody employed to handle the onslaught of media enquiries, whatever faith one wants to put into that. The R's no doubt went about it wrong if innoncent. I guess their standing in the community and his job could've played a part. Any which way though, whether JB was found in the house or not, such as the way it goes in the tide against the parents. How can you be certain the video is factual. There is more than just one man's theory to consider. One can suppose given the R's were under the gun, it would do them well to have their friends supporting them rather than throw them under the bus. Perhaps the R's loss of trust since the crime and suspicions affected everyone.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Why didn't LE play hardball and arrest them on suspicion or murder or whatever they needed to do to compel them to be interviewed. Handing them evidence beforehand. What is that about? Its inexcusable and sounds like incompetence. JR claims there was no PR team, just somebody employed to handle the onslaught of media enquiries, whatever faith one wants to put into that. The R's no doubt went about it wrong if innoncent. I guess their standing in the community and his job could've played a part. Any which way though, whether JB was found in the house or not, such as the way it goes in the tide against the parents. How can you be certain the video is factual. There is more than just one man's theory to consider. One can suppose given the R's were under the gun, it would do them well to have their friends supporting them rather than throw them under the bus. Perhaps the R's loss of trust since the crime and suspicions affected everyone.

LE can't just arrest someone without cause. They would not be able to hold them and would probably open themselves up to a lawsuit. You have to gather evidence against someone unless they are caught in the act of committing a crime.

The R's lawyered up immediately and threw up barriers. The DA's office was cooperating with Team R, not the police. LE was forced into either interviewing them under unacceptable conditions or having to wait and negotiate interviews which led to concessions having to be made, which only a high priced and well politically connected legal team would be able to secure. They used their wealth and social status to keep the law at bay. The epitome of a two tiered justice system.

The video is not just one man's theory, it's a factual rebuttal of all the BS the R PR machine put out to muddy the waters. JR's claims about there not being a PR team, and just someone hired to handle media inquiries is BS. They did specific media interviews, carefully curated to include certain outlets, participants bound to specific parameters in order to participate. They organized photo ops, most notably at the church in Boulder whee they created their own media frenzy all the while proclaiming that's not what they wanted.

Loss of trust? That tends to happen over time and experiences of being screwed over. The high priced lawyers were in place before the end of the day on 12/26 and were actively working to keep LE at bay and silencing people like Fleet White immediately. The hallmarks of a cover up are all over their actions.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It was supposedly a kidnapping, thus an intruder presumed to have gotten in, making the whole house a crime scene. That should be taught in police training 101 IMO. Anyway, they were ill-equipped to handle it. How about having help so they're not just looking one way. Don't forget too, the police themselves did not look in the cellar. Went right past it assuming it was a cupboard door! That is an assumption about a deliberately convoluted crime scene. Investigators working privately without pay said multiple people missed being questioned, four were mentioned, including two convicted paedophiles. A couple of them left the area right after the crime. Basic door to door checks not done properly of people living within 100 metres or something. That Patsy was devoutly religious throws the PDI theory into serious question.
MOO

I do agree with the first point that you made. They should have thrown the crowd of friends that the Ramseys invited out. Again, I will repeat, a man with a high IQ and great business sense, who seemed to enjoy reading crime novels sure did some poor decision making himself. To only put the blame on LE is naive.
The police did not look in the cellar because they thought it was locked. What was the Ramseys excuse? It was their house. He knew the ins and outs of every room.
If I lose my pet in one of the rooms of my house and it dies from starvation, would you think I looked hard enough if it lied dead in the middle of a mostly empty room? Or would you think it's someone else's fault?
Would you know better than me the layout and nooks and crannies of YOUR home? Or would your expectation be for me to know it better?
For me, it's not about who deserves more blame, it's looking at it from a logical perspective.

 

[CloudedTruth]

It was supposedly a kidnapping, thus an intruder presumed to have gotten in, making the whole house a crime scene. That should be taught in police training 101 IMO. Anyway, they were ill-equipped to handle it. How about having help so they're not just looking one way. Don't forget too, the police themselves did not look in the cellar. Went right past it assuming it was a cupboard door! That is an assumption about a deliberately convoluted crime scene. Investigators working privately without pay said multiple people missed being questioned, four were mentioned, including two convicted paedophiles. A couple of them left the area right after the crime. Basic door to door checks not done properly of people living within 100 metres or something. That Patsy was devoutly religious throws the PDI theory into serious question.
MOO

I think we all can agree that this was was not something Boulder PD had very much experience in handling. But let's not forget what a confusing maze the basement area of that house was. The police officer who noticed the wine cellar door also noted that it was locked from the outside, so made the observation that no one could be in there. At that point they weren't looking for a body, they were looking for a child who had supposedly been kidnapped.

They did do door to door checks. So did the PI's hired by the R's lawyers who were also working the case starting on 12/27. They got to some witnesses before the PD did.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I think we all can agree that this was was not something Boulder PD had very much experience in handling. But let's not forget what a confusing maze the basement area of that house was. The police officer who noticed the wine cellar door also noted that it was locked from the outside, so made the observation that no one could be in there. At that point they weren't looking for a body, they were looking for a child who had supposedly been kidnapped.

They did do door to door checks. So did the PI's hired by the R's lawyers who were also working the case starting on 12/27. They got to some witnesses before the PD did.

I'm going to ride on your coat tails here CloudedTruth.
Lack if experience may be true but that doesn't mean lack of intelligence. It doesn't negate the the aspects of the investigation that drew the attention to the Ramseys.
Again, there was minimal LE helping on the morning of the supposed kidnapping but after that, there was a lot of involvement. Even the FBI was called in. Was every LE personnel who didn't believe the Ramsey's story incompetent? Those are broad strokes.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I'm going to ride on your coat tails here CloudedTruth.
Lack if experience may be true but that doesn't mean lack of intelligence. It doesn't negate the the aspects of the investigation that drew the attention to the Ramseys.
Again, there was minimal LE helping on the morning of the supposed kidnapping but after that, there was a lot of involvement. Even the FBI was called in. Was every LE personnel who didn't believe the Ramsey's story incompetent? Those are broad strokes.

Exactly. It does not negate the aspects that pointed to the R's. And the R team began their spin from the very first moments, which included going on CNN within days of the murder BEFORE sitting down with LE. And a lot of that spin was to push the narrative that they were being unfairly targeted by an incompetent police force. And that narrative not only was created on day one, but has continued to be pushed, helped along by the actions of the DA's office.

When you look at the truth of the investigation and all that it entailed, it was massive and detailed despite what has been more widely publicized. I would also add that the well respected PI's hired by team Ramsey were not working in concert with LE. They seem to have had a different agenda.

And yes, being the day after Christmas Detectives had to be called in, most of whom did not live in Boulder. Detective Arndt repeatedly called for help, only to be told people were in meetings. This is a wealthy, prominent family in the Boulder community. It strikes me as being a tad suspicious that higher ups in the department and the DA's office were so slow in responding that day.

 

[Meara]

Why didn't LE play hardball and arrest them on suspicion or murder or whatever they needed to do to compel them to be interviewed. Handing them evidence beforehand. What is that about? Its inexcusable and sounds like incompetence. JR claims there was no PR team, just somebody employed to handle the onslaught of media enquiries, whatever faith one wants to put into that. The R's no doubt went about it wrong if innoncent. I guess their standing in the community and his job could've played a part. Any which way though, whether JB was found in the house or not, such as the way it goes in the tide against the parents. How can you be certain the video is factual. There is more than just one man's theory to consider. One can suppose given the R's were under the gun, it would do them well to have their friends supporting them rather than throw them under the bus. Perhaps the R's loss of trust since the crime and suspicions affected everyone.

Hi Choices,

A closer look at the lawyering that went on and the politics of the case can answer many of your questions. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye. I just bumped the thread up for you and other more recently arrived members, but here's the link, too. Spade was a registered case insider. Hope this helps.

Spade's Lawyering Theory from Forums for Justice

HI Everyone, With Tricia's permission, the thread below is copied from "Lawyering JonBenet," on FFJ. It has intriguing information relevant to recent discussions here about the missing phone records and the Rams' lawyering up. Posting it here provides a way for interested members to connect...

www.websleuths.com

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Exactly. It does not negate the aspects that pointed to the R's. And the R team began their spin from the very first moments, which included going on CNN within days of the murder BEFORE sitting down with LE. And a lot of that spin was to push the narrative that they were being unfairly targeted by an incompetent police force. And that narrative not only was created on day one, but has continued to be pushed, helped along by the actions of the DA's office.

When you look at the truth of the investigation and all that it entailed, it was massive and detailed despite what has been more widely publicized. I would also add that the well respected PI's hired by team Ramsey were not working in concert with LE. They seem to have had a different agenda.

And yes, being the day after Christmas Detectives had to be called in, most of whom did not live in Boulder. Detective Arndt repeatedly called for help, only to be told people were in meetings. This is a wealthy, prominent family in the Boulder community. It strikes me as being a tad suspicious that higher ups in the department and the DA's office were so slow in responding that day.

And not all of the Ramseys paid PIs agreed with them as we know. I wonder that while Armistead came forward publicly with his feelingsh
, how many others did not and remained silent for fear of lawsuits. The Ramseys used their money to aggressively make it known they would sue you if you spoke against them.
From the Denver Post, June 3, 2000:
JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case: The Denver Post
Armistead, 49, sent out a short statement saying his firm "is no longer associated with the JonBenet Ramsey investigation." "Mr. Armistead has made this decision in light of the events that are taking place in the media," the statement said.
Contacted by phone, Armistead declined to elaborate much. "This is my decision," he said. "Mine alone. It's just what's been going on. It's the media events."

 

[CloudedTruth]

And not all of the Ramseys paid PIs agreed with them as we know. I wonder that while Armistead came forward publicly with his feelingsh
, how many others did not and remained silent for fear of lawsuits. The Ramseys used their money to aggressively make it known they would sue you if you spoke against them.
From the Denver Post, June 3, 2000:
JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case: The Denver Post
Armistead, 49, sent out a short statement saying his firm "is no longer associated with the JonBenet Ramsey investigation." "Mr. Armistead has made this decision in light of the events that are taking place in the media," the statement said.
Contacted by phone, Armistead declined to elaborate much. "This is my decision," he said. "Mine alone. It's just what's been going on. It's the media events."

Good point about the threatened lawsuits.

With all the resources that the R's had available to them, and that they utilized, they still could not find this mystery intruder and still point the finger at LE as the reason this case remains unsolved.

 

[Choices]

LE can't just arrest someone without cause. They would not be able to hold them and would probably open themselves up to a lawsuit. You have to gather evidence against someone unless they are caught in the act of committing a crime.

The R's lawyered up immediately and threw up barriers. The DA's office was cooperating with Team R, not the police. LE was forced into either interviewing them under unacceptable conditions or having to wait and negotiate interviews which led to concessions having to be made, which only a high priced and well politically connected legal team would be able to secure. They used their wealth and social status to keep the law at bay. The epitome of a two tiered justice system.

The video is not just one man's theory, it's a factual rebuttal of all the BS the R PR machine put out to muddy the waters. JR's claims about there not being a PR team, and just someone hired to handle media inquiries is BS. They did specific media interviews, carefully curated to include certain outlets, participants bound to specific parameters in order to participate. They organized photo ops, most notably at the church in Boulder whee they created their own media frenzy all the while proclaiming that's not what they wanted.

Loss of trust? That tends to happen over time and experiences of being screwed over. The high priced lawyers were in place before the end of the day on 12/26 and were actively working to keep LE at bay and silencing people like Fleet White immediately. The hallmarks of a cover up are all over their actions.

The overall system has problems then. Legally obtaining biological samples but not able to formally interview them is at odds. On top of that, ridiculous concessions to potential suspects. Becomes somewhat pointless.
According to JR, it was on friend's prompting as to the media interview/s. Whether the R's decided to do them on their own thereafter, I dont know if there is any record.
They were very open, too open IMO. Invitations to their home. Business's success splashed in the news. It would be natural after their kid was murdered to question who they could trust as the case stretches on..JR in one interview emphatically put forth the Santa Claus neighbour, the Reynolds guy. I don't know if one would do that to a friend if they weren't suspected.

I do agree with the first point that you made. They should have thrown the crowd of friends that the Ramseys invited out. Again, I will repeat, a man with a high IQ and great business sense, who seemed to enjoy reading crime novels sure did some poor decision making himself. To only put the blame on LE is naive.
The police did not look in the cellar because they thought it was locked. What was the Ramseys excuse? It was their house. He knew the ins and outs of every room.
If I lose my pet in one of the rooms of my house and it dies from starvation, would you think I looked hard enough if it lied dead in the middle of a mostly empty room? Or would you think it's someone else's fault?
Would you know better than me the layout and nooks and crannies of YOUR home? Or would your expectation be for me to know it better?
For me, it's not about who deserves more blame, it's looking at it from a logical perspective.

I think we all can agree that this was was not something Boulder PD had very much experience in handling. But let's not forget what a confusing maze the basement area of that house was. The police officer who noticed the wine cellar door also noted that it was locked from the outside, so made the observation that no one could be in there. At that point they weren't looking for a body, they were looking for a child who had supposedly been kidnapped.

They did do door to door checks. So did the PI's hired by the R's lawyers who were also working the case starting on 12/27. They got to some witnesses before the PD did.

The police were tasked with finding her. Imperative is on them to check everywhere. The police noticed the cellar door locked, how? Doesn't matter if they thought it was locked, you get the Rs to open it. Interesting if it was actually locked, how could that be. The various mentions of debunking. I found it strange after watching the CBS doco, that Dr Lee, the forensic scientist dismissed both the blood spot and microscopic wood fibre - the latter found in her genital tract - as transfer but no one questioned how wood fibre ended up inside her. Also sliding through a constructed basement window like it could not have been opened further, going on only crime scene photos from the looks of it.

Crime scene video reveals mess and clutter in the upstairs rooms; and the basement is such a tip that IDI theories falter as one begins to question whether an intruder could have gotten in the window and navigated the space in the dark without breaking his neck.

Got a giggle from that.

I would add one other observation. I completely understand how difficult it is to believe that a parent could be involved in harming their own child, in particular in such horrific ways. But it does happen. My own personal opinion in this case is that it was an accident. Why they felt they needed to cover it up is anyone's guess, I cannot pretend to know what was going through their minds. Hiring lawyers would not erase the stigma that would have come with admitting that someone within that house killed JBR, even if accidental. If it were BR, and this is of course only supposition, he would forever be known as the kid who killed his little sister, whether accidental or not. From the outside looking in, the R's presented a face of perfection that we now know was far from the truth. And yet that was a facade they clung to with ferocity. Two children with bed wetting issues, one with a scatolia issue, one with anger issues. A house made perfect for show but one that behind the scenes was chaotic and messy, PR could not keep up with housekeeping even with hired help. There was dysfunction in this family, and there was possible abuse going on. When you pull back the carefully curated curtain, the dysfunction is hard to miss.

I think it's normal to not want to believe that parents were involved in harming their child. But to then jump to them being innocent because it's difficult to fathom is not doing justice to the little girl whose life was taken. She is the victim, and in order for whoever perpetrated this crime to be found and justice done, the parents have to be looked at and scrutinized.

For JB's sake, surely nobody would like to hear the family was involved. That's not really the point. To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me. Naturally, anyone connected to the victim needs to be ruled out - I have not disagreed.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The overall system has problems then. Legally obtaining biological samples but not able to formally interview them is at odds. On top of that, ridiculous concessions to potential suspects. Becomes somewhat pointless.
According to JR, it was on friend's prompting as to the media interview/s. Whether the R's decided to do them on their own thereafter, I dont know if there is any record.
They were very open, too open IMO. Invitations to their home. Business's success splashed in the news. It would be natural after their kid was murdered to question who they could trust as the case stretches on..JR in one interview emphatically put forth the Santa Claus neighbour, the Reynolds guy. I don't know if one would do that to a friend if they weren't suspected.


The police were tasked with finding her. Imperative is on them to check everywhere. The police noticed the cellar door locked, how? Doesn't matter if they thought it was locked, you get the Rs to open it. Interesting if it was actually locked, how could that be. The various mentions of debunking. I found it strange after watching the CBS doco, that Dr Lee, the forensic scientist dismissed both the blood spot and microscopic wood fibre - the latter found in her genital tract - as transfer but no one questioned how wood fibre ended up inside her. Also sliding through a constructed basement window like it could not have been opened further, going on only crime scene photos from the looks of it.

Got a giggle from that.

For JB's sake, surely nobody would like to hear the family was involved. That's not really the point. To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me. Naturally, anyone connected to the victim needs to be ruled out - I have not disagreed.

You failed to answer my logic based questions as they would apply to the Ramseys not looking hard enough in their own home to find their missing child and again point the finger at LEs mistake. I am going to point back to why the Ramseys didn't look in every room of their own home to find their daughter. One glaring possibility is they knew where she was the whole time and it was a rouse. If you don't believe the Ramseys did it, then you need to provide a reasonable answer as to why they failed to look hard enough to find her in their home. As Meara stated in an earlier post, the house holds many answers. I am not asking why they didn't find her, say in a forest or in a lake, but in their home. I can't come up with one single reason. Can others please provide me with logical reasons why someone would not check every room of their house for a missing child. Answers like they were distraught will be ignored.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The overall system has problems then. Legally obtaining biological samples but not able to formally interview them is at odds. On top of that, ridiculous concessions to potential suspects. Becomes somewhat pointless.
According to JR, it was on friend's prompting as to the media interview/s. Whether the R's decided to do them on their own thereafter, I dont know if there is any record.
They were very open, too open IMO. Invitations to their home. Business's success splashed in the news. It would be natural after their kid was murdered to question who they could trust as the case stretches on..JR in one interview emphatically put forth the Santa Claus neighbour, the Reynolds guy. I don't know if one would do that to a friend if they weren't suspected.


The police were tasked with finding her. Imperative is on them to check everywhere. The police noticed the cellar door locked, how? Doesn't matter if they thought it was locked, you get the Rs to open it. Interesting if it was actually locked, how could that be. The various mentions of debunking. I found it strange after watching the CBS doco, that Dr Lee, the forensic scientist dismissed both the blood spot and microscopic wood fibre - the latter found in her genital tract - as transfer but no one questioned how wood fibre ended up inside her. Also sliding through a constructed basement window like it could not have been opened further, going on only crime scene photos from the looks of it.

Got a giggle from that.

For JB's sake, surely nobody would like to hear the family was involved. That's not really the point. To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me. Naturally, anyone connected to the victim needs to be ruled out - I have not disagreed.

Bill McReynolds was a 67 year old sweet man who had heart surgery a mere 4 months before the murder. He had not fully recovered and was frail. The R’s threw EVERYONE under the bus with no real thought as to plausibility. It literally broke his heart and he never got it over JBR’s death and the fact that he was considered a suspect. His life was never the same. He simply was not physically capable.

Agree about having to make ridiculous concessions. That’s what high priced lawyers with political connections will get you. Rigged much? The police are not to be blamed for that, their hands were tied.

A kidnapping presumes the victim is being held elsewhere. So why is it only the police’s responsibility to search the house? Shouldn’t the parents have a responsibility too? After all, they’re the ones that knew the ins and outs of the house the best. Why did they not turn the house up and down looking? I know I would if it were my child. They barely looked at all.

The wood fire was from the paint brush handle. Identified.

Lou Smit climbed through the window himself and recorded it. Yes it was possible. But other factors were in play, like the cobwebs remaining undisturbed and no debris dragged into the room. You can see how LS’s entire body encompasses the window frame even with the window wide open. No way an adult male climbed in without bringing leaves, debris and spider web with him.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Choices said: JR in one interview emphatically put forth the Santa Claus neighbour, the Reynolds guy. I don't know if one would do that to a friend if they weren't suspected.


Who didn't JR accuse?
I don't know if I could mentally keep track.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Choices said: JR in one interview emphatically put forth the Santa Claus neighbour, the Reynolds guy. I don't know if one would do that to a friend if they weren't suspected.


Who didn't JR accuse?
I don't know if I could mentally keep track.

Exactly. Their list of “potential suspects” by all accounts was a mile long. And they obviously didn’t put much thought into who really should be a suspect. They listed practically everyone they ever knew in Colorado.

 

[Meara]

The police were tasked with finding her. Imperative is on them to check everywhere. The police noticed the cellar door locked, how? Doesn't matter if they thought it was locked, you get the Rs to open it. Interesting if it was actually locked, how could that be. The various mentions of debunking. I found it strange after watching the CBS doco, that Dr Lee, the forensic scientist dismissed both the blood spot and microscopic wood fibre - the latter found in her genital tract - as transfer but no one questioned how wood fibre ended up inside her. Also sliding through a constructed basement window like it could not have been opened further, going on only crime scene photos from the looks of it.

The police on the morning of Dec. 26th were not primarily tasked with finding JBR. Their job was to assess the scene, gather information/evidence/clues about the reported kidnapping, coordinate with the FBI, set up the apparatus to tape and trace the expected phone call, and request the canine search unit on stand-by.

The wine cellar door was secured by a rotating wooden block at the top.

The first officer to see it was Off. Reichenbach. His assignment was to locate the places where a kidnapper could have exited the house with JBR. Seeing the block in place on the door, he rightly concluded that this was not the exit point and therefore did not waste time on it. Off. French was the first to inspect the basement. I think he should have opened the door. He thinks so, too, and blames himself for the delay in finding JBR's body. It troubled him deeply for years.

Here are two views of the basement window, showing that it could not be opened fully because it was blocked by an adjacent ceiling beam.

For JB's sake, surely nobody would like to hear the family was involved. That's not really the point. To assert one of the parents, who by all accounts were loving parents, one night took a homicidal turn to finish off JB and with that level of brutality is when plausibility went out the window for me. Naturally, anyone connected to the victim needs to be ruled out - I have not disagreed.

Logical fallacy: Personal Incredulity. Yes, it's hard to believe that either parent could have treated JBR so brutally. However, incredulity has no bearing on probability. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that, because it's hard to grasp how a loving parent could kill her horrifically, it's less likely to be true. In fact, the majority of child murder victims JBR's age and younger are killed by a parent. The FBI's Ron Walker understood this as soon as he got the supposed kidnapping case. Leaving aside the parents' wealth, social position, education, political influence, and appearance of being good parents, and any personal feelings, he may have had, he said, "You're gonna find a body."

I think you might benefit from learning more about the basic facts of the case. In addition to the books by Steve Thomas, Schiller, and Kolar, there are two excellent, well organized online sources:

JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia / FrontPage

jonbenetindex.htm

ACandyRose Subculture index

acandyrose.com

 

[Meara]

The man who played Santa Claus and was so fond of JBR was Bill McReynolds. He was a family friend but not a neighbor.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The police on the morning of Dec. 26th were not primarily tasked with finding JBR. Their job was to assess the scene, gather information/evidence/clues about the reported kidnapping, coordinate with the FBI, set up the apparatus to tape and trace the expected phone call, and request the canine search unit on stand-by.

The wine cellar door was secured by a rotating wooden block at the top.

The first officer to see it was Off. Reichenbach. His assignment was to locate the places where a kidnapper could have exited the house with JBR. Seeing the block in place on the door, he rightly concluded that this was not the exit point and therefore did not waste time on it. Off. French was the first to inspect the basement. I think he should have opened the door. He thinks so, too, and blames himself for the delay in finding JBR's body. It troubled him deeply for years.

Here are two views of the basement window, showing that it could not be opened fully because it was blocked by an adjacent ceiling beam.

Logical fallacy: Personal Incredulity. Yes, it's hard to believe that either parent could have treated JBR so brutally. However, incredulity has no bearing on probability. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that, because it's hard to grasp how a loving parent could kill her horrifically, it's less likely to be true. In fact, the majority of child murder victims JBR's age and younger are killed by a parent. The FBI's Ron Walker understood this as soon as he got the supposed kidnapping case. Leaving aside the parents' wealth, social position, education, political influence, and appearance of being good parents, and any personal feelings, he may have had, he said, "You're gonna find a body."

I think you might benefit from learning more about the basic facts of the case. In addition to the books by Steve Thomas, Schiller, and Kolar, there are two excellent, well organized online sources:

JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia / FrontPage

jonbenetindex.htm

ACandyRose Subculture index

acandyrose.com

I'm curious as why the lock was so high on the door. That is a common lock on old barn doors, so the height stands out to me. Was it always there or added at a later date....Was it childproofing? What was stored in there that was not kid friendly as I can't think of another reason for it to be at the top of the door. How inconvenient!