About the pineapple

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't recall the exact time-line of news about the case, but it seems to me that we knew very early -within hours or at most days- that there was both a dead body and a RN in the home. I've been RDI since I learned of those two things coinciding.

I don't doubt there was a conspiracy, but it doesn't seem to me to have been orchestrated at high levels. If it was at high levels it gives me chills thinking how incompetent high level people are.

The earliest newspaper articles that mention the ransom note are December 28, so I'm guessing it was on TV by December 27.

 

[Chrishope]

The earliest newspaper articles that mention the ransom note are December 28, so I'm guessing it was on TV by December 27.

Thanks. I thought it was very early in the case. I guess I can say I've been RDI since 27 Dec '96.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

This is what we knew by 12/28:

-John was the president of Access Graphics
-JonBenet was "Little Miss Colorado 1995" according to neighbors
-JonBenet was strangled
-Ransom note--but no details about it
-Patsy was former Miss West Virginia
-JonBenet's body was found in the basement by "a family member" seven hours after finding the RN
-JonBenet had a brother (Burke)
-The R's moved to Boulder from Atlanta in 1991

 

[KoldKase]

If the conspiracy went above Hunter, why is there so much public knowledge of the case? If phone calls were made to high up people who advised the Rs, why did they advise them to leave fiber evidence, use their own materials, leave a phoney as a $3 bill RN, etc. ?

To add to what UKGuy said:

Maybe I'm not clear that I'm just guessing about a conspiracy, so if my guess were in part or totally correct, I still can't say who was involved and how it actually worked. It seems logical to me that someone, somewhere inside the case, conspired to quash any attempt at subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records. That's so elementary in any criminal investigation into a murder, especially one in which the victim was found in the basement of her own home where her family are the only people known to be in the home at the time of the crime, it's not hard to make that leap of faith when the DA was the one openly blocking the subpoena, thereby obstructing the investigation.

It doesn't even matter what excuse Hunter had to do so, or that the Ramseys "voluntarily" gave limited access to very specific records a year later. If the case had gone to trial, there's no defense lawyer in the world that wouldn't be using the lack of a subpoena for the phone records in defense of the defendants. "Sloppy police work" or "a vote of confidence in the defendants" or even decrying that it took a year to get the records through no fault of the Ramseys because LE was negligent and never got a subpoena, so opportunities were missed, etc. Yeah, defense lawyers work that way, and every DA knows it.

In fact, we've actually heard the Ramseys complain they didn't turn their clothes over for a year because LE didn't ask for them. I'm not making this up.

So what he did was completely irresponsible and unethical of Hunter, and how it happened will always be a puzzle. But for Thomas, we'd not even know of that collusion between Hunter and the prime suspects. Hunter doesn't hate Thomas for nothing.

For years it was argued by Team Ramsey that there was nothing to the fact that the cell phone that was described as lost by Patsy in '98 actually had no calls on the sole month Thomas was able to see at the cell phone company: Dec. 1996. The cell co. rep did answer Thomas' question: there were calls in the months before. But Thomas could not see those, nor have we ever heard that LE got access to records of that phone after the month of Dec., which could have had calls which would have been evidence something was fishy.

Was that cell phone even reported as lost and canceled by the Ramseys after they "lost it'? When? Before or after the murder?

Those are important questions in this murder investigation. They could make or break a case against the Ramseys or an intruder. What if the intruder had found the phone and used it? What if it was the intruder's ONE LINK to the Ramseys so long sought? How can any investigation not be questioned when such potentially important evidence is so obviously tampered with? And in breaking down investigative protocol to build "trust" with the prime suspects, Hunter also opened the door for the Ramseys to look even more suspect. So if there were nothing on those phone records from calls on Dec. 25/26th to implicate the Ramseys, he did them no favors.

This debate has gone on and on, like the case, with no resolution. IDIs say there's nothing to it; we're crazy to think anyone can simply erase a month of phone calls, who would be able to do that?

Who, indeed? I think we've seen enough evidence tampering in many other cases by now to know it certainly isn't rocket science and it's not only possible, it's easy to do. I actually had a complaint with my phone company back in the '90s, asking for the removal of some calls for which I was charged that I didn't make; I was told by the customer service rep he couldn't remove individual calls without clearing the entire month because that's how the software worked. (Instead he credited me with the cost of the calls.)

We knew so little about how things worked in 1996, but with cable TV and the Internet, we've learned. It is a fact that other criminal investigations in this country have had subpoenas for phone records quashed because the company did business with a defense contractor or the government. This includes crimes that had nothing at all to do with the business per se, but under the claim of "national security" the defendant's/suspect's lawyers were able to prevail.

So a conspiracy theory rears its head, and with questions unanswered, Lockheed Martin naturally gets a side-eye. To what extent, who was involved, and how that worked, if at all, we'll probably never know, but these are questions that beg for answers in a case so completely manipulated by the parents of the victim and their well paid, well connected allies for 15 years.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Ramseys did use that phone and did call for help: who did they call? Lawyer/friend/LM attorney Bynum, who came off the ski slopes to the Fernies' house shortly after the body was found that day? Did he call a powerful contact at LM, or maybe Hal Haddon's private number in the middle of the night? Did the Ramseys call Dr. Beuf? How about an old friend whose wife was Lt. Governor? How do I know? Maybe they called their hotline to Jesus.

And what did the Ramseys actually tell the "help"? Again, I can speculate they told the truth about what had happened or they lied through their teeth. What counsel were they given, if any? Unless someone came forward who was on that phone or who was privy to what was said in some privileged way, how can we know?

I certainly can't imagine anyone advising the Ramseys to strangle their daughter, though some child sex ring theorists might. Were they told to stage the scene as a kidnapping to confuse LE by staging the body to appear that way and writing a ransom note, thereby getting them out of the house when the body was found, into the protection of their lawyers quickly? No way to know that, either.

As for clothing fibers, the Ramseys lived there, so there is no way they could escape their fibers at the crime scene, but even if they were advised to stage a kidnapping, would anyone tell them to get out a magnifying glass to try to remove their clothing fibers? They had a ticking clock, remember: airport at 6 am, meet the big kids at 11 am....

I think you're confusing conspiratorial "help" at some stage of the crime or investigation with "helped them stage a crime scene in the home." But as I said, all we can do is speculate, guess, theorize...it's all shooting in the dark.

What we do know is that Thomas wrote in his book that Hunter refused to get a subpoena for the Ramsey's phone records; that a year later the Ramsey lawyers got around to "allowing" the BPD to see limited phone records, one cell phone of which had no calls on it for the entire month of Dec. 1996, though there were calls on it up to that month; and that in 1998 Patsy told LE a long, rambling, BS story about what happened to it.

So as I said, a conspiracy theory here is nothing but guesswork.

But anyone who doesn't find these circumstances troubling in the 15 year old unsolved murder of a child doesn't understand how wrong so much in this case has gone because of just this kind of legal hanky panky. It's why every State Bar requires lawyers to avoid the "appearance of impropriety." Clearly that was ignored by Hunter and Lacy.

And these are just my thoughts and opinions, nothing more. I don't expect anyone to agree. Just brainstorming here.

 

[Chrishope]

To add to what UKGuy said:

Maybe I'm not clear that I'm just guessing about a conspiracy, so if my guess were in part or totally correct, I still can't say who was involved and how it actually worked. It seems logical to me that someone, somewhere inside the case, conspired to quash any attempt at subpoenas for the Ramsey phone records. That's so elementary in any criminal investigation into a murder, especially one in which the victim was found in the basement of her own home where her family are the only people known to be in the home at the time of the crime, it's not hard to make that leap of faith when the DA was the one openly blocking the subpoena, thereby obstructing the investigation.

It doesn't even matter what excuse Hunter had to do so, or that the Ramseys "voluntarily" gave limited access to very specific records a year later. If the case had gone to trial, there's no defense lawyer in the world that wouldn't be using the lack of a subpoena for the phone records in defense of the defendants. "Sloppy police work" or "a vote of confidence in the defendants" or even decrying that it took a year to get the records through no fault of the Ramseys because LE was negligent and never got a subpoena, so opportunities were missed, etc. Yeah, defense lawyers work that way, and every DA knows it.

In fact, we've actually heard the Ramseys complain they didn't turn their clothes over for a year because LE didn't ask for them. I'm not making this up.

So what he did was completely irresponsible and unethical of Hunter, and how it happened will always be a puzzle. But for Thomas, we'd not even know of that collusion between Hunter and the prime suspects. Hunter doesn't hate Thomas for nothing.

For years it was argued by Team Ramsey that there was nothing to the fact that the cell phone that was described as lost by Patsy in '98 actually had no calls on the sole month Thomas was able to see at the cell phone company: Dec. 1996. The cell co. rep did answer Thomas' question: there were calls in the months before. But Thomas could not see those, nor have we ever heard that LE got access to records of that phone after the month of Dec., which could have had calls which would have been evidence something was fishy.

Was that cell phone even reported as lost and canceled by the Ramseys after they "lost it'? When? Before or after the murder?

Those are important questions in this murder investigation. They could make or break a case against the Ramseys or an intruder. What if the intruder had found the phone and used it? What if it was the intruder's ONE LINK to the Ramseys so long sought? How can any investigation not be questioned when such potentially important evidence is so obviously tampered with? And in breaking down investigative protocol to build "trust" with the prime suspects, Hunter also opened the door for the Ramseys to look even more suspect. So if there were nothing on those phone records from calls on Dec. 25/26th to implicate the Ramseys, he did them no favors.

This debate has gone on and on, like the case, with no resolution. IDIs say there's nothing to it; we're crazy to think anyone can simply erase a month of phone calls, who would be able to do that?

Who, indeed? I think we've seen enough evidence tampering in many other cases by now to know it certainly isn't rocket science and it's not only possible, it's easy to do. I actually had a complaint with my phone company back in the '90s, asking for the removal of some calls for which I was charged that I didn't make; I was told by the customer service rep he couldn't remove individual calls without clearing the entire month because that's how the software worked. (Instead he credited me with the cost of the calls.)

We knew so little about how things worked in 1996, but with cable TV and the Internet, we've learned. It is a fact that other criminal investigations in this country have had subpoenas for phone records quashed because the company did business with a defense contractor or the government. This includes crimes that had nothing at all to do with the business per se, but under the claim of "national security" the defendant's/suspect's lawyers were able to prevail.

So a conspiracy theory rears its head, and with questions unanswered, Lockheed Martin naturally gets a side-eye. To what extent, who was involved, and how that worked, if at all, we'll probably never know, but these are questions that beg for answers in a case so completely manipulated by the parents of the victim and their well paid, well connected allies for 15 years.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Ramseys did use that phone and did call for help: who did they call? Lawyer/friend/LM attorney Bynum, who came off the ski slopes to the Fernies' house shortly after the body was found that day? Did he call a powerful contact at LM, or maybe Hal Haddon's private number in the middle of the night? Did the Ramseys call Dr. Beuf? How about an old friend whose wife was Lt. Governor? How do I know? Maybe they called their hotline to Jesus.

And what did the Ramseys actually tell the "help"? Again, I can speculate they told the truth about what had happened or they lied through their teeth. What counsel were they given, if any? Unless someone came forward who was on that phone or who was privy to what was said in some privileged way, how can we know?

I certainly can't imagine anyone advising the Ramseys to strangle their daughter, though some child sex ring theorists might. Were they told to stage the scene as a kidnapping to confuse LE by staging the body to appear that way and writing a ransom note, thereby getting them out of the house when the body was found, into the protection of their lawyers quickly? No way to know that, either.

As for clothing fibers, the Ramseys lived there, so there is no way they could escape their fibers at the crime scene, but even if they were advised to stage a kidnapping, would anyone tell them to get out a magnifying glass to try to remove their clothing fibers? They had a ticking clock, remember: airport at 6 am, meet the big kids at 11 am....

I think you're confusing conspiratorial "help" at some stage of the crime or investigation with "helped them stage a crime scene in the home." But as I said, all we can do is speculate, guess, theorize...it's all shooting in the dark.

What we do know is that Thomas wrote in his book that Hunter refused to get a subpoena for the Ramsey's phone records; that a year later the Ramsey lawyers got around to "allowing" the BPD to see limited phone records, one cell phone of which had no calls on it for the entire month of Dec. 1996, though there were calls on it up to that month; and that in 1998 Patsy told LE a long, rambling, BS story about what happened to it.

So as I said, a conspiracy theory here is nothing but guesswork.

But anyone who doesn't find these circumstances troubling in the 15 year old unsolved murder of a child doesn't understand how wrong so much in this case has gone because of just this kind of legal hanky panky. It's why every State Bar requires lawyers to avoid the "appearance of impropriety." Clearly that was ignored by Hunter and Lacy.

And these are just my thoughts and opinions, nothfing more. I don't expect anyone to agree. Just brainstorming here.

I don't have any trouble believing a conspiracy theory, I just doubt it involved people higher up than the DA. I'd expect higher ups to do a better job. We actually have quite a bit of evidence, and one has to wonder why it came to light if there was a conspiracy.

Of course a conspiracy does not have to attempt to hide/destroy all evidence. It just needs to derail prosecution.

If I had to speculate on who they called, I'd say a lawyer. The one you mention form LM, or maybe LW. As you point out, they may not have told their adviser many details.

The problem with the RN being written in order to bring in the FBI (national security/kidnapping) is that the first responders would have been Boulder PD, and if they'd been halfway competent at searching, it would no longer have been a kidnapping by the time the FBI got there. Of course the national security issue would still remain. If the FBI were involved in a conspiracy one might expect they'd have stayed on the scene. The FBI's CASKU unit seemed pretty sure it was the parents.

It appears to me that a prosecutor with some intestinal fortitude could have at least got an indictment, if not a conviction. It seems to me that Hunter did more to derail the case than anyone, so I'm not sure conspiracy theories need to go any higher up than that.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't have any trouble believing a conspiracy theory, I just doubt it involved people higher up than the DA. I'd expect higher ups to do a better job. We actually have quite a bit of evidence, and one has to wonder why it came to light if there was a conspiracy.

Of course a conspiracy does not have to attempt to hide/destroy all evidence. It just needs to derail prosecution.

If I had to speculate on who they called, I'd say a lawyer. The one you mention form LM, or maybe LW. As you point out, they may not have told their adviser many details.

The problem with the RN being written in order to bring in the FBI (national security/kidnapping) is that the first responders would have been Boulder PD, and if they'd been halfway competent at searching, it would no longer have been a kidnapping by the time the FBI got there. Of course the national security issue would still remain. If the FBI were involved in a conspiracy one might expect they'd have stayed on the scene. The FBI's CASKU unit seemed pretty sure it was the parents.

It appears to me that a prosecutor with some intestinal fortitude could have at least got an indictment, if not a conviction. It seems to me that Hunter did more to derail the case than anyone, so I'm not sure conspiracy theories need to go any higher up than that.

Chrishope,

It appears to me that a prosecutor with some intestinal fortitude could have at least got an indictment, if not a conviction. It seems to me that Hunter did more to derail the case than anyone, so I'm not sure conspiracy theories need to go any higher up than that.

In terms of strict functionality, possibly not, but the people involved are politically important, any fallout might have repercussions for those higher in the political food chain, so they nearly always get to veto any Get Out Of Jail setup.

If there was a conspiracy then Hunter would always find some way to derail any prosecution, simply because his orders were coming from above, and those orchestrating events would always be siloed off from public view. This is how power operates!

Claims of incompetence, ignorance, absence of moral strength etc, are nearly always invoked in cases where a conspiracy is involved, simply to sidestep any inquiry into conspiracy issues.

.