Evil people - and things that don't fit

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
aussiesheila said:
BlueCrab how much of this is fact and how much speculation? I'm not being rude I really would like to know if it is true that HH met with FW in his office.


aussiesheila,

I'm wrong about the attorney. I was winging it by memory. It was Mike Bynum who had called Fleet White into his office.

EDITED to add: This is not exactly what I was looking for, but here's a little bit of what was going on with the attorneys early on. From Steve Thomas' book:

"Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, 'No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26'. You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.

"The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenet was found at 1:05 PM, and John left the house at about 2:30 PM. Now White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!"

BlueCrab
 
A cell phone was used the morning of the 26th...a call was placed by Linda Arndt to the BPD....but who's cell phone did she use?

The Whites, Fernies and the Reverand were there that morning...perhaps one of their cell phones were used.
 
A hacker could alter a phone bill. Look at the case of superhacker Kevin Mitnick - he altered phone bills and bank accounts amongst other many other things.

I know a couple of hackers. You couldn't meet nicer blokes and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't dream of doing anything malicious but it's absolutely amazing what they can do. I asked them if they could get into my Hotmail account and they just laughed and said this wasn't much of a challenge. One of them was hired by a computer company to work on their network security.
 
Quote Rainsong:
My understanding is the cell phone was lost. If anyone finds that wierd, I spoke to a woman today who 'lost' her cell phone--and killed it (her words) when it fell into her coffee cup. She didn't realize what had happened until she drank half the cup. The woman told me she went approximately a month before replacing it because of her work schedule.

I don't find that story weird ... I find it ridiculous.
 
BlueCrab said:
aussiesheila,

I'm wrong about the attorney. I was winging it by memory. It was Mike Bynum who had called Fleet White into his office.

EDITED to add: This is not exactly what I was looking for, but here's a little bit of what was going on with the attorneys early on. From Steve Thomas' book:

"Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, 'No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26'. You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.

"The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenet was found at 1:05 PM, and John left the house at about 2:30 PM. Now White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!"

BlueCrab
thanks BlueCrab. Because I don't trust FW I just can't accept anything he says as being automatically true. As you say you were winging it by memory so maybe you need more time to find validation for Mike Bynam calling FW to his office.
 
capps said:
Quote Rainsong:
My understanding is the cell phone was lost. If anyone finds that wierd, I spoke to a woman today who 'lost' her cell phone--and killed it (her words) when it fell into her coffee cup. She didn't realize what had happened until she drank half the cup. The woman told me she went approximately a month before replacing it because of her work schedule.

I don't find that story weird ... I find it ridiculous.

Yep, so did I. I got the distinct impression the woman was an airhead.

Rainsong
 
Ned,

MOST of the evidence points to Burke Ramsey being directly involved somehow in the murder of JonBenet. I'll list a few of the reasons for you:

1. Burke, by the process of elimination, is the only Ramsey in the house who could have committed the crime. One of the three Ramseys left alive had to have been involved and John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor. Burke does not.

2. Burke conspiratorily lied (with his parents) to the police to try to distance himself from the crime when he said he was asleep in bed when the 911 call was placed by Patsy at 5:52 A.M. The enhanced 911 tape proved he was up at that time and had been engaged in conversation with his parents. This important lie impeaches everything else the Ramseys claim took place that morning.

3. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet had snacked from about two hours before she died. This puts Burke secretly downstairs with JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed.

4. A glass with a used tea bag in it was found next to the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table. Burke was the resident tea drinker. JonBenet didn't like tea. The bowl of pineapple and the glass of tea were at JonBenet's and Burke's respective and usual seats at the table.

5. The Ramseys originally denied any of them owned Hi-Tec footwear, but the police finally determined it was Burke's Hi-Tec bootprint that was found in the mold on the floor next to JonBenet's body.

6. Burke is the only likely person who could have inflicted the acute and the chronic "digital-size" injuries at the same 7 o'clock position in JonBenet's vagina on different days of the week. Only a family member could have likely had access to JonBenet on a day-to-day basis.

7. Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the possible writer of the ransom note.

8. Burke was never excluded as the contributor of the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

9. No one of authority, including Chief Beckner and D.A. Keenan, will declare that Burke Ramsey has been cleared in the death of JonBenet.

JMO

Absolutely! one cant deny these evidence incriminating Burke's involvement, may it be circumstantial or not. No wonder why the Ramsey's team desperately and successfully did everything to distance Burke from being implicated. and why still now his medical records cant be accessed.
 
dcountmontecristo, only number 8 of BlueCrab's list is factual.

Swirlz,
2. Burke conspiratorily lied (with his parents) to the police to try to distance himself from the crime when he said he was asleep in bed when the 911 call was placed by Patsy at 5:52 A.M.

THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER
April 3, 2001

RAMSEYS CHANGE THEIR STORY ABOUT MURDER NIGHT

By David Wright & Don Gentile

John and Patsy Ramsey have changed the story they told cops about their daughter JonBenet's murder -- they now admit their son Burke was awake during that Christmas 1996 nightmare!

...

3. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet had snacked from about two hours before she died.
Correct and his fingerprints were also lifted from the teaglass with the teabag located close to the bowl of pineapple.

5. The Ramseys originally denied any of them owned Hi-Tec footwear
Atlanta 2000 Interview of Patsy, Excerpt
15 1998, Ms. Ramsey, have you given any thought

16 as to whether someone in your family had

17 Hi-Tec shoes?

18 MR. LEVIN: That is correct.

19 That is the question.

20 MR. WOOD: All right. You can

21 answer that question.

22 THE WITNESS: No.

23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in

24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your

25 investigator, identify sources close to your

0122

1 family that might be the origin of the

2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?

3 A. I think, you know, I may have

4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I

5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec

6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to

7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around

8 trying to see what, what's the significance

9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I

10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I

11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody

12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,

13 boots, or whatever.

14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,

15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased

16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on

17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to

18 remember --

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. Maybe this will help your

21 recollection. They were shoes that were

22 purchased while he was shopping with you in

23 Atlanta.

24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

25 as a fact?

0123

1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as

2 a fact.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help

4 refresh your recollection as to whether he

5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on

6 them?

7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so

8 many shoes for him.

9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll

10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,

11 and maybe this will help refresh your

12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes

13 were special because they had a compass on

14 them, his only exposure for the most part to

15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind

16 of liked the idea of being able to point

17 them different directions. Do you remember

18 him doing that with the shoes?

19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I

20 remember he had a compass thing like a

21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.

22 Q. You don't remember him having

23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on

24 them?

25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that

0124

1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and

2 this will be the third time.

3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.

4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it

5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with

6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?

7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

8 as a fact?

9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating

10 that as a fact.

11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know

12 that.

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this

14 as a fact. There are two people who have

15 provided us with information, including your

16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the

17 murder of your daughter.

18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that

19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec

20 shoes?

21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase

23 Hi-Tec?

24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

25 MR. WOOD: When?

0125

1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give

2 you the source. I can tell you that I have

3 that information.

4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told

5 you.

6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to

7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,

8 you are aware.

9 MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear,

10 there is a difference between you saying that

11 somebody said Burke told them and Burke

12 telling you because Burke has been

13 interviewed by you all December of 1996,

14 January of 1997, June of 1998.

15 Are you saying that it is within

16 those interviews?

17 MR. LEVIN: No.

18 MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you,

19 he told somebody else you are stating as a

20 fact because I don't think you all have

21 talked to him other than those occasions,

22 have you?

23 MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't

24 want to get into grand jury information.

25 Okay?

0126

1 MR. WOOD: Okay.

2 MR. KANE: Fair enough?

3 MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should

4 have been more direct. I thought you would

5 understand --

Some of the other items are simply speculation. Not mentioned is Burke Ramsey's touch-dna being found on the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown left on the wine-cellar floor.

Patsy's loss of memory regarding the Hi-Tec shoes is another example of her covering for Burke, just as she did over Burke's longjohns and her niece's size-12's!

.
 
Swirlz,


THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER



Correct and his fingerprints were also lifted from the teaglass with the teabag located close to the bowl of pineapple.


Atlanta 2000 Interview of Patsy, Excerpt


Some of the other items are simply speculation. Not mentioned is Burke Ramsey's touch-dna being found on the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown left on the wine-cellar floor.

Patsy's loss of memory regarding the Hi-Tec shoes is another example of her covering for Burke, just as she did over Burke's longjohns and her niece's size-12's!

.

Thank you!
 
1. John and Patsy's fibers were found in direct association with certain specific elements of the crime.

2. If in fact, Burke's voice can be heard at the end of the 911 call, it is proof that Patsy lied. No transcript of Burke's police interviews has been made public. That the police questioned Burke about the 911 call is speculation.

3. The pineapple bowl could've been sitting on the kitchen table since before the R's left for the White's house. The prints could've gotten onto the bowl at any time.

4. Patsy drank tea. She was seen drinking tea during a police interview. In the pic of the glass on the table though, the liquid looks clear, like water. It looks like someone discarded a used tea bag by just sort of tossing it over the side of the glass IMO.

5. Burke owned a pair of high-tech boots. So did a lot of other people.

6. John was the only adult male who had ongoing access to JonBenet.

7. Patsy wrote the ransom note.

8. The DNA on clothing was touch DNA and could've transferred easily from one family member to another.

9. Chief Beckner has stated publicly that Burke is not a suspect.
 
IMO the authorities in Boulder have the proverbial tiger by the tail and can't let it go. The case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 but they can't let it be publicly known because it would violate the Colorado Childrens Code that protects the identities of children.

That's why nothing happens despite a so-called "investigation" taking place. Keenan doesn't even have the money for an active investigation. The investigation is all bun and no beef. The case was solved 5 years ago but no one of authority is allowed to tell the truth about what really happened because very young children were involved.

However, there is some evidence of a fifth person having been in the house that night, so the grand jury may have missed something -- there MAY have been a fifth person who had been invited into the house by Burke that night. And that fifth person could have been an adult who Burke is not telling ANYONE about.

JMO

? BC was right about the mystery being solved
 
BlueCrabNew Member
IMO the authorities in Boulder have the proverbial tiger by the tail and can't let it go. The case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 but they can't let it be publicly known because it would violate the Colorado Childrens Code that protects the identities of children.

That's why nothing happens despite a so-called "investigation" taking place. Keenan doesn't even have the money for an active investigation. The investigation is all bun and no beef. The case was solved 5 years ago but no one of authority is allowed to tell the truth about what really happened because very young children were involved.

However, there is some evidence of a fifth person having been in the house that night, so the grand jury may have missed something -- there MAY have been a fifth person who had been invited into the house by Burke that night. And that fifth person could have been an adult who Burke is not telling ANYONE about.

JMO


Quote is from June 19th, 2004. BC was right about it being solved in 99 and no one could talk... until the world found out years later the GJ did in fact return an indictment
 
Last edited:
IMO the authorities in Boulder have the proverbial tiger by the tail and can't let it go. The case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 but they can't let it be publicly known because it would violate the Colorado Childrens Code that protects the identities of children.

That's why nothing happens despite a so-called "investigation" taking place. Keenan doesn't even have the money for an active investigation. The investigation is all bun and no beef. The case was solved 5 years ago but no one of authority is allowed to tell the truth about what really happened because very young children were involved.

However, there is some evidence of a fifth person having been in the house that night, so the grand jury may have missed something -- there MAY have been a fifth person who had been invited into the house by Burke that night. And that fifth person could have been an adult who Burke is not telling ANYONE about.

JMO

? BC was right about the mystery being solved

There is a document stating John was indicted on assisting someone who committed first degree murder. There is a document stating Patsy was indicted on assisting someone who committed first degree murder. There is no document stating John and Patsy were indicted on assisting someone who committed first degree murder.

Counts IV-a and VII received the minimum number of nine votes.

Grand Juries & Indictments in Colorado Criminal Cases

There were also Counts I, II, III, IV, IV-b, V, and VI for John and for Patsy. We don't know what was in those charges. All we do know is that each of those counts received anywhere from 0-8 votes.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
210
Total visitors
284

Forum statistics

Threads
608,353
Messages
18,238,124
Members
234,350
Latest member
pto002studyguide
Back
Top