For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[aRnd2it]

I too was not aware of the tupperware claim. Did they find empty tupperware in the sink or in her room?? I had always assumed the bowl on the table was a regular bowl, not tupperware. If there was tupperware involved wouldn't JB just take the top off and use the tupperware bowl to eat out of. Rather then transfer the pineapple to another bowl??

Smit's tupperware claim is a joke. There is a tupperware bowl on the floor of her bedroom. It's located very close to the potholder weaving loom and all the cloth bands needed to make the potholders that are strewn on the floor.

A reasonable mind would conclude that the tupperware bowl was where the loom and cloth bands were kept when she wasn't playing with them. Smit however, wants to use the tupperware bowl to explain the pineapple by saying the killer brought some of it upstairs to feed to her before killing her. (Yeah-right...like killers do that, and victims are happy to eat with strangers...)

It's a lame attempt by Smit to explain the pineapple evidence that kills his intruder theory.

 

[angelnsb]

Smit's tupperware claim is a joke. There is a tupperware bowl on the floor of her bedroom. It's located very close to the potholder weaving loom and all the cloth bands needed to make the potholders that are strewn on the floor.

A reasonable mind would conclude that the tupperware bowl was where the loom and cloth bands were kept when she wasn't playing with them. Smit however, wants to use the tupperware bowl to explain the pineapple by saying the killer brought some of it upstairs to feed to her before killing her. (Yeah-right...like killers do that, and victims are happy to eat with strangers...)

It's a lame attempt by Smit to explain the pineapple evidence that kills his intruder theory.

Thanks for the info. I do agree with you. That is a rather lame attempt.

 

[sissi]

Jayelles, I was having that conversation with you concerning editing and lies, and no where did either of us suggest there was anything edited in the transcripts. I do HOWEVER suggest the NE's rendition of the Ramsey interviews were, and anyone who would like to argue differently ,I am open to hear their opinion.

This is my opinion on the 911 tape, and it stands, as no argument has ever been offered that can sway my thinking.
911 tapes are reused, usually ,depending on the community standards either after 30 days or after 90. Some companies such as panasonic rely heavily on the fact that they can be reused up 20x as a marketing tool.
This is perfectly fine, the tapes pick up the conversations necessary for recording , necessary to be presented in a court of law, (just had two myself used in January), however, put these to an enhancement test, using high quality technology and you WILL pick up the debris left behind from other calls, they are erased suitably for reuse but they are not up to the intense scrutiny of an enhancement. Clearly IMO there is noise, and this noise is nothing more than debris left over from previous 911 calls .
IMO the FBI found nothing, because they KNEW how deeply to test, and that further enhancement would pick up the "old debris" which would be useless in a courtroom.

 

[aRnd2it]

Steve Thomas has publically stated that he stands behind everything written in his book as being true, and not ONE SINGLE person connected with the case has confronted him otherwise.

So your efforts to downgrade what Thomas has to say are a futile effort. Claims that he refused to defend himself in court--so he is discredited, are only the folly of a fool.

The fact that the two labs who found the third voice on the tape and disagree to what is being said doesn't mean a thing. Ten people can listen to the lyrics of a song and all hear different words. The fact is, there is a THIRD PERSON in the room. So if it's not Burke, it's the Ramseys having breakfast with your beloved intruder. Either way, THEY LIED.

 

[aRnd2it]

911 tapes are reused

So where are your "re-used voices" on the rest of the tape, sissi? Funny how they only appear on the portion of the tape where Patsy doesn't properly disconnect the phone call.

I think it's pretty foolish to even consider that one of the first things LE didn't do was check to see if the tape was new or used. And I think you would have to be equally foolish to assume that AeroSpace Corp. wouldn't have asked that as their first question.

 

[sissi]

So where are your "re-used voices" on the rest of the tape, sissi? Funny how they only appear on the portion of the tape where Patsy doesn't properly disconnect the phone call.

I think it's pretty foolish to even consider that one of the first things LE didn't do was check to see if the tape was new or used. And I think you would have to be equally foolish to assume that AeroSpace Corp. wouldn't have asked that as their first question.

Foolish?
You really are giving these people too much credit.
I would suggest that if other areas of the tape are enhanced they will find the same "debris".

 

[aRnd2it]

You really are giving these people too much credit.
I would suggest that if other areas of the tape are enhanced they will find the same "debris".

Yeah...too much credit to a group of professional audio engineers--at TWO different labs.
Oh, and you know they didn't enhance the whole tape now?

You grab at any straw to keep from just admitting the Ramseys are liars. If Burke isn't on the 911 tape, then why did Keenan release copies of the tape with seconds blanked out towards the end of the tape? Just what do you think it was that Keenan didn't want you to hear, sissi? Why was Burkes' lawyer given a copy of the 911 tape before his Grand jury testimony?

 

[sissi]

I can't tell you what to believe, Arnd2it, I can only tell you what I believe.

 

[Britt]

Can't you see how pointless this lie was and how it made their situation more complicated and risky rather than less?

Nope. It's a whole lot easier to keep ONE lie straight - "I know nothing; I was asleep," repeated by each of the remaining family members - than to try to juggle a series of lies among the three people, one of them a kid. Obviously, it's easier and less risky to get Burke to stick to that one statement than it would be for him to handle a bunch of lies based on the inevitable police questions if the family admitted being up.

As it was, Burke did say JB was awake and walked up the stairs behind Patsy when they got home, which proves the "sleep" lie, a lie which wouldn't have been necessary unless the family had something to hide about what happened after they came home and they didn't want the police asking about that time frame.

Also, the sleep lie was invented after the fact because the initial Ramsey statements were that John read to both kids before tucking them in. Unless he read to them while they were sound asleep, that also proves the sleep lie. He changed his statement. Now why would an innocent person do that?

 

[sissi]

Nope. It's a whole lot easier to keep ONE lie straight - "I know nothing; I was asleep," repeated by each of the remaining family members - than to try to juggle a series of lies among the three people, one of them a kid. Obviously, it's easier and less risky to get Burke to stick to that one statement than it would be for him to handle a bunch of lies based on the inevitable police questions if the family admitted being up.

As it was, Burke did say JB was awake and walked up the stairs behind Patsy when they got home, which proves the "sleep" lie, a lie which wouldn't have been necessary unless the family had something to hide about what happened after they came home and they didn't want the police asking about that time frame.

Also, the sleep lie was invented after the fact because the initial Ramsey statements were that John read to both kids before tucking them in. Unless he read to them while they were sound asleep, that also proves the sleep lie. He changed his statement. Now why would an innocent person do that?

If any of this is true, it certainly is interesting. Can I find a source of this information, concerning Burke being awake, and John reading to the children? I'm not doubting, I just prefer to read and decide for myself.

 

[DocWatson]

Because Steve Thomas has publically stated that he stands behind everything written in his book as being true, and not ONE SINGLE person connected with the case has confronted him otherwise.

Not one single person? Last time I checked, Ramseys SUED Steve Thomas for his pack of lies and won the case! http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=23

Do YOU believe Steve Thomas's wacked-out theory?

 

[sissi]

It's an uh-oh so far in my search for the "burke was up" ..."john read"..so far the only source I can find is Steve, and you know I don't believe much of anything he says. It is difficult to believe a person who refuses to back up his own words.

 

[DocWatson]

Nope. It's a whole lot easier to keep ONE lie straight - "I know nothing; I was asleep," repeated by each of the remaining family members - than to try to juggle a series of lies among the three people, one of them a kid. Obviously, it's easier and less risky to get Burke to stick to that one statement than it would be for him to handle a bunch of lies based on the inevitable police questions if the family admitted being up.?

This fails even the most basic test of common sense. There's no fundamental difference in the degree of difficulty between a lie that starts at "JBR went to bed right after we all had a pineapple snack" and "JBR fell asleep in the car and went to bed." If YOUR theory was correct, if the Ramseys were coaching Burke to lie anyway, why not simplify matters altogether and say that EVERYBODY went immediately to bed? Why confuse matters with acknowledging that John and Burke stayed up putting together a model? Wouldn't that be inordinately complicated and risky?

As it was, Burke did say JB was awake and walked up the stairs behind Patsy when they got home, which proves the "sleep" lie, a lie which wouldn't have been necessary unless the family had something to hide about what happened after they came home and they didn't want the police asking about that time frame.

Please identify any official document that supports what you claim about Burke. Steve Thomas and NE do not count as credible sources.

Also, the sleep lie was invented after the fact because the initial Ramsey statements were that John read to both kids before tucking them in. Unless he read to them while they were sound asleep, that also proves the sleep lie. He changed his statement. Now why would an innocent person do that?

As per above, I am not aware of an official source containing this claim and until I see a credible source, am not inclined to accept its being true. In the Ramsey transcripts, for example, I see no effort by police to query John about this alleged inconsistency.

But even if it were true, it actually would be exculpatory rather than incriminating for 2 reasons. First, John shouldn't be expected to remember every last detail of the night in question: he may have been recalling a standard routine and only later remembered that because of their getting home later from dinner, that standard routine was interrupted.

Second, and more importantly, you have to get your story straight. You want us to believe that John and Patsy planned to lie from the get-go (apparently coaching Burke to stick with the simple "JBR was asleep when we got home" lie). But if so, wouldn't you expect the parents themselves to have carefully thought about the lies THEY were going to tell in order to keep the whole story coherent and non-contradictory? So John, CEO of a billion dollar company, apparently was relying heavily on his 9-year son to keep a simple story straight, but he himself was incapable of doing so? How credible is that?
It's not: it's INCREDIBLE, which is reason #126 why the RDI theory doesn't cut it as a credible theory of the crime.

 

[DocWatson]

It's an uh-oh so far in my search for the "burke was up" ..."john read"..so far the only source I can find is Steve, and you know I don't believe much of anything he says. It is difficult to believe a person who refuses to back up his own words.

Which is exactly why you are far too generous not to doubt these claims in the first place.

The only way to support an RDI theory is by relying on the weakest sources of evidence (favoring these over much stronger sources that contradict the claims), ignoring common sense, and ignoring inconvenient evidence (including but not restricted to the weight of the evidence rules out Patsy as RN writer; DNA matches no Ramseys; beaver hair and pubic hair are further sources of intruder evidence not pointing towards Ramseys etc.)

Don't hold your breathe waiting for a reliable source to back up the 2 claims you inquired about.

 

[Seeker]

A settlement is not necessarily a win.

I also noticed that not one word of the book has had to be rescinded. No addendums have had to be made to later publishings either.

Where exactly is the "win" for the Ramsey's? Since the settlement has not been disclosed it's not accurate to claim a "win" for the Ramsey's.

 

[Britt]

I also noticed that not one word of the book has had to be rescinded. No addendums have had to be made to later publishings either.

Yep, Seeker.

Ramsey-apologist logic begins with the assumption that Steve Thomas is a liar. How convenient for assertions of Ramsey innocence... lol. Now if they would/could only prove Thomas is a liar... or even that he had a motivation to lie that was bigger and more logical than the obvious motivation for John and Patsy to lie.

 

[DocWatson]

Steve Thomas says Patsy wrote the RN, yet the best hand-writing experts say the probability of her having written it is very low.

Steve Thomas says there are extraneous voices on the 911 tape, yet FBI, Secret Service, 2 audio labs and others who have subjected the tape to scientific analysis find no support for this. In the meantime, NO ONE at BPD or Aerospace Corporation has corraborated Steve Thomas's account.

Ramseys sue Steve Thomas and his publisher for libel and the case is "settled" meaning only that it didn't go to the point of a judge telling Steve what to cough up. Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that the Ramseys paid Steve to make this case go away? If the Ramseys lost this case and had to pay out big bucks, why in the world would they stick with the same attorney and let him keep filing cases they will surely lose? It makes NO COMMON SENSE. So you have to use a tiny smidgeon of common sense, read between the lines, and arrive at the only logical conclusion: Ramseys clearly won their case against Steve.

In short, Steve Thomas's considerable lack of credibility is based on FACTS, not an assumption.

Motivation? If a book publisher paid you money based on a theory of the case that would sell more books, mighty you do it if your lot in life is otherwise to work as a carpenter? How many books do you think Steve would have sold if his story was "gosh, there's all this conflicting evidence and we've had years to solve the case and BTW, BPD screwed up in terms of preserving evidence, and ya know what? We STILL don't know who did it?" According to RDI theorists, the Ramseys lied to protect their privileged life and that seems like a perfectly plausible explanation, but it's INCONCEIVABLE that a modestly paid cop might lie for the prospect of making millions.

 

[Seeker]

I take exception at your calling us all idiots because you want to believe the Ramsey's "won" anything. They didn't. Thomas didn't have to admit to doing anything wrong, nor did his book get pulled or edited for content.

Thomas was still talking after the case was settled, the Ramsey's weren't. In fact true to form they just "got on" with their lives and looked for their next victim to sue.

 

[Britt]

But if so, wouldn't you expect the parents themselves to have carefully thought about the lies THEY were going to tell in order to keep the whole story coherent and non-contradictory? So John, CEO of a billion dollar company, apparently was relying heavily on his 9-year son to keep a simple story straight, but he himself was incapable of doing so? How credible is that?

And how credible is it that panicked novice criminals in damage-control mode can come up with a perfect hole-free presentation on the spot? Time was not on their side that first morning, was it? Burke was there, and people were expecting them. They were winging it and doing the best they could.

But this question does bring up the clear possibility that the Ramseys were not in on it together cohesively from the get-go. Patsy could've done 95% of it, with John coming late to the meeting and not getting up to speed before the cops arrived. Patsy could've had phone in hand and 911 on the line without consulting the CEO first. Uh oh.

Anyway, John had no choice but to rely on Burke to keep a lie straight. Burke was there.

Clearly the Ramseys needed more time to get their BS all lined up... what to do what to do, hmmm... epiphany!: how about avoid the cops for four months? Yes, that worked pretty well, didn't it? After four months, the Ramseys managed to nail down and simplify their lies... but unfortunately, there were still those pesky initial police statements... dammit, now what? I know, let's call the cops liars... yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Britt]

According to RDI theorists, the Ramseys lied to protect their privileged life and that seems like a perfectly plausible explanation, but it's INCONCEIVABLE that a modestly paid cop might lie for the prospect of making millions.

But which is more logical... that the Ramseys lied to save their lives, stay out of prison, hide the fact that they sexually abused and murdered their own child... or that a cop decided to destroy his career and risk lawsuit and ruin to make a few bucks which, once he got sued, would be gone anyway? Which is the bigger motivation here? Duh.

Besides, if Ramseyists insist Thomas is a liar and made chit up out of nothing just to persecute the poor Ramseys, then PROVE IT. Your speculation isn't even logical, much less based on anything concrete.