If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[CloudedTruth]

And the neighbor saw flickering lights coming from the kitchen area that night. Wonder if those legos in the wine cellar were part of the toy(s)?

Yes. As if coming from someone walking around with a flashlight. Als IIRC, the neighbor(s) also said there was a light on that was not normally on, and lights off that were normally on....or something to that effect. JR also said at some point that he used a flashlight to put BR to bed, which makes zero sense to me.

 

[CloudedTruth]

You are correct. I don’t know what I was thinking? I also have one. You turn the head of it too turn on/off, dim/brighten; therefore prints would have been left behind (as well as the battery chamber). JR’s print’s aren’t reported anywhere. Not even on the rn pad he handed to police. But he did find JB … rushed directly to her. Tried to fly out of state immediately before leaving the house with JB left behind on the floor underneath the Christmas tree. She sat alone until 8:30 that night. He also directed PP to get his golf clubs and BR’s airplane hanging by the cord looked exact to the one used in the crime? This took place on the 28th.

Yes, even the discovery of the body raises questions. The fact that JR went straight to the wine cellar. The fact that he said he opened the door and immediately saw the blanket and knew that he had found her, even before turning on the light. LE performed tests and reported that even with the door open they could not see anything without the light being turned on, the wine cellar had no windows. JR was not the first one to open the wine cellar door, Fleet White was and he reported that he did not / could not see anything. JR was / is known to have poor eyesight, how could he see what no one else could?

And wanting to high tail it out of Boulder literally within minutes of finding JBR's body. That is just nuts and highly suspicious. The mere fact that they left at all and so quickly after the body was found raises red flags for me. I do understand that everyone reacts to tragic events differently, but all the actions of the R's that day were just eyebrow raising, as were so much of what they did in the days and months following. The need for the golf clubs, why? And BR's airplane with the cord hanging from it is certainly an odd coincidence.

 

[proust20]

The Rs timeline would not allow for JonBeney eating the pineapple. The significance of the pineapple did not arise until the autopsy. Patsy had to deny serving it because of her previously stated timeline, even though her fingerprints were on the bowl. Later, Burke refused to identify the bowl's contents to the psychologist. Surely, his stubborness indicates coaching. But, the parents could not control his body language in the interview.

In keeping with this trend, the Rs initially denied that the MagLite was theirs. Of course, both the bowl and flashlight were on display when BPD arrived. If either were involved in the crime would they have been left out? This is where I depart from the BDI theory of his sudden homicidal rage over pineapple snatching. If this were the case, BR would have to have explained the bashing incident to his parents, and they would have removed the two items. (After all, they were adept at making evidence disappear.) I think that his refusal to recognize the contents of the bowl was to maintain the timeline, which much later he would upend. Although, the lack of fingerprints on the MagLite does seem incriminating. On the other hand, no blood nor tissue was found on it.

Perhaps, John was getting anxious or annoyed that the body had not been discovered. By jumping the gun, he destroyed the scene in the WC. Since so much effort was put into staging the scene there (e.g. white blanket), I've always found it odd that it was demolished before anyone could view the final results. In the end, it did not really matter to the crime's evidence. For instance, JR removed the duct tape; but did that change anything?

John's behavior on the 26th was most peculiar. He handed over the notepad. He claimed to have broken the basement window during the summer as the result of an implausible tale. He left the house for about an hour to see if any mail had been delivered - on Christmas! He said that he saw a strange van by the house, but he did not report it. He stayed in another room while an hysterical Patsy was being comforted by the invitees. Like Patsy, he had no reaction when the 10am 'ransom call' was not placed. And glaringly, he sought an out of state flight. (With or without Patsy and Burke?)

 

[T rex]

Yes. As if coming from someone walking around with a flashlight. Als IIRC, the neighbor(s) also said there was a light on that was not normally on, and lights off that were normally on....or something to that effect. JR also said at some point that he used a flashlight to put BR to bed, which makes zero sense to me.

I always thought that BR was put to bed with the flashlight in order to set the mood. If he was to be convinced that JB's death was caused by an intruder after he was put to bed and not as a result of something that he had done or witnessed then he needed to be spooked a little.

 

[proust20]

As for the poems - Arguments based on Art are inherently weak.

 

[fridaybaker]

Yes. As if coming from someone walking around with a flashlight. Als IIRC, the neighbor(s) also said there was a light on that was not normally on, and lights off that were normally on....or something to that effect. JR also said at some point that he used a flashlight to put BR to bed, which makes zero sense to me.

You don't put your children to bed with a flashlight? It's so logical, though....

 

[fridaybaker]

Yes, even the discovery of the body raises questions. The fact that JR went straight to the wine cellar. The fact that he said he opened the door and immediately saw the blanket and knew that he had found her, even before turning on the light. LE performed tests and reported that even with the door open they could not see anything without the light being turned on, the wine cellar had no windows. JR was not the first one to open the wine cellar door, Fleet White was and he reported that he did not / could not see anything. JR was / is known to have poor eyesight, how could he see what no one else could?

And wanting to high tail it out of Boulder literally within minutes of finding JBR's body. That is just nuts and highly suspicious. The mere fact that they left at all and so quickly after the body was found raises red flags for me. I do understand that everyone reacts to tragic events differently, but all the actions of the R's that day were just eyebrow raising, as were so much of what they did in the days and months following. The need for the golf clubs, why? And BR's airplane with the cord hanging from it is certainly an odd coincidence.

Excellent post. Everything here is common sense. The line "I do understand that everyone reacts to tragic events differently" is such a red herring used so often. I always go back to the Australian woman who was camping and was blamed for the murder of her baby, when it turns out that a dingo took it. She didn't show much emotion. However, that was the only thing that was odd. Every other piece of "evidence" was used to support that, and get a murder conviction, such as red paint inside her vehicle assumed by investigators to be blood.

Here, though, there is nothing like that. The behavoir of JR isn't just unusual, such as showing little emotion. He does everything that is odd and suspicious. High tailing it out of Boulder immediately after finding his child's body? That is off the charts. Not even comparable to people "reacting to tragic events differently". Sort of like O.J. Simpson: He swore that he wouldn't stop hunting until he found Nicole's killer. And he did: He hunted for her killer on every golf course in America. You can't chalk that up to "reacting differently".

 

[CloudedTruth]

Excellent post. Everything here is common sense. The line "I do understand that everyone reacts to tragic events differently" is such a red herring used so often. I always go back to the Australian woman who was camping and was blamed for the murder of her baby, when it turns out that a dingo took it. She didn't show much emotion. However, that was the only thing that was odd. Every other piece of "evidence" was used to support that, and get a murder conviction, such as red paint inside her vehicle assumed by investigators to be blood.

Here, though, there is nothing like that. The behavoir of JR isn't just unusual, such as showing little emotion. He does everything that is odd and suspicious. High tailing it out of Boulder immediately after finding his child's body? That is off the charts. Not even comparable to people "reacting to tragic events differently". Sort of like O.J. Simpson: He swore that he wouldn't stop hunting until he found Nicole's killer. And he did: He hunted for her killer on every golf course in America. You can't chalk that up to "reacting differently".

Oh, I totally agree regarding reacting differently, and yet there are many who still insist upon using that to excuse what many of us recognize as "unusual" or suspicious behavior. Let's add Scott Peterson to the list along with O.J. But as noted, Lindy Chamberlain was wrongly convicted partially because her supposed lack of emotion led to people assuming she was lying and therefore guilty, and the media storm that surrounded the incident and Lindy & her husband didn't help matters. Add to that suspicions about their religion and whether or not a dingo could be responsible, as they were not characterized as potentially dangerous animals at the time. And with the Ramsey case, many people simply have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that a parent or parents could do to their own child what was done to JBR, despite statistics to the contrary. The perception of the R's was a positive one in many areas, ie church going, well known in the community, successful business owner, inclusion in certain "best" circles of local society, on the surface a seemingly idyllic life, etc. Impressions that people form play a role in perceptions of most cases. The facts and evidence should always be the most important factors, but you cannot ignore the behavioral signals.

 

[fridaybaker]

I simply can't understand why people have a hard time "wrapping their heads around the fact that a parent or parents could do to their own child what was done to JBR". You use the term "statistics", but to put it a bit differently: We read/hear about people every day who do that and more.

What is frustrating to me is that people are so, incredibly, shallow, that they take everything at face value: The Ramseys....what? Dress well? Have money? Go to church? Are good at business? Have friends the same?

I look at the Ramseys, and sans any knowledge of JBR being murdered, I see nothing but shallowness, topped off by an alarming lack of concern for the safety of their children, but even moreso by a shocking willingness to destroy them, at least JBR. How does a "mother", or whatever passes for one, dress up her precious, innocent child as a tart, overtly sexualizing her? Teaching her to show herself -her body- off to strangers?

These same parents to two children open their home to complete strangers to show it off. (Christmas tours.) Wow. Talk about inviting predators into your home.

How does one consider these to be good people? It boggles my mind. I see Patsy, especially, as an utter narcissist, who would likely sell her child to the highest bidder and, frankly, am not entirely sure that that isn't exactly what happened here. She certainly wasn't about protecting innocence. Keeping her safe. Teaching her character rather than teaching her to be obsessed with her looks, etc. I see JBR and I see child abuse all over the place. By her own parents.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I simply can't understand why people have a hard time "wrapping their heads around the fact that a parent or parents could do to their own child what was done to JBR". You use the term "statistics", but to put it a bit differently: We read/hear about people every day who do that and more.

What is frustrating to me is that people are so, incredibly, shallow, that they take everything at face value: The Ramseys....what? Dress well? Have money? Go to church? Are good at business? Have friends the same?

I look at the Ramseys, and sans any knowledge of JBR being murdered, I see nothing but shallowness, topped off by an alarming lack of concern for the safety of their children, but even moreso by a shocking willingness to destroy them, at least JBR. How does a "mother", or whatever passes for one, dress up her precious, innocent child as a tart, overtly sexualizing her? Teaching her to show herself -her body- off to strangers?

These same parents to two children open their home to complete strangers to show it off. (Christmas tours.) Wow. Talk about inviting predators into your home.

How does one consider these to be good people? It boggles my mind. I see Patsy, especially, as an utter narcissist, who would likely sell her child to the highest bidder and, frankly, am not entirely sure that that isn't exactly what happened here. She certainly wasn't about protecting innocence. Keeping her safe. Teaching her character rather than teaching her to be obsessed with her looks, etc. I see JBR and I see child abuse all over the place. By her own parents.

Agree 100%. I can understand it perhaps at first look, but as time has gone on and we know what we now know about this very imperfect and dysfunctional family, the signs were and still are very clear. They were obsessed with appearances and their perceived place of loftiness in society. And for people who continue to say how much they loved their children, a closer look reveals that there definitely was a lack of concern for the actual well being of those children. They were treated more like show pieces. Is it any wonder the GJ voted to indict both parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime?

 

[fridaybaker]

Agree 100%. I can understand it perhaps at first look, but as time has gone on and we know what we now know about this very imperfect and dysfunctional family, the signs were and still are very clear. They were obsessed with appearances and their perceived place of loftiness in society. And for people who continue to say how much they loved their children, a closer look reveals that there definitely was a lack of concern for the actual well being of those children. They were treated more like show pieces. Is it any wonder the GJ voted to indict both parents on charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime?

CloudedTruth,
I think this case boils down to a lack of political will within the DA's office to pursue prosecution. Very sad, but I do believe the root of the problem is something akin to that. Shocking to me that GJ recommendation wasn't followed.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

Sort of like O.J. Simpson: He swore that he wouldn't stop hunting until he found Nicole's killer. And he did: He hunted for her killer on every golf course in America.

Snipped by me. It has been a long day for me and I am exhausted. I agree with what you and @CloudedTruth are saying. I am too tired to add to it at the moment, but thank you so much for the snicker I got from this snippet.

 

[CloudedTruth]

CloudedTruth,
I think this case boils down to a lack of political will within the DA's office to pursue prosecution. Very sad, but I do believe the root of the problem is something akin to that. Shocking to me that GJ recommendation wasn't followed.

I agree. The conduct of the DA and his office do point to that. And when you dive into all the players on Team R the powerful connections are hard to overlook. Connect the dots.

What we know from what little has been revealed by at least one juror, is that they did not buy the intruder theory, everything points to a family member. It was said by a juror that they hoped the prosecution could make clear who exactly among the family present in the house that night was the culprit. That was the big question......with all the non-cooperation, the constantly changing stories, the deliberate contamination of the crime scene, hidden or destroyed evidence and the infamous RN itself, the R's managed to muddy the waters enough so that it was unclear exactly who was responsible for killing JBR. DA Alex Hunter had a reputation as a prosecutor who did not like to prosecute. I do think he used the probability of not having a slam dunk case against one culprit as his excuse to not prosecute, but I also firmly believe there was a chorus of powerful entities involved discouraging any prosecution of the R's as well. That said, I think the GJ crafted the charges in such a way that reveals they found ample evidence to point to both parents as being responsible for allowing JBR to be exposed to dangerous circumstances that resulted in her death. Perhaps prosecution would not have nailed down precisely the who, but might have resulted in some accountability for allowing their daughter to be put at risks enough to have caused her death.

 

[TizerisT]

meanwhile, Micheal Vail revealed that Gary Oliva used to stand in the Ramsey alley drinking alchohol, spying.
But you lot are still talking about maybe Burke did it, in the year 2024.
Wake up, for the love of god.
I'll quote the title of this thread:

If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!​

I challenge anyone here to disregard Vail when he says he received a phonecall (on record, lets not forget!!) from Oliva, sobbing, saying that he had hurt a little girl mere hours before the murder was made public.

 

[fridaybaker]

Well, he also said that "half her head was bashed in". I just don't give any creedence to the Gary Oliva theory. (And I think the Ramsey's don't, either.)

The only evidence comes from his confession and the classmate, but a lot of people confess to a lot of crimes, particularly famous and notorious, attention-grabbing ones. Then, there's the guy who says Gary Oliva did it, and had previously made a habit of stealing....art supplies (and had an obssession with knots.) The guy was a classmate at some point with Oliva. One would think that others in that class might come forward to corroborate this but, as far as I know, nada.

The Gary Oliva aspect just doesn't wash, in my book. My books says, 100%: RDI.

 

[fridaybaker]

If it's true that Gary Oliva did confess to Michael Vail hours before the information of her murder was made public (and I rather doubt it) my bet would be on him confessing about a different "little girl". He's a creep in the first, second, and third degree.

 

[TizerisT]

I just don't give any creedence to the Gary Oliva theory. (And I think the Ramsey's don't, either.)

Jon Ramsey has said otherwise, on multiple occasions​

 

[TizerisT]

a different "little girl"

This particular little girl lived 13 doors away from where he was staying at the time. It would be a bit of a reach for another little girl to have been harmed, on the exact same day that he said in the phonecall, in the same area. What other little girl got harmed on that day, in the same area? Serious question. A very big reach for it to be a seperate girl. Bordering on impossible.
It was JB, the same girl.

 

[T rex]

meanwhile, Micheal Vail revealed that Gary Oliva used to stand in the Ramsey alley drinking alchohol, spying.
But you lot are still talking about maybe Burke did it, in the year 2024.
Wake up, for the love of god.
I'll quote the title of this thread:

If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!​

I challenge anyone here to disregard Vail when he says he received a phonecall (on record, lets not forget!!) from Oliva, sobbing, saying that he had hurt a little girl mere hours before the murder was made public.

Ain't no drunk wrote that ransom note.
And ain't nobody protecting Oliva. If he had done it then he would have went down for it but it's the R's that people have been protecting all these years.
Yes it's 2024 and JR still hasn't been charged for the crimes he was indicted for.

You challenge me to disregard Vail?
Well that's a easy one, I already disregarded Vail.

 

[TizerisT]

Ain't no drunk wrote that ransom note.

Based on what? The fine elegant handwriting? Do me a favour.

If he had done it then he would have went down for it

Well clearly somebody did it and didnt go down for it, so that scratches that one out.

You challenge me to disregard Vail?
Well that's a easy one, I already disregarded Vail.

Again, based on what? He clearly knows more about this than you.