John Ramsey Fabricated Open Basement Window "Evidence"

[Userid]

The Grand Jury counts are interesting in that people seem to infer BDI from the charges, but it's important to place them in the context of when they were made. The Ramseys were preparing for Patsy to be indicted and the crux of LE's case centered around PDI. LHP said after she testified she felt certain they were looking at Patsy due to the direction the GJ investigation was taking. Most people working on the case at the time didn't consider Burke a suspect -- BDI was tabloid fodder at this juncture. I think there is something to the argument that the charges were written in a manner that left both parents open to being charged with her murder. The juror who spoke out on 20/20 under a condition of anonymity said they didn't know which person did what (just like the rest of us!). While it's possible the counts mean BDI it's also likely that the GJ felt one parent may have abused/killed her and the other knew about it and helped cover it up.

I think you've just become one of my favorite posters, because I agree with everything you've been saying, haha. But yes: they couldn't really prove which one was responsible for her actual murder and which one was responsible for the cover-up, so they left it "open-ended" so to speak. In addition (and I'll probably get my head ripped off for saying this), this may be the reason why the DA chose to not follow through on the charges: because the GJ couldn't narrow it down further.

 

[UKGuy]

You're just going to keep ignoring the fact that a count I exists, aren't you?

icedtea4me,
Patently the person received enough votes to be indicted for child abuse and murder one charges.

Patsy and JR never. Maybe the GJ got it all wrong and the case is PDI, yet they saw evidence we can only dream about.

.

 

[Gigitmdy]

Cottonstar,

When I heard John saying "We're not speaking to you" on the 911 tape, it resonated with me too. I'm sure it did for a lot of people. I think if the GJ were able to hear it, they would have to at least suspect Burke was at the center of this tragedy.

 

[Cottonstar]

Cottonstar,

When I heard John saying "We're not speaking to you" on the 911 tape, it resonated with me too. I'm sure it did for a lot of people. I think if the GJ were able to hear it, they would have to at least suspect Burke was at the center of this tragedy.

I believe they had to have heard it no doubt. When the Ramsey's got wind that Burke told the grand jury it sounded like his voice on the 911 tape, the Rams changed their story to say Burke was indeed awake during the 911 call.


cottonstar

 

[singularity]

It appeared as if the GJ did not think the case was either JDI or PDI, since there were no murder one indictments for the parents, so who does that leave?

.

As stated many times, we have not seen all the indictments.

If the case isn't JDI and.or PDI, kinda strange that all the indictments have their names on them.

Specifically that there were 18 pages submitted by the grand jury, 9 concerning each parent. But only 2 per parent, 4 total, were released/signed. So clearly no one but JR and PR was even considered.

Arthur Conan Doyle


Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.





That's why I think the case is BDI.

.

If using Doyle's logic, seems like you would be PDI since so much of the evidence points in her direction. Out of all the RDI scenarios, the least amount can be connected to Burke.

Doc's gaslighting is the 'god of the gaps' in his theory. Wherever there are huge logical holes in his theory he just inserts gaslighting. I did share his analysis of John's statements regarding the basement window because I do believe it to be a fantastic contribution to the overall study of the case.

His JDI theory doesn't pass the smell test. It hits a brick wall immediately since he says Patsy is innocent because in his mind she wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. Then of course there's the fact that he explains away every single thing pointing in Patsy's direction with gaslighting. He also acts like Patsy is some passive housewife afraid of her own shadow like Shelley Duvall in The Shining and there's less than nothing about Patsy or her personality that would insinuate she's that type.

Its bordering on comedy and that's why only about 5 people believe his theory.

JDI is possible of course but I'd like to see a JDI theory that's actually believable.

I do agree that he makes some valid points on the oddities surrounding that window.

 

[Dynamic88]

Dynamic88,

I reckon you are right and DocG has it all wrong. DocG's theory has far to many ad hoc assumptions, and the broken window along with Patsy's acceptance, i.e. in either instance, is unfeasible.

Another of DocG's ad hoc explanations is that JR and PR communicate via telepathy, and at every critical point, either JR or PR read the others mind and do or say the right thing?

Here is a counter-example: The original Ramsey version of events had the parents dialing 911 while BR slept soundly in his bed. The R's maintained this for a while until the 911 tape was released and people thought they heard BR's voice, then the R's changed their story and said BR was wide awake?

This means all three R's knew what was going on at that point in time. Next one or both parents directed BR to fake being asleep when law officers came into his room.

You can conclude JR and PR colluded along with BR to stage a postmortem crime-scene that included a 911 call.

So far from either PR or JR, depending on your favorite theory, not knowing anything, both parents knowingly contrived the 911 call scenario, along with making sure BR knew what his role was.

It appeared as if the GJ did not think the case was either JDI or PDI, since there were no murder one indictments for the parents, so who does that leave?

Arthur Conan Doyle


That's why I think the case is BDI.

.

Doc' s treaatment of Burke being awake is another weak spot in his case. He tries to deny the existence of the enhanced call by stating that it doesn't exist on the net, and the enhanced versions that do exist don't have Burke saying anything- just PR saying "help me Jesus" Then he insists that the words 4 witnesses came up with after hearing the enhanced tape were "cross talk" which I guess means some kind of background noise. If we recall the old children's game of telephone we can be pretty sure 4 people would have heard different things if their imaginations were making something out of background noise. JR and PR knew Burke was awake and lied about it. The fiction that Patsy was both innocent and ignorant can't be maintained.

JMO but BR could still be innocent. He may not have been colluding with his parents as much as just following their instructions. BDI must remain a possibility, but it has always struck me that the adults ran the risk of indictment/prosecution for JB's murder when they didn't need to do so. I've always wondered if they'd really run that risk to protect a 9 year old who couldn't be prosecuted. Even if they were under the impression, the night of the murder, that BR could be prosecuted, their lawyers certainly educated them within the next few days. I don't think the law would have gone hard on them for evidence tampering or obstructing justice, and it beats a murder rap.

 

[Dynamic88]

As stated many times, we have not seen all the indictments.

If the case isn't JDI and.or PDI, kinda strange that all the indictments have their names on them.

Specifically that there were 18 pages submitted by the grand jury, 9 concerning each parent. But only 2 per parent, 4 total, were released/signed. So clearly no one but JR and PR was even considered.



If using Doyle's logic, seems like you would be PDI since so much of the evidence points in her direction. Out of all the RDI scenarios, the least amount can be connected to Burke.

His JDI theory doesn't pass the smell test. It hits a brick wall immediately since he says Patsy is innocent because in his mind she wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. Then of course there's the fact that he explains away every single thing pointing in Patsy's direction with gaslighting. He also acts like Patsy is some passive housewife afraid of her own shadow like Shelley Duvall in The Shining and there's less than nothing about Patsy or her personality that would insinuate she's that type.

Its bordering on comedy and that's why only about 5 people believe his theory.

JDI is possible of course but I'd like to see a JDI theory that's actually believable.

I do agree that he makes some valid points on the oddities surrounding that window.

It does make a fair amount of sense that the two adult members of the household, working together, might not call 911 with the body in the basement and all but certain to be found. Doc's approach is logical, in that the ransom note makes little sense with the body present. IOWs how do we explain their failure to dispose of the body? Doc's reasoning, that Patsy must have called 911 in a state of ignorance makes a lot of sense, initially. It's just that it doesn't hold up when other evidence is considered.

Doc is also sensible to consider that if they chickened out about dumping the body then they'd have wanted to destroy the phony ransom note. What he fails to consider is that both PR and JR may have chickened out, and also may have reasoned that there was no need to destroy the ransom note. The natural inclination is to ask why the Rs would have left both a body and a ransom note in the house then called 911. That it makes no sense is exactly why they might have done it. Their defense is that it makes no sense and therefore they wouldn't have done it.

Let's be fair to Doc, he has a lot more than 5 people who believe his theory. I used to be a believer.

JDI is still possible, just not with PR being completely innocent and completely ignorant of who did it.

Finally, getting back to the window, those of us rejecting Doc's theory are left with the difficulty of explaining why JR/PR didn't go with the "intruder through the window" gambit. With the glass broken and laying on the floor they had what seems to me an excellent indicator of an intruder. Yet the glass got swept up (apparently) and JR tries to convince police it must have been an "inside" job (someone with a key) why would they do this? Doc's theory is that the window staging was incomplete and couldn't be completed until the next morning (or at least didn't need to be completed until next morning) but if we agree both JR and PR were in on the coverup (regardless of which RDI theory you go with) then there's no reason the staging would not have been completed prior to making the 911 call. So, why was the glass cleaned up rather than leaving it on the floor, completing the other elements of window staging, and letting the police come to the obvious conclusion that it was an inside job?

 

[1mtroyal]

I can't understand why the detective (Smitz)? who came down thru the window did not climb back up thru the window, using the suitcase to step on, and leaving a smudge mark with his foot where the smudge mark on the wall was. I assume he tried it first without the cameras and found out it didn't work. I think a professional detective would have included this in his investigation. Next, try going up thru the window with the suitcase full of a body.

 

[UKGuy]

It does make a fair amount of sense that the two adult members of the household, working together, might not call 911 with the body in the basement and all but certain to be found. Doc's approach is logical, in that the ransom note makes little sense with the body present. IOWs how do we explain their failure to dispose of the body? Doc's reasoning, that Patsy must have called 911 in a state of ignorance makes a lot of sense, initially. It's just that it doesn't hold up when other evidence is considered.

Doc is also sensible to consider that if they chickened out about dumping the body then they'd have wanted to destroy the phony ransom note. What he fails to consider is that both PR and JR may have chickened out, and also may have reasoned that there was no need to destroy the ransom note. The natural inclination is to ask why the Rs would have left both a body and a ransom note in the house then called 911. That it makes no sense is exactly why they might have done it. Their defense is that it makes no sense and therefore they wouldn't have done it.

Let's be fair to Doc, he has a lot more than 5 people who believe his theory. I used to be a believer.

JDI is still possible, just not with PR being completely innocent and completely ignorant of who did it.

Finally, getting back to the window, those of us rejecting Doc's theory are left with the difficulty of explaining why JR/PR didn't go with the "intruder through the window" gambit. With the glass broken and laying on the floor they had what seems to me an excellent indicator of an intruder. Yet the glass got swept up (apparently) and JR tries to convince police it must have been an "inside" job (someone with a key) why would they do this? Doc's theory is that the window staging was incomplete and couldn't be completed until the next morning (or at least didn't need to be completed until next morning) but if we agree both JR and PR were in on the coverup (regardless of which RDI theory you go with) then there's no reason the staging would not have been completed prior to making the 911 call. So, why was the glass cleaned up rather than leaving it on the floor, completing the other elements of window staging, and letting the police come to the obvious conclusion that it was an inside job?

Dynamic88,

Applying occam, the R's envisaged intruder entry or exit via the broken window? Probably exit, as a rationale for JonBenet being left in the wine-cellar.

At some point they realized intruder via the broken window would not fly, maybe it was the external grate, or the realization if the intruder makes it out the window minus JonBenet, well that's a red flag?

So they dropped the broken window scenario and fabricated the RN and wine-cellar crime-scene?

A successful intruder scenario would have JonBenet, dead or alive leaving the house !

 

[AlGx]

Did they ever find any fingerprints on the window/frame? And how would you explain the scruff mark on the wall?

I remember someone mentioning a bathroom in the basement where they apparently found a partial footprint on the toilet? :thinking:

 

[BoldBear]

Did they ever find any fingerprints on the window/frame? And how would you explain the scruff mark on the wall?

I remember someone mentioning a bathroom in the basement where they apparently found a partial footprint on the toilet? :thinking:

For the window, all of that fits John's description of using the window well for entry. There was a patch of scuffed fingerprints and a scuff mark from what appears to be a shoe on the wall.

The basement bathroom was dismissed as a point of entry. I read something about a print on that toilet too, but don't remember the exact details. Investigators went as far as to remove the toilet in the basement looking for clues. They searched outside the window and found some smudge marks.

This is how to do a search on acandyrose.com through google. It's a handy trick when looking for answers to questions you might have.

site:acandyrose.com jonbenet bathroom shoe print

For other searches just remove the "bathroom shoe print" and use other key words.

 

[Dynamic88]

Dynamic88,

Applying occam, the R's envisaged intruder entry or exit via the broken window? Probably exit, as a rationale for JonBenet being left in the wine-cellar.

At some point they realized intruder via the broken window would not fly, maybe it was the external grate, or the realization if the intruder makes it out the window minus JonBenet, well that's a red flag?

So they dropped the broken window scenario and fabricated the RN and wine-cellar crime-scene?

A successful intruder scenario would have JonBenet, dead or alive leaving the house !

If the window had been meant for an exit only there would be no reason to break the glass. With or w/o the window as an entry/exit, we have a dead body and a ransom note. Red flag indeed.

It's not clear, at least to me, why the window as entry point wouldn't fly. The grate was on a hinge. The spider web could have been knocked down. Other details that DocG insists are reasons for the police to reject the window as a real entry/exit could easily have been taken care of.

A successful kidnapping scenario would indeed have the body out of the house. But he/she/they decide to present the police with a ransom note, knowing the body is likely to be found. Red flag, incomplete kidnapping scenario, with or w/o the window.

If the window was broken with intent to stage an entry of the "intruder", why was it abandoned? They need the intruder to have come in the house somewhere. Was the preference for an "inside job" (e.g. someone with a key) so strong that the abandoned the window staging, cleaned up the glass, and fabricated the story about JR breaking it months earlier?

If the window were meant to be the fictional entry as well as exit, it might explain why the body was left behind. Abandoning the window as the entry means the "intruder" came in somewhere else, and he may as well have left by the same means, with JBR in his arms.

 

[UKGuy]

If the window had been meant for an exit only there would be no reason to break the glass. With or w/o the window as an entry/exit, we have a dead body and a ransom note. Red flag indeed.

It's not clear, at least to me, why the window as entry point wouldn't fly. The grate was on a hinge. The spider web could have been knocked down. Other details that DocG insists are reasons for the police to reject the window as a real entry/exit could easily have been taken care of.

A successful kidnapping scenario would indeed have the body out of the house. But he/she/they decide to present the police with a ransom note, knowing the body is likely to be found. Red flag, incomplete kidnapping scenario, with or w/o the window.

If the window was broken with intent to stage an entry of the "intruder", why was it abandoned? They need the intruder to have come in the house somewhere. Was the preference for an "inside job" (e.g. someone with a key) so strong that the abandoned the window staging, cleaned up the glass, and fabricated the story about JR breaking it months earlier?

If the window were meant to be the fictional entry as well as exit, it might explain why the body was left behind. Abandoning the window as the entry means the "intruder" came in somewhere else, and he may as well have left by the same means, with JBR in his arms.

Dynamic88,
Yes I agree with much of what you suggest. Since the JonBenet case is really a staged homicide I think many of the elements do not play the role as fits the intended scenario, the RN is IMO, one such element.

The RN's role is to explain to an outsider why JonBenet is lying on the wine-cellar floor and not in her bed upstairs in her house.

It looks like either JR or PR prepared some kind of staging in the basement, e.g. an intruder night time assault undertaken in the basement, entry via the window, etc.

This was then vetoed and the wine-cellar plus RN staged with prior elements being relegated to artifact or moved around, e.g. Samsonite Suitcase, what a story.

I usually summarize all this as a prior staging.

One interesting unknown in the case is the location of the primary crime-scene, was it JonBenet's bedroom, the basement, or, as per Kolar, the Breakfast Bar?

.

 

[andreww]

Dynamic88,
Yes I agree with much of what you suggest. Since the JonBenet case is really a staged homicide I think many of the elements do not play the role as fits the intended scenario, the RN is IMO, one such element.

The RN's role is to explain to an outsider why JonBenet is lying on the wine-cellar floor and not in her bed upstairs in her house.

It looks like either JR or PR prepared some kind of staging in the basement, e.g. an intruder night time assault undertaken in the basement, entry via the window, etc.

This was then vetoed and the wine-cellar plus RN staged with prior elements being relegated to artifact or moved around, e.g. Samsonite Suitcase, what a story.

I usually summarize all this as a prior staging.

One interesting unknown in the case is the location of the primary crime-scene, was it JonBenet's bedroom, the basement, or, as per Kolar, the Breakfast Bar?

.

I disagree that any staging took place in the train room. Nobody found anything suspicious about that room until Smit came on board. Then John starts taking about the suitcase not belonging there, about closing the window and latching it, etc. I believe Patsy and Patsy alone staged the crime scene. The suitcase was always there!

Did Kolar say the crime took place in the breakfast bar or did he say it started there? Big difference.

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree that any staging took place in the train room. Nobody found anything suspicious about that room until Smit came on board. Then John starts taking about the suitcase not belonging there, about closing the window and latching it, etc. I believe Patsy and Patsy alone staged the crime scene. The suitcase was always there!

Did Kolar say the crime took place in the breakfast bar or did he say it started there? Big difference.

andreww,
I'll drop this in here as information:

PMPT:

The police interviewed Linda Hoffman Pugh for the second time on Friday December 27, and they came with a tape recorder.

Summarizing LHP says the day after Thanksgiving, she and her daughter Ariana were cleaning windows. They searched the basement and did not notice any broken window!

You can believe anything you like, particularly if its staged artifact, e.g. the suitcase. Have you read JR's explanation, its fabricated, i.e. he is a bag carrier when he is not playing CEO!

BBM: We really must test this against the evidence.

.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
I'll drop this in here as information:

PMPT:

Summarizing LHP says the day after Thanksgiving, she and her daughter Ariana were cleaning windows. They searched the basement and did not notice any broken window!

You can believe anything you like, particularly if its staged artifact, e.g. the suitcase. Have you read JR's explanation, its fabricated, i.e. he is a bag carrier when he is not playing CEO!

BBM: We really must test this against the evidence.

.

Not sure what you are trying to say here but PMPT had so many errors in it that I don't believe a word Schiller says any more. I've looked long and hard for actual quotes from LHP talking about that window and have found nothing. Plenty of people claim she said this or that but there is never anything to back it up.

Agreed on John lying through his teeth though

 

[UKGuy]

Not sure what you are trying to say here but PMPT had so many errors in it that I don't believe a word Schiller says any more. I've looked long and hard for actual quotes from LHP talking about that window and have found nothing. Plenty of people claim she said this or that but there is never anything to back it up.

Agreed on John lying through his teeth though

andreww,
The thing about the PMPT quote is that it dis-confirms JR's version of events, which is useful if you wish to demonstrate that JR might be fast talking on some issues, i.e. at this point in time, there is no Lou Smit, no pedophile intruder, just LHP recounting what the R's requested?


.
.

 

[singularity]

It does make a fair amount of sense that the two adult members of the household, working together, might not call 911 with the body in the basement and all but certain to be found. Doc's approach is logical, in that the ransom note makes little sense with the body present. IOWs how do we explain their failure to dispose of the body? Doc's reasoning, that Patsy must have called 911 in a state of ignorance makes a lot of sense, initially. It's just that it doesn't hold up when other evidence is considered.

Doc is also sensible to consider that if they chickened out about dumping the body then they'd have wanted to destroy the phony ransom note. What he fails to consider is that both PR and JR may have chickened out, and also may have reasoned that there was no need to destroy the ransom note. The natural inclination is to ask why the Rs would have left both a body and a ransom note in the house then called 911. That it makes no sense is exactly why they might have done it. Their defense is that it makes no sense and therefore they wouldn't have done it.

Let's be fair to Doc, he has a lot more than 5 people who believe his theory. I used to be a believer.

JDI is still possible, just not with PR being completely innocent and completely ignorant of who did it.

Finally, getting back to the window, those of us rejecting Doc's theory are left with the difficulty of explaining why JR/PR didn't go with the "intruder through the window" gambit. With the glass broken and laying on the floor they had what seems to me an excellent indicator of an intruder. Yet the glass got swept up (apparently) and JR tries to convince police it must have been an "inside" job (someone with a key) why would they do this? Doc's theory is that the window staging was incomplete and couldn't be completed until the next morning (or at least didn't need to be completed until next morning) but if we agree both JR and PR were in on the coverup (regardless of which RDI theory you go with) then there's no reason the staging would not have been completed prior to making the 911 call. So, why was the glass cleaned up rather than leaving it on the floor, completing the other elements of window staging, and letting the police come to the obvious conclusion that it was an inside job?

Hi Doc! (I'm kidding.....I think).

I'm in the group who doesn't believe that window was initially staging. IMO part of the dispute took place in the basement which led to that window break. It needed to be covered up ASAP. John immediately distances the window from the crime....of a supposed intruder breaking in to kidnap(murder) their daughter...yet the broken window was just a coincidence and had happened a coon's age ago? That dog wont hunt.

One of the first red flags waving that morning that no one detected. Its also one of the most overlooked clues in the case. Like I said, I do give him props for realizing its important. I just arrive at a different destination. Patsy's all over this crime like flies on a rib roast yet Doc believes she's 100% innocent. He has to at this point. His theory is so elaborate that if he gives an inch on Patsy, there goes the house of cards...



UK....

One interesting unknown in the case is the location of the primary crime-scene, was it JonBenet's bedroom, the basement, or, as per Kolar, the Breakfast Bar?

I still don't understand how Kolar arrives at the breakfast bar.

If it's a dispute, its possibly taking place in multiple areas of the house.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi Doc! (I'm kidding.....I think).

I'm in the group who doesn't believe that window was initially staging. IMO part of the dispute took place in the basement which led to that window break. It needed to be covered up ASAP. John immediately distances the window from the crime....of a supposed intruder breaking in to kidnap(murder) their daughter...yet the broken window was just a coincidence and had happened a coon's age ago? That dog wont hunt.

One of the first red flags waving that morning that no one detected. Its also one of the most overlooked clues in the case. Like I said, I do give him props for realizing its important. I just arrive at a different destination. Patsy's all over this crime like flies on a rib roast yet Doc believes she's 100% innocent. He has to at this point. His theory is so elaborate that if he gives an inch on Patsy, there goes the house of cards...



UK....

I still don't understand how Kolar arrives at the breakfast bar.

If it's a dispute, its possibly taking place in multiple areas of the house.

singularity,
Me neither. This is why it might really be PDI or JDI, i.e. the latter a hoary olde chestnut: incest?

Remember all those tales about Patsy's cancer, and LHP's alleged colorful account regarding PR and JR's love life, with Patsy not at all enamored?

Having listened to Kolar more than once I think he is inventing stuff for his theory.

Otherwise he would have to tell the truth and the terms and conditions of his BPD employment do not allow this.

The Breakfast Bar is relativly tidy and clean, I doubt anything other than a pineapple snack happened there.

Kolar goes with the basement, as per the staging, what else can he say?

Certainly not that Burke Ramsey and JonBenet were sharing a bed in her bedroom, and that he left his pajama bottoms behind, after assaulting her?

That does not mesh with the wine cellar crime scene does it?

.

 

[singularity]

Having listened to Kolar more than once I think he is inventing stuff for his theory.

.

Not sure about that but he definitely suffers from extreme confirmation bias. In his defense, they all did.

Even though not BDI, I can see why some would fall under the theory's spell and why Kolar himself did. The case had been investigated for years, we've got random intruders, 'friendly' intruders,Patsy, John, and John/Patsy. JAR's been ruled out. So has Fleet. So has the rest of the Ramsey clique. There appears to be a coverup. So who is left and hasn't been dissected and analyzed by sleuths yet?

Burke.

Its his Eureka moment. It all fits as they say....except that it doesn't. He'll make it fit though and not a bad job at getting the square pegs in the round holes. He'll zero in on areas that need zeroing in on, ignore areas that don't help his case, and voila!.....new theory that can be mainstreamed, settled, and moved on from.

Taking us back to square one.

Another thing......

If he's inventing stuff, its definitely not "BDI all day along". Its not BDI at all. Any theory that requires the magician to make evidence disappear and starts inventing stuff is not being pointed at the killer(obviously).