John Ramsey Fabricated Open Basement Window "Evidence"

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Okay, but they're the minority in the PDI camp and (arguably) the majority in the BDI camp. In BDI, many believe that BR did it all by himself: the rape, the strangling -- and they don't have the parents finding out until BR is back in his bed beneath the covers and they stumble upon the body in the morning. Moreover, they don't have them finding out from confronting BR himself; they just "know" he did it. Evidently, you think BR was confronted (which is a recent belief?); and I think that both parents knew as both were involved at the same time -- so neither one of us believe in telepathy in our respective camps; but nevertheless (and more to my point, which you seem to not want to admit for some reason): in both sides (PDI and BDI), there exists a subsection that employs telepathy. Why you don't want to admit this is a bit perplexing; I've literally gotten into disagreements many times on this very subject with multiple people (BDI'ers) here.

And as we've gone over before, I'll just say I disagree that there is evidence that all three were involved in the staging. There is evidence of two people being involved in the staging, but let's not go down that route again (we've been there before). You think the bloomies, the long-johns, and the knot prove BR was involved; I don't; so be it.

Userid,
If you do some research you will find I began using he term telepathy to characterise flaws I saw in the PDI theory particularly DocG's version which people were citing as the real deal.

Any man and his dog knows in a BDI, except an extreme version, that the parents have to talk to BR, I usually qualifiy that by saying he probably did not tell his parents everything, since this what the evidence suggests to me.

The BDI conversation lacuna is just an example of an fully uninformed theory being exploited by its detractors for another purpose, e.g. its nonsense.

You think the bloomies, the long-johns, and the knot prove BR was involved; I don't; so be it.
Wrong attribution, I do not think they prove anything, but their presence is consistent with a BDI theory, their absence, IMO, would bolster a PDI theory, since given Patsy's love for JonBenet I cannot see Patsy wanting her baby to be found wearing oversized underwear and her brothers long johns, particularly in the context of a homicide.

.
 
Userid,
If you do some research you will find I began using he term telepathy to characterise flaws I saw in the PDI theory particularly DocG's version which people were citing as the real deal.

Any man and his dog knows in a BDI, except an extreme version, that the parents have to talk to BR, I usually qualifiy that by saying he probably did not tell his parents everything, since this what the evidence suggests to me.

The BDI conversation lacuna is just an example of an fully uninformed theory being exploited by its detractors for another purpose, e.g. its nonsense.


Wrong attribution, I do not think they prove anything, but their presence is consistent with a BDI theory, their absence, IMO, would bolster a PDI theory, since given Patsy's love for JonBenet I cannot see Patsy wanting her baby to be found wearing oversized underwear and her brothers long johns, particularly in the context of a homicide.

.

Again, there are "extreme versions....that people believe are the real deal" of BDI that involve telepathy that mirror (on the opposite spectrum) theories like DocG's (which I don't recall off-hand) just the same.

And next time, why not just state that you're taking specific issue with DocG's theory as opposed to a blanket statement addressing PDI in general?
 
Again, there are "extreme versions....that people believe are the real deal" of BDI that involve telepathy that mirror (on the opposite spectrum) theories like DocG's (which I don't recall off-hand) just the same.

And next time, why not just state that you're taking specific issue with DocG's theory as opposed to a blanket statement addressing PDI in general?

Userid,
I used to flag it up, but PDI people, separate from DocG, injected aspects of his theory, so I gave up always referencing DocG, as some PDI theorists had just picked up the theory on various boards.

No parent is going to stage their daughters death without knowing if the alleged killer is going to play along? Telepathy is not required if both parents know they are not involved.

The most extreme example I've cited is the parents awakening to find JonBenet dead, staged in her bedroom, but that the staging is amateurish and evidently that of a child, e.g. BR.

This conclusion is arrived at deductively and not telepathically, but I guess can seem like magical attribution on the BDI theorists part.

The case against BR is largely circumstantial, but has aspects that should be not present if the facts were circumstantial in actuality, these aspects are unexplained. If I have some free time I'll compile a list outlining how they implicate BR !

.
 
Userid,
I used to flag it up, but PDI people, separate from DocG, injected aspects of his theory, so I gave up always referencing DocG, as some PDI theorists had just picked up the theory on various boards.

No parent is going to stage their daughters death without knowing if the alleged killer is going to play along? Telepathy is not required if both parents know they are not involved.

The most extreme example I've cited is the parents awakening to find JonBenet dead, staged in her bedroom, but that the staging is amateurish and evidently that of a child, e.g. BR.

This conclusion is arrived at deductively and not telepathically, but I guess can seem like magical attribution on the BDI theorists part.

The case against BR is largely circumstantial, but has aspects that should be not present if the facts were circumstantial in actuality, these aspects are unexplained. If I have some free time I'll compile a list outlining how they implicate BR !

.


It is in some BDI theories; just as it (supposedly) is in DocG's. That's all I'm saying. It isn't just one side. That's all I say on it, as it's beating a dead horse now.
 
It is in some BDI theories; just as it (supposedly) is in DocG's. That's all I'm saying. It isn't just one side. That's all I say on it, as it's beating a dead horse now.

Userid,
I'm sure there is, I'm not denying it, I'm just suggesting telepathy is not required to build a BDI theory.

There were three people left in that house and a case can be made for each one being responsible for JonBenet's death.

.
 
piece of glass
 

Attachments

  • glass on suitcase.jpg
    glass on suitcase.jpg
    8.5 KB · Views: 58
Did Burke see a psychiatrist before Dr. Jaffee? Dr. Jaffee was from Atlanta and it makes sense that Burke was seeing a psychiatrist. Kolar said that it was clear that Burke was seeing a psychiatrist after JB's murder in Foreign Faction.

The transcripts where John and Patsy mention Burke's seeing a psychiatrist are:

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm around 0004

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm around 0125

I couldn't find references in the other transcripts.

John said he saw Dr. Catherine Sheevy in Boulder previously.

Was Burke seeing a psychiatrist before the murder?
 
I think if you follow in order everything John Ramsey has ever said about the window. It certainly doesn't add up.

In the below 1st police interview John says he found no glass at all on both trips down to the basement. He also says he latched/closed the window on the first trip when he was alone & on the SECOND trip with Fleet John told him about the break.

April 30, 1997
JR: And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass. And I told him that I thought that the break came from when I did that last summer and then, then I went from there into the cellar.


So at the moment there is a broken window which John says he closes on the first occasion. He looks for glass when he was on his own a didn't find any and then later looks with Fleet and still doesn't see any. When in the basement he tell Fleet he broke the window last summer.........

Then comes June, 1998.

23 LOU SMIT: You said you moved it? Did you
24 mention that?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I moved it a bit just to see
0240
1 if there was glass. It's funny how you remember
2 things. I swear that window opened from the other
3 side. I guess other than that, I can't see
4 anything.

14 LOU SMIT: Now you said that you picked up
15 pieces of glass.
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
17 LOU SMIT: A few little pieces.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
19 LOU SMIT: And did you say you put them on
20 the window well or on the suitcase or do you
21 remember?
22 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember for sure.
23 There wasn't enough there for me to be convinced
24 that the window was broken that morning. I was
25 assuming that it had been broken by me and it
0241
1 hadn't really been fixed.

Ok so now from no glass to a few pieces of glass & John says he was trying to verify that the broken window was from him. He was looking for something that would indicate a fresh break...lots of glass and not just a little bit.....


JUNE 1998

19 MIKE KANE: That's fine. I understand. Okay.
20 You said that when you went down in the basement
21 that second time with Fleet, and you were back in
22 that room, you were looking for glass on the
23 floor. Why were you?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: I was just trying to verify
25 in my own mind that I had in fact broken the
0181
1 window last summer and it was cleaned up and this
2 wasn't the break I was looking for. If there was a
3 lot of glass there.
4 MIKE KANE: Okay.
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Because I wasn't sure that
6 that window -- well I did know it hadn't been
7 fixed. But it didn't totally surprise me that it
8 hadn't been.


In these below interview John confirms again he closed the window on his first trip to the basement and he also tells Fleet he closed the window earlier on.

JUNE 1998


JOHN RAMSEY: I just wanted to start
6 logically from the bottom up, I guess, as I was
7 looking at it. And I could have just as easily
8 gone upstairs, but I went down. Probably just
9 logically going through every inch of the house.
10 So I went down to the basement. I went into this
11 room with Fleet. I explained to him that this
12 window had been cracked open and I CLOSED IT. That
13 the window was broken, but I think it was broken
14 by me once before. We got down on our hands and
15 knees looking for some glass just to see.
16 LOU SMIT: What did you find?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments
18 of glass not enough to indicate that it was a
19 fresh break.
20 LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the
22 ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We
23 had only found one or two. We might have put them
24 up here on the ledge.
25 LOU SMIT: Could you have put them on the
0163
1 suitcase?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Ahhhh, it's possible but I
3 don't remember doing that.
4 LOU SMIT: Was the suitcase, when you came
5 back, in the same spot it was when you had been?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I moved it to see or
7 to look for glass then. But I think it was where I
8 left it, where it was when I was down there
9 before.

JUNE 1998


1 JOHN RAMSEY: But it was open and there
2 was
3 a suitcase under it. This hard Samsonite suitcase.
4 LOU SMIT: Describe how the suitcase was
5 positioned?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: It was against the wall. I think
7 the handle was on top. It was directly under the
8 window, as I recall. And I closed the window, I
9 don't know why, but I closed it. And then --
10 LOU SMIT: When you closed it, did you lock
11 it or close it?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I latched it. There's a little
13 latch on it.
14 LOU SMIT: And you're sure of that?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Pretty sure, yeah. Yeah, I am
16 sure. I don't think I looked anywhere else. I
17 think at that point I still was trying to figure
18 out how they'd get in the house.

JUNE 1998

12 JOHN RAMSEY: Just this little latch. But
13 what I did specifically notice was the suitcase
14 sitting under the window. That was not -- that
15 didn't fit. I could explain why the window was
16 broken or why it might have been partly open, but
17 the suitcase just kind of jumped out at me.

JUNE 1998

23 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't really remember. I mean,
24 part of what is going on you're in such a state of
25 disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know,
0154
1 the window had been broken out. And you say hah,
2 that's it. But it was a window that I had used to
3 get into the house before. It was cracked and open
4 a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me.
5 Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in
6 because that basement could get real hot in
7 winter. So it was like, you know, after I thought
8 about it, I thought it was more of an alarming
9 situation how it struck me at the time. It was
10 still sort of explainable to me that it could have
11 been left open.
12 And the suitcase was unusual. That shouldn't have
13 been there. I took that suitcase downstairs, I
14 remember. But I sure wouldn't have taken it all
15 the way back there and put it against the window.


JUNE 1998

24 JOHN RAMSEY: Because the window was cracked
25 open. There was this large suitcase under it, as
0041
1 if it was used to climb out. That suitcase didn't
2 belong there. I think the person was in the house,
3 if not when we got home, shortly after. I think
4 she was killed that night, versus in the morning.

December 12, 2001
23 Q. Do you remember exactly the sequence
24 of events when you went down to the basement the
25 second time?
0019
1 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
2 Q. Can you tell me where you looked?
3 A. I went back into the train room,
4 showed Fleet the broken window, explained to him
5 that I might have broken it myself months ago.
6 I showed him the suitcase that I saw under the
7 window, which I felt was very out of place.
8 We looked for any large pieces of
9 broken glass. And then I got up and went to
10 the cellar room, opened the door, and found
11 JonBenet.

So Far we have 3 separate occasions where John says he closed the window on the first trip. He also tells Fleet he Closed the window.


Following in sequence with John's Interviews/Versions the window is now/already shut when he enters the basement wit Fleet
John states that they both look for glass and what they find is not very much at all. It wasn't enough to indicate to him it was a fresh break. He also says he doesn't remember if they put any glass on the suitcase or ledge.

According to John he was trying to think logically & determine how someone could have got in but saw NOTHING else out of the ordinary other suitcase beneath it. He could justify why the window was broken and why the window was open.

John Ramsey Deposition - Wolf Case - December 12, 2001


20 Q. Prior to Linda Arndt asking you to
21 look around the house, how many times did you go
22 to the basement?
23 A. Once.
24 Q. Do you remember at what time in the
25 morning you went to the basement?
0017
1 A. I do not.
2 Q. Do you remember what you saw in the
3 basement when you went down there?
4 A. I saw a partially opened window with
5 broken glass and a suitcase beneath the window.
6 Q. When you would -- did you see
7 anything else there?
8 A. Not that looked out of the ordinary.
9 Q. May I ask why you went to the
10 basement at that time?
11 A. I was trying to determine how someone
12 could have gotten into our house.
13 Q. Did anyone ask you to go to the
14 basement at that time?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know if anybody saw you go to
17 the basement at that time?
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. When you saw that the basement was in
20 the condition that it was in, as you have just
21 described it, and you came back upstairs, did you
22 inform anybody of what you found in the basement?
23 A. I don't recall specifically if I did
24 or not. I have a vague recollection of telling
25 Linda Arndt that I found an open window with
0018
Interview date: December 12, 2001
9 Q. May I ask why you went to the
10 basement at that time?
11 A. I was trying to determine how someone
12 could have gotten into our house.
13 Q. Did anyone ask you to go to the
14 basement at that time?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know if anybody saw you go to
17 the basement at that time?
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. When you saw that the basement was in
20 the condition that it was in, as you have just
21 described it, and you came back upstairs, did you
22 inform anybody of what you found in the basement?
23 A. I don't recall specifically if I did
24 or not. I have a vague recollection of telling
25 Linda Arndt that I found an open window with
0018
1 broken glass, but that I perhaps had broken that
2 glass myself months earlier.
3 Q. Do you think you might have mentioned
4 that to any other law enforcement officer beside
5 Linda Arndt?
6 A. Not that I recall.



He only has a vague recollection of telling Linda Arndt about the window and doesn't recall telling anyone else. REGARDLESS if he told Linda/Police about the window it's safe to say from his recollections it wasn't a EURIKA moment in him thinking to himself 'THIS IS THE SPOT' quick let's get someone down here. By the sounds of it, it wasn't a big deal such as Hey I think I've found how they got in or out. It was more I have found an open window with broken glass but I remember doing that myself so it's ok kind of thing.....

In John Ramsey's book THE OTHER SIDE OF SUFFERING P12 - John Ramsey says he suddenly remembers the window he broke last year & rushes to the basement to check. When he finds it wide open he then rushes upstairs to tell one of the policemen about the broken window. He can barely something and is sick to his stomach.

Whether or not he told Police, he noted the open window later on in the book P15 (whilst in the basement with Fleet) he says his friend didn't tell him he had already noted the open window when he was down here earlier & John starts to feel dizzy

Why would John start to feel dizzy about an open window he already knew about and closed himself?
I don't know who goes down to the basement first but if you have fleet going down and noting the open window to himself. Then either before or after this John goes down and also notes the open window. It doesn't make sense at all?

In TOSOS John Ramsey says:

I show my friend the broken window which is still open, the small splinters of glass on the floor and the suitcase. This isn't right. The suitcase shouldn't be here.

I don't get this either, he says the suitcase shouldn't be there but what about the glass that shouldn't be there.
On numerous occasions he says he was looking for how they got in/out. Fresh breaks etc.
John says he was working logically. How can glass that was broken months ago by him end up on a suitcase that was wasn't meant to be there in the first place?
How does he justify seeing glass broken six months ago on top a suitcase that was placed there 25th/26th according to him?

Great breakdown. John told no one about the open broken window that day. How come John?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
From memory Fleet White put the glass on the suitcase. JR says he put the suitcase in the basement, i.e. the CEO was doing housework, for which he employs a housemaid !

I reckon much of the forensic evidence JR attempts to explain away represents a prior staging that has been refashioned for another purpose or simply abandonded?

JR gets lost in a tangle of lies, e.g. the the chair blocking the entrance.

.
 
To the bolded, I agree. No way. However, I think there is a chance that it was Burke who broke the window earlier, and not middle-aged John in his underwear who looked nowhere near as fit and agile as the two people we have seen go through that window - Lou Smit and Laura Richards. As I've opined upthread, John had many other options. Assuming a locksmith was not available (although 24/7 emergency locksmiths do exist), he had a company cell phone to phone a friend, his car, no doubt cash or credit for a motel room, or simply the option of spending the night in his no doubt very nice office.

But why would Burke have broken into the house that way when it's highly doubtful that he ever ended up locked out the house by either parent, even accidentally? Maybe just because he was a little brat and he could. Perhaps when playing outside he noted the grate could be moved and decided it would be a fun adventure to try to get into the basement - his personal domain - in that particular way. He would have had no difficulty maneuvering in that way. Lazy Patsy never bothered to get the window fixed, and besides, he would be the one suffering from the draft down there. Passive/aggressive punishment. This would also explain why they lied about John breaking in, even though it had no direct connection to the crime that night. So your son kicked in a window for fun? Why would he do such a thing? Did he explain? Was he punished? Have you ever sought professional counseling for him?

Speculation only, but if something like this did happen, no way would the Ramseys want LE to know about any prior bad behavior on Burke's part.
I agree. Like I’ve said before, before the night of the murder who in the household would be the most likely person to have broken a window in his playroom, in a room called the train room? Who would be the most likely to put up a shaky suitcase to look/go outside?
 
Lou Smit proudly poses beside the wide open basement window; and he demonstrates how he could slide through the open window, "just as the intruder did".

A federal judge relies on the open basement window "evidence" to support the intruder theory.

The media and the public accept the open basement window as a hard fact.

One problem: THERE WAS NO OPEN BASEMENT WINDOW. It's a story John Ramsey made up four months after JonBenet was murdered.

John casually revealed his open basement window story for the first time during the police interviews on April 30, 1997:

JOHN RAMSEY: "And actually I'd gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn't see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when I didn't have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and I just kind of latched it."

- - - - - - later in interview - - - - - -

STEVE THOMAS: "And Fleet had talked earlier about being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of the day was that?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I don't know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o'clock. "

STEVE THOMAS: "Was that prior to Fleet's first trip down?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I didn't know he was in the basement. I didn't know that. I mean other than that trip with me."

STEVE THOMAS: "And on that trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yep."


So John Ramsey reveals for the first time that he had snuck away from the group upstairs, gone to the basement alone, found the basement window open about 1/8 of an inch, closed it, latched it, and then went back upstairs and told no one about it.

John said he did this at about 10 o'clock or sooner, but, as we all know, he had been manning the telephone between 8 and 10 o'clock waiting for the "kidnapper" to call, in accodance with the instructions in the ransom note. So, if he had been in the basement at all it would had to have been before 8 o'clock or after 10 o'clock.

But Officer Rick French had searched the basement at about 6:05 AM looking for a point of entry and making sure an intruder wasn't hiding down there. He found neither. French did not report anything about an open basement window, even though that's the very thing he was looking for, and there are only three windows in the basement.

Then, around 6:20 AM Fleet White searched the basement looking for JonBenet and calling out her name as he searched. Fleet found the broken basement window and inspected it, but did not report anything about the window being open.

IOW, Rick French and Fleet White had both inspected the window prior to John Ramsey and neither reported the window open. In fact, it seemed to have surprised John to find out that Fleet had also been in the basement early that morning -- thus putting Fleet in a position to refute John's open basement window story.

Therefore, it appears that John was lying about finding the window open at 10 AM (or at any other time) and had fabricated a fictional open window to accomodate a fictional intruder.

BlueCrab


interesting! i didnt know you were the first one who had this idea about the basement window...well said BlueCrab... and thanks
 
But honestly, I prefer CS' presentation, clearer and more concise..

dcountmontecristo,
The way I interpret John's version of events in the basement is that he is relating to us via bad memory recall, specifically the points of evidence he wants to underline.

Which are the Window Was Open and there was a suitcase standing beneath the window, which should not be there, the rest is just maybe, I think so, could be, I thought I latched it, etc, he is offering an Intruder entrance point via memory recall.

The basement is where the Ramsey's decided to do their staging as it's neutral, it's nobody's area in particular, even the maid LHP and her husband were down there moving Christmas stuff about.

There was never any need for any of the Ramsey's to be in the basement on Christmas Night, it was cold and dusty, JonBenet hated the dark, damp atmosphere, why bother going down there when you have nice warm rooms upstairs with such a distance between them on various floors, you can hear folks coming?

IMO John's basement account is another smoke and mirrors narrative, maybe he moved some stuff about, e.g. the chair, suitcase, etc, but its just a smokescreen something to analyse to death.

.
 
dcountmontecristo,
The way I interpret John's version of events in the basement is that he is relating to us via bad memory recall, specifically the points of evidence he wants to underline.

Which are the Window Was Open and there was a suitcase standing beneath the window, which should not be there, the rest is just maybe, I think so, could be, I thought I latched it, etc, he is offering an Intruder entrance point via memory recall.

The basement is where the Ramsey's decided to do their staging as it's neutral, it's nobody's area in particular, even the maid LHP and her husband were down there moving Christmas stuff about.

There was never any need for any of the Ramsey's to be in the basement on Christmas Night, it was cold and dusty, JonBenet hated the dark, damp atmosphere, why bother going down there when you have nice warm rooms upstairs with such a distance between them on various floors, you can hear folks coming?

IMO John's basement account is another smoke and mirrors narrative, maybe he moved some stuff about, e.g. the chair, suitcase, etc, but its just a smokescreen something to analyse to death.

.


I agree..

all I know, Ramnesia doesnt sell..
 
From memory Fleet White put the glass on the suitcase. JR says he put the suitcase in the basement, i.e. the CEO was doing housework, for which he employs a housemaid !

I reckon much of the forensic evidence JR attempts to explain away represents a prior staging that has been refashioned for another purpose or simply abandonded?

JR gets lost in a tangle of lies, e.g. the the chair blocking the entrance.

.
I wonder if PR/JR intentionally did their staging separately ( but not in ignorace of one another) to make the crime scene more confusing ? The evidence doesn't neatly line up with any one theory and maybe that's why they "corss staged". If they'd coordinated their efforts they may have outsmarted themselves. What has been described as prior or abandoned staging might simply be the result of two independant stagings ?
The better to confuse the police ?
 
I wonder if PR/JR intentionally did their staging separately ( but not in ignorace of one another) to make the crime scene more confusing ? [...] The better to confuse the police ?
Assuming the Ramsey's staged it after their daughtered died, I suspect the confusing elements were due their confused and desperate state of mind. We have been thinking about for decades. They had a few hours in the middle of the night to come up with a plan and execute it.

I agree the ransom note is insistent with the body being found in the house, making it look like independent staging. But I think this was just poor coordination and lack of ability to stage a crime scene. I don't think they had to consciously avoid coordination because of the risk of the staging being too convincing.
 
Assuming the Ramsey's staged it after their daughtered died, I suspect the confusing elements were due their confused and desperate state of mind. We have been thinking about for decades. They had a few hours in the middle of the night to come up with a plan and execute it.

I agree the ransom note is insistent with the body being found in the house, making it look like independent staging. But I think this was just poor coordination and lack of ability to stage a crime scene. I don't think they had to consciously avoid coordination because of the risk of the staging being too convincing.


Could be as you suggest, and it's probably the better explanaition. However, other murderers have staged their crime sceens, in a hurry, and have not been able to make the scene so cofusing. If they worked together they might have staged it to tell a nice neat story - one that the police, and ultimately the jury, could see right through. If they worked independantly the staging might not make sense and neither would know the full extent of the staging, so neither would get tripped up covering for the other. Also, they apparently had time to introduce weird stuff, like the size 12s. It might be the size 12s don't fit any theory of the case because they aren't supposed to - they are just there to add to the confusion. We don't know who put the 12s on her, and it makes no sense for either of them to do it. Anything that makes no sense in JDI/PDI would (they hoped) be attributed to IDI.

They didn't need to "fool" the police to the extent of making them actually believe IDI. They probably knew "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury was the best they could hope for. In the end it doesn't matter what the police believe.

It would be incredibly clever to stage independantly so that the scene doesn't make much sense. If the jury couldn't tell who did what they might be disinclined to convict. Confusion was their friend. I'm just suggesting one way to create confusion is to stage indepedantly so that it doesn't tell nice neat story. I'm not offering this as anything but a little creative thinking.
 
Could be as you suggest, and it's probably the better explanaition. However, other murderers have staged their crime sceens, in a hurry, and have not been able to make the scene so cofusing. If they worked together they might have staged it to tell a nice neat story - one that the police, and ultimately the jury, could see right through. If they worked independantly the staging might not make sense and neither would know the full extent of the staging, so neither would get tripped up covering for the other. Also, they apparently had time to introduce weird stuff, like the size 12s. It might be the size 12s don't fit any theory of the case because they aren't supposed to - they are just there to add to the confusion. We don't know who put the 12s on her, and it makes no sense for either of them to do it. Anything that makes no sense in JDI/PDI would (they hoped) be attributed to IDI.

They didn't need to "fool" the police to the extent of making them actually believe IDI. They probably knew "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury was the best they could hope for. In the end it doesn't matter what the police believe.

It would be incredibly clever to stage independantly so that the scene doesn't make much sense. If the jury couldn't tell who did what they might be disinclined to convict. Confusion was their friend. I'm just suggesting one way to create confusion is to stage indepedantly so that it doesn't tell nice neat story. I'm not offering this as anything but a little creative thinking.

Dynamic88,
The thing about the size-12's is that they are obviously not fake staging, i.e. random noise tossed in by a clever criminal.

To signal that the crime-scene has been staged means the case is RDI right away. BPD recognized this as did the FBI who thought the case was patently a domestic job.

I reckon that JonBenet might have been staged and restaged possibly three times or more, leading to the chaotic crime-scene appearance.

Although Patsy was kinda tidy and put the broken paintbrush back into her paint-tote, weird behavior on Mom's part?

JR was likely circulating about the house, sayin he was looking for JonBenet, whilst cleaning up any loose evidence left lying about.

Of course in the panic they forgot all about the breakfast bar and the pineapple snack, so destroying their version of events for the night before.

Also the staged crime-scene did not confuse the GJ they hit the parents with numerous charges, so many - Alex Hunter refused to file the True Bills, thereby denying JonBenet justice.

.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
249
Total visitors
411

Forum statistics

Threads
608,973
Messages
18,248,144
Members
234,514
Latest member
pgilpin81
Back
Top