Lies point us to the truth #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

Other Expert Assessments of 911 Tape​

Two government agencies and three independent labs all analyzed the 911 tape but were unable to identify any voices at the end.

  • FBI/Secret Service Analysis. Both the FBI and Secret Service reportedly examined the tape to determine whether extraneous sounds at the end of the tape were human voices. They were unable to identify any such voices (NBC News 2003).
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory Analysis. According to Internet poster Jayelles, a post made by Internet poster jameson on a thread named "Opposing the BPD's request to seal 911" in March 2003 (a thread that evidently has disappeared) made the following claim: "Pete Hofstrom would later take the 911 tape enhanced by the Aerospace Corporation to New Mexico to let his brother-in-law, who worked in the Los Alamos scientific complex, have a crack at analyzing it. The brother-in-law apparently declared that he heard a voice say, "I scream at you." That meaningless comment managed to cast doubt on the Aerospace conclusion that Burke said, "What did you find?" and was another gift to the defense lawyers. They would now be able to point out that even the prosecutor's office and the police did not agree about what was on the tape."
  • Legal Audio Analysis. “I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City (NBC News 2003).
  • Team Audio Analysis. David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says (NBC News 2003).
(link)

I think the police were desperate to find some kind of clear evidence that the Ramseys were lying, and were hearing what they wanted to hear. That they shopped around several places until they found one willing to give it to them doesn't inspire confidence.

My takeaway from this is that if this is the evidence the police wanted the DA to use in a trial, Alex Hunter's decision not to prosecute is one of the most understandable choices in the history of legal trials.
 

Other Expert Assessments of 911 Tape​

Two government agencies and three independent labs all analyzed the 911 tape but were unable to identify any voices at the end.

  • FBI/Secret Service Analysis. Both the FBI and Secret Service reportedly examined the tape to determine whether extraneous sounds at the end of the tape were human voices. They were unable to identify any such voices (NBC News 2003).
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory Analysis. According to Internet poster Jayelles, a post made by Internet poster jameson on a thread named "Opposing the BPD's request to seal 911" in March 2003 (a thread that evidently has disappeared) made the following claim: "Pete Hofstrom would later take the 911 tape enhanced by the Aerospace Corporation to New Mexico to let his brother-in-law, who worked in the Los Alamos scientific complex, have a crack at analyzing it. The brother-in-law apparently declared that he heard a voice say, "I scream at you." That meaningless comment managed to cast doubt on the Aerospace conclusion that Burke said, "What did you find?" and was another gift to the defense lawyers. They would now be able to point out that even the prosecutor's office and the police did not agree about what was on the tape."
  • Legal Audio Analysis. “I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City (NBC News 2003).
  • Team Audio Analysis. David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says (NBC News 2003).
(link)

I think the police were desperate to find some kind of clear evidence that the Ramseys were lying, and were hearing what they wanted to hear. That they shopped around several places until they found one willing to give it to them doesn't inspire confidence.

My takeaway from this is that if this is the evidence the police wanted the DA to use in a trial, Alex Hunter's decision not to prosecute is one of the most understandable choices in the history of legal trials.

FergusMcDuck,

As I stated, I have heard the recording which has long since disappeared. You can come up with IDI theories all day long. It does not change the fact that BR was heard on the 911 call.

Why this?
911 Operator Comes Forward About Being Silenced With a “Gag Order”

When Richards and Clemente met with Kimberly Archuleta, the 911 operator who spoke with Patsy Ramsey that morning, Archuleta revealed that her side of the story had been silenced by an investigator on the case.

“I wanted someone to get my testimony,” Archuleta said. “When they did the grand jury, nobody talked to me. I had an investigator come to my house, told me, ‘There’s a gag order — do not talk about this until we go to court,’ and I was never talked to again. And I never went to court.” Archuleta is convinced there was a third party on the other end of the phone, aside from Patsy and John Ramsey.
 

Other Expert Assessments of 911 Tape​

Two government agencies and three independent labs all analyzed the 911 tape but were unable to identify any voices at the end.

  • FBI/Secret Service Analysis. Both the FBI and Secret Service reportedly examined the tape to determine whether extraneous sounds at the end of the tape were human voices. They were unable to identify any such voices (NBC News 2003).
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory Analysis. According to Internet poster Jayelles, a post made by Internet poster jameson on a thread named "Opposing the BPD's request to seal 911" in March 2003 (a thread that evidently has disappeared) made the following claim: "Pete Hofstrom would later take the 911 tape enhanced by the Aerospace Corporation to New Mexico to let his brother-in-law, who worked in the Los Alamos scientific complex, have a crack at analyzing it. The brother-in-law apparently declared that he heard a voice say, "I scream at you." That meaningless comment managed to cast doubt on the Aerospace conclusion that Burke said, "What did you find?" and was another gift to the defense lawyers. They would now be able to point out that even the prosecutor's office and the police did not agree about what was on the tape."
  • Legal Audio Analysis. “I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City (NBC News 2003).
  • Team Audio Analysis. David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says (NBC News 2003).
(link)

I think the police were desperate to find some kind of clear evidence that the Ramseys were lying, and were hearing what they wanted to hear. That they shopped around several places until they found one willing to give it to them doesn't inspire confidence.

My takeaway from this is that if this is the evidence the police wanted the DA to use in a trial, Alex Hunter's decision not to prosecute is one of the most understandable choices in the history of legal trials.

FergusMcDuck,
I think the police were desperate to find some kind of clear evidence that the Ramseys were lying, and were hearing what they wanted to hear.
More confabulation from you. You obviously make it up as you move along.

Folks on here are not so dumb as to believe whatever you post.

BPD already had evidence that the Ramsey's were lying.

e.g. Burke stated JonBenet walked into the house.
The parents said they put her SLEEPING to bed.
JonBenet's hair had been dressed in two ponytails, with colored hair-ties.
At autopsy pineapple was found in JonBenet's digestive system.
BR's touch dna, Patsy's fibers, John's fibers were all found inside the wine-cellar, they should NOT be there.
The Ramsey's said they all went to bed and slept all night, hearing NOTHING.

From memory the 911 call was played live on some talkshow where some folks said they heard the BR exchange.

Shortly after the talkshow episode was pulled from the broadcast schedules and has vanished into the ether.

.
 
Short Version of the post below. If you would like to donate to our volunteer moderator staff please do so using one of the places below. Please put "FOR THE MODS" in the description. Thank you.
PayPal
Pay Websleuths.com using PayPal.Me
Venmo name Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14
Bank to Bank using zelle please use the email address triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
Please be sure to put in the memo "FOR THE MODS"


Hi Everyone,
Forgive me for interrupting but this is important. Please do not post questions about this post on this thread. Go to THIS THREAD to ask questions.

DID YOU KNOW BY THE END OF THE DAY OUR MODS WILL HAVE HANDLED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF ALERTS? YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THIS BECAUSE THAT IS HOW GOOD THE MODS ARE AT THEIR JOBS.

One of the many things I love about Websleuths is we can come on here, discuss true crime, and not have to deal with all the stupid drama and baloney we have to deal with on other platforms. Do you know why? It is the hard work of our wonderful volunteer moderators.

Because of these incredible moderators, you don't see the following, the trolls that constantly try and disrupt. You don't see the newbies who don't know the rules and post a bunch of unproven rumors in cases, You don't see the mean people insulting your posts, you don't see the stupid threats angry people post, and guess what? I could go on and on. In other words, the mods make your experience the best you can find when it comes to discussing true crime.

If you could donate even one dollar that would be great. If half the people that come to Websleuths today donated one dollar we would be able to give the mods a wonderful bonus for all their hard work.

One hundred percent of the money raised goes to the moderators.

If you cannot donate we completely understand. If you could please post a word of thanks to our mods on THIS THREAD that would be wonderful.

If you would like to donate to the moderators at Websleuths.com please do so using one of the places below and be sure and put in the description "FOR THE MODS"
Pay Websleuths.com using PayPal.Me
OR you can use
Venmo name Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14
Bank to Bank using zelle please use the email address triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
Please be sure to put in the memo "FOR THE MODS"


Websleuths.com will always be free for members. It costs nothing to join and it never will.
If you like to read at Websleuths because of the incredible work of our members please know the reason our members are able to do what they do is because of our dedicated volunteer moderator staff.

This video explains what the moderators do every day to keep Websleuths the most respected true crime discussion forum on the Internet.
Thank you,

Tricia Griffith Owner/Websleuths.com
 
There are different versions of Burke being asleep/awake. Why should the parents need them, if there were nothing to hide? Part of BR's initial story contained the detail that he'd heard his mom "going psycho" downstairs. What time was that? If your tale begins untruthfully, continuing to be skeptical is logical.

The Rs invited people on the 26th in order to destroy the CS. John would do this a bit later when he brought the body from the WC.

The rind of the pineapple matched what was in the fridge. Pineapple and milk was a favorite snack of the kids. It was not a random offering. The intruder(s) would have to have known this already, or asked JB what she wanted to eat, while she was being abducted. The fact is that Burke's fingerprints are on the bowl. It is not asserted usually that Patsy served it.

If the NE is trash, what is the point in discussing it?

DNA evidence per se proves nothing.

Staging: The duct tape was put over JonBenet's mouth after death.
Staging: The white blanket was retrieved from the dryer to wrap JB.
Staging: JB was wiped down.
Staging: Pink Barbie nightgown laid on floor of WC.
Staging: JB's arms were tied too loosely to be restrained.
Staging: The size 6s were removed.
Staging: The FF is fictitious.

Instead of picking holes in RDI, proponents of IDI ought to offer a clear narrative which takes into account the available evidence, and which adheres to a reasonable timeline. By what means did the intruders arrive at and depart from the house? Why did they take time to feed JonBenet? How did they know about and find the size 12s? And on and on...
 
Last edited:
BR's DrP interview revealed that he was downstairs at exactly the same time as the estimated TOD - after eveyone was asleep - but saw and heard nothing.

Dad had taken him upstairs with a flashlight.

He had Hi-tec shoes.

He was awake when PR ran into his room, he admitted that he pretended to be asleep.

No one wants to admit that one child killed the other. So, cover-up.
 
FergusMcDuck,

As I stated, I have heard the recording which has long since disappeared. You can come up with IDI theories all day long. It does not change the fact that BR was heard on the 911 call.

Not a fact. One out of the ca 10 agencies and experts that examined the tape says there is. The folks in the CBS special just heard what they wanted to hear. That special didn't exactly inspire confidence in there being actual voices, much less identifiable voices and words. It is essentially this. The thing that struck me most is that the sounds, especially of "Burke" fail to fall into normal speech intonations and rhythms. If you haven't listened to it before, try saying "what did you find?" out loud a couple of times. Then listen to the "Burke voice" in the CBS link. Very different, right? Same with John's bit, they may have "identified" words, but the way they're said is quite frankly more like a bot translator than actual humans.

Is this the tape supposedly aired at the Geraldo show 25 years ago, of which there is no trace of in the transcripts and no evidence it ever actually aired?
 
BPD already had evidence that the Ramsey's were lying.

e.g. Burke stated JonBenet walked into the house.

According to Steve Thomas. I'm a bit skeptical of this, since Thomas also says Burke claimed in the same interview that JonBenet's bedwetting was a major problem and when that bit of the interview emerged it turned out he said the opposite. There is, of course, the possibility that Burke might remember it wrong.

The parents said they put her SLEEPING to bed.
JonBenet's hair had been dressed in two ponytails, with colored hair-ties.

Which doesn't contradict their account.

At autopsy pineapple was found in JonBenet's digestive system.

Which doesn't contradict their account.

BR's touch dna, Patsy's fibers, John's fibers were all found inside the wine-cellar, they should NOT be there.

"Patsy's fibers" and "John's fibers" are misnomers. The fibers were consistent with some of their clothing (at least Patsy's), but they would also be consistent with a great number of other articles of clothing. You can't match a garment with fibers.

From memory the 911 call was played live on some talkshow where some folks said they heard the BR exchange.

Shortly after the talkshow episode was pulled from the broadcast schedules and has vanished into the ether.

Almost like it never actually existed.
 
There are different versions of Burke being asleep/awake. Why should the parents need them, if there were nothing to hide? Part of BR's initial story contained the detail that he'd heard his mom "going psycho" downstairs. What time was that? If your tale begins untruthfully, continuing to be skeptical is logical.

What was the untruth here? If Burke was awake, pretending to be asleep and then didn't tell his parents about it, how were they supposed to know that?

The Rs invited people on the 26th in order to destroy the CS. John would do this a bit later when he brought the body from the WC.

Sure, that's one opinion.

The rind of the pineapple matched what was in the fridge.

I thought it was supposed to match that in the bowl? Either way, as Thomas himself admitted, it basically means it was the same kind of pineapple - fresh, not canned. They didn't test pineapple DNA.

Pineapple and milk was a favorite snack of the kids.

Well, a. no it wasn't. I've never seen anyone claim that it was a favorite of theirs, or even that they had it before at any point. It's a myth. Also b. there wasn't milk in the bowl. That factoid only started doing the rounds 20 years later, probably from people confusing the mold and the whiteness of the bowl with some form of dairy product (the bowl was left out for days before the pictures were taken).

It was not a random offering. The intruder(s) would have to have known this already, or asked JB what she wanted to eat, while she was being abducted. The fact is that Burke's fingerprints are on the bowl. It is not asserted usually that Patsy served it.

Yet there was a serving spoon in it. We can see the other evidence of the victim advocates' setup, like a plate with bagels, on the kitchen counter. A serving bowl with a serving spoon indicates that the bowl was meant for serving out of, not eating from.

If the NE is trash, what is the point in discussing it?

I didn't bring it up. I'd be happy in removing it from the discussion entirely.

DNA evidence per se proves nothing.

Staging: The duct tape was put over JonBenet's mouth after death.

Not impossible, though it should be said that Thomas admitted to not recalling if they ever did actual tests to be sure.

Staging: The white blanket was retrieved from the dryer to wrap JB.

We don't know that it was in the dryer that night.

Staging: JB was wiped down.
Staging: Pink Barbie nightgown laid on floor of WC.

But was that staging, or was that something the killer had thought to take with him, in case of a successful abduction?

Staging: JB's arms were tied too loosely to be restrained.

Didn't John say he attempted to remove the restraints when he found her?

Staging: The size 6s were removed.

Or she wore the size 12 she was found in.

Staging: The FF is fictitious.

Instead of picking holes in RDI, proponents of IDI ought to offer a clear narrative which takes into account the available evidence, and which adheres to a reasonable timeline. By what means did the intruders arrive at and depart from the house? Why did they take time to feed JonBenet? How did they know about and find the size 12s? And on and on...

There are a ton of variables depending on whether information has been acquired or relayed correctly - and depending on whether evidence was real or chimeras generated before or after the crime.

But sure, I'll have a go.

The intruder is a young man, likely blond and might be wearing glasses. My guess is that he was a student at Boulder University, but he could also be local. He has approached JonBenet at some point (he might have been a mall Santa), and told her Santa would make a secret visit after Christmas. He has no practical experience of a crime like this, but he has obsessed over it, watching movies and likely reading books, fantasizing about committing such a crime.

The intruder had watched the house from the alley, possibly for multiple nights. He might even have entered the house before that night, but it isn't necessary. On Christmas Day, he brings a bag with tape, cord, rope, perhaps a flashlight and other things, and waits in the alley. When he sees the Ramseys leave at 4:30-5 for the Whites, he decides to take his chance and enter early. He likely tries some doors, but enters through the basement window. If the suitcase was in the position Fleet White remembers, he might have stepped on it on his way down. Now he has the house all to himself, so he takes a tour, enjoying the transgressive nature of it. This is when he decides to write the note, using a pad he finds. Not having written a ransom note before, he fills it with lines he remembers from movies. He also adds surface details from what he finds in the house - John's 118000 bonus on his paystubs, the ties to Atlanta - then tears out the pages. He knows (from observation) that the room next to JonBenet's (John Andrew's room) is not occupied, and has a view of the garage, so after a while he retreats there to wait.

The Ramseys return at 8:30-9, and the intruder slips under John Andrew's bed with his bag. The Ramseys put the sleeping JonBenet to bed, while Burke has started fiddling with one of his toys alone. John goes and finds him, then helps him for a while before putting him to bed. The Ramseys retire ca 10:30 and the house goes quiet. The intruder, having waited until he thinks it's safe (some time around midnight, maybe an hour later), before slipping out. This next bit is solely a guess of mine, but I do think the intruder had some kind of Santa outfit - not a while thing, mind, but at least a hat and probably a beard. He puts it on, grabs his things and goes into JonBenet's room (there is a possibility that just before this is when he wrote the ransom note, by flashlight in the kitchen). Once inside, he lifts her up, hoping that if she wakes, the benign nature of his outfit as well as their secret promise would prevent her from reacting badly. He carries her down the spiral staircase (getting the pieces of garland in her hair), then down into the basement.

Here is where something either goes wrong or according to plan. He tries to subdue her with a stun gun, either before removing her from the house or assaulting her. He might also take this time to put the tape on her mouth (getting fibers from his Santa suit on it), but it doesn't work like in the movies, and she struggles and might even get a scream out. He ties her wrists together and fashions the garrotte using a paintbrush found beside him, strangling her. But again, it isn't as he expected - she claws at the garrotte and struggles, so he grabs a bat and bashes her over the head. The sexual assault happens somewhere around here, using another part of the paintbrush. His saliva mingles with a drop of blood in her panties. When he's sure she's dead, he pulls the panties up, takes his things along with the bat and leaves the basement. Left are red fibers and beaver fur from his Santa outfit, as well as black fibers from what he wore below. Agitation causes him to forget the rope in John Andrew's room, and possibly the flashlight on the kitchen counter. He walks out the butler door, leaving the bat beside it, before vanishing into the night.

The details and order of things could change, but I do believe something like this happened.
 
Last edited:
According to Steve Thomas. I'm a bit skeptical of this, since Thomas also says Burke claimed in the same interview that JonBenet's bedwetting was a major problem and when that bit of the interview emerged it turned out he said the opposite. There is, of course, the possibility that Burke might remember it wrong.



Which doesn't contradict their account.



Which doesn't contradict their account.



"Patsy's fibers" and "John's fibers" are misnomers. The fibers were consistent with some of their clothing (at least Patsy's), but they would also be consistent with a great number of other articles of clothing. You can't match a garment with fibers.



Almost like it never actually existed.

FergusMcDuck,
"Patsy's fibers" and "John's fibers" are misnomers. The fibers were consistent with some of their clothing (at least Patsy's), but they would also be consistent with a great number of other articles of clothing. You can't match a garment with fibers.
Methinks you are playing games. You are patently injecting false interpretations into your posts.

e.g. "You can't match a garment with fibers."

The FBI house the world's largest fiber archive and can easily match fibers to clothing.

Also the fibers John left on JonBenet's private parts originated from his Israeli manufactured cotton shirt. i.e. the cotton was sourced somewhere in the middle east, possibly Israel, so the fibers do not represent some mass produced item.

Spectroscopic analysis of fibers, can reveal which batch, i.e. location of manufacture, since the process is usually different across sites and input chemicals.

So far all your interpretations are patently counterfactuals which accomodate the forensic evidence, but there is absolutely NOTHING you say which clearly establishes that the Ramsey's are innocent.

Anyway you should read the forum rules which state we are not here to discuss IDI.

Folks will just put you on IGNORE if you continue posting your counterfactual interpretations.

.
 
FergusMcDuck,

Methinks you are playing games. You are patently injecting false interpretations into your posts.

e.g. "You can't match a garment with fibers."

The FBI house the world's largest fiber archive and can easily match fibers to clothing.

Also the fibers John left on JonBenet's private parts originated from his Israeli manufactured cotton shirt. i.e. the cotton was sourced somewhere in the middle east, possibly Israel, so the fibers do not represent some mass produced item.

Ah, but it is far from certain that there was a match. Schiller in "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" says there wasn't a match. In fact, as far as I know the only source that John's shirt was a match was the claim being made by Levin in his interrogation of John:

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is

22 our belief based on forensic evidence that

23 there are hairs that are associated, that the

24 source is the collared black shirt that you

25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

0058

1 underpants, and I wondered if you --

After that the Ramsey lawyer objected and asked for the report, which was never sent to them according to the lawyer. As far as I know that's the end of it. I'd love to see that report. Even so, look at the words Levin used. "Hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt". I've read through the whole and Levin never actually mentions fibers in association with the shirt, only "hairs". He does mention fibers, but not in relation to that specific garment.

If the commonality is hair and not fibers, it becomes a different question altogether.
 
Not a fact. One out of the ca 10 agencies and experts that examined the tape says there is. The folks in the CBS special just heard what they wanted to hear. That special didn't exactly inspire confidence in there being actual voices, much less identifiable voices and words. It is essentially this. The thing that struck me most is that the sounds, especially of "Burke" fail to fall into normal speech intonations and rhythms. If you haven't listened to it before, try saying "what did you find?" out loud a couple of times. Then listen to the "Burke voice" in the CBS link. Very different, right? Same with John's bit, they may have "identified" words, but the way they're said is quite frankly more like a bot translator than actual humans.

Is this the tape supposedly aired at the Geraldo show 25 years ago, of which there is no trace of in the transcripts and no evidence it ever actually aired?

FergusMcDuck,

1999-05-30: Taped copy of 911 call given to Ramsey family

Taped copy of 911 call given to Ramsey family
Brother of JonBenet is heard on recording when parents said he was asleep, report says
News Staff

Patsy and John Ramsey have been given a copy of a 911 tape that apparently contradicts some of their statements to police, Newsweek is reporting in its June 7 issue.

The tape was made Dec. 26, 1996 -- the morning that the Ramseys' daughter, JonBenet, was reported missing. She was found dead hours later in the basement of the family's Boulder home.

The Ramseys told police that their son Burke was asleep when Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:52 a.m. that morning.

But his voice can be heard on the tape, according to published reports.

Burke Ramsey was called before the Boulder grand jury, which has been investigating JonBenet's murder since last fall.

Shortly before Burke Ramsey's testimony, a judge ordered Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to turn over a copy of the tape to the Ramseys, Newsweek reported.

In Colorado, a person testifying before a grand jury is allowed to see any "prior statement" he or she made.

May 30, 1999

And we have this bit of info. in 2000:

2000 March 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 NBC News Today Show Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey

COURIC: And yet some things just don't make sense. There are no clear signs of forced entry, leading police to suspect the killer was no stranger. They also think the ransom note is bogus. Who would take the time to write a three-page note at the scene of the crime and risk being caught? And then there's the question of the 911 call. You called 911 at 5:52. Burke was asleep. And yet the tape of the 911, as you all know, was enhanced in a lab and revealed a conversation in the background, apparently, between you, John, and your son Burke.

Mr. RAMSEY: OK...

COURIC: How you do explain this?

Mr. RAMSEY: The facts are that Patsy and I told the police that Burke, to our knowledge, was asleep and had been asleep until I got him up to go to Fleet White's house later that morning.

COURIC: So do you think this tape was somehow doctored or misinterpreted or what?

Ms. RAMSEY: I think it is.

Mr. RAMSEY: I don't know.

Ms. RAMSEY: It is.

Mr. RAMSEY: I--we've--we've never been allowed to hear it.

And then we have this:
2000 November 14
About.Com Crime Chat
with former Detective Steve Thomas

crimeADM: "Did you hear the 911 tape personally; and if so, once and for all, was Burke on it?"

stevethomas: "I heard the 911 tape. repeatedly, as did the other detectives. the consensus was unanimous, as supported by the enhancement -- there is a 3rd voice on the tape, appears to be Burke (unless there was someone else present who has never been identified...)"

crimeADM: "A follow-up to the 911 question: Many people swear they heard the tape on one talk-show or another. Is there any possibility that this happened?"

stevethomas: "as far as i know, the only people who heard the tape were involved in the investigation -- da's office people, bpd personnel, engineers who enhanced it. if someone is out on the talk shows saying they heard it, who is this/these person(s)?"

**I have personally followed this case from the 26th of December, 1996. I recall JR and PR walking out of their house that day (like it was yesterday). I also recall hearing the 911 call with BR on it before bot’s voice became a thing. I know what I heard. Do you?
 
Last edited:
crimeADM: "A follow-up to the 911 question: Many people swear they heard the tape on one talk-show or another. Is there any possibility that this happened?"

stevethomas: "as far as i know, the only people who heard the tape were involved in the investigation -- da's office people, bpd personnel, engineers who enhanced it. if someone is out on the talk shows saying they heard it, who is this/these person(s)?"

**I have personally followed this case from the 26th of December, 1996. I recall JR and PR walking out of their house that day (like it was yesterday). I also recall hearing the 911 call with BR on it before bot’s voice became a thing. I know what I heard. Do you?

I hear noise.

As for the talk show, if the actual (enhanced) tape had been aired, there would be more traces than some people claiming they remembered it. Have people checked the newspapers the day after it aired?
 
FergusMcDuck,

What was the motive for the intruder(s)? This most important aspect was not included in what was posted.

Also, by what means did the intruder(s) arrive at the R house? Walked? Bike? Car? Truck? Since going to the residence is the first step in the timeline, it is crucial to any IDI theory. "Vanishing into the night" would be rather cumbersome while wearing a Santa outfit!

No one has ever contested that milk and pineapple was a favorite snack of the kids. Burke did not deny this in his interview with the mandated psychologist. He only refused to identify the bowl as containing pineapple.

To put a fine point on it, the rind of the pineapple found in the bowl matched the rind of the pineapple which was found in the fridge in the Ramsey's kitchen.

The Maglite was a gift from JAR. The intruder(s) had no need to leave with it, since it did not belong to them. Its batteries had no fingerprints.

LHP said that the white blanket was in the dryer. So - the intruder(s), after murdering JB, wandered around the basement, and found her favorite blanket in the laundry area, and decided to return to the WC to wrap the body in it because...?

Whoever wrote the RN knew to put an accent mark over the 'e' in attache. Are there any Francophiles closely connected to the case?

Since there isn't fingerprint evidence, the intruder(s) had to be wearing gloves, and did so while writing the RN.

No scenario of the crimes is complete without coming to terms with the chronic SA. Who is responsible for this? The intruder(s) would have to have made contact with JonBenet more than once previously. Denials of the autopsy findings won't wash. There are no indications that JB tried to fight off her attacker.

Patsy claimed not to know why JB was in the size 12s. Who was aware that there was another set of Bloomis? And where to find them in the large multi-story house? Why would the intruder(s) care about the pedantic detail of finding the other Wednesday panties?


Gaining access through the basement window has never been demonstrated under the conditions of Christmas night. A fantasy of LS. The stun gun is another.

The GJ returned two indictments against each parent. As LS testified before them, this is an implicit rejection of his IDI theory. Burke testified as well.

The fibers found in the ligature and paint tray matched the outfit that Patsy wore to the Whites' party and that she still was wearing when BPD came to the home.
 
Last edited:
FergusMcDuck,

What was the motive for the intruder(s)? This most important aspect was not included in what was posted.

Violation, probably sexual, of a child, as well as the desire to commit transgression against society. If monetary interest was involved, I suspect it was secondary.

Also, by what means did the intruder(s) arrive at the R house. Walked? Bike? Car? Truck? Since going to the residence is the first step in the timeline, it is crucial to any IDI theory.

Walking or riding a bike, I reckon. It depends on if he was a student or not; the university is not far from the Ramsey house.

"Vanishing into the night' would be made rather cumbersome while wearing a Santa outfit!

If he wore one, he removed it before he left. Incidentally, a Santa suit belonging to the family was taken into evidence, and Patsy was asked about a large tuft of cotton, that might have come from a Santa beard, found in a windowsill in the basement.

No one has ever contested that milk and pineapple was a favorite snack of the kids.

I'm contesting it. What is the source for it? I've seen a lot of people declaring it, but no one has ever provided a citation.

Burke did not deny this in his interview with the mandated psychologist.

Was he asked if pineapple in milk was a favorite snack? Because I can't find it in the transcript.

He only refused to identify the bowl as containing pineapple.

Probably because he didn't know what it was, if it was placed there by the victim advocates the morning after the murder.

To put a fine point on it, the rind of the pineapple found in the bowl matched the rind of the pineapple which was found in the fridge in the Ramsey's kitchen.

This is an interesting take, since it is Steve Thomas' representation of the findings of the experts. But when asked in deposition, he tells us what "consistent down to the rind" means.

Q. The pineapple, we know the autopsy statement about the findings. Were there any tests performed beyond the autopsy on those contents?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. What I know about that is Detective Weinheimer received that assignment during the course of the investigation, employed the help of I think a biological -- or a botanist or somebody of some expertise at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The name Dr. Bach jumps out at me, as well as others, and he completed a series of reports concerning the pineapple and I think to save time one of those conclusions I think I put in the book.

Q. About the rinds being identical?

A. That it was a fresh pineapple consistent -- fresh pineapple with a rind.

Q. Rind being consistent -- oh, with a rind but consistent with pineapple found in the house or in the bowl?

A. Yeah, and let me clarify that, pineapple consistent down to the rind with pineapple found in the bowl in the kitchen.

Q. Consistent down to the rind. It seems to me pineapple with rind is pineapple with rind. Was there something unique about this particular rind?

A. I think they were able to determine -- well, in fact, I know that fellow Officer Weinheimer disclosed to us that they were able to characterize it as a fresh pineapple rather than a canned pineapple.

Q. Okay.

So, "consistent down to the rind" means the pineapple was fresh, not canned. Basically, it could have come from the bowl, but it didn't have to.

The Maglite was a gift from JAR. The intruder(s) had no need to leave with it, since it did not belong to them.

I had seen that proposed but didn't know it had been confirmed. One less mystery, then. Do you know when it was confirmed?

Whoever wrote the RN knew to put an accent mark over the 'e' in attache. Are there any Francophiles connected to the case? Hmm...

A surprising amount of people know how to spell.

No scenario of the crimes is complete without coming to terms with the chronic SA. Who is responsible for this? The inturder(s) would have to made contact with JonBenet more than once previously.

If it is true, and as I recall no one who actually looked at the body would say it was, then I'd look at the pageant circuit. Pam Griffin saw a blonde man in photos behind JonBenet, taken in both Dallas and Colorado, a man no one else seemed to know. JonBenet confided in Barbara Kostanick about the secret Santa visit on the day before Christmas.

There are no indications that JB tried to fight off her attacker.

There was DNA found under her fingernails.

Gaining access through the basement window has never been demonstrated under the conditions of Christmas night. A fantasy of LS. The stun gun is another.

I think the stun gun theory is pretty solid. The marks match other stun gun marks. The spacing is right.

As for the window, I don't see what conditions would be different on Christmas, but I'm not wedded to the window as an entrance.

The GJ returned two indictments against each parent. As LS testified before them, this is an implicit rejection of his IDI theory. Burke testified as well.

How much time did Smit get as opposed to the BPD? Grand Jury means little, ham sandwich and all. I think it was clear that the indictments returned would collapse in court, which is why the DA chose not to prosecute.

The fibers found in the ligature and paint tray matched the outfit that Patsy wore to the Whites' party and that she still was wearing when BPD came to the home.

Ah, but there is a problem there. The red fibers are indeed found in the ligature, the tray, on the tape. But shouldn't there be black fibers along with them? The jacket was checkered, after all.
 
FergusMyDuck ---The bowl of pineapple had Burke's fingerprints. If he was unable to identify it, then he did not know what he was eating.

JonBenet ate pineapple. There was a bowl of it with her brother's prints on the kitchen counter. Coincidence?

The autopsy also revealed chronic SA. JB was already a crime victim before Christmas. Was the intruder(s) the chronic abuser? Or another coincidence that they unknowingly came upon a child who had been abused previously? This is very important if the motivation were violation. The final assault was consistent with what had been happening.

There was at least 45 minutes between the head blow and asphyxiation. Why did the intruder(s) hang around the house?

Christmas night there was snow on the ground. This seems that the intruder(s) would have wet footwear when coming down through the window. But no footprints. There were no lights on in the basement. LS did not pull back the grate through a layer of snow, nor step down into the basement at night into a darkened room.

Using a stun gun during the crime makes no sense. Kolar matched the marks in question to BR's train set in the basement.

Eventually, the Rs admitted that the Maglite was a gift from JAR.

The Rs never testified. Yet, they were both indicted for child endangerment. Evidence was presented to the GJ that led to these indictments. One hopes that it is not easy to bring charges against an innocent (and privileged) couple whose child was just brutally murdered. But maybe it is. The indictments became known sometime after AH stated that the GJ had not acted. That is different than the cases were unwinnable.

Explaining the available evidence is problematic enough. Dreaming up evidence makes understanding what happened to JonBenet even more difficult to achieve.
 
Last edited:
I hear noise.

As for the talk show, if the actual (enhanced) tape had been aired, there would be more traces than some people claiming they remembered it. Have people checked the newspapers the day after it aired?
FergusMcDuck,

You hearing noise reminds of the the sound of the video games getting on BR nerves; beep, beep, beep.
1. Burke lied to the cops during his 3-day interview in late May and early June of 1998. He told them he was asleep in bed when his mom made the 911 call at 5:52 A.M. The enhanced 911 tape proved he was up and engaged in conversation with his parents at that time. John and Patsy, in their respective 3-day interviews in June of 1998, lied about the same thing in an obvious conspiratoral attempt among John, Patsy, and Burke, to distant Burke from the crime.

2. Burke has apparently been in therapy for years. Patsy Ramsey and Tom Haney from the 1998 interviews:

TH: "How about with the moving and all of that, has that caused some problems for him, change of schools?"

PR: "Yeah. And I have been in touch with the counselors and the teachers and everybody, alert to this. And they said that -- they are remarkably surprised at how well he is doing. He just makes friends and gets good grades."

TH: "So his adjustment's been pretty -- "

PR: "Been pretty good.

TH: "You mentioned I think when I asked you yesterday, had you seen an interview from last week with Burke. You said no?"

PR: "No."

TH: "There were like three days, and the first two days were pretty basic questions, but on the third day, there were questions where the discussion was around JonBenet and the death. And I am no psychologist, psychiatrist, but immediately noticed a change in Burke and his demeanor. He's curled up on his chair something like this, not sitting like this, but a chair like this, and he's half in a fetal position and it seems to be a struggle, a real difficult time. I am wondering if you noticed anything similar, any changes?"

PR: "Well, I may have -- I have had him in therapy just for this reason. So that, I mean, the therapist explained to me that -- that Burke may be trying to hold together and be real strong for John and I, you know. And because I was saying it seemed to me like he needs to let it out, you know. He said, well, children handle things differently, you know, than adults. And he doesn't -- he thinks Burke is just fine. So I have to just take him at -- I respect his opinion, Dr. Jaffe. But no, I have not -- I have not directly, you know, noticed anything."

TH: "Does it seem like he knows more than he's saying, and obviously he's not saying much?"

PR: "Right."

TH: "Like he's keeping something in, like something?"

PR: "Well, I think he does, you know, in our conversations when our friends call and when, you know, he has confrontations with the media and I am sure all that affects him. As far as something about who did it, I don't think he knows. I mean, he would say."

TH: " Has that -- is that something that you have asked the -- Dr. Jaffe to explore?"

PR: "I don't know if I have directly asked him that. I don't -- "

TH: "And you know that's a thought?"

PR: "Yeah. Well, I knew that's -- I was presuming that's what they were doing last week, kind of seeing if he remembered anything."

TH: "And they were, yeah, but you know Dr. Jaffe and he works with him on a fairly regular basis?"

PR: "Right."

TH: "How often?"

PR: "Oh, every three weeks, maybe."

TH: "Okay. But a lot more than -- "

PR: "Sure, yes. Quite -- sure. I am quite sure he is alert to that. You know. If the thing would come up -- "

JMO

So BR states in his interview with Dr.P he doesn’t recall the 911 call conversation unless his memory has been erased. He further states on his behalf let the evidence or lack thereof speak for itself.

He seems self assured. Do you suppose it’s because he will never have to stand before a court of law in this matter since he was shy of a couple of weeks of being prosecutable and perhaps, just perhaps his memory was erased? It used to be a thing. Sort of like one flew over the Cuckoo's nest. Then his mom addresses this topic during an interview. What are the chances?
 
FergusMyDuck ---The bowl of pineapple had Burke's fingerprints. If he was unable to identify it, then he did not know what he was eating.

Because he likely didn't eat from that bowl. Having family fingerprints on dishes in a house does not mean said family member was the last to touch it. The bowl was out and used a few days earlier per photo evidence.

JonBenet ate pineapple. There was a bowl of it with her brother's prints on the kitchen counter. Coincidence?

JonBenet also ate grapes and cherries, which were found with the pineapple in her duodenum. There were no grapes and cherries in the bowl. The bowl also has a serving spoon in it. Schiler's book says that the victim advocates went out and bought bagels and fruit, and we see from the crime scene video that they were using dishes from the house to serve them. As far as I'm concerned, that explains the serving spoon.

The autopsy also revealed chronic SA. JB was already a crime victim before Christmas. Was the intruder(s) the chronic abuser? Or another coincidence that they unknowingly came upon a child who had been abused previously? This is very important if the motivation were violation. The final assault was consistent with what had been happening.

Some of those who examined the photos claimed that, yes. There wasn't a universal opinion that she was abused before that night.

There was at least 45 minutes between the head blow and asphyxiation. Why did the intruder(s) hang around the house?

This is another thing we don't actually know. At least one medical examiner said the two happened close to each other, with a police source claiming a neurologist gave them the 45 min time. I haven't seen her report, but would love to do so.

What stumps me with that number is the lack of swelling. A head wound bleeds profusely because damage to the brain causes the body to pump blood up there, bringing oxygen to the brain being the most essential part of the circulatory system. Since the skin didn't break there should have been massive amounts of blood and swelling up there, yet the head wound went unnoticed until the autopsy. The only thing I can think of that would harmonize the two is that if the strangling was very protracted, stifling the blood flow while not immediately killing her - and I'm not sure I want to think about that.

Like I said, varying opinions, but of course seeing the actual reports would give me more to work with.

Christmas night there was snow on the ground. This seems that the intruder(s) would have wet footwear when coming down through the window. But no footprints. There were no lights on in the basement. LS did not pull back the grate through a layer of snow, nor step down into the basement at night into a darkened room.

Photos show the snow being patchy and easily avoidable. There certainly wasn't any snow on the grate or in the window well. A flashlight could easily be used for illumination.

Using a stun gun during the crime makes no sense. Kolar matched the marks in question to BR's train set in the basement.

It makes sense if the criminal's experience was all from watching movies and he thought using the stun gun would just drop her immediately. As for the train track, even if the spacing matched, how is one of those supposed to have created the abrasions on her skin? Abrasions that lasted for a whole day and more?

Not only that, but one of the marks was where the tape had been, and there is evidence that it was applied over the tape, a "micro-sized white substance located over the stun gun mark on JonBenet’s right cheek. The white adhesive is visible in this photograph. This is important information because it means JonBenet was stun-gunned over the duct tape on her mouth, which caused the adhesive on the duct tape to melt and adhere to her face.” - Injustice, Whitson

I would never say the stun gun theory is proven, but I do think it has a lot more going for it than the train track theory, which is just absurd in my opinion.

Eventually, the Rs admitted that the Maglite was a gift from JAR.

So I went and looked this up, and it turns out not quite:

Q (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, I know that you were asked questions about a black metal flashlight that was found in the house. We have developed, since '98, some information about that flashlight I would like to ask you just a little bit about. Is that the flashlight that you habitually used, say for example, if your power went out and you had candles lit in your house? Do you know?

A. Not necessarily. And I don't know that that was my flashlight. The picture I saw, and I think I commented at the time, was that that one was very dirty. My flashlight, while it looked to be the same size, mine was clean. And my son gave it to me for a present. So that was the issue that I saw. It kind of looks like mine, but it's certainly filthy.

Q. May not be?

A. Yeah.

Q. Let's talk about, I want to ask this so it is clear for you. The flashlight your son gave you, whether the light in the picture is that or not, but that flashlight, the one you received as a gift from your son, was that the light that, if you had power failures, routinely, that is the first thing you would grab?

A. No, not necessarily.

Q. Not necessarily?

A. Because we kept it -- it was a big flashlight. We kept it, I believe, normally in the drawer down that little sink area in the back hall. I don't even remember if I had a flashlight by my bedside or not.

So there's some uncertainty there still.

The Rs never testified. Yet, they were both indicted for child endangerment. Evidence was presented to the GJ that led to these indictments. One hopes that it is not easy to bring charges against an innocent (and privileged) couple whose child was just brutally murdered. But maybe it is. The indictments became known sometime after AH stated that the GJ had not acted. That is different than the cases were unwinnable.

Indictments are incredibly easy to get from a Grand Jury, that's where the whole "ham sandwich" comes from - a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich. The thing is all they have to establish is probable cause, and they rely on only what the police and prosecution show them. A prosecutor, however, has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to win a case. Hunter obviously felt he couldn't do that, and given what we know now it's hard to disagree.
 
Like I said, happy to blame the messenger here, since it is NE. I thought it was common knowledge that NE is a trashy tabloid with little relation to the truth.

But even discounting that, look at what the Ramseys are actually quoted as having said, compared to what NE says it means. The editorializing by the NE is obvious.



I see no reason to disbelieve it. Quite frankly, I don't see what it is suppose to change. In both "versions" Burke remains where he is, in both "versions" the parents think he's asleep, in both "versions" Burke says or does nothing. So NE's claim that the story "changed" because of the so-called "voices" falls flat on its face since the "new" Ramsey account does nothing to support it. There is no reason for the Ramseys to change their story to this, unless if what they're telling is the actual truth.



Well, there are some assumptions that have to be made to consider it a contradiction.



"Close to" is a variable time-span, considering digestion and its varying factors. It is well within reason that she ate it sometime during the evening. But then, she also ate grapes and cherries.



I mean, that's not really evidence, since it comes with its own complications. First of all, it's a serving bowl with a serving spoon. That isn't consistent with a parent preparing a snack for a child, and also seems highly unlikely for a child to make themselves (why put a bunch of pineapple chunks in a bowl with a serving spoon, when they could just eat out of the container it came in?). We also know that the victim advocates left the house early in the morning to by "bagels and fruit" for everyone. Some of their other purchases can be seen in the kitchen close by the flashlight. Victim advocates putting pineapple chunks in a serving bowl with a serving spoon, to serve multiple people, is really the only thing that explains the whole setup.

Second, there were no grapes and cherries in the bowl, and JonBenet had all three in her system "together". If the bowl was the source of the pineapple, where did the grapes and cherries come from?

Third, the pineapple in JonBenet's system was tested by experts and found to be "consistent" with that in the bowl. But as Thomas says, that really only means that it was fresh and not canned.



Which doesn't really mean anything, since it is far from certain that any of those is deposited perfectly in any scenario.



And to be fair, that hardly contradicts her being asleep when someone put her hair up like that.



I've never been impressed with the idea of "staging" in criminal investigations, since it all too often means that the evidence doesn't fit with the scenario the LEOs favor. But even here, I see no actual evidence of staging.
The evidence is on the table in the breakfast bar, complete with Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints.... Absolutely noone else's fingerprints which you would expect if people had got a serving spoon and dish out, filled it with fruit and picked it up back up again and placed it on the table. Let alone if others had helped themselves to dishing up pineapple. Most reports claim J.B only had pineapple in her system, can somwone please clarify this? As I believe it's only Paula Woodward that claims a fruit cocktail?
 
The evidence is on the table in the breakfast bar, complete with Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints.... Absolutely noone else's fingerprints which you would expect if people had got a serving spoon and dish out, filled it with fruit and picked it up back up again and placed it on the table. Let alone if others had helped themselves to dishing up pineapple. Most reports claim J.B only had pineapple in her system, can somwone please clarify this? As I believe it's only Paula Woodward that claims a fruit cocktail?

Fingerprints - especially complete and non-smudged fingerprints - are far from a guarantee on any surface. Besides, while the victim advocates may have set it up, I doubt there were many takers.

I haven't read a report saying pineapple was the only thing found. It was the first found - and tested - due to pineapple being a hardy fruit (the only fruit that when you eat it, it eats you back), then further tests found the rest. I don't take the word of Paula Woodward, but the DAO documents she scanned. I actually disagree that the fruit came from a fruit cocktail. The one thing we know about the pineapple is that it was fresh, so my guess is that it came from something like this. Maybe I'm being stereotypical, but it screams 90s rich people dessert to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
1,933
Total visitors
2,003

Forum statistics

Threads
602,927
Messages
18,148,938
Members
231,589
Latest member
Crimecat8
Back
Top