Lies point us to the truth #2

[Rain on my Parade]

Ah, when you said "PR was said to have purchased string and duct tape from the hardware store." I thought it was something more solid than Thomas' guesswork.

What was once available online is no longer. The sales receipt was matched to the price as the hardware store did not list an itemized sales list.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

What was once available online is no longer. The sales receipt was matched to the price as the hardware store did not list an itemized sales list.

So out of the many items bought, two matched (according to Thomas) the prices the tape and cord would have been sold for. However, they weren't exactly unique prices, were they? $1.99 and $2.29 - did Thomas ever check how many items in each department went for those prices?

This is my problem with Thomas in general. He never appeared to be interested in actually getting the truth of the case, only what was needed to nail the Ramseys and confirm his theory. I've seen that in other cases (like the murder of Meredith Kercher), and it's rarely a good thing.

If Thomas had demonstrated that Patsy had bought the specific cord and tape used in the murder, I'd consider that a huge strike against the Ramseys. After all, if an intruder had broken in, there'd be no need for him to spirit away the remaining tape and cord if he had found them there to begin with. But Thomas didn't demonstrate it. It's like a lot of the elements in this case - the possibility is raised, but nothing is ever actually demonstrated.

And we can build a perfectly tall house of cards on nothing but possibilities, but is it stable?

 

[Miss T Ruth Hunter]

Have often wondered if Jon Bonet had the head injury before she got home ( zonked out - sounds like how you would describe a head trauma in people if you don't know what you looking for) I know am grasping at straws at that one but this is a case that has rocked the world. am I correct in they haven't untied and tested the Garot in the hopes future science would lead them with a clue ??

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Have often wondered if Jon Bonet had the head injury before she got home ( zonked out - sounds like how you would describe a head trauma in people if you don't know what you looking for) I know am grasping at straws at that one but this is a case that has rocked the world. am I correct in they haven't untied and tested the Garot in the hopes future science would lead them with a clue ??

I've heard that there was testing done on the garrotte back in 2018, but no results were made public, which can mean anything, really.

As for the head injury, given the massive fracture running along the entire top of her skull, along with a fragment pushed into her brain, I don't think there's any way she'd be walking around. She would have lost consciousness immediately and her head would have begun to swell. Epidural hematoma where the victim can walk and talk for a while before losing consciousness are normally much smaller, with no actual damage to the brain, but a slow ongoing swelling as blood flows in and puts pressure on the brain.

The lack of lascerations on her head means I think it's far more likely she was hit with the bat than anything else. The flashlight would be likelier to have broken skin, and also show markings of having been used as a weapon. After all, a bat is intended to strike things, whereas a flashlight is not.

With such massive damage to her skull, blood would have rushed to fill her head, causing large amounts of swelling. That is why I think the blow happened at some point during the strangulation. According to the autopsy report there was only 7-8 cc of blood around her brain, and so little swelling they didn't even know she had been hit on the head until they had started the autopsy. Headwounds bleed profusely as oxygenating the brain is the number one priority of the body, and it will pump blood up there to replace anything lost. If the skin doesn't break, you get swelling (i.e. headbumps) or worse if it's inside the skull. I know Kolar et al claim Dr Rorke gave a 45 min to 2 hour time span between blow and strangulation, but her description of what that time span would cause contradicts the findings of Meyer in the autopsy report. Something is wrong here, and I suspect only by getting Meyer and Rorke both on the record will we know what.

 

[Miss T Ruth Hunter]

I've heard that there was testing done on the garrotte back in 2018, but no results were made public, which can mean anything, really.

As for the head injury, given the massive fracture running along the entire top of her skull, along with a fragment pushed into her brain, I don't think there's any way she'd be walking around. She would have lost consciousness immediately and her head would have begun to swell. Epidural hematoma where the victim can walk and talk for a while before losing consciousness are normally much smaller, with no actual damage to the brain, but a slow ongoing swelling as blood flows in and puts pressure on the brain.

The lack of lascerations on her head means I think it's far more likely she was hit with the bat than anything else. The flashlight would be likelier to have broken skin, and also show markings of having been used as a weapon. After all, a bat is intended to strike things, whereas a flashlight is not.

With such massive damage to her skull, blood would have rushed to fill her head, causing large amounts of swelling. That is why I think the blow happened at some point during the strangulation. According to the autopsy report there was only 7-8 cc of blood around her brain, and so little swelling they didn't even know she had been hit on the head until they had started the autopsy. Headwounds bleed profusely as oxygenating the brain is the number one priority of the body, and it will pump blood up there to replace anything lost. If the skin doesn't break, you get swelling (i.e. headbumps) or worse if it's inside the skull. I know Kolar et al claim Dr Rorke gave a 45 min to 2 hour time span between blow and strangulation, but her description of what that time span would cause contradicts the findings of Meyer in the autopsy report. Something is wrong here, and I suspect only by getting Meyer and Rorke both on the record will we know what.

I thought the garot was going to be key in the testing.
Yeah am still not convinced on the time of the skull fracture. I was leaning to BR knowing about the film weird science and tried his method of that with the train set. I myself have suffered skull damage that I as an adult didn't know until I went to hospital. ( I was hit and needed multiple stitches - I didn't think I needed help because of the fact I know a head bleed mores than anywhere else so a bunch of kids saying shhh don't tell anyone seemed likely to me) I was a little kid who liked to play with older kids too once. older kids made me never tell about play injuries ..
that was my train of thought.
I cant explain the garot .. I will always think that and the letter is key parts to this case.

 

[Miss T Ruth Hunter]

As far as the note - " war and peace" ransom letter if there was such a "minority faction" why did they not ever HIT again _ ?? this was worldwide attention .. you pulled off one of the BIGGEST cases in the world .. and don't do something again ?? for real ?? am sure even ISIS if they had done it would have used this as a benchmark ?? so why be a minority faction and not want worldwide attention to your cause? come on people. A small minority faction just gained world wide attention .. never did this thing ever again ?? really ?? that's not even how to terrorist ??!! didn't even get my demands out other than a small 128 grand that didn't even get ?? hello ?? worst small minority group ever !!! cant even terrorist !! he worked for lockhart ?? like wow ..

 

[FergusMcDuck]

As far as the note - " war and peace" ransom letter if there was such a "minority faction" why did they not ever HIT again _ ?? this was worldwide attention .. you pulled off one of the BIGGEST cases in the world .. and don't do something again ?? for real ?? am sure even ISIS if they had done it would have used this as a benchmark ?? so why be a minority faction and not want worldwide attention to your cause? come on people. A small minority faction just gained world wide attention .. never did this thing ever again ?? really ?? that's not even how to terrorist ??!! didn't even get my demands out other than a small 128 grand that didn't even get ?? hello ?? worst small minority group ever !!! cant even terrorist !! he worked for lockhart ?? like wow ..

I think regardless of who you believe killed JonBenet, pretty much everyone agrees that there never was a "foreign faction". That leaves us with two options, I think:

1. The ransom demand was real, regardless of the status of JonBenet. The "foreign faction" was just to hide the identity of the kidnapper(s).

2. The ransom demand wasn't real, meaning the entire note was just misdirection, either as a continuation of the crime or a cover-up.

The "foreign faction" makes me think of the movie Die Hard, which fits well within the popular action/crime movies the note cites from (Speed, Dirty Harry, Ransom). Like those, it has a smart villain that the hero is pitted against, but more importantly the movie's villain Hans Gruber hides his true motive under an ostensible act of political terrorism. Gruber takes over an office building, tossing out political slogans to his victims as well as in his communications with the police, but his real goal is to rob the building of its money. Famously, the police ask Gruber to list his demands, and he gives them a list of imprisoned terrorists from various groups that he wants freed, tacking members of "Asian Dawn" on the end. When his henchman looks confused, Gruber tells him that he read about them in Time magazine.

The ransom note seems similar to me. Someone is painting a picture of a vague political act, whereas the real goal is either money or more likely just the murder of a child. And while the police fumbles around looking for "foreign factions" the killer gets away.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

So out of the many items bought, two matched (according to Thomas) the prices the tape and cord would have been sold for. However, they weren't exactly unique prices, were they? $1.99 and $2.29 - did Thomas ever check how many items in each department went for those prices?

This is my problem with Thomas in general. He never appeared to be interested in actually getting the truth of the case, only what was needed to nail the Ramseys and confirm his theory. I've seen that in other cases (like the murder of Meredith Kercher), and it's rarely a good thing.

If Thomas had demonstrated that Patsy had bought the specific cord and tape used in the murder, I'd consider that a huge strike against the Ramseys. After all, if an intruder had broken in, there'd be no need for him to spirit away the remaining tape and cord if he had found them there to begin with. But Thomas didn't demonstrate it. It's like a lot of the elements in this case - the possibility is raised, but nothing is ever actually demonstrated.

And we can build a perfectly tall house of cards on nothing but possibilities, but is it stable?

Since you believe it was IDI in this case can you give us evidence of such. A bat on north side of the house, a broken window that JR states he broke, an opened door on the north side of the house? Where is the evidence?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Since you believe it was IDI in this case can you give us evidence of such. A bat on north side of the house, a broken window that JR states he broke, an opened door on the north side of the house? Where is the evidence?

DNA from an unknown male, unrelated to the Ramseys, found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties, and consistent with touch DNA from a non-adjacent part of her longjohns. I have never seen any evidence against the Ramseys with even close to the same weight as that.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

DNA from an unknown male, unrelated to the Ramseys, found in a spot of JonBenet's blood in her panties, and consistent with touch DNA from a non-adjacent part of her longjohns. I have never seen any evidence against the Ramseys with even close to the same weight as that.

@Cottonstar you are so right!. Thank you. Great post.
Here is a 6-year-old news report. Even though it is old it explains the DNA. The DNA is nothing. The note is what matters.

Maybe you should rethink your case.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Maybe you should rethink your case.

If I am, it's not going to be based on a clip I've already watched and investigated. Quite frankly, I'd rather trust the experts who did the actual testing, and the FBI, all of which have endorsed UM1 as a valid profile. It's funny, rewatching the clip, how everyone keeps dancing around the most pertinent facts - the mix of JonBenet and UM1 in her blood contains no other profile. At no locus does the number of alleles exceed 4. If there were more than one profile in addition to UM1 and JonBenet we'd see five or six alleles in at least some of the loci, yet we do not. And more importantly, and the reason Lacy made her statement, the DNA on the longjohns - not in contact with the DNA in the panties, and from a different type of source - also showed the UM1 profile. Yet that is barely mentioned here. Instead it focuses on the two additional alleles from touch DNA on the longjohns, which does indicate another contributor - possibly from before the murder - but the idea that the UM1 profile would just magically appear in two separate places is beyond unlikely. It becomes especially unlikely if it is a composite - something that has never been demonstrated.

If the talking heads in the clip genuinely believe UM1 is a composite and not a real profile, I would hope they were conscientious enough to show their evidence to the FBI, to have it removed from CODIS. Since that obviously never happened, they can't have been too persuasive. And if they chose not to present it to the FBI, they must not be particularly worried. The DNA remains in CODIS, and the BPD continue to test against it.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

If I am, it's not going to be based on a clip I've already watched and investigated. Quite frankly, I'd rather trust the experts who did the actual testing, and the FBI, all of which have endorsed UM1 as a valid profile. It's funny, rewatching the clip, how everyone keeps dancing around the most pertinent facts - the mix of JonBenet and UM1 in her blood contains no other profile. At no locus does the number of alleles exceed 4. If there were more than one profile in addition to UM1 and JonBenet we'd see five or six alleles in at least some of the loci, yet we do not. And more importantly, and the reason Lacy made her statement, the DNA on the longjohns - not in contact with the DNA in the panties, and from a different type of source - also showed the UM1 profile. Yet that is barely mentioned here. Instead it focuses on the two additional alleles from touch DNA on the longjohns, which does indicate another contributor - possibly from before the murder - but the idea that the UM1 profile would just magically appear in two separate places is beyond unlikely. It becomes especially unlikely if it is a composite - something that has never been demonstrated.

If the talking heads in the clip genuinely believe UM1 is a composite and not a real profile, I would hope they were conscientious enough to show their evidence to the FBI, to have it removed from CODIS. Since that obviously never happened, they can't have been too persuasive. And if they chose not to present it to the FBI, they must not be particularly worried. The DNA remains in CODIS, and the BPD continue to test against it.

Well, then hopefully one day they will find the minuscule UM1 that matches in CODIS. Good luck with that. It has been 26 years now. You firmly believe they will pull the rabbit out of the hat at this late of date, then so be it. I say perhaps that UM1 could have possibly came off a pair of gloves.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Anyone wonder why the Ramsey's put JonBenet's Time Of Death on her gravestone as the 25th December?

From the parents own interviews they could never have known when JonBenet was killed.

John and Patsy both say they last saw JonBenét when they got home and put her to bed about 10pm on December 25.



Is it possible Patsy was feeling remorse, as she knew the ligature/device finished off JonBenet, i.e. on the 26th not the 25th?

Was it another aspect to the Ramsey postmortem staging that even JonBenet's gravestone was intended to give a false representation of the previous nights events?

.

UKGuy,
Apparently this is the case. Ms. Stratton heard the piercing child’s scream coming from the direction of the R’s home around 2 in the morning. I would veer towards PR using the date as a religious significance.

 

[Eddie99]

Well, then hopefully one day they will find the minuscule UM1 that matches in CODIS. Good luck with that. It has been 26 years now. You firmly believe they will pull the rabbit out of the hat at this late of date, then so be it. I say perhaps that UM1 could have possibly came off a pair of gloves.

26 years.....

But how much time and effort have they spent in the last 20?

Next to nothing is my guess.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Well, then hopefully one day they will find the minuscule UM1 that matches in CODIS. Good luck with that. It has been 26 years now. You firmly believe they will pull the rabbit out of the hat at this late of date, then so be it. I say perhaps that UM1 could have possibly came off a pair of gloves.

Coming off a pair of gloves does not explain it being present in both some form of bodily fluid (likely saliva, due to the amylase) in a blood stain in her panties, as well as the touch DNA on the longjohns. I think this is the point where the handwaving of the DNA becomes contrived. If the same person has mixed his spit with her blood in her panties and tugged at her underwear, I'm going to think that person is the killer. And if they get a match and the person in question has an ironclad alibi? Well, at least we'll know.

There are more, newer procedures that can be done with DNA. It will be a challenge due to its nature, but they won't know if they can do it unless they're given a chance. Othram, to my knowledge, will only test a sample if they're sure they can get useful information out of it.

26 years (or rather, 20 years) is a long time, yes. Longer than 9 years, which is how long it took the killer of Faith Hedgepeth to pop up in a DNA match, and they had that DNA from the scene since day one.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Coming off a pair of gloves does not explain it being present in both some form of bodily fluid (likely saliva, due to the amylase) in a blood stain in her panties, as well as the touch DNA on the longjohns. I think this is the point where the handwaving of the DNA becomes contrived. If the same person has mixed his spit with her blood in her panties and tugged at her underwear, I'm going to think that person is the killer. And if they get a match and the person in question has an ironclad alibi? Well, at least we'll know.

There are more, newer procedures that can be done with DNA. It will be a challenge due to its nature, but they won't know if they can do it unless they're given a chance. Othram, to my knowledge, will only test a sample if they're sure they can get useful information out of it.

26 years (or rather, 20 years) is a long time, yes. Longer than 9 years, which is how long it took the killer of Faith Hedgepeth to pop up in a DNA match, and they had that DNA from the scene since day one.

This would be great if what you say is what it is? Not saying it’s not; merely, grateful if that works. It is my understanding that you can only test miniscule dna until it is degraded and then can test no more. Since there has been continuous advancement in dna testing for at least the past 6 years; then we can only assume two thing’s. Either they are waiting further advancement in testing or shall I say “cover up?”

I don’t think it necessary to apologize because I am not; in the IDI camp. This case screams of our corporate judicial system. That is MOO. Way to many thing’s that are simply overlooked. I.E. phone records for December disappearing. That’s is just one, we could go on and on. What happened to JB that night is unspeakable. We all want justice for her, here. Those doors are locked and something will have to change for this case to be solved. I don’t believe it is dna, moo. So how do we open up those locked vaults of evidence? Are you not curious why the baton has now been passed onto JAR?
We can go back to 1997 (if we recall but no longer have access to) on the net. One thing very interesting is how JAR’S college acquaintances “friends“ believed he was obsessed with JB. Don’t ask me to prove that; it is recall. It is a part of this case. Maybe your dna evidence will prove us wrong in CODIS.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

This would be great if what you say is what it is? Not saying it’s not; merely, grateful if that works. It is my understanding that you can only test miniscule dna until it is degraded and then can test no more. Since there has been continuous advancement in dna testing for at least the past 6 years; then we can only assume two thing’s. Either they are waiting further advancement in testing or shall I say “cover up?”

The former has been their stated reason for not doing more tests on the blood sample. This is understandable, since the early, inefficient tests consumed a lot of it. It's always going to be a gamble with DNA techniques. It might be that next year will see a new technique that completely revolutionizes the field, or nothing useful might come along for a decade. This is a case where I understand both sides, but simultaneously, I see no reason for Othram et al to at least look at the remaining sample and give their opinion if their tests might be worth it.

I don’t think it necessary to apologize because I am not; in the IDI camp. This case screams of our corporate judicial system. That is MOO. Way to many thing’s that are simply overlooked. I.E. phone records for December disappearing. That’s is just one, we could go on and on. What happened to JB that night is unspeakable. We all want justice for her, here. Those doors are locked and something will have to change for this case to be solved. I don’t believe it is dna, moo. So how do we open up those locked vaults of evidence? Are you not curious why the baton has now been passed onto JAR?

Not really. I find the reasons implied to be quite enough - John is getting up there in years and might not see it through. As for the cell phone records, I don't think anything disappeared. There just wasn't any traffic on John's cell phone for December of 1996. Cell phones weren't as dominating back then as they are now; it's far from unlikely that he simply didn't use it that month. And certainly if he had done so, it would be impossible to erase the records.

I think there are plenty of avenues to pursue, but it requires uncoupling from the Ramseys (and quite frankly, there is no more blood coming out of that stone anyway). With the exception of "Amy" I haven't found any break-ins/attacks/murders in Boulder that might fit the profile, but it might be fruitful to look outside Boulder. Both the neighbor and Amy's mother described the mystery man as young, 20-30, and there is a college right next door. I think it likely that the perpetrator simply moved elsewhere due to leaving college, either by graduating or dropping out. If I was in the cold case team, I'd get as many yearbooks from 96 to 97 as I could find and pore over them. Check if there are remaining records of who stayed in their dorms over Christmas. Was there a movie club on campus?

We can go back to 1997 (if we recall but no longer have access to) on the net. One thing very interesting is how JAR’S college acquaintances “friends“ believed he was obsessed with JB. Don’t ask me to prove that; it is recall. It is a part of this case. Maybe your dna evidence will prove us wrong in CODIS.

I won't ask you to prove it, since I know it's just baseless gossip. The rumors can't even decide which sister he was supposedly obsessed with. Was it Beth or JonBenet? Or did the rumors start as Beth and then become JonBenet to increase salaciousness?

The odds of a CODIS hit are long, but even as time passes, the database grows and the number of searches increase. I remember the Hedgepeth hit was very sudden, only a few days after the anniversery of her death, where everyone was dismayed over the lack of progress. When it happens, if it happens, I think it will be quick.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

As for the cell phone records, I don't think anything disappeared. There just wasn't any traffic on John's cell phone for December of 1996. Cell phones weren't as dominating back then as they are now; it's far from unlikely that he simply didn't use it that month. And certainly if he had done so, it would be impossible to erase the records.

Steve Thomas' IRMI

We achieved a Pyrrhic victory on November 5 when Beckner burst into the SitRoom and proudly handed me a "Consent to Release of Telephone Records" signed by both John Ramsey and Pete Hofstrom. It allowed us to obtain the Ramseys' cellular and home telephone records between December 1 and 27, 1996. We had to wait almost a year to see them, which had given the Ramsey lawyers months to work through the limited documents. The woefully incomplete permission slip did not give up Ramsey's company phones, calls made with a telephone card, or records about calls before or after December. We found nothing worthwhile. Just another exhausting trip to nowhere.

I sent a fax to AirTouch in Washington state and personally served the paper on US West in downtown Denver.

"I've been waiting for a phone call from you guys since last December," a telephone company security official said as he handed me the packer. "Usually cops come and get these things right away."

I winced, so tired of being embarassed by this case.

"Yeah, I get subpoenas and warrants every day," he repeated. "Surprised you took so long."

"I'll have to explain it to you someday," I replied and headed for the elevator.

The AirTouch cell phone records were useless. Ramsey started the service in January 1994. AirTouch said that 91 minutes of use were logged during the August-September billing period of 1996, and 108 minutes were used in September-October. October-November was just as busy.

December, however, the only period we were allowed to see, was empty. No calls at all. I asked if someone could have removed billing records from the computer? "No way," the AirTouch source told me.

"All these months preceding December are busy, and not one call was logged for that entire month?"

The representative was firm: "There ain't no way anybody altered these records." It wasn't logical. A search warrant might have answered the questions eleven months ago, but we had only this thin new "consent."

Checking the records, I found a repeat caller to John Ramsey's private office line. Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me. The experience demonstrated how deeply John Ramsey was plugged into the Democratic Party power structure. Colorado Governor Roy Romer was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and advised by the politically astute Hal Haddon, one of John Ramsey's attorneys. Haddon's firm prepared President Clinton's taxes. When Schoettler left office, she was appointed head of the US delegation to an international commission by President Clinton.

Just in case:

The lack of police access to the phone records has always smelled fishy to me. You have a murdered little girl whose parents claimed she was "kidnapped" found by her father in her own home. Reason right THERE to have arrested the parents. The police WANTED to. The DA refused to allow it. Why?
Phone calls made from the R house or from the R cell phones between the times the parents claimed they put JB to bed and went to bed themselves and the time they claimed to have "found the RN" are EXTREMELY INCRIMINATING. Who would they call at that hour when all was seeming well and everyone asleep?
I know a judge supposedly blocked access to all R phone record after some tabloid scum tried to obtain them illegally. I don't buy the judge's reasoning. This was a CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT/MURDER. You don't refuse access to evidence like that in a case like this because someone tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to get ahold of them. There had to be another reason.
Add this to the fact that some phone records went "missing" or (even more unbelievable) showed NO activity for the month of December and you have something that smells fishy alright. In fact it stinks to high heaven.
This stinks as much as the refusal to allow police access to her school and medical records. What child murder case EVER have you heard where the child's school and pediatrician do not do EVERYTHING they can to help police solve the child's murder? Right Only one case. THIS one. Because THIS ONE had wealthy and powerful parents with something to hide. There is simply no other explanation.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I won't ask you to prove it, since I know it's just baseless gossip. The rumors can't even decide which sister he was supposedly obsessed with. Was it Beth or JonBenet? Or did the rumors start as Beth and then become JonBenet to increase salaciousness?

This doesn’t prove it; merely that it has been stated.

When Burke was going to be reinterviewd, CNN had an article about it and you could comment. This was one of the comments:

I'm skeptical of people who claim to have a close/intimate connection to this case due to how notorious it is. However, the Ramseys did have neighbors so there are people out there who were friends with their neighbors so this post could be legitimate. Now if it's true, then why did the neighbor suspect JAR? If he or she was a friend of Patsy's, then they had probably met JAR on some occasions. Was there something they didn't like about him? Could this neighbor be Barnhill? It says, "Friend of Patsy's" though so that makes me think it's a woman. Maybe his wife? Was he a widower when JBR was murdered?

Here's another tidbit about JAR, that I found on another forum, which was found on another forum so who knows how legitimate it is but I'll post it anyway:

Here's some other info about JAR:

"Classmates of JAR have stated for the record that he talked about JonBenet all the time... How beautiful she was and how much he loved her. He was fixated on her...Probably just a proud older brother talking but some of classmates thought is was strange to say the least."

All excellent points.
1. Joe Barnhill did change his story, but I bet he was pressured to do so.
2. The Rs ALWAYS took lots of pictures and videos on Christmas- except THAT one. Many people think it is because JAR does appear in them. This is also one of the reasons why I believe JR got lawyers for both JAR and his mother. NO need for lawyers if JAR was really in Georgia with his mother. EVERY reason need a lawyer if he was really in Boulder. They main reason is that a lawyer can prevent prosecutors from asking questions. Or asking for photo evidence he was with his mother that day.
3. Private planes don't have to file flight plans, so we will never know. Any testimony he might have has not been made public.
4. Interesting bargaining point. I don't know of any one else who'd be allowed that kind of thing. The only reason is because they wanted to be sure JAR could not be questioned and they wanted to be sure Melinda could not be asked about the whereabouts of JAR that day.
5. It was JAR's blanket and semen in his suitcase, but the book was a children's book. Was it his or did it belong to one of his younger siblings? If so, it was an odd thing to be carried back and forth to a college campus. The Rs claimed that suitcase was one that was used by JAR to go back and forth.
6. Apparently, there WERE a lot of Monday visits to the school nurse. JAR went to school just minutes away. He had PLENTY of access to JB. If not daily, then certainly whenever he came home.
7. I don't recall if Nedra or her husband had lawyers. Anyone know?
8. The ATM pictures WERE grainy- and the guy in the photo had on a baseball cap that obscured his face. It really could have been anyone. It could have been someone he asked to go on his behalf AFTER the crime while he was still in Boulder and knew he needed a alibi. He could have called a friend in Georgia. There may have been an extra card he kept there, not too unusual if you spend a lot of time going back and forth between the two places- this way you don't have to worry about forgetting it.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Steve Thomas' IRMI

Just in case:

I have a problem with this kind of reasoning. It assumes (correctly) that calls made from the house during the night would be incriminating, but then when the records come back and show no such activity, the absence of the calls become suspicious, enough that people start making ridiculous conspiracy theories? Phone records can't just be erased - the data would still be there - so the only explanation would be if AirTouch was in on it, at which point we've left reality far behind.

Of course, the "missing" December minutes for John's cell phone could have a far more prosaic explanation:

TOM HANEY: Let me back you up again. We talked about that phone, possible phone lines. Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--

PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at Christmas, little teeny one.

[...]

TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.

TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?

PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.

[...]

TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no.

So, John had a cell phone bought a few years ago (confirmed as 94 by Thomas). Patsy says he lost it, at a time when she felt a new one as a Christmas present in 1996 would be convenient. And we see no activity on said cell phone for December, meaning it makes sense for John to have lost his phone in late November or early December.

I also think the last paragraph from the Thomas quote is... bizarre (not to mention petulant) and goes some way to explain why he was such a failure in the role as lead investigator.

Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me.

OK, so the husband of the lieutenant governor of Colorado was a friend of the Ramseys and conveyed his sympathies, as so many did. That's well and...

The experience demonstrated how deeply John Ramsey was plugged into the Democratic Party power structure.

...huh? Being friends with the spouse of a lieutenant governor is being plugged into a political party's power structure? It wasn't even his party - Ramsey was a Republican. Also, a more pertinent bit of information might be that John Stevens was the Dean of the University of Colorado at Denver School of Business, a far more likely "structure" for Ramsey to be "plugged into".

Colorado Governor Roy Romer was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and advised by the politically astute Hal Haddon, one of John Ramsey's attorneys. Haddon's firm prepared President Clinton's taxes.

Which might have something to do with Hal Haddon being a renowned attorney of considerable skill who was hired in plenty of high profile cases, and that goes for his firm too. If you had money and wanted a good local lawyer, that's where you'd go. When someone tries to draw a connection - Haddon worked for both Ramsey and the governor/president - look at what's not being said. As in, what others did the firm work for? The answer is a lot.

When Schoettler left office, she was appointed head of the US delegation to an international commission by President Clinton.

A high-ranking Democratic politician was appointed to a commission by a Democratic president after she had lost a gubernatorial election? How is this in any way suspicious and not very much business as usual? Clinton appointed plenty of politicians to commissions over his two terms in office.

Thomas really tries to imply a conspiracy here. Vague hints at nefarious connections, with absolutely no evidence - which is about the same as he did with the JonBenet case.

This doesn’t prove it; merely that it has been stated.

So, like I said, baseless gossip.