Members' Theories

[DeeDee249]

00-00-0000
Worked for
Merry Maids
Ramsey House
Took 4 people
Once a week
Cleaning
Linda began
3 days week
$72 a day
Mon, Wed, Fri
9am to 3pm
Some Sat, Hol
On 10-27-1996
Got $300 bonus
12-23-1996
Linda took Patsy Paint Tray to basement

I thought it meant she started on 10/27/1996 and got the bonus on 12/23/1996

If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).

 

[DeeDee249]

Could someone please look at this photo of the spiral staircase and tell me what they think the rectangular brown object is under the stairs to the right?

http://www.acandyrose.com/057spiralstairs-x.gif

I looked at this photo on the ACR site, where it can be enlarged by clicking on it. That brown shape is actually a dresser. You can see the white wall showing at the bottom,through the legs of the dresser. The legs of the dresser can be seen more clearly in the larger pic.

 

[MurriFlower]

If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).

This is the history of housekeepers/babysitters since 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from Susanna Savage:

"I first met the Ramseys in 1991, when Take a Break, a professional sitting service, called me. JonBenet was seven months old.

Two years later, in 1993, Patsy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and I went to work full-time for the Ramseys
(snip)
The following year, JonBenet went to preschool. That's when I stopped working for them
(snip)
In 1996, Priscilla White called and asked me to watch the kids again. They were having a surprise birthday party for Patsy.
(snip)
Then Patsy called me on December 1, the night of the Access Graphics Christmas party. She wanted me to sit with JonBenet and Burk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER BOYLES: How long did you work for John and Patsy Ramsey?
LINDA WILCOX: Approximately 2 1/2 years. I left September 4, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHP
I was working for a bonded agency called Merry Maids when I met Patsy. I started with her one day a week. I was dumbfounded, the place was so huge. It was too much for one person. Soon we had four people, once a week.
(snip)
Then I went to work for her three days a week, $72 a day. Monday, Wednesday, Friday. I'd get there at 9:00 in the morning and be gone by 3:00. That's when my daughter Ariana gets out of school. Sometimes I worked for Patsy on Saturdays and holidays. She gave me a $300 bonus at the end of my first year. That was October 27, 1996

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[DeeDee249]

So according to that, the previous housekeeper Linda Wilcox left September 1995. Presumably that is when LHP started (as part of the Merry Maids crew). So, that would make her comment about receiving the $300 bonus in 1996 "at the end of her first year" about right. She'd been working for them a year when she got that bonus.

 

[WHITEFANG]

If you go back and read her words, she says that she got a $300 bonus at the end of her first YEAR working for Patsy. I assume it meant she started the previous October (1995).

Yep. Thanks. I see where I misunderstood. Still, all in all, Pat was pretty nice to her.

Did she take a polygraph?

 

[BBB167893]

I find it reassuring. He was in shock. He misspoke at times. He wasn't following a script. MO

That's where we part company, friend. I don't find it reassuring in the least. As for the rest of your characterization, if you take the whole of his statements in context, his answers clearly do follow a script in his own head and he only "misspeaks" when the interviewer throws him a curveball.

 

[BBB167893]

Why sir! It's to catch herself a nice, rich, gentleman for her husband, that's why. Fiddle-de-dee!!

Then I wish them the best of luck. If this case is any indication, they'll need it.

 

[BBB167893]

Supe,
I know for a fact that parents have murdered their children. How could I dispute that? How could anyone?

That's precisely the question I ask.

That is not what I disagree with here, that parents could do this kind of thing.
What I find troubling about the theory as it is applied in this case is the dearth of evidence, the lack of credible information that moves me toward that rationale.

Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

Frankly, the bits and pieces of "evidence" fall short, to me- IMO, of even a remotely convincing body of proof they they did this. I just don't see it, at all. That is my honest appraisal.

It was the same way for me, for a while

The "evidence" which points toward someone else, although not plentiful, makes much more sense to me. And, I am convinced that I view this entire set of circumstances through flawed lenses. No doubt, I as well as others, rely to some extent on our gut reaction, our intuition, our "sense" of others.

You're right about that. That's why we're all here.

 

[cynic]

I know for a fact that parents have murdered their children. How could I dispute that? How could anyone?
That is not what I disagree with here, that parents could do this kind of thing.
What I find troubling about the theory as it is applied in this case is the dearth of evidence, the lack of credible information that moves me toward that rationale.
Frankly, the bits and pieces of "evidence" fall short, to me- IMO, of even a remotely convincing body of proof they they did this. I just don't see it, at all. That is my honest appraisal.
The "evidence" which points toward someone else, although not plentiful, makes much more sense to me. And, I am convinced that I view this entire set of circumstances through flawed lenses. No doubt, I as well as others, rely to some extent on our gut reaction, our intuition, our "sense" of others.

Have a look at this case WF, the Noura Jackson trial.
There are some parallels to the Ramsey case.

· Inconsistencies in statements to police.
· Unexplained DNA evidence.
· Staging.
· Questionable and suspicious behavior.
· Killing of a family member.

[ame="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6383650n"]My Mother's Murder - 48 Hours - CBS News[/ame]
or, you can read the text of the video here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml

 

[WHITEFANG]

Have a look at this case WF, the Noura Jackson trial.
There are some parallels to the Ramsey case.

· Inconsistencies in statements to police.
· Unexplained DNA evidence.
· Staging.
· Questionable and suspicious behavior.
· Killing of a family member.

My Mother's Murder - 48 Hours - CBS News
or, you can read the text of the video here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml

Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

All the usual corroborating criteria can contribute. DNA can be very powerful. Eyewitness testimony, though perhaps the weakest link in a chain of evidence, if presented w/o ulterior motive from a believable person(s), can be useful. Fingerprints, footprints, other telltale items, time-frames, consistent testimony of the major themes. Polygraph testing. Past history of drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, psychological factors, economic, other kinds of stresses. Motive. An indescribable but tangible "ring of truth" to the person's account. A confession.

A good defense counsel, and, like you, I mean good, would win easily, IMO.

Sad, but true. Look at Vanzetti and Sacco as one tragic example.

For the Supe and you.

Another key piece of evidence would be the improbability that x could murder y even under the most trying circumstances.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Well, just what do you consider credible? Because as I've often said, a good prosecutor (underline good) could have made a case. And I know that because people have gone to prison on a lot less than is arrayed against the Rs.

All the usual corroborating criteria can contribute. DNA can be very powerful. Eyewitness testimony, though perhaps the weakest link in a chain of evidence, if presented w/o ulterior motive from a believable person, can be useful. Fingerprints, footprints, other telltale items, time-frames, consistent testimony of the major themes. Past history of drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, psychological factors, economic, other kinds of stresses. An indescribable but tangible "ring of truth" to the person's account.

A good defense counsel, and, like you, I mean good, would win easily, IMO.

Sad, but true. Look at Vanzetti and Sacco as one tragic example.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's where we part company, friend. I don't find it reassuring in the least. As for the rest of your characterization, if you take the whole of his statements in context, his answers clearly do follow a script in his own head and he only "misspeaks" when the interviewer throws him a curveball.

I screamed, but I didn't. Error in his script?
Putting her down in the living room but not doing so, error in the script?
It seems that even the most common, mundane gaffs are given a sinister twist. At some point it becomes too much. He wasn't evil incarnate. He was smart enough not to reveal how perfectly evil he was, surely.

 

[DeeDee249]

Another key piece of evidence would be the improbability that x could murder y even under the most trying circumstances.

But that is not actually "evidence". The probability or improbability may be something to consider, but it is NOT evidence. Evidence is something tangible. Like a print, fiber, DNA. A possession left at the scene, etc. You can't submit an improbability, probability or tendency as evidence. In trials, you can't even submit the accused's past convictions of the same kind of crime as evidence.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - "When I cleaned that house, I cleaned that basement many times and I didn't even know that room was there - It tells me somebody had to know that house."
Yet she recalled seeing the cord on a package next to where Joni's body was found (in the room she didn't know was there) later found on Joni's neck?

 

[WHITEFANG]

But that is not actually "evidence". The probability or improbability may be something to consider, but it is NOT evidence. Evidence is something tangible. Like a print, fiber, DNA. A possession left at the scene, etc. You can't submit an improbability, probability or tendency as evidence. In trials, you can't even submit the accused's past convictions of the same kind of crime as evidence.

Interesting, although I believe probabilities are often used when presenting a case in court. They can carry alot of weight. Evidence is also the lack of something tangible.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Fang, when a person dies, the bacteria that are kept at bay go to work immediately. That produces a build-up of decomposition gases which cause the body to bloat.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and the bulging was caused by the cord. That still does not indicate any of what you say, especially since the autopsy report specifically states that there were no internal injuries to the neck, specifically the strap muscles, the hyoid bone or the trachea.

The autopsy didn't show internal injuries to the neck, but she died from asphyxiation.

I'd like to see LHP take a polygraph.

Pat and John gave handwriting samples on the 26th.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's where we part company, friend. I don't find it reassuring in the least. As for the rest of your characterization, if you take the whole of his statements in context, his answers clearly do follow a script in his own head and he only "misspeaks" when the interviewer throws him a curveball.

Examples, please.

 

[DeeDee249]

Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - "When I cleaned that house, I cleaned that basement many times and I didn't even know that room was there - It tells me somebody had to know that house."
Yet she recalled seeing the cord on a package next to where Joni's body was found (in the room she didn't know was there) later found on Joni's neck?

Apparently, she didn't know the room was there until that November, when she (and her husband and son-in-law?) took out the Christmas trees that had been stored in there. Of course, we have no way of knowing if that it true. I'd never seen anything about a cord around a box except for her statement. We do know there were partially unwrapped gift boxes in there, but I doubt they'd have been tied with that kind of cord. However, if any of those boxes were wrapped as parcels to be mailed (in brown paper) then they may have been tied with that type of cord. We know some of those packages WERE Christmas gifts to be mailed and possibly the source of the cord. But nothing about them was mentioned in any evidence lists.

 

[BBB167893]

I screamed, but I didn't. Error in his script?

Maybe.

Putting her down in the living room but not doing so, error in the script?

Maybe.

It seems that even the most common, mundane gaffs are given a sinister twist.

It's all about the context, my toothy friend.

At some point it becomes too much.

My thoughts exactly. Except I'm referring to the inconsistencies themselves.

He wasn't evil incarnate. He was smart enough not to reveal how perfectly evil he was, surely.

I see no point in answering that.

Examples, please.

Be glad to! Let's see:

--First and foremost in my mind is the ever-evolving saga of what Burke was doing. First they claimed that he was asleep and did not wake up until they woke him. Then, in their NE interview, John said that he was awake, but they decided to say he was asleep.

--Then there's the pineapple. It's a big enough problem for them as it is, but JR just had to dig himself a little deeper. During the 1998 interviews, the first day John Ramsey was interviewed, he said that no one fed JonBenet pineapple under any circumstances, since she wouldn't have eaten it from an intruder anyway. Det. Thomas writes in his book, quote:

"The very next day he retracted that firm statement, saying his lawyer chastised him for making it. Nether he nor Patsy fed her pineapple, he said, but then he asked, 'What if she knew the intruder?' After thinking about it, he said, 'It hit me like a ton of bricks.' JonBenet 'adored' Santa Bill McReynolds, and if he had come into her room, she would have gotten out of bed and gone downstairs with him without a problem. 'She may have had a secretly prearranged meeting.' he said. 'Maybe he fed her pineapple.' The detectives stopped the tape and watched that section repeatedly. Only the day before, Ramsey had said such a thing was impossible. Now he laid it on Santa Bill."

That's a good starter.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Apparently, she didn't know the room was there until that November, when she (and her husband and son-in-law?) took out the Christmas trees that had been stored in there. Of course, we have no way of knowing if that it true. I'd never seen anything about a cord around a box except for her statement. We do know there were partially unwrapped gift boxes in there, but I doubt they'd have been tied with that kind of cord. However, if any of those boxes were wrapped as parcels to be mailed (in brown paper) then they may have been tied with that type of cord. We know some of those packages WERE Christmas gifts to be mailed and possibly the source of the cord. But nothing about them was mentioned in any evidence lists.

If she went to pick up the $2000 "loan" on the evening of the 25th., (why wait?) Joni may have found her where she didn't belong.

Of all the named suspects in this case, she is one of the very few who knew where this room was. She recalled seeing the cord, the murder weapon, tied around a package quite clearly, too.

She knew the insides and outsides of the structure and knew the alarm wasn't armed.