Ramsey Home Electronic Surveillance!

[MissJ]

I'd like to see a valid book written on the premise that IDI with facts to back it up. If there are any.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ill tell you why it is IDI for me.

If something happened in the home and one of them sexually assaulted their own dd and strangled the life out of her which I will never believe, looking into her face, then it would make much more sense for them to remove the body and dispose of it so it looked like someone else did it.

To say it was staged in their home to look like IDI did it makes no sense to me. My original thought was that an IDI and that they staged it as much as they could to set up Ramseys. To cause them even more pain. This to me is someone close to them.

I have felt this from the beginning before all the mottled waters of opinion and book writing participants.

I think it makes more sense that a IDI than the family.
And the more I read, the stronger that feels for me.
I keep hoping for a deathbed confession from someone.

 

[Magdalyn]

Ill tell you why it is IDI for me.

If something happened in the home and one of them sexually assaulted their own dd and strangled the life out of her which I will never believe, looking into her face, then it would make much more sense for them to remove the body and dispose of it so it looked like someone else did it.

To say it was staged in their home to look like IDI did it makes no sense to me. My original thought was that an IDI and that they staged it as much as they could to set up Ramseys. To cause them even more pain. This to me is someone close to them.

I have felt this from the beginning before all the mottled waters of opinion and book writing participants.

I think it makes more sense that a IDI than the family.
And the more I read, the stronger that feels for me.
I keep hoping for a deathbed confession from someone.

Respectfully asked, in your theory, you find a note, written by an intruder, that says the intruder has JB, to be staging that points to the parents?

Intruder staging that would point to the parents-IMO-would be to leave JB back up in her bed, naked from the waist down, nightgown hiked up, panties removed from JB stashed in JR's coat pocket, or in his office desk drawer.

The letter does seem like staging to me. Staging that the Ramseys hoped would explain what would become JBR's permanent absense, and would get the police out of their house quickly and looking AWAY from the house so that JR could then leave (with JBR in the trunk), presumably under guise of taking BR to a friend's house to get him away from the kidnapping drama. Then JR would get rid of JBR's body. The police would continue to search for the Foreign Faction, away from the house, the Ramseys would get on their flight, life would go on, with JBR being a sad kidnapping story never to be solved.

If they left in the middle of the night to hide her body, before calling the cops, neighbors may have noticed, their car certainly would leave tracks in the snow.

IMO, when it appeared at least one police officer was going to stay on the premises for the forseeable future, JR decided 'finding' the body was his only other option, seeing as he couldn't easily haul her up from the basement and out into his car without drawing attention to himself.


But that's JMO and I certainly respect that your theory makes sense to you.

 

[wengr]

I keep hoping for a deathbed confession from someone.

I do as well, but I suspect it's too late for that.

 

[BOESP]

I'd like to see a valid book written on the premise that IDI with facts to back it up. If there are any.

Lou Smit wrote one with a co-author. The Ramseys also wrote one. Both are available at many libraries and through inter-library loan. Amazon has both for sale, new and used. Schiller's book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town tells both sides.

 

[SunnieRN]

Do you know that in July of 1997, the Ramseys were defending themselves against a gang of Keystone Kops who were absolutely convinced that they brutally murdered their own daughter?

Of course, the Ramsey defense team would be interested in "knowing what they know," or more to the point, knowing what was going on inside their pointed little heads and what contrivances they might have up their sleeves to "help the truth along" and this certainly would not rule out planting evidence under a floorboard or behind a wall, etc.

At another internet forum, I would respond to your weak smack with overwhelming rebuttal, but it is rumored that IDI are not allowed to defend themselves here against any manner of insult which RDI may avail against them, lest they risk being permanently banned. Therefore, I will ignore you.

The Ramey team should have been interested in 'knowing what they know.' Problem is, they went beyond obtaining knowledge, hiding evidence and used 'contrivances' and muscle that not only 'helped the truth along', but obscured much of the possibility of finding the truth that did exist on either side of the equation, IDI or RDI.

Thing is, the Ramsey team succeeded beyond any IDI/Ramsy expectations. They got a lot of 'lucky' breaks along the way, which I have to say, none the less of which, is how BPD handled the crime scene on day 1.

The goal is #JusticeforJonBenet!! Someone needs to have a voice presence and a passion for a child that has no voice of her own!!

 

[MissJ]

Lou Smit wrote one with a co-author. The Ramseys also wrote one. Both are available at many libraries and through inter-library loan. Amazon has both for sale, new and used. Schiller's book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town tells both sides.

I have read Lou SMit's book. i would not read the Ramseys book. IIRC Lou Smit had a different interpretation from others on the case who seen the same evidence. ex: cobwebs and dust in the window downstairs, shoe print outside. So which side do you believe?:moo:

 

[DeeDee249]

The parents find a note telling them their child will be killed if they talk to ANYONE (even a stray dog). Within MINUTES they call police (no fault there- I'd have done the same thing.). But within minutes of THAT- they do exactly what the note says not to- they call all their friends, clergy, etc. AND- the note said the house was being watched! Nor did they TELL the police the note said the house is being watched. It is possible to set up a wiretap without sending police to the home. Then- the police wait for the call to be traced, and to anyone watching the house- it seems as if nothing is happening. But to have a processions of OTHER people arriving during the time your child's life is at stake and the kidnappers will SEE that tells me TWO things.

That the Rs KNEW their daughter was already dead and that they NEEDED to have it seem like the "kidnappers' SAW all the people coming to the house- so that the parents could "blame" her death on that.

There was NO one watching the house. There was NO phone call to set up a "drop" (more movie dialog) and there was NO kidnapping. There was also NO intruder.

 

[BOESP]

I have read Lou SMit's book. i would not read the Ramseys book. IIRC Lou Smit had a different interpretation from others on the case who seen the same evidence. ex: cobwebs and dust in the window downstairs, shoe print outside. So which side do you believe?:moo:

I recommend reading Death of Innocence by the Ramseys because it will give you insight into what the Ramseys said and did and how it compares to, say the interview transcripts and Thomas and Kolar's viewpoints. In my opinion, one can never have too much information.

I'd recommend reading everything on JonBenet's case as stored at the acandyrose.com website. Forums For Justice also has a quite good archive of various letters and documents.

I don't try to convince anyone of anything. I suppose some of us may have an advantage in that some here have training or professional careers that involve law, medicine and forensics but most libraries can supply some great books for self-instruction.

Research, analyze, correlate, then use what is logical and set aside what isn't or doesn't seem to fit. It may fit in somewhere down the road. Keep on doing that until you have exhausted all available sources or until you have a body of evidence that convinces you one way or another. Change your mind as often as the evidence suggests and never come to a conclusion based only on one piece of evidence.

Hope this will help you.

 

[OpenMind4U]

The parents find a note telling them their child will be killed if they talk to ANYONE (even a stray dog). Within MINUTES they call police (no fault there- I'd have done the same thing.). But within minutes of THAT- they do exactly what the note says not to- they call all their friends, clergy, etc. AND- the note said the house was being watched! Nor did they TELL the police the note said the house is being watched. It is possible to set up a wiretap without sending police to the home. Then- the police wait for the call to be traced, and to anyone watching the house- it seems as if nothing is happening. But to have a processions of OTHER people arriving during the time your child's life is at stake and the kidnappers will SEE that tells me TWO things.

That the Rs KNEW their daughter was already dead and that they NEEDED to have it seem like the "kidnappers' SAW all the people coming to the house- so that the parents could "blame" her death on that.

There was NO one watching the house. There was NO phone call to set up a "drop" (more movie dialog) and there was NO kidnapping. There was also NO intruder.

Something else is ironical (or should I said comical?). Early in morning, JR sends Burke with FW away from the house so Burke wouldn't be expose to emotional situation.

Well, after JR finds JB's body at 1:00pm, the first thing he said: 'it's inside job', means that someone from his friends could be involved, right?... then why wouldn't he worried that Burke is currently in the house of potential killer?!!! Not once he turned to LE and said: Please bring my son back to me!!! I'm worry about him! Please, give our family protection!!!....

Nope, he left to stay with his friends...who could be potential 'inside job' killers. O, JR and Patsy behavior are more revealing than any forensic evidences!!! :banghead:

jmo

 

[otg]

(bbm)

Something else is ironical (or should I said comical?). Early in morning, JR sends Burke with FW away from the house so Burke wouldn't be expose to emotional situation.

Well, after JR finds JB's body at 1:00pm, the first thing he said: 'it's inside job', means that someone from his friends could be involved, right?... then why wouldn't he worried that Burke is currently in the house of potential killer?!!! Not once he turned to LE and said: Please bring my son back to me!!! I'm worry about him! Please, give our family protection!!!....

Nope, he left to stay with his friends...who could be potential 'inside job' killers. O, JR and Patsy behavior are more revealing than any forensic evidences!!! :banghead:

jmo

You make excellent points, OM. At the time he was whisked off through a gauntlet of friends and police without asking what was going on, it was supposedly to protect him. Yet later, when John finds that his daughter is "murdered" and believes it to be "an inside job", he has no fear or thought for the safety of his other child who might very well be with the peeson(s) responsible for it.

Not exactly evidence -- but it certainly goes a long way toward showing corroborating behavior.

 

[midwest mama]

OM4U and otg,:clap: You both are hammering the nail. So much gets posted with regard to the forensic evidence either available or not available, while the behavioral aspects take more of a back seat.

Motive can be more clearly understood when studying behaviors of perpetrators. One should really look at the resulting behaviors of John and Patsy after the crime, yes, but also before the crime: their family involvement, their outside passions and interests, their actions as observed by so many.

If there is ever a case built against John, since he is the only remaining chargeable family member, and there is forensic evidence lacking for an airtight case, there will have to be a lot of circumstantial evidence brought in. There have been convictions based on circumstantial evidence, make no mistake. But in a case against JR, if even one shred of circumstantial evidence gets possibly overlooked, it could mean the difference between success and failure of prosecution.
Be assured that a prosecuting attorney will most definitely bring to light as much behavioral evidence as he can.

 

[BBB167893]

Pure baloney!!!

Absolutely right. "Planting evidence," my foot. Save the conspiracy theories for people dumb enough to believe 'em. I could name a few names, but Tricia would never let me get away with it.

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the Rs had the DA's office bugged!

 

[BBB167893]

Do you know that in July of 1997, the Ramseys were defending themselves against a gang of Keystone Kops who were absolutely convinced that they brutally murdered their own daughter?

If I were you, friend, I'd concentrate on WHY the cops were convinced. And as for defending themselves, this is America. Everyone has the right to a defense. That doesn't make them innocent. The IRA defended its country against English aggression, but that doesn't make them saints.

At another internet forum, I would respond to your weak smack with overwhelming rebuttal,

Bring it on! I'm itching for a fight!

but it is rumored that IDI are not allowed to defend themselves here against any manner of insult which RDI may avail against them, lest they risk being permanently banned.

You're awfully trusting of rumors. (And if I suspect correctly, the Source of those rumors.) And as for being insulted, what IDI has done in this case is more insulting and more vulgar than anything you've ever falsely accused us or the police of being guilty of.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmmm....'Keystone Kops. Incompetent detectives'...'their pointed little heads ...'...looks like YOU'RE AN EXPERT of insult!!!

EDIII, go back and re-read all your posts. You has INSULTED every posters on this forum with your arrogant replies. You have no manners to keep civil conversation...and yes, I wish you would be permanently banned!...and this has nothing to do with you being IDI.

If you can't stand the heat, stay the hell out of the dragon's lair.

 

[BBB167893]

Ill tell you why it is IDI for me.

If something happened in the home and one of them sexually assaulted their own dd and strangled the life out of her which I will never believe, looking into her face,

Actually, one of the giveaways in this case (for ME) is that the person who killed her did it in a way so that they did NOT have to look her in the face.

then it would make much more sense for them to remove the body and dispose of it so it looked like someone else did it.

That may have been the initial idea. But that would have been even riskier in its way. What if they were seen?

To say it was staged in their home to look like IDI did it makes no sense to me.

Why not? Give me specifics, Scarlett.

 

[Nom de plume]

If you can't stand the heat, stay the hell out of the dragon's lair.

III is "inactive" now. Looks like he's been banned on another forum or two recently also. :giggle:

 

[questfortrue]

OM4U and otg,:clap: You both are hammering the nail. So much gets posted with regard to the forensic evidence either available or not available, while the behavioral aspects take more of a back seat.

Motive can be more clearly understood when studying behaviors of perpetrators. One should really look at the resulting behaviors of John and Patsy after the crime, yes, but also before the crime: their family involvement, their outside passions and interests, their actions as observed by so many.

If there is ever a case built against John, since he is the only remaining chargeable family member, and there is forensic evidence lacking for an airtight case, there will have to be a lot of circumstantial evidence brought in. There have been convictions based on circumstantial evidence, make no mistake. But in a case against JR, if even one shred of circumstantial evidence gets possibly overlooked, it could mean the difference between success and failure of prosecution.
Be assured that a prosecuting attorney will most definitely bring to light as much behavioral evidence as he can.

MM,
Thank you for your insight regards all the circumstantial evidence. ST knew how much body of circumstantial evidence there was. It brings to mind a quote by Henry David Thoreau -about unscrupulous dairy owners who were diluting milk: "How is evidence to be gathered, evaluated, weighed? And even before we ask those questions, we must ask what is to count as evidence? Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." – Henry David Thoreau"