The Intruder as a Friend

[Nehemiah]

Yes, she was perfect in her makeup and clothing. Very conservative in her attire. Her house was being built. I wasn't aware of the cancer as I had not been following the case in its entirety. When you work for Post Properties that is the only thing you are allowed to think about. But her tirade is most impressionable, will stay with me forever. That is my most imput I can bring to this forum. But she was a little bit pudgy. But not in an overt way.

What was her tirade about? Was it directed toward you, or did you witness it toward someone else?

 

[concernedperson]

What was her tirade about? Was it directed toward you, or did you witness it toward someone else?

It was directed to another employee. It was about a UPS package that wasn't delivered to her apartment. She had to actually pick it up in the leasing office and she was ballistic. She expected everyone to drop all duties to make sure her needs were met. It was unbeleivable. The fury...over a package. Whatever I thought about her before was presented to me in a package that said something is truly wrong with this person. I will never forget it, the veins in her neck were protruding and she was so out of sorts in relation to what was happening. She is capable of lashing out without significant provocation. I will remember it forever. This is not a person I would ever trust.

 

[trixie]

Hmmmm, all this over a UPS package that wasn't delivered right to her door, huh? Did anyone have any occasion by chance to see who the package was from? This is interesting.

 

[angarella]

So, does anyone have an opinion where the body was before it was moved. IF, indeed it was moved?

TIA

 

[RedChief]

So, does anyone have an opinion where the body was before it was moved. IF, indeed it was moved?

TIA

I think the body moved here and there under the influence of waxing and waning rigor mortis. It started out in the bedroom, crawled over to the stairwell like an inchworm, and tumbled down the spiral stairs, banging it's head. Although the rest of the itinerary is sketchy, it eventually made it's way to the wine cellar. With it's last dying spasm, it wrapped itself in the blanket and rolled over onto it's back. Then the hands and arms shot rearward and the head jerked to the right, and that was all she wrote.

On a more serious note, are there any items in the long list of evidence that are not deemed important to the solution of the mystery? Which items could we eliminate and still be convinced of the correctness of our theories?

I remember thinking how odd it all seemed, when the news of this kidnapping first broke, and there was mention that someone had left a ransom note on some steps, written on a pad belonging in the house. Later it was reported that Patsy came to the door to meet the police officer. For some reason, I had assumed that the steps were on the outside of the house. I kept picturing Patsy standing in front of an open door on the stoop at the head of these steps. I thought this is a weird place to be leaving a ransom note. What would keep the wind from blowing it away or the snow from obliterating it? I also thought it was odd that the kidnapper had written his note on their pad. Only later did I learn that the steps were those of the spiral stairs, inside the house. It was at that moment that it all made perfectly good sense.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

It never made any sense to me, as to why the alleged abductor should place the ransom note on the staircase.

A table maybe, on a door, on a wall, in the kitchen, on Jonbenet's bed, but at the bottom of the stairs, mmmmm, did the abductor know something that we do not?

Her body may have been in the breakfast bar, lying on the table, then taken upstairs to be re-dressed, re-fashioned, restyled, then downstairs to the basement, then to the wine cellar.

Or it was from the breakfast bar to the basement, then back up to her bedroom to be redressed and cleaned up then back down to the wine cellar.

The ransom note and wine cellar staging are there to explicitly throw you completely off the scent.

 

[RedChief]

Precisely. Why was the note left where it was; or, to ask it another way, why did the Ramseys say the note was left where it was?

Thinking out loud: you sneak into the child's bedroom and snatch her; that's as simple as snapping your fingers, which for me isn't so simple; I'm all thumbs.

You're there to take possession of her and whisk her away to a safe hiding place, where she'll dine on quince and slices of mince (or is it the other way 'round?) and an occasional jelly bean as a reward for good behavior.

You've already written the ransom note and carefully worked out where you'll put it on conspicuous display. I guess you could write two identical notes since there are two sets of stairs leading from the parents' bedroom, but, no, you've settled on one. Now, usually when you snatch a baby from his carriage, you leave the note in the carriage; why, I can only imagine. So, why wouldn't you leave the note on the bed if you snatched the girl from her bedroom? Well, cuz maybe you didn't snatch her from her bedroom. But, you didn't snatch her from a lower rung of the spiral stairs either. So, where did you snatch her from? A diller, a dollar, a ten-o'clock scholar.

OK, this is a house we're dealing with, not a sunny nook in a city park. Maybe we (you, they) can leave the note at the door where we exit. Too risky; too many doors; it'll take the parents a fortnight to find the note. We've got reservations on a flight to Mexico City tomorrow night. We gotta put it where it'll be found "immediately". We'll pin it to the body; that way when they find the body they'll find the note. No, wait. That won't work. Let's see....we've addressed the note to John. John is a pilot. John likes to do aerobatics. It's obvious he'd prefer the spiral stairs. Voila!

Now, please don't vituperate me....

 

[jjleroche]

RedChief,

It never made any sense to me, as to why the alleged abductor should place the ransom note on the staircase.

A table maybe, on a door, on a wall, in the kitchen, on Jonbenet's bed, but at the bottom of the stairs, mmmmm, did the abductor know something that we do not?

Her body may have been in the breakfast bar, lying on the table, then taken upstairs to be re-dressed, re-fashioned, restyled, then downstairs to the basement, then to the wine cellar.

Or it was from the breakfast bar to the basement, then back up to her bedroom to be redressed and cleaned up then back down to the wine cellar.

The ransom note and wine cellar staging are there to explicitly throw you completely off the scent.

The staircase was the place where Patsy and the housekeeper always communicated by leaving notes.

When Boulder PD visited the housekeeper's home, they asked her husband if he had any black tape (used in the attack on Jonbenet). He produced three rolls, only one was unopened.) Boulder PD asked about notepads. They produced one identical to that used in the ransom note. The one they produced came from the Ramsey house.

When the housekeeper was asked to produce her key to the Ramsey house, she couldn't. She stated that the upset of learning that Jonbenet had been murdered caused her to forget where it was.

A few weeks prior to the murder of Jonbenet, several of the housekeeper's family members (including in-laws) went to the Ramsey house and brought Christmas decorations from the storage/basement area to the main area, so had some first-hand idea of the house's layout.

The housekeeper's family was in need of money, and the housekeeper had requested (in a note to Patsy) a loan of $2,000 (or $2,500 - whichever article one reads). She stated that her landlord (also her sister) was threatening eviction for non-payment of rent. She also needed money for her husband proposed dental work. Patsy agreed in a responding note to the request, and said she'd leave a check out for the housekeeper to collect on her next work day.

The housekeeper had spoken glowingly about the Ramsey's in some quarters - in others she was allegedly viciously spiteful about them and their wealth (and Patsy's failings as a homemaker.) She wrote a book about the Ramsey's including salacious details which she stated Patsy had shared with her about the Ramsey's sex life.

The garrotte used to torture and strangle Jonbenet was fashioned in part from a paintbrush from Patsy's art caddy. It had apparently been broken into three parts - one part was used to sexually assault Jonbenet. One part has never been found.
The strangling with the garrotte was so intense that the garrotte was completely embedded in Jonbenet's neck.
Her skull had been split apart with the force of the blow. (IMO Burke, being just nine at the time, and quite small, would not have had the strength to inflict such a blow, let alone use a garrotte with such force. He was in Scouts, but apparently tying of such complex knots was not something which was taught.)
Only someone with knowledge of knot-tying could fashion such a garrotte. JR had served in the navy, so would likely have had such knowledge. AFAIK questions have never been asked regarding the housekeeper's family's knowledge of knot-tying.

I think it is possible that the murder of Jonbenet may have been an extortion attempt gone wrong. If so, if a struggle ensued, or Jonbenet saw who was attacking her, things may have escalated.
The dna on Jonbenet's underwear and under her fingernails IIRC was tested and ruled out as belonging to any Ramsey family member. At that time, when dna testing was in its infancy, investigators were unable to identify it.
All MOO

 

[elainebrussels]

hmmm..I never knew before today that there was a play!!
Who attends these things?


Theater

Never the Sinner John Logans drama based upon the 1924 "thrill killers" Leopold and Loeb. Theatre on Broadway, 13 S. Broadway, Denver, 303-860-9360.




The Leopold and Loeb Ransom Note

Dear Sir:

As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you line up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by furture comminications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty.

1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.

2. Secure before noon today $10,000. this money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. the money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.

3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.

4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o'clock. See that the telephone is not in use.

You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course.

As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions.

However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.

Yours truly,

George Johnson

( interesting as well the other books written by Logan)
http://facultyoflaw.net/search_John_Logan/searchBy_Author.html

Actually seems to relate to a real life situation: The Kidnapping of Willie Whitla, 1909 - HistoricalCrimeDetective.com

??? Eerie similarity

 

[snarast]

The staircase was the place where Patsy and the housekeeper always communicated by leaving notes.

When Boulder PD visited the housekeeper's home, they asked her husband if he had any black tape (used in the attack on Jonbenet). He produced three rolls, only one was unopened.) Boulder PD asked about notepads. They produced one identical to that used in the ransom note. The one they produced came from the Ramsey house.

When the housekeeper was asked to produce her key to the Ramsey house, she couldn't. She stated that the upset of learning that Jonbenet had been murdered caused her to forget where it was.

A few weeks prior to the murder of Jonbenet, several of the housekeeper's family members (including in-laws) went to the Ramsey house and brought Christmas decorations from the storage/basement area to the main area, so had some first-hand idea of the house's layout.

The housekeeper's family was in need of money, and the housekeeper had requested (in a note to Patsy) a loan of $2,000 (or $2,500 - whichever article one reads). She stated that her landlord (also her sister) was threatening eviction for non-payment of rent. She also needed money for her husband proposed dental work. Patsy agreed in a responding note to the request, and said she'd leave a check out for the housekeeper to collect on her next work day.

The housekeeper had spoken glowingly about the Ramsey's in some quarters - in others she was allegedly viciously spiteful about them and their wealth (and Patsy's failings as a homemaker.) She wrote a book about the Ramsey's including salacious details which she stated Patsy had shared with her about the Ramsey's sex life.

The garrotte used to torture and strangle Jonbenet was fashioned in part from a paintbrush from Patsy's art caddy. It had apparently been broken into three parts - one part was used to sexually assault Jonbenet. One part has never been found.
The strangling with the garrotte was so intense that the garrotte was completely embedded in Jonbenet's neck.
Her skull had been split apart with the force of the blow. (IMO Burke, being just nine at the time, and quite small, would not have had the strength to inflict such a blow, let alone use a garrotte with such force. He was in Scouts, but apparently tying of such complex knots was not something which was taught.)
Only someone with knowledge of knot-tying could fashion such a garrotte. JR had served in the navy, so would likely have had such knowledge. AFAIK questions have never been asked regarding the housekeeper's family's knowledge of knot-tying.

I think it is possible that the murder of Jonbenet may have been an extortion attempt gone wrong. If so, if a struggle ensued, or Jonbenet saw who was attacking her, things may have escalated.
The dna on Jonbenet's underwear and under her fingernails IIRC was tested and ruled out as belonging to any Ramsey family member. At that time, when dna testing was in its infancy, investigators were unable to identify it.
All MOO

The housekeeper’s stories are very strange. Bizarre actually.

The kind of thing that makes you go ”Thank you and good night”. This case is such a mess.

 

[Ponytale]

If it was an intruder (housekeeper or anyone else in that matter) it does not explain the parents behavior.

If it had been anyone else outside the family, why would Patsy and John change their stories about events, "not recall" about things that they should have, and lie about things? Why would they seal their sons school and medical records? Why would they not allow police to obtain their bank/credit card and phone records? Why did they called 911 if they were watched and their daughter was said to be beheaded if they contacted the police? Why didn't they wait anxiously for the call from the kidnappers and did not panic in any way when that call did not come? Why would they not just fight for justice to find the kidnapper/murderer of their daughter, and not care that anyone thinks that they are guilty?

Even if there is evidence (but there are no forensic or factual evidence) or reasonable doubt to suggest that someone else entered their home that night and committed this crime, the way that the Ramsey's themselves acted will contradict this theory. IMO

 

[snarast]

If it was an intruder (housekeeper or anyone else in that matter) it does not explain the parents behavior.

If it had been anyone else outside the family, why would Patsy and John change their stories about events, "not recall" about things that they should have, and lie about things? Why would they seal their sons school and medical records? Why would they not allow police to obtain their bank/credit card and phone records? Why did they called 911 if they were watched and their daughter was said to be beheaded if they contacted the police? Why didn't they wait anxiously for the call from the kidnappers and did not panic in any way when that call did not come? Why would they not just fight for justice to find the kidnapper/murderer of their daughter, and not care that anyone thinks that they are guilty?

Even if there is evidence (but there are no forensic or factual evidence) or reasonable doubt to suggest that someone else entered their home that night and committed this crime, the way that the Ramsey's themselves acted will contradict this theory. IMO

Well. They wouldn’t exactly be the first people to distrust the police. What makes it strange is their abundant wealth - usually shakers and movers are pals with LE. In this case, the Ramsey’s instinct was to flee. That could mean that they are guilty - but it might also be an indication that they simply didn’t trust LE one bit. And neither would I, to be honest.

As for Burke’s medical records - this guy is probably the most publicly harrassed and accused child since….oh yes that’s right, we generally don’t baselessly accuse children of murder, so the closest I can get is the West Memphis Three and they were about twice BR’s age.

I don’t see how anyone could really be surprised BR’s parents tried to spare him having his records broadcasted?

Btw, I briefly looked at a Dr Phil clip with BR and I’m surprised how sensible he seemed.

IMHO

 

[Ponytale]

Well. They wouldn’t exactly be the first people to distrust the police. What makes it strange is their abundant wealth - usually shakers and movers are pals with LE. In this case, the Ramsey’s instinct was to flee. That could mean that they are guilty - but it might also be an indication that they simply didn’t trust LE one bit. And neither would I, to be honest.

But then they could have just told their story the first place - explained publicly their previous encounters with LE and why they do not trust him? They never stated out publicly or explained the story behind not trusting LE. If I had any problems with trust by previous personal experiences, I would go and explain myself to justify my behavior. Yeah you could say that they did/do not need to explain themselves to anyone, but in this case, wouldn't it served them good? And maybe public could have given them some credit. If you didn't trust LE and people started pointing their fingers at you, wouldn't you come forward and explain your reasons? Hiding behind silence only creates more speculations.

As for Burke’s medical records - this guy is probably the most publicly harrassed and accused child since….oh yes that’s right, we generally don’t baselessly accuse children of murder, so the closest I can get is the West Memphis Three and they were about twice BR’s age.
I don’t see how anyone could really be surprised BR’s parents tried to spare him having his records broadcasted?

I just posted this on another topic - He was already under scrutiny. If his records had nothing special about them, when made public, the only thing that releasing them would have done is it could have saved him from 28 years of speculations.
And I'm not stating that they should have been made publicly known for everyone - they only should have been made available for the police/LE when they had requested them. When the authorities then would have had a chance to state publicly that they have received the records and there is nothing incriminating or suspicious about them, I believe the public would have been satisfied with that statement.

 

[AnnieDuke]

Well. They wouldn’t exactly be the first people to distrust the police. What makes it strange is their abundant wealth - usually shakers and movers are pals with LE. In this case, the Ramsey’s instinct was to flee. That could mean that they are guilty - but it might also be an indication that they simply didn’t trust LE one bit. And neither would I, to be honest.

As for Burke’s medical records - this guy is probably the most publicly harrassed and accused child since….oh yes that’s right, we generally don’t baselessly accuse children of murder, so the closest I can get is the West Memphis Three and they were about twice BR’s age.

I don’t see how anyone could really be surprised BR’s parents tried to spare him having his records broadcasted?

Btw, I briefly looked at a Dr Phil clip with BR and I’m surprised how sensible he seemed.

IMHO

If the Ramsay’s were guilty then it makes sense to keep the police at arm’s reach. But if they were innocent and they got the sense early on that the police were zeroing in on them I could certainly see why they wouldn’t just hand over anything. Any good defense attorney will tell you that many times when an innocent person goes to jail, it’s because they trusted that blindly cooperating with police would work out for them. I know some will say fully cooperate so the police can cross you off the list but that is very naive IMO. Police get tunnel vision many times and are looking for confirmation bias and not the truth. It’s a little like the chicken or the egg theory. Did the police zero in on the Ramsey’s because they acted guilty or did the Ramsey’s get defensive because the police zeroed in on them? That’s impossible to answer. I agree that JR & PR behaved oddly in the aftermath but I also think they are very image conscious and odd people to begin with. So I don’t know in either case (innocent or guilty) that their behavior would have been satisfactory to the masses.

As far as protecting BR’s privacy, I feel like any good parent would do that.

 

[Ponytale]

There is a difference between protecting privacy and not cooperating. Since they already had lawyers, they just could have set their own conditions under which terms and by whom the documents/files/records should be handled. They could have just asked, for the sake of privacy for Burke, to seal the contents of the records from public eyes. As an innocent parent who is desperate to cooperate to find the kidnapper and serve justice for my murdered child, I would do exactly that. With the money and the power that the Ramsey's (and their attorneys) had, I do not believe it would have been difficult for them to achieve. They just chose not to cooperate, and hence, they chose to be under suspicion and speculations.

By choosing that, it seems that the information that the documents (Burke's records, phone/bank records) would have revealed, were even more suspicious and incriminating against them and they knew that. I see no other reason for keeping them hidden after all those years.

There is no argument for any privacy if my child was murdered. And I consider myself a good parent.

 

[jjleroche]

Well. They wouldn’t exactly be the first people to distrust the police. What makes it strange is their abundant wealth - usually shakers and movers are pals with LE. In this case, the Ramsey’s instinct was to flee. That could mean that they are guilty - but it might also be an indication that they simply didn’t trust LE one bit. And neither would I, to be honest.

As for Burke’s medical records - this guy is probably the most publicly harrassed and accused child since….oh yes that’s right, we generally don’t baselessly accuse children of murder, so the closest I can get is the West Memphis Three and they were about twice BR’s age.

I don’t see how anyone could really be surprised BR’s parents tried to spare him having his records broadcasted?

Btw, I briefly looked at a Dr Phil clip with BR and I’m surprised how sensible he seemed.

IMHO

There does seem to have been something a little out of the ordinary going on.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the possibility of Fleet White (the Ramsey's neighbour and John Ramsey's closest friend) being the perpetrator, (or Fleet's father being the perpetrator, and Fleet covering for him?)

It appears that he was so close to the family that he virtually WAS family. It's been stated that he was a very nice, calm man, and yet, of all the people around the Ramsey family when Jonbenet was murdered, and for the few days afterwards, it was a his behaviour which seemed the most bizarre of all.

The Ramseys and various friends travelled to Atlanta for Jonbenet's funeral, and some Atlanta friends hosted the Boulder friends in their homes. Fleet claimed to have been offended by the Atlanta friends' hospital and the opulence of their homes, which caused part of the fracturing of their friendship with the Ramsey's. IMO that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. The White's also claimed that they were furious with the Ramsey's for lawyering up. They then apparently talked a lot about the Ramsey's "not cooperating with the police."
IMO that's quite disingenuous. "Lawyering up" is quite a common approach, and considered prudent early on in such circumstances. John, as head of a successful company would have access to (and likely strong business relationships with attorneys. IMO the vast majority of attorneys would counsel the Ramsey's to "lawyer up" initially. Just because someone's lawyers upon,m it does not mean that they are necessarily guilty. It's just prudent.
The Ramsey's, according to various documents, did in fact cooperate with police. AFAIK many people believed that, because they didn't do interviews for the general public, they weren't cooperating. In fact, people in such circumstances are not required to do such interviews, unless they wish to make appeals to the public for assistance (which they did repeatedly.)
It's been stated that the White's put a lot of effort in to being "the good guys", and were highly critical of the Ramsey's for "not cooperating". I find it rather strange that the White's didn't respect the Ramsey's right to make their own choices at all, particularly given that they had been such close friends.

Numerous Atlanta associates of the Ramsey's, and Patsy's father were said to have became quite fearful of Fleet and his extremely aggressive behaviour. There were statements made that Fleet had pulled a gun on some of them. I think this is incorrect, Another story noted that Patsy's father, being very worried that Fleet's behaviour could be dangerous if things escalated, ensured that he had a gun secreted nearby should things get out of hand (which IMO is the more likely of the two stories.)
IMO Fleet MAY have been involved in a cover-up possibly related to actions by his father with Jonbenet. IMO his "concerns" about the Ramsey's "not cooperating", and his annoyance with the Atlanta friends' opulent homes and hospitality, was a smokescreen used to justify his behaviour. JMO

Any thoughts?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

There does seem to have been something a little out of the ordinary going on.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the possibility of Fleet White (the Ramsey's neighbour and John Ramsey's closest friend) being the perpetrator, (or Fleet's father being the perpetrator, and Fleet covering for him?)

It appears that he was so close to the family that he virtually WAS family. It's been stated that he was a very nice, calm man, and yet, of all the people around the Ramsey family when Jonbenet was murdered, and for the few days afterwards, it was a his behaviour which seemed the most bizarre of all.

The Ramseys and various friends travelled to Atlanta for Jonbenet's funeral, and some Atlanta friends hosted the Boulder friends in their homes. Fleet claimed to have been offended by the Atlanta friends' hospital and the opulence of their homes, which caused part of the fracturing of their friendship with the Ramsey's. IMO that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. The White's also claimed that they were furious with the Ramsey's for lawyering up. They then apparently talked a lot about the Ramsey's "not cooperating with the police."
IMO that's quite disingenuous. "Lawyering up" is quite a common approach, and considered prudent early on in such circumstances. John, as head of a successful company would have access to (and likely strong business relationships with attorneys. IMO the vast majority of attorneys would counsel the Ramsey's to "lawyer up" initially. Just because someone's lawyers upon,m it does not mean that they are necessarily guilty. It's just prudent.
The Ramsey's, according to various documents, did in fact cooperate with police. AFAIK many people believed that, because they didn't do interviews for the general public, they weren't cooperating. In fact, people in such circumstances are not required to do such interviews, unless they wish to make appeals to the public for assistance (which they did repeatedly.)
It's been stated that the White's put a lot of effort in to being "the good guys", and were highly critical of the Ramsey's for "not cooperating". I find it rather strange that the White's didn't respect the Ramsey's right to make their own choices at all, particularly given that they had been such close friends.

Numerous Atlanta associates of the Ramsey's, and Patsy's father were said to have became quite fearful of Fleet and his extremely aggressive behaviour. There were statements made that Fleet had pulled a gun on some of them. I think this is incorrect, Another story noted that Patsy's father, being very worried that Fleet's behaviour could be dangerous if things escalated, ensured that he had a gun secreted nearby should things get out of hand (which IMO is the more likely of the two stories.)
IMO Fleet MAY have been involved in a cover-up possibly related to actions by his father with Jonbenet. IMO his "concerns" about the Ramsey's "not cooperating", and his annoyance with the Atlanta friends' opulent homes and hospitality, was a smokescreen used to justify his behaviour. JMO

Any thoughts?

I don't believe Fleet is involved, or his father. There's a fairly common phenomena when people turn away from friends when it becomes clear the friends are suspects. In Fleet's case, he was interviewed by the police before the confrontation. A more likely scenario is that the police told him either that they had evidence the Ramseys were guilty, or that their "silence" made them look like that - and Fleet was no doubt made aware that his own actions (which included disturbing the crime scene by picking up the tape) would be scrutinized. It's hardly strange that Fleet didn't want to go down with the Ramseys. He also came to subscribe to Steve Thomas's ridiculous conspiracy theory where powerful Democrats were protecting Ramsey - but that's more likely a personality defect.

As for Fleet's father the only thing I've heard pointing to him comes from Nancy Krebs who has zero credibility.

 

[GRT]

There does seem to have been something a little out of the ordinary going on.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the possibility of Fleet White (the Ramsey's neighbour and John Ramsey's closest friend) being the perpetrator, (or Fleet's father being the perpetrator, and Fleet covering for him?)

It appears that he was so close to the family that he virtually WAS family. It's been stated that he was a very nice, calm man, and yet, of all the people around the Ramsey family when Jonbenet was murdered, and for the few days afterwards, it was a his behaviour which seemed the most bizarre of all.

The Ramseys and various friends travelled to Atlanta for Jonbenet's funeral, and some Atlanta friends hosted the Boulder friends in their homes. Fleet claimed to have been offended by the Atlanta friends' hospital and the opulence of their homes, which caused part of the fracturing of their friendship with the Ramsey's. IMO that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. The White's also claimed that they were furious with the Ramsey's for lawyering up. They then apparently talked a lot about the Ramsey's "not cooperating with the police."
IMO that's quite disingenuous. "Lawyering up" is quite a common approach, and considered prudent early on in such circumstances. John, as head of a successful company would have access to (and likely strong business relationships with attorneys. IMO the vast majority of attorneys would counsel the Ramsey's to "lawyer up" initially. Just because someone's lawyers upon,m it does not mean that they are necessarily guilty. It's just prudent.
The Ramsey's, according to various documents, did in fact cooperate with police. AFAIK many people believed that, because they didn't do interviews for the general public, they weren't cooperating. In fact, people in such circumstances are not required to do such interviews, unless they wish to make appeals to the public for assistance (which they did repeatedly.)
It's been stated that the White's put a lot of effort in to being "the good guys", and were highly critical of the Ramsey's for "not cooperating". I find it rather strange that the White's didn't respect the Ramsey's right to make their own choices at all, particularly given that they had been such close friends.

Numerous Atlanta associates of the Ramsey's, and Patsy's father were said to have became quite fearful of Fleet and his extremely aggressive behaviour. There were statements made that Fleet had pulled a gun on some of them. I think this is incorrect, Another story noted that Patsy's father, being very worried that Fleet's behaviour could be dangerous if things escalated, ensured that he had a gun secreted nearby should things get out of hand (which IMO is the more likely of the two stories.)
IMO Fleet MAY have been involved in a cover-up possibly related to actions by his father with Jonbenet. IMO his "concerns" about the Ramsey's "not cooperating", and his annoyance with the Atlanta friends' opulent homes and hospitality, was a smokescreen used to justify his behaviour. JMO

Any thoughts?

Fleet has always been at the top of my list of suspects.

 

[Ponytale]

I do not think Fleet was involved. I think the rift between the Whites and the Ramsey's might have happened because of what he learned (possibly from Burke cause it was stated that he was discussing some elements of the murder with the Whites son) after they sent Burke to their house in that morning. Or when the officer interviewed Burke there without his parents knowledge. Or even if not from Burke, then really from any of them. It was early times and they had not lawyered up yet. Easy to slip with their made up stories. Anyway, I tend to think that they learned the truth of what actually happened to JB and that caused Fleet to distance himself and his family from the Ramsey's. He just didn't agree with their choosing to lie and cover it all up. Makes sense to me. IMO

 

[jjleroche]

I don't believe Fleet is involved, or his father. There's a fairly common phenomena when people turn away from friends when it becomes clear the friends are suspects. In Fleet's case, he was interviewed by the police before the confrontation. A more likely scenario is that the police told him either that they had evidence the Ramseys were guilty, or that their "silence" made them look like that - and Fleet was no doubt made aware that his own actions (which included disturbing the crime scene by picking up the tape) would be scrutinized. It's hardly strange that Fleet didn't want to go down with the Ramseys. He also came to subscribe to Steve Thomas's ridiculous conspiracy theory where powerful Democrats were protecting Ramsey - but that's more likely a personality defect.

As for Fleet's father the only thing I've heard pointing to him comes from Nancy Krebs who has zero credibility.

I almost spilled my coffee when I read your post regarding Steve Thomas' rather hilarious conspiracy theory - ie powerful Democrats protecting JR. I do agree - more likely a personality defect. JMO