Very Smart

[tipper]

This is ridiculous. The Ramseys have admitted that they lied about Burke's being asleep the morning of 12/26.

No, they didn't. They (and the policeman who looked in on him) believed he was asleep because he was pretending to be asleep. He wasn't. They learned after his GJ testimony that he wasn't asleep. Did the policeman "lie" in his report saying Burke was asleep?

 

[BlueCrab]

This is ridiculous. The Ramseys have admitted that they lied about Burke's being asleep the morning of 12/26.

Lying about being asleep is irrelevant. Lying about Burke being DOWNSTAIRS and talking to his parents at 5:52 AM is what's relevant.

 

[Toltec]

The 911 call was delivered to Aerospace and they enhanced the call. It was brought to Steve's attention by other detectives regarding a child's voice being on the tape.

Those are the facts. We are not privy to the enhanced 911 tape and the Aerospace report...... period.

But let's take a look at what Steve said in his book...he said that Patsy said, "Help me Jesus, Help me Jesus". That part can be heard from the television show aired. I picked it up on my television.

 

[Raina]

I dont believe Aerospace ever made a report. I dont go by anything ST says or said in his book. He sure couldnt back anything up in his deposition.

 

[Zman]

I dont believe Aerospace ever made a report. I dont go by anything ST says or said in his book. He sure couldnt back anything up in his deposition.

ST was a stubborn cop with the wrong theory.
Using every intimidating tatic he could think of and still came up emtpy.
Why?
Because he was wrong.

 

[BlueCrab]

ST was a stubborn cop with the wrong theory.
Using every intimidating tatic he could think of and still came up emtpy.
Why?
Because he was wrong.

I agree. Steve Thomas had the cart before the horse. He pursued a theory and tried to make the evidence fit; it didn't fit; so he invented evidence that did fit (such as Patsy being the only person of 72 examined who could not be eliminated as the writer of the RN -- a lie). Thomas wasted valuable time, money and other resources trying to prove a PDI theory, all of which misdirected and diluted the effectiveness of the investigation.

 

[Camper]

Most likely Steve Thomas took a first hand lesson in crime investigation in general and 'phony kidnapping' in particular, from the FBI man that showed up at the Ramsey home the morning of the 26th, who said, "look at the family". Who at that moment in time, was probably the MOST experienced and educated person on crime standing on the Ramseys door stoop.

The stoop is a small one.



.

 

[BlueCrab]

Most likely Steve Thomas took a first hand lesson in crime investigation in general and 'phony kidnapping' in particular, from the FBI man that showed up at the Ramsey home the morning of the 26th, who said, "look at the family". Who at that moment in time, was probably the MOST experienced and educated person on crime standing on the Ramseys door stoop.

The stoop is a small one.



.

Camper,

The FBI's suggestion to "look at the family" was good advice. But Steve Thomas' interpretation of the advice was wrong. Thomas dismissed John and Burke out of hand without properly investigating them, and zeroed in on Patsy.

Thomas dismissed Burke because "he wasn't strong enough" to have caused the damage to JonBenet -- a ridiculous conclusion. He obviously hasn't seen 10-year-old boys swing bats and clobber baseballs out of the park, nor tried to physically wrestle a 10-year-old boy who is out of control. Many boys that age are capable of battering their mothers into submission, let alone a 45-pound little girl.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

My impression is the FBI became less and less enamored of BPD and their theories over time. I expect they didn't appreciate have slanted evidence shown them.

 

[aussiesheila]

Zman,

The Ramseys have been proven to have lied dozens of times. They lied about Burke being in bed; they lied about Burke's Hi-Tec boots; they lied about the whereabouts of the missing Santa Bear; they lied about not being in the basement prior to the 911 call; they lied about the Stines not being their friends; etc., etc. All verified lies.

BlueCrab

Oh, come on BlueCrab,

You are really overstating things a little bit here aren't you? Lies and lies and lies! And all verified too!

Won't you even concede a little? Misapprehensions maybe? Inaccurate recollections? Lapses of memory? Misunderstandings?

Even if Burke was awake, who would blame them for saying he wasn't if they were just trying to keep him out of it?

Why do you expect they would necessarily know the exact brands of the multitude of shoes Burke probably owned?

Isn't it possible that they might forget about a Santa Bear that JonBenet owned or committed whatever dreadful misdemeanor you claim they did with respect to it?

It is only YOUR OPINION that when they said they did not go down to the basement before the 911 call that they lied.

So maybe John Ramsey did not consider the Stines to be close friends before the murder. Maybe they became close afterwards.


and you still haven't replied to my request in post 38

 

[tipper]

I agree but you'll never get BC to admit those are just opinions and not facts.

 

[aussiesheila]

I agree but you'll never get BC to admit those are just opinions and not facts.

Yes I know but it makes me mad and I just have to challenge him. I know, I have a problem.

 

[Anyhoo]

No one knows 100% who killed JonBenet.

But whoever did it,was very smart.
When you look at everything step by step,whoever did it made sure everyone looked like a suspect.

Ranson note: Addressed to John,with familiar notations ($118,SBTC,southern common sense,etc.). That could be anyoneR,BR,friend,business associate.

Pen and Paper: That could be JR,PR,BR,the housekeeper,housekeepers family,friends,or anyone who ever had opportunity to snatch a pad of paper and some pens from the house.

Pineapple and tea: Could be Patsy or Burke their finger prints were on the bowl. Tea,although no finger prints,could be Burke,he was the tea drinker.

Suitcase under window: Enclosed with JAR's blanket (with his semen) and a book belonging to him. Could be JAR.

I'm sure there's more,these are all I can think of off hand.

So who ever set this up was smart enough to incriminate everyone. Very smart.

IMO it was set up to steer away from an intruder..If it was a cover up by the Ramsey's to look like an intruder, it would mean they are incredibly naive and stupid. I don't think the Ramsey's are stupid or naive.

You are correct that they were very smart and they planted all kinds of false evidence to confuse and deceive, so the case would never be solved. But don't make the assumption that only people within the Ramsey family could have been involved in the deception. I contend that although JR and PR were both involved in the deception, there were others involved who had just as much to lose as the Ramsey's if the truth were ever to come out. The Ramsey's are neither naive nor stupid.

 

[M.James]

Hey, guys,

I read a bit of this thread, and have a question:

No fingerprints were found on the tea glass? Is that a fact?

If so, then there were no prints on that glass, nor the flashlight? Is that right?

Thank you.

 

[Anyhoo]

Hey, guys,

I read a bit of this thread, and have a question:

No fingerprints were found on the tea glass? Is that a fact?

If so, then there were no prints on that glass, nor the flashlight? Is that right?

Thank you.

I think that is correct, but I just want to interpret what it means if that is true. If true, it means that both the tea glass and the flashlight are part of the deception. Think about it. They could have put up the tea glass and they could have put up the flashlight. Instead they leave them out but wipe them of fingerprints. That means that they meant for them to be found (by LE) and for false inferences to be derived from them. IMO they are false clues that point away from truth and are meant to create reasonable doubt in the minds of people investigating and/or judging the case. And if the tea glass is suspect, then what of the Pineapple bowl?

 

[Whaleshark]

http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html

..."The concept that “something may adhere and may be transferred is important"

Each of the following various factors independently or in combination can account for the lack of prints on a surface:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited,
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear,
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail, and
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate. The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.

"I have used the following example and explanation in court many times. If I were to provide a clean, smooth piece of glass to the jury and have them hand it from one to another and then I were to process it for fingerprints, I would not have the expectation of obtaining identifiable prints for each juror on that glass. Although the surface of the glass is what most technicians would agree is a superb surface for obtaining prints, not all of the donors would have perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands, (some individuals have very little natural palmar perspiration), some would probably grasp with such firmness they would smudge or smear their prints, and some would touch the surface in the same location as a previous donor's print)".

"When a report reads “no prints”, what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it."

"There are several negatives about fingerprints--—not being able to determine the age of a print, not always developing a print even though an object was obviously touched, the lack of a definitive quantitative measure necessary for an identification, wide variations in processing techniques, and even, a lack of consistent terminology within the field. Some of these factors may see change in the years to come, but none of them should ever be allowed to diminish the value of a fingerprint identification".

 

[M.James]

Thanks for the responses.

http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html

"When a report reads “no prints”, what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it."

Actually, this is exactly what I'd like to know. Wish I had expressed it so well. So, to rephrase:

Were the tea glass and flashlight clean of any prints - were they wiped down?
If so, were they the only items that were wiped down?
If not, does anyone know whose prints were on them?

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for the responses.





Actually, this is exactly what I'd like to know. Wish I had expressed it so well. So, to rephrase:

Were the tea glass and flashlight clean of any prints - were they wiped down?
If so, were they the only items that were wiped down?
If not, does anyone know whose prints were on them?

I believe the tea glass had BR's prints on it. The flashlight had NO prints, and was wiped down. The batteries in the flashlight had been removed and wiped down as well, then replaced.
JB's BODY was also wiped down. Her thighs and pubic area were fund to have been wiped down with a cloth. The coroner reported this to police who wete also present at the autopsy.

 

[Anyhoo]

I believe the tea glass had BR's prints on it. The flashlight had NO prints, and was wiped down. The batteries in the flashlight had been removed and wiped down as well, then replaced.
JB's BODY was also wiped down. Her thighs and pubic area were fund to have been wiped down with a cloth. The coroner reported this to police who wete also present at the autopsy.

My point is that they could have easily put the flashlight away before the police arrived but they didn't. Instead they leave it out in a place where it was sure to stand out but wipe it down of fingerprints. That tells you what is going on in the mind of the person wiping it down. They wanted the flashlight to be found and suspected of being the murder weapon. They wanted it, and that should tell anyone who is perceptive that it is not the murder weapon. And the flashlight is just one of many false clues meant to confuse LE. The baseball bat with carpet fibers on it from the room JBR's body was found in. The golf club. The list goes on and on.

 

[Anyhoo]

I believe the tea glass had BR's prints on it. The flashlight had NO prints, and was wiped down. The batteries in the flashlight had been removed and wiped down as well, then replaced.
JB's BODY was also wiped down. Her thighs and pubic area were fund to have been wiped down with a cloth. The coroner reported this to police who wete also present at the autopsy.

My point is that they could have easily put the flashlight away before the police arrived but they didn't. Instead they leave it out in a place where it was sure to stand out but wipe it down of fingerprints. That tells you what is going on in the mind of the person wiping it down. They wanted the flashlight to be found and suspected of being the murder weapon. They wanted it, and that should tell anyone who is perceptive that it is not the murder weapon. And the flashlight is just one of many false clues meant to confuse LE. The baseball bat with carpet fibers on it from the room JBR's body was found in. The golf club. The list goes on and on.