What was that about Patsy and acronyms?

[Britt]

I find some of Patsys and Johns answers that they couldn't remember things a little hard to believe. This would also explain how JB could have eaten some pineapple before going to bed. This doesn't mean that I think the Ramseys are guilty of any accidental or intentional wrong doing.

But vicktor, how do you reconcile their alleged dishonesty with innocence? Why on earth would they lie about anything if they were innocent? Why would it even occur to them to lie about anything, big or small, if they were innocent?

 

[Brefie]

Burke did not write the captions on the photo album...be serious! What boy would even think to do something like that. As if Burke didn't have anything better to do...sheeesh!

Exactly - and a wealthy boy, to boot.

 

[BlueCrab]

Obviously, Patsy lied when she told investigators she "didn't know" who wrote the captions in Burke's album. Duh. It was either her or Burke.

So why did Patsy lie? Why couldn't she have just said, "Oh, it was me."

Answer: Because Patsy knew where the line of questioning was headed, and she knew the handwriting in the album was similar to the handwriting in the ransom note. She had printed both of them ...

OR, Burke had printed both of them.

JMO

 

[Cherokee]

OR, Burke had printed both of them.

JMO

Nope.

Little boys don't care to print in photo albums, their mammas do.



IMO

 

[Shylock]

Nope.
Little boys don't care to print in photo albums, their mammas do.

Let's be realistic and expand on that: Little boys don't care about photo albums-PERIOD!

 

[vicktor]

But vicktor, how do you reconcile their alleged dishonesty with innocence? Why on earth would they lie about anything if they were innocent? Why would it even occur to them to lie about anything, big or small, if they were innocent?

Just because they obfuscated when questioned by the BPD, or told white lies doesn't make them guilty of anything. Linda Ardnt had conplained that John was controlling the situation when she was there. I have heard that John is highly intelligent and got that sense from reading DOI. After a few days had passed and they had gotten lawyers, I think John realized that they were the main suspects. He wisely decided that it would be better to be vague on small matters and to agree on mainpoints. When questioned by BPD they might contradict themselves or each other from interview to interview accidently and thus give the BPD more reason to suspect them. This is the only reason why the Ramseys asked for transcripts of past interviews.

Regarding what happened, they could state that:
1. A basement window which was broken was found open with a suitcase underneath it. 2. They didn't hear or see anything when they got home at 9:00. 3. They were all in bed by 10:30 and didn't hear anything till they got up and found the note. 4. The butlers door was seen to be open that morning, and the alarm was off.
All this which was info about an intruder could be explained in 20 minutes. In other words, the Ramseys had limited info pertaining to the intruder. So most of the BPD questions focused on the Ramseys and all the things they did or didn't do. I think that the Ramseys decided that giving detailed answers to questions wouldn't do anything to aid in finding the intruder and could only serve to hurt them if inconsistancies were seen.

 

[Brefie]

After a few days had passed and they had gotten lawyers, I think John realized that they were the main suspects. He wisely decided that it would be better to be vague on small matters and to agree on mainpoints. When questioned by BPD they might contradict themselves or each other from interview to interview accidently and thus give the BPD more reason to suspect them. This is the only reason why the Ramseys asked for transcripts of past interviews.

If they innocently / accidently contradicted themselves from time to time, as you put it, you don't think that it would have been picked up by these experts that it was accidental?? The Ramseys asked for transcripts so they could rehearse them. Nothing more, nothing less. If you know of any other innocent persons that have done this, please provide a link, I would be most interested.

 

[K777angel]

Just because they obfuscated when questioned by the BPD, or told white lies doesn't make them guilty of anything. Linda Ardnt had conplained that John was controlling the situation when she was there. I have heard that John is highly intelligent and got that sense from reading DOI. After a few days had passed and they had gotten lawyers, I think John realized that they were the main suspects. He wisely decided that it would be better to be vague on small matters and to agree on mainpoints. When questioned by BPD they might contradict themselves or each other from interview to interview accidently and thus give the BPD more reason to suspect them. This is the only reason why the Ramseys asked for transcripts of past interviews.

Regarding what happened, they could state that:
1. A basement window which was broken was found open with a suitcase underneath it. 2. They didn't hear or see anything when they got home at 9:00. 3. They were all in bed by 10:30 and didn't hear anything till they got up and found the note. 4. The butlers door was seen to be open that morning, and the alarm was off.
All this which was info about an intruder could be explained in 20 minutes. In other words, the Ramseys had limited info pertaining to the intruder. So most of the BPD questions focused on the Ramseys and all the things they did or didn't do. I think that the Ramseys decided that giving detailed answers to questions wouldn't do anything to aid in finding the intruder and could only serve to hurt them if inconsistancies were seen.

First of all, the Ramseys didn't wait till "a few days had passed" before they contacted a lawyer! They had a lawyer from day one! Why??
Why was one called AT ALL? They called a lawyer way before any "suspicion" on them was felt. In fact - I believe Bynum was called BEFORE they even found the body.
Secondly, - do not forget that a CHAIR was propped up against the door on the OUTSIDE to the room where the "broken" window was. You can forget any lame theory about some intruder having left out that window. Thus making the "suitcase" under the window meaningless. What did he do? Walk through walls and prop up a chair outside that room? Then go back through the wall, put the suitcase up near the wall and climb out? LOL!
Smit conveniently leaves out this important piece of evidence in his fantasy intruder theory. Some detective.

There was no intruder. There is NO evidence of one - but plenty of evidence pointing to a familial homicide having happened within that family.
With a subsequent cover-up that continues to this day.

 

[vicktor]

If they innocently / accidently contradicted themselves from time to time, as you put it, you don't think that it would have been picked up by these experts that it was accidental?? The Ramseys asked for transcripts so they could rehearse them. Nothing more, nothing less. If you know of any other innocent persons that have done this, please provide a link, I would be most interested.

Inconsistancies could easily have been used against them. Thats what they were looking for, as evidenced by the great concern about how pineapple ended up in JB's digestive tract, if she had stayed alsleep and in bed when they got home. I am not aware of any other case in which suspects asked for past interviews, innocent or guilty.

 

[vicktor]

First of all, the Ramseys didn't wait till "a few days had passed" before they contacted a lawyer! They had a lawyer from day one! Why??
Why was one called AT ALL? They called a lawyer way before any "suspicion" on them was felt. In fact - I believe Bynum was called BEFORE they even found the body.
Secondly, - do not forget that a CHAIR was propped up against the door on the OUTSIDE to the room where the "broken" window was. You can forget any lame theory about some intruder having left out that window. Thus making the "suitcase" under the window meaningless. What did he do? Walk through walls and prop up a chair outside that room? Then go back through the wall, put the suitcase up near the wall and climb out? LOL!
Smit conveniently leaves out this important piece of evidence in his fantasy intruder theory. Some detective.

There was no intruder. There is NO evidence of one - but plenty of evidence pointing to a familial homicide having happened within that family.
With a subsequent cover-up that continues to this day.

The statement above wasn't meant to say that the Ramseys didn't get lawyers for several days. Either Mike Bynum whom they contacted, and/or someone at Access on the 26th suggested that they get a good lawyer. There's some saying to the effect that if you're guilty you better have a lawyer and if you're innocent, your better get a good lawyer. I don't recall that the lawyers were present or interfaced any during the first 4 days, when the Ramseys were observed and questioned by the BPD. They probably entered the picture when the BPD wouldn't release JBR's body for burial unless the Ramseys agreed to go down for questioning.

I've never heard or read about a chair being propped against that door. There have been many people who thought that an intruder did leave thru the window, with no mention of a chair. From what deposition or what book is it stated that a chair was propped against the door? Now if a chair was sitting in front of the door, that could be easily accomplished. Simplest senario: the suitcase was placed by the wall for easy emergency exit from the window, an intruder could easily see that the alarm was off and probably left thru the butler's door. I wouild assume that the Ramseys normally used the front door, or garage door in back, and didn't use the butler's door which normally would be shut.

Smit was selected from a pool of something like 50 candidates. His track record was substantial. What reason would Smit have to construct a theory that ignored an important piece of evidence, when alternate explanations were also plausible?

 

[K777angel]

The statement above wasn't meant to say that the Ramseys didn't get lawyers for several days. Either Mike Bynum whom they contacted, and/or someone at Access on the 26th suggested that they get a good lawyer. There's some saying to the effect that if you're guilty you better have a lawyer and if you're innocent, your better get a good lawyer. I don't recall that the lawyers were present or interfaced any during the first 4 days, when the Ramseys were observed and questioned by the BPD. They probably entered the picture when the BPD wouldn't release JBR's body for burial unless the Ramseys agreed to go down for questioning.

I've never heard or read about a chair being propped against that door. There have been many people who thought that an intruder did leave thru the window, with no mention of a chair. From what deposition or what book is it stated that a chair was propped against the door? Now if a chair was sitting in front of the door, that could be easily accomplished. Simplest senario: the suitcase was placed by the wall for easy emergency exit from the window, an intruder could easily see that the alarm was off and probably left thru the butler's door. I wouild assume that the Ramseys normally used the front door, or garage door in back, and didn't use the butler's door which normally would be shut.

Smit was selected from a pool of something like 50 candidates. His track record was substantial. What reason would Smit have to construct a theory that ignored an important piece of evidence, when alternate explanations were also plausible?

John Ramsey has stated something to the effect that, "We were fortunate ALMOST FROM THE MOMENT WE FOUND THE NOTE to have good counsel..."
Mike Bynum came by on the 27th to see the Ramseys. That is at LEAST the earliest he was involved with them - and most likely much earlier than that.
It wasn't just the police who sensed "something wasn't right" regarding this crime and the Ramseys.
Also, you have to THINK in detail about the facts in this case.
So you think an intruder came through the basement window? There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that. The dirt and debris on the window sill was NOT disturbed, there were intact spider webs still there the next day,
and the heavy metal grate was in place. What did he do? Reach up and pull it back down in place? Such a tidy little intruder! But then he "put back" in place the pen and notepad of Patsy's too...
It's plain silly to think he put that suitcase under the window for an exit.
The window wasn't even very far off the ground! Didn't you watch Smit on national televison come through that window (making a fool of himself in the meantime?) LOL! That was the clincher for me that this guy was grasping at straws trying to make his pet intruder theory "fit." No suitcase was necessary for a man to get up and out of that window.
And you neglected to explain the reason this intruder would have chosen to prop a chair up against the door to the very room you claim he planned to exit the house out of?? Makes NO sense.
And if anyone STILL insists on hanging onto the "intruder" theory despite it so easily being torn apart - how can you then also explain why Patsy Ramsey's
jacket/sweater fibers are entwined in the knot in the cord around JonBenet's neck???? Explain that one.
And explain how those same fibers also ended up in the paint tote where the broken paintbrush handle remnant was that came from the one used in the cord around JonBenet's neck???
The list goes on.
Smit IGNORES so much evidence that he doesn't want to admit is there.
Why? Because - look how much attention he has gotten by being the hold out. By standing alone in his intruder theory.
There is a good reason why he became a joke and a laughing stock.
He did it to himself. (Or as he would say, "I done it to myself.")

 

[Spade]

During the late afternoon of the 26th, Bynum called FW at Fernies and asked FW to come to his office at 5 PM. When FW met w/Bynum, he was informed of the Ramsey's decision to hire Haddon, Morgan and Foreman and he was told to "stay out of this". (See ST's book)

The AM of the 27th Haddon etal had PI's(Armistead & Williams) on the street interviewing Ramsey neighbors and friends. In some cases before the BPD could contact these potential witnesses. (See ST's book)

"I wasn't hired to find out who killed JonBenet; my job was to keep John and Patsy out of jail." Ellis Armistead

 

[K777angel]

During the late afternoon of the 26th, Bynum called FW at Fernies and asked FW to come to his office at 5 PM. When FW met w/Bynum, he was informed of the Ramsey's decision to hire Haddon, Morgan and Foreman and he was told to "stay out of this". (See ST's book)

The AM of the 27th Haddon etal had PI's(Armistead & Williams) on the street interviewing Ramsey neighbors and friends. In some cases before the BPD could contact these potential witnesses. (See ST's book)

"I wasn't hired to find out who killed JonBenet; my job was to keep John and Patsy out of jail." Ellis Armistead

Thank you Spade. I didn't have time to look up the sources before Mass this morning.
Such an interesting comment from Mr. Armistead isn't it?

 

[Islander]

I've never heard or read about a chair being propped against that door. There have been many people who thought that an intruder did leave thru the window, with no mention of a chair. From what deposition or what book is it stated that a chair was propped against the door? Now if a chair was sitting in front of the door, that could be easily accomplished.

According to the NE book, John was shown a crime scene photo of a chair blocking the door to the train room. When questioned about the chair by Lou Smit, John agreed that he could not have gotten into the room without first moving the chair. Smit apparently could not figure out how the chair got there if the intruder went through the door to go out the basement window. It doesn’t appear, however, as if he pressed John about that point.

According to the NE editor’s notes, John moved the chair when he entered the train room and replaced it when he left. The question that I have is why was the chair there when John went to the basement the first time? It is pretty clear from reading Schiller and Thomas that Fleet went to the basement and entered the train room shortly after his arrival at the Ramsey house on the morning of December 26. If the chair were there, Fleet would have had to move it and replace it when he left the room. Depending on whom you believe, Schiller or Thomas, Officer French and/or Sgt.Reichenbach may also have been in the basement and entered the train room before John. If so, they too would have had to move the chair and then replace it. That seems strange to me. I would sure like to know what Fleet, French and Reichenbach reported. Did they even see the chair, or was it part of a staging effort by John?

Simplest senario: the suitcase was placed by the wall for easy emergency exit from the window, an intruder could easily see that the alarm was off and probably left thru the butler's door. I wouild assume that the Ramseys normally used the front door, or garage door in back, and didn't use the butler's door which normally would be shut.

From what I understand the window grate was found in its regular position. I am not sure that an intruder could have removed the grate, crawled through the window into the basement and then reach back and replace the grate. If that is the case, any intruder entering through the basement window would have had to leave through the basement window in order to close the grate. But that raises another question, why go to the trouble of closing the grate in the first place? Personally, I now believe no intruder either entered or left the house through the basement window.