It was all lies anyway. She said she only ever read the first couple of lines, until the "we have your daughter" part. Okay, but then she is on the phone with 911 and knows that the note is signed by SBTC. Then during her police interview 3 months later she says she is standing at the front door wondering if she should have heeded the warnings in the note about calling the police. But she is still claiming not to have read the note. She is never cross examined or pressured on any of these inconsistencies. Makes you want to pull your hair out.
Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll
- Thread starter newtv
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
MA - Sandra Birchmore, Stoughton, 4 Feb 2021 *former police officer arrested*
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
- Status
It was all lies anyway. She said she only ever read the first couple of lines, until the "we have your daughter" part. Okay, but then she is on the phone with 911 and knows that the note is signed by SBTC. Then during her police interview 3 months later she says she is standing at the front door wondering if she should have heeded the warnings in the note about calling the police. But she is still claiming not to have read the note. She is never cross examined or pressured on any of these inconsistencies. Makes you want to pull your hair out.
Yes the fiction psychopathic, sexual sadist, OCD, or whatever you need him to be. Very convenient when you are not bound by fact or evidence.
A thought:
If PR, as she claimed "stepped over the paper, turned around and looked at it" Were the pages upside down? Were the pages oriented for someone coming down, or someone coming up? Again, something that was never pressed on or cross examined.
If PR, as she claimed "stepped over the paper, turned around and looked at it" Were the pages upside down? Were the pages oriented for someone coming down, or someone coming up? Again, something that was never pressed on or cross examined.
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 172
I read that the first time she said the note was laid out was when she was asked how she knew what was written at the end if she didn't pick it up. Does anyone know if that's true? Also, she says on 911 call that it is a ransom note, which is also further into the letter than "we have your daughter".
InstantProof
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 172
Well if she wore gloves to write the letter you can see where it may become confusing to touch it later or not.
observation
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,388
- Reaction score
- 34
And they both dismiss the IDI theory and were highly a tune to the information in this case...so, what reason is there to believe the IDI theories you have helped to "provide references to information in Kolar's and ST's books in the past."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was placed on the stairs because this was PR's way of leaving notes. This is coming from her perspective and her known habit kicked in and helped to form the decision on where to leave the note. This habit of leaving notes on the stairs was unique to her.
The fact that the parents wouldn't touch the note with bare hands is completely suspect considering their destruction of every other piece of evidence and the entire crime scene. They were only concerned about contaminating evidence on the note, not the body, the clothes, the blanket, the tape, the cords, or the whole house, even having her friends 'clean up the kitchen' while they waited for the ransom call. I find it odd that they would immediately understand the significance of contaminating the note but forget when it came to contaminating everything else.
You either know something or you don't They selected when they would use that knowledge.
The fact that the parents wouldn't touch the note with bare hands is completely suspect considering their destruction of every other piece of evidence and the entire crime scene. They were only concerned about contaminating evidence on the note, not the body, the clothes, the blanket, the tape, the cords, or the whole house, even having her friends 'clean up the kitchen' while they waited for the ransom call. I find it odd that they would immediately understand the significance of contaminating the note but forget when it came to contaminating everything else.
You either know something or you don't They selected when they would use that knowledge.
Excellent point. This is how I see it, too. These actions are not the actions of innocent people. They may not have killed JBR (the brother could have possibly) but they are guilty in covering it up at the very least.
The timing of finding the body was planned. The body had to be found before the Atlanta kids arrived from the airport and got into the house. It is suspect. None of the other R children saw the body until her funeral. They were protected by a loving father. Wait.
I'm not sure I agree. Being up on crime and investigative procedures, I might not have touched the note either , provided I could clearly read it were it was. And luckily for the Ramsey's , the intruder fanned out the pages so the could all be read without touching them. Thing is, somebody did touch them because they ended up on the floor by the phone. Why no fingerprints? Why were the Rs so clueless about whether they had even touched it? Somebody had to? I guess the probably just couldn't remember "was I wearing my gloves when I read that thing?".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But if you think about it, why would
They worry about their prints being on the note? It was addressed to them, they picked it up and read it, so their prints are expected. The fact that their prints are NOT on the note is actually more suspicious in my opinion.
I believe that the note was never on the stairs, and John was never on the floor by the phone. Everything was simply prepared and put in place while They were still wearing gloves. They simply neglected to touch it. This is why they were so awkward when asked about it. If I say I picked it up, my prints should be on it. But if I say I didn't pick it up and they find my print on it, I'm in trouble. Better to say "gee, I can't remember ".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, she was never really pressed on the specifics or the logic of her statements regarding the note. All she says is that she read the first few lines, but they never asked how she knew it was signed SBTC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She also got SBTC correct. She didn't say TBCS or SMTC or anything. She got the anagram correct. Under pressure and reading an anagram that allegedly means nothing to her, she was pretty perceptive on this.
I've always wondered about that too. It took me a long time to remember those initials and she had the down right away. Leads me to believe that it does represent something significant rather than just being random letters.
Playing Devil's advocate, it seems possible to me that one would read the first few lines and then glance at the end to see who wrote it. I don't find that terribly suspicious (though everything else about the 911 call is).
ETA: I don't think the letters are random. I think its either "Saved By The Cross" or "She Bears The Crown" (both religious obviously). The first one more likely, imo.
Post #1996 spooky
ETA: I don't think the letters are random. I think its either "Saved By The Cross" or "She Bears The Crown" (both religious obviously). The first one more likely, imo.
Post #1996 spooky
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Yes, I sometimes pick apart details. You say it as if it is a bad thing. It is not. As they say, the devil is in the details. The details are important.
However, in this instance - in the post you snipped (in its entirety!!) I did not pick apart any details. I explained to you that virtually everything you attributed to me was not said by me. I dont know if youre doing this on purpose or if this is a genuine case of misunderstanding. But, these falsehoods are the reason why you cant discuss my theory with me in any meaningful way.
As I said in the post you snipped (in its entirety!!): Criticism is welcome and when properly applied beneficial; but, you guys need to start criticizing what Im actually saying. If you dont understand what Im saying, ask for clarification.
...
AK
OliviaG1996
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 7
I've actually had a discussion about this starting here. Some say she could've read the note because JR laid out the note in the middle of the floor, but on the 9-1-1 call, it sounds to me as if PR had those four letters memorized. If she innocently read them for the first time, I would expect her to read it like, "S... I think that's a B... T...," and so on. She didn't.
Whether or not JR read the note behind the table near the spiral staircase in that diagram linked above or not is also important, IMO.
Anti-K
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 4
The killer in my “theory” of intent, as previously stated, did NOT have OCD. I never said he did. The killer in my “theory” of intent, as previously stated, was not a sexual sadist. Psychopathic? I don’t know, but I do know that I never said he was.
You and Ellie9 are attributing to me things that I have not said.
Once again: Criticism is welcome and when properly applied beneficial; but, you guys need to start criticizing what I’m actually saying. If you don’t understand what I’m saying – it is cler that you do not - ask for clarification.
…
AK
Come on, you are playing word games again. You said something long the lines of "some people have said the intruder had OCD" when asked to explain why the intruder would have returned the pen and the pad to their proper places. You answered the question posed to you with that. So you've given a response that you will not take responsibility for, and you have managed to dodge the question all in one go. Bravo.
- Status