Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[midwest mama]

The former post I made with regard to the rope on the Christmas tree in JAR's room was meant to offer the information about that type of tree being in his room, and that also there was a photo shoot done of JB in western type garb which included a rope. I did not mean to imply that I knew there was that type of photo in his room, and admit that the way the sentence was structured, it could be interpreted that way. I apologize if it was misleading. I have no recollection of learning that those photos were on display in JAR's room.

As far as the woman who claimed to see the photo of JB in a feather boa in the MI house, if that was a fabrication of Singular's, then I agree it should be taken with a grain of salt. I guess I do not find it impossible to believe such a photo might have existed. Singular, to the best of my knowledge was never sued or even publicly called out by the R's, for information he printed about the R's. When the R's held back from lawsuits or verbal naysaying, it's my opinion that they knew better than to challenge the written word because it could be collaborated.

 

[midwest mama]

It looks like the photo was taken Christmas Eve or Christmas morning since the gifts are all still wrapped. If morning, it appears that it was very, very early because the windows do not show a hint of sunlight. Kids do wake up early Xmas morning. Let's say she woke up at 5AM. Wouldn't there be a little bit of light in the sky? What about 4AM. Would it be pitch black?

The long johns disturb me. Is the killer assumed to be the one who dressed her in the long johns late December 25? Many of you on this board have far more knowledge about the case than I do. I just can't help but dwell on the image of a living JonBenet in clothing identical to what she ultimately died in. Something seems off, but I can't put my finger on it yet.

The Christmas photo in question here shows JB's bike. It was said she had been out riding her bike that Christmas afternoon for a while. If so, wouldn't you think her bike would then have gone to the garage and not back in front of the tree for any reason that day?

That alone makes me think the photo would have been taken early Christmas morning....especially since Barnhill verified that JR came over late Christmas Eve to get the bike being hidden away at the Barnhill's waiting for Santa's delivery.

If there is a way to tell more clearly that the pj's worn in that photo are really a set of longjohn type underwear and not the same as the pink ones in the other Christmas photo said to be from Christmas morning, then we have to try to figure out when and why she would have changed. Have to leave that up to the gifted techies we have in this forum.

 

[Venom]

I have often thought that the body was actually NOT suppose to be found in the home; the way it was wrapped "papoose" like in the blanket, the hands loosely tied, the "garrotte"....I do think this was "staging," but I wonder if the original plan was that JR was going to remove the body from the home (this would make sense with the "kidnapper" ransom note) and dispose of it elsewhere. However, maybe PR did not want to go along with this because she didn't her baby to be exposed and dumped. So, when JR is preparing to remove the body, she phones 911--not part of the plan--in order to prevent the removal of JB from happening.

This could explain the cold and distant demeanor toward each other that was reported that morning and JR's odd behavior--he knew they were screwed because the body was in the home.

Just a thought that has always made sense in my mind.

Going along on that theme, could JR have just had the hands loosely tied, duct tape on mouth as staging for when/if the body was found outside? Let's say that she is dumped outside, he was hoping that the body would be decomposed enough so that when found it would be found with the duct tape and cord thus making it appear as though she'd have been bound and gagged, what a kidnapper would do.
All JMO and speculation.

 

[Venom]

It looks like the photo was taken Christmas Eve or Christmas morning since the gifts are all still wrapped. If morning, it appears that it was very, very early because the windows do not show a hint of sunlight. Kids do wake up early Xmas morning. Let's say she woke up at 5AM. Wouldn't there be a little bit of light in the sky? What about 4AM. Would it be pitch black?

The long johns disturb me. Is the killer assumed to be the one who dressed her in the long johns late December 25? Many of you on this board have far more knowledge about the case than I do. I just can't help but dwell on the image of a living JonBenet in clothing identical to what she ultimately died in. Something seems off, but I can't put my finger on it yet.

In that picture you can see the flash of the camera on the glass door. It does look dark outside, the tree isn't lit, and no gifts seem to be open.
Have the R's ever said what time they got up on Christmas morning? I'm assuming the picture wasn't taken in Christmas Eve- JR had to go get the bike at the Barnhill's and I assume he did that after the kids were in bed.
Also, were any of the neighbors interviewed and confirmed seeing JB out riding the bike on Christmas day?

 

[Anyhoo]

I didn't know where to post this but this thread seems as good as any. I was watching a movie recently (totally unrelated to this case) where a situation was totally out of someone's control (who wanted to control it) and they called in an expert to help them control or "spin" it. To be more specific, something bad had happened which, if the truth was revealed, would destroy a company. They could not take back what had happened, all they could do was use information control. They called in an expert advisor, and something he said really hit home for me and does concern this case. What he said was summarized as this: "Your goal is to make things so convoluted that everyone can have a theory but no one has the facts." In other words, make it so convoluted, put so much false information out there, that nobody really knows what happened. People can guess all they like, but they will never know and that is good enough. I immediately thought back to this case. That is exactly what the goal was here, and the goal was successfully achieved. Those here who say there was no staging are dead wrong. There was staging "in spades". Everything that could be done to misdirect LE was done, and it was successful. And those who say that PR did all this on her own are dead wrong IMO. This staging was an organized effort by at least two but possibly more people (and I am not including BR in that). IMO JR was definitely involved in this staging but I am also suggesting that people outside the immediate R family helped to prevent this case from being prosecuted. I think this case is bigger than just the Ramsey family. It involved the Ramsey family but not just them, IMO. Smart people were involved in this staging, not just PR. It troubles me to see so many people here concluding that PR did it all when there is clear evidence that people much smarter than PR were involved. There, I have said what I have been wanting to say.

 

[bettybaby00]

I didn't know where to post this but this thread seems as good as any. I was watching a movie recently (totally unrelated to this case) where a situation was totally out of someone's control (who wanted to control it) and they called in an expert to help them control or "spin" it. To be more specific, something bad had happened which, if the truth was revealed, would destroy a company. They could not take back what had happened, all they could do was use information control. They called in an expert advisor, and something he said really hit home for me and does concern this case. What he said was summarized as this: "Your goal is to make things so convoluted that everyone can have a theory but no one has the facts." In other words, make it so convoluted, put so much false information out there, that nobody really knows what happened. People can guess all they like, but they will never know and that is good enough. I immediately thought back to this case. That is exactly what the goal was here, and the goal was successfully achieved. Those here who say there was no staging are dead wrong. There was staging "in spades". Everything that could be done to misdirect LE was done, and it was successful. And those who say that PR did all this on her own are dead wrong IMO. This staging was an organized effort by at least two but possibly more people (and I am not including BR in that). IMO JR was definitely involved in this staging but I am also suggesting that people outside the immediate R family helped to prevent this case from being prosecuted. I think this case is bigger than just the Ramsey family. It involved the Ramsey family but not just them, IMO. Smart people were involved in this staging, not just PR. It troubles me to see so many people here concluding that PR did it all when there is clear evidence that people much smarter than PR were involved. There, I have said what I have been wanting to say.

Yea they were successful. On many fronts.

As Wendy Murphy asserted after the GJ true bill "1 Murder, Plus 2 Mum
Suspects = A Walk"

Criminals often use a trick called cross-finger pointing resulting in many long-term unsolved cases of missing women and girls, including the disappearance of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado, says Wendy Murphy in this excerpt from the new edition of "And Justice For Some."


One of the most frustrating situations for cops is when they know for certain that two people were present at the scene of a crime but only one of them is guilty, and neither of them is talking. Usually, this happens when the guilty person persuades the innocent one that if they stick together, neither one can successfully be prosecuted because they can each claim that the other one committed the crime.

I call this the cross-finger pointing trick because the case is virtually unprovable so long as the innocent buddy agrees to serve as the guilty person's built-in reasonable doubt.

Defense attorneys love this trick. And they have a sarcastic saying that sums up the tactic nicely: "Nobody talks, everybody walks."

http://womensenews.org/story/books/130524/1-murder-plus-2-mum-suspects-equals-walk#.UysXJie9KSM

 

[DeeDee249]

Sad, but true. And it has happened before. I know murder is a federal crime, so individual State's laws do not apply, but there is something about this that bothers me. I know of murder cases where several people were there at the time- such as a gang assault, or robbery that involved the death (intended or not) of a victim. In these cases, all the suspects blame each other. Yet, because they were all present at the crime, they are all considered responsible. I cannot see how the cross-finger-pointing defense can be allowed. They were both there at the CRIME, fiber evidence placed BOTH parents as handling JB, either dead or while she was still alive. Some of these fibers are present on items that are specific to the crime itself, such as the cord KNOT, tape, and redressed brand-NEW panties. So it's not like one parent was totally innocent of involvement. So why weren't they BOTH able to be prosecuted? Because if the finger-pointing defense is allowed, NO one would ever be prosecuted for murder if there is more than one suspect. Can anyone explain this to me?

 

[midwest mama]

Sad, but true. And it has happened before. I know murder is a federal crime, so individual State's laws do not apply, but there is something about this that bothers me. I know of murder cases where several people were there at the time- such as a gang assault, or robbery that involved the death (intended or not) of a victim. In these cases, all the suspects blame each other. Yet, because they were all present at the crime, they are all considered responsible. I cannot see how the cross-finger-pointing defense can be allowed. They were both there at the CRIME, fiber evidence placed BOTH parents as handling JB, either dead or while she was still alive. Some of these fibers are present on items that are specific to the crime itself, such as the cord KNOT, tape, and redressed brand-NEW panties. So it's not like one parent was totally innocent of involvement. So why weren't they BOTH able to be prosecuted? Because if the finger-pointing defense is allowed, NO one would ever be prosecuted for murder if there is more than one suspect. Can anyone explain this to me?

I'm right with ya on this one! My first reaction is that AH and ML would be the ones to put on the hot seat for the explanation.

If the GJ true bills had been signed and prosecution attempted, there would have been nothing to keep further investigation from changing the probable cause findings of "child abuse leading to death" to CHARGES being filed after arrest for FELONY MURDER: that way both parents taken through prosecution since both were there when she was killed no matter who did the deed. :moo:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

When I search for cross-finger pointing defense, none of the links on the 1st page are from legitimate sources (MSM, books, studies) or relevant. The only links regarding true crime are from JBR forums. It seems like the only person who has ever used the term is Wendy Murphy.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm right with ya on this one! My first reaction is that AH and ML would be the ones to put on the hot seat for the explanation.

If the GJ true bills had been signed and prosecution attempted, there would have been nothing to keep further investigation from changing the probable cause findings of "child abuse leading to death" to CHARGES being filed after arrest for FELONY MURDER: that way both parents taken through prosecution since both were there when she was killed no matter who did the deed. :moo:

Yes, to all of the above. Not to mention that at that time, the statute of limitations for the coverup, tampering with evidence, obstruction, etc. had not expired and the parents could have been charged with those as well. It is very interesting that these GJ indictments were revealed only after those statutes had expired.

 

[UKGuy]

There are 2 photographs that bother me. Both were taken December 25, 1996.

The photo of JonBenet sitting in the floor surrounded by presents smiling & looking sideways at the camera. For years AFAIK, the public was not shown the total photograph with Burke sitting in front of the tree in the left of the photo. I feel that he may have been cropped out in order to keep the public's mind off of him being there. So little was said about him by the Ramseys. It seems as though they'd be saying things like I'm so glad Burke wasn't also harmed, or I hope they don't try to come back & "kidnap" Burke.

The other photo that bothers me is the recently released picture of JonBenet jumping for joy by the Christmas tree in front of a new bike. Isn't she wearing long johns? I thought she was wearing pale pink pajamas on Christmas morning? I don't know that the photo means anything incriminating. I'm just disturbed that she appears to be wearing something like what she was murdered in.

dazeerae,
Good catch on the photos. Now after a quick look, it appears what I thought was pink is actually white?

This is the obvious explanation for two sets of pijamas.

Otherwise we do have something that does not seem to match the Ramsey version of events.

Now the recent photograph of JonBenet in white longjohns has definitely been taken sometime after 12:00 and say 5:00 AM Christmas Day, I'm not sure what time sunrise is in Boulder on the 25th December? There is no daylight to be seen behind JonBenet. I guess it could be 7:00 AM with no natural light if the R curtains are good quality and let little light in?

What is much more interesting to me, is the fact that JonBenet was wearing white longjohns to bed, she is barefoot in the photo.

This nearly matches what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, which would fit with someone attempting to dress JonBenet as closely as possible to what she wore on Christmas Eve?

So we need the original large photo showing JonBenet wearing the pijamas for comparison.

Either way there are more questions that need answers now?



.

 

[chlban]

I'm right with ya on this one! My first reaction is that AH and ML would be the ones to put on the hot seat for the explanation.

If the GJ true bills had been signed and prosecution attempted, there would have been nothing to keep further investigation from changing the probable cause findings of "child abuse leading to death" to CHARGES being filed after arrest for FELONY MURDER: that way both parents taken through prosecution since both were there when she was killed no matter who did the deed. :moo:

I still don't think there is any way you could ever get a conviction. Just look at the views on this board even if you exclude every single IDI. The RDI's do not agree on who did it.

I have always believed that is the main reason this case will never be solved.
There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that one, or more, of the three Ramsey's in the house that night are responsible for her death and the staging, but who did what? That is the question I don't think will ever be answered.

 

[Anyhoo]

I still don't think there is any way you could ever get a conviction. Just look at the views on this board even if you exclude every single IDI. The RDI's do not agree on who did it.

I have always believed that is the main reason this case will never be solved.
There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that one, or more, of the three Ramsey's in the house that night are responsible for her death and the staging, but who did what? That is the question I don't think will ever be answered.

Making it impossible to determine who the murderer is was intentional IMO. Whoever was involved in this, they made sure of that. RDI cannot agree on who did it, and so until we are on the same page conviction is not possible, but I disagree it will never be answered. I am convinced that important information relevant to this case has been intentionally withheld from the public. Whether LE even knows about it is debatable, but if this information were revealed it would IMO suddenly clear up a lot of questions and point to a killer(s). Also, simply eliminating some of the false information that has been presented about this case would clear up a lot of confusion and could also incriminate someone. I will never give up on solving this.

 

[DeeDee249]

dazeerae,
Good catch on the photos. Now after a quick look, it appears what I thought was pink is actually white?

This is the obvious explanation for two sets of pijamas.

Otherwise we do have something that does not seem to match the Ramsey version of events.

Now the recent photograph of JonBenet in white longjohns has definitely been taken sometime after 12:00 and say 5:00 AM Christmas Day, I'm not sure what time sunrise is in Boulder on the 25th December? There is no daylight to be seen behind JonBenet. I guess it could be 7:00 AM with no natural light if the R curtains are good quality and let little light in?

What is much more interesting to me, is the fact that JonBenet was wearing white longjohns to bed, she is barefoot in the photo.

This nearly matches what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, which would fit with someone attempting to dress JonBenet as closely as possible to what she wore on Christmas Eve?

So we need the original large photo showing JonBenet wearing the pijamas for comparison.

Either way there are more questions that need answers now?



.

I have only seen a photo of JB from the waist up, wearing the pink pajama top. I have't seen a full-length photo that shows the bottoms. We've all seen the one of a smiling JB wearing the pink top, and of course the one with JB and Patsy, with Patsy gripping JB's arm tightly. If it wasn't for the unopened presents, I'd almost say this was taken Christmas NIGHT- after they got back from the White's. I don't see a sequin star on the shirt in the photo- it looks like a thermal shirt, one that matches the long johns. They often come in sets for kids, not separate like in adult sizes. I wish there was a way to make that photo bigger. Also- notice the FAO Schwartz wrapping paper on some of the gifts- the same paper as found on the unwrapped gifts in the WC.
I will say that it breaks my hear to see pure childish joy, knowing that the child will be dead-molested with her skull nearly cracked in half- hours later.

 

[questfortrue]

Sad, but true. And it has happened before. I know murder is a federal crime, so individual State's laws do not apply, but there is something about this that bothers me. I know of murder cases where several people were there at the time- such as a gang assault, or robbery that involved the death (intended or not) of a victim. In these cases, all the suspects blame each other. Yet, because they were all present at the crime, they are all considered responsible. I cannot see how the cross-finger-pointing defense can be allowed. They were both there at the CRIME, fiber evidence placed BOTH parents as handling JB, either dead or while she was still alive. Some of these fibers are present on items that are specific to the crime itself, such as the cord KNOT, tape, and redressed brand-NEW panties. So it's not like one parent was totally innocent of involvement. So why weren't they BOTH able to be prosecuted? Because if the finger-pointing defense is allowed, NO one would ever be prosecuted for murder if there is more than one suspect. Can anyone explain this to me?

There aren't explanations for blocking warrants the BPD should have been able to obtain in their investigation. Nor are there any explanations for the DA's decisions. IIRC, in the early days, Beckner and an attorney, former dean of the University of Denver law school on loan to the BPD, felt the DA could have gone the felony murder route. Others in the DA's office didn't agree. Kolar’s idea written about in his book was the kidnapping charge, which is a felony without statute of limitations (removing an unconscious person to the WC) and there was still a path to prosecution. But ML wasn’t going to do something contrary to her intruder theory, was she. Now with PR gone, IDK, could JR use the ol’ excuse he was sleeping and PR did it all?

There was an interesting notation in Westward about the Midyette trial. The prosecution didn't suggest that Molly Midyette was necessarily responsible for the injuries — but they didn't need to according to Garnette. He made this comment regarding the Midyette trial:

"The current version of the child-abuse statutes, I believe, was enacted in the early 1990s," says SG, ML’s replacement as Boulder district attorney. "When I was prosecuting in the early '80s, it was much more difficult to prosecute child abuse. It used to be drafted more like an assault statute, where you have to prove exactly what happened. The change was to make it clear that the legislature puts the responsibility on people who care for children, not only not to harm them, but also to make sure they get help if there is an issue."

 

[bettybaby00]

There aren't explanations for blocking warrants the BPD should have been able to obtain in their investigation. Nor are there any explanations for the DA's decisions. IIRC, in the early days, Beckner and an attorney, former dean of the University of Denver law school on loan to the BPD, felt the DA could have gone the felony murder route. Others in the DA's office didn't agree. Kolar’s idea written about in his book was the kidnapping charge, which is a felony without statute of limitations (removing an unconscious person to the WC) and there was still a path to prosecution. But ML wasn’t going to do something contrary to her intruder theory, was she. Now with PR gone, IDK, could JR use the ol’ excuse he was sleeping and PR did it all?

There was an interesting notation in Westward about the Midyette trial. The prosecution didn't suggest that Molly Midyette was necessarily responsible for the injuries — but they didn't need to according to Garnette. He made this comment regarding the Midyette trial:

"The current version of the child-abuse statutes, I believe, was enacted in the early 1990s," says SG, ML’s replacement as Boulder district attorney. "When I was prosecuting in the early '80s, it was much more difficult to prosecute child abuse. It used to be drafted more like an assault statute, where you have to prove exactly what happened. The change was to make it clear that the legislature puts the responsibility on people who care for children, not only not to harm them, but also to make sure they get help if there is an issue."

The last part....very interesting. IIRC there was a lot of chatter, especially b/c I think FW mentions it in his letter?

As for not perusing warrants and such......Grrrrrrr

As I said on another thread, AH, and ML can't be thrashed enough!

 

[DeDee]

dazeerae,
Good catch on the photos. Now after a quick look, it appears what I thought was pink is actually white?

This is the obvious explanation for two sets of pijamas.

Otherwise we do have something that does not seem to match the Ramsey version of events.

<snipped image for comparison>

Now the recent photograph of JonBenet in white longjohns has definitely been taken sometime after 12:00 and say 5:00 AM Christmas Day, I'm not sure what time sunrise is in Boulder on the 25th December? There is no daylight to be seen behind JonBenet. I guess it could be 7:00 AM with no natural light if the R curtains are good quality and let little light in?

What is much more interesting to me, is the fact that JonBenet was wearing white longjohns to bed, she is barefoot in the photo.

This nearly matches what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, which would fit with someone attempting to dress JonBenet as closely as possible to what she wore on Christmas Eve?

So we need the original large photo showing JonBenet wearing the pijamas for comparison.

Either way there are more questions that need answers now?

.

Santa has already come to JBRs home demonstrated by JBRs and PRs bicycles displayed by the tree. What always struck me as odd about this photo was that JBRs pic was taken at night time, you can see out of the windows that it was still dark outside.

Also, PR was a Christian so who goes to sleep on Christmas Eve night with their Christmas tree lights not turned on? The family tree was also decorated with purple satin ribbon and ornaments.

JonBenet's clothing was hinky there at the end; those last few days. She owned and wore a lot of pink pajamas.

Now the recent photograph of JonBenet in white longjohns has definitely been taken sometime after 12:00 and say 5:00 AM Christmas Day

JR went to get JBRs bike from across the street neighbor's home at 10:00pm, iirc. PRs bicycle was stored in their attached garage. Between 10:00pm and 1:00am, they prepare and play Santa Claus for their children. When was this pic taken?

PR had a custom order for JR of a seascape painting for Christmas. IIRC, the artist PR commissioned was from Denver. The seascape was large and framed to go to the home in Charlevoix. PR had the seascape painting hidden from JR, behind the sofa and between the wall, for a couple of days prior to Christmas morning. JR presented PR with a gold bracelet. Santa brought the bikes.



IMMHOO

 

[Chewy]

Most little girls have tons of pink clothing. I fail to see what that has to do with anything at all???

 

[Nom de plume]

The picture was obviously taken early Christmas morning. The sun is not up by 7:00am in Boulder at Christmas time.

As to the lights being out on the tree, who goes to bed with Christmas lights left on in the house? That's incredibly dangerous! My guess is that the children got up early, 5 or 6 am, and woke their parents. It looks like this might have been one of the first pictures taken that morning. PR probably sent JB up to change into prettier PJs for the pics before the gifts were opened. It just sounds like something PR would do, at least to me, and obviously, she did change at some point that morning.

Also, a lit tree has nothing what so ever to do with a Christian's version of Christmas, or the meaning of the holiday. I fail to see the correlation between PR being Christian and not going to bed on Christmas eve with the tree lit. Looks like it was one of the few good decisions the Rs made regarding the family.

 

[Mama2JML]

This photo is on the cover of Robert Whitson's book, of which I have a copy:

JonBenét is wearing the same pajamas (depicted above) in the photos below: