circumstances compatible with intrusion

[K777angel]

Angel, I believe the door was open; that's what John said in one of his later interviews, but the chair was blocking the doorway, in his estimation. At any rate, he said he moved it aside before entering the room. In an earlier interview he said when he first came to the chair that morning, while looking around in the basement, he thought, "is that chair still there?" Apparently he had noticed it there at some time in the past. When the interviewer suggested that the chair blocking the door must mean that no intruder came through there, John said, not so; this is a clever guy, he left all those other tantalizing clues, [or words to that effect] so he might have replaced the chair after he went through the door. This was John's observation. I don't know what to make of it. John seemed to dismiss the idea of someone coming through the basement window on his first go-round with the interviewers; but, had changed his mind by the time he was subsequently interviewed. What does this suggest?

So, you have firsthand knowledge of Patsy's linguistics, style, personality and handwriting? Why weren't LE able to positively identify her as the writer/author of the note? Many QDE's did elminate her as the writer of the note. Of course, we have Foster who, according to Thomas, claimed he had determined that she wrote it, based on linquistics, etc.

Exclamation point overusage? Yes, I have heard this observation before, but I don't see the overusage. There were three exclamation points in the note, exactly where you'd expect them to be. There were numerous phrases and sentences in the note where exclamation points would have been appropriate but weren't used; e.g., she dies, she dies, she dies, she dies. I would say it is more the absence of exclamation points that is notable rather than that three were present.

So, you think Patsy wrote this little masterpiece after she'd killed JonBenet?

The paper and pen were readily accessible to anyone choosing to use them; they weren't hidden away in some drawer; they were right out in the open. And Patsy wasn't the only person who knew about her habit of leaving items on the bottom stairs to be noticed. LHP and others were equally aware of those habits.

That great care was taken to hide the body has been debated. I thought some care was taken to hide it. Some don't think there was any attempt to hide it. If she'd really wanted to hide it, why didn't she stuff it into a crawl space or pile stuff on it or place it behind something in the room so it would not be easily seen when the door was opened? I guess she did the best she could under the circumstances?

Yes, but all the things you mention are hotly debated, and for good reason. Many think the wine cellar scene was staged. Personally, I can't see the blanket-wrapped body as staging; but, the opponents get around that by suggesting that it wasn't really carefully wrapped; that the blanket had been used by the perp to carry the body or that the blanket was simply draped over the body to give the suggestion that she had been abducted from her bedroom. If we can believe John, she was comfortably wrapped like an Indian papoose. That doesn't appear to be staging to me. How to explain the Barbie gown? Was it one of JonBenet's cherished possessions? Plus, we have the renowned FBI profiler, John Douglas, saying the Ramseys didn't do it.

How could the Ramseys have thought JonBenet was dead after the head blow? She was breathing. Also, it hasn't been determined which fatal injury came first. Also, what is so terrible about an accidental death, that the Ramseys would elect this elaborate and risky means to keep it quiet?

RedChief - You ask how the Ramseys could have thought JonBenet was dead after the head blow and you state that "she was breathing." How do YOU know she was breathing? That's a pretty bold statement to make as fact.
To answer how I think the Ramseys could have thought she was dead (which I think should be rather obvious) is well, she was struck violently on the side of her head and was probably dyING... yet a little life was left in her, perhaps a pulse to faint for a laymen to detect - and thinking she was indeed already dead, her mother/parents had to come up with some way to EXPLAIN why she died. Remember, at this point she had no "visible" wound to explain her death. No gunshot wound. No knife wound. They scrubbed away as best they could the blood from her molestation wound. But they NEEDED something obvious at first glance at JonBenet to try and give an answer as to why she lay dead. Just as they came up with the fake "ransom" note from kidnappers to stall for time and explain why she was "missing" - once she was found they needed something to explain HOW she died. Something that was NOT the real truth. A diversion. Just as the note was a diversion from the truth.
The FBI who studied the evidence and case said that in this crime there was "staging within staging." It isn't even disputed that there was in fact - staging.
This crime has all the elements of a familial homicide. It happens. Even in "good" families with no "known" history - (there can always be "secrets" - believe me I KNOW!). The FBI has seen it many times. Don't be so naive.

 

[UKGuy]

That great care was taken to hide the body has been debated. I thought some care was taken to hide it. Some don't think there was any attempt to hide it. If she'd really wanted to hide it, why didn't she stuff it into a crawl space or pile stuff on it or place it behind something in the room so it would not be easily seen when the door was opened? I guess she did the best she could under the circumstances?

Yes, but all the things you mention are hotly debated, and for good reason. Many think the wine cellar scene was staged. Personally, I can't see the blanket-wrapped body as staging; but, the opponents get around that by suggesting that it wasn't really carefully wrapped; that the blanket had been used by the perp to carry the body or that the blanket was simply draped over the body to give the suggestion that she had been abducted from her bedroom. If we can believe John, she was comfortably wrapped like an Indian papoose. That doesn't appear to be staging to me. How to explain the Barbie gown? Was it one of JonBenet's cherished possessions? Plus, we have the renowned FBI profiler, John Douglas, saying the Ramseys didn't do it.

How could the Ramseys have thought JonBenet was dead after the head blow? She was breathing. Also, it hasn't been determined which fatal injury came first. Also, what is so terrible about an accidental death, that the Ramseys would elect this elaborate and risky means to keep it quiet?

The fact that JonBenet was relocated to the wine cellar, and that you do not think that it is staged, demonstrates why she was placed there ... To remove her from a prior crime scene, and send you running like a greyhound down any other track except the one she arrived from. Simply to be placed there, wrapped, unwrapped, covered , uncovered, naked , dressed , is to enact a staged crime scene plain and simple.

The "suggestion that she had been abducted" is meant to follow from the stagers intent to dress her in bedtime clothes, not from the blanket, the blanket has other "semantics" that detract from this point. The Barbie Gown is unfinished business, incomplete staging, if the stager had re-dressed JonBenet in that gown and her underwear its unlikely we would be having this debate. Since if you accept the current staged scene as evidence of an unstaged crime scene, then JonBenet dressed in her Barbie Gown , sadistically throttled and sexually assaulted would have had Smit type theorists salivating over the criminal profile of a predatory pedophile.

The body was not hidden in the sense of being invisible, it was relocated to an obscure location where she could be redressed, without that process being detected, e.g. the wine cellar. Once re-dressed in only her Barbie Gown and size-12 underwear, its quite likely the stager had another location in which to place her. The wine cellar is patently not where she was murdered.

The Wine Cellar location and the Ransom Note are only two instances of staging. Nobody to date has explained them in rational terms, that is included them in their Whodunnit only BlueCrab has made the attempt!

Yet there are other staged elements, so with some arm waving, all this staging is dismissed, mmm !

 

[RedChief]

Yes, 777, I hear you.

Your theory was my theory a long time ago. It seems the most obvious explanation. But no one has been arrested and charged with the murder. Why not? Lack of evidence as to who specifially was involved? If that is the case, there will probably never be a resolution, unless someone confesses?

I don't know that she was breathing, but I can make an educated guess. She was strangled. Her brain was injured. Don't know which came first. She could have been strangled accidentally or deliberately. She could have been struck accidentally or deliberately.

If struck first, then surely breathing. If strangled first, then struck very soon thereafter. Why? You can't be alive and not breathing. You can't be strangling and be dead. If it were your child would you want to make sure that there were no vital signs before you pronounced her dead?

I would.

If you were selected as a juror in this case, knowing what you know, could you vote for conviction? And, whom would you be convicting?

 

[BlueCrab]

When the interviewer suggested that the chair blocking the door must mean that no intruder came through there, John said, not so;

RedChief,

John didn't say that. He said the door was blocked by the chair and boxes and no one apparently had gone through. From the 1998 interviews:

JOHN RAMSEY: "Well, when I came down, I mean, one of the things I noticed, okay, that door is still blocked."

MIKE KANE: "What do you mean it was blocked?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Well, there were some boxes and there was like a barstool kind of thing sitting there. It wasn't obvious to me that anybody had gone through because I had to move the chair to get in, which I did."

 

[Voice of Reason]

hello there everybody. i've been reading this forum for a while, but this is my first post. with all due respect RedChief, i don't quite understand some of your logic. how do the following support a theory of an intruder? to me, they suggest, at the very least, someone who knew the ramseys, and at the very most, they suggest one of the ramseys...

The ransom note was placed on a step near the bottom of the spiral stairs: this is what the Ramseys report, so, naturally it is disputed.

Steps near the bottom of the stairs were frequently used by the Ramseys and the housekeeper as a place to put things that needed the housekeeper's attention, and a place to leave notes: this is undisputed.

The spiral stairs, also called the back stairs, were Patsy's favorite means of ascent and descent between the 1st and 2nd floors. Other family members used the stairs too, though perhaps not quite as frequently: this is undisputed.

The ransom note was written on paper from a pad sourced to the house and with a pen sourced to the house: this is largely undisputed.

These materials were readily accessible to anyone in the house who wished to use them: this is undisputed.

The paintbrush used as an element of the garotte, was readily accessible to anyone wishing to use it: this is undisputed.

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

John didn't say that.....

BlueCrab,

What is it that you are claiming John didn't say? Could you be more specific?

Did you read the entire 1998 interview? Did you read the entire section regarding the blocked door? It's a long section and quite an interesting one; and, yes, John said the door was open but blocked by the chair, just as I said. When you're finished reading what I've posted below, let me know and I'll delete it.

From 1998 Interview:


9 LOU SMIT: I wanted to direct your attention,
10 if you could, John. This photograph 71, and
11 especially in the entryways there and into the
12 various rooms. Now this must have been taken
13 fairly early on the morning of the 26th.
14 Can you describe what you see there? Is there
15 anything out of place or is there anything
16 different from the way you remember it. Because
17 you said you went down into that area.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: What is difference is, I
19 think that the door is blocked by this drum table.
20 Here's the chair I said was brought to the door.
21 And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the
22 door.
23 If this was taken before I was down there -- well
24 I put it back. When I went down there, that chair
25 was kind of blocking that entrance right there.
0278
1 And there was something else on the other side,
2 whatever it was. But all I had to do was move that
3 chair, then I walked into the room.
4 LOU SMIT: That's the first time down?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. In this picture here,
6 I would have had to move that drum table and the
7 Easter basket in that room. So that's different.
8 LOU SMIT: So you say that that's been moved.
9 Which way would you say that's been moved?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember the Easter
11 baskets there at all. But it would have had to
12 have been moved. The drum table was over, and the
13 chair was also blocking the door.
14 LOU SMIT: So do you think that the chair
15 would block the door and nobody would have gotten
16 in there without moving it?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.
18 LOU SMIT: In other words, let's say
19 that the intruder goes into the training room,
20 gets out, let's say, that window?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
22 LOU SMIT: How in effect would he get
23 that chair to block that door, if that is the
24 case, is what I'm saying?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know. All I'm saying
0279
1 is, that is different than when I went down there.
2 LOU SMIT: Okay, let's say that you go down
3 there?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm. All I want to show
5 is that that chair was kind of sitting right in
6 here, and there was something else here. I don't
7 know what it was. It could have been that
8 (INAUDIBLE).
9 LOU SMIT: You go down, that's what you see?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I go down, I say, ooh, that door
11 is blocked. I move the chair and went in the room.
12 LOU SMIT: So you couldn't have gotten in
13 without moving the chair?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Correct.
15 LOU SMIT: And the door was opened or closed?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: It was opened.
17 LOU SMIT: The door was opened?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: correct.
19 LOU SMIT: Okay.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: In that picture, it looks like
21 -- I came in on this side of the door (INAUDIBLE)
22 and would have had to remove that drum table and
23 the Easter basket.
24 MIKE KANE: Which side are you talking about?
25 The inner side or the lock side?
0280
1 JOHN RAMSEY: If I had the door open it
2 must be the lock side. That chair was right there
3 when I went down there, on the lock sided of the
4 door.
5 MIKE KANE: On the opposite the hinges.
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. And I moved it and
7 entered the room. And in that picture --
8 LOU SMIT: And you don't know if you were
9 the first one down there?
10 JOHN RAMSEY: I thought I -- Well the police,
11 they probably went through the house a bit. I
12 don't know where they went. I heard later that
13 Fleet White claimed he went through the basement
14 alone. I don't know if that was before or after I
15 did alone.
16 LOU SMIT: That's why we're trying to
17 determine your time. If you can get that down.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I wish I can tell
19 you precisely, but it had to be -- you see I think
20 when the first uniformed officer came, French, he
21 very quickly said, I want all you people in the
22 room, and then people started showing in this
23 room, which was the solarium where he talked, is
24 the solarium.
25 And then some other officers came and I my
0281
1 impression at that time was that they did a
2 cursory check of the house. One of the uniformed
3 house went through the house. That had been fairly
4 early.
5 MIKE KANE: (INAUDIBLE)
6 JOHN RAMSEY: We don't. I think it's between
7 6:00 and 6:30. So that person should have been the
8 first one to go through the house.
9 I went in the basement, certainly before we were
10 getting ready for the call. (INAUDIBLE) until
11 eight, so that would have been eight o'clock. So
12 we were preparing for that. By 7:30, let's say,
13 and Fleet and I were talking about what we were
14 going to say.
15 LOU SMIT: Would that have been before
16 then or after?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: It would have been before
18 then I believe.
19 LOU SMIT: So it was before eight o'clock?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: That's right. (INAUDIBLE) I'm
21 trying to reconstruct in it my mind.
22 LOU SMIT: But when you went to the train
23 room, you had move these things in order to get
24 into the train room?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. I had to move the chair.
0282
1 LOU SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure
2 out in my mind then is, if an intruder went
3 through the door, he'd almost have to pull the
4 chair behind him.
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. That's correct.
6
7 LOU SMIT: Because that would have been
8 his exit?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
10 LOU SMIT: Okay.
11 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It was blocked. He'd
12 have to move something to get into the room.
13 LOU SMIT: And he would have had to move
14 it back, if he was in there trying to get out, is
15 that correct?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
17 LOU SMIT: So that's not very logical as
18 far as --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this
20 person is that bizarrely clever to have not left
21 any good evidence, but left all these little funny
22 little clues around, they certain are clever
23 enough to pull the chair back when they left.
24 LOU SMIT: But it was your impression that
25 that chair was blocking that door?
0283
1 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. The chair and something
2 else. But it certainly wasn't the Easter baskets.
3 They were sitting there on the drum table. So I
4 never touched them. I just moved the chair and
5 went in.
6 LOU SMIT: And that's one of the things
7 that we have to really get clear, because the
8 photographs were taken fairly early that morning.
9 JOHN RAMSEY: But I think the question is,
10 would a police officer have done that? Probably
11 not. Would Fleet White have done that? I don't
12 know. Just looking at this picture, it doesn't
13 appear to me that that chair had anything to do
14 with the door. But, you know, geez, I wish I could
15 remember. But I don't remember moving that. I
16 really don't. all I remember is kind of moving the
17 chair and walking in.

 

[RedChief]

hello there everybody. i've been reading this forum for a while, but this is my first post. with all due respect RedChief, i don't quite understand some of your logic. how do the following support a theory of an intruder? to me, they suggest, at the very least, someone who knew the ramseys, and at the very most, they suggest one of the ramseys...

Hi, Voice of Reason,

It's good to hear from you; I'll hope you'll post more often.

The items you've singled out could argue for or against the Ramseys as the culprits. A lot of the evidence/circumstances are ambiguous/neutral in that regard.

The housekeeper, for one, comes to mind, when reviewing that portion of the list that you quoted, as someone who could have intruded and attempted to nab the girl or whatever. The fact that she and her family members were known to the Ramseys doesn't eliminate them as possible intruders that night.

This is an instance where the term, "intruder", can throw us off track, since the usual connotation is both someone whose presence was unknown and who was a total stranger to the Ramseys.

I shouldn't have included any of the evidence, because I wanted the thread to be devoted to circumstances, not evidence. So, I polluted my own thread. I'm thinking about deleting the items of evidence, even though some of them argue strongly against an intruder. That debate should be taking place in the interpretation of evidence thread.

BTW, I don't have a dog in this fight. The sooner we figure out who did it, intruder or otherwise, the better.

That's how I see it.....

 

[Voice of Reason]

fair enough, redchief, fair enough. i guess there are really three possibilities in this case...a ramsey, someone who knew the ramseys, an uninvited/unknown.

i guess my only point is that it seems virtually impossible that an uninvited/unknown intruder committed this crime. there's just too much evidence to the contrary. in my mind, i don't even need to list the evidence here to prove that point, but i will if someone disagrees strongly.

again, i'm not saying a ramsey was responsible, but at the very least, this was someone who knew the ramseys and/or had access to the house.

 

[sissi]

Just looking at this picture, it doesn't
13 appear to me that that chair had anything to do
14 with the door. But, you know, geez, I wish I could
15 remember. But I don't remember moving that. I
16 really don't. all I remember is kind of moving the
17 chair and walking in.

RC, what is he saying here?
It doesn't...the chair had anything...with the door..I don't remember moving that...I remember moving the chair...walking in.

what is THAT..that he doesn't remember moving?

Chair had anything to do with the door?
Ya got a clue what this means?

 

[RedChief]

sissi,

I think John is referring to another chair or a barstool that seems out of place in the photos he's looking at; the perspective has him confused. By THAT, I think he means an item of furniture other than the chair that he said he moved in order to gain access to the train room.

That's how I see it....yessiree.

 

[BlairAdele]

What I have ALWAYS wondered...
The neighbours across the street from the Ramseys claimed to have heard the terrified scream of a little girl the night Jonbenet was murdered.John and Patsy never heard this scream-if they had heard it,perhaps Jonbenet would still be alive.But why didn't John,Patsy or even Burke hear Jonbenet's piercing shriek? The neighbour said she didn't report the scream to the police because she was sure that it was probaly a nightmare and Jonbenet's parents would look after her.The Ramsey's heard nothing.UNLIKELY.

 

[IrishMist]

What I have ALWAYS wondered...
The neighbours across the street from the Ramseys claimed to have heard the terrified scream of a little girl the night Jonbenet was murdered.John and Patsy never heard this scream-if they had heard it,perhaps Jonbenet would still be alive.But why didn't John,Patsy or even Burke hear Jonbenet's piercing shriek? The neighbour said she didn't report the scream to the police because she was sure that it was probaly a nightmare and Jonbenet's parents would look after her.The Ramsey's heard nothing.UNLIKELY.

I've wondered about that, too. But I do know that sound travels funny sometimes. I had a house once, where if you were in the living room, you had to turn up the TV kind of loud, even though you were in the same room. But if you went upstairs to the loft, it was LOUD!!

And I remember reading that they did sound tests, and there was a vent pipe in the basement outside of the wine cellar... so the sound could have carried through that more directly than up 3 floors to the other end of the house.

 

[Voice of Reason]

i have slept through many loud sounds. i don't think it really matters who heard what and where they were located, unless someone tells me that the ramseys were awake at the same time the neighbor heard the scream. is this the case? if it is not, why would it be strange that the neighbor heard a scream while the ramseys did not? wasn't john out cold with a melatonin tablet?

 

[sissi]

sissi,

I think John is referring to another chair or a barstool that seems out of place in the photos he's looking at; the perspective has him confused. By THAT, I think he means an item of furniture other than the chair that he said he moved in order to gain access to the train room.

That's how I see it....yessiree.

If the timeline is right, all three, French, White and photographer, had visited the basement before John made his way down. The crimescene photo shown to John would have been taken after the first two and before John. Does this point to possibly Fleet being the one to place both the chair, and the "barstool" in front of the door? Would there be anything sinister in this? Not IMO, since White has a reputation for being a neatnik ,it is simply possible they looked better there than blocking a hallway. He had been in the room, had picked up a piece of glass, hours before John went down . WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND is why this didn't prompt him to immediately call one of the cops down to have a look at his find? UH OH, am I wrong here? Maybe he didn't go into that room early?

 

[RedChief]

If the timeline is right, all three, French, White and photographer, had visited the basement before John made his way down. The crimescene photo shown to John would have been taken after the first two and before John. Does this point to possibly Fleet being the one to place both the chair, and the "barstool" in front of the door? Would there be anything sinister in this? Not IMO, since White has a reputation for being a neatnik ,it is simply possible they looked better there than blocking a hallway. He had been in the room, had picked up a piece of glass, hours before John went down . WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND is why this didn't prompt him to immediately call one of the cops down to have a look at his find? UH OH, am I wrong here? Maybe he didn't go into that room early?

Yo, sissi,

The "who went first" and "who followed whom" hasn't been worked out for us. It may be, and probably has been, worked out for LE.

Fleet is a mysterious entity. He goes around all morning taking notes; he goes downstairs and messes with evidence in the train room, and possibly in the hallway, as you suggest. He picks up glass under the basement window, possibly leaving his fingerprint on it, and places it on..was it the suitcase or the window sill? He follows John into the wine cellar and picks up the duct tape, possibly leaving his fingerprints on it, OR providing a reason for his fingerprints to be found on those items. He ought to know better. Then he screams bloody murder because the police are suspicious of him.

What is all that junk doing in that hallway anyway? Doesn't that hallway lead to the laundry facility? Why weren't these people better organized?

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[BlueCrab]

You wrote, "When the interviewer suggested that the chair blocking the door must mean that no intruder came through there, John said, NOT SO (my emphasis);"

John didn't say, "not so". You invented that statement. John said exactly the opposite. He AGREED that no intruder could have gone through, because the door was blocked by the chair. He (John) had to move the chair.

JOHN RAMSEY: "It wasn't obvious to me that anybody had gone through because I had to move the chair to get in, which I did."

John misspoke during the interview and got his foot caught in his mouth by admitting he had to move the chair to get into the train room. Therefore, by John's own statement, he was the first person in the train room that morning -- even prior to the 911 call at 5:52 AM because Officer Rick French wasn't blocked by the chair at 6:05 AM when HE searched the basement. And neither was Fleet White blocked by the chair at 6:20 AM when HE searched the basement.

John is caught in a lie and can't wiggle out, so he begins to obfuscate. While looking at a crime scene photo of the door to the train room taken very early that morning with the chair sitting near the door but not in front of the door, he says:

"Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this (photo) was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back."

John's comment doesn't even make sense.

John's comment about moving the chair to get into the train room proves he was in the basement prior to the 911 call, long before anyone else searched the basement. John says he didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet very early that morning, but the chair proves he lied.

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

You wrote, "When the interviewer suggested that the chair blocking the door must mean that no intruder came through there, John said, NOT SO (my emphasis);"

John didn't say, "not so". You invented that statement. John said exactly the opposite. He AGREED that no intruder could have gone through, because the door was blocked by the chair. He (John) had to move the chair.

JOHN RAMSEY: "It wasn't obvious to me that anybody had gone through because I had to move the chair to get in, which I did."

John misspoke during the interview and got his foot caught in his mouth by admitting he had to move the chair to get into the train room. Therefore, by John's own statement, he was the first person in the train room that morning -- even prior to the 911 call at 5:52 AM because Officer Rick French wasn't blocked by the chair at 6:05 AM when HE searched the basement. And neither was Fleet White blocked by the chair at 6:20 AM when HE searched the basement.

John is caught in a lie and can't wiggle out, so he begins to obfuscate. While looking at a crime scene photo of the door to the train room taken very early that morning with the chair sitting near the door but not in front of the door, he says:

"Here's the chair I said was brought to the door. And it's not. I moved the chair to get into the door. If this (photo) was taken before I was down there -- well I put it back."

John's comment doesn't even make sense.

John's comment about moving the chair to get into the train room proves he was in the basement prior to the 911 call, long before anyone else searched the basement. John says he didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet very early that morning, but the chair proves he lied.

BlueCrab

You're hung up on "NOT SO". That is the gist of what John told Lou Smit, when Smit challenged the logic of the intruder replacing the chair before he made his exit through the window. I repeat a portion of the aforeprovided excerpt below:

1 LOU SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure
2 out in my mind then is, if an intruder went
3 through the door, he'd almost have to pull the
4 chair behind him.
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. That's correct.
6
7 LOU SMIT: Because that would have been
8 his exit?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
10 LOU SMIT: Okay.
11 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It was blocked. He'd
12 have to move something to get into the room.
13 LOU SMIT: And he would have had to move
14 it back, if he was in there trying to get out, is
15 that correct?
16 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
17 LOU SMIT: So that's not very logical as
18 far as --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this <------equals "not so" RC
20 person is that bizarrely clever to have not left
21 any good evidence, but left all these little funny
22 little clues around, they certain are clever
23 enough to pull the chair back when they left.

From my reply to K777angel, who said that Smit was ignoring evidence to bolster his intruder theory:

"When the interviewer suggested that the chair blocking the door must mean that no intruder came through there, John said, not so; this is a clever guy, he left all those other tantalizing clues, [or words to that effect] so he might have replaced the chair after he went through the door. This was John's observation."

This is a perfectly good renditon of what John said. Also, I didn't quote him verbatim. I didn't say John said, "not so".

Now, are we clear on this? The record speaks for itself. I could have provided the record when I answered K777Angel; in the interest of saving time, I PARAPHRASED John. For the life of me, I can't see what the fuss is all about??????

 

[Eagle1]

I think your list is a very good one, Red Chief, a lot of work. In a way I wish you'd numbered it, but I'll count the items, just curious. If you ever post it somewhere else, will you remember to do that? The list might also work as an Outline, details staggered under each main point? Just a thought. Just trying to imagine this from every possible angle. Editing to say there are about 55 items in your list if I counted right.

Did you leave out the walker that Barnhill saw that evening right after the R's left to go to the Whites' who strongly resembled JAR? Someone said long ago that maybe he came to turn off the outside light that was normally on at night, and maybe to do a few other things.

Anyone remember The Patricia Letters? I think Patsy wrote them, about someone phoning her during the Grand Jury, whose name she may not know to this day, but her family felt she'd better not say anything, and the anonymous letters were maybe her way of asking has anyone else had trouble from a cunning covert person, a sociopath, making a sound one time that was "not of this world". My fam are just like Patsy's, and if I knew the name I would not dare say it either. Nobody would at this point, so don't ask. But I may have recognized a trademark phrase of one person I suspect.

I'm confident he will eventually be caught for something else, a real nut but cunning. I'm only saying this much to try to help Patsy because maybe I've almost been there because of the same person. We googled the word sociopath long ago and learned they're almost always if not always failures at something, sabotaging others, that I guess they blame, but when suspected would make the smart-alec remark, "Don't try to blame others for your failures." And probably would watch childish (?) movies. Someone here in another thread said only kids would watch the ones quoted.

People have been telling me things for nearly 50 yrs but never verify a name. I will say that what my suspect failed at was probably religion. Cult leaders like Jim Jones are frequently sociopaths, at least one on death row in Ohio right now, who had a whole bookish family lured to a barn and killed, had been telling behind their backs that they were evil. (Name Lundgren? I forget.) I don't know if this idea would explain the several references in the case, not the note, from Psalms, and Father Rol knowing them so well, w/out looking them up. They're not well-known sermon topics. Most of us never heard of them, wouldn't have noticed them if we were reading through the Psalms. I've always wondered about that. My suspect isn't from a religion that would use Psalms much. I think Father Rol died. The clues lead us in all directions at once, and I'm wondering if just maybe Father Rol "knew too much" or if a failure in religion was jealous of him still having a position in religion. I have no idea what the stated cause of his death was. Anyone ever read VATICAN CONNECTION, that deaths could be delayed reaction and look like natural causes?

 

[Eagle1]

A former cult leader who's on death row in Ohio seemed to fear one member family's bookishness, and other members didn't report for 10 yrs that he had relentlessly called them evil behind their backs, finally got them lured into a barn and killed. Other members assumed he'd had a right to slander people.

Danielle Van Dam was also taking piano lessons like JonBenet, and if I remember correctly may have been preparing to enter pageants. A poster with the hat San Diego on a couple of other forums had a theory that Westerfield was framed, but it was just too complicated a theory.

Just to take SOME of the suspicion off Patsy when she may be ill again,
I'm revealing that someone lied for years that I'd been a beauty queen, making it a sin of pride when I never even thought of entering any beauty contest, to try to stir up jealousy, and that I had piano-playing jobs, so that JonBenet may have reminded him of me, or, maybe someone else like me. I certainly never did anything to whoever it was. People don't give a name, not wishing to get on his list. I've had them say so.

I hope Patsy thinks to leave an affidavit in a safety deposit box if she may be going to pass on, which her fearful family wouldn't open unless this person gets caught for something else, which would be their signal to open it. There's no Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death or Conspiracy, unless he somehow gets those laws changed, and then probably they'd be changed back. We discussed in other cases that sociopaths can influence a lot of people, one of the symptoms their believability, and get away with a lot of things.

I think The Patricia Letters may be discussed at ACandyRose. It's been a long time since I read them myself.