- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 2,492
- Reaction score
- 18
This is for you, BC.
Ok folks, let's get started and make our list of evidence of an intruder...
Ok folks, let's get started and make our list of evidence of an intruder...
Evidence Of An Intruder
- Thread starter Fran Bancroft
- Start date
DocWatson
Former Member
This has been done a bazillion times. The best single list is in Judge Carnes'sFran Bancroft said:
ruling. Unfortunately, this list can in no way be used to rule out BDI theories since BC conveniently adjusts his theory so that it "explains" every single piece of physical evidence while violating all standards of logic and common sense in the process. The flaw in that theory lies not in its failure to explain the available evidence, but its resort to rather fantastical leaps of imagination to explain motivations/behavior of the alleged principals. It further requires that Hunter flat-out lied on national TV in his Larry King interview and further flat-out lied in a written affidavit that he was not hesitant to re-word as needed so that it accurately reflected events.
The fact is, if you read the affidavit in the context of the King interview, all his edits make perfect sense. That is, the interview acknowledges that LE considered possibility that BDI, hence the original statement in affidavit to the effect that Burke had NEVER been considered a suspect had to be struck since Alex Hunter did not care to commit perjury (I'm not a lawyer, but presume that one who knowingly files a false affidavit is guilty of perjury or contempt of court or some similar offense). But Hunter WAS willing to state that no evidence was developed that would point to Burke as the likely perp etc. So either a DA freely and willingly lied to the public on multiple occasions or BC's BDI theory is a crock. Choosing between these alternatives is pretty simple if you rely on the principle of Occam's razor.
sissi
Former Member
oops..put this on the wrong thread..
evidence of an intruder.
Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
I question WHY?
IMO the police came to the house and saw evidence of an intruder.
More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.
evidence of an intruder.
Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
I question WHY?
IMO the police came to the house and saw evidence of an intruder.
More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.
Seeker
Former Member
sissi, please explain just how these things are actual, real evidence of any intruder.
Please quote specific "lies" and show how they are actually evidence of an intruder.
Where did you see this? Please provide a source, or reference for this statement that you say John Fernie said. Not doubting you, but I've never seen anything like that.
And just how is this evidence of anything other than there were marks on the door? It certainly looks like the BPD was looking for an intruder doesn't it?
The door, not just the lock, was marked and slivers/chips were missing, yet they weren't on the floor. That's why they thought the tampering had been a prior episode. If it were recent then where was the wood that was scraped from the door when it was tampered with?
Again, how exactly is this "evidence" of an intruder and where would one find that released statement? In his 1997 interview JR states that there was a misunderstanding when he scanned the police reports.
Please tell me which one of the actual press releases that is contained in. I find absolutely nothing in any of the official press releases that state this is true. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/indexr.html
None of this is exculpatory evidence of anything. You even state it is just your opinion. That is not evidence.
It looks as if there is no "evidence of an intruder" listed anywhere on this thread.
Factual evidence of an intruder is hard to prove in this case because it's so hard to find. Nothing listed is proof of an intruder.
Here, let me help you out a bit on what is actual evidence that cannot be sourced. However, just because they can't find the rest of it still does not prove these things were not already in the home and in the Ramsey's possesion.
How about the rope? No other rope like it was found in the home.
The black duct tape that was found over her mouth? Where did it come from and where is the rest of it?
The partial Hi-Tec boot print that has never been verified as belonging to anyone?
Those are "possible" evidence of an intruder, but not proof positive.
sissi said:
Please quote specific "lies" and show how they are actually evidence of an intruder.
Where did you see this? Please provide a source, or reference for this statement that you say John Fernie said. Not doubting you, but I've never seen anything like that.
And just how is this evidence of anything other than there were marks on the door? It certainly looks like the BPD was looking for an intruder doesn't it?
The door, not just the lock, was marked and slivers/chips were missing, yet they weren't on the floor. That's why they thought the tampering had been a prior episode. If it were recent then where was the wood that was scraped from the door when it was tampered with?
Again, how exactly is this "evidence" of an intruder and where would one find that released statement? In his 1997 interview JR states that there was a misunderstanding when he scanned the police reports.
Please tell me which one of the actual press releases that is contained in. I find absolutely nothing in any of the official press releases that state this is true. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/indexr.html
None of this is exculpatory evidence of anything. You even state it is just your opinion. That is not evidence.
It looks as if there is no "evidence of an intruder" listed anywhere on this thread.
Factual evidence of an intruder is hard to prove in this case because it's so hard to find. Nothing listed is proof of an intruder.
Here, let me help you out a bit on what is actual evidence that cannot be sourced. However, just because they can't find the rest of it still does not prove these things were not already in the home and in the Ramsey's possesion.
How about the rope? No other rope like it was found in the home.
The black duct tape that was found over her mouth? Where did it come from and where is the rest of it?
The partial Hi-Tec boot print that has never been verified as belonging to anyone?
Those are "possible" evidence of an intruder, but not proof positive.
Animal and fibers they could not find any source of in the house.
Part of the cord that didnt match anything in the house....it was cut in JBR's room because they found the fibers in her bed. Tape that didnt match anything in the house. Handwriting does not match Patsy, John or Burke. No history of abuse, neglect, drugs or alcohol by the family. And for those of you that are Steve Thomas fans....well he did investigate that crime for a long time and if the best theory he could come up with was bedwetting....well that alone tells you they had nothing to point to Ramseys.
Part of the cord that didnt match anything in the house....it was cut in JBR's room because they found the fibers in her bed. Tape that didnt match anything in the house. Handwriting does not match Patsy, John or Burke. No history of abuse, neglect, drugs or alcohol by the family. And for those of you that are Steve Thomas fans....well he did investigate that crime for a long time and if the best theory he could come up with was bedwetting....well that alone tells you they had nothing to point to Ramseys.
Right Sissi! They did see the intruder evidence and they apparently went with that idea because they treated it as a kidnapping until her body was found. If they really thought the parents were involved you can bet even those keystone cops would have cleared that house to try to find the evidence of the parents doing something.sissi said:
eliza
New Member
What if you stayed up all night and staged a crime scene to make it look like an intruder entered your home, attempted a kidnapping and committed a murder and in the morning when the police show up they are unable to see or believe what is right there in front of them? I guess I agree with the police on this one, no credible evidence found of a intruder that I can see.
sissi
Former Member
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html?sect=7
I searched the for the early reports in the RMN and Boulder News, will continue to search, for now I will offer Court TV's version, most of what I said in my post can be found by going through the pages on the bottom.
from same:
The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage.
I searched the for the early reports in the RMN and Boulder News, will continue to search, for now I will offer Court TV's version, most of what I said in my post can be found by going through the pages on the bottom.
from same:
The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage.
eliza
New Member
jasmine said:
A three page ransom note with a body left in the house looks like an attempt at a kidnapping gone wrong to me, whether you believe it to be an intruder or staged by a family member to cover up the real events of that night.
Fran Bancroft said:
Fran,
Please let me interject the definition of an "intruder" at this point, because there ARE indications that a fifth person could have been in the house that night -- but IMO he could NOT be considered an intruder if he was a Ramsey, or one or more of the Ramseys inside had invited or let him into the house.
Dictionary definition:
INTRUDE: "To thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome. To cause to enter as if by force."
An "intruder", of course, would be one who intrudes.
IMO the definition of an intruder is important, especially in the Ramsey v Fox News case, because the evidence of lies and behaviors of the Ramseys indicate a coverup, and they would cover up only if a family member was involved. They would NOT cover up for a bonifide "intruder" as defined above. IOW, there could have been an intruder but, if a Ramsey was his accomplice, then he wasn't a bonifide intruder.
So the evidence of an INTRUDER should fit the definition of "intrude" (to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome; to cause to enter as if by force).
JMO
sissi
Former Member
If this "guest" were invited in by a child, without the knowledge of the parents, without their permission, would this "guest" then be considered an intruder?
BC if JonBenet knew her killer perhaps she let him in?
There is just so much we don't know, little details that would make a better case for our opinions.
There were incidents preceding the murder that were unusual and IMO deserved more attention by the police. An example of these was suggested in the statement made by the housekeeper in Michigan . She thought the Ramseys had an invited guest when she noted someone had slept in Jonbenet's bed and had spotted a pair of cowboy boots in her room. Someone obviously intruded into their summer home that fall before the murder. During the same time frame a gas station attendant in Mich. had a brief conversation with an angry patron who said he had unfinished business in Colorado.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, however, I have always found it odd that a company owned by Lockheed Martin didn't have kidnapping strategies in place,and would have expected a "memo" of sorts to go out immediately for the protection of other CEO's families at the first indication of kidnapping by terrorists (small foreign factions). That this didn't happen was another indication that either the parents were the ONLY suspects and that the FBI bought into this the first minutes or something more dark was involved and a coverup was underway. Weren't we aware as a nation of terrorists cell activity after the first bombing in 1993 of the WTC?
From a publication...Patterns of Global Terrorism
1994
Indeed, terrorists represent a small minority of dedicated, often fanatical, individuals in most such groups. It is that small group -- and their actions -- that is the subject of this report.
Lockheed:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...+lockheed+martin+sales+weapons&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Just maybe Boulder didn't want this kind of activity in their community, so it didn't happen? Given the political climate, the business of Mr. Ramsey, the attention brought toward the family by the recent "billion" dollar news, consideration and deep investigation should have been taken over by the FBI not the BPD. Perhaps with their expertise they could have eliminated this possibility and helped move the investigation toward a more local source and solved it. IMO
BC if JonBenet knew her killer perhaps she let him in?
There is just so much we don't know, little details that would make a better case for our opinions.
There were incidents preceding the murder that were unusual and IMO deserved more attention by the police. An example of these was suggested in the statement made by the housekeeper in Michigan . She thought the Ramseys had an invited guest when she noted someone had slept in Jonbenet's bed and had spotted a pair of cowboy boots in her room. Someone obviously intruded into their summer home that fall before the murder. During the same time frame a gas station attendant in Mich. had a brief conversation with an angry patron who said he had unfinished business in Colorado.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, however, I have always found it odd that a company owned by Lockheed Martin didn't have kidnapping strategies in place,and would have expected a "memo" of sorts to go out immediately for the protection of other CEO's families at the first indication of kidnapping by terrorists (small foreign factions). That this didn't happen was another indication that either the parents were the ONLY suspects and that the FBI bought into this the first minutes or something more dark was involved and a coverup was underway. Weren't we aware as a nation of terrorists cell activity after the first bombing in 1993 of the WTC?
From a publication...Patterns of Global Terrorism
1994
Indeed, terrorists represent a small minority of dedicated, often fanatical, individuals in most such groups. It is that small group -- and their actions -- that is the subject of this report.
Lockheed:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...+lockheed+martin+sales+weapons&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Just maybe Boulder didn't want this kind of activity in their community, so it didn't happen? Given the political climate, the business of Mr. Ramsey, the attention brought toward the family by the recent "billion" dollar news, consideration and deep investigation should have been taken over by the FBI not the BPD. Perhaps with their expertise they could have eliminated this possibility and helped move the investigation toward a more local source and solved it. IMO
K777angel
Member
If you insist on claiming that some intruder committed this crime - then you MUST look at EVERY fact and circumstance of the crime scene. Not just select and random things that you think exonerate the Ramseys themselves.
First of all, forget about the butler door. This is so laughable I cannot believe it is brought up as a serious indicator of an "intruder".
Think about it - John Ramsey himself has been sitting on the floor right near that butler door reading the note, Patsy makes her phone call right near there - and DON'T NOTICE THE DOOR OPENED??? LOL! C'mon.
Even if the door was opened a little - People were already there up and running around. Police officer on the scene and the Ramseys.
Strike.
Secondly, the "footprints in the snow" problem was observed by the first police officer on the scene BEFORE John Fernie arrived. Whether or not John Fernie's subsequent footprints in the snow were observed or not is totally irrelevant - he wasn't even THERE yet when the officer made his observation.
Of course his footprints wouldn't be noticed!!
Strike.
The basement window - we KNOW that is a joke to suggest this intruder exited out that window because John Ramsey himself stated that outside the door to that room where the basement window was there was a chair PUSHED UP AGAINST the door out in the hallway. Unless this dude was a ghost and can walk through walls .....
Explain to me you "intruder did it" theorists just how Patsy Ramsey's clothing fibers from the clothes she wore that night just happened to become entwined in the cord wrapped around the victim's neck??? Not to mention in the paint tote just outside the room where she was found dead.
This "intruder" bent on entering a large expensive home on Christmas to KIDNAP a child - did not even bring the ransom note with him!
The paper and pen used to write this note (letter) was used from right there inside the house. Not only that - the pens were even placed right back in the cupholder. Patsy's pen. Patsy's paper.
There is no reason to assume that the cord used on JonBenet HAD to have more in existence in the house. Why? It is very possible that this cord was lying around the house - probably in the basement - and just used because the opportunity to use it was there and obvious. The search warrant lists as items seized "string" from a sled. Did this "string" match the "cord"? I've always wondered that.....Or could the cord have been from an item of clothing even? A drawstring cord??
Same thing with the piece of tape. For all anyone knows it could have come out of the paint tote box or off some object. OR - of course the rest of the roll very well could have been HIDDEN and never found. Or flushed..... That is if they even came off rolls.
The doorjam marking turned out to be old. The housekeeper said they'd been there for sometime.
Whoever killed JonBenet and staged the scene - CARED about her. Laying blankets on the floor to lay her on top of - AND covering/wrapping her up in yet another blanket showed that the perp/stager cared about her and was sorry she had died. This cannot be overlooked. It is great insight into what happened.
I think it's just as important to point out what did NOT happen in this "intruder" theory - or facts that make this theory just so implausible. Just looking at these missing things and facts alone make it baffling how anyone can even consider such a theory:
*No evidence of entry or exit from the home.
*Would have to KNOW that the Ramseys were leaving at all that day - let
alone what time they were leaving and that they planned to return!!
*Would have to KNOW the dog was not there and that the alarm system
was not turned on.
*Would have to KNOW there was not someone else in that house - a guest
that stayed behind.
*Would have to be very comfortable staying inside the house that long as
it took alot of TIME to do what was done that night.
*Would have to know way around that maze of a house. Where the oddly
placed light switches were etc.
*How did he get JonBenet down to the basement (not to mention the more
important question of WHY even GO to the basement and not out the
door????) AND get those 3 pages of note placed on the stairs?? WHEN
did he place those pages there??? Couldn't do it before he went up to
kidnap her - he'd step on the coming back down. Couldn't do it after he
had grabbed her - he'd step on them coming down. Couldn't risk going
BACK up into the main house from the basement after he has just KILLED
her!! And what would be the point? He knew she was dead now and
no chance of any "ransom" money. And indeed - no call was ever placed
to collect it.
There is more, but to sum up, are we really to believe that some unknown person broke into a large expensive home on Christmas of all days of the year, with the intent to kidnap the child, did not bring a ransom note although he was supposedly going there for the sole purpose to kidnap for ransom - was there undected for hours, decides to borrow pen and paper there and write ransom note, grabs the child - and wait - doesn't leave! Instead, decides to stick around even LONGER than he's already been there plotting his moves - and goes down to the basement???? Where he kills her and somehow manages to exit the house without a trace. And leaves the note anyway.
Not to mention the fact that he had to search around for blankets to lay her upon and wrap her up in. While placing her favorite nightie near her??
It baffles my mind that this is actually a plausible scenario to some.
First of all, forget about the butler door. This is so laughable I cannot believe it is brought up as a serious indicator of an "intruder".
Think about it - John Ramsey himself has been sitting on the floor right near that butler door reading the note, Patsy makes her phone call right near there - and DON'T NOTICE THE DOOR OPENED??? LOL! C'mon.
Even if the door was opened a little - People were already there up and running around. Police officer on the scene and the Ramseys.
Strike.
Secondly, the "footprints in the snow" problem was observed by the first police officer on the scene BEFORE John Fernie arrived. Whether or not John Fernie's subsequent footprints in the snow were observed or not is totally irrelevant - he wasn't even THERE yet when the officer made his observation.
Of course his footprints wouldn't be noticed!!
Strike.
The basement window - we KNOW that is a joke to suggest this intruder exited out that window because John Ramsey himself stated that outside the door to that room where the basement window was there was a chair PUSHED UP AGAINST the door out in the hallway. Unless this dude was a ghost and can walk through walls .....
Explain to me you "intruder did it" theorists just how Patsy Ramsey's clothing fibers from the clothes she wore that night just happened to become entwined in the cord wrapped around the victim's neck??? Not to mention in the paint tote just outside the room where she was found dead.
This "intruder" bent on entering a large expensive home on Christmas to KIDNAP a child - did not even bring the ransom note with him!
The paper and pen used to write this note (letter) was used from right there inside the house. Not only that - the pens were even placed right back in the cupholder. Patsy's pen. Patsy's paper.
There is no reason to assume that the cord used on JonBenet HAD to have more in existence in the house. Why? It is very possible that this cord was lying around the house - probably in the basement - and just used because the opportunity to use it was there and obvious. The search warrant lists as items seized "string" from a sled. Did this "string" match the "cord"? I've always wondered that.....Or could the cord have been from an item of clothing even? A drawstring cord??
Same thing with the piece of tape. For all anyone knows it could have come out of the paint tote box or off some object. OR - of course the rest of the roll very well could have been HIDDEN and never found. Or flushed..... That is if they even came off rolls.
The doorjam marking turned out to be old. The housekeeper said they'd been there for sometime.
Whoever killed JonBenet and staged the scene - CARED about her. Laying blankets on the floor to lay her on top of - AND covering/wrapping her up in yet another blanket showed that the perp/stager cared about her and was sorry she had died. This cannot be overlooked. It is great insight into what happened.
I think it's just as important to point out what did NOT happen in this "intruder" theory - or facts that make this theory just so implausible. Just looking at these missing things and facts alone make it baffling how anyone can even consider such a theory:
*No evidence of entry or exit from the home.
*Would have to KNOW that the Ramseys were leaving at all that day - let
alone what time they were leaving and that they planned to return!!
*Would have to KNOW the dog was not there and that the alarm system
was not turned on.
*Would have to KNOW there was not someone else in that house - a guest
that stayed behind.
*Would have to be very comfortable staying inside the house that long as
it took alot of TIME to do what was done that night.
*Would have to know way around that maze of a house. Where the oddly
placed light switches were etc.
*How did he get JonBenet down to the basement (not to mention the more
important question of WHY even GO to the basement and not out the
door????) AND get those 3 pages of note placed on the stairs?? WHEN
did he place those pages there??? Couldn't do it before he went up to
kidnap her - he'd step on the coming back down. Couldn't do it after he
had grabbed her - he'd step on them coming down. Couldn't risk going
BACK up into the main house from the basement after he has just KILLED
her!! And what would be the point? He knew she was dead now and
no chance of any "ransom" money. And indeed - no call was ever placed
to collect it.
There is more, but to sum up, are we really to believe that some unknown person broke into a large expensive home on Christmas of all days of the year, with the intent to kidnap the child, did not bring a ransom note although he was supposedly going there for the sole purpose to kidnap for ransom - was there undected for hours, decides to borrow pen and paper there and write ransom note, grabs the child - and wait - doesn't leave! Instead, decides to stick around even LONGER than he's already been there plotting his moves - and goes down to the basement???? Where he kills her and somehow manages to exit the house without a trace. And leaves the note anyway.
Not to mention the fact that he had to search around for blankets to lay her upon and wrap her up in. While placing her favorite nightie near her??
It baffles my mind that this is actually a plausible scenario to some.
DocWatson said:
Doc,
The evidence of an intruder used by Judge Julie Carnes, while ruling in a civil case on another matter, was based on what Lou Smit considered as evidence of an intruder.
Carnes relied solely on Smit's interpretations of the intruder evidence and we all know that Smit, openly bonded by religious faith to the Ramseys, wants the Ramseys exonerated come hell or high water. Consequently, much and perhaps all of Smit's evidence of an intruder has since been convincingly discredited.
However, if you'd like to bring up any of Carnes' (Smit's) specific items of evidence of an intruder for discussion in this forum, I'm sure it would make for a spirited debate. Somehow, maybe Smit was right and there really was a bonifide intruder in the house that night, but there's no credible evidence of it that I know of.
JMO
sissi
Former Member
Angel ,I can't laugh at the evidence or discount obvious credible evidence of an intruder. BC Lou Smit came into this with impeccable credentials ,his religious faith would not bias him.
IMO the remarks made by LHP have changed as often as money has hit her hand, she is not credible.
IMO the remarks made by LHP have changed as often as money has hit her hand, she is not credible.
Ivy
Inactive
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm
Excerpt:
But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.
The result is that Carnes's ruling reads very much like something the Ramseys would write. For openers, for example, she writes that JonBenet was murdered [as opposed to having been killed accidentally and the scene then staged]. The only evidence before her of that [murder] was the assertion of the Ramseys that their daughter was murdered. Wolf's lawyer didn't dispute that because Wolf also thinks JonBenet was murdered. So Judge Carnes accepted that conclusion. She had no choice. No one suggested otherwise to her.
Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when they knew about them.
Patsy Ramsey, for example, was told by prosecutors in 2000 that the Ramsey's son, Burke, and a friend of his had both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned a Hi-Tec boot. Nonetheless, Judge Carnes writes in her ruling, based on assertions made to her last summer by the Ramseys, that that the owner of the Hi-Tec boot has never been identified. Wolf didn't dispute that, but then he didn't attend the interview during which prosecutors told Patsy about Burke and his friend's grand jury testimony.
The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.
The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes, making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that don't want her to know.
Judge Carnes's ruling includes a list of items the Ramseys consider evidence of an intruder, only a small fraction of which has even been cited by Det. Lou Smit, the staunchest advocate of the intruder theory who, unlike the Ramseys, had at one time seen all the police evidence in the case. If Smit won't bother to cite the items on this list as evidence of an intruder, there's little reason for anyone else to.
imo
Excerpt:
But, of course, the only evidence that Judge Carnes was weighing was the evidence in the record before her. She didn't have access to Boulder police files, to transcripts of the police interviews with the Ramseys, or to media accounts of the information police say they have. The Ramseys told the judge about what police have -- and claim to have -- only when it served their interests. And Wolf's attorney, who didn't have access to police files either, didn't dispute the "overwhelming majority" of the statements of facts asserted by the Ramseys, according to Judge Carnes.
The result is that Carnes's ruling reads very much like something the Ramseys would write. For openers, for example, she writes that JonBenet was murdered [as opposed to having been killed accidentally and the scene then staged]. The only evidence before her of that [murder] was the assertion of the Ramseys that their daughter was murdered. Wolf's lawyer didn't dispute that because Wolf also thinks JonBenet was murdered. So Judge Carnes accepted that conclusion. She had no choice. No one suggested otherwise to her.
Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when they knew about them.
Patsy Ramsey, for example, was told by prosecutors in 2000 that the Ramsey's son, Burke, and a friend of his had both testified before the grand jury that Burke owned a Hi-Tec boot. Nonetheless, Judge Carnes writes in her ruling, based on assertions made to her last summer by the Ramseys, that that the owner of the Hi-Tec boot has never been identified. Wolf didn't dispute that, but then he didn't attend the interview during which prosecutors told Patsy about Burke and his friend's grand jury testimony.
The Ramseys also learned in 2000 that prosecutors say they have the results of fiber tests indicating that fibers similar to the ones in the red sweater-jacket she had been wearing the day before her daughter was killed are consistent with fibers from in the paint tray from which the brush used to fashion the ligature found around her daughter's neck was found, in the brush that was a part of the ligature, and "tied into" the ligature.
The Ramseys didn't mention a word of this to Judge Carnes, making the judge look like she's flailing around in the dark, being spoon fed only the information that would lead her to the conclusions the Ramseys want her to reach, while the people feeding her keep secret what they've been told that don't want her to know.
Judge Carnes's ruling includes a list of items the Ramseys consider evidence of an intruder, only a small fraction of which has even been cited by Det. Lou Smit, the staunchest advocate of the intruder theory who, unlike the Ramseys, had at one time seen all the police evidence in the case. If Smit won't bother to cite the items on this list as evidence of an intruder, there's little reason for anyone else to.
imo
K777angel
Member
sissi said:
sissi - what you claim to be "evidence" ISN'T. That's my point.
I'll give you one prime example of why Lou Smit in NOT credible and why his peers called him "delusional."
Smit, despite concrete evidence refuting it, claims the intruder could have entered and exited through the broken window in the basement.
In spite of the FACT that John Ramsey stated that there was a chair propped up against the door into that basement room when he looked down there the following morning!!
Smit KNEW this. Knew it completely threw out his exit/entry for his beloved intruder - and yet ignored it.
For a detective to IGNORE critical evidence because it does not fit his pet theory counts him out as credible.
There is a reason why Smit was snickered at by law enforcement and forensic experts on the case. He did it to himself.
Smit lost his objectivity when he "bonded" with the Ramseys.
Even Alex Hunter had to continually remind Smit that he needed to be "objective". Because obviously he was not.
K777angel said:
Angel,
There obviously was no bonifide intruder, but the "chair against the door" (leading to the train room and the broken window) evidence you cite needs more analysis. I think John got mixed up and blundered seriously when he said he had to move the chair when he went down to basement, which would have been sometime around 10 to 11 A.M. when he was "missing" from the group upstairs.
But Officer French had already searched the train room shortly after 6 A.M., and Fleet White searched it several minutes after that, probably around 6:20 A.M., "minutes after" he got to the Ramsey's house. So the chair, if in place against the door at 6 A.M., had to removed and replaced by each of Officer French and Fleet White, a not-too-likely occurrence. Why would they do that? And neither French nor Fleet documented anything about a chair being up against the train room door.
I think John Ramsey blundered when he said he had to remove the chair from in front of the door when he slipped down to the basement late in the morning, around 10 to 11 A.M. If John had to remove the chair from in front of the door it had to be BEFORE 6 A.M. It sounds like John removed the chair from in front of the door alright, because he said he did, but it had to be well before 6 A.M., prior to French and White searching the train room.
John was obviously confused and accidentally admitted to something he was trying to cover up -- that he had searched the basement VERY early that morning., prior to 6 A.M., (and probably more like 3 or 4 A.M.) and has been lying about it.
It appears John had searched the basement VERY early that morning (which he denies he had done). His "chair against the door" comment ensnares him. And if he searched the basement and lied about it, then you can bet the farm he had found JonBenet in the wee hours of the morning and has been lying about that too.
JMO
sissi
Former Member
Who searched the basement between the first cop and John, might be something telling in this.
Obviously you are correct, there was NO chair in front of the door for either of the first two men, however that does not mean it wasn't placed there before John searched.
Obviously you are correct, there was NO chair in front of the door for either of the first two men, however that does not mean it wasn't placed there before John searched.
Similar threads
- Poll
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 85
- Guests online
- 1,393
- Total visitors
- 1,478