Evidence you can't explain

[BOESP]

I'm sorry, but to those who think lying is okay, well, to each his own. I find it to be a strong indication of a lack of backbone.

 

[BOESP]

I just got to the part where James Kolar says he gave the powerpoint presentation to Lacy and she told him she didn't want to risk her relationship with the Ramsey's. When Patsy died she went to the funeral in Atlanta. That is extremely unprofessional behavior. JMO, but I think Smit was not very bright. Also, JK says that Smit told him it only took him a week of looking at evidence to come to his conclusion, while it took JK about six months to get enough evidence to start forming an idea of who may have been involved. I wonder what would have happened if Smit hadn't been hired.



BBM

A nine year old kid is going to be tripped up by police very easily by the simplest questions. JMO

In my experience, children tend to be quite truthful unless they are of the juvenile delinquent persuasion but I see all three Ramseys as, well, knowing which side to butter their bread. Burke was nearly ten years old, very intelligent, and I don't see him as getting "tripped up" on the truth as he saw it.

Iirc, Smit was actually hired by the DA's office after the initial investigation to see if Smit could find evidence the original investigation might have missed evidence that might exclude the Ramseys. Supposedly, Hunter wanted to have all his i's dotted and his t's crossed before possibly preparing the prosecution. At least that's what the contract between Smit and the DA's office seemed to suggest to me. Somewhere during his search, Smit decided the good, Christian Ramseys couldn't have done this. I never could figure exactly what Smit based this on but he said he came to the conclusion "after praying with" them.

Here's a link to the contract:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03171997smitcontract.htm

Here's a link to Smit's resignation letter to DA Alex Hunter:
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/28ramsle.html

Smit wrote a book on this case and it's available on Amazon.com plus the acandyrose.com website has a lot on Smit in the JonBenet archives at the website.

Glad to see you posting here SteelyDan!

 

[Steely Dan]

In my experience, children tend to be quite truthful unless they are of the juvenile delinquent persuasion but I see all three Ramseys as, well, knowing which side to butter their bread. Burke was nearly ten years old, very intelligent, and I don't see him as getting "tripped up" on the truth as he saw it.

Iirc, Smit was actually hired by the DA's office after the initial investigation to see if Smit could find evidence the original investigation might have missed evidence that might exclude the Ramseys. Supposedly, Hunter wanted to have all his i's dotted and his t's crossed before possibly preparing the prosecution. At least that's what the contract between Smit and the DA's office seemed to suggest to me. Somewhere during his search, Smit decided the good, Christian Ramseys couldn't have done this. I never could figure exactly what Smit based this on but he said he came to the conclusion "after praying with" them.

Here's a link to the contract:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03171997smitcontract.htm

Here's a link to Smit's resignation letter to DA Alex Hunter:
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/28ramsle.html

Smit wrote a book on this case and it's available on Amazon.com plus the acandyrose.com website has a lot on Smit in the JonBenet archives at the website.

Glad to see you posting here SteelyDan!

According to Kolar there were two names that the DA wanted to bring in to give the evidence the once over. The person who wanted Smit won out. Yes, Smit seemed to leave it up to God to tell him if they were guilty or not. I don't think he prayed with them before making his decision. I think that was after he thought they were being falsely accused and switched to the side of the defense.

With Patsy dead I highly doubt we'll ever really learn what happened to JonBenet.

 

[dodie20]

But the Ramseys eventually admitted Burke was awake in the morning.

There's a very obvious reason why they may have lied -- they loved Burke, knew he was innocent and didn't want him interrogated. Something I can imagine lots of parents doing. He was only a 9 year old boy. It was easier to pretend he was asleep rather than awake.

Of course, they could have lied because of something more sinister (some postulate it's related to his involvement) but it could actually be innocent too.

But the point was that voices on the tapes =collusion. And the truth is that it simply does not. Voices on a tape = voices on a tape until PROVEN otherwise.

I'm not convinced they lied about BR on the tape because he himself said he stayed in bed. But them saying he slept through everything Was contradicted by BR. He said he was awake and heard noises but pretended to be asleep. My guess to why they said he slept through it all doesn't have much to do with love. IMO, they didn't want him interviewed because they wanted to control what was said to investigators, and a 9 year old might let something slip. Like he did when he said JB was awake and walked into the house and then again when he said he didn't sleep through the whole ordeal. IMO, he told the truth about these things so I tend to believe him when he said that wasn't his voice on the 911. Why lie when he could just say the noise woke him up and he wanted to know what was going on? and then went back to bed? I know they said they used state of the art technology to enhance the call, but how state of the art was it really? I'm a little dubious because there were other so called experts who disputed their finds. I know there was a conversation after PR 'hung' up the phone, I'm just not convinced they got it word for word right. moo

 

[UKGuy]

The Ramseys returned home on the 25th. The 'small foreign faction' as implied in the note, was wrote the note for someone's benefit: in this case, the first point of contact HAD to be the parents since the note came from the home.

If the note says "tomorrow" in reference to the ransom etc it could only have meant the 27th since the note could only have been obtained and read by the 'intended' targets -- the Ramseys -- on the 26th.The note wasn't written for someone to read on the 25th -- the time when the family would be in bed. Further, the note says to be "well rested". That is an instruction. How can the Ramseys be well rested if they wake up, read the note on the 26th and the abductors call on the 26th between 8am and 10am. It's an instruction that only makes real sense if we are talking about the 27th and the "tomorrow" wording makes sense when viewed in this context.

So, I find it plausible that Patsy's call was not intended to happen. I think it threw a spanner in the works. I mean, if Patsy was responsible for this in any capacity and wrote the note, why would she call the police when she had a dead body in the house and a ransom note which explicitly told her not to? Wouldn't she want to get the body out of the house to make it more believable otherwise the suspicions mount on the parents (which they did).

To use the ransom note as the center piece of any theory simply invalidates it. The ransom note is [b]staged[/b] forensic evidence, and as such renders any theory employing it inconsistent.

But that simply is not true. Because it is staged what it does do is 1. Prove no abductors did it (it was a Ramsey) 2. Excludes potential suspects (becuase it was Ramsey) 3. Draw focus to those who could do it (one of the Ramseys) and 4. Give some context to what happened ( the note was obviously done to deflect from something). Your logic is a bit similar to that of a non sequitur -- the conclusion you state doesn't really follow the premise i.e a staged note means any gleanings/theories from it are invalid. I think the ransom note does form the centre piece of theories (along with the injury evidence) and as such is valid to do so because it offers us valuable evidence as to how and why things happened.

That the R's voices can be heard talking camly on the 911 call demonstrate they were all colluding in the staging, i.e. BR: [i]What will I do?[/i].

If all the voices are on the tape, all it shows is that there are other voices present other than the main voice -- Patsy. It doesn't prove anything unless specific phrases are uttered which prove collusion like Burke saying "Mother, what will I do now since I did this mess -- I don't want to go to jail".And that isn't the case. Maybe Burke woke u because of the commotion with Patsy and that's why his voice is there.Maybe he is saying "what will I do" because he sees his stressed out mother and is offering her help. Same with John. It doesn't mean they were all colluding at all. How do you get from 'voices on a tape' to 'voices on a tape equals collusion'? It isn't necessarily correlative.

The evidence yet unexplained is JonBenet's head injury, nobody has yet offered any compelling account that fits any one particular theory

Plenty of people have offered plausible explanations for why it exists. However, depending upon one's own theory, we will dismiss them if they don't fit our own theory. For example, I don't think Patsy hit JonBenet in a rage (although that is absolutely possible) so I don't but into it. I think the head injury was sustained after the neck injury and I think it was done to make sure she was dead or simulate some horrific attack that would be abductors hostile to the family may do.

Let_Forever_Be,

If the note says "tomorrow" in reference to the ransom etc it could only have meant the 27th since the note could only have been obtained and read by the 'intended' targets -- the Ramseys -- on the 26th.The note wasn't written for someone to read on the 25th -- the time when the family would be in bed. Further, the note says to be "well rested". That is an instruction. How can the Ramseys be well rested if they wake up, read the note on the 26th and the abductors call on the 26th between 8am and 10am. It's an instruction that only makes real sense if we are talking about the 27th and the "tomorrow" wording makes sense when viewed in this context.

As you please. The R's incised JonBenet's tombstone with 12/25/1996, not 12/26/1996. Anyway our discussion is precisely why you cannot use the ransom note to infer anything about the death of JonBenet, since it is staged forensic evidence, if you do not get that. then you can end up spinning any theory you want, i.e. DocG's theory regarding future events.

But that simply is not true. Because it is staged what it does do is 1. Prove no abductors did it (it was a Ramsey) 2. Excludes potential suspects (becuase it was Ramsey) 3. Draw focus to those who could do it (one of the Ramseys) and 4. Give some context to what happened ( the note was obviously done to deflect from something). Your logic is a bit similar to that of a non sequitur -- the conclusion you state doesn't really follow the premise i.e a staged note means any gleanings/theories from it are invalid. I think the ransom note does form the centre piece of theories (along with the injury evidence) and as such is valid to do so because it offers us valuable evidence as to how and why things happened.

Nope, the staged forensic evidence does not prove anything at all. You can decide the Ramsey's created the staging, and thats about it. Without a smoking gun, and the timeline of events as they unfolded, the staged forensic evidence will just generate complexity in any RDI theory. When reasoning you can infer anything you want from a false statement, since you have decided a particular piece of evidence is fabricated or fake, then although you can reason X or Y from it, you cannot demonstrate X or Y, since this is why it would be inconsistent. i.e. someone else might use the ransom note to reason Z, so which one is correct, X,Y or Z, or are they all inconsistent?

If all the voices are on the tape, all it shows is that there are other voices present other than the main voice -- Patsy. It doesn't prove anything unless specific phrases are uttered which prove collusion like Burke saying "Mother, what will I do now since I did this mess -- I don't want to go to jail".And that isn't the case. Maybe Burke woke u because of the commotion with Patsy and that's why his voice is there.Maybe he is saying "what will I do" because he sees his stressed out mother and is offering her help. Same with John. It doesn't mean they were all colluding at all. How do you get from 'voices on a tape' to 'voices on a tape equals collusion'? It isn't necessarily correlative.

Because the R's stated BR was asleep in bed during the 911 call. BR himself stated he was pretending to be asleep. Later once the 911 call went public the R's amended their version events, since all three R's statements were inconsistent with the forensic evidence the only way they could have offered their original version of events was via collusion.

Plenty of people have offered plausible explanations for why it exists. However, depending upon one's own theory, we will dismiss them if they don't fit our own theory. For example, I don't think Patsy hit JonBenet in a rage (although that is absolutely possible) so I don't but into it. I think the head injury was sustained after the neck injury and I think it was done to make sure she was dead or simulate some horrific attack that would be abductors hostile to the family may do.

You could well be correct. Yet depends on what you consider the neck injury? I reckon the head injury played a similar role to that of JonBenet's other injuries.

I think its more likely to be PDI than JDI. Patsy made a lot of self serving statements when interviewed e.g. she never chaperoned JonBenet bathing or dressing on 12/25/1996, she had an argument over clothing which was later found wet and balled up in JonBenet's bathroom, the size-12's, the breakfast bar table setup, etc.

JR's involvement appears minimal, especially when you remove his alibi for BR. All his statements the morning of 12/26/1996 might simply be intended to cover for another R, e.g. I took JAR's suitcase down to the basement, I broke the window previously, citing an inside job might refer to LHP?

Yet no R wished to admit ownership of the collection of JonBenet photos found in the basement, curious that!

.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not convinced they lied about BR on the tape because he himself said he stayed in bed. But them saying he slept through everything Was contradicted by BR. He said he was awake and heard noises but pretended to be asleep. My guess to why they said he slept through it all doesn't have much to do with love. IMO, they didn't want him interviewed because they wanted to control what was said to investigators, and a 9 year old might let something slip. Like he did when he said JB was awake and walked into the house and then again when he said he didn't sleep through the whole ordeal. IMO, he told the truth about these things so I tend to believe him when he said that wasn't his voice on the 911. Why lie when he could just say the noise woke him up and he wanted to know what was going on? and then went back to bed? I know they said they used state of the art technology to enhance the call, but how state of the art was it really? I'm a little dubious because there were other so called experts who disputed their finds. I know there was a conversation after PR 'hung' up the phone, I'm just not convinced they got it word for word right. moo

dodie20,
His parents admitted he was awake prior to the 911 call. They said something about his safety and getting him back to bed etc.


.

 

[UKGuy]

per a line of questioning (in the '97 interview IIRC) JR was surprised to learn that FW had been in the basement by himself earlier: "I didn't know that." can't remember if they told him FW opened the door and didn't see JB/the blanket

gramcracker,
If FW really never saw JonBenet it could be JR moved JonBenet into the wine-cellar later that morning and all the stuff left lying about e.g. the broken window, the chair, the suitcase, the photos, are all residue from a prior staging which JR explains away with ad-hoc flourishes?

It could be the one thing that FW knows about this case, after all he returned to the wine-cellar, despite being told not to, why?

I reckon he wanted to see what he could see by just opening the door and looking in, i.e. did he really miss JonBenet on his first visit, or did he decide someone had to have moved her?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

It was the DA, Mary Keenan Lacy, who publicly cleared them, not the cops, although technically I guess she is (cough,cough) considered law enforcement. Imo, she acted more like the fullback for Team Ramsey.

Actually a DA and assistant DA are lawyers. I suppose they could be considered LE but they are not actually law enforcement (LE). They prosecute those who break the law, though this is only true of those who have spines.

 

[gramcracker]

gramcracker,
If FW really never saw JonBenet it could be JR moved JonBenet into the wine-cellar later that morning and all the stuff left lying about e.g. the broken window, the chair, the suitcase, the photos, are all residue from a prior staging which JR explains away with ad-hoc flourishes?

It could be the one thing that FW knows about this case, after all he returned to the wine-cellar, despite being told not to, why?

I reckon he wanted to see what he could see by just opening the door and looking in, i.e. did he really miss JonBenet on his first visit, or did he decide someone had to have moved her?

IMO he knew something was wrong with the scenario from the very beginning. for some reason he was calling the child's name even though he knew the RN stated she had been taken from the premises. I've never believed he did that because he was shook up and thinking illogically. a kidnapping with a RN is totally/totally different from the situation where FW's daughter was "lost" in his home the year before when she fell asleep somewhere and they couldn't find her and she didn't wake up when they called her name

what a stroke of luck that FW didn't tell JR that he had looked in the basement earlier and didn't mention opening the WC door! because IMO JR wouldn't have moved JB to the WC if he had known that. what he would have done instead, I can't say. but the location and hidden aspect of the WC was JR's ace in the hole

the funeral was only five days later and by then FW had already confronted JR to the point that the extended family was aware of it, and they had a gun tucked under a sofa cushion as protection because they anticipated that FW would confront JR again. and they were right, he did. he was angry that JR was hiding behind lawyers and hiring his own investigators, and he told him so and that's the last time the two friends spoke to each other

the photo of FW at the indictment release hearing is heartbreaking. the man who knew in his heart that something was wrong in the very beginning is still hanging in there this many years later. and he doesn't need to write a book because his thoughts are written on his face

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO he knew something was wrong with the scenario from the very beginning. for some reason he was calling the child's name even though he knew the RN stated she had been taken from the premises. I've never believed he did that because he was shook up and thinking illogically. a kidnapping with a RN is totally/totally different from the situation where FW's daughter was "lost" in his home the year before when she fell asleep somewhere and they couldn't find her and she didn't wake up when they called her name

what a stroke of luck that FW didn't tell JR that he had looked in the basement earlier and didn't mention opening the WC door! because IMO JR wouldn't have moved JB to the WC if he had known that. what he would have done instead, I can't say. but the location and hidden aspect of the WC was JR's ace in the hole

the funeral was only five days later and by then FW had already confronted JR to the point that the extended family was aware of it, and they had a gun tucked under a sofa cushion as protection because they anticipated that FW would confront JR again. and they were right, he did. he was angry that JR was hiding behind lawyers and hiring his own investigators, and he told him so and that's the last time the two friends spoke to each other

the photo of FW at the indictment release hearing is heartbreaking. the man who knew in his heart that something was wrong in the very beginning is still hanging in there this many years later. and he doesn't need to write a book because his thoughts are written on his face

So true! Reading it in your words... Got me all choked up.. it is just awful the way the Ramsey's used their friends, dragged them into their charade... The Whites have a conscience, integrity and are still waiting for justice for a little murdered girl.

I know I've lost sleep, I know I can't let this case go. I've cried. I've been frustrated.
I can't even imagine what it must be like for the Whites. I would guess its what we all feel times a thousand!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Venom]

IMO he knew something was wrong with the scenario from the very beginning. for some reason he was calling the child's name even though he knew the RN stated she had been taken from the premises. I've never believed he did that because he was shook up and thinking illogically. a kidnapping with a RN is totally/totally different from the situation where FW's daughter was "lost" in his home the year before when she fell asleep somewhere and they couldn't find her and she didn't wake up when they called her name

what a stroke of luck that FW didn't tell JR that he had looked in the basement earlier and didn't mention opening the WC door! because IMO JR wouldn't have moved JB to the WC if he had known that. what he would have done instead, I can't say. but the location and hidden aspect of the WC was JR's ace in the hole

the funeral was only five days later and by then FW had already confronted JR to the point that the extended family was aware of it, and they had a gun tucked under a sofa cushion as protection because they anticipated that FW would confront JR again. and they were right, he did. he was angry that JR was hiding behind lawyers and hiring his own investigators, and he told him so and that's the last time the two friends spoke to each other

the photo of FW at the indictment release hearing is heartbreaking. the man who knew in his heart that something was wrong in the very beginning is still hanging in there this many years later. and he doesn't need to write a book because his thoughts are written on his face

Seriously, they hid a gun in case of a confrontation? Who does that?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Seriously, they hid a gun in case of a confrontation? Who does that?

Scared guilty people with something to hide. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[BOESP]

I'm not convinced they lied about BR on the tape because he himself said he stayed in bed. But them saying he slept through everything Was contradicted by BR. He said he was awake and heard noises but pretended to be asleep. My guess to why they said he slept through it all doesn't have much to do with love. IMO, they didn't want him interviewed because they wanted to control what was said to investigators, and a 9 year old might let something slip. Like he did when he said JB was awake and walked into the house and then again when he said he didn't sleep through the whole ordeal. IMO, he told the truth about these things so I tend to believe him when he said that wasn't his voice on the 911. Why lie when he could just say the noise woke him up and he wanted to know what was going on? and then went back to bed? I know they said they used state of the art technology to enhance the call, but how state of the art was it really? I'm a little dubious because there were other so called experts who disputed their finds. I know there was a conversation after PR 'hung' up the phone, I'm just not convinced they got it word for word right. moo

BBM. I've never heard about Burke stating the child's voice on the 911 was not him. I'd love to read more about this if you wouldn't mind furnishing a link to Burke's statement. TIA

 

[BOESP]

Actually a DA and assistant DA are lawyers. I suppose they could be considered LE but they are not actually law enforcement (LE). They prosecute those who break the law, though this is only true of those who have spines.

I knew the DA and ADA were lawyers but I believe they are also considered a part of the law enforcement branch in Colorado in their prosecutorial capacity. I guess that's nitpicking on my part but the original point I wanted to make was it was not the cops who cleared the Ramseys. In fact, they weren't cleared at all.

 

[BOESP]

Seriously, they hid a gun in case of a confrontation? Who does that?

Imo, it's just more drama. :tantrum:

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I'm not convinced they lied about BR on the tape because he himself said he stayed in bed. But them saying he slept through everything Was contradicted by BR. He said he was awake and heard noises but pretended to be asleep. My guess to why they said he slept through it all doesn't have much to do with love. IMO, they didn't want him interviewed because they wanted to control what was said to investigators, and a 9 year old might let something slip. Like he did when he said JB was awake and walked into the house and then again when he said he didn't sleep through the whole ordeal. IMO, he told the truth about these things so I tend to believe him when he said that wasn't his voice on the 911. Why lie when he could just say the noise woke him up and he wanted to know what was going on? and then went back to bed? I know they said they used state of the art technology to enhance the call, but how state of the art was it really? I'm a little dubious because there were other so called experts who disputed their finds. I know there was a conversation after PR 'hung' up the phone, I'm just not convinced they got it word for word right. moo

That's all possible. They could have lied because he was involved somehow. Absolutely. Or because they were scared he knew something about them and so were trying 'remove him' from interrogation to save their own skin. Maybe they were worried about what he may know.

I agree with you. This could be the case.

Regarding the voices on the tape, well, I'm not sure either. I'm not privy to the technology used to analyse the tape and so am taking it in good faith the findings of the experts which as you explain are differing.

 

[gramcracker]

Imo, it's just more drama. :tantrum:

that's JR's public comment re the motion to release the indictment! the NERVE! THE NERVE, I say!

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Quotes by UKGuy

As you please. The R's incised JonBenet's tombstone with 12/25/1996, [i]not[/i] 12/26/1996. Anyway our discussion is precisely why you cannot use the ransom note to infer anything about the death of JonBenet, since it is [b]staged[/b] forensic evidence, if you do not get that. then you can end up spinning any theory you want, i.e. DocG's theory regarding future events.

But the reasons for putting the 25th of December are not crystal clear. I mean, the 'time of death' was on the 26th December so the tombstomb contradicts that. Maybe, if we assume a Ramsey did this, the 25th of December was some symbolic gesture to relate JonBenets death to an intruder who came in on the 25th (allegedly) and it also served to 'distance' the crime from the Ramseys who would/should be sleeping late on the 25th so weren't responsible. Christmas day is also extremely symbolic to Christians which of course Patsy was too.

I disagree regarding the ransom note not being able to be used. It provides an abundance of evidence -- not least handwriting samples, potential forensics but ofcourse information contained within; in. It has words in it. Words designed for a purpose. Words with a meaning, created by the perp to serve his/her goal.

It's not spinning a theory illogically either to make an educated speculation upon what was to happen when the actual note mentions how the 'small foreign faction' would call "tomorrow". Thus, tomorrow could only mean the 27th December since it was clearly referential to when the Ramseys -- the intended recipient -- could read it. Further instruction in it also mentions to be "well rested". How does someone become "well rested" if the abductors were going to call on the 26th December -- the same day the Ramseys would be expected to read the note?

We know there was a dead body in the house. We can reasonably state one or a combination of the family members did it. We know at approx 5:52am a call was made to 911 by Patsy. We know she had a ransom note. Thus, we have to either speculate that the call was part of a plan and provide our theories how and why it was done.I mean, it is accepted on these forums for people to say that because Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the day before that is strong evidence she killed JonBenet -- and that theory isn't daft but it isn't a fact either. However, if you think/feel it wasn't, like I do, it is perfectly acceptable to look at the available evidence/sources and make educated guesses/theories as to what may/might have occured.

Remember, at the same time as Patsy was calling the police she was also contradicting the ransom note which many claim she wrote. That has to be explained too if you believe she killed JonBenet.

Nope, the [b]staged[/b] forensic evidence does not prove anything at all. You can decide the Ramsey's created the staging, and thats about it. Without a smoking gun, and the timeline of events as they unfolded, the [b]staged[/b] forensic evidence will just generate complexity in any RDI theory. When reasoning you can infer anything you want from a false statement, since you have decided a particular piece of evidence is fabricated or fake, then although you can reason X or Y from it, you cannot demonstrate X or Y, since this is why it would be inconsistent. i.e. someone else might use the ransom note to reason Z, so which one is correct, X,Y or Z, or are they all inconsistent?

I never claimed it PROVES anything. Merely that it does and can be used to understand what happened and why it happened. It isn't some irrelevant piece of evidence. If we can PROVE who couldn't have wrote the note -- an abductor -- that means that the only people who could have was one of the Ramseys. And out of two adults and a 9 year old kid, the note was most definitely written by one of the adults considering its language, ideas, syntax etc. Therefore, the ransom note does actually help direct us in this case. Just because it is staged doesn't mean it is useless. Because behind this staged artifact was a human being(s) who staged it for a purpose.

Because the R's stated BR was asleep in bed during the 911 call. BR himself stated he was pretending to be asleep. Later once the 911 call went public the R's amended their version events, since all three R's statements were inconsistent with the forensic evidence the only way they could have offered their original version of events was via collusion.

Or the parents just went on auto pilot and instinctively said he was asleep to hopefully get LE off his back because they loved him and he was a 9 year old boy. Burke saying he was awake merely means he told the truth when asked. But because the parents told a porky -- while suspicious -- it is not evidence of some grand conspiracy. And they eventually said Burke was awake too.

You could well be correct. Yet depends on what you consider the [i]neck injury[/i]? I reckon the head injury played a similar role to that of JonBenet's other injuries.

I think its more likely to be PDI than JDI. Patsy made a lot of self serving statements when interviewed e.g. she never chaperoned JonBenet bathing or dressing on 12/25/1996, she had an argument over clothing which was later found wet and balled up in JonBenet's bathroom, the size-12's, the breakfast bar table setup, etc.

JR's involvement appears minimal, especially when you remove his alibi for BR. All his statements the morning of 12/26/1996 might simply be intended to cover for another R, e.g. I took JAR's suitcase down to the basement, I broke the window previously, citing an [i]inside job[/i] might refer to LHP?

Yet no R wished to admit ownership of the collection of JonBenet photos found in the basement, curious that!

I've traditionally been more inclined to believe Patsy did it. But recently I've come to think differently.

After re-reading the Ransom note and analysing what the 'experts' had to say about the handwriting etc, I just don't think it is a fact that Patsy wrote that note. I mean, Cina Wong's analysis doesn't convince me. And let's not forget some experts thought John was the author. Further, peculiar phrases "and hence" can only be attributed factually to John with certainty since it appears in two other locations I believe : the London letter which he co authored and and some interview since taken off the net he gave.

I don't see John's involvement as minimal -- just that he appeared smarter than Patsy. Remember, he lawyered up immediately and paid for handwriting experts to clear him. And in doing so, this had the effect of forcing more scrutiny onto Patsy.

It was also John who 'found' the body aswell as barely 20minutes later after its discovery being heard on the phone arranging a flight to Atlanta. There's also fibre evidence too.

No conclusive proof but frustratingly, nothing with which we can rule him out either. And that's true of ALL the Ramseys.

 

[dodie20]

BBM. I've never heard about Burke stating the child's voice on the 911 was not him. I'd love to read more about this if you wouldn't mind furnishing a link to Burke's statement. TIA

What BR said was that he stayed in bed pretending to sleep. I'm not sure if he was point blank asked if that was his voice, (I don't think so), but if he stayed in bed, how could it have been his voice? Unless he lied of course, but where he's concerned, I try to give what he said the benefit of the doubt. I think it was an enquirer interview where JR said that until BR's GJ testimony, he had no idea that he was awake, listening and pretending to sleep. It seems strange that this family never discussed all this, but who knows...but I think I actually believe them on this, if not much else. On the 1 hand, we've got the enhancement experts saying it was a child's voice, but on the other, we have BR saying he stayed in bed. And one reason I think the softer voice might be PR, is I remember a reporter, (again the enquirer, I think), saying that at times, she would become child like while talking...IDK, just moo.

 

[Steely Dan]

The RN was tested by linguistic experts and found to be consistent with PR's writing style. They also think she was sniping at him with the line; "Grow a brain Jon." I think she wrote it. I'm 99% sure she wrote it.

As for motive, it's possible JB told her she didn't want to do pageants anymore. JMO