For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[Seeker]

Then let the moderator do it seeker. We are working on the situation now and really don't need reminded of how to do it.

I wasn't telling you how to do anything, just reminding Doc of the TOS.

Check your PM's please.

 

[Seeker]

Oh..from an Attorney Site..concerning securing tapes for your defense...
DO NOT DELAY IN HIRING AN ATTORNEY. A qualified attorney can assist in obtaining a low or personal bond if retained by arraignment. Further, your attorney can provide immediate review of the case for defects, move to suppress evidence, and compel the prosecutor to share vital information they intend to use against you. Your lawyer can prevent important evidence such as 911 tapes, police dispatch tapes, vehicle information, etc. from being lost by delay. Some evidence is only kept for a short period before it is recycled or destroyed.

911 tapes are often reused/recycled every 30 days

I'd heard that before, but I think in some instances esp these days, copies are made or new tapes are used instead due to legalities. Esp high profile case tapes...

 

[sissi]

I'd heard that before, but I think in some instances esp these days, copies are made or new tapes are used instead due to legalities. Esp high profile case tapes...

Absolutely! And therein lies the problem. The Ramsey case is "high profile" ,of course their tape is most important, but what if the calls in the preceding thirty days were just run of the mill events and there was no call to save them. I would suspect, and I could be wrong, if most agencies across the country were recycling at the time, Boulder ,being the "green" community it is was likely first on the bandwagon.

 

[JBRMod2]

I have edited several posts to remove ad hominem attacks.

There is some excellent discussion going on in this thread and it would be a shame to lose that.

Please continue the debate without the attacks.

 

[DocWatson]

BlueCrab,
A thought occurred to me over the weekend. Consider the following scenario:
Before police arrive, JR claims to have checked all doors and found them locked. Suppose he was lying on this point because he actually had found at least one door unlocked and possibly wide open and guiltily realized he had gone to bed without locking up. So to keep Patsy busy, he instructs her to call several friends to come over; he then has time to lock the offending door and remembering that broken window in basement, quickly runs to basement to put the suitcase underneath it. Maybe in the course of walking around the house checking on things, he even lifts the window grate just to confirm that in principle someone could have left that way (he already knows from his own experience that someone can climb in and out). Unfortunately because the Fernies and others arrive so quickly, he runs out of time or else he would have opened that window more than 1" (or perhaps he was the one that opened it even 1" but in his haste forgot to consider that it would look odd that an intruder would waste time partially closing the window as they exited). This theory could explain:

a) Why neighbors were invited over (John NEEDED these neighbors to unknowingly eradicate any evidence that police might find about how perp had entered his house so that Patsy wouldn't blame him for leaving door unlocked). With so many comings and goings, it would have been impossible to follow perp. My theory assumes that John took RN seriously and thought that he would be called for money drop so he wasn't worried about permanently eradicating a way to find the kidnapper.

b) Why John and Patsy were so distant with each other that morning. Especially after what had happened to his other daughter, John was guilt-ridden over possibly having contributed to JBR's disappearance. Even if they got her back, she might be traumatized or sexually assaulted and in the worst case, she might be killed. All of these possibilities would have eaten away at him all morning if he thought that the entire scenario could have been avoided if only he were more responsible.

c) It would account for John being in basement before Fernie but not telling anyone about this (including his account about the chair in front of the door).

d) John's seeming insistence that the police consider the window as the point of entry/exit even though details such as the chair make this seem less likely.

e) John's comments about hoping that JBR had died quickly and not suffered (any father would feel this, but the particular way he phrased it made it sound as if he
particularly "needed" to know this was true--again an indication of a guilty conscience in my mind).

This scenario accounts for at least some lies/obfuscation without implicating Ramseys in killing or cover-up. I will have to say that the strongest evidence of staging/cover-up is not the CONTENT of the RN, but how the Ramseys reacted to it. Anyone taking that note seriously either should not have contacted authorities at all or at minimum should have strongly cautioned that perp allegedly was monitoring house so that cops needed to come surreptitiously. Indeed, one possible legitimate use of friends coming over in theory could have been to mask that LE had even been tipped off; however, given that cops and FBI arrived without in any way trying to hide who they were completely undercuts that explanation. I think Ramseys needed their friends for emotional support and I realize most RDI theories view friends being there to either
cover up evidence or to keep police from grilling them. The above is a way of accounting for John's "needing" his friends there and his subsequent behavior without having to leap to the conclusion that he actually was implicated in the killing itself.

I'd be interested in your reaction to this idea.

 

[Jayelles]

It's a thought. I do think that much of the Ramsey behaviour can be explained by extraordinary arrogance and a need to be "given their place".

I also think that it's possible that the Ramseys lied about JonBenet being asleep that night and Burke being asleep the following morning - to cut off what THEY perceived to be an unnecessary line of questioning (sort of "just get on with us, don't waste your time interrogating us"). If so, it might explain their refusal to take polygraphs .. and then to take polygraphs where the questions were agreed beforehand. They would have had no control over the FBI polygraph questions and might have feared being asked about JonBenet being asleep etc - things they KNEW they'd lied about.

 

[sissi]

I have no reason to doubt that John Ramsey carried his child into the house and up the stairs, Patsy likely followed inside carrying whatever they collected or didn't give out during the day.

He went back down to get Burke moving, helped him a bit with his project then got him off to bed. I too doubt either thought to check the doors, if they had, they may have found one was already ajar. Had they stayed after finding Jonbenet's body, they may have discovered items missing as well. They did not have the opportunity to take inventory.

The sighting of a young man in their yard that afternoon, the one mistakenly attributed to Barnhill, IMO is a clue. Someone may have gone into that house in the afternoon .

 

[DocWatson]

It's a thought. I do think that much of the Ramsey behaviour can be explained by extraordinary arrogance and a need to be "given their place".

I also think that it's possible that the Ramseys lied about JonBenet being asleep that night and Burke being asleep the following morning - to cut off what THEY perceived to be an unnecessary line of questioning (sort of "just get on with us, don't waste your time interrogating us"). If so, it might explain their refusal to take polygraphs .. and then to take polygraphs where the questions were agreed beforehand. They would have had no control over the FBI polygraph questions and might have feared being asked about JonBenet being asleep etc - things they KNEW they'd lied about.

I concur the theoretical possibility of lying although I thought even Burke's own self-report acknowledged he wasn't downstairs that morning (he was awake in bed when his parents thought he was sleeping, which makes his parents account MISTAKEN rather than a lie). However this is explained, I think that cover-up of a crime is the LEAST likely explanation.

I think you need to remember that Steve Thomas had reached his conclusion that parents did it within 48 hours of the discovery of the body and that the FBI also was predisposed to believe the parents did it based on apparent staging (even though their own handwriting examiner showed low odds that Patsy wrote RN). So the insistence by BPD that they be subjected to polygraphs ONLY by FBI may well have looked like they were being railroaded instead of being given a "neutral" interrogation. As for arrogance, I'm not aware that Ramseys did anything they weren't be ADVISED to do by their lawyers. Good lawyers are highly protective of their clients and have years of experience to buttress their advice: it would have been highly arrogant (and possibly fatal) of Ramseys to have just ignored that advice in the context of a clearly stacked deck.

 

[sissi]

Doc, this is all very true. Had the Ramseys not followed the advice given by lawyers, this case would likely be closed. They would have been railroaded into a court system and found guilty for a crime they didn't commit.
Many are "mad" at them, they consider this protection stonewalling, they criticize them for protecting themselves and Burke, and for some reason, want them to be the murderers of their child.

Maybe it just makes the world seem a safer place if there are no bogey men, no evil person waiting to rip your child from their bed and turn your life into a horror. If you think it is the parents you are safe from this evil?

Give uncle joe a kiss, say thankyou, did you say hello to that nice man , smile sweetly, be a lady, don't talk back, say yes ma'm yes sir, in many ways we set little girls up in such a way as to be victims. A little girl raised with those southern "niceties" I would think could be more of a victim than the other little kids in Boulder.