Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[THE BUNK]

Actually it is up to the jury to decide what is true and not. I would have no problem believing that someone was afraid and then came forward at a later date.

It's up to the primary detective to determine his primary suspects and to dismiss suspects. if he feels someone is truthful in his statements and he has determined he is cleared, he can choose not to pursue him as a suspect. There have been 1,000s of people cleared of the Zodiac case by Toschi, Armstrong and Narlow..none of their names have ever seen a jury. The decision on whether they remained suspects was the detectives. A person cleared by a detective never needs to see any courtroom. Hell, the detectives own notes never need to be known to anyone.

It is up to the detective to determine among his witness, victims and POIs as to whether they are worth escalate to prime suspect status.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's up to the primary detective to determine his primary suspects and to dismiss suspects. if he feels someone is truthful in his statements and he has determined he is cleared, he can choose not to pursue him as a suspect. There have been 1,000s of people cleared of the Zodiac case by Toschi, Armstrong and Narlow..none of their names have ever seen a jury. The decision on whether they remained suspects was the detectives.

We are not talking about suspects but witnesses.

 

[THE BUNK]

A great point made by a friend of mine about this case:

Patsy Ramsey is the first suspect in this case, not just because she is the mother. She's the first suspect because she made the 911 call and is the only witness to the discovery ransom note that prompted her call. The police only know of this case because of her. She was the one who started this kidnapping investigation.

The first logical question to any detective

"How do i know she didn't just kill her daughter and write this ransom note and tear the pages off her own notepad?"

 

[Chewy]

Again you are ignoring that TWO people did this, not one. I agree that if it was just the one woman and she back pedaled and changed her mind it could be from fear.

But both her husband and she gave extremely detailed information about the "scream" and events thereafter. No one else in the neighborhood reports hearing the scream or the metal sound. Other homes were closer than she was. She reported it as being a "blood curdling scream" that "she'd never forget" And she states she knew it was Jonbenet.

Sorry but that' just doesn't add up. She's obviously lying. So the question is why would she change her story? Why would her husband change his story to match hers.

I am not so concerned about them lying but I am very concerned with the police not sitting them down and investigating them and their varying stories. The lack of research regarding these two potential perpetrators or witnesses is staggering to me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Again you are ignoring that TWO people did this, not one. I agree that if it was just the one woman and she back pedaled and changed her mind it could be from fear.

But both her husband and she gave extremely detailed information about the "scream" and events thereafter. No one else in the neighborhood reports hearing the scream or the metal sound. Other homes were closer than she was. She reported it as being a "blood curdling scream" that "she'd never forget" And she states she knew it was Jonbenet.

Sorry but that' just doesn't add up. She's obviously lying. So the question is why would she change her story? Why would her husband change his story to match hers.

I am not so concerned about them lying but I am very concerned with the police not sitting them down and investigating them and their varying stories. The lack of research regarding these two potential perpetrators or witnesses is staggering to me.

I am concerned that the police did not go into it further either. But I don't think it is obvious she is lying. I think it looks like she was scared and then came forward and told her story. I have no problem with this.

 

[Chewy]

She didn't come forward and tell her story. The neighbor did. You keep saying SHE hello!!! It's THEY two people changed their original story to a different "same" story. They are lying one way or the other. So why?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

She didn't come forward and tell her story. The neighbor did. You keep saying SHE hello!!! It's THEY two people changed their original story to a different "same" story. They are lying one way or the other. So why?

She told the Detective when he asked her. After the neighbor called. It just does not bother me and it makes perfect sense. There is a brutal murder in your neighborhood. She hears something and learns that a little girl was killed in her home. She could have been scared.
Im sorry, I don't get the same work up that others are about her coming forward later. It seems reasonable to me.

 

[Darly314]

I do believe people flat out lie. I do believe some people are very adept liars.. But I also believe as in this case they could have been spooked at first by the whole thing and afraid to say something and get involved. I understand that. She did tell her account to the second detective.

Studies that "create" events, with "witnesses" have shown the range of differences in eyewitness accounts, and the variance after periods of time with individual recollections. Most of our lives are not recorded on camera. If you have ever deposed three or more, or even TWO or more witnesses to the same event, you will see a chasm between today's remembrance and that of two weeks ago.

"Well, I said he was tall, maybe 6'2"....the more I think about it, maybe MEDIUM tall...5'9" to just under 6' is closer". "When I said she hit the kids, I didn't mean actually struck them, sometimes, maybe most of the time, she just threw things....not always hitting anybody, but scaring them".

Live with it for a time, you get used varying recollections.......

On another note, an individual sat on death row in my state, for six years.....his words, and actions, after the crime helped convict him; after all those years however, physical evidence, plus the fact the state's main witness was determined to have been mentally incapacitated, led to release, every conviction overturned. I believe I know who killed the victim, but that person is deceased. That case may never be solved, twenty years on......

 

[Chewy]

She told the Detective when he asked her. After the neighbor called. It just does not bother me and it makes perfect sense. There is a brutal murder in your neighborhood. She hears something and learns that a little girl was killed in her home. She could have been scared.
Im sorry, I don't get the same work up that others are about her coming forward later. It seems reasonable to me.

Ok I give up. You keep saying SHE it wasn't SHE it was two people with very involved stories that were changed three times.

 

[Chewy]

Studies that "create" events, with "witnesses" have shown the range of differences in eyewitness accounts, and the variance after periods of time with individual recollections. Most of our lives are not recorded on camera. If you have ever deposed three or more, or even TWO or more witnesses to the same event, you will see a chasm between today's remembrance and that of two weeks ago.

"Well, I said he was tall, maybe 6'2"....the more I think about it, maybe MEDIUM tall...5'9" to just under 6' is closer". "When I said she hit the kids, I didn't mean actually struck them, sometimes, maybe most of the time, she just threw things....not always hitting anybody, but scaring them".

Live with it for a time, you get used varying recollections.......

On another note, an individual sat on death row in my state, for six years.....his words, and actions, after the crime helped convict him; after all those years however, physical evidence, plus the fact the state's main witness was determined to have been mentally incapacitated, led to release, every conviction overturned. I believe I know who killed the victim, but that person is deceased. That case may never be solved, twenty years on......

Exactly. It's the identical first story changing to the identical second story that seems extremely suspicious.

 

[Darly314]

Exactly. It's the identical first story changing to the identical second story that seems extremely suspicious.

Logical crticism, still, is it a lie when people impacted by such a crime no longer trust what they believe they witnessed after questioning? Forget the "the defense would......." stuff. LE may have/probably did rake at least the wife over the coals. "You heard the blood curdling scream of a child and didn't even turn on the light & look at a clock?" "WHY didn't you call 911? "Were you drunk or on drugs?" Oddly enough, LE questionging, excuse me, INTERVIEWS, often lead to more details UNKNOWINGLY supplied, of course, by LE....or sometimes enough doubt in the mind of the witness to question their own recollections. Police interviews can be a double edged sword.

One other thought; after the Gainesville student murders (Danny Rollings) talk in the area was about "some student, with a scalpel, from UF med school has gone wacko!". Rollings wasn't on the radar at first; he was....a nobody, picked up because he had a record, was picked up on an outstanding warrant I believe. But physical evidence tied him in quick after that. The killer of JonBenet Ramsey may be someone the Ramseys had met....but never noticed; one of the type of person few people pay attention to, a nothing.

 

[Chewy]

That is all true but has no bearing on what I'm pointing out. This is the last time I'm addressing it because this is pointless and draining. The odds that two people would tell the same story, both recant the story and then both come up with identical new stories clearly indicates that they are lying about what happened.


So why are they lying? Why are both of them lying? And why didn't LE address this.

 

[Darly314]

That is all true but has no bearing on what I'm pointing out. This is the last time I'm addressing it because this is pointless and draining. The odds that two people would tell the same story, both recant the story and then both come up with identical new stories clearly indicates that they are lying about what happened.


So why are they lying? Why are both of them lying? And why didn't LE address this.

Arguing semantics I guess. Perhaps one, then of course both, as family members suspected someone they wished to cover for, or perhaps..............the classic "didn't want to be involved". Kitty Genovese's murder comes to mind. As for LE, there are many WHY DIDN'T they do _______ here. Because they had the killer(s) and thus any other investigation was unnecessary in their view. I do not find it draining of course, it gives me energy to debate endlessly; balancing a checkbook is draining ; )

 

[Venom]

No one else in the neighborhood reported hearing anything. Even those who lived closer. They lied. Why would they lie, why would they not want to talk to police, why would they run away? Why would their lie match crime scene evidence?

IIRC, their bedroom window was open a little, perhaps that's how they heard a scream and metal grating and no other neighbors heard anything.

 

[MyBelle]

We are not talking about suspects but witnesses.

Potential witnesses interviewed and determined to be of no value to the investigation in this case because of their conflicting stories.

If you ever get around to offering an intruder theory that applies to this case, I'd love to read it. Thanks.

 

[midwest mama]

The point is that JR did not and does not have the money he had before JBR passed. He is married to a very successful woman so all signs of wealth that you see are most likely coming from that.

From another post on WS some time back:

nypost JonBenet dad weds:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/jonbenet_dad_weds_1e02h4C5Mh2vJCDrrbvbWI

The twice-married Ramsey met Rousseaux, a twice-divorced, twice-bankrupt Las Vegas designer, at a pal's wedding in Denver two years ago.

Their wedding was a charmed turn of luck for Rousseaux, who five years ago had just $100 to her name and was $230,000 in debt, according to her 2005 bankruptcy filing.

In an earlier, 2003 bankruptcy filing, she and then-husband Bobby Joe Mays said they had just $38 in the bank.

 

[Anti-K]

Did Mr Stanton change his story? I don’t recall ever hearing that he did.

IIRC, Mrs Stanton was interviewed a week-or-so after the murder. She may have talked to the police on the 26th of Dec.

IIRC, when she was interviewed Stanton said that she didn’t report the scream because she was so shocked by the crime that she didn’t make the connection, and, that she had some doubts about the scream because none of her neighbors had heard anything.

IIRC, several years later Stanton reportedly was expressing uncertainty about what she had heard, and when she had heard it, etc.
.

So what we have is two different stories told by two different people: one heard a scream and, later on, one heard the sound of metal scraping.

One story remains unchanged – Mr Stanton’s.

One story went from “heard nothing” (because of shock and uncertainty) to “heard a scream” to uncertainty and doubt.

So, did Mrs Stanton at some point lie, or was Mrs Stanton a victim of her own memory and mind?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Now, let’s consider the Stantons as suspects. If they had committed the crime, than why would Mrs Stanton tell anyone that she had heard a scream? If they had committed the crime, why would Mr Stanton tell the police that he heard the sound of metal scraping? Wouldn’t they have just kept their mouths shut?
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

Now, let’s consider the Stantons as suspects. If they had committed the crime, than why would Mrs Stanton tell anyone that she had heard a scream? If they had committed the crime, why would Mr Stanton tell the police that he heard the sound of metal scraping? Wouldn’t they have just kept their mouths shut?
...

AK

I've addressed this before. First she didn't tell the police. She told a friend and the friend went to the police and told them.

But saying they "heard the scream" and having so much detail about hearing it in a way creates an "alibi.' If you were in your house and you heard it, you couldn't be at the scene right? But then the police show up at your door and you realize you've drawn attention to yourself and you shouldn't have said anything. So you tell a different story that you heard it two nights before and had made a mistake.

It could be that the details of what she supposedly said were exaggerated by media reports and she didn't get into detail.


However to me she didn't just say "I heard a scream" she said she woke up and woke her husband up and he said he heard metal scraping on concrete. And again. I know gossip flies fast around a neighborhood and that the cops really were not right in how they handled the crime scene. Perhaps people in the home heard the cops talking and spread it around. I don't know.

However it seems very odd to me that the husbands account matches the staging of the crime scene which is a detail I don't think was released until much later.

I've watched many crime scene shows of real life solving of cold cases and in most of the cases the cops figured out what happened by looking at who changed their story.


Say you decided to vandalize your neighbors property in the middle of the night. You go to their back yard and spray paint their pool deck with graffiti. Then you go home. The cops come and you are telling a friend, "Wow that's so weird, last night I heard a shout and it freaked me out. I woke up my husband and he listened as well. Then husband says "Yeah I heard rattling sounds and hissing." Then it turns out that spray paint cans make that sound.

You are saying you are in your room hearing things and have an alibi in your waking up your husband and him hearing sounds with you next to him. Both of you have alibied each other.

But then the cops start asking you questions and you realize that you have now involved yourself in the crime scene as a witness. You panic and say "No actually it wasn't that night, it was two nights earlier."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That is all true but has no bearing on what I'm pointing out. This is the last time I'm addressing it because this is pointless and draining. The odds that two people would tell the same story, both recant the story and then both come up with identical new stories clearly indicates that they are lying about what happened.


So why are they lying? Why are both of them lying? And why didn't LE address this.

You are making it more than it is. They may have both been scared or hesitant to get involved. That's not malicious. That's a normal response. They told a neighbor who decided to call police and then they told their story. If they are in the same house they would have the same experience yes?

To me this trying to make something an issue that isn't. The worst part is that the police dropped the ball.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.