John Ramsey and ransom note...

[CloudedTruth]

notes taken by the responding officer (french) that he checked all doors and found them locked are not speculation. neither are JR's statements to two different officers that morning that he checked all the doors and found them all locked. i realize there is conflicting information around, but the information that deserves the greatest weight says the doors were locked. i think it's telling that lou smit, a diehard IDI believer with access to all the files, focused on the broken window rather than any doors.

they failed to secure the scene among other things, and it may well be the reason the case has never been closed or prosecuted. i'm wary of general statements about the police messing up, because they can be construed to cast doubt on the evidence that was gathered in the morning, which i see no reason to doubt. BPD's inept decision to leave LA alone on the scene for hours and ignore repeated calls for backup has no bearing on whether, e.g., the guys who took pictures and dusted for prints in the morning did it right.

i don't think an intruder is impossible, and i'm careful never to say so. what i will say is it looks pretty unlikely and the more i learn about this case, the less likely it looks. your scenario accounts for a lot of issues, but your intruder would still need to avoid leaving footprints in the snow when he leaves. and know the amount of JR's bonus.

putting so much stock in the DNA worries me, because, AIUI, it's a kind of DNA evidence that is easily transferred and contaminated, and it's not clear these samples are connected to the crime.

Lou Smit based all of his conclusions upon looking at crime scene photos. One of his most ridiculous statements was flagging a picture of the basement window open as being suspicious. He failed to mention that the picture was taken several hours later and that police had opened it in order to take pictures that showed the undisturbed cobwebs and debris still in the window sill. He did the same thing trying to rebut the first responders claims that there were no footprints seen by using a picture taken well after the sun had come up and much of the layer of light snow on pathways had already melted. It's truly laughable and then he complained that no one took him seriously.

I too am wary of statements that pile on about police mistakes. Yes, they did make mistakes in particular on that first day. But it should be noted for context that they thought they were dealing with a kidnapping, not a murder. And they had been ordered to treat the Ramseys as victims. This greatly impacted how things went that first day, and was noted by others responding later to the scene who recognized that specifically. But from then on, the police did their jobs investigating every possible lead, despite what JR likes to promote. It's also important to acknowledge how the DA and his office were a huge part of this case. They obstructed the investigation, they leaked stories to paint a negative picture of the BPD (DA Hunter actually admitted this), they offered unheard of and extraordinary concessions to the defense so much so that an FBI agent said he felt Hunter was guilty of "prosecutorial malfeasance". That's a pretty damning conclusion IMO.

The DNA evidence has been exaggerated IMO. There is such a very small amount that in reality could have come from anywhere any place and at any time. PR admitted that JB had not had a bath that day. She could not remember when it was that JB had last bathed. Neither PR or JR knew if JB had washed her hands before dinner or at any time that day. She was seen playing on the floor of the White's home that night that was full of guests enjoying the party. JB needed help wiping herself and would holler out for anyone that might be near to wipe her.

 

[gumshoe1]

notes taken by the responding officer (french) that he checked all doors and found them locked are not speculation. neither are JR's statements to two different officers that morning that he checked all the doors and found them all locked. i realize there is conflicting information around, but the information that deserves the greatest weight says the doors were locked. i think it's telling that lou smit, a diehard IDI believer with access to all the files, focused on the broken window rather than any doors.

Good point.

Doesn't the fact that JR was originally adamant that all the doors were locked tell us something about what happened that night? If John was part of the cover up, wouldn't he leave a door unlocked and then tell the police that he forgot to lock a door and the intruder must have entered the house and exited the house through that door? That makes me think PDI or BDI.

i don't think an intruder is impossible, and i'm careful never to say so. what i will say is it looks pretty unlikely and the more i learn about this case, the less likely it looks. your scenario accounts for a lot of issues, but your intruder would still need to avoid leaving footprints in the snow when he leaves. and know the amount of JR's bonus.

That's how I see it. I am not 100% sure that there was not an intruder. But i am about 99.9% sure RDI.

To use the legal standard for conviction in criminal cases in America, I think that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that RDI. One tenth of one percent of doubt is not a reasonable doubt, IMO.

If I were the Boulder Police, I would not be able to arrest any of the Ramseys because I don't know which Ramsey did it.

putting so much stock in the DNA worries me, because, AIUI, it's a kind of DNA evidence that is easily transferred and contaminated, and it's not clear these samples are connected to the crime.

Agreed.

I think that the BPD should submit the DNA samples for genetic genealogy just because we cannot be 100% certain there was no intruder.

 

[Lebowski]

Good point.

Doesn't the fact that JR was originally adamant that all the doors were locked tell us something about what happened that night? If John was part of the cover up, wouldn't he leave a door unlocked and then tell the police that he forgot to lock a door and the intruder must have entered the house and exited the house through that door? That makes me think PDI or BDI.

that's one of a number of things john says and does in the early morning that undermine the IDI theory. the pattern makes me think two things:

1) that those statements were truthful. he wasn't helping himself legally by making them. why not at least feign uncertainty about doors being locked or keys being missing? innocent or guilty, his legal incentive is to make an intruder look more likely. people generally don't lie to hurt their own interests. and yet, he makes definitive statements to the police that undercut IDI.

2) that john wasn't in the loop. at least not at that point. whoever wrote the RN was promoting IDI. john wasn't.

other things that IMO point to JR being out of the loop are LA thinking he seemed rested, and the fact that the 911 call was placed before PR had a chance to shower and put on fresh clothes. someone around here (fr. brown?) believes specifically that PR ran out of time working on the note, heard JR get up, and had to accelerate the timeline. she was forced to "discover" the note and make the call before she was ready. IMO, that has the ring of truth and fits the facts elegantly.

That's how I see it. I am not 100% sure that there was not an intruder. But i am about 99.9% sure RDI.

To use the legal standard for conviction in criminal cases in America, I think that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that RDI. One tenth of one percent of doubt is not a reasonable doubt, IMO.

If I were the Boulder Police, I would not be able to arrest any of the Ramseys because I don't know which Ramsey did it.

one other possibility that occurs to me just for explaining how an intruder could get in and out (not necessarily addressing every issue with IDI) is that they found an unlocked door to enter, and then locked it on the way out. it would be a bit odd, but not crazy or far-fetched, AFAICT. it wouldn't make sense to do something that implicates the ramseys or conceals the intruder's exit route after writing that RN, but perps' actions don't always make sense. could have been an unconscious thing, e.g., force-of-habit if the person always does that at home.

do we know anything that's inconsistent with this scenario? the doors all being locked at 6 AM wouldn't contradict it. seems less unlikely than my other alternative scenarios (lock picking and secretly copying a key).

one would still have to address lack of footprints in the snow, etc., but it has me second-guessing how well we can rule out an intruder's entry itself.

Agreed.

I think that the BPD should submit the DNA samples for genetic genealogy just because we cannot be 100% certain there was no intruder.

it'll be someone in thailand who folded the underwear before packaging.

 

[bdsjr]

putting so much stock in the DNA worries me, because, AIUI, it's a kind of DNA evidence that is easily transferred and contaminated, and it's not clear these samples are connected to the crime.

But at least that DNA will have a person or persons attached to it, and that information will tell a story, whether it is a viable suspect or not. It will at least answer some questions, maybe causing new questions to come forward. Nothing else related to the immediate family will advance this case after almost three decades so there is nothing left but the DNA to put stock into. I think what I am trying to say is that all of the suspicions of the Ramseys are already there. Those suspicions cannot be added to or subtracted from by anyone with decision making power. There is nothing left there to say about them as John Ramsey will not be indicted, tried, or convicted on anything that currently exists no matter what anyone believes happened. However, I really believe that there will be a break in the DNA this calendar year, and I believe those results will give us some answers. Good debate.

 

[Lebowski]

imo, the most likely perp is already dead, the 2nd-most likely was too young at the time to ever be prosecuted, and the 3rd-most likely is too old now to ever see the inside of a jail cell. in legal terms, it's almost a moot point. unless it really was an intruder.

still worth solving, as always. it's mostly curiosity that drives my interest in this case as well as any others.

my perspective is a bit weird, because i remember when this happened -- i was in college -- and i remember hearing bits along the way like the false confession guy, but for 30 years i tried to avoid learning about it as much as possible. there's something in me that's repelled by big media sensations. i made a point of never knowing anything about OJ either. ... i got interested in this case only recently, via a general interest in true crime, and a lot of people listing it as one of the most baffling ones or the one they most wish they could learn the answer to.