Patsy and the 911 Call

[Brefie]

Sorry if this question has been hashed over a million times - but have any prints been identified from the iced tea glass?

 

[capps]

Brefie,

In posts #195 and #210 in this thread,it states that the BPD never released any information about fingerprints on the big spoon or waterglass/teaglass.

 

[Brefie]

Brefie,

In posts #195 and #210 in this thread,it states that the BPD never released any information about fingerprints on the big spoon or waterglass/teaglass.

Thanks - I knew I had seen it recently - I thought I was dreaming.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think it's a matter of the way the question is asked.

It should have been, WHEN were you first aware that Burke was awake that morning?

When did you first SEE Burke? WHERE?

Burke could have later told his father about his faking sleep........

 

[Brefie]

I'm with ya, Linda. If it weren't for the coulda, woulda shoulda's, this crime would be long solved.

 

[tipper]

I think it's a matter of the way the question is asked.

It should have been, WHEN were you first aware that Burke was awake that morning?

When did you first SEE Burke? WHERE?

Burke could have later told his father about his faking sleep........

I'm not sure when he'd have told them though. That's one of those odd things that really doesn't fit in anywhere. Patsy was a basket case, John was devastated; I can't think of a way or reason for Burke to pipe up out of nowhere with "Oh, by the way, Dad. Remember when you thought I was asleep...." He was honest about it when he was questioned and until I hear his voice for myself on the 911 tape I will go with what he has said under oath: That he wasn't there when the 911 call was made.

 

[capps]

Speaking of Burke being questioned under oath,I'm still amazed at the fact that John and Patsy were not called in for questioning by the grand jury.I can't seem to figure that one out.

 

[Nehemiah]

Speaking of Burke being questioned under oath,I'm still amazed at the fact that John and Patsy were not called in for questioning by the grand jury.I can't seem to figure that one out.

BlueCrab will say that the GJ solved the case and there was no need to call in J/P.

However, I'm like you, Capps...that seemed like the golden opportunity and for some reason didn't happen.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

I agree with you, the pineapple is explicable and places JonBenet in the breakfast bar after she was placed sleeping in her bed!

Does this mean in the absence of any evidence that at this point in time there were no other friends of JonBenet's brother present at the snacking of the pineapple and the sipping of the tea?

UKGuy,

The pineapple, the glass of tea, and the personal seating places at the breakfast room table, are fairly convincing items of evidence that place BR and JBR secretly together downstairs after the parents had gone to bed. The puzzling question is WHY they had snuck downstairs together in the middle of the night and appeared to be waiting.

Were they waiting for someone to show up in accordance with a preplanned rendevous so they could let him into the house? If so, who were they clandestinely waiting for? Were they waiting for Santa's promised special visit? Were they waiting for DS a/o NI to show up? Were they waiting for JAR to appear?

There is evidence of a fifth person having been in the house that night. There are too many crime scene items missing and it's likely that only a fifth person could have removed so many items of evidence.

BlueCrab

 

[why_nutt]

Speaking of Burke being questioned under oath,I'm still amazed at the fact that John and Patsy were not called in for questioning by the grand jury.I can't seem to figure that one out.

The grand jury had the 1997 and 1998 interviews, perhaps even the outtakes from the January 1st interview on CNN. Perhaps they decided that the specific questions they wanted answered had already been asked and not answered in 1997 and 1998, and therefore John and Patsy were not very likely to start answering whatever questions they had no answers for previously. I mean, put yourself in the position of being a grand juror. You want to account for the pineapple. The Ramseys have already claimed twice each that they knew nothing about it. Bringing them in and asking them again is probably not going to get you the answer, "Oh, the pine-APPLE! Oh, yes, I can tell you all about that."

 

[BlueCrab]

LE...Burke was awake
LE.. We can connect you to the murder with forensic evidence
LE..Burke owned hi-tecs
LE..No footprints in the snow means no intruder
LE..No open windows or doors
LE..No signs of forced entry
LE..John was missing for a time while Arndt was on duty
LE..Burke's voice on 911 tape
MORE? and all lies

sissi,

Every item in your above laundry list of things you call lies happens to be the TRUTH, and are supported by credible evidence and witnesses.

 

[Zman]

They changed their story in an NE story circa 2002. It came out while I was on holiday in Florida because I remember reading it on the plane on the way home.

Sometimes I feel that the discussion forums are like "Remind me of a man"

Remind me of a man
What man?
A man with power
What power?
The power of voodoo
Who-doo?
You do
Do what?
Remind me of a man
What man? ....

i.e. a question gets asked. It gets answered. A little time elapses and then the same question gets asked again - by the same people.

Once again the questioned goes unanswered.

The question is where can I read that PR and JR changed their story? In their own words.
Not who said they changed their story.

Like politcian's propaganda, "stay on topic" just keep saying it until everyone believes it to be true.

What OF may claim or DCW is only hearsay.
Does anyone have the NE article or a link to it?
I am willing to learn.

 

[BlueCrab]

The grand jury had the 1997 and 1998 interviews, perhaps even the outtakes from the January 1st interview on CNN. Perhaps they decided that the specific questions they wanted answered had already been asked and not answered in 1997 and 1998, and therefore John and Patsy were not very likely to start answering whatever questions they had no answers for previously. I mean, put yourself in the position of being a grand juror. You want to account for the pineapple. The Ramseys have already claimed twice each that they knew nothing about it. Bringing them in and asking them again is probably not going to get you the answer, "Oh, the pine-APPLE! Oh, yes, I can tell you all about that."

why_nutt,

As you know, there's a big difference between voluntarily answering police questions in the 1997 and 1998 interviews, where no oath is taken and you can lie without anything happening -- and answering questions under oath by a grand jury where you MUST answer the questions and answer them truthfully or be charged with a crime.

By October of 1999 the grand jurors obviously had all the information they needed after 13 months of investigating or they would have called in John and Patsy Ramsey to testify. John and Patsy are the two most important witnesses in the case and their testimony would have been more significant than all of the other 100 witnesses put together. That alone tells me the jurors found out who did it and did not need the Ramseys' testimony. In my opinion the jurors obtained what amounted to confessions from children too young to prosecute, and under Colorado law that brought down the curtain forever on the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation.

BlueCrab

 

[Zman]

This is clutching at straws, doncha think?

No, I polygraph is not a proven 100% accurate test. Without a lawyer maybe MR. Klaas was unaware of this fact.

JonBenet would not have come downstairs quietly, sit at the breakfast room table, and snack on pineapple with a stranger.

True. But she might accept it from Santa.
Without a theory to defend myself I can find a few "reasonalbe" theories. Although I really haven't worked the "pineapple" thing out myself.

The killer/s "snacked" themselves at the table waiting for the R's to fall asleep. Wearing gloves so not to leave prints anywhere.
Dressed as Santa one of them goes to get JBR from upstairs bringing the pineapple as a gift of sorts.
JBR wakes up to go with santa and accepts a few pineapple chunks on the way down to see her present.

I wonder just how much pineapple there was in her system? I don't think an amount was ever noted?

 

[Jayelles]

Once again the questioned goes unanswered.

The question is where can I read that PR and JR changed their story? In their own words.
Not who said they changed their story.

Like politcian's propaganda, "stay on topic" just keep saying it until everyone believes it to be true.

What OF may claim or DCW is only hearsay.
Does anyone have the NE article or a link to it?
I am willing to learn.

No Zman. The question has been answered...over and over again. Some people keep on asking it though - as though a period of non-discussion would nullify the facts.

The NE interview WAS in the Ramseys' own words. They changed their story and admitted that Burke had been awake.

For years we have seen evidence of Ramsey lies - we have hashed them out on the forums over ..... and over again. Posted the proof, references and sources. Still, despite the evidence (most recently on national television) the inevitable poster will come along and say "Show me where they lied".

 

[why_nutt]

As you know, there's a big difference between voluntarily answering police questions in the 1997 and 1998 interviews, where no oath is taken and you can lie without anything happening -- and answering questions under oath by a grand jury where you MUST answer the questions and answer them truthfully or be charged with a crime.

Actually, even under oath before a grand jury, a person being questioned is not going to magically feel compelled to answer questions truthfully, especially if the answers would be at odds with previous statements. At best, a person who has made false and unsworn statements in the past is going to take the opportunity to commit to those falsehoods under oath, so that he or she can take the position, "I have always said this and always will because that is my statement, I stand by it, and nobody can make me change." Goodness knows we have all seen heinous criminals stand by their statements of their innocence when the facts prove otherwise. In my opinion, the grand jurors may have come to a collective decision that they sensed the Ramseys were that sort of person, that having committed to their stories of not knowing anything about what was done to JonBenet, they would not be any more forthcoming even under oath.

That said, I can still give your BDI theory a little wiggle room by using the same dynamics to explain why the grand jury did question Burke. In his case, they must have seen some eyebrow-raising discrepancies among his various interviews, and wanted to have him come in and explain these under oath. Being young, he would not yet have an adult tendency to commit to a set of stated facts and then stake his reputation on sticking to them. If he then told them things which incriminated him, well, you can see how a Colorado grand jury would not have the intestinal fortitude to push that particular indictment, not to mention also avoiding the creation of a media circus easily ten times larger than the one which already cursed Boulder.

 

[BlueCrab]

I wonder just how much pineapple there was in her system? I don't think an amount was ever noted?

Zman,

There wasn't much pineapple in her system. What there was was all in the upper portion of the small intestine, barely chewed and mostly undigested. Judging from its condition and location in the small intestine, I estimate it had been eaten about one hour prior to her death. There was no food in the stomach nor any other food in the small intestine. The cracked crab meal, eaten at least 5 or 6 hours earlier at the White's, had been processed into soft fecal matter and was in the large intestine.

BlueCrab

 

[Brefie]

Once again the questioned goes unanswered.

Does anyone have the NE article or a link to it?
I am willing to learn.

Really? What's this then??

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

I first posted it last night. Scroll up.

 

[Brefie]

I don't know that BR & JBR were waiting, necessarily, although it does make sense that a fifth person took away missing evidence.

For some reason I had never really noticed that no fingerprint info on the tea glass were released.That and the fact that JR & PR were not called by the GJ does it for me. I (think LOL) I am now decided that, IMO, Burke did it. I haven't thought it ALL through - so have at me!

 

[tipper]

The Ramseys did change their story from Burke being asleep to Burke pretending to be asleep. Just as BPD must have clarified somewhere that he was not actually asleep when the officer looked in on him. It wasn’t a lie if at the time they said it they believed him to be asleep. End of story. They aren’t changing to account for him being on the tape. They (and Burke) still say he wasn’t downstairs when the 911 call was made.

The wholesale use of the word lie by the anti-Ramsey posters is what make the discussion go round and round. A lie is a deliberate untruth with the intent to deceive for one gain or another. There is no gain for the Ramseys whether Burke is awake and in bed or asleep and in bed.