Questions you'd like answers to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm having a hard time telling who was aware of the cord around the neck before the autopsy. I've read some accounts where it seemed the focus was more on the loose ones about the wrists than the one tightly around her neck. Did her clothing or position hide it when she was laid before the Christmas tree? I know she was promptly covered up by both a blanket and sweater, but this seems more to cover up a dead child than hide what had been done to her. I'd appreciate some clarity on this if anyone has some to offer.

I assume that everyone present in the house that morning was aware of the strangulation. JBR had been carried up from the basement and placed on the rug where everyone could see her. The cords around her wrist were probably just part of the 'staging' because they were too far apart (15" apart) to have restrained a 6 year old child.

Later somebody put an Avalanche sweater over her body and (I believe) a blanket, but not the one she had been found wrapped in. That was left in the basement.
 
I assume that everyone present in the house that morning was aware of the strangulation. JBR had been carried up from the basement and placed on the rug where everyone could see her. The cords around her wrist were probably just part of the 'staging' because they were too far apart (15" apart) to have restrained a 6 year old child.

I have been assuming this as well, but am now questioning that assumption. Reading several accounts of the reveal, I don't see any mention of the cord around the neck and it strikes me as odd. I'm not questioning that it was there, only whether or not it was visible. John carried her very awkwardly up the stairs so it's possible her top was bunched up higher than normal. The raised position of her arms may have also kept her collar high.
 
I still think the ransom note and the invitation of friends was simply a ploy to establish themselves as victims. A buffer between them and the police if you will.

Moving and covering the body is obviously not ideal but show me one piece of evidence that has become invalidated because of this. In fact, we actually have learned a lot by the presence of people like Fleet White about the suspicious behaviour of the Ramseys that day.

I've always liked this reasoning. The only danger here is to think too far ahead. We all know the outcome and think back through the timeline. It's just as important to know that John and Patsy didn't know what was going to happen. I'm not sure that John just couldn't stand waiting anymore. Anticipation of something happening is often worse than it actually happening. Let me pose a question: how many times has John committed these types of crimes and did he know in advance that he or Patsy hadn't left some type of clue around that would give it away?
 
One of the many curiosities of this case for me has been the role of the Stines. They weren't considered to be as close to the Ramseys as the Whites or the Fernies, yet they would become their closest allies after the murder. They relocated to Atlanta with them where Glen would go to work for John's new company and Susan Stine was even caught impersonating Beckner in emails to the press! I know there is a theory that their son was involved in JonBenet's death, but there is precious little to go on. It is notable that the Stines were not among the families called by Patsy after the 911 call, isn't it?

Hey AndHence, I ran across this regarding the Stines while trying to get through PW's book:

Susan Stine, whose family the Ramseys lived with for four months after the murder, found out what had happened on December 26 when she and her family arrived home from a movie that day. The phone rang and another friend said, “Did you hear what happened to the Ramseys? JonBenét was murdered!” “Everything was so crazy,” Susan reflected. “At the time, it’s something you would never have thought possible. Not someone going into a house and murdering a child. We were all dazed for weeks, just operating on automatic pilot.”


Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later.
 
I have been assuming this as well, but am now questioning that assumption. Reading several accounts of the reveal, I don't see any mention of the cord around the neck and it strikes me as odd. I'm not questioning that it was there, only whether or not it was visible. John carried her very awkwardly up the stairs so it's possible her top was bunched up higher than normal. The raised position of her arms may have also kept her collar high.

Good point!

I went back to check the new crime scene images we have from the Reelz Overkill documentary, which shows JBR lying on the carpet near the Xmas tree. There are images of her both with the blanket covering her and with it removed.

You are correct that the top was bunched up towards her face and the crew neck collar of her Gap top did somewhat obscure the ligature around her neck. It's entirely possible some people did not see that she was strangled by a cord.

Here is a link to the somewhat graphic picture still. I will not embed it out of respect for those posters who would prefer not to view the dead body.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/wcwjxtprq0aq6n3/jbrcsp03.png#

http://www.mediafire.com/view/w9kckh9fhwduhf1/jbrcsp04.png#
 
I was just reading this old article about the Ramseys' June 1998 interviews and I'm confused about something.
Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter said the interviews ended with an agreement that the Ramseys would provide "certain documents" to investigators.

Those could include medical, financial, and telephone records, said Adams County District Attorney Bob Grant, a member of Hunter's investigative team.
[snip]
Hunter would not comment on what, if any, new information was gained from the interviews that wrapped up Thursday. His office must also review interviews with JonBenet's 11-year-old brother, Burke, who was questioned in Atlanta June 10-12.

The need to analyze the new material "plus the identification of areas needing further investigation" likely will delay a decision about a grand jury, Hunter said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ramseys-answer-da-questions/
Am I forgetting something? I wasn't aware the Ramseys turned over "certain documents" after the interviews, did we ever learn what they were?
 
I think Patsy had bought the sleep outfit for an older niece and JonBenet liked them, asked if she could have them and Patsy said, o.k. I suppose Patsy thought JonBenet would grow into them.
 
I think Patsy had bought the sleep outfit for an older niece and JonBenet liked them, asked if she could have them and Patsy said, o.k. I suppose Patsy thought JonBenet would grow into them.

I think you are getting the details mixed up.

According to Patsy she bought a pack of 7 Days of the Week Bloomingdale undies for her niece Jenny. They were size 12-14. She couldn't, however, definitively remember whether she bought a similar pack for JBR - which would have been size 4-6 as all of the undies in her drawer were. The investigators made sure to point that out.

JBR was found in the 'Wednesday' over-sized Bloomies, the other pairs could not be located (although years later the Ramseys handed in what they claimed were the remaining pairs of the 12-14 pack). Nor were any more appropriately sized Bloomies ever found.

She was also discovered dressed in white long johns which were baggy and clearly intended for a male child due to the urination flap in the front. The well-fitted pink pj bottoms she had previously worn on Christmas morning (see photographs) were also not found.
 
I think you are getting the details mixed up.

According to Patsy she bought a pack of 7 Days of the Week Bloomingdale undies for her niece Jenny. They were size 12-14. She couldn't, however, definitively remember whether she bought a similar pack for JBR - which would have been size 4-6 as all of the undies in her drawer were. The investigators made sure to point that out.

JBR was found in the 'Wednesday' over-sized Bloomies, the other pairs could not be located (although years later the Ramseys handed in what they claimed were the remaining pairs of the 12-14 pack). Nor were any more appropriately sized Bloomies ever found.

She was also discovered dressed in white long johns which were baggy and clearly intended for a male child due to the urination flap in the front. The well-fitted pink pj bottoms she had previously worn on Christmas morning (see photographs) were also not found.

ZoriahNZ,
BBM: The retailers name of any of JonBenet's underwear taken from the house has never been released.

Is that important, you decide!

On the New York trip, Patsy realized during her interview that she was heading for a contradiction, so she invoked memory loss.

If Patsy had purchased a set of Bloomingdales size-12 for JonBenet then this means there should have been two sets of size-12 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

Yet Patsy says JonBenet requested the size-12's, so we can assume she never had her own set of size-12's?

Leading to the conclusion that Patsy purchased a set of size-6 Bloomingdales for JonBenet on her New York Trip?

Allowing the inference that BPD don't want to tell us about the status of the underwear since this might reveal that a pair of Wednesday size-6 underwear is missing from JonBenet's underwear drawer?

i.e. The pair that the size-12's replaced?


.
 
Not sure if this fits anywhere in the underwear theories, but it was noted that on one or more occasions, Fleet White delivered JonBenet home wearing Daphne's underwear as she'd had an accident while playing at their home.
 
Not sure if this fits anywhere in the underwear theories, but it was noted that on one or more occasions, Fleet White delivered JonBenet home wearing Daphne's underwear as she'd had an accident while playing at their home.
Wow - I have never heard that before.
 
Not sure if this fits anywhere in the underwear theories, but it was noted that on one or more occasions, Fleet White delivered JonBenet home wearing Daphne's underwear as she'd had an accident while playing at their home.

I remember reading that somewhere but can't recall the source. Do you remember?
 
Good point!

I went back to check the new crime scene images we have from the Reelz Overkill documentary, which shows JBR lying on the carpet near the Xmas tree. There are images of her both with the blanket covering her and with it removed.

You are correct that the top was bunched up towards her face and the crew neck collar of her Gap top did somewhat obscure the ligature around her neck. It's entirely possible some people did not see that she was strangled by a cord.

Here is a link to the somewhat graphic picture still. I will not embed it out of respect for those posters who would prefer not to view the dead body.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/wcwjxtprq0aq6n3/jbrcsp03.png#

http://www.mediafire.com/view/w9kckh9fhwduhf1/jbrcsp04.png#

With her head turned that way, the odd abrasion on her cheek was also not visible.
 
I remember reading that somewhere but can't recall the source. Do you remember?

It was in Steve Thomas's book, and the info came from Nedra.

"The grandmother also mentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to her best friend, Daphne White, and had come home with Fleet White carrying her soiled underwear, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties."
 
I was just reading this old article about the Ramseys' June 1998 interviews and I'm confused about something.

Am I forgetting something? I wasn't aware the Ramseys turned over "certain documents" after the interviews, did we ever learn what they were?

DFF, could it be the files referred to in this exchange at the end of JR's interview?

7 BRYAN MORGAN: No, we are done. We
8 have a lot of work to do in the future. I
9 will -- I will ask Ellis to deal directly with
10 you about the files we have. We have not
11 submitted everything we have because we tried to
12 cull them to a degree, they can sit down and
13 talk any time you wish, anything that we found
14 on the tip line, on any suspect. On any of the
15 above.
 
Thanks Cranberry, I think that's it! So basically they handed over "tips" aka nothing. I should have known it wouldn't be anything good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is kind of a long snippet but lays out what information the DA was after 18 months post murder, and the response from JR's attorney of whether it was already given, or was never asked for. With the politics between the DA/BPD/attorneys, alas, if only a Grand Jury had been convened early on.

22 LOU SMIT: Before we take a
23 break, Mike, what I would like to do and then we
24 will get back in, there is an area here, in
25 order to determine, a lot of things are going to
0601
1 have to be determined. Let's say you wrote out
2 a check for duct tape. People want to know if
3 you did or didn't. We are going to need a lot
4 of records from you, do you have any objection
5 to signing waivers for records? I mean,
6 yourself.
7 Now I will tell you just some of
8 the records we are going to need okay, and I
9 made kind a list of them and they are just
10 general, we don't have specifics. But we are
11 going to need, for instance, we are going to
12 need your bank records, if we can get them. We
13 are going to need credit card records, to see if
14 you charged anything on credit cards.
15 We are going to need movie rental
16 records, just to see if you rented "Speed" and
17 "Dirty Harry" or any of those movies. We are
18 going to need --
19 JOHN RAMSEY: You don't have any of
20 that, those kind of records now?
21 LOU SMIT: Certain records
22 require permission to do that or we need a
23 subpoena for certain records, so we can
24 either have it where it's given
25 voluntarily or sometimes I have to go
0602
1 through a subpoena, and that's one of the
2 Grand Jury things that would need to be
3 done. But again we are asking here for
4 these things and it's up to you whether
5 you want to --
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Absolutely no
7 problem with that.
8 LOU SMIT: We are going to
9 need any records on telephone or cell
10 phone records, okay, all of the phone
11 records that you got. We may need to have
12 some Access Graphic business records that
13 show stuff that you may have purchased
14 through Access Graphics. We are going to
15 need your home phone records. We have got
16 some of these already.
17 We are going to maybe need
18 like I say some company financial records.
19 We are going to need medical records, both
20 from you and from Patsy, if we can get
21 that, to show any type of pathology that
22 you may have in regards to this. In other
23 words, if somebody out there says hey,
24 they went off the deep end about four or
25 five years ago, nobody knows about this,
0603
1 we have to find that out. And that's for
2 you and for Patsy. I hope you understand
3 this. It's not --
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Just I say
5 I am surprised you don't have all that.
6 MIKE KANE: See, these have to be
7 realized a lot of times, personal things, I just
8 want to know how you feel about it?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: It's not an
10 issue.
11 BRYAN MORGAN: I am going to say I
12 have had a discussion with Peter Hofstrom this
13 morning about this long list and told him
14 subject to conversation with my client I believe
15 that the likelihood is very strong that we will
16 produce all of that. We are not in a position
17 to say if you do this, we will do that. And we
18 want to get this thing moving.
19 On the other hand, you said at the
20 beginning of all this the time will come when we
21 can ask some questions and I have got some
22 questions, and I really think finally finally
23 when you're finished we are entitled to know and
24 I want this to proceed in good faith basis on
25 each side and I told Peter and I will tell John
0604
1 and I will say it for everyone, I have a real
2 problem with certain kinds of medical records.
3 These people are entitled to a
4 privacy to try to recover from what they have
5 been through, and that's a very serious issue
6 for me, so we are going to discuss that and make
7 a reasoned decision on it. I think you will
8 find that every time anybody has asked us for
9 anything in your office you have gotten it. I
10 think you will get virtually everything you have
11 described with the possible exception of
12 personal medical records that I think John and
13 Patsy are at least entitled to make a reasoned
14 decision on, Detective Smit, with respect to
15 privacy about things they need to continue this
16 healing process.
17 Other than that, I don't think it's
18 going to be an issue, but I have already
19 discussed these matters with Hofstrom and he
20 knows how we operate, and there won't be a delay
21 on this either, we will move on it, we will give
22 you an answer.
23 LOU SMIT: This is what has taken
24 so much time in this whole thing. By the time
25 we go through lawyers one way, through the
0605
1 lawyers on the other side, even the police
2 department has run into this because they have
3 tried to get records and it goes through this
4 process and you say hey, wait a minute, we can't
5 do these things and then the process is delayed.
6 I am had not saying that's not the
7 way it it's supposed to be. It's just that it
8 gives the impression that people are holding
9 back.
10 JOHN RAMSEY: From my
11 perspective, I have never ever told these guys
12 not to provide whatever is asked for.
13 BRYAN MORGAN: As the record now
14 stands your office has never asked us for
15 anything that we have not given. I am pretty
16 clear on that.
17 LOU SMIT: And I have no doubt
18 about that.
19 BRYAN MORGAN: I know you have got
20 some phone records, I know we pulled all those
21 together. I don't think this is going to be a
22 problem. But we are going to take some time to
23 think about some islands of privacy that I think
24 you're entitled to have to continue your healing
25 process, and I am very serious about that. So
0606
1 we will answer that in my view before the week's
2 out.
3 LOU SMIT: Let's take a break.
4 It's about time to change the camera.
5 (Recess taken).
 
When was the 911 audio released to the public, in what way was it released, by who, and to who was it released?

Is the readily available 911 audio online the actual version publicly released? Or did a "middle man" handle it before releasing it publicly?

Is there any real possibility that the 911 audio that is publicly available has been slightly edited to make a couple of key phrases very difficult for people to decipher?

PS: Thanks for all the answers you all have been providing. It is greatly appreciated.
 
Lin Wood was the first to release it with the intention of proving it didn't have any dialogue after the operator's Patsy Patsy Patsy. There has been speculation that he manipulated or erased part of it before releasing it but there's no indication that happened. In fact, of the two media outlets he shopped his "BPD are lying about the 911 tape" story to, one declined to air the story because their lab detected some speaking at the end - it was just too garbled to understand. Since this is in line with the FBI and Secret Service's findings on the tape, I assume the tape was not tampered with before release. It's just that Aerospace was the only lab with the technology for such an enhancement and LW was confident enough it wouldn't be replicated.

I wrote a long post about LW's press tour on this page ( http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?116882-911-Call/page29 ) with some links to LW talking about where the tape came from, etc if you want to know more. I thought it was interesting Mike Kane basically accused LW of altering the tape to mislead the public. Though I doubt it happened I certainly wouldn't put it past him, or his pal and source Mary Lacy.

I know Tricia from FFJ also got a copy of the tape from the DAs office that she posted online. I do not know if there are any other sources for the copies we currently have access to. I wish they'd just release the damn Aerospace enhancement already.
 
Was there any known interaction between Burke and Patsy on the morning of 12/26 once others were present?

When police arrived, Burke was in his room and stayed there until ushered out by Fleet and John who told the police he knew/saw nothing as they left. Was Patsy in on this decision? Did she even know he was being taken out of the house at that moment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
468
Total visitors
664

Forum statistics

Threads
625,741
Messages
18,509,117
Members
240,835
Latest member
Selune
Back
Top