RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[THE BUNK]

I'm not amazed that you don't have paper cuts from dictionaries or books on the case.

Thankfully you cannot get paper cuts digitally. Thanks for the concern. Quite the christian thing for you to do.

Thanks for letting me know your stance on this case and what excellent information you bring to this case, BB. You have been an inspiration and I believe you will be everybit as helpful to this case as Michael Butterfield has been to the Zodiac Case. God Bless you and May the Lord Shine on You! AMEN!

 

[Linda7NJ]

That would require the police to question Burke on how broke the glass. An interview that may lead to...other questions.

From a BDI, point of view, the idea of Burke violently smashing something in anger may have worried either Patsy or John. They probably would have preferred to avoid any direction being placed towards Burke.

If Jonbenet broke the window, the next question is why Jonbenet would be involved or perform act that would lead to a window being broken. Was she angry? Was she trying to prevent someone from attacking her?



I'm amazed the perp didn't cut himself trying to get through that window.

The window and the impossibility anyone came through it.
Crime scene video

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

Thanks, Linda.

Questions I have regarding the rope and the masking tape.

1. What housework or garden work would require one to purchase that amount of rope and masking tape?

2. If the rope and the masking tape are not the Ramsey's, where was the Ramsey's own tape and rope?

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks, Linda.

Questions I have regarding the rope and the masking tape.

1. What housework or garden work would require one to purchase that amount of rope and masking tape?

2. If the rope and the masking tape are not the Ramsey's, where was the Ramsey's own tape and rope?

It was a small amount of tape and cord (not rope). The items were bought at a local hardware store (McGuckins)- there was a receipt belonging to Patsy showing items matching the cord and tape in price and department. I doubt either was used for gardening, but they are certainly common household items most of us have. There had been discussion going back years that Patsy may have used both items to make a sling to carry her rolled-up paintings. As a former art student, I had made slings like that too- roll up the canvas or watercolor into a tube, tape it closed and run a cord or string through the tube long enough to make a sling that fits over your shoulder and tie it. An easy and lightweight way to carry unframed paintings. Patsy liked to paint- this is speculation, but she make have intended to make these slings to carry painting to Charlevoix- either as gifts or to continue to work on them. I doubt they were purchased for the purpose of using them to kill JB- I do not believe her death was planned at all.

 

[Anti-K]

“Among the items on Patsy’s December 9 receipt was an item from the builder’s hardware department. The price was $1.99. On the December 2 slip, there was an item from the garden department. It was $1.99. Duct tape also sold for $1.99. We had no way of knowing what she had bought.” ~ Thomas; p. 120

Let me repeat Thomas: We had no way of knowing what she had bought.

Cord of this type is not an item one would find in a gardening department. It is found in the camping department. Notice the Thomas claims the receipts were from the garden department and the builder’s hardware department. Also note: We had no way of knowing what she had bought.

Also, BPD purchased cord from Boulder Army Surplus (do they have a gardening department?).
<snip>

"Yeah, they came in - and whatever they bought, they bought," Long said.
The surplus store is at 1545 Pearl St., just past the east end of the Downtown Mall.
The 1/4-inch-wide Stansport cord - which comes packaged in lengths of 50 and 100 feet and often is used for camping or outdoor activities - also is available at McGuckin Hardware.
Sources said Boulder investigators only purchased the nylon cord from the Boulder Army Store, not at McGuckin Hardware.
<snip>
http://tinyurl.com/mhy3zkr
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It was a small amount of tape and cord (not rope). The items were bought at a local hardware store (McGuckins)- there was a receipt belonging to Patsy showing items matching the cord and tape in price and department. I doubt either was used for gardening, but they are certainly common household items most of us have. There had been discussion going back years that Patsy may have used both items to make a sling to carry her rolled-up paintings. As a former art student, I had made slings like that too- roll up the canvas or watercolor into a tube, tape it closed and run a cord or string through the tube long enough to make a sling that fits over your shoulder and tie it. An easy and lightweight way to carry unframed paintings. Patsy liked to paint- this is speculation, but she make have intended to make these slings to carry painting to Charlevoix- either as gifts or to continue to work on them. I doubt they were purchased for the purpose of using them to kill JB- I do not believe her death was planned at all.

It was &#8220;a small amount of tape and cord (not rope)&#8221; used. But, the amount purchased, regardless of who purchased it, would have been a greater amount. The tape would have been form a roll of tape and the cord would have been from a larger length.
There is no evidence that the Ramseys purchased these items, and there is no evidence that these items &#8211; the larger amount &#8211; were ever in the Ramsey home.
...

AK

 

[Frigga]

It was &#8220;a small amount of tape and cord (not rope)&#8221; used. But, the amount purchased, regardless of who purchased it, would have been a greater amount. The tape would have been form a roll of tape and the cord would have been from a larger length.
There is no evidence that the Ramseys purchased these items, and there is no evidence that these items &#8211; the larger amount &#8211; were ever in the Ramsey home.
...

AK

BBM Many of us here, including myself, disagree.

 

[gramcracker]

moved from IDI thread (sorry for importing your post, reedus: but, context)

In my experience, it's not about one side or the other "setting the ground rules". It is about both sides coming to a mutual agreement as to the location, duration, frequency and access to reports/statements. Very typically, that all takes time. The several months (if I remember correctly, it was the end of April or May) is bordering on being lengthy but not so long that it threw up red flags for me. I've seen it take longer to get all of the "ground rules" agreed to with LE. Typically, a lawyer is going to want a comfortable surrounding (their conference room), is going to give LE an hour or 2 but that's it in any one session, is not going to allow endless sessions and absolutely wants to have a copy of prior statements. Typically, LE doesn't want any of those things. If things get contentious between the lawyer and LE in hammering out those agreements, it will drag things out. But no, all of those things you list are absolutely exactly what the lawyer is supposed to be working out with LE.

that all sounds quite reasonable but it's a distortion/whitewash of what actually happened. the lengthy delay before the first interview was due to the fact that one side most definitely was setting ALL of the ground rules with no room for negotiation, and demanding concessions commonly sought by suspects rather than witnesses

this was not a public crime such as a bank robbery or a mugging or a hit-and-run auto accident. their child was murdered in her own home and, rather than assisting LE in a timely manner, they concentrated their time and money and effort in forcing circumstances beneficial to themselves

there was natural suspicion to begin with because the majority of crimes against children in their homes are committed by family members. that suspicion could easily have evaporated with proper cooperation. I don't need to list the many names of parents in similar circumstances who gladly and rapidly did everything they possibly could to allow LE to clear them and move forward

they didn't merely refuse to answer questions without benefit of counsel present, they just plain refused to answer questions. period

the way that they and their legal team conducted themselves from Day One is what moved them from the category of witnesses to suspects, let alone what transpired as the weeks and months ticked away (December - April)

behaving as suspects rather than witnesses is the biggest "tell" in this case. I would advise them to avoid playing poker, unless they don't mind consistently losing

 

[reedus23]

moved from IDI thread (sorry for importing your post, reedus: but, context)



that all sounds quite reasonable but it's a distortion/whitewash of what actually happened. the lengthy delay before the first interview was due to the fact that one side most definitely was setting ALL of the ground rules with no room for negotiation, and demanding concessions commonly sought by suspects rather than witnesses

this was not a public crime such as a bank robbery or a mugging or a hit-and-run auto accident. their child was murdered in her own home and, rather than assisting LE in a timely manner, they concentrated their time and money and effort in forcing circumstances beneficial to themselves

there was natural suspicion to begin with because the majority of crimes against children in their homes are committed by family members. that suspicion could easily have evaporated with proper cooperation. I don't need to list the many names of parents in similar circumstances who gladly and rapidly did everything they possibly could to allow LE to clear them and move forward

they didn't merely refuse to answer questions without benefit of counsel present, they just plain refused to answer questions. period

the way that they and their legal team conducted themselves from Day One is what moved them from the category of witnesses to suspects, let alone what transpired as the weeks and months ticked away (December - April)

behaving as suspects rather than witnesses is the biggest "tell" in this case. I would advise them to avoid playing poker, unless they don't mind consistently losing

First off, I have no problems with my post being imported. As I said in the other thread, relatively new to "educating" myself on JonBenet's case and the one thing that obviously struck me right away is how comparable it is to the WM3 case insofar as lines are drawn and positions deeply entrenched and I get it. But it does make it tough in some situations when trying to hash out thoughts, having to bounce from one thread to another to avoid sparks by discussing an issue in the "wrong" thread. Long way of saying, no worry whatsover.

The main point of my post is that, not knowing EXACTLY what was said between any of the parties, I can only relate to what my experiences have been. I'm not doubting you because you are surely more versed on this case than myself, but I can give you one example that tells me it wasn't one sided. If I recall correctly, once the Ramsey's eventually were interviewed, the interviews took place at the station, not at the attorney's offices. That would have been one of the more important things I would have insisted on was that the interviews would be conducted in the lawyer's offices where the clients are more comfortable. So I'm not so sure to say it was all one sided. Again, that's not to say the Ramsey's weren't over-reaching. They probably were to an extent in their demands. But rarely have I ever seen things one sided. I suspect LE was also making demands (like even location) that most attorneys just wouldn't acquiesce to.

It seems to me that a majority of the rest of your post expresses your opinions and you are every bit entitled to hold those opinions so I won't try to change those. Suffice it to say we simply place different levels of importance to the same actions.

Now, I hope I don't get into trouble for posting this here. It seemed too comical for me to import your post back to the other thread. Thanks though for the good discussion on it. Like I said, I'm still educating myself and trying to take it ALL in.

 

[gramcracker]

^^^ OK, I'm glad we're good

in the spirit of informing rather than correcting (truly): no interviews/appearances were ever conducted at BPD, which was the PD with jurisdiction, and no depositions re JB were ever conducted. there were two depos re civil matters

April '97 - DA's office/Boulder (interview re JB)
June '98 - Broomfield, CO PD (interview re JB)
August '00 - atty Lin Wood's office/Atlanta (interview re JB)

October '98 - Denver (depo re Nat'l Enquirer civil suit)
December '01 - Gallo court reporting offices/Atlanta (depo re Chris Wolf civil suit)

PR/JR provided handwriting samples in their home during the first morning, before JB's body was discovered

on Dec 28th (Day Three) they provided nontestimonial evidence (photos, fingerprints, hair samples, etc) at the Justice Center (courthouse/DA's office). which was the same day their legal team first materialized, with instructions that all questions were to be submitted in writing via the DA's office. so if BPD accepted that it would be: LE --> the DA --> the Ramseys/their attys --> the DA --> LE, denying The Investigators the opportunity to question them separately, to observe body language, demeanor, tone, etc

the CBI could not conclusively eliminate PR as the RN scribe so they requested further samples. she refused to enter any LE building so the chief deputy DA invited her to his home, where she produced samples at his kitchen table, unattended, while the DDA "took a walk" and JR watched TV in the den

all in all, it was a calculated and successful end run around BPD. never before or since have I seen parents act in such a manner, or be catered to in such a manner, while the entity they were avoiding was looking for their child's killer

 

[Meara]

^^^ OK, I'm glad we're good

in the spirit of informing rather than correcting (truly): no interviews/appearances were ever conducted at BPD, which was the PD with jurisdiction, and no depositions re JB were ever conducted. there were two depos re civil matters

April '97 - DA's office/Boulder (interview re JB)
June '98 - Broomfield, CO PD (interview re JB)
August '00 - atty Lin Wood's office/Atlanta (interview re JB)

October '98 - Denver (depo re Nat'l Enquirer civil suit)
December '01 - Gallo court reporting offices/Atlanta (depo re Chris Wolf civil suit)

PR/JR provided handwriting samples in their home during the first morning, before JB's body was discovered

on Dec 28th (Day Three) they provided nontestimonial evidence (photos, fingerprints, hair samples, etc) at the Justice Center (courthouse/DA's office). which was the same day their legal team first materialized, with instructions that all questions were to be submitted in writing via the DA's office. so if BPD accepted that it would be: LE --> the DA --> the Ramseys/their attys --> the DA --> LE, denying The Investigators the opportunity to question them separately, to observe body language, demeanor, tone, etc

the CBI could not conclusively eliminate PR as the RN scribe so they requested further samples. she refused to enter any LE building so the chief deputy DA invited her to his home, where she produced samples at his kitchen table, unattended, while the DDA "took a walk" and JR watched TV in the den

all in all, it was a calculated and successful end run around BPD. never before or since have I seen parents act in such a manner, or be catered to in such a manner, while the entity they were avoiding was looking for their child's killer

:goodpost:​

 

[Anti-K]

BBM Many of us here, including myself, disagree.

I understand that there is disagreement, but this isn&#8217;t a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

The closest thing to evidence would be the McGuckins receipt; but as Thomas says, they &#8220;had no way of knowing what [Mrs Ramsey] had bought.&#8221;

I don&#8217;t know how many 1.99 items were available in McGuckins. Probably quite a few. This is one of the reasons why Thomas says that BPD &#8220;had no way of knowing what [Mrs Ramsey] had bought.&#8221; If BPD had no way of knowing what Mrs Ramsey had bought than they cannot have any evidence of what she bought. If there is no evidence, than there is no evidence.
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

^^^ OK, I'm glad we're good

in the spirit of informing rather than correcting (truly): no interviews/appearances were ever conducted at BPD, which was the PD with jurisdiction, and no depositions re JB were ever conducted. there were two depos re civil matters

April '97 - DA's office/Boulder (interview re JB)
June '98 - Broomfield, CO PD (interview re JB)
August '00 - atty Lin Wood's office/Atlanta (interview re JB)

October '98 - Denver (depo re Nat'l Enquirer civil suit)
December '01 - Gallo court reporting offices/Atlanta (depo re Chris Wolf civil suit)

PR/JR provided handwriting samples in their home during the first morning, before JB's body was discovered

on Dec 28th (Day Three) they provided nontestimonial evidence (photos, fingerprints, hair samples, etc) at the Justice Center (courthouse/DA's office). which was the same day their legal team first materialized, with instructions that all questions were to be submitted in writing via the DA's office. so if BPD accepted that it would be: LE --> the DA --> the Ramseys/their attys --> the DA --> LE, denying The Investigators the opportunity to question them separately, to observe body language, demeanor, tone, etc

the CBI could not conclusively eliminate PR as the RN scribe so they requested further samples. she refused to enter any LE building so the chief deputy DA invited her to his home, where she produced samples at his kitchen table, unattended, while the DDA "took a walk" and JR watched TV in the den

all in all, it was a calculated and successful end run around BPD. never before or since have I seen parents act in such a manner, or be catered to in such a manner, while the entity they were avoiding was looking for their child's killer

Thanks for that info. I was searching for this today and I didn't have much time so it wasn't thorough. I do have a question.

I found a timeline that said that the Rs were interviewed on the 27th December by Det. Arndt. This is not in the info you gave.
Could this be the non-testimonial evidence they gave on the 28th? If not, what was it referring to?

Thanks to anyone that can clear this up.

 

[bettybaby00]

Thanks for that info. I was searching for this today and I didn't have much time so it wasn't thorough. I do have a question.

I found a timeline that said that the Rs were interviewed on the 27th December by Det. Arndt. This is not in the info you gave.
Could this be the non-testimonial evidence they gave on the 28th? If not, what was it referring to?

Thanks to anyone that can clear this up.

I know there were a few instances where LE, including LA, went to the Rs to arrange for interviews. These resulted in stonewalling by the Rs, and yet were often 'listed' as an occasion the Rs 'cooperated with police.'

According to Kolar:

While CSIs carefully worked their way through the Ramsey home, Eller had detailed a team of police officers to round-the-clock security at the Fernie residence, and they were on-site not long after the Ramsey family took refuge in the home of their steadfast friends. Heeding the FBI’s advice, he wanted to know what the family was saying and doing in the aftermath of the discovery of JonBenét’s body. In the interim, following the autopsy of JonBenét, Sergeant Mason was tasked with attempting to arrange an interview with family members. There were a number of questions that investigators had not been able to ask of John and Patsy Ramsey during their wait for the ransom call. He and Detective Arndt visited the Fernie home, temporary quarters for the Ramsey family, on the evening of Friday, December 27th in an effort to schedule more detailed interviews. Family friend Mike Bynum, a former Boulder County prosecutor, was present and apparently providing legal advice to John Ramsey. JonBenét’s pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, was also present. He refused to let Patsy be interviewed. She was under the influence of medication and described as being too distraught to even consider responding to the police department to answer questions about the murder of her daughter. Mason and Arndt left the Fernie home that night empty handed, unable to secure a firm date and time for a follow up interview. The following morning, Saturday, December 28, 1996, investigators were notified by Boulder County Assistant District Attorney Pete Hoffstrom that the Ramsey family was now being represented by attorneys. Any questions of the family regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of their daughter would have to be put to writing and presented by Hoffstrom to their legal counsel. No face-to-face interview between Boulder Police investigators and Ramsey family members would be scheduled for months.

 

[reedus23]

It is interesting how people can look at the same thing and reach 2 different opinions and not saying any one is right or any one is wrong. One can look at the info you gave and call it an end run around the BPD. I look at it and say they were foolish to not get their lawyers involved from day 1, especially when they are sophisticated and of means with friends that are lawyers. But don't get me wrong, I wish and would have thought that, even with representation, the "formal" interrogations could have occurred sooner than April.

The request to submit questions in writing is also not uncommon. From an LE perspective, it's not effective at all and I get that. From a lawyers perspective, they want everything documented so that there are no he said/she said situations (and that's not to suggest LE would fabricate anything, but honest disputes about recollections do occur). From what I have seen, what commonly happens is lawyer gets involved, advises LE that he represents Mr. Doe, that LE should have no further contact with Mr. Doe directly, that any future communication/requests should go through attorney in writing and then LE usually responds with the request to interview/interrogate Mr. Doe and they work it out. My guess is there was great distrust of BPD and thus the compromise of the interviews not being done at attorneys office nor at BPD but rather at the DA's/other LE's offices.

 

[gramcracker]

"The request to submit questions in writing is also not uncommon" ... as is the avoidance of face-to-face interviews, when witnesses/suspects have reason(s) to fear transparency.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Thank you. That does clear that up. It was just a vague reference to interview and I wondered what that involved.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

It is interesting how people can look at the same thing and reach 2 different opinions and not saying any one is right or any one is wrong. One can look at the info you gave and call it an end run around the BPD. I look at it and say they were foolish to not get their lawyers involved from day 1, especially when they are sophisticated and of means with friends that are lawyers. But don't get me wrong, I wish and would have thought that, even with representation, the "formal" interrogations could have occurred sooner than April.

The request to submit questions in writing is also not uncommon. From an LE perspective, it's not effective at all and I get that. From a lawyers perspective, they want everything documented so that there are no he said/she said situations (and that's not to suggest LE would fabricate anything, but honest disputes about recollections do occur). From what I have seen, what commonly happens is lawyer gets involved, advises LE that he represents Mr. Doe, that LE should have no further contact with Mr. Doe directly, that any future communication/requests should go through attorney in writing and then LE usually responds with the request to interview/interrogate Mr. Doe and they work it out. My guess is there was great distrust of BPD and thus the compromise of the interviews not being done at attorneys office nor at BPD but rather at the DA's/other LE's offices.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can be read any other way than the Rs choosing to cover their own backsides over helping the investigation into their daughter's death. Nobody thinks it is unreasonable to employ lawyers but their delaying tactics and demands are OTT. I think it is standard procedure for the interviews to be conducted at the police station and to be done separately. I really don't think the police asked for anything out of the ordinary. I think it is strange that they were more worried about a police stitch-up than finding who killed their daughter.

 

[questfortrue]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can be read any other way than the Rs choosing to cover their own backsides over helping the investigation into their daughter's death. Nobody thinks it is unreasonable to employ lawyers but their delaying tactics and demands are OTT. I think it is standard procedure for the interviews to be conducted at the police station and to be done separately. I really don't think the police asked for anything out of the ordinary. I think it is strange that they were more worried about a police stitch-up than finding who killed their daughter.

Thank you, Detective Pinkie, for your observations. For anyone interested in possible clues of deception in speech and demeanor, there’s an interesting presentation by Pamela Meyer, author of How to Spot a Liar. It was originally one of the most watched ted.com videos. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE) One can’t help but compare Meyer’s study with some of the videos uploaded in the WS media library and also on youtube. (Type in Whynut JonBenet in the search box in youtube.)

 

[reedus23]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can be read any other way than the Rs choosing to cover their own backsides over helping the investigation into their daughter's death. Nobody thinks it is unreasonable to employ lawyers but their delaying tactics and demands are OTT. I think it is standard procedure for the interviews to be conducted at the police station and to be done separately. I really don't think the police asked for anything out of the ordinary. I think it is strange that they were more worried about a police stitch-up than finding who killed their daughter.

I understand your position and not trying to change it. We can simply agree to disagree. I was more just responding to comments about my post originally from another thread and relating my actual real life experiences that are contrary to the belief that the standard procedure is for interviews to be at the station, or that a request to document all requests aren't made or that there aren't delays in timing. I have seen it both ways and neither has been uncommon in my experience and that's why it doesn't raise red flags for me. I will quietly bow out at this point. I'm still trying to figure out the "rules" regarding the threads and don't want to derail this thread.

ETA-And none of that means I have a strong opinion as to who is responsible. Ramsey's may or may not be. I have no idea. All the above means is that these particular issues, for me personally, don't move the needle one way or the other. There are other things that I do believe point to possible Ramsey involvement. Just not this. For me, personally.