Read this and tell me the Ramseys aren't hiding something ...

[Imon128]

Wasn't Melody Stanton's reported 'hearing a scream' in a time frame of midnight to two, at least I feel I've read that midnight was the earliest time frame beginning. Also, time of death has never been determined with finality, has it?

 

[Ivy]

So...there's John giving a heartfelt rendition of Patsy finding the note and how they both reacted, when he suddenly experiences a short circuit and gets the time of the happenings confused with a flight arrival, departure, or whatever? I don't buy it. I think 3 AM somehow relates to events surrounding JonBenet's death.

 

[BlueCrab]

FWIW, ST says BPD put JonBenét's death between 10 pm and 1 am. p147

I don't remember anyone of authority setting the time of death, not even the coroner. JonBenet was in full rigor at 1:05 P.M. on the 26th and that would indicate she died around 1:00 A.M., 12 hours prior.

Also, she had to have eaten the pineapple after being put to bed and after John went to bed (about 10:30). The pineapple was in the upper part of the small intestine and would have taken 1 1/2 to 2 hours to get there. Therefore, if JonBenet ate the pineapple around 11:00 to 11:30 P.M., then she likely died around 1:00 A.M., but it's just an amateurish guess.


JMO

 

[Toltec]

They trusted the BPD to handle the kidnapping properly; they didn't.
They trusted the BPD to investigate the murder properly; they didn't.
Soon they were advised that they were the targets and the only targets of the investigation; so they accepted the necessity for the lawyers.

That is complete and total poop! The Ramseys hired DEFENSE LAWYERS less than 24 hours after JonBenet's body was found!

Tell me Toth...who would tell John that he "was a target" so soon after the murder...when LE "gave them a day" as John requested???

 

[BlueCrab]

FWIW, ST says BPD put JonBenét's death between 10 pm and 1 am. p147

LP,

I just read page 147 in Steve Thomas' book. It appears Steve has serious problems with numbers and logic. Here's what he wrote:

"The coroner also said there was acute vaginal injury that had happened around the time of death. He could not pinpoint the time of death closer than six to twelve hours before she was brought upstairs, stiff in full rigor mortis, by her father at 1 P.M.

"That would put the time of death very roughly about 1 A.M. and no later than 7 A.M. Since the 911 call had come in shortly before 6 o'clock in the morning, and the murder, staging, and the ransom note would all have required a substantial amount of time to accomplish, the earlier time was the most logical -- which would put the time of death between the time the family arrived home that night about 10 P.M. and 1 A.M."

No it wouldn't Steve. It would put the time of death at 1:00 A.M. or later (six to twelve hours before she was brought upstairs).

JMO

 

[why_nutt]

That is complete and total poop! The Ramseys hired DEFENSE LAWYERS less than 24 hours after JonBenet's body was found!

Tell me Toth...who would tell John that he "was a target" so soon after the murder...when LE "gave them a day" as John requested???

Fact: The BPD did not send officers to interview and take evidence from Linda Hoffmann-Pugh and Mervin Pugh on December 26th and 27th because the BPD mistook the Pugh family for the Ramsey family and targeted them. Fact: A redacted name from the first CBI lab report of January 15th, 1997, describing DNA evidence examined in relationship to the case, is not a Ramsey name. Fact: A search warrant issued on December 26th, a warrant still sealed to this day, is not a warrant to search property belonging to a member of the Ramsey family.

Fact: Members of the BPD were examining leads other than Ramsey leads, to the extent of taking property, testimonial and non-testimonial evidence, as early as December 26th.

 

[Shylock]

I don't remember anyone of authority setting the time of death, not even the coroner. JonBenet was in full rigor at 1:05 P.M. on the 26th and that would indicate she died around 1:00 A.M., 12 hours prior.

We've discussed this before. You can't guess at the time of death based on the stage of rigor because it would have been effected by her lying on the cold floor. And there is no way to know exactly when her body was moved to that location. So the 12 hours you mention might actually be 10 hours, or it might be 14 hours. Four hours is a pretty big window to work with.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Shylock, the entire basement was warm. Even if the floor had been cold, JonBenét was dressed and was inside a blanket. Rigor and livor mortis should have proceeded *normally*.

Toltec, Bryan Morgan was retained for the Ramseys, at Bynum's arrangement, on Saturday evening Dec 28. That would be 60 hours (rather than 24) after JonBenét's death.

PMPT p48(

 

[Shylock]

Shylock, the entire basement was warm. Even if the floor had been cold, JonBenét was dressed and was inside a blanket. Rigor and livor mortis should have proceeded *normally*.

I don't ever remember seeing a heat duct in the little room. And a blanket wouldn't insulate a dead body lying on a cold slab for very long, certainly not 12 hours.
And as I said, we have no idea what time she died versus what time she was put in the room. Patsy might have prayed over her for a couple hours before moving her body to the basement.

 

[tipper]

In which case the body would show signs of having been moved.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

The material that grew in patches on the floor and walls of the windowless room was there because of the warmth and moisture in the room. The growth on the floor is how it is known that the Hi Tech bootprint was "fresh". The impression would not be permanent in the growing "fungus-like mildew", as JR described it in DOI.

The entire basement, as was the house, was kept warm. Thomas commented on that. The windowless room was also just next to the boiler room where the house's furnace sat.

 

[Ivy]

Aha! So Burke could have made the boot print that night.

 

[BlueCrab]

Aha! So Burke could have made the boot print that night.

Yep. The shoe print could have been from Burke or Doug; word has it they both owned Hi-Tec boots.

JMO

Ivy, I like that snapshot. You look like someone I knew who worked for the Joint Chiefs.

 

[Ivy]

BC...besides Burke, a friend of Burke's also testified before the grand jury, and I've always wondered if that friend was Doug. The friend testified that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. Maybe he also mentioned that he himself did too. Hmmm.. interesting.

People do tell me from time to time I remind them of someone they know. In a town I once lived in, I had a "twin" I never saw. Even my teenage kids thought she was me the few times they saw her driving around and in stores, and friends of hers who saw me were convinced I was her...even up close and in my face! Apparently the only difference between us was that her eyes were not quite as green as mine. Weird. Anyway, by posting the photo, I was hoping to start a trend. I think it would be fun to finally be able to see some mugs to go with the hats.

 

[Jayelles]

The material that grew in patches on the floor and walls of the windowless room was there because of the warmth and moisture in the room. The growth on the floor is how it is known that the Hi Tech bootprint was "fresh". The impression would not be permanent in the growing "fungus-like mildew", as JR described it in DOI.

The entire basement, as was the house, was kept warm. Thomas commented on that. The windowless room was also just next to the boiler room where the house's furnace sat.

A year or so ago, at YF, WN made a strong case for the "mould" not being fast growing mould at all.

Why_Nut posted two images of the basement "mould" which were taken some considerable time apart and they had not visibly changed. Why_Nut quizzed ******* (who had seen the "mould") about its appearance and she decribed the mould as being like 'soapy bubbles' . Why_Nut then explained about a process called saponification. This is very slow growing and not fast gowing as the RST would have us believe and it strongly supports the theory that the hi-tec print could have been there for a long time.

 

[Blazeboy3]

I doubt that. I can't understand why anyone ever suspected the parents. I surely can't understand why anyone suspects them now.
As to talking to the police, it was the Ramsey attorneys who advised against it, but the Ramseys insisted that their attorneys arrange a meeting.
And if you want to go read PMPT turn to p.499, and then see who it was who refused to allow any meetings to take place for four months!!

Ok, hum, maybe it's a "BLUE'S CLUE--PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAP problem / reaction / solution THING?"

 

[LovelyPigeon]

ST wrote that he believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26 by a "sight-seeing law enforcement officer...he or she...didn't want to admit it."

Smit also believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26, but probably by the killer.

Gosage tried to locate the source of the print, running down 400 contacts over more than 14 months, according to ST, but never was successful.

I think the "growth" rate on the floor and walls was significant not in the rate it spread out but in the rate it replaced any impression made into it.

 

[Imon128]

It would be good to know how to 'date' that footprint.

 

[BlueCrab]

BC...besides Burke, a friend of Burke's also testified before the grand jury, and I've always wondered if that friend was Doug. The friend testified that Burke owned Hi Tec shoes. Maybe he also mentioned that he himself did too. Hmmm.. interesting.

Burke's friend who testified to the grand jury was Doug Stine. Doug testified just prior to the GJ taking its 4-month break so investigators could follow up on what the 100 or so witnesses had told the jurors. The last witness to testify before the long break was Burke Ramsey. He testified for five hours on May 19, 1999.

When the GJ reconvened after the 4-month hiatus it brought in Susan Stine to testify on September 23. The jurors were dismissed on October 13, 1999 after its 13-month investigation.

JMO

 

[why_nutt]

ST wrote that he believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26 by a "sight-seeing law enforcement officer...he or she...didn't want to admit it."

Smit also believed the Hi Tech print was left on Dec 26, but probably by the killer.

Gosage tried to locate the source of the print, running down 400 contacts over more than 14 months, according to ST, but never was successful.

I think the "growth" rate on the floor and walls was significant not in the rate it spread out but in the rate it replaced any impression made into it.

If this material was truly mold, it was made up of living cellular material, and this material was not intelligent enough to make a decision about growing only as replacement for an impression, and not growing enough to spread out anywhere it could. She Who Must Be Paid, who has described her own experiences stepping on this material, has said it was like dry soap bubbles and it crackled when stepped on. There is a reason for this. As saponification, it would literally have been tiny, tiny soap bubbles. As mold, it would have been organic and slimy from the high moisture content it contained as an assemblage of living creatures.

And if it was truly mold, what kind of mold was it? Science is entirely capable of saying whether a mold is one of a range of common indoor molds like Stachybotrys, Alternaria, Cladosporium, Aspergillus, Mucor, Penicillium or Memnoniella. Why is it that Ramsey defenders have been unable after all this time to state definitively, "Yes, there was mold on the floor of the basement, it is X type of mold, which grows at a rate of Y distance per hour"? Did the Ramsey investigators even bother to take samples, as they could easily have done? Did Lou Smit bother to demand that samples be taken so that this "mold" could be analyzed for its known growth characteristics? And what was the food source for this supposed mold? Mold, as a set of living creatures, needs a nutrient source, and concrete contains no nutrients. Saponification, on the other hand, merely needs incorrectly-sealed concrete and some water.

For the record and for those who missed the photos the first time around, here they are again. The first photo was taken by Ramsey investigators when the house was turned back to the family in early 1997. Note the white circle area. The second photo was taken by She Who Must Be Paid, who took her photo more than a year later. Notice that the areas involved look identical from year to year, and when taking the second photo, SWMBP represented it as an example of basement mold and nothing else.

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/97sapon.jpg

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/98latersapon.jpg