Separating FACT from fiction

[Chebrock]

Private polygraphers do not say their client "failed" a polygraph. They use the term "inconclusive" instead. Otherwise, they wouldn't get paid. People do not pay to fail a polygraph. Patsy took several poly's with her first polygrapher but all were 'inconclusive'.

If the Ramseys actually *failed* polygraphs, we don't know about it for certain. Inconclusive is not the same as a fail. Inconclusive means the polygrapher cannot say pass or fail.

 

[Chebrock]

Jayelles, your supposition that there were other non-family members in the house that night is erroneous. There is no definitive evidence that there was an intruder. All intruder pointing information can be explained away fairly easily.

Not-Fact. Experts diagree on this. According to Steve Thomas under deposition, there were a number of suspects but Patsy was the only one who could not be eliminated as the writer AND who was positively known to be in the house that night. This suggests that there were other (non-family) suspects who could not be eliminated as the writer. We do not know who they were from any reliable source.

 

[Chebrock]

My memory may be failing but I do not remember ever hearing that there may have been a urine stain on the basement carpet. Jon Benet was found on a concrete floor I believe.

JonBenet's longjohn's were stained with urine which I think is a fact. I think it is a fact also that the stain was fairly extensive indicating that there might have been an overflow onto wherever she was sitting, standing, lying. I read once that there was a urine stain on the basement carpet but can't remember where the stain was said to have been or where I read it. Please, did anyone else read this and do they remember where?

 

[Chebrock]

I do not believe that a personally paid polygrapher would state that their client "failed" a polygraph. They would do 1 of 2 things, 1. Stay out of the public eye and if questioned say 'No Comment' or 2. use the term 'inconclusive'. They do not have a confidentiality agreement but if hired by the clients lawyer (who does have confidentiality) they may fall under that umbrella.

No confidentiality agreement necessary with polygraphers.
If Patsy had failed the polygraph he was at liberty to say so.

 

[Chebrock]

I would like to re-introduce myself to the forum. I am Chebrock and I live in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. I became interested in the Jon Benet murder shortly after it occurred. I listened to all the information, joined discussion boards, read all the books I could find (I hope I still have a few) and was told by Steve Thomas that I had a good 'read' on the case. Not much of a compliment but it melted my heart just the same.

I have posted on this forum and others that I believe John killed Jon Benet and enlisted the help of Patsy to prepare the coverup. In order to get her to help him, he told her that Burke did it (I do not believe Burke did it). Both John and Patsy were each others "alibi" of sorts. They couldn't eliminate either one of them and therefore couldn't pin-point just one of them as the murderer.

At the time, I understood that the Ramsey's called their attorney first before calling the police. I believe the attorney told them to invite friends over to disrupt the evidence. Patsy laid on the couch, cried and peeked through her fingers while everything was going on. It was pure genius to hide the body AND write a ransom note. The FBI had never seen that in all their experience. A kidnapper doesn't leave a body and a murder doesn't write a ransom letter, but the Ramsey's did both. Totally confusing.

I have to also say that John worked for Lockheed Martin (or a subsidiary) which is involved heavily with defense department secrets and who knows what else. He kept his calm, moved the body at some point, chartered a plane to move his family to Atlanta and basically took care of business. The one thing he didn't do was wait for the phone call to deliver the ransom. Patsy must have been the only one involved in the ransom note because John would have told her how stupid the note was and would never have let it stand.

One other thing, if they really thought Burke had done it or knew they had done it, they never would have let him go to school the following week. He most definitely would have spilled the beans. There were reporters everywhere.

One other thing that is curious to me but of no actual evidence in the case, is the attitudes of their friends after the murder. Friends that stuck with them after the murder soon began to separate from the Ramseys. They felt the Ramseys weren't acting like innocent people and they weren't. Innocent people want to be disqualified from the suspects list. They let Burke be disqualified but did nothing to relieve themselves of being suspects.

So much for old news. The Jon Benet murder will go down in history with the Charles Lindberg case.

It's good to be back on the forum. If I have any old friends here, please send me a private message. It would be great to be in-touch again.

JMO Cheb

 

[Forever Young]

Hello. I'm new to this thread, but not new to the forum (crossing over from the Lori Daybell case to say "hi")

I read somewhere that there might be additional TV specials this year for JonBenet as it will be the 25th anniversary this year. I've followed the case from day one, too.

Through the years I've entertained many theories as to who done it. It's really hard for me anymore to come to a solid theory.

I do think that Patsy wrote the note. Very sad that this case cannot be definitely concluded.

 

[elannia]

I have been reading over patsys interview in June of 97 and can someone please tell me about the scarf, and the photos that some were taken by police and some were from the camera roll. And there were things in the R’s photos but not the police photos. I know this has been discussed here before but can’t remember which thread... also some cleaning stuff out? Could that have been used to clean up from the cover up

 

[UltRight]

(IMO, the only people who will be "cleared" in the Ramsey case are those with cast iron alibis.)

This is generally the case in police investigations since you do not know the motive for sure until you have caught the killer.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I have been reading over patsys interview in June of 97 and can someone please tell me about the scarf, and the photos that some were taken by police and some were from the camera roll. And there were things in the R’s photos but not the police photos. I know this has been discussed here before but can’t remember which thread... also some cleaning stuff out? Could that have been used to clean up from the cover up

elannia,

There was a scarf found lying on the wet bar. Patsy handed out scarfs during their Christmas party to the men. JAR received one as I am sure John did as well. John’s departing gift to Jonbenet was a scarf.

The camera was found in this location as well. The wet bar was John’s collect all. There was a picture found on the camera roll of the kids Christmas Day.

There is a spray bottle sitting under the table that Patsy’s writing pad (that was used) of cleaning spray. Of coarse, it has been speculated that it was used.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

elannia,

There was a scarf found lying on the wet bar. Patsy handed out scarfs during their Christmas party to the men. JAR received one as I am sure John did as well. John’s departing gift to Jonbenet was a scarf.

The camera was found in this location as well. The wet bar was John’s collect all. There was a picture found on the camera roll of the kids Christmas Day.

There is a spray bottle sitting under the table that Patsy’s writing pad (that was used) of cleaning spray. Of coarse, it has been speculated that it was used.

What is the likelihood of a FF entering the R’s home (using PR writing pad) and the pen and paper from which the RN was written then put back in their proper place? It was 3 long pages. Probably taken from ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie’.

PR fibers found near/in her paint tray. In the ligature. In the wine cellar on the blanket, tape.

911 call - “I am the mother”. Never mentioning JB name before hanging up = (distancing). Her daughter has been kidnapped.

Get BR out of the house because he knows nothing. This turned out not to be true. As he told his best bud about how JB was strangled 2 days after her murder. How did he know that detail?
His Swiss army knife was found within the crime scene. Never once, have I read, whose prints were found; on the knife. Interesting detail. He mentioned in detailing the crime he knew what happened and that somebody took out a knife and very quietly took her to the basement. Took out a hammer and hit her over the head with it. Did he just simply walk into witnessing something? PR and BR touch DNA were found on the inside/outside, top/bottom of her Barbie nightgown found in the depository = wine cellar. Why would your brothers touch dna be found on this personal item of his sisters? Yes, they played doctor. She was 6. Unless she was already introduced to those things would she be remotely interested in playing this sort of game? Doesn’t seem natural.

JR leaping to the discovery of his daughter’s body as in a last ditch effort. Then ordering his plane for a flight to Atlanta. He had a VERY important meeting he couldn’t miss. They were supposed to wake up and fly to Michigan on the 26th? What meeting was that? There never was an important meeting before the murder. Why would his fiber evidence be found in the folds of JB privates? JB had been wiped. Something smells like coverup. What is so important in Atlanta all of a sudden? Cross state lines = evading.

I see this family as highly dysfunctional. After the murder … Drama with PR, JR with his calm and cordial demeanor. BR, I know nothing; to I know what happened. This was a traumatic event!
Bottom line - they all took part. IMO

 

[Lebowski]

i'm new to this case. just wanna say it's frustrating how little solid fact there is to work with. seems like most of the evidence -- or at least most of what gets brought up -- has IFs, ANDs, and BUTs attached. it's kinda funny that one of the few things everyone agrees on is that the ransom note is baloney, but what to infer from that is possibly the most contentious area of the case.

or take the broken window. JR says he broke it months earlier when he locked himself out of the house. but an intruder still could have used it. but there were cobwebs on it. but spiders can rebuild cobwebs in a matter of hours. but the cobwebs had dust, indicating they were old. OK, but that was just one possible point of entry. ............ so i can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

it makes me want to put together a spreadsheet of everything that is known, unknown, known unknown, etc. and color code it by how much weight to give each thing. or something like that. but then i thought -- hey, why do all that work, when other people probably already have? this thread has been pretty helpful along those lines. are there other similar fact-checking resources?

especially interested in sources that give appropriate weight to various clues. e.g., i give more weight to the fact that the writer of the ransom note apparently knew the amount of JR's christmas bonus, and was comfortable hanging out in the house for a long time, than i do to any attempt to psychoanalyze the writer.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

May I suggest the following thread:
Lies point us to the truth,
It’s a start

 

[Meara]

i'm new to this case. just wanna say it's frustrating how little solid fact there is to work with. seems like most of the evidence -- or at least most of what gets brought up -- has IFs, ANDs, and BUTs attached. it's kinda funny that one of the few things everyone agrees on is that the ransom note is baloney, but what to infer from that is possibly the most contentious area of the case.

or take the broken window. JR says he broke it months earlier when he locked himself out of the house. but an intruder still could have used it. but there were cobwebs on it. but spiders can rebuild cobwebs in a matter of hours. but the cobwebs had dust, indicating they were old. OK, but that was just one possible point of entry. ............ so i can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

it makes me want to put together a spreadsheet of everything that is known, unknown, known unknown, etc. and color code it by how much weight to give each thing. or something like that. but then i thought -- hey, why do all that work, when other people probably already have? this thread has been pretty helpful along those lines. are there other similar fact-checking resources?

especially interested in sources that give appropriate weight to various clues. e.g., i give more weight to the fact that the writer of the ransom note apparently knew the amount of JR's christmas bonus, and was comfortable hanging out in the house for a long time, than i do to any attempt to psychoanalyze the writer.

Hi. This may be helpful wrt the window...

The train room window well had a layer of debris, as documented in police crime scene photos. Although an intruder could have entered via the window well (ignoring for the moment the spider webs and other issues), investigators found that no one could have done so without disturbing the debris and dragging some of it inside. Yet the debris was undisturbed, and no trace of it was found on the train room floor. This is one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case since - though few seem to realize - it rules out entry through the train room window. No intruder could have bypassed the window well. The key factor wasn’t the size of the window opening or the spider webs, or the lack of prints in the fresh snow. It was "the debris that didn’t bark."

Since no intruder entered through the basement window, and there was no forced entry through any windows or doors, it could not be determined how any intruder might have got inside the house, or whether there had been an intruder at all.

 

[Lebowski]

thank you

at the time i wrote that, i was considering the possibility that all the discussion of the broken window was a big red herring, because there wasn't a proper accounting of whether all doors were locked at 7 AM. therefore, i thought, an intruder might well have walked in one of the doors. but it's my understanding now that JR told the police at 7 AM that all the doors were locked. IMO that's almost as good as the police personally checking all of them, because, guilty or innocent, i see no reason for him to lie about that -- if anything, his incentive might be to falsely claim they were unlocked. and, guilty or innocent, i would think he would diligently check them all.

one area where i'm a little hazy is why other windows aren't talked about much as a possible entry point. did JR also report them all locked? did the police check them all later in the day? if either or both is true, that would mostly satisfy me. no reason for the ramseys, guilty or innocent, to go around locking windows after the police were there. and you can't lock a window from the outside, so that rules out any locked window as the exit point. i suppose that would still leave the narrow possibility of an intruder 1) entering through an unlocked window, 2) locking that window behind himself, and later 3) leaving through a self-locking door. ... but that's getting contrived. (on top of the usual problems with IDI theories -- no tracks in the snow, killer spent a loooong time in that house, visited all four floors, nicely put away the pen and paper, etc.)