The Boarder Across the Street

[aussiesheila]

The boarder at the Barnhills fitted the police profile of the killer and his handwriting resembled that in the ransom note. He also likely had access to the Ramseys house-key kept by the Barnhills. The reason the cops let him go was because he passed a lie-detector test.

But he didn't kill JonBenet. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying and covering up to protect him. The Ramseys would lie and cover up only to protect a Ramsey.

How do you know that the Ramseys wouldn't lie or cover up only to protect a Ramsey? I think Patsy is lying and covering up for people who are not Ramseys.

 

[IrishMist]

Bottom line ... you have to admit the whole boarder scenario is awfully strange. This guy comes to the Ramsey's house with a paultry excuse of "I was worried about the Brayhills," What the heck was he worried about,he was only their tenet. This boarder was a stranger to JR,(JR didn't even know the Brayhill's had a boarder until the day JB was murdered),so he is letting a stranger into his house.(John sure was not using his good 'ole southern common sense if you ask me.) Then before you know it,within days all hell breaks loose,and a 6 yr old is murdered.A stranger in the mist ... no,this boarder cannot be dismissed.

Only strange part ... why would the Ramsey's want to cover up for a stranger?

They say there is no such thing as a perfect murder .........come on sleuthers,let's put our heads together and think,think,think!!!!!!

But what if they aren't lying or covering up for anyone??
If you think the police are targeting YOU, what would YOU do?
Their attorney friends saw the handwriting on the wall, and stepped in to help friends...
I'm not saying I agree with it. But I CAN see it.
It's pretty easy to say that you'd talk to the cops, no matter what... but would you really? If you KNEW that YOU were the one they were trying to pin it on?
I don't know who committed this crime. I think the boarder is a good suspect. I think a friend along with BR are good suspects. BR on his own -- I even suspect the parents.
All I'm doing is trying to point out the other side. I really can see why they behaved the way they did -- even if I think it was a mistake.

 

[BlueCrab]

How do you know that the Ramseys wouldn't lie or cover up only to protect a Ramsey? I think Patsy is lying and covering up for people who are not Ramseys.

aussiesheila,

For example?

 

[Lacy Wood]

If you notice in the first response from your cut and paste, she replies 'may have.'

She clearly doesn't remember and I seriously doubt any other person in the same situation would have either. Still, she attempts to answer by saying, 'I may have.'

Regardless, Thomas lied about her blatted print--all in an attempt to get her to confess to writing the note.

Nice ploy.

Rainsong

Your post above comments on your earlier post (10:07 AM, same thread), in which you state at length that you are "busting the myth" that the Ramsey's 4 month delay in interviews affected the evidence in the case. But as VOR pointed out in a response, the answers given by PR regarding touching or moving the ransom note seemed to change to fit the evidentiary implications of the questions asked her in the cited exchange during the delayed interview. The quote above is your response.

I'd like to ask how you can at the same time claim it's a myth that delays affected the investigation and then explain away criticial "memory lapses" as "I seriously doubt anyone in the same situation would (remember) either." Personally, I seriously doubt anyone would forget how he/she learned a daughter was kidnapped even years later. The issue here though, is that without the 4 month delay, no impartial person could seriously accept the "lapse". The total numbers of questions answered in the interview is hardly relevant if critical or significant questions are evaded. The fact that no family prints were on the note has suggested to some that they didn't pick up or read the note beause they already knew what was in it! This is no minor matter, since the mom's prints reportedly being on the notepad the pages were torn from is part of the "adverse" evidence. Staightforward answers to police in the days after the event would have been very useful either for or against the family. *IF* the family was involved, the delayed interviews are probably what saved them from early contradictions that could have exposed it, and that's not a myth.

 

[Rainsong]

Your post above comments on your earlier post (10:07 AM, same thread), in which you state at length that you are "busting the myth" that the Ramsey's 4 month delay in interviews affected the evidence in the case. But as VOR pointed out in a response, the answers given by PR regarding touching or moving the ransom note seemed to change to fit the evidentiary implications of the questions asked her in the cited exchange during the dealyed interview. The quote above is your response.

I'd like to ask how you can at the same time claim it's a myth that delays affected the investigation and then explain away criticial "memory lapses" as "I seriously anyone in the same situation would (remember) either." Personally, I seriously doubt anyone would forget how he/she learned a daughter was kidnapped even years later. The issue here though, is that without the 4 month delay, no impartial person could seriously accept the "lapse". The total numbers of questions answered in the interview is hardly relevant if critical or significant questions are evaded. The fact that no family prints were on the note has suggested to some that they didn't pick up or read the note beause they already knew what was in it! This is no minor matter, since the mom's prints reportedly being on the notepad the pages were torn from is part of the "adverse" evidence. Staightforward answers to police in the days after the event would have been very useful either for or against the family. *IF* the family was involved, the delayed interviews are probably what saved them from early contradictions that could have exposed it, and that's not a myth.

I believe I responded to Voice of Reason's comment by citing Patsy Ramsey's use of the words, 'may have' in her original answer. In the subsequent answer, she again uses the words, 'may have.' This is not an alteration or change in her response.

The myth has been disproven by the number of responses which were responded to with "I don't remember," "I don't know" by looking at the individual responses and noting how the majority of those responses are then expanded upon.

You say you seriously doubt anyone would forget how he/she learned a daughter had been kidnapped even years later. Neither of the Ramseys 'forgot' how they learned of JonBenet's disappearance. What was lost were minute details of their own movements after the discovery of the note. Even without the lapse of time or stress, a person's memory is not infallible. Had they answered questions five minutes after the discovery, they still would have had memory lapses because humans are not computers with photographic recall.

For example, do you remember which leg you wash first when you bathe/shower or which foot you step into the tub/shower with first? Does it matter in the broad scheme of your daily life?

I understand why Steve Thomas proposed these questions. What is apparent is they had no bearing on finding the killer of JonBenet unless Thomas believed that killer was Patsy Ramsey.

Porous items such as paper absorb body oils and perspiration and if a person is perspiring or has not washed their hands in some time, such items should be a perfect medium for fingerprint impressions. However, Patsy had just applied her make-up, after which presumably she washed her hands. She also fussed with the red jumpsuit in the laundry area. Fabric absorbs body oils and perspiration also, leaving behind dry skin which would not have been a suitable transfer medium to paper. Thus, no fingerprints even if Patsy Ramsey did pick up the paper.

The same applies to John Ramsey since he had just stepped out of the shower when Patsy screamed his name.

The total number of questions in the interview is relevant in that it is frequently stated the Ramseys failed to answer the majority of the questions with anything other than "I don't know,' "I can't remember."

Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints found on the note pad have no relation to the lack of Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints on the note left at the house since it is logical she would have used the notepad during the course of any given day at times when she had not just completed washing her hands. The thrust of the interview questions in regard to prints or lack thereof was for no purpose other than to entrap Patsy Ramsey into confessing she had written the note based on the belief she or John Ramsey were the perpetrators of JonBenet's murder. None of the answers given by the Ramseys were evasive, in my opinion. Other opinions differ.

Given that both parents gave statements to the responding officer(s) and to Linda Arndt, their answers could have been verified by checking against those officer's reports. Unfortunately, many of those reports were later altered and some were at odds against what the Ramseys reportedly say they told those officers.

Rainsong

 

[aussiesheila]

aussiesheila,

For example?

the for example people I think are really suspect are John Ramsey's former best friend, the father christmas guy next door

 

[Lacy Wood]

I believe I responded to Voice of Reason's comment by citing Patsy Ramsey's use of the words, 'may have' in her original answer. In the subsequent answer, she again uses the words, 'may have.' This is not an alteration or change in her response.

The myth has been disproven by the number of responses which were responded to with "I don't remember," "I don't know" by looking at the individual responses and noting how the majority of those responses are then expanded upon.

You say you seriously doubt anyone would forget how he/she learned a daughter had been kidnapped even years later. Neither of the Ramseys 'forgot' how they learned of JonBenet's disappearance. What was lost were minute details of their own movements after the discovery of the note. Even without the lapse of time or stress, a person's memory is not infallible. Had they answered questions five minutes after the discovery, they still would have had memory lapses because humans are not computers with photographic recall.

For example, do you remember which leg you wash first when you bathe/shower or which foot you step into the tub/shower with first? Does it matter in the broad scheme of your daily life?

I understand why Steve Thomas proposed these questions. What is apparent is they had no bearing on finding the killer of JonBenet unless Thomas believed that killer was Patsy Ramsey.

Porous items such as paper absorb body oils and perspiration and if a person is perspiring or has not washed their hands in some time, such items should be a perfect medium for fingerprint impressions. However, Patsy had just applied her make-up, after which presumably she washed her hands. She also fussed with the red jumpsuit in the laundry area. Fabric absorbs body oils and perspiration also, leaving behind dry skin which would not have been a suitable transfer medium to paper. Thus, no fingerprints even if Patsy Ramsey did pick up the paper.

The same applies to John Ramsey since he had just stepped out of the shower when Patsy screamed his name.

The total number of questions in the interview is relevant in that it is frequently stated the Ramseys failed to answer the majority of the questions with anything other than "I don't know,' "I can't remember."

Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints found on the note pad have no relation to the lack of Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints on the note left at the house since it is logical she would have used the notepad during the course of any given day at times when she had not just completed washing her hands. The thrust of the interview questions in regard to prints or lack thereof was for no purpose other than to entrap Patsy Ramsey into confessing she had written the note based on the belief she or John Ramsey were the perpetrators of JonBenet's murder. None of the answers given by the Ramseys were evasive, in my opinion. Other opinions differ.

Given that both parents gave statements to the responding officer(s) and to Linda Arndt, their answers could have been verified by checking against those officer's reports. Unfortunately, many of those reports were later altered and some were at odds against what the Ramseys reportedly say they told those officers.

Rainsong

Rainsong...Your comparison of learning your daughter is kidnapped with which foot you wash first pretty much tells it all about what you're saying.

 

[Rainsong]

Rainsong...Your comparison of learning your daughter is kidnapped with which foot you wash first pretty much tells it all about what you're saying.

Merely an example. Extend it to your daily routine. Could you state, without difficulty, what you do minute-by-minute at the end of the day?

Even without stress, I doubt there is a human who could do so.

Rainsong

 

[jasmine]

I know first hand that when something like this happens you just do what comes to your mind first without thinking anything about it. I called 911 within seconds. Now did I use the phone that was beside her dead body, the one in my bedroom or one from the other 3 bedrooms? Did I go to the family room to call or the kitchen to call? I have no idea which phone I used. How long was I in the room with her? Dont know. How many paramedics and officers were at the house? I dont know.

 

[RobertStJames]

Bottom line ... you have to admit the whole boarder scenario is awfully strange. This guy comes to the Ramsey's house with a paultry excuse of "I was worried about the Brayhills," What the heck was he worried about,he was only their tenet. This boarder was a stranger to JR,(JR didn't even know the Brayhill's had a boarder until the day JB was murdered),so he is letting a stranger into his house.(John sure was not using his good 'ole southern common sense if you ask me.) Then before you know it,within days all hell breaks loose,and a 6 yr old is murdered.A stranger in the mist ... no,this boarder cannot be dismissed.

This is what I think too. The guy supposedly gave hair and blood samples (both, either/or, none of the above?) Yet nowhere have I ever heard it claimed that he was cleared on DNA. We've got ST cribbing from Armistead's dossier on the guy which says he was 70k in debt, possibly had an assault charge on him, and a son who'd been murdered in Boston. So just who *is* this guy? And more importantly, just how was he cleared? If by LDT, then why are the police going back *after* the LDT to get more handwriting samples, blood and hair? And not even ST says that the LDT cleared the guy. Instead, ST gives some weird explanation that the guy couldn't be a suspect because his son had been murdered.

Then there's Shapiro informing us that XXXX is a "harmless" guy.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the boarder just slipped through the cracks.


RstJ



RstJ

 

[Lacy Wood]

Merely an example. Extend it to your daily routine. Could you state, without difficulty, what you do minute-by-minute at the end of the day?

Even without stress, I doubt there is a human who could do so.

Rainsong

Sorry, Rainsong, but you can extend some things to infinity and not improve a position. Your "analogy" that the event of learning your daughter is kidnapped can be compared to which foot you wash first in one's memory speaks for itself. I would suggest that anyone reading this exchange go back and read the 10:07AM post you made, then read the response you made to Voice of Reason and my post which followed later. That should help those who want to see where things are coming from.

 

[Rainsong]

Sorry, Rainsong, but you can extend some things to infinity and not improve a position. Your "analogy" that the event of learning your daughter is kidnapped can be compared to which foot you wash first in one's memory speaks for itself. I would suggest that anyone reading this exchange go back and read the 10:07AM post you made, then read the response you made to Voice of Reason and my post which followed later. That should help those who want to see where things are coming from.

The 'example' doesn't matter. What does matter is no human can remember every move they have made five minutes, five hours, five days or five months after those movements.

I'm apologize if my analogy was not coherent enough.

Rainsong

 

[Lacy Wood]

The 'example' doesn't matter. What does matter is no human can remember every move they have made five minutes, five hours, five days or five months after those movements.

I'm apologize if my analogy was not coherent enough.

Rainsong

As you know, I have made no statements regarding recalling "every move" a person makes or even recalling any ordinary action. I have only discussed an extraordinary specific circumstance of being informed your daughter was kidnapped and how you learned. This came about because of your original post that stated it is a myth that delayed interviews mattered. I suggested that memory months later can't be considered as good as one in the immediate aftermath, citing the fact there were vague answers to interviewers about the note and learning JonBenet was taken. That seems self-evident to me. But, a side issue arose when you attempted to explain away the event of not recalling how you learned your child was kidnapped as being like not remembering which foot you washed first. It isn't a lack of "coherence" of the analogy that mandates a response, but a kind of insult to the intelligence of objective readers here.

 

[JBRMod2]

Please note that the post you have replied to has been edited by Moderators. Please edit your post accordingly.

 

[Rainsong]

As you know, I have made no statements regarding recalling "every move" a person makes or even recalling any ordinary action. I have only discussed an extraordinary specific circumstance of being informed your daughter was kidnapped and how you learned. This came about because of your original post that stated it is a myth that delayed interviews mattered. I suggested that memory months later can't be considered as good as one in the immediate aftermath, citing the fact there were vague answers to interviewers about the note and learning JonBenet was taken. That seems self-evident to me. But, a side issue arose when you attempted to explain away the event of not recalling how you learned your child was kidnapped as being like not remembering which foot you washed first. It isn't a lack of "coherence" of the analogy that mandates a response, but a kind of insult to the intelligence of objective readers here.

I don't believe I ever said you made statements about every move made on the morning of the 26th by the Ramseys. I believe what you said (and I may be confusing you with another poster) was that you didn't believe someone could forget how they discovered their daughter missing. To that I replied they had not forgotten how they discovered their daughter missing, only the minute details had been lost.

My statement stands. No human being can remember every movement they made, every word they spoke, which foot they wash first, and to expect parents to remember such after such a traumatic experience--no matter the time lapse--is asking the impossible because the human brain does not have a hard drive which can be replayed when we need it.

Traumatic events wreak havoc with memory, whether the time period is an hour or a month after the fact. I have a horrific memory, but you would think I would remember my own mother's funeral, yet a week after burying her I had to ask my husband if he had attended it with me. The sad part is he was a pallbearer but until he reminded me, I could not remember him being there at all. And this was not a traumatic event--on the surface--since she was elderly and had been in poor health for quite some time. How much more would my recollections have disintegrated had she been brutally murdered in her own home?

If you took my comments as an insult, all I can say is it was not meant as one, only as a criticism of my own ability to convey my meaning. No insult was intended.

Rainsong

 

[Lacy Wood]

I believe I responded to Voice of Reason's comment by citing Patsy Ramsey's use of the words, 'may have' in her original answer. In the subsequent answer, she again uses the words, 'may have.' This is not an alteration or change in her response.

The myth has been disproven by the number of responses which were responded to with "I don't remember," "I don't know" by looking at the individual responses and noting how the majority of those responses are then expanded upon.

You say you seriously doubt anyone would forget how he/she learned a daughter had been kidnapped even years later. Neither of the Ramseys 'forgot' how they learned of JonBenet's disappearance. What was lost were minute details of their own movements after the discovery of the note. Even without the lapse of time or stress, a person's memory is not infallible. Had they answered questions five minutes after the discovery, they still would have had memory lapses because humans are not computers with photographic recall.

For example, do you remember which leg you wash first when you bathe/shower or which foot you step into the tub/shower with first? Does it matter in the broad scheme of your daily life?

I understand why Steve Thomas proposed these questions. What is apparent is they had no bearing on finding the killer of JonBenet unless Thomas believed that killer was Patsy Ramsey.

Porous items such as paper absorb body oils and perspiration and if a person is perspiring or has not washed their hands in some time, such items should be a perfect medium for fingerprint impressions. However, Patsy had just applied her make-up, after which presumably she washed her hands. She also fussed with the red jumpsuit in the laundry area. Fabric absorbs body oils and perspiration also, leaving behind dry skin which would not have been a suitable transfer medium to paper. Thus, no fingerprints even if Patsy Ramsey did pick up the paper.

The same applies to John Ramsey since he had just stepped out of the shower when Patsy screamed his name.

The total number of questions in the interview is relevant in that it is frequently stated the Ramseys failed to answer the majority of the questions with anything other than "I don't know,' "I can't remember."

Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints found on the note pad have no relation to the lack of Patsy Ramsey's fingerprints on the note left at the house since it is logical she would have used the notepad during the course of any given day at times when she had not just completed washing her hands. The thrust of the interview questions in regard to prints or lack thereof was for no purpose other than to entrap Patsy Ramsey into confessing she had written the note based on the belief she or John Ramsey were the perpetrators of JonBenet's murder. None of the answers given by the Ramseys were evasive, in my opinion. Other opinions differ.

Given that both parents gave statements to the responding officer(s) and to Linda Arndt, their answers could have been verified by checking against those officer's reports. Unfortunately, many of those reports were later altered and some were at odds against what the Ramseys reportedly say they told those officers.

Rainsong

Rainsong:
I regret that I focused on only one of the 10 comments (paragraphs) in the original post. For brevity I will address them now by simple restatements: (Follow along above if you wish.)
1. If a person answers questions a number of different ways but 2 of them are the same, those 2 can be cited to show "no change".
2. If one answers a lot of questions about kids, parents, jobs, spouse, siblings, friends etc, but doesn't or can't answer the key questions about evidence, it's OK since you answered "the majority".
3. Some people might not remember things for 5 minutes so why ask questions of anyone until months later.
4. If you can't remember which foot goes in the bath first, how can you be expected to remember if you killed somebody.
5. That evil Steve Thomas wanted to find out if PR killed her child and it would have been terrible if he did.
6. It's not useful to look for fingerprints from people who may bathe.
7. Same as #6.
8. Same as #2.
9. Patsy's prints on the notepad are irrelevant because the intruder who removed the pages for the notes would know how to remove his prints and leave only hers.
10. We could check and compare anwers in the interview with what was said to on-the-scene officers but the answers might be different.

I believe that the major theme of my first post was that memory diminishes with time, early interviews are best, and that dramatic events are usually recalled better than ordinary events. On that shocking (and surprisingly contested) note, I rest my case.

 

[capps]

But what if they aren't lying or covering up for anyone??
If you think the police are targeting YOU, what would YOU do?
Their attorney friends saw the handwriting on the wall, and stepped in to help friends...
I'm not saying I agree with it. But I CAN see it.
It's pretty easy to say that you'd talk to the cops, no matter what... but would you really? If you KNEW that YOU were the one they were trying to pin it on?
I don't know who committed this crime. I think the boarder is a good suspect. I think a friend along with BR are good suspects. BR on his own -- I even suspect the parents.
All I'm doing is trying to point out the other side. I really can see why they behaved the way they did -- even if I think it was a mistake.

Very good point IrishMist!
I also went that route ....
Police getting a little too heavy handed with the "we think you had something to do with this." That's when Ramsey's (or maybe a Ramsey lawyer friend stepping in) saying "I don't like the direction this is going in, I'd advise you to say very little,they may miscontrue(sp?) every thing that comes out of your mouth." That is all very understandable ... to a point.
After awhile,I would think;with the way the whole case was getting out of control,blaming everyone under the sun, I would think the Ramsey's would have stepped up and said "Hey wait a minute ... now they are even starting to suspect Burke for godsake ... that's enough,we are innocent and will tell the police everthing we possibly can to solve this horrible thing!!"
It is too suspicious how they were noncommital with EVERYTHING! In one instance JR was showing pictures of a Christmas party to the authorities,he was identifying the people in the pictures,and came across Betty (Stinson?)-a very good and close friend of the family,but I cannot remember who)
His reply was "and this is Betty ... I believe." I believe???? Why soooo cautious to the point of laughable? Again...you have to ask yourself ...why?

 

[IrishMist]

I think I would answer one way if I were a suspect, and another if I was a witness.

Please let me be clear. I don't agree with their decision, I think it really impeded the investigation. Who knows what information could have been found out if they'd been interviewed early on?? Something that might have seemed insignificant at the time, but may have evolved into something stronger.

Just SO many mistakes made, by everyone involved, ALL THE WAY AROUND.
Sometimes I don't think it will ever be solved.

 

[capps]

Just SO many mistakes made, by everyone involved, ALL THE WAY AROUND.
Sometimes I don't think it will ever be solved.

IrishMist ...

I believe you may be right.

 

[IrishMist]

I don't want to be right on this one. But, I'll tell ya, I think the only way it's going to be solved is if someone confesses. I also have a feeling it's someone they've already talked to.