Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[Chewy]

For all I know it could have been in a sack right next to the remaining opened package of Bloomingdales size 12 panties. It could have been removed along with the oil painting and golf bag & clubs. How did that package of panties disappear for years?

Remember john was missing that morning...went for a walk? Really?

So you contend John disposed of it on his walk and it was never found. Evidence please?


Confirmation bias means not caring about facts that don't support your theory.

 

[Venom]

For all I know it could have been in a sack right next to the remaining opened package of Bloomingdales size 12 panties. It could have been removed along with the oil painting and golf bag & clubs. How did that package of panties disappear for years?

Remember john was missing that morning...went for a walk? Really?

Wait a second, I thought he was just going for the mail?

 

[Chewy]

Here's an example of a duct tape related theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up and even ignoring evidence that proves it wrong. I don't get the reasoning behind this kind of "sleuthing"

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5782&page=14

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wait a second, I thought he was just going for the mail?

Went for the mail
Walk in the hills

He has, as is so predicable, more than one version.

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

So you contend John disposed of it on his walk and it was never found. Evidence please?





Confirmation bias means not caring about facts that don't support your theory.

I'm saying it's possible.

If a RDI...he would have had the means, motive and opportunity to have disposed of items.

And another question....

That opened package of size 12 Bloomingdales panties didn't walk themselves out of that house. How did they manage to disappear for years?

 

[Chewy]

I'm saying it's possible.

If a RDI...he would have had the means, motive and opportunity to have disposed of items.

And another question....

That opened package of size 12 Bloomingdales panties didn't walk themselves out of that house. How did they manage to disappear for years?

So, no evidence.

Cold cases are usually solved when an objective detective reexamines the evidence not the theories

 

[Linda7NJ]

So, no evidence.



Cold cases are usually solved when an objective detective reexamines the evidence not the theories

Ignoring legitimate questions

Making statements like the one above without doing the homework

Not playing.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Again it is not "a game " I'm asking for legitimate evidence not gossip and theory.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm saying it's possible.

If a RDI...he would have had the means, motive and opportunity to have disposed of items.

And another question....

That opened package of size 12 Bloomingdales panties didn't walk themselves out of that house. How did they manage to disappear for years?

and yet they magically reappeared years later.....

 

[Tawny]

The police didn't search the house top to bottom, so that duct tape could have been literally anywhere.

"Oh, it wasn't in plain sight next to her face, so obviously it isn't in the house."

Ok.

 

[DeDee]

Went for the mail
Walk in the hills

He has, as is so predicable, more than one version.

IMO

For clarification, I do believe that JR read his mail inside his home where Det. LA saw him and listed such in her police report.


Later on the 26th, after arriving at the Fernie's, JR was walking the hills.

"Time Unspecified
John Ramsey Hired Attorney Mike Bynum. "Michael Bynum, John Ramsey's close friend and corpprate attorney, who had been away snowshoing, now arrived at the Fernie's house. As he walked in, the family was kneeling in the living room praying with Rev. Hoverstock. [There is then a description of John's going for a walk with John Fernie in the hills] "When they returned a half hour later, Ramsey asked Bynum to represent him." (Schiller 1999a:27)."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461/December 26

Also, for Fernie reference:
http://www.acandyrose.com/06132001fernietestimony.htm

BTW ~ most interesting read about the polygraph tests. TY

 

[otg]

I’ll participate in this exercise one time, and then I’ll leave it to you to continue looking up the answers to your questions for yourself. Most people here have been at it long enough to know the answers and can’t help but feel a little defensive when a new poster comes in challenging beliefs that are based on what they’ve learned over the years, especially when it comes from someone who has demonstrated less knowledge about the case than the people they are challenging. But here are the answers to the questions you asked in the quoted post:

She was tasered, where did they hide it?

The “tasering” or “stun-gun theory” is exactly that -- a theory. It was based on no more “evidence” than that which you (and others) have decried in other posts as “just opinion”. It is one person’s theory which has for the most part been debunked by not only the manufacturer of the supposed weapon, but by nearly every other investigator involved in the case. It has no more been proven than has Kolar’s theory of the toy train tracks.

Where is the duct tape roll?

Why assume there was a roll of duct tape? It could just as easily have been a piece of tape that had been placed on something else that was removed and re-used.

The evidence observed by police at the scene strongly suggests that the attack came from someone outside the house; for instance:

[FONT=&quot](Your opinion -- NOT proven by anyone)
[/FONT]

A footprint made by a Hi-Tec stamped hiking boot was found in the concrete dust of the wine cellar. The boot has not been connected to any of the Ramseys or to the 400 people or more who have been to the Ramsey house.

Nor has it been connected to the crime. Undated, unsourced, not proven. The only thing proven about the Hi-Tec shoe (and this is a FACT) is that the Ramseys lied about their son owning a pair. The story is no longer available online, but it is referenced here (http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm) about halfway down immediately under “CHAIN OF EVENTS 2002”. And this story is a “twofer” -- it answers your next question:

An unidentified palm print was found on the door of the wine cellar. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.

Quote:

Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
August 23, 2002

BOULDER - Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case. The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

The two clues are:

-- A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

-- A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

"They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered," said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," Wood said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."
​

A pubic hair was found on the blanket in which JonBenet was wrapped. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.

Actually, it was an axillary (or ancillary) hair (not a pubic hair), and it was determined to belong to Patsy Ramsey by mitochondrial DNA. This was reported first by Carol McKinley on Fox News, and subsequently carried by numerous other news sources:

August 22, 2002
Carol McKinley, Fox News

"Unidentified arm hair belongs to Patsy"

Carol McKinnley on Fox news confirming investigators telling her the shoe print, palm print and unidentified hair are all solved.
​

A piece of broken glass was found under a basement window. The window was open and the sill showed signs of disturbance.

John Ramsey admitted that he had broken the window in climbed in earlier in the year because he had forgotten his keys while the rest of the family was out of town. The only disturbance to the material in the window was from wind blowing through the open window. Even the spider webs were not disturbed in the window frame, which Lou Smit demonstrated could not have been left undisturbed by an intruder -- by sliding his butt through it on camera.

There was a scuff-mark on the basement wall below the window. Someone had to have climbed in or out of this window (however, no footprints were found outside the window).

Ri-i-i-i-ght, the scuff mark. Remember about John saying he had slid through that window himself when he forgot his keys?

The duct tape and the cord used in the murder were not found in the Ramsey house. The offender must have brought them in and taken them out when he/she left the house after the murder.

Or, if you would like to be objective... The offender took them out when the police told them to leave the house after the murder. Or they were taken out when the offender’s sister/sister-in-law raided the hellhole under the watchful eyes of the BPD (who waited outside in the patrol car).

Just ignoring questions is not objective

Nor is ignoring answers.

That’s it. I’m out. I only dance with the same partner one time.

 

[Linda7NJ]

For clarification, I do believe that JR read his mail inside his home where Det. LA saw him and listed such in her police report.





Later on the 26th, after arriving at the Fernie's, JR was walking the hills.



"Time Unspecified

John Ramsey Hired Attorney Mike Bynum. "Michael Bynum, John Ramsey's close friend and corpprate attorney, who had been away snowshoing, now arrived at the Fernie's house. As he walked in, the family was kneeling in the living room praying with Rev. Hoverstock. [There is then a description of John's going for a walk with John Fernie in the hills] "When they returned a half hour later, Ramsey asked Bynum to represent him." (Schiller 1999a:27)."



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461/December 26



Also, for Fernie reference:

http://www.acandyrose.com/06132001fernietestimony.htm



BTW ~ most interesting read about the polygraph tests. TY

He was gone for an hour and a half .. Perhaps he did both.

I'm glad you enjoyed the poly info


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

So you contend John disposed of it on his walk and it was never found. Evidence please?


Confirmation bias means not caring about facts that don't support your theory.

Chewy,
oops. Confirmation bias means: explicitly using related facts to substantiate your particular theory.

Example: All swans are white. So every time a european saw a white swan this reinforced his/her assumption that all swans are white. Then when the europeans discovered New Zealand, hey presto they found black swans!

Eaxample: Blondes are stupid, so adverts are created using this idea, hence some males confirm their assumptions on viewing and sleep soundly that night.

Example: Dogs barking, each time a dog barks it hears its own bark echoed back, but it reckons its hearing another dog, and the hearing confirms the dog in its assumption, so it barks back!


.

 

[Chewy]

Why assume there was a roll of duct tape? It could just as easily have been a piece of tape that had been placed on something else that was removed and re-used.


[FONT=&quot](Your opinion -- NOT proven by anyone)
changed.[/COLOR]

I have no opinion yet. Except that you can't have an opinion if you haven't seen the evidence.

I think the bigger problem is that people are ridiculously defensive about their pet theories and read questions as attacks..

I'll read the rest now. But enough with the drama:tantrum:

 

[Linda7NJ]

Burke owned hi-tech boots

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeDee249
So again, this contradicts other information that some of the LE in the house that day DID wear that type of shoe. I believe Kolar mentioned this, didn't he?
PMPT was released October 18, 1999 and while Schiller obviously did extensive research, he did not have access to the case file, (at least not directly ) and, of course, Kolar did.

During their initial processing of the home, the Wine Cellar was examined in detail, and investigators noted the imprint of the poon of a boot in some mildew on the floor next to where JonBenét’s body had been concealed. It was from a “Hi-Tec” brand hiking style boot, and there appeared to be another partial boot or shoeprint impression nearby.
The poon of the boot was insufficiently distinguishable for comparison purposes, however. More specifically, there was nothing in the label of the boot impression that would help match it to another boot because of a wear pattern or other irregularity. Its presence in the cellar could only illustrate that at some point in time, perhaps days or months prior to the discovery of JonBenét’s body, someone wearing a Hi-Tec boot had stood in that room.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Pages 47, 48

Agent Walker had accompanied Sgt. Mason to the basement to inspect the Wine Cellar after the discovery of JonBenét’s body. He had been wearing a pair of Hi-Tec hiking boots at the time, and it was thought that the poon of his boot could have been responsible for the intruder’s footwear impression in the mold of that room.
Though I hadn’t read the reports yet, Trujillo told me that they believed Burke had also owned a pair of Hi-Tec brand hiking boots, and he could have been responsible for the intruder footprint evidence in the Wine Cellar.
BPD investigators had been contacted by a store clerk in Vail who believed Patsy Ramsey had purchased a set of Hi-Tec brand hiking boots before the murder. They had also been told by one of Burke’s playmates that he owned a pair of this brand of boot.
These were significant pieces of information, but didn’t lend themselves to helping investigators identify the exact set of boots responsible for the evidence located in the Wine Cellar. The boots purportedly owned by Burke were never recovered. Moreover, the imprint of the poon of the boot bore no distinguishing wear marks that would have allowed its comparison to any set of boots collected in the investigation.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Page 227

Burke is also a strong possibility considering the fact that he had recently been in the WC tearing open presents.
I learned, over the course of my inquiry, that it was Burke who had actually been responsible for tearing back the paper of the presents while playing in the basement on Christmas Day, and I wondered why Patsy would claim responsibility for doing this. Patsy had also told investigators that the unwrapped box of Lego toys in the same room was being hidden for Burke’s upcoming January birthday.
Foreign Faction: Who really kidnapped JonBenet? Page 339

Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?
A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.
Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?
A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.
Q. Sneakers?
A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.
John Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Q. Have you, whether it was before the interview in 1998 or subsequent to the interview in 1998, have you personally made attempts to find possible sources for the Hi-Tec shoe impression?
A. You mean like ask around if anybody had –
Q. Pick up the phone and call some friends, for example.
A. I didn't, no.
Q. Had you at any time, for example, some of the kids, like the Colby kids ever come over, did you ever go and just pick up the phone or walk across the alley and say, do you guys have Hi-Tec shoes? Did you ever do anything like that?
MR. WOOD: You are assuming she may have learned about it at the time she still lived there. She told you she wasn't sure when she first learned that.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not call the Colbys to ask if their children had –
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was from Boulder or Atlanta?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Did you sit down and discuss with Burke at any length whether or not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No.
Q. Did it cross your mind that he might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec shoes?
A. No. Because my understanding was that it was an adult footprint. He was nine years old at the time.
Q. Do you know the source of your belief that it was an adult's foot, footprint?
A. Whoever told me about it or wherever I learned it in the first place.
Q. Did you get any details concerning how much of a shoe impression was present?
A. No. It was just a footprint.
Q. Did you take that to, to be a full footprint, and by that I mean like a shoe, a complete shoe impression?
A. That is what I imagined, yes.
Q. And that, whether you were told that directly or you just assumed that, you believe is the source of your belief that it was an adult's shoe?
A. Yes.
Q. You have been asked about whether or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. And I am not restating a question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you said no one ever did?
A. Yes.
…
Q. Do you recall a period of time, prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on the shoelaces? And if it helps to remember –
A. I can't remember.
Q. Maybe this will help your recollection. They were shoes that were purchased while he was shopping with you in Atlanta.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as a fact.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether he owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on them?
A. I just can't remember, I bought so many shoes for him.
Q. And again, I will provide, I'll say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that, and maybe this will help refresh your recollection, he thought that -- the shoes were special because they had a compass on them, his only exposure for the most part to compasses had been in the plane and he kind of liked the idea of being able to point them different directions. Do you remember him doing that with the shoes?
A. I can't remember the shoes. I remember he had a compass thing like a watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.
Q. You don't remember him having shoes that you purchased with compasses on them?
MR. WOOD: She will tell you that one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and this will be the third time.
THE WITNESS: I can't remember.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it jog your memory to know that the shoes with compasses were made by Hi-Tec?
MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a fact?
MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating that as a fact.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know that.
Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this as a fact. There are two people who have provided us with information, including your son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the murder of your daughter.
MR. WOOD: You are stating that Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec shoes?
21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: He used the phrase Hi-Tec?
MR. LEVIN: Yes.
MR. WOOD: When?
MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give you the source. I can tell you that I have that information.
MR. WOOD: You said Burke told you.
MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney, you are aware.
MR. WOOD: Just so it is clear, there is a difference between you saying that somebody said Burke told them and Burke telling you because Burke has been interviewed by you all December of 1996, January of 1997, June of 1998.
Are you saying that it is within those interviews?
MR. LEVIN: No.
MR. WOOD: So he didn't tell you, he told somebody else you are stating as a fact because I don't think you all have talked to him other than those occasions, have you?
MR. KANE: Mr. Wood, we don't want to get into grand jury information.
Okay?
MR. WOOD: Okay.
MR. KANE: Fair enough?
MR. LEVIN: I am sorry, I should have been more direct. I thought you would understand --
Q. (By Mr. Levin) Fleet Junior also says that he (Burke) had Hi-Tec shoes.
…
Q. Okay. Is this the first time that you've heard that Burke says that he had Hi-Tec?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. This is the very first time?
A. Yes.
Q. When you said in your book and then you said at other times too that you didn't own either brand –
MR. WOOD: Hold on. If you have got a reference of the book.
MR. KANE: I'm sorry. Page 232.
MR. WOOD: And then you said at other times, too. Be more specific to it.
MR. KANE: Okay. Well, I will stick to the book.
Q. (By Mr. Kane) But I don't think it is any big secret that you've said that a bunch of times.
16 A. I don't remember –
MR. WOOD: Okay. What is the question?
Q. (By Mr. Kane) When you made that statement in your book -- I mean, maybe I ought to authenticate. You wrote this book, is that –
A. Sure.
MR. WOOD: We are not asking you to authenticate it. We are just asking you to refer us to the page.
Patsy Ramsey, 2000 Interview

Hi-Tec Sports will launch hikers promo
MODESTO, Calif. - Hi-Tec Sports USA will step up the marketing of its new children's outdoor hiking boot with an incentive campaign centered around the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World.
The company plans to offer posters, stickers and other amenities as part of a Navigators' Club that children can join when they purchase an item in the new Navigators' series.
Hi-Tec unveiled an outdoor boot called the Columbus as part of the series. The shoe features a compass tied to the laces. It comes in mochaspruce and navy, priced to retail at $44.95.
Hi-Tec will coordinate the club membership in Modesto and will send promotional posters with new orders. Details of the promotion will be offered to children in product boxes.
David Pompel, marketing manager, said he expects the promotion to spur children's sales. He reported company-wide sales for Hi-Tec should grow by 60 percent this year.
"When the kids get something in the box, they get excited," he said. Pompel added that Hi-Tec's rugged outdoor look is growing more popular as children focus on the environment.
"We're getting into department stores where the athletic look is dying. We try to make ties to positive values like recycling and the environment."
Footwear News, July 29, 1991

The Ramseys denied any connection to Hi-Tec footwear until Grand Jury testimony proved otherwise.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Most people here have been at it long enough to know the answers and can’t help but feel a little defensive when a new poster comes in challenging beliefs that are based on what they’ve learned over the years, especially when it comes from someone who has demonstrated less knowledge about the case than the people they are challenging.

SBM

I don't understand why people have to feel defensive about their beliefs if their confident in how they came to them. I would think they would welcome the opportunity to share their hard earned knowledge with all members, not just the ones that they agree with.

To be honest, I've seen incorrect information posted here by members who have been posting for years about this case. I don't think that newer members to this forum should be expected to take every post by long term members as fact. JMO.

 

[Tawny]

The issue arises when members post their links and sources and studies and are told they aren't credible, or they are an agenda, or they are biased. That is when people become defensive. The original question isn't offensive.

 

[UKGuy]

I’ll participate in this exercise one time, and then I’ll leave it to you to continue looking up the answers to your questions for yourself. Most people here have been at it long enough to know the answers and can’t help but feel a little defensive when a new poster comes in challenging beliefs that are based on what they’ve learned over the years, especially when it comes from someone who has demonstrated less knowledge about the case than the people they are challenging. But here are the answers to the questions you asked in the quoted post:

The “tasering” or “stun-gun theory” is exactly that -- a theory. It was based on no more “evidence” than that which you (and others) have decried in other posts as “just opinion”. It is one person’s theory which has for the most part been debunked by not only the manufacturer of the supposed weapon, but by nearly every other investigator involved in the case. It has no more been proven than has Kolar’s theory of the toy train tracks.


Why assume there was a roll of duct tape? It could just as easily have been a piece of tape that had been placed on something else that was removed and re-used.


[FONT=&quot](Your opinion -- NOT proven by anyone)
[/FONT]

Nor has it been connected to the crime. Undated, unsourced, not proven. The only thing proven about the Hi-Tec shoe (and this is a FACT) is that the Ramseys lied about their son owning a pair. The story is no longer available online, but it is referenced here (http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm) about halfway down immediately under “CHAIN OF EVENTS 2002”. And this story is a “twofer” -- it answers your next question:
Quote:

Ramsey evidence is explained Hand, boot prints determined to be innocent occurrences
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
August 23, 2002

BOULDER - Investigators have answered two vexing questions in the JonBenet Ramsey case that have long helped support the theory that an intruder killed her, according to sources close to the case. The answers, which have been known to investigators for some time but never publicly revealed, could be seen to weaken the intruder theory.

The two clues are:

-- A mysterious Hi-Tec boot print in the mold on the floor of the Ramseys' wine cellar near JonBenet's body has been linked by investigators to Burke, her brother, who was 9 at the time. It is believed to have been left there under circumstances unrelated to JonBenet's murder.

Burke, now 15, has repeatedly been cleared by authorities of any suspicion in the 1996 Christmas night slaying, and that has not changed.

-- A palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Melinda Ramsey, JonBenet's adult half-sister. She was in Georgia at the time of the murder.

"They were certainly some things that had to be answered, one way or the other, and we feel satisfied that they are both answered," said a source close to the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

L. Lin Wood, the attorney representing the Ramseys, who now live in Atlanta, doesn't debate the palm print findings. But he contends the police have not answered the Hi-Tec print mystery.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," Wood said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."
​

Actually, it was an axillary (or ancillary) hair (not a pubic hair), and it was determined to belong to Patsy Ramsey by mitochondrial DNA. This was reported first by Carol McKinley on Fox News, and subsequently carried by numerous other news sources:

August 22, 2002
Carol McKinley, Fox News

"Unidentified arm hair belongs to Patsy"

Carol McKinnley on Fox news confirming investigators telling her the shoe print, palm print and unidentified hair are all solved.
​

John Ramsey admitted that he had broken the window in climbed in earlier in the year because he had forgotten his keys while the rest of the family was out of town. The only disturbance to the material in the window was from wind blowing through the open window. Even the spider webs were not disturbed in the window frame, which Lou Smit demonstrated could not have been left undisturbed by an intruder -- by sliding his butt through it on camera.


Ri-i-i-i-ght, the scuff mark. Remember about John saying he had slid through that window himself when he forgot his keys?


Or, if you would like to be objective... The offender took them out when the police told them to leave the house after the murder. Or they were taken out when the offender’s sister/sister-in-law raided the hellhole under the watchful eyes of the BPD (who waited outside in the patrol car).


Nor is ignoring answers.

That’s it. I’m out. I only dance with the same partner one time.

otg,
Lots of answers above for those that find the profusion of theories difficult to navigate.

John Ramsey admitted that he had broken the window in climbed in earlier in the year because he had forgotten his keys while the rest of the family was out of town. The only disturbance to the material in the window was from wind blowing through the open window. Even the spider webs were not disturbed in the window frame, which Lou Smit demonstrated could not have been left undisturbed by an intruder -- by sliding his butt through it on camera.

I have the impression that JR is explaining away someone elses staging here, and I reckon he could only do that if he more or less knows what took place?

Others reckon JR was telepathic and could talk and stage accordingly, after reading the RN?

I disagree. I think JR rearranged PR's staging down in the basement, hence JR's ownership of some items, e.g. suitcase, the chair, broken window, etc.

.

 

[Chewy]

Evidence that the logo on a 9 year olds shoe would be the same as the size found in the basement would be helpful