John Ramsey and the basement

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Watching You, May 17, 2003.

  1. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I don't know why I never questioned this before, because it's pretty glaring, but I'm going to question it now.

    Both Fleet White and John Ramsey were in the basement on the morning of December 26. Fleet was there very early and even looked inside the room where JBR's body was later found, but he saw no body then.

    Unknown at the time but revealed by John Ramsey much much later, he also was in the basement the morning of December 26, perhaps mid-morning or so?

    So, here's the question. Since JR and FW had already been in the basement that morning, why, when Linda Arndt told them to "search the house from top to bottom" did JR head directly for the basement where he had already been earlier that morning? If I understand correctly, it was JR who led the way with FW bringing up the rear. I don't remember if FW told JR that he (Fleet) had already been in the basement and didn't see anything, but JR darn well had knowledge that he, himself, had been in the basement and apparently saw no signs of JBR at the time.

    So, why did he head for the basement when Arndt said from "top to bottom?" Why didn't he start on the top floor?

    I find this very odd. Why go back to search the basement where he had already been earlier in the day? Why was he in the basement earlier in the day if not to look around down there? What other reason would he have had to be in the basement at that time? Why didn't he just say to Arndt, well, I was just in the basement a short time ago and I didn't see anything out of the way, which, apparently, he didn't, since he never told a soul he had been down there.

    Strange goings on in that house that day.
     
  2. Kristabelle

    Kristabelle Member

    The basement

    WatchingYou,

    Hello, nice to finally get a chance to talk with you. I have been reading your enlightening posts for quite some time.

    In my opinion, I think that John thought that it was time to find the body. I think that he knew where her body was, and he thought that the police would have found it earlier. When they didn't, he took Linda Arndt's suggestion as the opportunity to "discover" JB's body.
     
  3. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Hi Kristabelle

    So nice to see your shiney new face here.

    I absolutely agree with you. It's just that I've never seen anyone ever address the fact that JR never said a word to anyone that morning that he had already been in the basement to search, so why did he have to head there first thing when Arndt told them to search?

    Just one more contradiction in the Ramseys' story that has never been clarified by them.
     
  4. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    WATCHING YOU:

    "I don't know why I never questioned this before, because it's
    pretty glaring, but I'm going to question it now.......

    So, why did he head for the basement when Arndt said from "top to
    bottom?" Why didn't he start on the top floor?....

    Strange goings on in that house that day.

    KRISTABELLE:

    "In my opinion, I think that John thought that it was time to
    find the body. I think that he knew where her body was, and he
    thought that the police would have found it earlier. When they
    didn't, he took Linda Arndt's suggestion as the opportunity to
    "discover" JB's body."

    Yes, Kristabelle, its the only answer that makes sense. This ties
    in with many correlating facts that answer some other questions
    asked by Watching You.

    Fleet reported that he looked into the room earlier, but couldn't
    find the light switch. He said it was too dark to see anything.
    When John was questioned about this, he couldn't be sure whether
    he turned on the light or not, but was certain there was
    sufficient visibility to identify JonBenet without a light. His
    primary identification was the blanket.

    John stated he had been in the basement earlier that morning
    between 7 and 9. He reported he had been in the train room and
    saw the broken window, but recalled breaking it himself during
    the summer. John said it was open "an inch or so", AND he closed
    it.

    This wicket gets more and more sticky. During Lou Smit's
    interrogation ( and I use the term loosely) John was shown a
    photograph of a door with a chair sitting against it.

    As you enter the basement from upstairs, there is a wall
    separating this part of the basement from the train room where
    the broken window is; the one that John claimed to have found
    open an "inch or so" and closed it.

    The door to the train room opens inward. This is the door
    photographed with the chair sitting against it; so to go through
    this door into the train room, one would have to remove the chair
    - but there it was in all its glory long after John had said he
    was in the train room earlier.

    John's dance around this was to claim he had replaced the chair
    in front of the door after he came back from the train room. The
    grave get deeper. If the chair was against the door when John was
    first there in the morning, this paints a very unlikely picture
    of an "intruder."

    The "intruder" reached through the broken window pane, cranked
    the window open and entered. He came to the door in question.
    From this direction, the door swings away. This means that in
    opening this door to access the main part of the house, he had to
    push the chair away from the door.

    Upon leaving, he had to put it back for John's story to have any
    credibility at all. This means that as he backed out, he had to
    reach around the door, grab the chair and pull it back toward its
    position blocking the door.

    The probability of this happening is I estimate 99.9999999%
    against. If there is another picture somewhere taken at a
    different angle and showing the chair touching the door, even
    this margin disappears and its 100% certainty. The arm inserted
    around the door precludes closing the door completely. At some
    point, the "intruder" had to let go of the chair, hence, it could
    not be pulled against and flush with the door.

    Lets us not forget, the "intruder" stopped and closed the window
    too.

    Anyone who believes all this intruder nonsense may be interested
    in a couple of bridges I have for sale.

    Delmar
     
  5. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    John didn't have all his ducks

    in a row on this subject. It is pure nonsense that an intruder would perch precariously on a wobbly suitcase to exit the basement window when there was a perfectly stable chair he could have stood on. What is even more preposterous is that JR claims to have moved the chair going into that room, then putting that obstructive chair right back where he found it while exiting that room. The chair was in the way of the entrance to the room -it makes no sense to put it back in the way.

    You're right, Easy Writer, John's basement story has a lot of holes in it that show me he is lying through his teeth.
     
  6. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Watching You:
    "You're right, Easy Writer, John's basement story has a lot of
    holes in it that show me he is lying through his teeth."

    Behind every story told that didn't happen, there is the truth
    displaced. What truth is displaced in John's story about the
    basement?

    Here's my call: John went into the basement between 7 and 9 on
    the morning of the 26th. He did not move the chair and go into
    the train room. When asked how long he was down there, he replied
    30 seconds to a minute. Why was he down there? Could it be that
    he intended to "discover" the body at this time, but changed his
    mind?

    When John was asked his reason for being in the basement, if
    intent was to "discover" the body, certainly he was not about to
    tell it. Instead, he came up with the story about going into the
    train room and checking the window, but did not think about the
    chair in front of the door that made his story more than a bit
    absurd - so he walked right into a trap of his own making. What's
    new?

    Delmar
     
  7. DocG

    DocG Banned

    I see no reason for John to have "suddenly decided it was time to discover the body." Just couldn't have been THAT simple.

    Fleet's testimony about entering the windowless room earlier is IMO a huge clue. Keep in mind he is opening that door very early in the AM, probably before sunrise. His eyes are dark adapted. He looks into the room and sees nothing suspicious. Now, hours later, at mid-day, John opens the same door. He has just come from the first floor, from a house bathed in bright sunlight. His eyes are NOT dark adapted. According to White, he immediately screams, PRIOR to turning on the light. Then there is a brief pause, and only then does he flip the switch. I think this is the beginning of Fleet's suspicion of John.

    If you've never spent much time in total darkness, then maybe the significance of dark adaptation won't mean much to you. I have. Once your eyes adapt to the dark there is a HUGE difference in how much you can see. Fleet would have been in a much better position to see what was in that room than John, because he looked in there early enough so that his eyes weren't exposed to bright sunlight -- and were thus dark adapted. So how come John was immediately able to spot the body, when Fleet saw nothing unusual?

    It's been surmised that John could have moved the body into the windowless room after Fleet had (without John knowing about it) looked in there. I see no reason for him to have done that. But I do see another scenario:

    I think it possible John might have hidden JonBenet very carefully away in the windowless room, under some blankets and in a remote corner. (If my theory is correct, he would at that time have been hiding it from Patsy, and storing it there only for a while, until he'd had the chance to dump it outside the house later, prior to the police being called in.) When Fleet looked in, therefore, it's possible he might not have noticed anything unusual, just a room with various items in it, including some blankets in the corner.

    When Arndt decided to encourage the two of them to systematically search the house, John could have realized that it might look VERY bad if the body had been found where he'd left it. Because an intruder would have had no reason to hide the body away so thoroughly. It's possible he rushed down there to make sure he'd be the first to enter the room, so he could quickly rearrange things to make it seem as though the body was NOT hidden under anything else, or in a corner, but right out in the open. So there could have been a very good reason for him to take his time before switching on the light. Get everything into place first, THEN turn the light on.
     
  8. DocG

    DocG Banned

    The chair

    The chair blocking the door is also consistent with my theory, which surmises that John could have initially staged, and then decided to UNstage that window breakin. If in fact he did stage it, breaking the window himself, placing the suitcase under it, strewing debris under it, etc., the reaction of the police could have convinced him his staging had been a mistake, that they'd eventually see through it. So I think he might at that point have decided to UNstage his earlier staging. Which would explain why he didn't report the window open and in fact closed it, without telling anyone. And claimed he'd broken the window months earlier. The placing of the chair could also have been part of an effort on his part to draw attention AWAY from that window and away from his original plan.

    If that was his plan B strategy, it certainly worked. The investigators, like the rest of us, have been thoroughly confused by all the mixed signals provided by that window scene. As it stands it simply makes no sense. Only if we see it as a staging gone wrong, followed by an UNstaging, does it all add up.
     
  9. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DocG:

    "I see no reason for John to have "suddenly decided it was time
    to discover the body." Just couldn't have been THAT simple."

    Why not? How simple is THAT simple? My conclusions are never set
    in concrete. There is an ongoing process or reexamination. Input
    such as yours to be considered in reexamination is an invaluable
    aid. Thanks.

    Perhaps, if I explain my thinking behind the conclusion, it will
    provide some insight to enable you to point out our specific
    differences on this.

    As far as I know, it is not disputed that John was in the
    basement between 7 and 9. John says he was there from 30 seconds
    to a minute. He says he went into the train room and checked the
    window. The time factor and chair against the door tend much to
    refute this claim.

    If he were in the basement, and this seems to be the case, he
    went there for a reason, to accomplish something. What?
    Returning in less than a minute strongly implies he changed his
    mind. About what? About "discovering" the body is all I can come
    up with. Is there some other alternative?

    John knew the body was in the basement. He knew that if it
    weren't discovered, it would mean prolonging a very critical
    moment that exerted much pressure. He wanted this dreaded moment
    over with. The police had been at the house since around six and
    had not found the body. It looked like they might not discover
    it. The task then fell to John.

    After it seemed the police had abandoned the search of the house,
    John was strongly emotionally motivated to find the body. He went
    to the basement between 7 and 9 with intent to do so. However, he
    lost his nerve. This random "finding" would look more than a bit
    suspicious; so he abandoned the intent. When he was given the go
    ahead later in the day, he made a beeline to the basement and to
    the body.

    So, this is my thinking that lies behind the previously expressed
    conclusion. I simply can't think of any other explanation for
    John's behavior except this, but will certainly be glad to
    examine any alternative idea you may have; and stand corrected if
    warranted.

    "If you've never spent much time in total darkness, then maybe
    the significance of dark adaptation won't mean much to you. I
    have"

    I am very familiar with dark\light adaptation and am in
    concurrence with what you say about it in relation to Fleet White
    and John Ramsey in the basement situation. I think Fleet White
    was suspicious from the beginning. What happened in the basement
    removed the last doubt in Fleet's mind.

    "I think it possible John might have hidden JonBenet very
    carefully away in the windowless room, under some blankets and
    in a remote corner. (If my theory is correct, he would at that
    time have been hiding it from Patsy, ..."

    Hiding it from Patsy, I can't agree with, but explanation would
    be much too long for this post. I will however, explain my theory
    and the why of it in detail at another time.

    "When Arndt decided to encourage the two of them to
    systematically search the house, John could have realized that it
    might look VERY bad if the body had been found where he'd left
    it."

    I think it was found exactly where he left it the night before;
    but again that's a long story I won't go into at this time.

    In any event, thanks again for your input. I'm here to learn. If
    I can't defend an idea, I will abandon it with appreciation to
    any and all who help me to discover error in my thinking.

    Delmar
     
  10. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Same Time Frame?

    As the discussions of bringing a search dog onto the scene? That could be another factor in John's decision to get on with the show.

    It is too bad that the argument over which type of dog to use took up the prescious little time available before her body was found. We would have also learned where she was hidden before she was moved in to the room she was found in.

    RR
     
  11. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DocG:

    "The chair blocking the door is also consistent with my theory,
    which surmises that John could have initially staged, and then
    decided to UNstage that window breakin."

    You are saying that John staged a scene to make it look like an
    intruder entered the house, then attempted to undo the staging?
    To look like what? Like an intruder didn't enter the house? What
    was left after undoing the staging? How did this indicate an
    intruder entered the house; which is the whole point of John's
    actions isn't it?

    "If in fact he did stage it, breaking the window himself, placing
    the suitcase under it, strewing debris under it, etc., the
    reaction of the police could have convinced him his staging had
    been a mistake, that they'd eventually see through it."

    As far as I know, there is no dispute to the claim that John
    broke the window during the past summer. All of the broken glass
    was removed except for a few overlooked slivers tend to verify
    this story. So, if the broken window was an attempt to stage and
    there was an attempt to unstage. Doesn't this mean the staging
    had to start during the past summer? Since nearly all the glass
    was gone, does this mean that John removed it during the staging
    or after? If so when and under what circumstances.


    If he decided to unstage prompted by police reaction, wouldn't
    they have to have seen the broken window in the original stage
    situation with the broken glass all around? Was any such thing
    seen? All evidence and all testimony indicates the window was
    broken months before that night. If this is the case, how can
    this figure into staging since said broken window is removed by
    time from the crime scene? Doesn't the fact the window was found
    closed except for an "inch or so" oppose the idea of it being
    part of the staging? Doesn't it really indicate an oversight and
    failure to include the window and door in the staging? Fatal
    error in stressful times is not all that unusual.

    "So I think he might at that point have decided to UNstage his
    earlier staging. Which would explain why he didn't report the
    window open and in fact closed it, without telling anyone."

    Are you saying then that you believe his story that in 30 seconds
    to a minute, he went into the basement, through the door into the
    train room, closed the window, came back through the door, closed
    it, then set the chair back against it as was shown in the photo?
    Is this an accurate summary of what you are saying? If not,
    please correct?

    "And claimed he'd broken the window months earlier."

    Do you know of anything that disputes this claim? Does not the
    missing broken glass tend to confirm the claim?

    "The placing of the chair could also have been part of an effort
    on his part to draw attention AWAY from that window and away from
    his original plan."

    How does it draw attention away from the window since window and
    door are both part of the alleged exit route of the "intruder?"
    A closed window and closed door with chair against it gives a
    very strong impression that this scene was not disturbed by some
    person entering and exiting the premises. (Explained in previous
    post) How does this benefit John in trying to convince others
    that there was an intruder?

    "If that was his plan B strategy, it certainly worked. The
    investigators, like the rest of us, have been thoroughly confused
    by all the mixed signals provided by that window scene."

    Personally, I don't see any mixed signals and am not confused at
    all. Of course, a full explanation would be much too long at this
    time. However, it will arrive bye and bye.

    "As it stands it simply makes no sense. Only if we see it as a
    staging gone wrong, followed by an UNstaging, does it all add
    up."

    How so? If we take as fact the window was broken during the
    summer, and open an "inch of so" on the fatal night, then
    correlate this with the chair against the door, this reads most
    unlikely entrance and exit of an intruder. When we mesh this with
    all the other known evidence, such as the body in the house, also
    including an amateurish "garrote scene" and note, with none or
    all connected to any outside source for material, doesn't this
    land squarely on the conclusion of no intruder, ergo, Ramsey
    guilt? I think it adds up quite nicely without contradiction or
    confusion.

    If you believe me to be in error, please respond to my questions,
    then point to the what and why of what you believe to be my
    mistakes. I will appreciate it and rethink the situation.

    Delmar
     
  12. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Very good thread,

    If my memory serves me correctly right now John's behavior between the hours of say 9 and the 1PM he found the body were some very frentic ones. The time frame between his going to the basement for that 1 minute and then when he went after being asked to search the house from top to bottom. Didn't he grab something to drink alcoholic I mean and then go get the mail, and all sorts of other very nervous behavior...all this while waiting for that deadline of 10 AM and the call from the "kidnappers" which didn't happen of course.

    What else do we know of that time frame and his behavior?
     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The whole purpose

    of staging the crime scene was for someone to find JBR's body. This is what those who believe the Ramseys were planning to move the body later don't take into account. If they didn't expect the body to be found, there was no reason to stage the scene.

    They say the killer does not want to be the one to find the body, and that may have been true here. But, as time went on and the one police officer who had been in the basement that morning failed to open the door to the room where JBR's body was later found, probably thinking a kidnapper couldn't lock himself and JBR in that room from the inside, JR started to get edgy. Keep in mind, this was his daughter lying in that filthy, cold room. It doesn't matter the manner of her death, JB was his daughter, and I believe he loved her.

    Couple that with the fact that things were not proceeding as JR had planned, and given the fact that he had a few more hours to think about things, he probably figured out that if he were the one to "find" JB's body, he could contaminate the crime scene, which is what he did, bringing JB's body upstairs so that Patsy could then contaminate the body even more, forever changing the way this case may have gone had proper police procedure been used that day.

    I don't know if we will ever know what really happened Christmas night and the next morning. I had always thought JR went to the basement to make sure he didn't have any loose ends that might hang him or perhaps even to move JBR's body. I hadn't thought that maybe he went down there at that time to find the body then, but that might be an even better explanation as to why he was there. Is it also possible that he knew the police officer had been in the basement and John wanted to be sure the door to that room was still closed and locked. Maybe he thought the cops were playing a little cat and mouse game with him.
     
  14. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Hi Delmar

    Is this Delmar English? If so, I'm very pleased to meet you. I remember reading your theory with great interest some time ago.

    I apologize if my posts sound confusing to you. I guess I was assuming most on this forum are familiar with my theory as a whole, but possibly not.

    Your comments make a good deal of sense and your puzzlement is understandable. A summary of my complete theory can be found here: http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/theory_Ramsey/16.html

    LovelyPigeon was kind enough to post it on Jameson's theory forum.

    Some parts, such as my thoughts regarding the murder itself and the use of a computer font as model for the note, are more speculative than others and are not essential to the gist of the theory. The essentials are (and the following is ONLY hypothetical): John kills JonBenet, motivated by fear his prior molestation of her will be revealed; he decides to cover his involvement by staging a phoney kidnapping; to do this he needs a ransom note and a point of entry, so he writes the note and stages the window breakin and hides the body temporarily in the windowless room; his plan is to frighten Patsy into NOT calling the police, thus buying him time to dump the body later that day or the following night; his excuse for leaving the house and going to a remote site will be that he is delivering the ransom to the kidnappers; but Patsy, for some reason, fails to go along with his plan and calls the police anyhow; as a result his plan A is blown and he is forced to improvise a plan B; since the police have arrived prematurely, before he's had a chance to complete his window staging, he is afraid they will see through it to the truth: that HE staged it; so he is forced to UNstage; while this does in fact, as you say, undercut the "intruder scenario" he tried to concoct, he does not at that point really have a choice -- once it's clear he staged the breakin, it's all over for him -- which is why he is forced to close the window (very early, around 7 AM actually) and then claim he'd broken it months earlier. Since there is no sign of any disturbance on the window sill and frame, it's clear no one went through the window, so if he hadn't UNstaged, it would have been crystal clear that HE'd broken it THAT NIGHT himself, in an attempt to deceive.

    As far as the extra glass is concerned, this was a very small break, the size of a baseball -- and some large pieces had already been found by Fleet White, and placed on the window sill. We have no way of knowing how large they were. And we have no idea how much extra glass the police may have found. Finally, it's possible John could have pocketed some of the glass when he was down there at 7 AM doing his unstaging.

    As far as the story of having broken the glass months earlier the only reason that's never been disputed is because it involves a very clever misdirection. So everyone says, "why would John have claimed he broke it earlier if he wanted us to think an intruder broke it?" It's only when you see the possibility that there was a plan that went wrong that you see how John could have had good reason to unstage.

    On it's face the story of his breaking the window earlier is patently absurd. NO ONE but Patsy has ever verified that. The housekeeper claims she never noticed a broken window, despite Patsy's claim that this same housekeeper helped her clean up the glass. The story is so far fetched it involves John taking off his clothes to squeeze into that absurdly narrow space, when all he needed to do was call a neighbor on his cell phone or break into one of the much more convenient ground level windows (or just call the police for help). IMO he NEEDED that story to explain away a broken window that would otherwise have pointed to HIM as stager of a phoney intruder.

    Hope this is helpful, Delmar. And not too confusing. If you don't mind, it would be nice if you could post your theory, so we could compare notes.
     
  15. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Watching You:

    "Couple that with the fact that things were not proceeding as JR
    had planned, and given the fact that he had a few more hours to
    think about things, he probably figured out that if he were the
    one to "find" JB's body, he could contaminate the crime scene,
    which is what he did, bringing JB's body upstairs so that Patsy
    could then contaminate the body even more, forever changing the
    way this case may have gone had proper police procedure been used
    that day."

    Although what you say about deliberate contamination of the crime
    scene could be true, I think you are giving them credit for a
    grasp of the situation they did not have. After all the staging
    via the note and the body, they evidently were in such a mental
    state that the elementary was forgotten: The closed window and
    door with chair against it indicates they never thought of
    setting up staging for entrance and exit of the "intruder."

    As for "....forever changing the way this case may have gone had
    proper police procedure been used that day", no doubt it did
    change things in some measure, but whatever the contamination,
    deliberate or otherwise, the real problem was police failure to
    read the evidence correctly and accept as true what the evidence
    revealed.

    An alleged ransom note, highly suspicious at a glance was
    certainly a red flag. When the body was found in the basement,
    the last logical doubt of staged crime scene was gone. Failure to
    remove the victim from the property and failure to make any
    attempt to collect were too very large elements in this
    conclusion. Add to this the ad hoc amateurish "garrote scene"
    constructed with material at hand and where is there left to go?
    An intruder did all this?

    There is not a single factual element in the whole crime scene
    that even remotely suggests an intruder. Yet, based on nothing
    but John' claim of innocence and Lou Smit's illusions and
    aberrations, many thousands of man hours and many thousands of
    dollars were spent chasing figments of Smit's imagination. Six
    years later, where are we? Just exactly where the evidence
    predicted IF not read correctly and followed.
     
  16. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DocG

    "Is this Delmar English? If so, I'm very pleased to meet you. I
    remember reading your theory with great interest some time ago."

    No. The name is Delmar England; and I am pleased to meet you as
    well.

    "If you don't mind, it would be nice if you could post your
    theory, so we could compare notes."

    The framework of my theory with considerable substance takes up
    around 40 pages. For several reason, length being one, I don't
    think its a good idea to present it as a post. As you are
    evidently aware, a considerable bit of my work is located on the
    wonderful website of ACandyRose. All of this is incorporated by
    reference as definitive support for the framework and substance
    referred to above. Bye and bye, the framework and fundamental
    substance will probably be at the ACR site, but for certain
    reasons, not at the moment.

    Delmar England
     
  17. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Sorry I got your name wrong, Delmar. I'll head for the (great) ACR site and look for whatever material on your theory is over there.

    WY, I'm sorry I just can't see why the Ramseys would call in the police when they did, knowing full well the body was still in the house and that sooner or later their kidnap staging would go down the toilet.

    You say they WANTED the police to find the body? Why? The only thing that makes sense would be to 1. write the phoney note (which gave them some very good reasons NOT to call the police); 2. get the body OUT of the house; 3. THEN call the cops, with a story about how they delivered the ransom but the child was never returned. That way, the note would have some credence. But once the body is found in house, regardless of who finds it or when, the note no longer works for them. It in fact works against them. It's ONLY because of the failure of the CBI and Secret Service "experts" to finger either Patsy or John as the writer that the note has helped them. IMO that was simply a fluke, something they couldn't have anticipated (assuming both are guilty, which I doubt).
     
  18. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    LOL, DocG

    why do you think the police had so much trouble solving this case? There was a ransom note, a body, a staged scene, two causes of death - a cracked skull and strangulation... I wish I knew the answers - I don't.

    There is another thing, though, that has always amazed me. Lou Smit swears an intruder came through that basement window, yet, when he demonstrated how that could be possible, there wasn't a part of his body that wasn't at some time touching the inside of that window well, with his rear end sitting on and swiping across the window sill. Yet, there wasn't a sign of any leaves or debris upstairs in JBR's bedroom or any of the other places this phantom intruder allegedly went in that house. That's just not how it works, sorry.

    The biggest stretch of all, I think, is the hole in the window and its location. I thought I had read somewhere that the hole was the size of a baseball. Well, think about it - have you ever stuck your hand through a hole in a window? In the first place, it is unbelieveable to me that John Ramsey put a round hole in that window without leaving any jagged edges. Well, I guess we don't know if he left any jagged edges, but that in itself opens up more questions. A baseball is small. A softball is bigger, but even then, look at your own hand. I don't even know if I could fit my hand through a small hole the size of a baseball, and your hand is likely bigger than mine, since you are of the male species and I female. Do you think you could fit your hand through a baseball, or even a softball-sized hole in glass?

    Well, think about it. It's not likely JR put a perfect round hole in that window. Glass splinters when broken that way, often leaving jagged edges. Even if he, or an intruder, could have gotten his hand through that little hole, how on earth could he manage to move his arm through enough to feel around for the lock? I don't recall the location of the lock or latch, whichever it was, on that window. The hole was in the top left pane, if I remember right, and I may not. I thought that was an awkward place for a latch, but whatever. If the latch, or lock, was not very close to where the hole was broken out, then JR, and the intruder, would have had to have reached in further, exposing his arm to the jagged edges of the glass, almost guaranteeing scratches or cuts on his hand and arm. With cuts comes blood, right?

    How did either JR, when he came through that window when he locked himself out as he claims, manage to make such a small hole in the window, the size of a baseball (I saw the pictures - it looked round to me), stick his man-sized paw and probably part of his arm through that tiny hole and feel around for the latch, without cutting himself? I've done it, I know how hard it it. I have broken a basement window to get into my home before. I know the glass splinters. I scraped and cut my arms, got cobwobs and leaves and dirt on my clothing and in my hair, tore my clothing on a stray nail, gouging my skin in the process, bruised and bloodied up my skin on the rough cement as I went through the window after I unlocked it, and landed on my knees on the basement floor. IN short, I damn near killed myself doing it, and I had a much clearer shot getting in that window than JR or his intruder did.

    Maybe someone can explain to me how anyone stuck his hand, especially at such an awkward angle as he would have had to have been, through a baseball-sized hole to unlock a window. I never did understand that one.
     
  19. DocG

    DocG Banned

    I don't understand it either, WY. The whole story sounds incredibly phoney to me. I don't think anyone EVER put their hand through that little hole, nor did anyone EVER crawl through that tiny, filthy window space. Lou Smit is not and may never have been an "impartial" investigator. His window theory makes NO sense and ignores vital evidence which he's never even attempted to challenge. He's spinning some sort of spin for the Ramseys. Whether there's anything in it for him aside from notoriety I have no idea. And some very naive people, including, VERY sad to say, a judge, are buying it.
     
  20. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DocG"

    "I don't understand it either, WY. The whole story sounds
    incredibly phoney to me. I don't think anyone EVER put their hand
    through that little hole, nor did anyone EVER crawl through that
    tiny, filthy window space."

    Know what, DocG. I agree. I have been using John's story because
    it works against him and I can't prove anything different.
    However, as you say, the whole idea "sounds incredibly phoney."
    I very strongly suspect that the true story that goes with the
    broken window is something they don't want anyone to know about,
    hence, the breaking and entering cover. What the truth is about
    the window, I have no idea, but breaking it out and crawling
    through in his underwear? I don't think so.

    "Lou Smit is not and may never have been an "impartial"
    investigator."

    If I may provide a paraphrase summary: Smit: "John did you have
    anything to do with the death of JonBenet, or know anything about
    it?"

    John: "No, I swear to God."

    Smit: "That's good enough for me. Now I must go find an
    intruder."

    "His window theory makes NO sense and ignores vital evidence
    which he's never even attempted to challenge. He's spinning some
    sort of spin for the Ramseys. Whether there's anything in it for
    him aside from notoriety I have no idea. And some very naive
    people, including, VERY sad to say, a judge, are buying it."

    Sad, but true; and maybe eventually, we shall put an end to this
    farce. (We being all who have worked in this direction.)

    Delmar
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice