One More Time

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by EasyWriter, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    I came into this case late (March 2000) and stayed around much
    longer than originally intended. From the outset, it was obvious
    that the fix was in. I do not mean a cash payoff, but the all-
    too-familiar money\political caste system of favoritism evidenced
    in and by the convergence of incompetence and dereliction of
    official duty by relevant “powers that be.â€

    I have pretty much said what I have to say about the case and see
    no need to repeat. However, the recent event of John Ramsey’s
    announced intent to seek public office in arrogant dismissal of
    the “umbrella of suspicion†motivates a repeat and modification
    of one element of the past.

    Shortly after my initial investigation, I issued a forum
    invitation to any and all intruder theorists to meet me online
    for discussion. There were no takers; nor has a single line of my
    arguments been challenged. (A boring repeat of refuted alleged
    evidence of an alleged intruder is not a challenge.)

    I issue the invitation again with this modification: I will not
    offer a single conclusion. I will only ask questions. The
    rationale and intent is to make a salient point: It is not the
    conclusion of others that intruder theorists fear. It is their
    own.

    Given the evidentiary circumstance of the case, data input to a
    mind cannot logically arrive at the conclusion, intruder cause.
    This means, as I have stated directly to Mary Keenan, it is
    impossible (for her) to believe there was an intruder. Due to
    emotional bias and denial, information held in mind of an
    observer claiming evidence of an intruder has not been
    assimilated into knowledge. The right questions will bring this
    to the forefront and out in the open; hence, the modification of
    my original invitation.

    No, there will not be anyone stepping forward to accept the
    invitation. This is simply a way of reminding any and all members
    of the RST who stay out of range of probing inquiry that they
    fool no one, not even themselves.

    As a final footnote, I am moved to express my appreciation of and
    admiration for the time, money and effort put into the case by so
    many. I hesitate to name names for fear of slighting someone, but
    ACandyRose and Tricia quickly come to mind.
     
  2. Elle

    Elle Member


    Sincerely hope someone will have the courage to accept your invitation EasyWriter. I also thank the people named above for their hard work relating to the JonBenét case.
     
  3. Little

    Little Member

    I would like to add Delmar England to that footnote :)
     
  4. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Ditto from Thor. ACR, Tricia & Delmar are all great advocates for this case and have done more than I could ever do. The fact that no one (including Keenan) has accepted your offer speaks volumes.
     
  5. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Delmar and ACR are at the top of my list. They are both smart and determind. I am more annoying to those involved. :)

    We can't ever give up. We are making a difference. I promise. People take notice all the time.
     
  6. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    The real challenge, EasyWriter..

    I'm not surprised no one has taken you up on your challenge.. the evidence of an intruder simply isn't there. But in this case, I don't think the challenge is proving an intruder, but rather, it's making the undeniable case against one or more of the three Ramsey's known to be in the house that night. In other words, no proof of an intruder does not prove Ramsey culpability.

    I've always believed there were far more reasons to believe the Ramsey's guilt than not, but there are several aspects of the crime which I think don't jive with them committing the crime, and to me, it's rationalizing those aspects that becomes the challenge to the case. It's partly why I believe the case has never gone to trial.

    I spent several years debating this case, explaining why I was a fence sitter. I still reside on the fence. Clearly, if I had to choose between the Ramsey's and an intruder, and if 'none of the above' was not an option, I'd pick the Ramsey's. But we didn't get there yet, I'm still on the fence, and I still think the real challenge is proving the case against them.
     
  7. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Re: The real challenge, EasyWriter..

     
  8. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Frankg, with all due respect, read the thread about Wecht immediately above this thread. There is no credible evidence of an intruder in this case. The only credible evidence that directly connects Patsy Ramsey to the strangulation of her daughter is her sweater fibers. The only credible evidence that directly connects John Ramsey to possible sexual assault and staging are his sweater fibers in JB's pubic area. The analysis of the ransom note logically leads to Patsy Ramsey as the writer, possibly John and Patsy as the authors. It really isn't necessary to discover who fed JB pineapple, who hit her in the head, etc. with this kind of evidence so direct and strong. As Wecht said, and I wholeheartedly agree, there is sufficient evidence to charge and I believe successfully prosecute Patsy Ramsey for strangulation homicide and obstruction/staging, as well as John Ramsey for sexual abuse and obstruction/staging. The only reason they aren't in the slammer is because money speaks louder than justice to those in the Boulder power seats.

    EW, your challenge will probably continue to go unmet because the intruder theorists don't have the brains to argue their case. If they did, they wouldn't believe an intruder theory in the first place. Keenan herself doesn't really believe in any intruder, she more correctly believes in LW's power to sue the City of Boulder and ruin her hopes of re-election. Period.
     
  9. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    EasyWriter,
    agreed it needs to be either/or. But failure to prove one conclusion does not, in itself, become proof of the alternative conclusion. You still need to prove the Ramsey's are guilty. I would never argue there was evidence of an intruder, but the possibility can not be ruled out.

    I'm sorry EasyWriter.. I don't believe I've ever seen your analysis, unless you posted in the past under a different name. I'd be very interested in reading what you've put together and consider to be definitive proof of their guilt. And I mean that in all sincerity.

    As for aspects of the crime I think are contradictory, here are a few examples of what I mean. And yes, I realize these are purely circumstantial and subjective, but then.. so is most of this case. I merely offer these as examples of things I can't seem to rationalize. I want someone to summarize the crime for me, like they do on "The New Detectives" program on Discovery Channel.. take me from the Ramsey's arriving home until they called the police at 6am and explain to me how and why things were done. I think the following would be difficult to fit into that summary.

    o The Ramsey's would have known they would be the prime suspect and all evidence would be scrutinized accordingly. Given that, why in the world would they pen a three page ransom note by hand? Hello.. not exactly something you'd find in the golden handbook of how not to get caught. Had no choice but to write it by hand? ..fine, but three pages? What was the rationale for this?

    o If they wrote the note, what was the purpose for making the ransom amount a figure that clearly was based on information few people knew? Why not just ask for a nice round, 'non-connectable' amount like, say, a million. This clearly connects them to the note, but that would be the last thing they would want to do. So what was the point for using that amount?

    o I have always believed the ransom note was totally unbelievable as a ransom note, but clearly, significant thought went into it. It's just my personal opinion that if the Ramsey's are responsible for JonBenet's death, it was most likely an accident. And if it was an accident, I find it highly unlikely that they could emotionally compose themselves sufficiently to draft that note on the fly during this tragedy.

    o Why did they call the cops at 6am? They had to assume competent police detectives were going to be dispatched. They had to assume the scene would be properly secured, and properly searched. They had to assume JonBenet would have been discovered soon after the police arrived, that the entire crime scene would be pristine, and that any evidence of them within that crime scene would be very difficult to explain. Further, it would have made it even more difficult to suggest an intruder. With that said, the ransom note gave them the perfect excuse to *not* call the cops, but rather, to go dump the body in the foothills somewhere and then call the cops from a pay phone in town, explaining the threats in the ransom note and fears of their phone being tapped as to why he was calling from a pay phone.

    DejaNu,
    I've read the Wecht thread, and I've read what Wecht has to say on the case. His argument for prior sexual abuse is strong. He is hardly in a position to dispute the possibility of an intruder, however. Patsy's fibers were very interesting.. too bad it was John who found JonBenet and carried her upstairs. Too bad Patsy was allowed to drape herself over the body. The mistakes made by the BPD is the biggest impediment to prosecuting this case. The handwriting analysis was done by numerous agencies and with widely varying results.. totally inconclusive, IMO. And finally, I hate to admit my ignorance on this, but I don't recall the investigation finding a fiber from JR being found in JB's pubic area. When did this come out and why is this not noted in the autopsy report?
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Huh?

    FrankG, if there wasn't an intruder in the Ramsey home, isn't it a matter of deduction that someone in the house killed JBR? I mean, who's left? There was no one else there - they started out with four people in the house. If no one else came into the house, then one of the remaining three killed her.

    Or, are you saying it wasn't an intruder but it might have been someone they knew who was in the house? But, wouldn't s/he still be intruding, if the Ramseys didn't know s/he was there?

    I guess I'm not sure what you're saying, because if there was no one else in that house that night except the four Ramseys, then it is impossible for anyone else to have killed her except one of the remaining three.

    Maybe you should elaborate on why, if it wasn't an intruder, it still wasn't necessarily the Ramseys. I think you are saying it may have been an acquaintance of the Ramseys. Then, are you also saying the Ramseys knew that person was in the house that night? If so, they would still be culpable, because they hid that fact. If they did not know their acquaintance was in the house that night, then that acquaintance would be an intruder. Right? Explain, please.
     
  11. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    Good Morning, WY..

    Nothing nearly as complicated.. all I am saying is, IMO, there is virtually no evidence there was an intruder, but given how badly the crime scene was compromised, it's nearly impossible to say there wasn't an intruder either. Therefore, the whole intruder argument is moot... you can't make an argument for or against one, so you are forced to make the case against the Ramsey's. Had the crime scene been secured properly from 6AM on, you could make a much better case against the intruder theorists.

    Personally, I am on the fence not because I think there is evidence of an intruder.. I've never thought that... but because I think the evidence isn't wholly consistent with the Ramsey's committing the crime.

    And btw, I'd consider anyone but the four Ramsey's who came home that night as intruders, and I agree... if they knew of someone in the house, then they are still culpable.
     
  12. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    The crime scene was compromised

    but I don't think it was compromised to the point of intruder evidence obliteration, especially in the basement where the intruder was alleged, by the RST, to have made entrance. There were three people in the basement that morning before the body was found - John Ramsey, Fleet White, and one of the cops, can't remember which one. The cop did a walk-through, I don't know how far FW got, and JR says he closed the open basement window. Granted, just their presence in the basement wasn't a good thing, but I don't think either FW or the cop moved anything. JR, OTOH, admits he closed an open window, but we only have his word on that.

    My point is, there should have been a lot of evidence of an intruder if one had really been there for the amount of time the RST wants us to believe one was in the house. The presence of so many people in the house on the 26th might have added fibers and hairs, but I doubt very much that it would have removed intruder evidence.

    Any disturbance of the crime scene is a bad thing. It's significant to note that the biggest disturbance was when Ramsey lifted his dead daughter's body and carried her upstairs. The RST can blame the cops for that all they want, but the real blame lies with John Ramsey. He's a smart man - he knew better than to move her. So why did he? Shock? Maybe. But, being a smart man, he should have, would have known the best chance the police had of catching the person who killed JBR was to leave her body undisturbed for the forensics people, and despite his grief, he would have done the right thing. He didn't.

    I try to be fair. I've wondered if I would have done the same thing that Ramsey did in the same circumstances. I think I can honestly say I probably would have told FW to have someone call an ambulance and call the police officer down to the basement, but I would NOT have moved her for fear of hurting her if she was still alive. I also know, though, that I would have held her close to me and talked to her. I've always thought it odd that JR said he didn't want Patsy seeing JBR that way; yet, he carried her upstairs to where Patsy was. That made no sense.
     
  14. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    I thought it was odd that John laid down on the floor beside JB. He already had touched JB several times after discovering her, had no qualms about putting a blanket/blanket type thingy, over JB. He obviously wasn't mindful of Arndt's wishes. I'm envisioning him lying beside JB's corpse. Seems like he would have held his baby close while in an upright position. I think JB's odor was one factor for John carrying her up the stairs the way he did and also why he chose to lay beside her. Of course, JMO.
     
  15. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    There are those

    who say we can't know how we will react unless it happens to us personally, but I don't totally agree with that. I've known me since I was born, and I do know how I react to trauma. I freely admit I would be a basket case if I lost one of my girls, no matter the cause. I also know I would have sat in the cops' laps if it meant they would talk to me and find out who killed my daughter. My grief would be palpable, and I would cry and break down, and I would be inconsolable. But, in those first minutes and hours, I would be telling the cops everything they wanted to know - no holding back anything. There would come a time when I would need to attend to the funeral, etc., but not until I was satisfied the cops had everything I could give them to find her killer.

    I don't think I would have lain on the floor next to her the way Ramsey did, but this is something I can't really fault him for, because I don't see it as abnormal. I probably would have stroked her forehead and hair and told her she would be okay.

    Furthermore, this is the most I've ever allowed myself to think about what I might do if my daughter were murdered.

    I don't want to think about it any further. It's torture.
     
  16. Elle

    Elle Member


    WY,

    Whites arrived 6:30 am. Fleet went downstairs, spots the broken window, picks up a piece of glass, places it on the ledge, moves the suitcase to see if there are any more. Page 20-21 Steve Thomas "JonBenét" PB.

    John Ramsey was no idiot. He could have told Fleet White to go for Linda Arndt, and he should have stayed put with JonBenét. For him not to have realized she was dead is ludicrous. from the state her body was in. She was already in rigor mortis. He knew he was disrupting the crime scene, and this was done intentionally. He knew she was already dead. He had helped to stage the crime. scene.
     
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Okay

    so White did move a small piece of glass. It may have been important, but in the scheme of things, it really wasn't. What was really important was the lack of evidence inside that window well that anyone came through that window that morning. IOW, that piece of glass wasn't even an issue to me. The lack of substantial disturbance on that window well where an intruder allegedly parked his butt in order to slide into the basement is a much bigger issue, not to mention the lack of dirt and debris left below the window from that infamous alleged entrance.
     
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Agree with everything you said WY!

    What was the story about the "packing peanut?" There were one or two little packing peanuts in the basement and Smit said they came from the "intruder" when he slide through the window well if I remember correctly. If I am wrong please post so. My memory is fading fast :)
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Steve Thomas writes:

    Unknowingly, he (FW) was altering a vital part of the crime scene. In coming months, claims would be made that a mysterious intruder came through that window and used the suitcase as a step. page 21 Steve Thomas. PB
     
  20. Frankg

    Frankg Member

    WY,
    the problem is even worse than the compromised crime scene - so many people had been thru the house.. construction workers, party goers, people touring the Christmas decorations during an open house.. that it would be a nightmare for forensics to find 'stray' hair, fiber, prints or DNA and determine if it's part of the crime or part of all else that had recently taken place. Given this, it was absolutely critical that JonBenet's body remain pristine, and that was absolutely not what happened. Anyway, I just can't be as sure as you and many others seem to be that no intruder was there that night, and I'm fine with that.. I don't consider myself right or you wrong. Good point Elle... minor details, but important.

    I blame the BPD because if they had done what they should have done, JR wouldn't have been in a position to muck the crime scene - either innocently or with calculated precision.

    Finally, I agree 100% with your "There are those" post, as well as yours, Imon. But.. the interesting thing is, while I am sure I know for the most part what I would have done, I can't honestly say that has any bearing on what an innocent JR or PR would have done. The circumstances are so different. So while I know their reaction - both immediately as well as the hours, days and weeks that followed - are very different from what you or I or most others here feel they would have done, I'm not sure how much it proves. One thing I am sure of, however, is that this would be a major part of any prosecution of this case. It's just way to suspicious not to be.

    EW,
    I trust you understand my point now that failure to prove an intruder was there does not prove an intruder was not there? Thanks for those links.. I'll definitely go check it out.

    Oh, and didn't JR decide to claim he broke the window weeks earlier to get in the house after locking himself out. If we're to believe that story, then FW moving the glass is a non-issue, but it's still symptomatic of the overall problem of allowing people to roam and touch and modify and disturb. It shouldn't have happened and it has seriously hurt this case.
     
  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