The Big Red Boat

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Spade, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. Spade

    Spade Member

    I would like to have more information about the “Big Red Boat†vacation plans. Specifically, who was invited and then possibly un-invited. When our children were 8-12 years old, we usually let them choose a friend to join us for family vacations. Could the Ramsey’s have given JonBenet and Burke the same opportunity?

    I have tried to investigate this, but the company that operated the Big Red Boat has gone into bankruptcy and reservation records are unavailable.
     
  2. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Excellent question, Spade, and I see where such information could lead. Unfortunately, I have none to provide you, so will sit back and see what others post.
     
  3. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    I've had some LONG standing questions about this trip, too. The R's discuss this trip in DOI some, but just exactly who was going, appears vague to me, by all accounts.

    What puzzles me is this. If John, Patsy, Burke, and JonBenet were going to meet JAR and Melinda in Minneapolis, then continue in the private plane, all persons (including Melinda's beau) to Charlevoix, how was John Andrew, Melinda, and Melinda's beau, going to get back to Atlanta???????

    If John, Patsy, Burke, and JonBenet, were returning to Boulder to catch a commercial flight to the Big Red Boat, how was the Atlanta group going to get back to Atlanta?

    If John, Patsy, Burke, and JonBenet were going to continue on to the Big Red Boat and NOT return to Boulder (using the private plane) , how was the Atlanta group going to get back to Atlanta?

    I have a feeling that perhaps Brad Millard might have been driving to meet the group in Charlevoix, then drive the Atlanta group back. Again...just a FEELING.

    No matter, in the final analysis, how was John Andrew, Melinda and her boyfriend, going to get back to Atlanta? Or were THEY going on the Big Red Boat trip, too? What a can of worms!!!
     
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    The Big Red Boat

    Spade and DejaNu,

    Death of Innocence Page 5

    John Ramsey talks about Dads fading into the background after gifts are opened. Patsy was busy preparing for the early morning departure to Charlevoix, Michigan.

    In addition Patsy was packing summer clothes and bathing suits in suitcases laid out on the bed in John Andrew’s room. He just states “We†had booked tickets on Disney’s Big Red Boat in Florida upon our return from Charlevoix. The trip would last from Decembr 29 through New Year’s. a great way to celebrate Patsy’s 40th birthday and the New Year.

    He says they had never been on a cruise and being with Mickey Mouse and Company should be great family fun. Sounds like it may have just been for Patsy. John, Burke and JonBenét.

    If I come across anything else, I’ll post it.

    From Little’s post:

    Little
    Administrator
    Posts: 3676
    (10/15/03 11:04 am)
    Reply
    ezSupporter
    The NE Police Files


    Page 144:
    TH: Okay. So we are still at the ironing board and this little red outfit. What do you do with that, how long does that take?

    PR: Just, I don’t know, just a few minutes. And I don’t know, I can’t remember what I was doing. I just remember I was trying to get this bag ready to go to the lake, I had two suitcases…of the children’s things, I was trying to get ready, because when we came back from the lake we were going on to Disney and the Big Red Boat.

    TH: You’re going to go to Charlevoix, am I saying that right?
    PR: Charlevoix.

    TH: You’re going there the 26th at seven in the morning. How long are you going to stay there?

    PR: Just a couple of days, I think, because we were due back, I think we were supposed to leave on the Big Red Boat on my birthday, which is the 29th. So would that – was that Saturday?

    TH: I think Christmas was – 25th was a Wednesday, and so Sunday would have been the 29th approximately.

    PR: Well, somewhere around there. I just didn’t have very much time when we got back. So I was prepacking stuff here.

    TH: Let me just keep you on this. The Big Red Boat thing on the 29th, what time were you going to leave for that, do you recall?

    PR: We had airline flights out of Denver…we didn’t go from Charlevoix, we had to fly back from Charlevoix to Denver to take a commercial flight to Orlando.

    TH: And do you know when you would have come back from Charlevoix?

    PR: Just like the day before.
     
  5. Spade

    Spade Member

    What if?

    a guest had been invited and then un-invited?

    I am a fan of "South Park" a sitcom about 9-10 year-old boys who prove episode by episode that a group of young boys is capable of acts that any single member of the group would be incapable of.

    Could it be possible that the intruder could have been the invited and then un-invited guest? When I asked Lou Smit, he responded: "Absolutely!"
     
  6. Wolfmarsgirl

    Wolfmarsgirl Member

    Re: What if?

    Spade, the problem here is that no 9 to12-year-old boy, including Burke Ramsey, is going to take part in a murder (or accident) and then keep his trap shut for seven years.

    Some playmate, girlfriend, or teacher would have heard either bragging or a confession along the way.

    In addition to that probability, there is also the fact that a normal child would show signs of living through a trauma such as witnessing a murder. You can bet those signs would be even more obvious if the child participated in the event.

    There would be a teacher, or a coach, or someone who would notice something out of the ordinary.

    In this scenario, you would also have to include the parents of the young intruder. Did he help murder a little girl and then go home and pretend everything was OK in front of his parents? More likely, if something like this did happen, the parents of this unknown child would have to be involved in the cover-up.

    So, by adding the parents to the list of people who have to hide this dreaded secret, we get close to a mass conspiracy. Years of shattered lives for both families. Years of keeping quiet about it on both sides...

    If you continue to add possible siblings of this unknown boy - and you have to because there would be questions like, "Why didn't Jimmy stay with the Ramseys like he planned??? Why is Burke mad at Jimmy??? Isn't it spooky that Jonbenet was killed the night Jimmy stayed there???" - then, I think you really stretch the limits of plausibility.

    When we reach for complicated answers to this mystery, we lose our grasp on the truth. When we bring the search down-to-earth, and we look at what is right in front of us, the pieces to the puzzle fall into place.

    LE looked at, and saw, what most of us see. I don't know what motivates Smit. I wish I could understand his reasoning.

    *The broken window that John broke is just that.

    *The stun gun is not a stun gun...(I think Patys's rings made the marks, but that is just my theory - no more proven than Smit's, although I think I have proved it to at least the same degree as Smit has proven the stun gun theory).

    *The palm print is Melinda's.

    *The boot mark is Burke's.

    *The cord was just a left-over piece, as was the duct tape.

    *The fibers that don't match probably came from a doll's clothing.

    *JBR put the over-sized undies on herself. It is something kids do.

    *The handwriting is most certainly Patsy's. I mean, can't you just 'hear' Patsy reciting the contents of the note?

    etc, etc...

    There was no intruder, invited or otherwise.
     
  7. Spade

    Spade Member

    Wolfmarsgirl

    Excellent points. BUT I'm not sure that you are right about the ability of 9-12 year-old boys. The youngest of our four sons turned 36 in January. On his birthday he confessed to a youthful caper (non-criminal) that he and his friends had pulled off 25 years ago.

    On the other hand I constantly remind myself what Detective Tom Haney told me 7 years ago: "Until you develop evidence that eliminates the 3 people in the house that night, you are wasting your time looking for an intruder."
     
  8. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Re: Wolfmarsgirl

    Amen to that one! It is the principle tenet of every investigation.
     
  9. Wolfmarsgirl

    Wolfmarsgirl Member

    Re: Wolfmarsgirl

    It's funny you should mention your son's confession. I am also 36 and a few years ago, I confessed to a 'crime' I committed 32 years ago!

    My brother has a tiny little 'v' shaped scar on his eye. The story was that he 'climbed out of his crib' when he was an infant....Well, er, um, the truth is that I helped him out...Really, it was just an accident. My mom was in the kitchen. I was playing with my brother. I noticed the safety latch on the crib gate. I wondered what the latch did, so I pulled it (up or down...not sure which). The gate fell and my brother tumbled out...Mom was so scared when she ran to answer his screams, she didn't notice that the gate was down...

    I confessed all of this to my mom and dad a couple of years ago, when my daughter and my brother's little girl were both toddlers.

    My brother knew the whole story all of these years...I confessed to him long ago and I am not sure why he didn't tattle over the years...

    My parents see a bit (a tiny bit) of humor in the story now, but they still give me a mock 'evil-eye' when we discuss it.

    I suppose it is remotely possible that a child can keep a secret for many years. I think the likelihood that he keeps that secret depends on the magnitude of the situation.

    For me, little brother's scar on his eye was not that critical. A dead little girl is a pretty big thing by comparison.

    Remember, with my situation, I did tell someone; I told my brother. I probably told a friend or two about the accident over the years. I just don't remember.

    Since Burke couldn't confide in JBR after the incident, he most likely would have found someone else who would listen.


    Haney speaks words of wisdom. In my opinion, it is so clear to see that the 'intruder' is a fairy-tale.

    If you take away the smoke and mirrors, all we really have is this:

    A child's body is found in her own home one day after Christmas.

    We cannot, logically, draw any other conclusions.
     
  10. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Does anyone have AH's sworn statement from the Ramseys' Globe suit that they can post here? If so, don't miss the point even AH makes in it--the death of JonBenet Ramsey in that house that night was considered MURDER by not only BPD but BDA, and still is. The notion that her death was pure accident with a cover-up doesn't fly with Boulder authorities and they are privvy to all case info unlike us. Even if the head injury came first, whomever strangled her afterward committed a lethal act in doing so. Fact is, it's not necessary to discover who perpetrated the skull fracture, even though it was also fatal. There is sufficient fiber evidence in the ligature to prove that PR committed the strangulation, no matter which fatal injury occurred first.
     
  11. Wolfmarsgirl

    Wolfmarsgirl Member

    Deja, I think the original charge, if it was what I think it was, would have been "manslaughter." The child was, most likely, killed by accident.

    I think there would have also been charges like, "criminal child abuse," and "obstruction" added to the primary charge.

    Isn't there also a special term for harming a corpse?

    I am not an attorney, so I am not sure about the legal terms used in a case like this one.

    Since the original act was an accident, it should have been manslaughter. But, with the staging and the subsequent (probable) murder of JBR with the cord, I am not sure.

    I think, for now, it looks like a 'murder' because of the staging.

    I think the fibers from Patsy on and in the cord can be dismissed this way: Patsy hugged JBR and dressed her on the night of the 25th. Fibers from PR's clothing were on JBR's clothing and in the child's hair. When the cord was applied, the fibers from PR (from the earlier, innocent transfer), along with fibers and hair from JBR's person, all became tangled in the cord.

    Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove that anyone in that house was connected directly to the crime scene, since they all lived in the house with JB.
     
  12. Spade

    Spade Member

    Accident or Murder?

    Mike Kane and Dr. Henry Lee are both on the record that this tragedy may have been an accident.

    It should also be considered that if the person(s) who caused JonBenet's death were under the age of criminal culpability then "murder" is not the proper definition of the event. A hypothesis that stands up to the evidence known to the public is that juvenile placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck as a control device and that the blow to the head (intended for that juvenile) caused the ligature to tighten and resulted in JonBenet's death. The fibers from Patsy's jacket that were found in the ligature could have come from her attempting to save JonBenet's life. The person(s) who placed the ligature around her neck are the one(s) responsible for her death..accident or murder.

    I have read AH's statement and also the draft of that statement prepared by LinWad. IMO It is carefully parsed BS intended only to get AH off the hook of having to testify in LinWad's shakedown scheme.
     
  13. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Wolfmarsgirl

    jmpo, but I think the questions of manslaughter vs. murder come up because of the 'many' who believe (including Kane) that this was accidental, ergo, manslaughter. However, the "accident" occurs with the head blow, which was not what killed JonBenet. She died from the asphyxiation caused by the ligature strangulation. In that regard, there is no mistaking accidental for murder.

    Even if JonBenet was unconcious and unresponsive from the head blow, which could be determined as accidental, there's no mistaking that someone had to fabricate a garrotte and then strangle her with it. It took time to fabricate and it was fabricated on her...in other words, forethought, which is crucial for a charge of murder. So, too, is motive, and one could suspect that in this instance, the motive was to cover up the accidental blow. Motive could also have been to take her out of her misery and leading a vegetative life. Remember, JonBenet was a "sparkplug" of a kid and a headblow like that, if not fatal, would have left her in pretty bad shape.

    The bottom line, however, is that JonBenet died from the ligature strangulation and there's nothing accidental about that.

    As to Patsy's fibers, they're all over the crime scene, beginning in her paint supply box and winding up on the body. It's true that the fibers could have "accidentally" transferred to the body; however, I find it highly unlikely that they would "accidentally" get wrapped up in the cord with JonBenet's hair if Patsy was no where near the crime scene.

    Another clue to Patsy's complicity which also can't be "dismissed" are the fibers on the duct tape, especially considering there was no other debris found on the tape other than the fibers from Patsy's jacket.
     
  14. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    I totally agree, Ginja, but we also have to factor into our thinking the notion of "intent." IF PR thought JBR was already dead from the head injury, and intended only that the ligature strangulation was cover-up not knowing she was still alive, intent to commit is lacking in that defense. If PR strangled JBR, did she at least check to see if the child was still breathing, still had a pulse, etc.? How would we prove intent to commit? What other evidence is available to us at this point to prove it? That is the only reason to establish which fatal injury occurred first. If the head blow came second, then intent could more easily be proven with willful strangulation. See where I'm going? According to Meyers, he could not distinguish which injury came first, and therefore just lumped them together. Misty's analysis is powerful on this point, but the pathologists consulted refute each other on the sequencing of injuries. And let's not forget that ST was the first to advance the concept of "accident and cover-up."

    I think where Spade is trying to go with his "invitee" query is that possibly the kids fatally injured JB in some way and the parents then sought to cover it up by making it look like an intruder pedophile assault. But I don't want to speak for Spade on this subject.

    Intent is the issue, hence the derivation of "accident."
     
  15. Spade

    Spade Member

    Repeat

    I'm going to reword and repost what I said earlier:

    "A hypothesis that stands up to the evidence known to the public is that a person placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck as a control device and that the blow to the head (intended for that person) caused the ligature to tighten and resulted in JonBenet's death. The fibers from Patsy's jacket that were found in the ligature could have come from her attempting to save JonBenet's life. The person(s) who placed the ligature around her neck are the one(s) responsible for her death..accident or murder."

    This hypothesis fits the statement of Laurie Wagner, JR's secretary, that she was told: "Patsy caught him fooling around with JonBenet again, lashed out at him, but struck JonBenet instead." It was also advanced in a 1997 tabloid article that claimed Patsy told this to one of her lawyers.

    The only place I'm going with the potential "Big Red Boat" invitee query is to gather information.
     
  16. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Spade, just for CYA purposes only, do you have these sources handy?

    No qualms about your inquiry on this side of the fence, regardless of the purpose!
     
  17. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member

    I just can't accept that Patsy was mad enough at John to take a swing at him...and a big swing it was yet then turn around and cover for him when he caused the death of her daughter.
    And to actually stay married to the same man and never kill him in the following years is just too hard to believe. Patsy is a tough broad she would have destroyed him by now.

    Usually we women have to give birth to the person we'd protect in a scenerio like that..... jmo
     
  18. Spade

    Spade Member

    DejaNu

    Laurie Wagner's allegations have been thoroughly discussed on the threads about Gene Parker.

    I don't keep files on tabloid stories but if it ever becomes necessary I am confident that I can CMA.

    Freebird-you are getting warm-maybe even hot.
     
  19. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Free, that's a good argument, but is there anything else about PR that would indicate she has this kind of sound reasoning? (I'm playing devil's advocate here.) Maybe those 30+ doctor visits in the last year or so of JB's life, but that could be construed as just more fanaticism or worse.

    There are plenty of cases around the country, yet another Andrea Yates-type one this week in Tyler,TX, that would indicate a mother's motherly instincts to protect rather than harm their own children that were so fundamentally apparent in older generations doesn't seem to be the fashion today, especially where there are allegations against the mother of deeply religious, even fanatical, beliefs that were causation for their alleged crimes.

    Spade, will search for Gene Parker threads then. Maybe that tab article is preserved at ACR's. Glad to hear you can CYA cuz no doubt this thread will spawn more craziness at CS. You just don't sit well with some personalities there...LOL I think you could post that the sky's blue and get the same responses.
     
  20. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DejaNu

    “Does anyone have AH's sworn statement from the Ramseys' Globe
    suit that they can post here? If so, don't miss the point even AH
    makes in it--the death of JonBenet Ramsey in that house that
    night was considered MURDER by not only BPD but BDA, and still
    is.â€

    Yes, the term, murder, has been used often, but why? Who is
    likely to benefit from this terminology? Before I looked into the
    case, the bits and pieces I heard on the news gave the impression
    that JonBenet was strangled to death with a “garroteâ€, i.e, a
    noose of sorts. This “newsâ€, in conjunction with the term,
    murder, carrying the tone of deliberate intent, tends to discount
    accident. With murder impressed on the mind as opposed to
    accident, one is left to conclude that Ramsey guilt is dependent
    upon conscious intent. The facts don’t stack up this way;
    nevertheless, this is the bill of goods presented to the public
    by the main media from day one. Over seven years later, the same
    Ramsey-serving “murder†propaganda abounds.

    “The notion that her death was pure accident with a cover-up
    doesn't fly with Boulder authorities and they are privvy to all
    case info unlike us.â€

    Based on what I have seen, what does or doesn’t fly with Boulder
    authorities doesn’t count for much in my book. As for privy to
    all case info, what I see is the choice to ignore crucial
    evidence. The “garrote scene†is as phony as a three dollar bill
    printed on a brown grocery bag. This is how amateurishly absurd
    the “garrote scene†is. Do you know any authorities who recognize
    this and utilize this fact in pursuit of the truth?

    A further evidence of incompetence, and\or deliberate denial of
    truth, every time a fact is brought out pointing to Ramsey guilt,
    the RST goes into the evasion mode by asking for credentials of
    the source. Are they really so dense that they do not grasp that
    credentials come into play only when the word of an “expert
    witness†is presented as fact beyond the area of a layperson’s
    understanding. The amateurish “garrote scene†and other evidence
    in the case is not a matter of “credentials†and “expert
    opinion.†The facts speak for themselves.

    Goodness gracious, we’re not talking “expert opinionâ€, nor rocket
    science. The hair in the knot reveals TYING the cord tightly
    around her neck. If the idea is to strangle by tying tightly,
    what’s the handle for? Decoration, of course. Even if one has no
    experience with ropes and knots, this is rather obvious. “Control
    device� Just another of Smit’s aberrations. Every detail of the
    “garrote scene†reads nervous and confused amateur. Combine this
    with the silly note and all the other evidence and looking for an
    intruder is the epitome of either deliberate dishonesty or gross
    incompetence, maybe both.

    “Even if the head injury came first, whomever strangled her
    afterward committed a lethal act in doing so.â€

    Perhaps so, but inconclusive. I am not challenging the autopsy
    report of oxygen deprivation, but consider that it could have
    come about other than by the cord around the neck. In the process
    of TYING the cord (not noose action) ,oxygen deprivation by
    strangulation could have happened, but it could have also come
    about by laying the body face down on a carpet, or by some other
    means. This presents an opening for the argument that
    asphyxiation could have come about by accident no less than the
    head trauma.

    One thing that makes me wonder about this is the autopsy report
    does not identify any internal throat damage consistent with
    death by strangulation. In other words, if any strangulation did
    take place, it was by accident during the staging with death
    already assumed. All in all, there is no case for deliberate
    strangulation, and absent internal throat damage, no provable
    case for strangulation itself. Even if oxygen deprivation is not
    contested, the how and why of this is an unknown.

    “Fact is, it's not necessary to discover who perpetrated the
    skull fracture, even though it was also fatal.â€

    Only with the skull fracture as primary does any of the staged
    crime scene make sense. It all flows from this in a logical
    manner. This is the basis for a legal charge such as voluntary or
    involuntary manslaughter. Tampering with evidence, obstruction
    of justice, etc., is a different set of legal infractions.

    The problem is LE has bungled themselves into a trap. If they
    pursue the evidence and prosecute now, they will have a lot of
    explaining to do about past inaction, and the wasteful
    expenditure of over two million dollars, most of it chasing a
    mythical intruder. The easy prediction is that they will continue
    to ignore the evidence and play the same game of incompetence and
    evasion as in the past. Naturally, the main media will go along
    with it as well. I do not like the prognosis, but past and present performance by LE doesn't leave much room for any other.
     
  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