John Ramsey and the basement

OK, Delmar, good. I took another look at your analyses of the note and the "garotte" over at ACandyRose's (great) site and must say I'm impressed with your thoroughness, intelligence and know-how, especially regarding the "garotte". As far as the note is concerned, I find what you have to say reasonable enough and certainly interesting. But I disagree on certain key points, especially the meaning of the note and whether or not it is coherent and logical (I think it IS, you obviously don't.)

Also I think you are taking some things for granted, notably the timing issue. The note writer says the call will come "tomorrow" and you take for granted that means "today" -- so you conclude the note writer must have planned on getting the note to John "yesterday." But there is no reason to make such an assumption. The intent of the writer is crystal clear: "Today" is the day Patsy finds the note, the 26th. "Tomorrow" HAS to be the 27th. This is what the note SAYS -- it is also the only possible timing that would allow John to get to the bank, do all the things he'd need to do AND be rested. So we have to ask ourselves WHY the writer would want to waste a full day and make his call on the 27th instead of as soon as possible. (Hint: because he needed a full 24 hours to dump the body, complete his staging and do all the other things he'd need to do before calling the police to report the "kidnapping.")

I think we are both very roughly on the same track though. We are both totally skeptical of any intruder theory. There is simply no evidence for that and also no motive for any intruder to do all the things that were done. We both suspect an inside job, which can only mean John or Patsy or both. Where we differ is on which of the Ramseys did what and why. My theory is that John is the real culprit with Patsy his unwitting dupe. I think he convinced her to back him up with some "innocent" "white lies". And why wouldn't she, knowing that John was officially "ruled out" as writer of the note. Once she knew THAT, then why on earth would she suspect him? So why not tell some white lies to throw the big bad BPD/FBI folks off the scent and on to the track of the "real killer", that intruder-guy?

The big question for me, and I'll pass it along to you, because I'm very curious as to how you'll deal with it, is: what possible motive would the Ramseys have for writing a phoney ransom note if they'd been planning all along to call the police in BEFORE the body was dumped? The note makes sense ONLY if there is no body on the scene. So my big problem with any theory fingering Patsy as the note writer is why she'd write it and then go on to call the cops on herself? So the note makes sense to me ONLY if JOHN wrote it hoping it would convince Patsy NOT to make such a call -- and for some reason she made it anyhow (possibly because at that moment she could have been frightened of JOHN????????).

But if you can come up with a reason for Patsy writing the note AND making the call, I'd love to hear it.

 

Here's where it gets really fuzzy

for me. I can form a theory for either parent being involved in JBR's death, but not both. However, I think they were both involved in the subsequent cover up/staging. I have a problem with Patsy wrapping that ligature around her daughter's neck and pulling it tight, seeing it dig into her neck like that. That really bothers me, because, as you know, Doc, I raised three girls, and to think any mother could deliberately do that to her little girl is beyond the pale for me. I know, I know, parents do awful things to their kids, but this one just doesn't wash for me. I can see her losing it and bashing JB on the head, but the deliberate tightening of that rope around that little neck... that seems beyond anything Patsy would have been able to do unless there is a side of her that is completely psycho that nobody has ever seen. I can't see her doing that while JB was alive, and I can't see her doing it even thinking JB might have been already dead. For Patsy to defile that little body the way JB was defiled just doesn't ring true to me.

I can see, however, JR doing it. I think he has got what it takes to stage the crime scene, shutting off his feelings and doing what needed to be done. I do think Patsy wrote the note while JR was doing the staging in the basement. In that case, though, I think there was sexual molestation, and that part wasn't staged, except perhaps the insertion or the paint brush handle to make it appear as if it were a violent sex crime. They have both made contradicting statements - why would that happen if they were not making the stories up? The truth is the truth - it doesn't change from one telling to the next. I do believe one would cover for the other, and I believe they did - the drama queen and the CEO with control written all over him.

I've always had trouble with the staging part. An accidental killing, no matter who did it - JR in sexual molestation scene, or Patsy hauling off and clobbering JB, is one thing. Defiling her body is another. That's the part that really gets me. It would take someone without a conscience to pull that off.

But, then, I've been wrong before, LOL. BTW, I still think that note has Patsy written all over it.

 

WY you are a lovable lady and I like you a lot but I think your whole problem is you are stuck in a rut on this case, which is going nowhere because so many are stuck in exactly that same rut. Live a little. Free yourself from the yoke of Patsy Patsy Patsy. Give yourself some time away from her. Breathe freely for a change.

You are seeing Patsy everywhere you look, so naturally you are going to see her all over the note. Like seeing those little dots over everything when you are sick sick sick.

Patsy is nowhere on that note. I see John John John. But am I in a rut? NEVAH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Rotsaruck, Doc

or is that rutsarut? I have told you before I can see certain places where John's writing could have matched, but the whole tone of the RN and the handwriting itself is Patsy. You know you will never sway me from that. The exclamation marks are not JR (but they are Patsy). The dramatics are not JR (but they are Patsy). The cornball cliches could have been either of them, because they are both prone to using them, but that "good southern common sense of yours" is a Patsy. It's not just the handwriting, which I think looks very much like Patsy's - it is the overall tone of the note.

 

DocG
"But I disagree on certain key points, especially the
meaning of the note and whether or not it is coherent and logical
(I think it IS, you obviously don't.)"

This is a bit abstract and too general to grasp your objections
and respond to said objections. I have no problem with
disagreement. However, unless you identify the specific of your
disagreement and why you disagree, it is impossible for me to
address your concerns. So, if you would quote from the note
analysis, or from my posts exactly what you disagree with and why
you disagree, then perhaps I can provide a definitive response.

Although my email address is attached, from the time the note
analysis was posted, not a single person has quoted any part of
it in disagreement and tried to show the why of the disagreement.
A blanket indictment claiming error without any effort to state
where, what and why means nothing. Its simply expressing an
emotional opinion to the contrary unsupported by factual base.
Unless and until a persons give me these specifics of
disagreement, I am left to conclude the disagreement is due to
preferred conclusion, not facts.

Also, the questions I ask are to ascertain and\or clarify your
position, would you respond to these as well?

From previous posts and unanswered questions:

[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?

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 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? ..... 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?

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?

"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. How does this benefit
John in trying to convince others that there was an intruder?]

"Also I think you are taking some things for granted, notably the
timing issue. The note writer says the call will come "tomorrow"
and you take for granted that means "today" -- so you conclude
the note writer must have planned on getting the note to John
"yesterday." But there is no reason to make such an assumption."

I'm afraid you miss the point. The inference that he would see
it before the 26th was a slip up, a very revealing slip up.

"The intent of the writer is crystal clear: "Today" is the day
Patsy finds the note, the 26th. "Tomorrow" HAS to be the 27th.

It does? How come then that no one, including the police, John
and Patsy on the 26th indicated that "tomorrow" was anything
other than the 26th? Check all the documents you can find. See if
anything on the 26th indicated any confusion about tomorrow.

The idea that the 27th may be the "tomorrow" was John's invention
AFTER he discovered the blunder. In addition to all this, John
himself says that he believes JonBenet was killed on the evening
of the 25th, not the morning of the 26th. (See NE Police Files)
In short, in this instance, he said tomorrow meant the 26th.

"The big question for me, and I'll pass it along to you, because
I'm very curious as to how you'll deal with it, is: what possible
motive would the Ramseys have for writing a phoney ransom note
if they'd been planning all along to call the police in BEFORE
the body was dumped? The note makes sense ONLY if there is no
body on the scene."

Again, no mystery Aren't you forgetting that this was not a real
kidnap scene? To get at the truth in any situation, it is
necessary to suspend personal value judgments to prevent
inclusion of preconceived notions, thereby, mentally
contaminating the actual evidence. To arbitrarily interject
elements into the scene and\or to superimpose one's own personal
values upon suspects is to mentally distort reality and fail to
reach conclusions logically dictated by the evidence.

"But if you can come up with a reason for Patsy writing the note
AND making the call, I'd love to hear it."

I see no mystery here at all. You asked for my theory. OK, the
following is a framework sketch as derived from the evidence.

The note is obviously bogus as already explained in detail in my
analysis of said note. Materials for the note are tied to the
Ramsey household. JonBenet's body in the basement evidences a
crude attempt to make it look like a kidnapping and murder. Also
utilizing household materials This is simply a continuation of
the staging via the note.

The face value appearance is that JonBenet's was strangled to
death. By definition, staging, is for the purpose of hiding the
truth. The truth that was desired to keep hidden was the head
trauma and skull fracture. Why? Obviously, this truth exposed
would be a disvalue to the person or person who did the staging
to try to hide it.

Since we know that staging necessarily follows the truth it is
designed to hide, we know that the head trauma came first. If we
factor in the time (night of 25th and 26th) and place (Ramsey
residence), this leads us to other definitive conclusions.

Since the Ramseys were due to make appearances on the 26th, the
time allotment to set up the staging was restricted to the
aforementioned night. Going out to secure certain material and\or
going out to dispose of the body carried unacceptable risks as
evidenced by their actions. This reduced the options to set up
the staging with the material at hand.

This is the evidentiary framework of the crime scene. It takes a
bit more analysis to determine who did what, but this
determination if made within the framework of the staged crime
scene and nothing else.

The note of course was the primary in the staging. Making the
call was to get the show on the road. Staging is always for an
audience. In this instance, the police as the first viewers. What
else could they do, fly off to Michigan and leave the body in the
basement? Don't you think flying about without JonBenet would
have been a bit difficult to explain?

I cannot even imagine a more amateurish and transparent staged
crime scene; yet, due to preferential treatment and gross
incompetence that leaves me shuddering in disbelief, the Ramseys
have officially gotten away with it. - For the time being.

Delmar

 

Delmar

>>"But I disagree on certain key points, especially the
meaning of the note and whether or not it is coherent and logical
(I think it IS, you obviously don't.)"

>This is a bit abstract and too general to grasp your objections
and respond to said objections.

To be more specific, I believe the note was part of a carefully worked out plan, a plan that ultimately failed (because Patsy called 911, which was NOT part of the plan). You have claimed it makes no sense. I claim it makes a great deal of sense. If you take the time to read my theory of the case (I provided a link in an earlier post), you'll see what I mean.

>Although my email address is attached, from the time the note
analysis was posted, not a single person has quoted any part of
it in disagreement and tried to show the why of the disagreement.

I don't really disagree with most of the points you make regarding how inconsistent the note is with a real kidnapping carried out by a real foreign faction. Given what we now know about the case, it is clearly phoney, as you very effectively argue. But if Patsy had NOT made the 911 call when she did -- and the body had been dumped according to the plan I've outlined in my theory and the police had THEN been called, the note would have looked much more convincing. Sure, no one is going to believe a foreign faction was involved. But that could easily have been thrown in by a real kidnapper just to confuse the issue. If in fact the body had been found dumped in some remote spot days after the "kidnapping," then the note might well have seemed like a real ransom note.

>[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?

First of all, we have ONLY John's testimony about his being down there for so short a time. We really have no way of knowing for sure that he was there for so short a time. If you're talking about the time he first went down there, around 7 AM, I think he went down primarily to do his unstaging of the window scene. He would have known the body was going to be found sooner or later. That was not his concern at that point. His concern was to make sure the police didn't discover his staging and figure out his original plan.


>You are saying that John staged a scene to make it look like an
intruder entered the house, then attempted to undo the staging?

Exactly. If he'd said nothing about having broken the window months earlier, then the police might well have decided the broken window has to be an inside job, part of the staging of a phoney breakin. Because it was clear that no one had gone through that window. Once they had clear evidence of staging, they'd have had reason to arrest the Ramseys then and there.

>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?

I think at that point John had to be more focussed on undoing his staging then anything else. He could NOT allow his earlier staging to stand, because he knew it wasn't going to fly. No time to do any further staging. IMO he must have been pretty desperate at that moment.

>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?

Excellent question. We really don't know. This is something that's never come out. We don't know if there would have been that much glass to begin with (it was a small hole) and we don't know how much of it the police noticed (if any). We don't know if they attached any importance to the amount of glass that might have been visible. And we don't know at what point they even noticed that window at all. They DID examine the outside of the house and determined there were no footprints and NO sign of a breakin ANYWHERE, including around the grate. I think it possible John could have been planning to complete his staging later that day or maybe the following night. HE would have realized the police would never buy an intruder passing through that window without displacing a lot of dirt. But the police might not yet have noticed that.

>..... 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?

Again you are taking John's testimony as gospel. For all we know he might have found that window open all the way at the time he surreptitiously closed it. The point is that he found it open, meaning it certainly could have been an entry/exit point for an intruder. Evidence he chose not only to ignore but hide. Why? Later he did fess up about this, probably because he was afraid the police had already spotted the window open. OR possibly because he later realized the police might have found his prints on it.

>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?

I'm not sure what your source is on the timing, but there's no reason to believe John's version. I do think he could have (and remember this is all hypothetical) closed the window, possibly cleaned up some of the glass, placing it in his pockets or maybe flushing it down the toilet. And then left, setting the chair in place after leaving that room.


>>"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?"

Remember that according to my theory he is at this point UNstaging. So at that point he does NOT want the police to think of that route as the exit route of the intruder. Once they'd start thinking along such lines, they could possibly figure out what he'd been up to, i.e., staging a phoney breakin.

>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. How does this benefit
John in trying to convince others that there was an intruder?

As I said, at this point he would have been more concerned with the police discovering his (incomplete) staging.

>>"Also I think you are taking some things for granted, notably the
timing issue. The note writer says the call will come "tomorrow"
and you take for granted that means "today" -- so you conclude
the note writer must have planned on getting the note to John
"yesterday." But there is no reason to make such an assumption."

>I'm afraid you miss the point. The inference that he would see
it before the 26th was a slip up, a very revealing slip up.

Yes, according to YOUR theory. I see it differently.

>>"The intent of the writer is crystal clear: "Today" is the day
Patsy finds the note, the 26th. "Tomorrow" HAS to be the 27th.

>It does? How come then that no one, including the police, John
and Patsy on the 26th indicated that "tomorrow" was anything
other than the 26th? Check all the documents you can find. See if
anything on the 26th indicated any confusion about tomorrow.

This is indeed a very puzzling aspect of the case. I can't explain that. But if you read the note carefully you'll see that "tomorrow" could ONLY have meant the 27th. But once his plan A had been blown, it would have been in John's interest to let people think it "must have" meant the 26th. Otherwise someone might have seen through his original (failed) plan.

>The idea that the 27th may be the "tomorrow" was John's invention
AFTER he discovered the blunder.

Yes, according to YOUR theory.

>In addition to all this, John
himself says that he believes JonBenet was killed on the evening
of the 25th, not the morning of the 26th. (See NE Police Files)
In short, in this instance, he said tomorrow meant the 26th.

Yes, exactly what we'd expect according to MY theory. (see above)

>>"The big question for me, and I'll pass it along to you, because
I'm very curious as to how you'll deal with it, is: what possible
motive would the Ramseys have for writing a phoney ransom note
if they'd been planning all along to call the police in BEFORE
the body was dumped? The note makes sense ONLY if there is no
body on the scene."

>Again, no mystery Aren't you forgetting that this was not a real
kidnap scene? To get at the truth in any situation, it is
necessary to suspend personal value judgments to prevent
inclusion of preconceived notions, thereby, mentally
contaminating the actual evidence.

Yes. This is something YOU also need to be wary of.

>To arbitrarily interject
elements into the scene and\or to superimpose one's own personal
values upon suspects is to mentally distort reality and fail to
reach conclusions logically dictated by the evidence.

I agree. And this applies to YOUR theory as well as mine.

>>"But if you can come up with a reason for Patsy writing the note
AND making the call, I'd love to hear it."

>I see no mystery here at all. You asked for my theory. OK, the
following is a framework sketch as derived from the evidence.

Delmar I appreciate your summary of your theory and it is certainly interesting. But I see nothing in it that explains WHY they'd see the need to write a patently phoney note as part of their staging. The hand printed note would be seen as phoney as soon as the body was found. And then it would be carefully examined by experts who would in all likelihood figure out who wrote it. This, at least, would have been their thinking at the time. So WHY take the chance of writing it? What good would it do them?

Sure they were rushed, and if they were planning on calling the police so early then there would not have been time to dump the body before the police arrived. I agree. But in that case, if they really felt they had to make the 911 at THAT time, rather than later, then WHY bother at all with a phoney ransom note that would just provide the police with evidence against them? Why not just tell the police they'd found their daughter murdered in the middle of the night by some maniac who broke into the house? Why would they have felt they needed a patently phoney note?

 

Picture

Can anyone post the pictures of the chair infront of train room door. i dont think ive ever seen it and id really like to after reading this thread.
By the way i really enjoyed reading this thread, some of you guys are very observant to detail and i learned a great deal. Thanks

 

Delmar,

So nice to see you made it here, at long last. Welcome!

I have thought for some time yours is the clearest, best thought out writing on JBR. So nice to know you are posting here.

You may not remember, but we corresponded via a mutal friend, and finally a couple times by email, about a year and half ago.

Mels

 

Mels:
"Delmar, So nice to see you made it here, at long last. Welcome!

You may not remember, but we corresponded via a mutual friend,
and finally a couple times by email, about a year and half ago."

Hi, Mels,

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I do recall. Out last correspondence
was June 11, 2002.

Delmar

 

Watching You

You asked:

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?

***********************************
Don't cha remember the explanation from ms. bennett:

John explained that the reason he and Fleet went to the basement was because they already knew she wasn't in their bedroom, Burke's bedroom or her own bedroom, therefore, the logical place to start was in the basement!

Now, what is yer problem with this? Afterall, LE, Smit and mr. woodman believe what she says, y don't u?

(TIC)

 

Stupid window questions

I am having a problem relating to the basement train room window. There are three windows side by side. Let's set aside for a moment whether any of the windows were open or closed or by whom and just talk about the windows themselves.

In the so called "crime scene" photos from Smit's PPP, the photo shows all three windows and each with four panes. We can't see in Smit's PPP which window is broken only that the middle window is wide open.

Later on various TV broadcasts such as the A&E Doc that basement train room section shows that out of the three windows (each with four panes) that the entire window and casing on the right is completely missing but the one on the left and center are still there showing the four panes per window. I assume there is glass in the panes but don't know.

ST book (pg 27) states the "hole" in the window was "baseball size" and was in the "upper left pane of the middle window."

ST book (pg 37) he writes, "The top left pane in the center window was broken."

If the broken window section was in the top left pane of the middle window then why would the BPD removed the whole window on the right? Why wouldn't they take the middle window instead?

If the BPD did take the complete middle window (with all four panes including the broken one) then that means the middle window was replaced later by somebody prior to any filming of various shows/movies, etc. which means it is a fake window that Smit is climbing in and out of than the actual crime scene window. But then whoever replaced the middle window, then why would they show the whole window on the right missing?

I don't understand why the window on the right is missing if it was the middle window that was broken and it is the middle window that is being used by Smit as the so called "intruder" entry/exit window and the same middle window that Smit uses to demonstrate going in and out of.

===============================
Reference from Steve Thomas' book:

Page 27:

"Each window had four panes, and Fleet White, having been down there earlier, pointed out the baseball-sized hole in the upper left pane of the middle window. 'Damn it, I had to break that,' John Ramsey said, adding that it happened the previous summer when he kicked in the window to get into the house after locking himself out. Should have fixed it then, he noted, taping his forehead. The window was closed but unlatched."

Page 37:

"Downstairs in the basement, another technician examined the broken window. three windows, each eighteen-by-thirty-inch rectangles, were in a row." The top left pane in the center window was broken, and the screen was off. The tech noticed pieces of glass outside the window and a scuff mark on the wall. The dust, film, and debris on the window-sill were undisturbed."
===============================

 

More stupid window questions

What time did John Ramsey go upstairs and what window did he look out toward the Barnhills?

According to DOI pg 15 it sounds as thought John went upstairs right after he called Mike Archuleta.

John: "Suddenly I remember that Mike Archuleta is to meet us at the Jeffco Airport. I need to call him and explain what has happened."

The Ramseys were scheduled to be at the airport by 6:30 am with departure scheduled by 7:00 am. The Ramsey children were scheduled to arrive in Minneapolis at 11 am which would have been central time zone.

Since Archuleta hadn't called John Ramsey by the 7:00 am departure time to see why the family hadn't arrived for their scheduled take off then the natural assumtion would be that John Ramsey called Archuleta before 7:00 am or shortly thereafter otherwise Archuleta would have been on the phone wanting to know if they were still taking off as scheduled.

So sometime that morning John Ramsey went back upstairs and was looking up and down the street toward the Barnhill's house.

So exactly where upstairs was John Ramsey to be looking out a window toward the Barnhill house?

According to the layout of the house and windows, it looks like John Ramsey had to be in Burke's bedroom to do that because the three windows in Burke's bedroom face directly out toward 15th Street where one would have to be standing to look across the street at the Barnhills house with the binoculars.

But then John says "After several minutes of watching the vehicle, nothing happens so I finally go back downstairs. The phone rings. Everyone freezes as I slowly pick up the receiver."

Since the kidnapper's call was suppose to be from 8:00 am to 10:00 am then I would think that any tension such as "everyone freezing" and his "slowly pick up the receiver" comment when the telephone rang would mean that this was between that 8-10 time frame. He obviously was not using his cell phone to make the comment "pick up a receiver" so it had to be a telephone that was downstairs set up with the phone tap.

Floor Plan:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer10_blue.html

=================================
Reference: DOI Pg 15 (HB):

"Suddenly I remember that Mike Archuleta is to meet us at the Jeffco Airport. I need to call him and explain what has happened.

"JonBenet Ramsey's been kidnapped!" I tell him, then ask him to get a message to the big kids to call me immediately when they arrive in Minneapolis. At this point I'm not sure whether they should come to Denver or go on back to Atlanta.

When I hang up the telephone, feelings of panic start churning up again, and I realize that I must maintain my senses. JonBenet needs me to be strong, now more than ever. The note says the kidnappers will be watching. Maybe I can catch them looking at us. I race upstairs and I find a pair of binoculars. I start looking up and down the street.

There's a strange vehicle in the alley behind the Barnhills', I note.

After several minutes of watching the vehicle, nothing happens so I finally go back downstairs. The phone rings. Everyone freezes as I slowly pick up the receiver."
=================================

 

Okay, I'm on a roll

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

Some reasons why John Ramsey didn't do the "top to bottom" search direction that Arndt suggested:

1. John Ramsey said, "It is highly unlikely that we will find anything amiss in our bedroom on the third floor"

John Ramsey obviously decided in his mind that a third floor search obviously would have been a waste of time. I wonder why he decided that it was "highly unlikely" that anything would be amiss on the third floor since, according to the various statements we have read from the Ramseys the only time that John ever went back to the third floor that morning was to grab his clothes after he discovered he was running around in his underwear and that was early in the morning.

2. John Ramsey said, "I stop in JonBenet's room and look under the bed to make sure she isn't there"

After John Ramsey ran back to the third floor to grabbed his clothes that morning he then went down the stairs where he stated that he stopped at JonBenet's room to look under her bed.

He either put on his pants and shirt while in JonBenet's room or somewhere between her room and his going back down the stairs to meet with the first officer who arrived that morning.

Hmmm, so if John Ramsey stopped to look under JonBenet's bed then why wouldn't he also go into the bedroom beside JonBenet's room and look under JAR's bed too? Did JonBenet have a habit of hiding under beds?

================================
Reference: DOI Pg 13 (HB):

"For the first time I am aware that I have been racing around the house in my underwear. I hurry back to the third floor bedroom to grab my clothes. I stop in JonBenet's room and look under the bed to make sure she isn't there."

(snip)

"I put on pants and a shirt, and hurry back downstairs."
================================
DOI Pg 21 (HB):

"I decide we should start at the basement and work our way to the top floor. It is highly unlikely that we will find anything amiss in our bedroom on the third floor, and we will need some kind of a system to make sure we don't miss anything. A bottom-to-top search will do that. Fleet doesn't mention to me that he had been down to the basement earlier that morning. "
================================

 

BTW - Buy The Basement

On the Market, again.

http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/city_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2422_1983761,00.html

Boulder's most famous house is on the market.

The former home of John and Patsy Ramsey, whose 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, was found beaten and strangled in the basement on Dec. 26, 1996, is listed at $1.6 million.

People are starting to call about the 15-room Tudor, but some are only interested because of the Ramsey case, said Joel Ripmaster, a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker.

 

Wow RR, thanks

I thought that E.J. "Doc" Kreis had bought the house but the article is saying he was just living in it for the past two years.

 

ACR

you think like I think - right down to every little detail.

I remember reading that the basement window was replaced and when Smit did his slithering in through that window, it was a completely different window - it even looked different to me. Isn't there some kind of pipe or conduit there by that window? I think the middle window only opened just so far and no further because it hit on that pipe. If the very left window were opened, it seems it would not have been able to open very far because of that pipe, but I don't have the picture in front of me right now, so maybe the pipe only blocked the middle window.

This is just one example of Smit's sneakiness. For a truly honest reproduction of an entry into the basement as it was on December 25, 1996, the original window should have been used. Instead, there was a replacement window there, and I remember thinking when I first saw the two pictures side by side that they were different. At no time did Smit inform his audience that the window had been replaced. Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. I may have to go find the pictures that I originally saw.

 

WY, we are on the same wave length !!

I can't wait to do the screen captures of the Court TV "JonBenet, A Second Look" because there are a lot of good shots of the basement window and this time showing Smit climbing in from the outside. (Thanks Moab for sending me the tape )

I hear what you're saying. I mean if they are going to reconstruct the props to look like the crime scene then damn it use items as close to those that were actually in the original crime scene photos and place them in the same position and then tell the viewers that it is a reconstruction of the crime scene.

Take that suitcase for instance. The photos that are being called the "crime scene" photos show a suitcase sitting below the basement window with the bottom of the suitcase on the floor the way a suitcase would normally sit. But in all the TV and/or A&E productions with Smit giving his demo, they are showing the basement window view with this "other" suitcase sitting on its side.

How hard would it be to look at the crime scene photos and place the props in the same position?

It is deceiving to those who have not followed the case and perhaps were seeing some of these productions for the first time.

I know this is the window thread but this below is a good example of how Lou Smit completely ignores information that was told about the crime scene and then on a show where he is pushing his intruder theory he deceives the viewers.

On the Court TV "JonBenet, A Second Look" that has aired two times now with the last being May 11, 2003, Smit is standing by the telephone area where Patsy called 911 and then he walks over to the spiral staircase and he says,

Lou Smit: "Whether or not the note was written in this alcove or not, we don't know. What we do know that the ransom note was found on the bottom step of this spiral staircase. From here it's only a short distance to JonBenet's room........"

According to the ONLY WITNESS to the location of the ransom note on the step, Patsy Ramsey, she is telling Tom Haney in the 1998 interviews that the note WAS NOT on the bottom step of the same spiral staircase that Smit references and she goes on to explain why. Did Smit forget to watch the 1998 interviews?

Tom Haney: "Which running of the stairs were they on?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, it wasn't the bottom one."


References:
===========================================

NE book page 146 - June 1998 Interview

Tom Haney: "Are they on the first or second floor, the sconces?"

Patsy Ramsey: "They go inbetween, they are in the stairway. Okay, I come down....some of the rooms are light here where these three pieces of paper were."

Tom Haney: "Which running of the stairs were they on?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, it wasn't the bottom one. I would say it was like - I mean, I had to bend over, you know, to look at it, you know."

Tom Haney: "And when you first see it, what's your first reaction?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, my initial reaction was that - I mean, I probably would stack things going upstairs, you know, shoes or toys or whatever....so there was typically always something there, going one way or the other. But this was laid out across the trend, you know. This was laid out across the trends, so I mean I just thought, well, papers, you know, John would have taken up to see or something, I don't know. And then when I came down and looked at it, glaced at it, my first reation was that it was a note from my cleaning lady."

Tom Haney: "Let me just stop you there. You are kind of bounding down the stiars, I would imagine?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Right."

Tom Haney: "Kind of get going?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah."

Tom Haney: "You come to it, you stop and you look and see - you kind of bend over from higher up?"

Patsy Ramsey: "No, I passed it, then turned back around to turn to look and see what it was."

Tom Haney: "Did you step over that rung or...."

Patsy Ramsey: "I don't think I stepped on it, because you know, you stop on paper, it kind of does that. So I somehow got around it."

===========================================

Court TV - "JonBenet, A Second Look" aired 05-11-2003

Lou Smit: "Whether or not the note was written in this alcove or not, we don't know. What we do know that the ransom note was found on the bottom step of this spiral staircase. From here it's only a short distance to JonBenet's room........"

===========================================

By the way, thanks to Jameson once again for selling the BPD evidence tapes to the National Enquirer. Regardless of whatever she is spending her $40,000 on, this is just one more thing we would not have known that shows how Lou Smit is deceiving the public with his spin job on the intruder theory.

 

Smit misrepresented

most of his so-called evidence, ACR. He presented his items as though they were definitely part of the crime scene when he had no way of dating these items. That's what pist me off the most about his presentation, or what I saw of it and read about the rest. Just like the stun gun "evidence" that he invented, in his mind and in the minds of the RST, that has now become fact, and that's the way they present it. It's just bullsmit. Smit took his hypothesis, built the evidence around it, and presented it in a very devious way to the public. That is dishonest and what I call obstruction of justice. It's bad enough that defense lawyers spin that way, you don't expect an experienced so-called crack detective (not) to spin crazy like that.