Let's deal with the Cord and Duct Tape

That kind of attention to detail reminded me of the story one of the Ramseys' former Atlanta neighbors, Vesta Taylor, told about Patsy. She said that Patsy had a room painted over and over again several times to make sure it was absolutely perfect in every lighting situation.


-Tea

 

It could also be that it was the last of the cord and the tape.

More likely, it just wasn't matched due to the lack of sufficient "looking" .

 

HENCE, the practice note

 

And John could have deftly slipped the cord and tape under JonBenet's body as he tucked that large scarf around her like a "final blanket of love".


-Tea

 

It's shocking how easy it would have been to get them out and away.

 

I know I'm behind the eight ball in this thread, but just catching up.

Who's to say someone didn't put the duct tape roll and remaining cord in a neighbor's trash can? Or toss them down a city drain leading down from the side of the street? Or put them in a dumpster somewhere a few blocks away? The Ramseys lived downtown, remember. It was a very easy thing to accomplish. The dark of a Christmas night. A coat and hat with the collar pulled up against the cold. Who would confront such a person in the dark? At night, you can see cars before they see you, as they have lights and you don't. Easy to duck behind a bush or corner until they pass. Boulder is a small town and it's very quiet on such a night in a small town, I imagine. I used to walk a lot around my neighborhood for exercise, and if I did so in the evening when people's lights were on, I seldom encountered anyone aware of my presence, except maybe the occassional dog barking. I also once worked downtown and left my job in the early morning hours. People downtown at bars, enjoying the night life, seldom notice others they don't know walking from here to there. Really, how hard would it be to get rid of such small items on such a quiet night with the students gone home for the holidays and most folks asleep? Not very. Not at all.

Even if the items were found by LE, of course the explanation would be the killer took them and discarded them after leaving so LE wouldn't find the killer's DNA and fibers on them. See? The sole risk was being seen. And in the quiet and dark, how easy to move without being seen.

 

Right Tea, et al,

Nothing would be more natural (and expected) than having fingerprints on your own flashlight and batteries. There is no reason to not have them there. Unless someone wiped them clean.

And, why would ANYONE do that?

And, I agree with putting incriminating evidence in the coffin with JonBenet as well. They really covered all bases.

And, the practice ransom note as well, it's all just too much.

Ray Charles could see through this charade.

 

Ooops, sorry Jayelles, I hadn't gotten this far when I wrote the same thing!

Well, there you have it, guttah gossips! Great minds think alike! hahaha

 

It's a lot easier to imagine them getting rid of them than it is trying to discern all of the intruder BS.

 

With it being Christmas KK and Jay, they could also have burned it with their logs (?).

 

Wasn't there a neighbor who stated her dog would always bark if there was someone in the alley, yet there was no barking that night. I'd think that the Ramseys would be familiar enough with that dog not to take a chance like that.

And what if the only prints on the tape were Ramsey prints?


-Tea

 

Hmmm.

Please state your source for the fibers being twisted in the garrote. I find this interesting. Were the fibers a match or consistant? Match and consistant are not the same thing. It would be interesting to me to see how many other fibers could possibly be consistant with the fibers found on her body. But this information is interesting. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

I don't remember the neighbor's dog or that comment. Perhaps you know which neighbor and where that was quoted? If you can't, don't go hunting it down. Just curious.

Who knows, maybe John did put them in his golf bag. I can't believe for one minute that he was thinking of playing golf in Atlanta in the winter, while his MURDERED daughter wasn't even buried. That is very fishy to me.

As for Ramsey prints on the items, maybe that's why they got rid of them. If found, they'd say of course their prints were on them, the intruder took it from their house and wore gloves.

Well, as others have demonstrated, there are many ways these items could have been removed from the home. One guess is as good as another. Whatever they did, it obviously worked.

 

I'm more than certain I read that somewhere about the neighbor's dog; however, at the moment, I just can't remember where. And it bugs me 'cause I'm usually pretty good about stuff like that.


-Tea

 

Yes, Tea, you're right, there was a dog that barked when someone entered the alley. That dog did not bark the night JonBenét was murdered. Right now it's the wee small hours of the morning here in Canada, and I don't feel like hitting the books, but can check it for you tomorrow.

Changed my mind, if I go back to my bed, it will go through my head. I found it. Steve Thomas "JonBenét" PB page 49 - A third neighbour, to the West, said that her dogs who barked at anyone in the alley, just as they did when the police came to question her, made no noise Wednesday night.

Wednesday night being the 26 December, 1996 (italics mine)

 

Thank you, Elle!


-Tea

 

You're welcome tea! I did go back to sleep without this going through my head.

 

You can find that information in Patsy's August 2000 interview with Bruce Levin. You could try www.acandyrose.com for the whole thing.

Here's one quote:

Levin: Found tied into the ligature on Jonebenet's neck...I have no evidence that suggests those fibers are from any source other than you.

Actually, from what I know, "consistent" means "match." Chemical, microscopic and spectral analyses are performed. All came back to her. If someone says your fibers are "consistent," you are in BIG trouble!

During John's interview at the same time, he was told his shirt left fibers in JB's underpants. His reaction was, ah, priceless!

 

You cannot count on an interview as information on the police's part. They can and will lie in order to get the information they need, and in this case a confession. Can this be found in any other source other than the interview? I have read quite a few books on the case and have yet to see this anywhere else but in this interview you have pointed out.

 

It's a technique that Lou Smit himself uses:-

.