The Big Red Boat

I agree with all you say here, Delmar. Don't get me wrong, I believe and always have, that one or both of the Rs are good for it, or at least know who is and are covering it up. I'm just trying to hit key points on this thread to open up some deeper analysis and discussion than we've had so many times before, that's all. Your "garotte" analysis, and the RN analysis, are outstanding and I've posted that many times. Misty's analysis of the autopsy report is equally impressive and logical. Combined, there is no reasonable doubt that one of the adult Rams are culpable IMO. I'd put you both on the stand in a heartbeat!

While I'm also a fan and supporter of Cyril Wecht's theory on this case, I am also open to other POVs. Nevertheless, I, like you, am afraid there are too many agendas on every Boulder authority's plates to do anything else with this case, and that's why Keenan has taken the throne on it. Her only task is to keep the case, as the child, buried, until everyone just gets on with their lives and forgets, like the Rs.

It will be interesting to see what reaction, if any, Boulder authorities will have when the petition is presented next month.

Now back to Spade's original intent on this thread. We need to post any information we have or can find regarding it. Sorry to side bar.....

 

wouldnt it be considered murder if.......

jonbenet was strangled TWICE!!!???

check out acandyrose.com

and check out Ruthee's theory.

i tried to add the link, but
it didnt work.

 

Here it is

I posted this years ago at CN, I just went back & found my post:

This is from the Globe tabloid from December of 1997.

Diane Hallis, who worked for Access Graphics for 2 1/2 years,
gave the interview.
In part: "Diane, who worked at the Boulder, Colo. company
for 2 1/2 years before leaving this year on amicable terms,
says she received a call from a woman who said John and
Patsy Ramsey, in a tearful meeting with their lawyers, had
confessed to taking part in JonBenet's death.
The woman whose call Diane took claimed her boyfriend was
an attorney working in the office of one of Ramsey's defense
lawyers. "She told me that her boyfriend told her Patsy
had called their attorneys after JonBenet's death and admitted
being responsible," says Diane.
"She said Patsy had told her attorney that she got up
during the night and found her husband in JonBenet's room.
"She accused John of sexually molesting JonBenet.
"According to the woman, Patsy told her lawyer that she
picked up something to hit John, missed and accidentally
struck JonBenet on the head.
"Patsy admitted to her attorney that she and John made up
the kidnapping story and he helped her construct the ransom
note as a cover."
Diane received the call last January, shortly after the
6 year-old beauty queen's strangled and beaten body was found
on Dec. 26 in the basement of her parent's $1.3 million Boulder
home.
GLOBE has already reported that sources close to the police
investigation say the scenario described by the caller is one
lawmen have been looking into. A 51 year-old divorcee with
two children, Diane was an assistant to Access Graphics vice
president Laurie Wagner, John's right-hand woman. Diane's
job was to field the up to 100 letters and 80 calls flooding
into the company each day concerning the murder.
"I had grown used to weeding out calls from what we called
'crazies,'" explains Diane. "Something told me that this
woman was not like that. Her words had a ring of truth and
I believed her."
Diane says she put the caller on hold and went to notify
Wagner, who was in her office with another worker. "I gave
her a brief synopsis and she was perturbed," adds Diane.
"As I left, she closed the door and I put the call through
to her. She spoke for at least 45 minutes to the woman."
When the call ended, Diane says Wagner told her to get
Mike Bynum, the first attorney John called after he and Patsy
reported JonBenet missing to cops.
"She spoke to him for 10 or 15 minutes, then called me into
her office and told me that everything I had heard was
confidential and that I should never discuss it with anybody,"
says Diane. "Bynum later called back to speak to John Ramsey
and Laurie. It seemed obvious to me that something important
had happened because that was probably only the third time
he had ever called Access Graphics while I was there."
Later, the other worker came out of Wagner's office and told
Diane "don't pay attention to that caller, she's writing a
soap opera."
Says Diane: "I didn't like to be told that because I began
believing they were covering up."
Diane says she was so upset she could barely sleep that night
and made up her mind to tell the cops about the call.
But the next morning, the page on the message pad on which
she'd written the woman caller's name and number had been
ripped out," she says.
"I was really upset and worried about what to do," says
Diane. "I was concerned about my job and even about my own
safety."
Two weeks after that, she says she called a priest at her
church - the Spirit of Christ, in Arvada, Colo. - and confessed
the situation.
"The priest told me to hold tight to the information and
the way would become clear," she says. "He said: "You will
know when to release it."
She says she came to GLOBE because she wants to see justice
for JonBenet.
Diane also claims there was more covering up at Access
Graphics. She says John's cluttered desk top was cleared by
his staff just before cops arrived with a search warrant to
collect his materials.
And she claims many letters mailed to the company containing
tips about the murder were turned over to Bynum's office and
Ramsey's investigator Ellis Armistead - instead of to the
police.
"This was potential evidence," she says. "It should have gone
to the police."
When contacted by GLOBE, Laurie Wagner says material relevant
to the case had been turned over to the authorities.
Diane was also shocked by John and Patsy's lighthearted
manner weeks after JonBenet's funeral when, according to
Diane, Denise Wolf called John at home.
"Denise said Patsy was laughing because John had flipped her
the bird and she'd done the same back" recalls Diane.
Shortly after, Diane was searching for John at work and
found him with a sales director.
"He was laughing and joking and drinking a beer," she
says. "I was shocked. He saw that and immediately sobered up."

Also in this article Diane Hallis says that John Ramsey
ran Access Graphics like a dictator "who fired people on a
whim." And his employees were so afraid of losing their jobs,
they sqashed evidence of an alleged confession..."But the
attitude within Access Graphics was 100 percent not to solve
the crime - but to protect John Ramsey."

 

Have thoroughly enjoyed reading all the posts here. I personally believe JonBenét was accidentally knocked out by her mother, Patsy Ramsey who was in a rage. Steve Thomas thinks the same, but if it was John Ramsey who finally ended her daughter, JonBenét's life with strangulation, would both of them be charged for murder, or just John Ramsey? Could this really be holding them together, seven years after JonBenét's death?

.

 

Thanks for posting the Globe article. It would be interesting to know if BPD investigated her story at all once it was published.It could well be inferred from the article that the mysterious donor of this story was Bonita, and if so, confidentiality issues would arise.

Purr, a double strangulation would first have to be corroborated by forensic evidence that was strong enough to identify each perpetrator. We would then have 3 fatal injuries in the crime scene, and apportioning percentage of fatality to each, especially occurring in close proximity, and sequencing them correctly, would be medically impossible. From what we know of today's evidence, and especially the autopsy report, it doesn't strongly support that theory.

Elle, based on the known evidence at this time, it would be possible to charge PR with the strangulation, JR with an acute sexual assault and both with obstruction for the cover-up IMO. How strong a defense argument would be couldn't possibly be discussed in a single post because of the volume of evidence and opportunity.

 

I remember you posting this Thor and the discussions which followed. Have you ever heard anything else about Diane Hallis?I don't think I've read any more about her since you posted the Globe story. I wonder who the woman was who made the phone call she took in the first place?

Quite a weird story. isn't it, Thor?

 

Thank you, DejaNu. If we could only see this come to pass (?).

 

Think about this for a minute. If you were in this caller's shoes with that kind of information, would you call the killer's business office and give it to his secretary? Wouldn't you call the police instead? John Ramsey would have already known, having allegedly confessed, so why call his office about it? What's the point? Did this caller state a purpose for doing so? Did she plan to extort money from the Ramseys with it and that's why she called JR and not the cops?

What's more interesting to me are Diane's own obseravations and interpretations of the flurry of activity surrounding this call, and the Ramseys' flippant behaviors so soon after their daughter was so brutally murdered. As for the caller and her info, now might be a good time to play the Twilight Zone theme.

 

Diane Hollis

and Laurie Wagner both spoke to the caller and both testified before the GJ. The polygraph that Gene Parker gave to Hollis was commissioned by Craig Lewis of the Globe but never paid for.

I interviewed Parker in person who gave me a copy of the Hollis exam and claimed that Pam Paugh was the caller. Lewis denied payment to Parker because he thought Parker had sold info to the NE. Lewis was wrong, the NE hired a PI to eavesdrop on the exam and then beat the Globe to press with the story.

 

First, to Meyer. The purpose of the autopsy is to determine cause of death. In this regad, Meyer did just that by stating CoD as asphyxiation due to ligature strangulation associated with blunt trauma to the head. IOW, two injuries, BUT, the bottom line is that the death was caused by asphyxiation. We can't change this report in any way UNLESS there's an exhumation and reautopsy. Until such time, JonBenet's death was caused by asphyxiation REGARDLESS of when she suffered the blunt head trauma.

Also note the circumstances surrounding that asphyxiation. There was no struggle. JB was not bound and gagged and prevented from struggling because these bindings obviously were for show only and not useful in JB's 'defense'. If she had screamed, the duct tape would have fallen off. But note here too that the duct tape had a perfect impression of JB's lips, so again, no struggle. Note too that there was no bruising, inflammation or cord burn about the wrists. Even if the cord was over the sweater sleeve, struggling would have caused some abrasion/inflammation from the friction of the cord and sweater on her skin. There was none, so again, no struggle.

The garrotte was fabricated ON her. IOW, it was not fabricated elsewhere and then looped over her neck. The wood shards from the stick on the floor and about the body indicate that the stick was broken near/over her body; the hair entwined in the cord indicate that the cord was looped around her neck as she lay still. Again, no sign of struggle.

This lack of struggle indicates that JonBenet was unconcious at the time she was strangled. There is no indication whatsoever that she was medicated or poisoned or otherwise put into an unconscious state other than to have traumatized by a blunt object striking the head. This, of course, is evidenced by the skull fracture.

This is the evidence. The logical progression is that JonBenet was struck down and then strangled while unconcious.

Now let's look at intent. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the head trauma, it's criminally negligent ( and abusive behavior) for a guardian and/or adult (but especially the guardian) to wield a deadly weapon in close proximity of a child in their care simply because of the possible result, which is exactly what happened here...the child suffered a fatal blow to the head.

It is also criminally negligent to IGNORE the outcome of wielding that weapon and not immediately calling 911 for help...REGARDLESS of whether or not the adult thinks the child is dead. So one has to take into serious consideration WHY the adult did not immediately call police for medical assistance. Again, intent...what was the adult's intent on not calling for help.

IOW, the adult's intentions were not altruistic at all....the adult didn't give two hoots of the condition of the mortally injured child. The intent for all intents and purposes was to hide from authorities the adult's actions, without any consideration whatsoever of the child's welfare.

The adult's intent was to misdirect, obstruct, confuse, divert, obfuscate, cover-up and any other criminally negligent term you'd like to use with total disregard of the condition of the child. Regardless of whether the adult thought the child dead or not, the adult's responsibility was to call for help; not take a cord and wrap it around the mortally wounded child's throat!

IOW, the intent may not have been to kill...but it was also not to help. The adult took the wrong side of the law in responding to this negligent accident; that is, the adult's intent was criminal. And because that intent ended in the brutal strangulation of the child, the adult is responsible for that child's death. The adult's actions had to take into consideration forethought and motive...two attributes distinguishing the difference between accident and murder.

Again, death was by asphyxiation and the adult's obvious intent was to cover up all his/her criminally negligent actions leading to that strangulation. The adult's intent is striking when all his/her negligent actions are taken into consideration.

 

I hear you, DejaNu, and I wouldn't have phoned Ramsey's office. I would have gone to the cops with this information. Actually, calling his office would have been a dangerous way to go, I'm thinking.

Spade's post now has Diane Hollis and Laurie Wagner testifying before the Grand Jury. They couldn't lie to them! (?).

It seems you have been closer to this case Spade, than I ever imagined, with this latest admission of having a copy of the Hollis exam with Pam Paugh's name being mentioned as the caller (?). Good grief, why haven't we heard more about this incident from LE?

 

Pam Paugh

It makes sense to me that she would call Ramsey's office. She's 'family' and knew the truth and compared that to the spin her b-i-l was promoting. Perhaps it was her way of getting his attention to push him in the right direction and stop scaring the kids of Boulder into thinking they could be next. Or perhaps she simply did it for JonBenet's sake. Don't forget...JonBenet was sexually abused prior to her murder. Perhaps Pam knew more than she wanted.

P.S. Was it Pam or Polly?

 

Pam

The way Parker told me the story, it was Pam Paugh. Pam was PO'd at Uncle Johnny because SHE interpreted the HIM in Patsy's "confession" of "I caught HIM fooling around with JonBenet again" as being Uncle Johnny.

The information that Pam Paugh was the caller came to me verbally from Parker. It is NOT covered in my copy of the polygraph exam.

 

Uncle Johnny being who? John Andrew is JonBenét's uncle.

I take it Patsy Ramsey is talking about her husband, John being the one she caught. Have I got this right?

Someone help me out here, please before more confusion sets in for other posters. Thanks in advance!

 

Uncle Johnny

Uncle Johnny is a nickname for John Ramsey. Its roots are in Nancy Kreb's false allegations that John Ramsey sexually abused her and laundered money for the "ring of pedophiles/pornograhers".

John Andrew is Jonbenet's 1/2 brother not her uncle.

 

That's right Spade. He's Lucinda and John's son. Thank you!

Sorry about the John Andrew mistake. Had a few things on my mind yesterday and wasn't concentrating properly. I didn't know about John Ramsey being called Uncle Johnny.

 

Ginja, by this scenario then, there is no intent to commit homicide if the adult believed the child was already dead when he/she committed the ligature strangulation. It would be essential then to determine from that adult if any actions were taken to confirm the state of the victim prior to strangulation, IOW, did that adult check for a pulse, breathing, etc. to determine if the child was indeed dead? Even comatose victims are still breathing. What parent who has just accidentally hit their kid accidentally so hard as to render her unconscious WOULDN'T check and call for help? What good and loving parent in such an accidental scenario would just ASSUME the child's dead and therefore, they were at risk and needed an elaborate cover-up? If not, then negligent homicide might apply except for a prosecutorial argument that the adult knew or should have known that the child was still alive, although mortally wounded and emergency medical care should have been sought.

The "negligence" of the adult in not determining what the true condition of the child was prior to strangulation, and failure to seek emergency medical care, clearly shows a state of extreme disregard for the welfare of the child that would bust any claim of "ordinary negligence" and panic to hell and back.

IOW, even IF JB was accidentally struck on the head and rendered fatally wounded and unconscious, a reasonable and prudent person would check the status of the child while calling 911. That doesn't happen in your scenario because there was an intentional and willful disregard for the child's welfare which directly caused the second fatal injury of ligature strangulation.

Therefore, terms like "accident" and "negligent homicide" could be easily disproven with the aggravating circumstances just described. This is the kind of scenario that usually justifies seeking the death penalty.

The question is, WHY wouldn't the adult in this scenario check the welfare of the child and just call 911? That's what the Rams did when Burke accidentally struck JB with the golf club (even though that was a much less serious situation). No, JB's death was no accident, even if the head wound was accidentally committed. It is the WHY part of this scenario, that is, WHY didn't they check her vitals and call 911, that is the ONLY crucial issue. The Rams could have fabricated a prolific story (Patsy's an expert at that) to tell 911, the paramedics and the ER staff, that, with their notoriety, wealth and connections, would probably have succeeded. Why didn't they? What were they intentionally trying to "cover up" that was so important as to "sacrifice" this precious little girl? Certainly no "accident," no "ordinary negligence".....

 

Absolutely fantastic post DejaNu. Thank you for explaining this so thoroughly. Patsy and John Ramsey deserve the death penalty for this crime. It may have well started off as an accident, but it ended up as a homicide. Their aim was to finish her off. Jonbenét may have survived the head injury and ended up in a wheelchair, and this could not be accepted. In spite of their attempt to camouflage previous sexual abuse, it was still present according to Dr. Wecht.

 

Thanks, Elle. That could be the ONLY answer to the question Why. Something intentional, disgusting and SO aberrant was going on that any discovery of it, including the testimony of a brain-damaged child survivor, would pose such a perceived terrible risk of loss-of freedom, of reputation, of livelihood, of glory, of income-that it was necessary to finish off this child.

The Ramseys have constantly displayed nothing BUT self-interest throughout this entire ordeal. It is no stretch of the imagination that whatever was going on that night, self-interest and only that was the determining factor of any involvement by the Rs in this horrid tragedy IMO

 

The Ramseys Book

Remember ******? That's where I found out that Burke brought a friend along to Atlanta for JonBenet's funeral. Knowing that - I'd venture to say that a tag-a-long on the cruise is not out of the question.

RR