The Ramsey's own words

I keep wondering if the window frame has anything to do with the wounds on JonBenet's back. The window is opened so that it is perpendicular. The suitcase is placed under the window so that it is parallel to it and perpendicular to the wall under the window and someone stands on it. Some kind of fabric covering is draped over the window frame and the large end of the baseball bat is used to punch a hole in the window. The fabric covering is removed, but it has caught a tiny piece of wood from each side of one of the corners. These two tiny pieces of wood then come in contact with JonBenet's back. It would be nice to know what the thickness of the frame was.


-Tea

 

I don't think there was any fabric covering on the basement window. None appear in any photos. And the suitcase was supposedly moved by DW and may not have been originally positioned under the window.

Interesting thought- wouldn't it be nice to take Touch DNA samples from the handle of that suitcase? If the perp used it to climb out (highly doubtful, IMO) I don't recall seeing that prints were taken from that handle.

 

The fabric covering would have been draped over the window to prevent glass from going everywhere and then removed. And I think the suitcase, despite being moved by FW, was still parallel to the glass part of the window but further away from the wall than it originally was.

Yeah, that would be nice, along with taking samples from other objects.


-Tea

 

KK:

rashomon's html didn't come out right in her post # 180. The following quote is rashomon's not mine.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">rashomon wrote:

A liar who was an accomplice in the cover-up.
They were both in it together. Whether John only helped Patsy to cover it up or whether he played an active role in the events triggering the homicide is something I keep wavering back and forth about.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

John said he kicked the window in, and of course no one woud kick in a window barefooted.
That's why they should have grilled John more on exactly how he did it:
For example, the interviewer could have 'played dumb' here, asking John:

"But how could you take your pants off while leaving your shoes on?"

Then watch John's face. The facial expression would reveal something like "Oh, **** - what do I tell them now?" For the suspect being questioned only has seconds to come up with an "explanation".
He only has two options:
Suppose he chooses option one and tells them he pulled the pants over the shoes. Which in itself is very unlikely, since it is nearly impossible to pull pants over shoes. Also, the pants would pick up dirt from the shoes.

Don't let the suspect out of the corner, but keep pushing.
Time for the next verbal surprise attack:

"You were very concernd about keeeping your pants clean, right?
But it obviously didn't bother you if they got dirt and debris on them from your shoes - have I got that right?"

Trapped. Now John has to wriggle out again, and it takes a lot of presence of mind to keep countering such attacks without becoming totally flustered.

If he choses option 2, trying sell them the story that he
- took off his shoes first
- took off his pants
- put his shoes back on again and climbed down the well in shoes and underwear - that's quite a ridiculous scenario also.

Even some IDIs have doubts about this story. Poster Watson has offered excellent arguments, bringing in his own experience as a 'busines suit wearer'. A must-read imo!

http://www.boards.320sycamore.com/showthread.php?t=23&page=46 (post # 454).

 

Another missed opportunity, rashomon. If Haney had been doing it, he'd have nailed him.

 

Is it normal language use to call the long underwear 'pajamas pants' also, or was that a slip-up by Patsy who couldn't get her lies straight?

 

John and the basement window

Not only did John Ramsey fail to immediately report the broken window, he found the window open -- and CLOSED it. Without alerting the police.

This is monstrous really, given the situation.

Oh boy, how a prosecutor cross-examining John at trial could have held his feet to the fire on that!

Prosecutor:
"Mr. Ramsey, you thought your daughter had been kidnapped, you see a broken and open window in the basement, the police is in your home, but instead of alerting them at once because the kidnapper could have used it as a point of entry and exit, you say ----- NOTHING!!
Instead you simply CLOSE that window and keep your mouth shut? Even after your daughter's dead body has been found a few feet away from that window you still don't say a word about it to the police? Why, Mr. Ramsey?
Why didn't you you want to tell the police what you had seen?"

(At that point the defense attorney will of course interrupt and complain that the prosecutor is 'suggesting' something, the objection will be probably be sustained and the prosecutor asked to rephrase the question).

Prosecutor:
"Okay, I'll rephrase my question: Why didn't you tell the police about the window?"

John:
"I .. umm, I just thought it .. it wasn't really important. I mean, I had broken that window months earlier, and, I just, you know .."

Prosecutor:
"No, Mr. Ramsey, I'm afraid I don't know. I don't know what made you think it was not important, given the situation. Especially since, you per your own words, claimed to have climbed in through that very same window months before!!
So where is the logic in your explanation, Mr. Ramsey? Are you going to tell me that while you could climb through the window, the intruder couldn't have done the same??"
Mr. Ramsey, suppose we asked the spectators here in the coutroom to raise their hand if they would have reported that broken and open window, how many hands do you think would go up here??

(Prosecutor looks directly at the jury):
"But the defendant says it was "not important". NOT IMPORTANT.
Sure, Mr. Ramsey. I have no further questions."

But had it come to trial, I doubt John or Patsy would have taken the stand ...

 

I've often wondered how a trial would have played out. I've always felt that one side or another would try to plea-bargain it out. Knowing the DA's office, I'd say that's likely. Question is, would it serve justice?

Excellent scenario, rashomon. Just goes to show you what a real A-lister could have done in that office. Justice may be blind, but it shouldn't be handcuffed.

 

If there had been a trial, and of the prosecutors had been allowed to prosecute, the Rs would have been put in jail, and BR in custody of (probably) Auntie P. (Oh the horror).

 

Read it, rashomon. Thank you. I don't visit any of the other boards. Don't have the time. There are many posts way back about this ridiculous window scenario from John. I'm not wasting any more time on it. Enuff is enuff! I see our old friend DocG is still around. There are so many scenarios concocted by Patsy and John Ramsey, it's not funny. It's pathetic to read over them.

I am more than disappointed with American Justice when it comes to the JonBenét Ramsey case. Instead of making the rest of the world admire them for their courage in charging the Ramsey parents in spite of their wealth and the hatchet team of Hal Hadden, they will always be frowned upon, and quite rightly so!

 

I think that would be pretty normal/innocent usage. They might not technically be pjs, but are being "worn us" pjs. Earlier this season, Tootise had to wear one of my t-shirts as a nightdress on our boat due to a "packing mix-up". Still I wouldn't have said to her to "go and put my t-shirt on" at bedtime. I'd still say "go and put your nightie on".

 

Thanks for the info, Jayelles.

I too think a plea-bargain would have been likely.

 

I think many other long-time case researchers will share your feelings, Elle.

When I think about it, only a few years ago when Hunter left the DA's office, there was so much hope that whoever succeeded him would do a better job, but instead the obstruction of justice has continued down to the present day.
All those new investigators who had been assigned to the case (Tom Bennett, Jim Kolar ...) - has anyone heard one peep from them? They came and went, and still we have the same hampered 'investigation' stuck on the muddy road to nowhere.

People like Tricia Griffith, or Peggy Lakin with her book to which many of you have contributed - you posters have actually SOLVED this case back then, and to see the people in positions of power turn a blind eye to it all is totally infuriating, and may lead to a certain resignation.
I have only been studying this case for two and half years, and therefore quite a few things are still new for me, but maybe after some years more I too will have the feeling that "enough is enough" with all the Ramsey innoncence myths still swallowed by many, the current DA with her 'exoneration' probably having locked the door to justice forever and thrown away the key.

Tricia went out of her way in her petition efforts to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this case. But again, so much hope for justice has been crushed. For the powers that be don't WANT this case investigated, and by giving the Ramseys an official pass, M. Lacy has made it even more difficult for any future prosecutor to dig deeper into the case.

 

rashomon, you are still young enough to keep on researching this case. As things stand, you've done a great job. I am always hopeful the younger ones will come up with something new which the rest of us have missed. How I long to come across that some day. It might be you. It sure was a downer coming across the news about D.A. Lacy exonerating the Ramsey family, when most of us here know this was a big mistake, and the investigation should have been continued. Something new just has to turn up rashomon to reverse this(?). We're running out of time.

No, you're right, we never heard a cheep from Tom Bennett other than he was leaving. Same again with Jim Kolar. Frustrating! I guess they had their reasons just like Steve Thomas.

Browsing through the paperback "JonBenet: The Police Files" is very frustrating when you're reading questions the police are asking and they don't follow through and finish with more thorough questions. Mamma Mia! I'm ready to throw it up in a tree, and hope it doesn't come back down again (?) I know you know what I mean? Keep on sleuthing!

 

The Ramseys claimed that JonBenet was fast asleep when they arrived home.
The autopsy report says her hair was tied in ponytails, and going by the artist's rendition, imo it is highly unlikely JonBenet would have worn such an 'unglamorous' hairstyle to a Christmas party:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetbody1.jpg

A poster onTopix wrote: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TQ1JUVAGEK51BU86M/p23 (# 481)

VERY interesting info about mothers tying their daughters' hair in high ponytails to get the bouncy look.
Imo this, in addition to the pineapple evidence, could be another indicator that JonBenet was AWAKE when the family arrived home, and blowing the Ramseys' concocted story apart.

 

Yes, so she ate some pineapple, then she went up to bed and someone fixed her hair and she was probably watching tv as she usually did with her head resting on the pillow at the end of the bed. As I recal the pillow is tlhat way in the crime scene photos. So what happened, she fell asleep and wet her bed? Thomas seems to believe that Patsy put the red turtle neck on before she went to bed so as to avoid having to do it in the morning. It would have been cold in the am and Patsy may very well have insisted she wear a turtle neck to keep her warm. She may have wet the bed and the turtle neck along with it. But if Thomas feels this happened, why did he not go on more about it (the turtleneck) in his book, e.g. checking for urine?

You know the bed is a mess with all kinds of clothes on it. I don't believe Thomas ever addressed that in his book or did he.

I think I would remember it. You put your daughter to bed and left all those clothes on it?

 

That reminds me: there was a basket of hair ties that had been tipped over...

 

Those "hairties" COULD have been small fabric loops from the potholder loom seen on her nightstand. My DD had that same loom when she was young, and those fabric loops do look like hairties. A mom looking an them can tell the difference- I am not so sure the coroner would, nor LE.