Boulder Bound?

WY can you post the link to the flight page? It amazes me, just like Google Earth. I'm easily amused...

 

Karr's flight is this one.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N205SP

 

Karr's plane just landing.

I think Lacy's in trouble and was probably told to get him back in Boulder and shut him (and his attorneys) up. She blew it, and the longer she kept him in CA, the longer and louder the pundits were going to keep up the media frenzy. At least she'll have him under her control and you know her...she doesn't talk.

This should be interesting.

 

So, you think it's better that Karr is incarcerated in Boulder for the present, Ginja? Just when the Boulderites thought this case was over because Patsy Ramsey died.

 

koldkase makes an excellent summary of the "Ramseys did it" case, and I wish to explain why I do not find it particularly compelling.

A DNA match with Karr would be nice, I'm sure we would all like this case definitively solved, but it is not difficult to imagine other compelling evidence. Handwriting analysis, for example, may eventual prove important. If Karr was going around signing letters "S.B.T.C" prior to the crime, that would be pretty incriminating, considering the other evidence.

Quite true. It is also possible that Karr may have info that no investigator knew about, and which they were able to verify.

This is clearly a problem for the "Karr is guilty" arguers like me. However, I note that his wife has stated that her memory is not infallible on this. It is also interesting that no photos which have surface as yet actually have Karr in them.

Well, Patsy did live in the house. One would expect to find her fingerprints, fibers, and DNA in her kitchen, her basement, and on her daughter. And, as you state, she did handle her daughter's body later. In the garrote knot, though, I hadn't read that anywhere. Do you have a reference for that? That would be interesting, but still, it was her house and her fibers would be around, so I'm not ready to convict on that.

Look, Patsey R. seems to have been somewhat ditzy. JR didn't marry her for her brains. So I'm not going to be too impressed that she said and did some inconsistent things on small details. PR's explanation for the Bloomies seems as logical as any I've heard. Besides, the Ramsey's eventually turned in a package of Bloomies. If they were trying to hide evidence, they would have just gotten rid of them. That JBR was wearing the wrong size underwear is weird, but there could be lots of reasons for it.

Well, that's the first I've heard about prior vaginal injuries. A couple other sources I read stated specifically there were no prior vaginal injuries. I don't think the autoposy report mentioned any either. Do you have a reference for this?

Again, this is a small detail which is odd, but for which there could be many explanations, principal among them being that PR simple forgot she had some pineapple. It would be really weird for an intruder to bring pineapple to his crime scene. It would also be an odd late-night snack for a little girl. At the end of the day, PR being confused about the pineapple doesn't add-up to a whole lot.

Here's the deal, if JR thought the police were trying to nail him, then he would go and hide behind lawyers. The police would understandably become more and more obsessed with getting information out of the Ramsey's as it looks like they are hiding something. Nonetheless, if the Ramseys didn't trust the police, their behavior is rational. Not trusting the police doesn't mean they are guilty. As I recall, this Linda Arndt detective was convinced JR was guilty the moment she saw him carry his dead daughter's body up the stairs. So JR may have had a point that some in the police were biased against him. Not cooperating with the police IS suspicious, but people have done dumber things .

If there is no DNA match, then handwriting analysis may be an important element. I can't evaluate the credentials of all the experts who are reported to have compared PR's handwriting with the note. Some say it must have been her, others say it couldn't have been her. This gets us no where. In a trial, though, I would expect a more orderly evaluation of handwriting. If the prosecution finds several renowned experts who claim that Karr was definitely the author of the note, and the defense can't find any to say otherwise, then I think that would put things over the REASONABLE DOUBT threshold.

We know that the killer probably didn't have intimate knowledge of the Ramsey family as the ransom note implied that JR was a Southerner which he isn't.
As for the $118k ransom amount, well, to whom would that look like a lot of money, a member of the wealthy Ramsey family, or a substitute teacher from the Deep South making, perhaps, $50 a day? Exactly.

I don't know what the phone records would have shown, but their clothing should certainly have been collected. Why it wasn't is a problem with the BDA, not the Ramsey's.

OK, the BPD did a crummy job. Amazingly enough, they might still get a conviction at this late date if they have the goods on Karr, which they might.

The basic premise that a Ramsey accidently killed JBR and then covered it up by making a garrote, strangler her with it, dumping her body downstairs, and writing a long and illogical ransom note is difficult to swallow, and your arguments above do not make it any easier. So far as I know, there is no evidence for any Ramsey showing violent tendencies before or after this event. Faking a ransom note is really dumb if the body is still in the house. Your going to have police all over the place, surely this poorly-concealed body would be discovered by police searching for evidence. Wouldn't it make much more sense to dump the body somewhere? It is remotely possible that one of the parents has secret psychopathic tendencies, but it is remote in the extreme for both of them to have such tendencies. As the Ramsey's never divorced, one suspects that they had a good marriage, which would not have been the case if one of them was a psychopath. The fact that they stayed together through this suggests that neither one killed their daughter.

bill

 

yea

Patsy could have forgotten JB had pineapple but it is more than that. She was adamant that JB was asleep when they got home and the explanation the Rams give is that they carried her from the car to her bed so there is no forgotten about it. Either an intruder fed her pineapple or PR flat out lied about the pineapple.

Patsy ditsy - no way in heck - she graduated magna cum laude.

 

Or.....they stayed together because they both were guilty.

 

wjmartin... you wrote, in part: Faking a ransom note is really dumb if the body is still in the house. Your going to have police all over the place, surely this poorly-concealed body would be discovered by police searching for evidence. Wouldn't it make much more sense to dump the body somewhere?

The ransom note was the only "evidence" that there was an intruder. No note = no intruder. Therefore, the note was imperative. It was the only way to convince law enforcement that someone other than the Ramseys killed JonBenet.

Why would the Ramseys write a fake ransom note, knowing the body would eventually be discovered? They wanted the body to be discovered. When no one did, John finally "found" the body himself.

It's possible that at the time the note was written, John and Patsy were considering removing the body from the house, but decided against it for any of a variety of reasons:

1. When it came right down to it, maybe they couldn't bear the thought of putting the body of their beloved daughter somewhere outside. For one thing, animals could find it.

2. Maybe they were afraid of being seen leaving, or out and about. Worse, maybe they'd have a fender bender, and there they'd be with Jonbenet's body.

3. Maybe they were afraid of leaving tire tracks in the snow on the driveway.

4. Maybe they were afraid law enforcement would find snow on the car or the car engine still warm.

5. If they'd thought of digging a hole and burying the body somewhere (I think they may have considered this. Why? The note said "We will also deny your her remains for proper burial"), they may have realized the ground was likely frozen.

At any rate, the body was left in the house - along with the fake ransom note. The note was the only piece of so-called "evidence" pointing away from the Ramseys, so it had to stay, even though it demanded ransom and the body was left behind. Maybe they could have come up with a second "intruder" note that didn't mention ransom, but time was slipping away.

 

Well, martin, welcome to the forum.

As you well know, your arguments have been argued ad nauseum, just as mine have. You have broken it down and expressed the same piece by piece rebuttal that I'm not going to waste time answering, if only because I'm tired of writing right now. You know what I'd say anyhow. I already said it. You just countered. You conclude one thing, I another.

As for the fibers in the garrote knots, read the Atlanta 2000 interview between Patsy and the Boulder DA. Anything else you missed can be researched here as well, with the search function. You can find many of the documents and depositions and interview transcripts at:

www.acandyrose.com

As for Patsy being a ditzy woman who can't remember what her pageant scrubbed, bleached, and polished daughter ate, wore, nor when she bathed, I don't think so. If you think Patsy was too forgetful to turn over the critical underwear evidence the police had been seeklng for years, and which Patsy even discussed at LENGTH with them in 2000...you go ahead and take that misogynistic view, if it helps you create excuses about what you think parents who look so nice can and cannot do. But remember, John and many male investigators knew exactly what they had, as well, in those size 12/14 Bloomies. And if you don't believe that, then you believe THEY TOO are ditzy!

That would make your argument John and his WORLD-CLASS INVESTIGATORS were too stupid to know they weren't helping LE with the investigation by withholding critical evidence. Right.

It's the totality of the evidence, and if you're so predispositioned to dismiss the improbabilities of an intruder committing this murder and the parents being so helpful to him with their own behavior, I have no desire to disabuse you of your illusions. What I believe the evidence in this case proves is what I believe, because I'm not looking to make excuses for the Ramseys and the evidence that implicates them. I only want to know the truth, not to prosecute it, as I am not a lawyer.

But I'm a parent, and I've cared for children, and I'm no ditz, and I don't buy for one New York minute that the evidence does not lead straight to the Ramseys. Why would I? Their own lawyers did, as well.

If you want to read a long debate about these "missing" Bloomies underwear and how the Ramseys knew they were important at last 2 years before they turned them in to Mary Keenan/Lacy, go to the threads at the bottom of my post. Then tell me how you believe Patsy was just too ditzy to understand finding her child's murderer meant actual cooperation with LE, not pathetic excuses for NOT cooperating.

 

And what Texan, amster, and Tril said....

 

Well, the Klass murderer didn't leave a note and he was an intruder. So it is not true that no note means no intruder, though your point may be that the Ramsey's may have irrationally thought so. But if they were trying to convince the police there was an intruder, one would think that faking a forced entry would have entered their minds before a fake ransom note.

Of course, if they wanted the body to be found quickly, there are many ways to make this happen.

But they could bear strangling their dead daughter's corpse?

OK, you list some good reasons above why they might not have wanted to move the body, though none of these matter if they wanted the body to be discovered, as you suggest. But if they didn't want the body to be discovered, they could have done a much better job of concealing it.

 

Thanks

I'll go and look at this reference. I am still looking for convincing evidence of the Ramsey's guilt, having been disappointed thus far.

Huh? Not clear where you see misogyny here. Men and women can both be ditzy, as you note below.

As I said, I suspect they didn't trust the police. This surely hurt their cause more than it helped. Denying the police information is like running away from the scene of a crime. The police are going to instinctively go after you. It is highly suspicious, but since the police didn't find enough hard evidence to arrest a Ramsey, despite strong efforts to do so, the Ramsey's were probably simply being stupid, or "ditzy" as you put it.

I hardly think wanting hard evidence constitutes an illusion. Rather, it is those who concoct elaborate theories based on oddities in the case and second hand press reports that are not being sensible. I'm not implying that you do this, but I think we both know there are people who do. I saw one thread that had an elaborate theory about the missing final period in "S.B.T.C". There are people who think that a missing period can explain everything. In this case, as in history in general, it is often difficult to know what really happened. Press reports and human memories are often error-filled. Text books get things wrong. I like speculating as much as the next person, but physical evidence has to back it up. I prefer archaeology to history as there is so much questionable interpretation in history. I'll take an artifact any day over some theory about how ancient people must have thought.

I'm not a Ramsey lover, OK? I'm not making excuses for anyone. I entertain the idea that the Ramsey's ran from the police because of fear of police misconduct rather than guilt, because of the gruesome nature of the crime, because it seems they would have done other things if they had wanted to fake a kidnapping, and because the authorities never developed enough evidence to charge them.

Well see if I can get to looking at that, AHHHH---this evening.

bill

 

Worth reposting.....

WY is soooooo nice and civil.

And on the Other Hand - you have me............

For Clarification - here are my rules you new people can either like it or love it.

#1 Rule - No Bashing of the White Family.
#2 Rule - No preaching of Ramsey innocence.

Nuff said

Sigh.....wishing I could be nice and hold this insane conversation again, but I have paid my dues and am standing my ground on this one. Just because some Wing-Nut Intruded into this case does not mean my doors are open for those with less than honest intentions.

 

:headbang: Legal experts have said DNA evidence will likely be key: DNA was found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear. But others who worked on the case warned that DNA evidence alone will not be enough to convict Karr.

"It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent," :headache:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=112682#post112682

 

Karr is in Boulder? Really? Gee, I would think they would've taken him to Park City so he could assist Tricia with rounding up homeless people for Fleet White.


-Tea

 

icedtea

Please bring up the question you asked me in the PM.

It is very important.

:leaf:

 

Not true - you're a secret p u s s y rat

 

KoldKase

Go, gal, go! You are Hot, hot, hot!

I now christen thee, HotKase.

:rose:

:leaf:

 

well....seems Karr has a public defender representing him. And the PD wants any writings of Karrs sealed. oooops.....too late PD. Already been all over the media.

Does this mean Lacy is gonna try and prove Karr, not Patsy, wrote the ransom novel?? What a shock...NOT

 

Well, what you say is fair. We know about kooky theories. I believe the person who had the "period" theory in fact was arguing for an intruder at another forum.

But you have gotten this wrong: the BPD had enough evidence to charge, meeting the standard of probable cause. I think Hunter said he refused to charge because he didn't believe that he could reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in a trial. Dr. Lee, with whom Hunter consulted during the grand jury, said that in his book, as well.

Here was the problem with prosecuting this case: in Colorado, the law is clear that you cannot charge two people in a murder under the assumption that ONE OF THEM did the actual deed. The DA must specify who did what. That's the law there. The DA...indeed, most of us...cannot say, if you believe Patsy and/or John committed this murder, who hit her in the head, who pulled on the garrote cord. Throw in the suspicions that some have of Burke having some part in this. It's a mess that worked to keep the family in the home that night from being arrested and tried.

This is the true mystery of this case: none of us, after all these years, can lay out an ironclad case as to exactly what the sequence of events were that night. So for the sake of argument, while knowing you have other opinions, I'll lay this out for you: who struck the head blow; who tied the garrote on the neck and strangled her; who shoved the paintbrush in her; who wiped her down and redressed her; who laid her out in the cellar room; who wrote the note?

If you follow the evidence that I have seen fairly well sourced, this is as good as I can theorize: some time 3+ days prior to the night JonBenet died, she had vaginal intrusion; her hymen had been eroded, as well; on the night in question, JonBenet ate pineapple 1-3 hours before she died, probably 1-2 hrs.; then there was some kind of violent act which resulted in the head injury, but we just don't know with certainty what, and even when it occurred in the sequence of events is debated ad nauseam; we do know JonBenet was strangled in the basement by/near the paint tray, where Patsy's jacket fibers were found, where the paintbrush was broken and shards left on the floor, and a green paint chip found on JonBenet's chin matched to paint in the tray; Patsy's jacket fibers were found in both the knots of the garrote and on the blanket found wrapped around her body; John's dark shirt fibers were found in the genital area where she'd been wiped down; Patsy's jacket fibers were found on the duct tape that had been over JonBenet's mouth, which John pulled off; Patsy's paintbrush was inserted into the child's vagina and left acute injury; the paintbrush was then broken and tied onto the garrote cord, which was used to strangle the child; JonBenet was then laid out in the cellar room on top of a blanket from her bed, which was wrapped around her "like a papoose" John said; Patsy's pad and pen were used to write the non-ransom note; Patsy could not be excluded as the writer of the note.

I know the arguments that break down all of the above as fiber transfer, the parents lived in the home, the intruder came in and used what he found, etc., etc.

And that's why we're all here.

Had the Ramseys gone with the BPD and let themselves be interviewed separately early on, had they taken a polygraph with LE, had they made themselves available to assist LE from day one instead of fighting them every inch of the way through their lawyers, the outcome of this case would have been different. One way or the other.

They didn't, and here we are, a wacko from Alabama leading us all around by the nose for weeks.

If Karr's lawyers can't get reasonable doubt in this murder, then it would have to be gross incompetence or deliberate sabotage, IMO.

I was tired last night and forgot your question about the prior molestation. A poster here put together a great compilation of sources on this, Punisher, which I'll try to find for you. Of course, one can argue either way, but the autopsy is clear and as far as I know, there is only one expert who argued the chronic injuries to the vagina couldn't be stated to be sexual abuse because we don't know how she got them. I think when a child turns up dead with a paintbrush shoved up her, that's a pretty strong indicator that the prior vaginal injuries were some kind of abuse...but that's just me.

As for such nice parents not being able to do the things that were done to JonBenet, I suggest you read Marilyn Van Derbur's book, Miss American By Day. I always bring this up, and not that many people have read it, but I discussed it on another forum while I was reading it and I'll see if I can find that thread link if it's still up there for you to read, if you care to do so. It's an inside look at how the best of families can have their dark secrets, all appearances to the contrary.

But I believe this about that: if you read the National Enquirer book composed of the transcripts of Patsy and John's interviews with LE in 1997 and 1998, you find that Patsy was told by Detective Haney, who was interviewing her, that evidence had been found in the autopsy that JonBenet had been molested before that night. Patsy's response was she didn't know this--18 months after the murder, and her own investigators and lawyers neglected to even question her on this, when this narrows the number of suspects to a short list. She's "shocked" for about a minute...and THEN--she wants to SEE THAT EVIDENCE.

I ask you, your child is molested, has her head bashed in and is strangled while you sleep two floors above...and you're told by LE someone molested her before that night, the autopsy shows...your reaction is SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE?

That's not only unbelievable, it's negligent as a parent. Patsy should have been all over that, racking her brain to remember the days before the murder, calling her friends and family--WHO HAD ACCESS? And me? I'd have been bouncing off the walls, screaming bloody murder, and vowing to find that SOB if I never slept another minute in my life.

Not Patsy. Where's the evidence of this? Next?

Sorry, these people went way beyond "suspicion" of LE. A year and a half later, and they aren't even visibly shaken at such news, just want to SEE THE EVIDENCE.