First Prev
of 21
Next Last
The Truth Hurts

Novi, MI

#427 Mar 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
What does intent to “throw out certain people as suspects from the start” have to do with saying that the doors were locked that morning? Sorry, I’m not following you on this one.

AK
Well, let's see...first persons name thrown out was LHP. She had a key. Comprende now?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#430 Mar 21, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's see...first persons name thrown out was LHP. She had a key. Comprende now?
She was just one of many names thrown out. They made sure they didn't even NEED a point of entry or exit because once that theory headed south, we are then told that all of Boulder had a key to the house LOL

Bases covered

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#433 Mar 21, 2013
That is why the Ramseys have several different versions of all questions asked of them - to cover all the bases.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
She was just one of many names thrown out. They made sure they didn't even NEED a point of entry or exit because once that theory headed south, we are then told that all of Boulder had a key to the house LOL
Bases covered

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#436 Mar 21, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
the window was on a hinge and opened toward the ceiling..no reason to upset the window well and debris..place a tarp under the window and open the window.. punch it with a baseball bat. Voila! easy clean up and there's yer hole;)
realTopaz, the window swings inwards, not upwards. You can see here: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a

Regardless, if they were trying to make it look like an entry point then they would need to leave the broken glass for the police to see, wouldn’t they?
..

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#437 Mar 21, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
He moved it a little when he was looking for glass but he isn't the one who put it under the window.
I don't believe it was even in the vicinity of that room, or at least that's what the Ramseys said, if I remember correctly.
the suitcase seems a bit mysterious, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the crime or any cover up. I could be wrong.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#438 Mar 21, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's see...first persons name thrown out was LHP. She had a key. Comprende now?
I can’t imagine how anyone could seriously consider LHP as a suspect.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#439 Mar 21, 2013
Why would the Ramseys want anyone to believe it was an “inside job?” I’m not saying, assuming RDI, that they wouldn’t want this, but WHY would they?
It seems to me that this would narrow the focus of investigators and quickly prove false once investigation into these “insiders” began.


AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#440 Mar 21, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
realTopaz, the window swings inwards, not upwards. You can see here: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a
Regardless, if they were trying to make it look like an entry point then they would need to leave the broken glass for the police to see, wouldn’t they?
..
AK
just as easy to break it that way. I believe they did leave glass but cop didn't see it and when JR went back down there after 10, cleaned up the glass and missed a shard. There shouldn't have been any glass if JR broke it in the summer and LHP and Patsy cleaned it up ..if you believe that.

The reason JR wanted to say it was an inside job, IMO, was he realized there was no obvious point of entry since he cleaned up his original staging around the window. Now, the perp had to come in by key, and anyone with a key was an insider..that's why sooooooooo many keys were handed out, according to JR.
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

#441 Mar 21, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I can’t imagine how anyone could seriously consider LHP as a suspect.

AK
I don't either and yet some do. Interesting that the Ramseys would suspect her. ;)
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

#442 Mar 21, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Why would the Ramseys want anyone to believe it was an “inside job?” I’m not saying, assuming RDI, that they wouldn’t want this, but WHY would they?
It seems to me that this would narrow the focus of investigators and quickly prove false once investigation into these “insiders” began.

AK
Because the body did not leave the house and the location of the body was in a place that most people wouldn't know about.
Covering their bases again.
I think they knew the kidnapping ruse was not going to go over well once the body was found.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#443 Mar 22, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the body did not leave the house and the location of the body was in a place that most people wouldn't know about.
Covering their bases again.
I think they knew the kidnapping ruse was not going to go over well once the body was found.
You are right. Whoever they were looking to throw under the bus would have had to know the Ramseys and the house. There needed to be an explanation for the body being in a remote area that so many didn't even know about and don't forget about the $118,000 that they tried to use to throw an "insider" under the bus or someone close enough who would have known about it, so yeah, of course they had no choice but to claim an inside job

A total stranger/intruder wouldn't have bothered with the crap of "southern" and "fat cat" and 118,000 and would have left more clues, fingerprints, anything at all. Any that were found were either from the family or others who could easily be explained away so of course they had to say that it must have been an "insider"

Actually, he was right ;)

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#444 Mar 22, 2013
The ransom note, which stated that it was now "up to you John," released Patsy from dealing with the problem of what to do and gave John time to think through a plan for when JonBenet's body was found. He did. They lawyered-up and never had to explain why there was a ransom note along with a dead body in the house. The note was a successful diversion.

One thing's for sure, Patsy and Burke can never be charged. That leaves John.

I think Patsy did it.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#445 Mar 22, 2013
Assuming RDI: I actually don’t have much of a problem with the idea that they wanted it to be seen as an inside job, it just seems unlikely that they would wish to limit the investigation that way or that they even would have been thinking that ahead of “how do we get out of this right now?” And, it seems risky because “inside job” includes themselves! I think that would want to point the finger as far away from inside as possible, from inside to unknown but out there


AK
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#446 Mar 23, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Assuming RDI: I actually don’t have much of a problem with the idea that they wanted it to be seen as an inside job, it just seems unlikely that they would wish to limit the investigation that way or that they even would have been thinking that ahead of “how do we get out of this right now?” And, it seems risky because “inside job” includes themselves! I think that would want to point the finger as far away from inside as possible, from inside to unknown but out there

AK
Like saying they saw a man run out the door when she came down the steps?

Like saying they found a door unlocked?

Like saying they found a door partially open?

Like not handing the police the note pad?
The Truth Hurts

Plymouth, MI

#447 Mar 23, 2013
1.) Man running out the door - no footprints to prove this happened.

2.) They did say doors were unlocked....much later when they saw that nobody was buying their original story.

3.) See #1

4.) Like the police weren't going to figure it out about the note pad.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

#448 Mar 23, 2013
Running on the sidewalks would not leave foot prints. Besides, RDI disregard foot prints, so even if there were any, it would be disregarded.
The Truth Hurts

Plymouth, MI

#449 Mar 23, 2013
deb wrote:
Running on the sidewalks would not leave foot prints. Besides, RDI disregard foot prints, so even if there were any, it would be disregarded.
RDI disregard footprints? What?
The Truth Hurts

Plymouth, MI

#450 Mar 23, 2013
Can't disregard footprints that aren't there. ;)

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#454 Mar 30, 2013
Deb may be referring to the un-sourced footprint in windowless room.

Regardless, according to Reichenbach, Thomas, Kolar, etc. there was no snow on the driveway or walkways and you could not tell if anyone had walked on them. Officers noted that when you walked on them, no visible prints were left. So, a lack of footprints is a meaningless observation.

Assuming RDI: I think that their best bet would have been to say and do as little as possible. Did you hear anything? Nope. Did you see anything? Nope. Were the doors locked? I dunno, uh - nope. Did Jonbenet ever get up in the middle of the night and wander around on her own, have a snack, etc? I dunno, uh – sometimes….


AK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 21
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Melody Stanton and "the scream" (Jul '13) 40 min Tony 12
New Book on this case 44 min Tony 4
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 2 hr Legal__Eagle 106
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 6 hr singapore 59
Patsy's left-hand sample (Feb '13) 6 hr MiTrIlE 212
The case against JMK 6 hr B K King 10
Linda Arndt (May '07) 19 hr SlapJack 23
More from around the web