An IDI Companion: the basement window

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#74 Dec 13, 2013
moonjack wrote:
I dunno.... Jonbenet's feet were dirty plus I think it was too messy to clean, too much stuff everywhere, the vacuum didn't even fit, people had to walk sideways to fit down the halls. Kolar's video of the basement was an eye opener.
I don't have a bulglar alarm system but the previous owners of my home were art dealers and they did. The basement windows have plexiglass panel inserts that prevent the glass from being broken.
There is no doubt that the house was a mess and had they not had "intervention" from LHP the cleaning lady, the house probably would be filthy, but that is speculating based on Patsy's lack of housekeeping. Perhaps the confusion with my comments is the word dirty. When I think of a "dirty" house, my mind goes to a house with cockroaches and vermin, etc.

What the Ramseys were, were slobs and therefore always needed professional cleaning so their house would always be show offable :)

As for JBR's feet being dirty, I have to give them a pass on that too. We were kept clean growing up as were my own kids, but I always insisted on bare feet as a kid and I would venture a guess that if you took off the shoes and socks of most kids that age, you would find dirty feet

I am not disagreeing with you but despite the slobbiness of the house and the mess, I can see where other evidence could go unnoticed, but damp dirt and other remnants from the outside in that weather would still be noticed if the "intruder" wore footwear......or a coat.....or a hat....gloves....and of course, had an intruder been there at all :)

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#76 Dec 13, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand how you can even say this
For purposes of THIS discussion of the Ramsey crime and house, open and ajar are in fact, the same
If a burglar/intruder/unwanted visitor wants to get inside a home, a door/window/whatever that is open OR ajar (which is still OPEN), it is UNLOCKED!
If they always kept the window open/ajar, John would have had no reason to claim to break it when he got locked out and broke it months earlier....and months earlier would have been warmer and surely a better reason to have kept it open. It wasn't. John claimed that he had to break it to get in, and if we believe John, as most IDI do, we have to assume that they didn't regularly keep that window open/ajar
If they were in the habit of keeping anything ajar for whatever reason, nobody would ever have been locked out in the first place. John would know to look for the ever ready "ajar" entry
Going back to open/ajar, it (no matter what "it" is) is still UNLOCKED
That’s all fine, Capricorn. I understand what you’re saying, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying – the original comment that got y’all going: Maybe they only left it ajar during those times when the window was NOT broken, maybe they left it ajar ALL the time no matter what, maybe they opened all the windows or left them all ajar.

This was a response to Just Wondering who asked,“With the window pane broken as much as it was, why did the Ramseys need to leave the window ajar to cool the basement?”
Mr Ramsey said that the window was sometimes left ajar to cool the basement.

The discussion was about Mr Ramsey saying that they sometimes left the window ajar to cool the basement and wondering why they would need to do that when the window pane was broken as much as it was.

Ajar – slightly open.

.

I don’t recall it ever being said that the window was always kept ajar/open. Or, even that it was often kept ajar/open. I don’t recall anyone saying anything about the window being left ajar as a habit
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#77 Dec 13, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know who does the cleaning in your house, but if you ever have people come into a clean house from the outside in winter, their shoes are dirty and if it is winter, even if there is no real visible snow or ice to be seen, it HAD been there in Boulder but just not on the Ramsey walkway. That does not mean the streets and every other means of having to walk were dry. It doesn't have to be a full snow or ice to get your shoes wet.
All these people who came to the Ramsey house, surely didn't live in a vacuum where their feet never have to touch the sidewalks, etc. During winter, anyone who comes into a house with shoes on after a snow, melted or not, would certainly track dirt in and moisture marks
It doesn't mean they have to leave a full footprint or a footprint at all, but try letting people into your house after a snow and then check your floors. If you don't find any signs of wet and dirt and smudges from the outside then you either have super duper floors or a very diligent house cleaner
I live in Canada; northern Canada. I have snow coming out of my ears. I know what happens to the floors when it snows. We have mats at the doors, we wipe our feet when we come inside. We take our boots/shoes off when we enter the house; even in the summer time we take off our shoes.

If the Fernies, the Whites, the police, crime scene techs, victim advocates, etc, etc could move around the house without leaving any footprints than anyone could. That’s the only thing I’m trying to say. I don’t l know if they left footprints, and I don’t know that they didn’t. I do know that if you can enter someone’s house without leaving prints on their floor if that’s what you want to do.
...

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#78 Dec 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s all fine, Capricorn. I understand what you’re saying, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying – the original comment that got y’all going: Maybe they only left it ajar during those times when the window was NOT broken, maybe they left it ajar ALL the time no matter what, maybe they opened all the windows or left them all ajar.
This was a response to Just Wondering who asked,“With the window pane broken as much as it was, why did the Ramseys need to leave the window ajar to cool the basement?”
Mr Ramsey said that the window was sometimes left ajar to cool the basement.
The discussion was about Mr Ramsey saying that they sometimes left the window ajar to cool the basement and wondering why they would need to do that when the window pane was broken as much as it was.
Ajar – slightly open.
.
I don’t recall it ever being said that the window was always kept ajar/open. Or, even that it was often kept ajar/open. I don’t recall anyone saying anything about the window being left ajar as a habit
...
AK
Morning AK

I understand what you are saying and thanks for the clarification

I personally don't believe John about ever leaving that open. First of all, I doubt he ever had cause to go into the basement and probably hardly ever saw it; let alone knowing the habits of the windows there but that is another story. I doubt John knew any of the habits of the running and maintenance of the house other than to pay the bills for it

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#79 Dec 14, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in Canada; northern Canada. I have snow coming out of my ears. I know what happens to the floors when it snows. We have mats at the doors, we wipe our feet when we come inside. We take our boots/shoes off when we enter the house; even in the summer time we take off our shoes.
If the Fernies, the Whites, the police, crime scene techs, victim advocates, etc, etc could move around the house without leaving any footprints than anyone could. That’s the only thing I’m trying to say. I don’t l know if they left footprints, and I don’t know that they didn’t. I do know that if you can enter someone’s house without leaving prints on their floor if that’s what you want to do.
...
AK
You are right about the doormats, etc. I was remarking on entry other than the front door or a door/window without a doormat. Chances are this intruder did not come in through the front door and wipe his feet

It is a moot point now as the entire house and crime scene were compromised by the Ramseys and their friends that morning and anything found at that point would be tainted anyway as actual evidence after the house was trampled

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#81 Dec 16, 2013
Good points, although as you said, moot ones!
I doubt the police in this type of scenario would be taking their shoes off either.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right about the doormats, etc. I was remarking on entry other than the front door or a door/window without a doormat. Chances are this intruder did not come in through the front door and wipe his feet
It is a moot point now as the entire house and crime scene were compromised by the Ramseys and their friends that morning and anything found at that point would be tainted anyway as actual evidence after the house was trampled
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#82 Dec 16, 2013
OK, time to insert my two cents. Or should I say "common cents"?

First of all, in their book John says he'd misplaced his keys. In his testimony he's all over the place. He misplaced his keys, he thinks he may have given his keys to John Andrew, he never kept keys in his pocket anyhow because he got into the house via the garage door, using the remote opener in his car. So already right off the bat he contradicts himself. He's not sure if he drove home that night or took a cab, but since he could have entered via the garage door if he drove home in his car, then he "supposes" he must have taken a cab.

Why didn't he phone a locksmith? Or phone ahead to the Barnhills so they could leave a key under the mat for him? He claims he had no way of doing that. Which is of course a blatant lie, since he could certainly have called from the airport. And I believe it's been established that he had a cell phone at that time -- please correct me if I'm wrong AK. Or would you rather not know?

If he really had no choice but to break in via a window, he could have selected one of the street level windows, which would have been much much easier and cleaner to break into. But no, John is thrifty. Those windows cost more, so John the mufti-millionaire opts for the basement window under the grate. And in order to protect his expensive business suit from destruction in that filthy, cramped space, he takes it off!

He then crawls, naked, into that filthy space, at roughly 11 PM, in total darkness, without a flashlight obviously. But his intuition tells him exactly where to break that window, even in the pitch black darkness, so he'll be able to reach around and unlatch it. By the way, now that we've seen the video, we can see that it's an upper pane that was broken, which seems strange since if you're going to kick the glass in with your foot, it would certainly be easier and more straightforward to kick in a lower pane, not an upper one. So how DID John manage to break that window?

It goes on and on, culminating in the most damaging evidence of all, the questions about whether or not the window had ever been repaired. This tells us first of all that the investigators must have known the break was fresh. If it were an old break, then why bother to ask if it had been repaired? And when John AND Patsy can't recall whether it had ever been repaired, that makes it obvious they are lying because it's simply not credible that they wouldn't have known. That window was too important for them NOT to have looked into that all important question. But on BOTH occasions they played dumb.

Sorry, AK, but John lied. Through his teeth. It was a fresh break. It was broken from the inside. On the night of the crime. By John himself. And the reason should be obvious.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#83 Dec 16, 2013
Some people find Mr Ramsey’s recollection and depiction of the window entry to be quite reasonable and believable; others do not.

For myself, I know that it is a fact – a fact, your best friend – that MEMORY IS MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE and because of this PEOPLE ARE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE AS EYEWITNESSES. This alone is sufficient to explain the uncertainty and such in Mr Ramsey’s recollection and depiction of the window entry.

Of course, he could be lying, but why not a simple lie, why not a clear story?

I think that most of your questions/objections are essentially meaningless. Why didn’t he call a locksmith? He should have chosen a different window. Meaningless.

As to the location of the hole, I think that this is probably where your foot would connect if you were at ground level when swinging your foot. Or, perhaps even if sitting on the edge of the window well with your bum on ground level. It definitely is not conveniently located, as you have claimed.

There is no evidence to show that the window had been broken that night of the murder or that it had been cleaned up that morning. The fact – yes, fact – is that there is debris from the window well on the floor and this tells us that the floor was not cleaned up.

You would be better off to argue that Mr Ramsey chose to stage an entry/exit point at that specific location because he knew the window was already broken. If an intruder was looking for an easy way in, this was it; plus, Mr Ramsey already knew from his own experience that this entry/exit point would work.

Investigators needed to go into detail when questioning Mr Ramsey about the window and his previous entry because there was evidence of recent disturbance, and because the broken window allowed for a possible, passive (non-forced) entry/exit point. Mr Ramsey’s experience with entry would aid investigators in sorting through and understanding the evidence at that location.

Investigators would also want to know any details about the “why not”(or when/how) of window repairs: it can tell something about attitude towards home and personal security; it can tell something about who might know about the broken window, or who might know that the house could be easily entered this way; to reconcile conflicts with LHP’s version; to help to fill in time frame gaps; to aid in “baseline” response/demeanor to questions; etc.
...

AK
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#84 Dec 17, 2013
AK, what you say about the possibility of someone kicking in the window while "sitting on the edge of the window well with your bum on ground level" actually makes some sense. As for the rest, sorry, but it sounds to me like you're just blowing smoke. Yes, people can be notoriously unreliable as eyewitnesses, but John was not simply an eyewitness. He was the one who claims he actually did break into the house. He wasn't someone who observed these actions from afar and might have misunderstood something or misread something.
"Of course, he could be lying, but why not a simple lie, why not a clear story?"
When you are telling the truth, then there is no problem being simple, straightforward and clear, because all you need to do is recall exactly what happened and when. But if you are lying, then you are confronted by all sorts of possible pitfalls and you have to be very careful what you say and how you say it. For example, if John said he clearly remembered taking a cab, then he might have been asked for the name of the cab company and might have been asked to describe the driver, etc. Same with his keys. If he recalled clearly that he'd lent the keys to John Andrew, then the police could have checked with John Andrew. We don't get a clear story from John because a clear story can be checked while a vague story can't.

As for the broken glass, the crime-scene inventory lists four "pieces of broken window." Patsy insisted she cleaned up every single piece of glass and that Linda then vacuumed behind her to make sure, because this was where the children played. Yet four pieces of glass remained. How did she miss those? And if you look at the video, you see at least one very nasty hunk of glass hanging loosely in the pane, just waiting to fall on the floor. How could she have missed THAT?
When could John have cleaned up the rest of the glass? Here you make all sorts of assumptions and treat them as facts. You say the police were down in the basement before John got there, but we in fact have no way of knowing that. After the police arrived they were focused on the note, not the basement. There was a lot of confusion. And there are different versions of the timing, as one might expect given the confusion. No one was monitoring everything done by each and every actor minute by minute. In the confusion, John could easily have slipped into the basement, realized his staging was going to backfire, and quickly cleaned up as best he could. Sure, some packing peanuts were left on the floor, but there might have been a lot more sitting there before John cleaned up. And there were certainly at least four pieces of glass he obviously missed.
What you say regarding the question of whether the window had been repaired sounds to me like pure unadulterated smoke and mirrors, AK. And Linda was telling the authorities she knew nothing about any broken window right from the start, as reported in PMPT. It's reasonable, of course, to ask why Patsy would include Linda in her story if it were a lie, but that by no means tells us it was therefore the truth. What we DO know for sure is that Linda flatly contradicted Patsy. And we can also infer that the housekeeper would know about a broken window left unrepaired and uncovered for several months.
And the police asked John and Patsy about the window being repaired not once but twice, on two separate occasions a year apart. I'm sorry, but if they knew the break was old there would have been no reason for them to wonder if that window had been repaired. Clearly it was a fresh break. And once that's established, then one is forced to ask: who broke it? Since there was no sign the grate had been displaced and since we can clearly see the unbroken cobweb in the corner of the window, as revealed in the Kolar video, and the lack of any smudging on the sill, then obviously it could not have been broken by an intruder.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#85 Dec 17, 2013
docG, I don't understand why you are so amazed that JR and PR have made contradicting statements either separately or together? That is the norm with the Ramseys, not the exception!
docG wrote:
OK, time to insert my two cents. Or should I say "common cents"?
First of all, in their book John says he'd misplaced his keys. In his testimony he's all over the place. He misplaced his keys, he thinks he may have given his keys to John Andrew, he never kept keys in his pocket anyhow because he got into the house via the garage door, using the remote opener in his car. So already right off the bat he contradicts himself. He's not sure if he drove home that night or took a cab, but since he could have entered via the garage door if he drove home in his car, then he "supposes" he must have taken a cab.
Why didn't he phone a locksmith? Or phone ahead to the Barnhills so they could leave a key under the mat for him? He claims he had no way of doing that. Which is of course a blatant lie, since he could certainly have called from the airport. And I believe it's been established that he had a cell phone at that time -- please correct me if I'm wrong AK. Or would you rather not know?
If he really had no choice but to break in via a window, he could have selected one of the street level windows, which would have been much much easier and cleaner to break into. But no, John is thrifty. Those windows cost more, so John the mufti-millionaire opts for the basement window under the grate. And in order to protect his expensive business suit from destruction in that filthy, cramped space, he takes it off!
He then crawls, naked, into that filthy space, at roughly 11 PM, in total darkness, without a flashlight obviously. But his intuition tells him exactly where to break that window, even in the pitch black darkness, so he'll be able to reach around and unlatch it. By the way, now that we've seen the video, we can see that it's an upper pane that was broken, which seems strange since if you're going to kick the glass in with your foot, it would certainly be easier and more straightforward to kick in a lower pane, not an upper one. So how DID John manage to break that window?
It goes on and on, culminating in the most damaging evidence of all, the questions about whether or not the window had ever been repaired. This tells us first of all that the investigators must have known the break was fresh. If it were an old break, then why bother to ask if it had been repaired? And when John AND Patsy can't recall whether it had ever been repaired, that makes it obvious they are lying because it's simply not credible that they wouldn't have known. That window was too important for them NOT to have looked into that all important question. But on BOTH occasions they played dumb.
Sorry, AK, but John lied. Through his teeth. It was a fresh break. It was broken from the inside. On the night of the crime. By John himself. And the reason should be obvious.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#86 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
AK, what you say about the possibility of someone kicking in the window while "sitting on the edge of the window well with your bum on ground level" actually makes some sense. As for the rest, sorry, but it sounds to me like you're just blowing smoke. Yes, people can be notoriously unreliable as eyewitnesses, but John was not simply an eyewitness. He was the one who claims he actually did break into the house. He wasn't someone who observed these actions from afar and might have misunderstood something or misread something.
"Of course, he could be lying, but why not a simple lie, why not a clear story?"
When you are telling the truth, then there is no problem being simple, straightforward and clear, because all you need to do is recall exactly what happened and when. But if you are lying, then you are confronted by all sorts of possible pitfalls and you have to be very careful what you say and how you say it. For example, if John said he clearly remembered taking a cab, then he might have been asked for the name of the cab company and might have been asked to describe the driver, etc. Same with his keys. If he recalled clearly that he'd lent the keys to John Andrew, then the police could have checked with John Andrew. We don't get a clear story from John because a clear story can be checked while a vague story can't.....
It’s MEMORY that we’re talking about. MEMORY is MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE. That is why eyewitness accounts – whether eyewitness to one’s own actions or someone else’s – are NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE. This alone is sufficient to explain the uncertainty and such in Mr Ramsey’s recollection and depiction of the window entry.

It is simply not a fact that vague and/or uncertain memories are indicative of lying.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#87 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
As for the broken glass, the crime-scene inventory lists four "pieces of broken window." Patsy insisted she cleaned up every single piece of glass and that Linda then vacuumed behind her to make sure, because this was where the children played. Yet four pieces of glass remained. How did she miss those? And if you look at the video, you see at least one very nasty hunk of glass hanging loosely in the pane, just waiting to fall on the floor. How could she have missed THAT?
The Inventory of Property Removed lists “four pieces of broken window.”

From the Steve Thomas book (emphasis added); p. 37 “Downstairs in the basement, another technician examined the broken window. Three windows, each eighteen-by-twenty-inch rectangles were in a row. The top of the pane in the center window was broken, and the screen was off. The tech noticed PIECES OF GLASS OUTSIDE THE WINDOW and a scuff mark on the wall.”

I think it’s safe to assume that the pieces listed in the inventory and those that the Technician noticed OUTSIDE THE WINDOW are the same pieces.

You can see one of those pieces at 1:57 in the dailybeast video: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a

This piece is clearly OUTSIDE THE WINDOW.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#88 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
....When could John have cleaned up the rest of the glass? Here you make all sorts of assumptions and treat them as facts. You say the police were down in the basement before John got there, but we in fact have no way of knowing that. After the police arrived they were focused on the note, not the basement. There was a lot of confusion. And there are different versions of the timing, as one might expect given the confusion. No one was monitoring everything done by each and every actor minute by minute. In the confusion, John could easily have slipped into the basement, realized his staging was going to backfire, and quickly cleaned up as best he could. Sure, some packing peanuts were left on the floor, but there might have been a lot more sitting there before John cleaned up. And there were certainly at least four pieces of glass he obviously missed...
According to sources (Thomas p. 16 – 19; Kolar p. 25 – 27):

Mr Ramsey was present when French arrived at 5:56. Ramsey was with French until Reichenbach arrived, and then he was with Reichenbach. Ramsey accompanied an officer (accounts vary) as they looked through the house (specifically JBR’s bedroom).

It is not clear if Ramsey accompanied either officer when they “searched” the basement; accounts (Thomas, Kolar, Glick, PMPT) vary as to which officer searched the basement, and it is possible that both French and Reichenbach conducted separate cursory searches.

Mr Ramsey seems to have been accounted for between the time the first officers arrived and the time the first officer went to the basement. This is not an assumption, it is “best guess” as based on the evidence as we know it. So, if Mr Ramsey broke that window to stage a break-in, he must have un-staged it before 5:56.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#89 Dec 17, 2013
Go to 1:57 in the dailybeast video: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a

We see all three windows, with the middle one open. The top half of the window panes are not visible. The hole in the broken window is in the top half.

Go to the 00:37 mark and look to the upper right of the screen. See how there is a higher and a lower part to the ceiling? This lower part might be a heating duct or something; I’m not sure.

Go to 1:14 and let the video play, keep looking to the top of the screen. The top half of the upper window panes are not visible, they are behind this lower part of the ceiling. This tells us that it would have been possible for people – LHP; the police doing a cursory search, etc – to look into, or be, in that room, without noticing that the window was broken.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#90 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
....What you say regarding the question of whether the window had been repaired sounds to me like pure unadulterated smoke and mirrors, AK. And Linda was telling the authorities she knew nothing about any broken window right from the start, as reported in PMPT. It's reasonable, of course, to ask why Patsy would include Linda in her story if it were a lie, but that by no means tells us it was therefore the truth. What we DO know for sure is that Linda flatly contradicted Patsy. And we can also infer that the housekeeper would know about a broken window left unrepaired and uncovered for several months...
See here: http://tinyurl.com/msbjglv

And here: http://tinyurl.com/lncc3yc

So, it is possible that both Ramsey and LHP were telling the truth as each knew it.

However, while it is not reasonable to believe that Mrs Ramsey would UNNECESSARILY include a non-conspirator or a non-accomplice in a lie it could be reasonably argued that LHP had motive to dispute Mrs Ramsey’s version of the clean-up. LHP was named a suspect by Mrs Ramsey and LHP was subsequently investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. To this day there are people theorizing about her involvement in this crime.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#91 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
...And the police asked John and Patsy about the window being repaired not once but twice, on two separate occasions a year apart. I'm sorry, but if they knew the break was old there would have been no reason for them to wonder if that window had been repaired. Clearly it was a fresh break. And once that's established, then one is forced to ask: who broke it? Since there was no sign the grate had been displaced and since we can clearly see the unbroken cobweb in the corner of the window, as revealed in the Kolar video, and the lack of any smudging on the sill, then obviously it could not have been broken by an intruder.
Clearly, it is not clear that it was a fresh break. The dailybeast video does not support the claim that it was a fresh break, in fact it seems to contradict it. The “unbroken cobweb in the corner of the window” demonstrates that the window was not broken recently.

You are making unfounded assumptions regarding investigator’s motivations for the window questioning and have failed to counter alternative and practical explanations as outlined above (post 83).

The window evidence is the weakest and possibly the funniest aspect of your convoluted and fanciful theory. As previously stated, you would be better off to argue that Mr Ramsey chose to stage an entry/exit point at that specific location because he knew the window was already broken.
...
AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#92 Dec 18, 2013
This premise applies more to instant/short-term memory. For example a man pulls a gun in a crowd and shoots and police ask witnesses IMMEDIATELY to give a description.

The alleged window entry by John was 4 months prior - and that would be considered long-term memory. IF it happened he should have been able to recall the incident with a much greater amount of clarity.
Anti-K wrote:
Some people find Mr Ramsey’s recollection and depiction of the window entry to be quite reasonable and believable; others do not.
For myself, I know that it is a fact – a fact, your best friend – that MEMORY IS MALLEABLE AND FALLIBLE and because of this PEOPLE ARE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE AS EYEWITNESSES. This alone is sufficient to explain the uncertainty and such in Mr Ramsey’s recollection and depiction of the window entry.

...
AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#93 Dec 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
This premise applies more to instant/short-term memory. For example a man pulls a gun in a crowd and shoots and police ask witnesses IMMEDIATELY to give a description.
The alleged window entry by John was 4 months prior - and that would be considered long-term memory. IF it happened he should have been able to recall the incident with a much greater amount of clarity.
<quoted text>
Suggested reading: http://tinyurl.com/k2wadx7 and http://tinyurl.com/n5lp4k6
...

AK
icedtea4me

Saint Louis, MO

#94 Dec 18, 2013
The Daily Beast article states there is a shard of glass lying on the window sill. No doubt this is the same piece of glass Fleet White said he picked up and placed up there.
docG

Belle Vernon, PA

#95 Dec 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly, it is not clear that it was a fresh break. The dailybeast video does not support the claim that it was a fresh break, in fact it seems to contradict it. The “unbroken cobweb in the corner of the window” demonstrates that the window was not broken recently.
You are making unfounded assumptions regarding investigator’s motivations for the window questioning and have failed to counter alternative and practical explanations as outlined above (post 83).
The window evidence is the weakest and possibly the funniest aspect of your convoluted and fanciful theory. As previously stated, you would be better off to argue that Mr Ramsey chose to stage an entry/exit point at that specific location because he knew the window was already broken.
...
AK
The unbroken cobweb is nowhere near the broken windowpane.

And Linda testified that she knew nothing about any broken window long before she turned on Patsy. In fact she was strongly defending Patsy at that time -- see PMPT. Moreover, she contradicted Patsy on two different points: first, that the window was ever broken at all, which she would certainly be in a position to know about, and second that she helped Patsy clean up the glass which she has completely denied.

It's clear from your refusal to accept the very obvious contradictions between LInda's version and Patsy's version that no piece of evidence and no argument will ever change your mind about any aspect of this case. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 21 min Tex- 28
Are you watching closely? 1 hr KCinNYC 230
News NBC Sets JonBenet Ramsey 'Dateline' Special 1 hr Tex- 2
old on Oliva - where is he now?? (Aug '09) 2 hr Tex- 72
Ramsey family donations\hand me downs (Nov '16) 2 hr Tex- 3
A pillow in the kitchen??? (Jan '09) 2 hr KCinNYC 11
any guys out there up for some fun? 3 hr Tex- 2
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 3 hr cottonstar 871
More from around the web