The only thing I heard that whole firsr year was two things I overheard. The first thing I heard was that there were no footprints coming in or out of the snow. My first reaction was, "Oh no, the Simpsons have moved to Boulder."
What do you mean, there were no footprints coming in or out of the snow? I remember driving afterwards trying to figure out how you could commit this crime and not leave footprints. I dropped it because mostly due to a total lack of interest.

The second thing I heard was a theory. "Have you heard the latest Ramsey theory"?
"No, but nor do I particularily want to."
"Well, here it is, like it or not."
"Shecamein,caughthim,swungathim,missedhim,hither." She had more tatoos then teeth so it was a little hard to make it out.

I remember to this day where I was the day Kennedy got shot.
I remember the instant I got interested in the JonBenet case.
I had just returned from the refigerator having grab a bear, and the cable was tuned to the A and E channel. I sat down, grabbed the remote and was getting ready to use it, when something odd struck me, but I couldn't figure out what it was. Ever had that feeling?

They were showing a picture of the house. I got this odd feeling within me. The same feeling I got whenever I saw that sixth floor book depository window. That, what's wrong with this picture, feeling? Ever had that?

Anyway, I'm getting ready to change the channel but something is stopping me. I can't get over this odd feeling. Somethings not right, here. What's missing?

Then it hit me like a bear swiping a tired tuna. Oh my God! There's no snow! Around the back of the house there's no snow!

Then Bill Kurtis said it was a false police leak.
The hair stood up on the back of my neck.
Then he said it hadn't been corrected for over a year and the McMartin case flashed in my brain.
"Oh, my, we're doing it again."
Trial by the herd.
I haven't been the same since. I watched the show and by the end of the two hours I had it 50-50 the Ramseys hadn't killed their daughter.

I watched another special, boughgt the book, Perfect Muredr, Perfect Town, then heard the Ramseys had written a book. I got that. In there I heard about the case being all over the Internet.

At that time I had never use a computer, and didn't even know how to get on the internet. But son of Bayes had a computer and he knew how to get there. Son of Bayes no longer has a computer. I have it.

To make a long story longer, life and I went our separate ways about two years before this case broke. It was a mutual thang. I was on to it and life doesn't tolerate that. I had become a recluse and was totally enjoying my non life, studying the works of Bayes the elder, Albert the questioner, Richard, the Quantum guy, and Sherlock the investigator, when that little girl came into my living room that night.

You know what I think happened? I think that before she left us, she breathed a little of the life she would never have into mine. That's what I think happened. Otherwise I can't explain it.

Nothing has been the same with me since.

In any case, I stated working feverously on this case. I sent a theory I had to Jameson. She totally disagreed with it. I told her I wanted to post on her webpage but had just gotten over cancer and was dead broke and no prospects for the future. (All this is true, by the way. I didn't lie to her just to be able to post).

Although she totally disagreed with my theory, she allowed me to post for nothing. She carried me. My thinking was, and still is, that she was not as much interested in who's right as in who did it.

You can say whatever you want about her, but my feeling has been all along, the Ramseys could search the whole globe and not find a better friend. She has taken more shots then the Ramseys, themselves, yet has never waivered. You don't find friends like that very often in life. Say what you want, I say,,,

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Just thought I'd let you know.

You write really well...particularly enjoyed the interviews.

Actually, TGRB, it comes from one of the greatest bands of all time,
Pink Flyod.

They started with a band leader and song writer who was thought to be at the time, destined to be one of the great song writers of all time, Sid Barrett.
It was a time of experimentation. Seems Sid was one of those people whose experiments would turn on him. In any case, he was a lyrical genius.

Then one day his genius vanished. The rest of the band noticed it when he came into the the studio and the glint from his eye was no longer there. they carried him for over a year, but when doing a concert he sat with them for over two and a half hours and never strummed a chord, they had to finally tell him it was over.

He left and hasn't been seen since.

A couple of years later they dedicated an album to him. Whenever they do a concert tour they start every concert with a beautiful Beethoven like twenty three minute song dedicated to him.

"Remember when you were young,
you shone like the Sun,
Shine on you crazy diamond."

They really miss him.

It would appear to be popular with the younger generation, since my copy is nowhere to be found. It hasn't been seen around here since by daughter moved to Tennessee a few months ago. She carted off the booty in my car, which I gave her because she didn't have one. (long story)
She's been running off with my CD's for years, and I keep letting her get away with it. In fact, I have never brought it up, and neither has she.

Funny, the way things work, at times.

Anyway, dittos to your comments on jams. Good job.

I am touched.

Have I taken more hits than the Ramseys? Yeah, maybe. But that's OK. We'll all survive, right?

Being a hermit is OK, Bayes. In fact there are some fine points to it that only another hermit could really understand. There is time to really know yourself. And there comes with that a unique ability to share a part of yourself others don't even know exists.

You will understand when I thank you for never being a miser. You have been great.

The early days were exciting, in 1997. I posted my astrology in forums. The response was usually good but a lot of posters would ridicule astrology and that was discouraging. I mean people are rude. They can be pretty stupid too. But eventually I realized that people are not interested in astrology as a crimesolving tool. Nobody really gives any credence to my theories. But one forum was more open to opinion and theory than all the others...jameson's. My studies show that JonBenet was not killed by her parents, she was killed by a secret society of pedophiles, Satanists, ancient Celtic witchcraft practioners, and perverts. So any forum that continues to blast the parents for JonBenet's death is a waste of time, for me. I focus on this forum because it is going down the correct path towards the truth.

I had stopped reading the forum for a while after it went private, and when I came back, I noticed these changes. Now I've joined the forum so if it goes on protect again, I can still post.

I don't believe any poster here was serious about Eustace as a suspect. He was just someone who needed to be checked, but the posters were largely unaware of him at the time.

Her problem is that she is every bit as stubborn and unyielding as the BORGest of the BORG. Neither camp is even close to understanding this case, IM (humble) O.

MY memory of the magic moment when I got interested in this case (i.e. HOOKED) is the moment I'm watching the news on TV and one more time am hearing about how the police have not yet interviewed the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. And I'm saying to myself, WHY are the police bending over backwards to placate these people? And WHY are the parents NOT eager to work with the police to solve the crime and catch not only the murderer of their child, BUT an extremely dangerous person who could threaten OTHER children, including their own surviving child.

As far as the reports regarding absence of footprints are concerned, you are misinformed. This was NOT false reporting. The relevant observations are recorded in one of the early warrants. Your comments regarding snow have nothing to do with the actual police report, which focused on frost, NOT snow. There was a coating of frost. No prints were found on either the older patches of snow OR the fresh coating of frost. Lou Smit's release of photos showing only patches of snow in full sunlight, hours after the original observations were made, has convinced me that he is NOT an impartial investigator of this case BUT a Ramsey advocate. Whether he's been paid or not I have no idea. Neither does anyone else except he and the Ramseys.

When did the police observe this frost? At 6:15 am as officer R. walked the house perimeter? Does this mean they are certain the crime wasn't committed before the frost formed? And when was it formed? Frost only forms under certain conditions, which are somewhat different from those when snow is formed.

Thomas Bayes was a mathematician/priest in the middlle of the 17th century who discovered what is known as Bayes Theorem, a mathematical equation, formula and concept on the odds of probability using only the evidence at hand. He is revered all over the world as one of the great mathematicians ever. When he died his theory died with him. NASA rediscovered it in the 50's and it runs their space voyages. I am told Bill Gates is a sworn Bayesian.

I can't read math so the equation is of no use to me, but I can understand the concept. It is mighty. Two of the things it tells you is, one, you cannot hold beliefs. In fact you must do just the opposite:
UPDATE YOUR BELIIEFS EVERYTIME A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE COMES IN!

Secondly, it tells you:
YOU MUST INCLUDE ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION.

Case in point: Linda Arndt took one look at John and immediately "Knew," who committed this crime. She has never once updated that belief, she still thinks he did it. Bayes Theorem would tell you her chances of solving this case are zero or less.

She broke both laws of Bayes when you think about it. Many people did the same thing with Patssy when she appeared on TV the first time.

There is much more but too long to go into here, but I think you get the idea.

The goal of Bayes thinking should lead you to the Law of Total Probability, but you have to think to get there.

I have used Einstein's question everything, Richard Feymann's all possible paths and Sherlock Holmes, look at the scene to aid me.

"The worse thing you can do in a criminal investigation is to have a theory before all the evidence comes in. The theory must come last."

Another person who broke all of the above rules is McCrary.

Help! I'm typing and I can't shut up!

I think it is correct that the theory must come last and by LAST it must come once a viable suspect is in place who meets the standard created by the evidence available.

What is happening here and on other forums is that a viable suspect has not yet come to light. No suspect (that we know of) has yet met the standard set by the body of evidence.

So, in the meantime, we play the websleuthing game of what if so and so met that standard. Sometimes we isolate an item of evidence and a suspect and turn that around and around in our minds to see what we have.

Unfortunately, we are all operating on an inadequate percentage of the facts to REALLY be able to truly put a theory in place ... but we just might be getting close.

As far as identifying the perp, I'll bet we've been "very hot" several times on this forum. Hopefully, someday we'll know the truth. We may be surprised at how close we actually were.

It's awfully hard to photograph frost. You'd need a really close-up shot. The photos released by Smit show full sunlight, so they could not have been taken all that early. The policeman reported frost. There's no reason to doubt his testimony. Unless you really want to argue the police were already "setting up" the Ramseys as early as 6AM on the 26th.

>When did the police observe this frost? At 6:15 am as officer R. walked the house perimeter?

I think Reichenback arrived roughly around that time, yes.

>Does this mean they are certain the crime wasn't committed before the frost formed? And when was it formed? Frost only forms under certain conditions, which are somewhat different from those when snow is formed.

No one has claimed the absence of prints in the frost is in itself proof positive there was no intruder. But the fact that there was a layer of frost AND no prints were found in it by the officer IS evidence. It DOES have a bearing on the question of whether there could have been an intruder. When it is combined with other evidence, i.e., lack of any sign of disturbance around the window grate, no other prints found ANYWHERE, either in the snow, frost OR turf, no disturbance of the heavy layer of dirt on the sill and frame of the basement window, then ALL this evidence DOES add up to the conclusion that an intruder is unlikely. The problem is that most armchair investigators tend to get caught up in the details and fail to see the big picture. You can argue forever about what Reichenbach's report on the lack of prints in the frost actually means, but when you consider the PREPONDERANCE of evidence the conclusion is not difficult to make.

There are plenty of "facts" in the Ramsey case. But no one theory that reasonably explains all of them. The theory of relativity forces us to reconsider the "obvious" fact that measuring rods are uniform regardless of their orientation in space. Perhaps the Ramsey case requires a theory that would force us to reconsider some of the "obvious" facts about the murder of JonBenet.

In principle facts ought to be distinguishable from theory, but in practice the two are often inseperable.

If it walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Now that the B cops have released it, we shall see just how fast it gets solved.

I feel with every fiber of my being the killer will be in jail before the end of this year.

jams is right and will be vindicated for all her hard work and tenaciousness.

You are wrong. When John or Patsy wakes up in the middle of the night, sobbing a heart out over the loss of a child, Jameson will never be asked for a shoulder to cry on, nor will she ever offer. If John and Patsy ever need to borrow money to get over a bad patch in the family finances, they will never ask Jameson for money, nor will she offer it. If Burke gets married, Jameson will never be invited to the reception, nor will the Ramseys attend should an invitation to Jameson's son's marriage be extended. Jameson will not receive a proud copy of John's and Patsy's grandchild's kindergarten picture. These are the moments that exist between friends, and these are the moments that Jameson and the Ramseys never have had or will. When the Ramseys could exploit Jameson's desire to defend them with no potential legal repercussions, they were content to let her do so harmlessly. When Jameson turned the tables and exploited the Ramseys for her own financial gain and put them in potential legal peril, she was cut off from a distance through the arm's length of a lawyer. This is not what happens between friends.

Exactly how do you conclude that the Ramseys were "exploited"? John Ramsey had already said he wanted everything made public. According to Lin Wood's own statement, the original source of the documents provided by jameson to the Enquirer was unknown to him. I think we can conclude the source was not the Ramseys or their attorney. That means she was not in any kind of unique position. She was in the same position as every author, commentator, reporter, and source who has made information about the Ramsey case public. It was up to her to decide what to do with the materials in her possession, and that is what she did.

The publishing of the Enquirer book and the announcement that the Boulder County DA's office was taking over the investigation occurred almost simultaneously. That means to me that the information provided by jameson for the publishing of that book did no harm to the Ramseys. The people charged with investigating the crime already had access to the transcripts, so there was certainly nothing about making them public that could possibly hurt the investigation. Getting the investigation into the hands of someone other than the BPD has been something Lin Wood, the Ramseys, and jameson have been very vocal about for some time now, so, for the Ramseys, things couldn't have worked out any better.

The Ramseys do what they want - they may be advised by their lawyers but they make their own decisions. Always have.

ALL MY OPINION, and as Jameson says, "I'm entitled to it"

Please explain how the actual testimony of the Ramseys would "taint" a jury in any way that might be favorable to them.

"the fact that there was a layer of frost AND no prints were found in it by the officer IS evidence.It DOES have a bearing on the question of whether there could have been an intruder. "

It certainly is evidence. It's pretty strong evidence that the crime was committed before it formed on the ground and sidewalks if there was an intruder. The same could be said for the snow.

I have been studying the weather data in an effort to determine when the trace of snow/dusting and the frost occured. Here's what I know:

Sunrise/Sunset:
25th. 7:19am/4:41pm
26th. 7:20am/4:41pm

Anbient air Temperature
degrees farenheit, Max./Min./Precip.(snow)/snow accumulation
25th. 54 24 0 T
26th. 51 6 T 0 (Frost point = 11)
Temperature measurements are typically taken at a point 4-5 feet above the ground
Ground temperatures may vary from this by as much as 2 degrees

25th. Relative Humidity: Max = 86%/min = 24%

26th. Relative Humidity: Max = 87%/min = 37%

Using a psychrometric chart (a graphing device that shows the relationships among the various properties of air)
and the above data taken from the National Weather records for Boulder, for the 25th. and 26th. of December,
we can determine the wet bulb temperatures for these days, at least at these times. This tells us the point
at which moisture in the air condenses out as snow or frost.

For the 26th. then, the "dusting" of snow occured when the temperature reached 26 degrees, and continued until the
moisture content of the air fell below the dew point saturation level. Snow, rather than frost is recorded by the
NWS station. For snow to fall, the atmospheric air temperature must be consistently or uniformly below freezing
from the point of crystal formation to the ground.

About Frost:
http://www.awis.com/Misc/Fact_Sheets.htm#UsingDew

"As the air temperature cools on a winter night and approaches the dew point, the moisture in the air will condense out of the air and on to solid objects. The surface temperature of an object must be freezing in order for frost to form. Objects that radiate energy more efficiently tend to frost up first. Thin objects (leaves, small branches, shoots, etc.) frost quicker than thick objects. The ground, particularly when moist, does a relatively good job of holding heat, so frost damage tends to occur at the top of vegetation.

Frost can form when dew point temperatures and air temperatures are in the upper 30s. Patchy and scattered frost can occur in areas that typically run cold, low areas where cold air accumulates, the lee side of wind blocks, etc. In addition, dew point and temperature are measured at the standard height of five feet. It can be colder at ground level.

Prime dew point temperatures for widespread frost formation are in the upper 20s to lower 30s. When this occurs with freezing air temperatures, everything is in place for potentially heavy frost formation.

Frost formation is less likely with dew point temperatures below the mid 20s. There just isn't enough moisture in the air for significant frost formation, even if temperatures are below freezing.

The length of time conditions are favorable for frost formation determines the intensity of frost. The more time the dew point and air temperature hover around or below 30 degrees, the heavier the frost.

Dew point is not the entire story. Other factors also affect frost formation. Wind speeds above 5 MPH slow the radiational cooling of objects, inhibiting frost formation. Cloud cover reduces the effectiveness of radiational cooling. The thicker the cloud cover, the slower the cooling. Soils containing abundant water increase the risk for frost formation by putting more water into the equation, particularly in cases where the dew point temperature is in the mid 20s to mid 30s range. This may counteract the fact that wet soils retain heat better."

One point I wish to make is this: What Officer R saw at 6:15 am the morning of the 26th. as he walked the perimeter of the Ramsey house was the light "dusting of snow", or trace, which he characterised as "frost". You can have frost then snow but not the other way around. When the sun came up at 7:20 the dusting/"frost" was melted_Gone by 8:30ish when the photographers came.

There is no hour by hour data availiable for Boulder. What we may do is approximate the time that the temperature hit 26 degrees. That will give us an idea of when the crime was completed, if by an intruder.

>One point I wish to make is this: What Officer R saw at 6:15 am the morning of the 26th. as he walked the perimeter of the Ramsey house was the light "dusting of snow", or trace, which he characterised as "frost". You can have frost then snow but not the other way around. When the sun came up at 7:20 the dusting/"frost" was melted_Gone by 8:30ish when the photographers came.

The "frost" WAS relatively new, granted. The snow had been there a few days, as I understand it. Sure, an "intruder" could have come and gone before there was any dusting of snow and/or frost. But that does NOT make Reichenbach's observation meaningless. Nor does it make the media reports regarding lack of prints inaccurate. NO prints were observed around the house that morning. NO signs of an intruder were observed around the house that morning. This includes the dusting of snow/frost, the patches of older snow, as well as the turf itself, covered by frost or not. There were also NO signs an intruder went through the grate or through the window. There WAS some sign of a disturbance in the window well. There WAS a broken window. There WAS debris from the window well on the floor of the basement. And, according to John, the basement window was found open.

Assuming all the above is reliable evidence, what do YOU make of it? What it tells ME is that there was no intruder, but very possibly some crude staging by an insider.

From your above quote, I take it that you are admitting that IT WAS THE RAMSEYS THEMSELVES, who decided to refuse/stonewall the BPD interviews when they needed to be done in 1996?

Cheers,
Orphan

highest temp. 25th. at 2:00 pm = 54 degrees
assume an estimated drop from 54 to 52 degrees by 4:30 pm, just before sunset at 4:41 pm.
lowest temp 26th. morning of 26th.= 6 degrees at 6:00 am
difference in temp. = 46 degrees
difference in elapsed time = 14.5 hours
rate of drop in degrees per hour = 3.4 degrees/hour

assume 6 degrees temp at 7:30 just after sunrise at 7:20 am
highest temp. 26th. at 2:00 pm = 51 degrees
difference in temp. = 45 degrees
difference in elapsed time = 6.5 hours
rate of rise in degrees per hour = 8.2 degrees/hour

This is not exact but will give us an idea of what the temperatures were like that night.
What really happened would have depended on a number of other factors that would be impossible for me to add to the model.

25th. 2:00 pm 54
3:00 pm 54
4:00 pm 53
4:30 pm 52
5:30 pm 49
6:30 pm 45
7:30 pm 42
8:30 pm 38
9:30 pm 35
10:30 pm 32
11:30 pm 28
mid am 25 Snow would have begun falling at dew point of 26 degrees
1:00 am 21
2:00 am 18
3:00 am 15
4:00 am 11
5:00 am 08
6:00 am 06
7:00 am 06
7:30 am 14 Trace of snow on walkways in direct sun would start to melt between
7:20 am & 9:30 am as the concrete/bricks began to heat up, even though the air
temp remained below freezing,

8:30 am 22 Trace of snow on the yard in direct sun would start to melt
9:30 am 31 about 9:30 "old" snow left over from the 16th. & 17th., and dusting,
in shaded areas, would begin to melt, as air temp moved above freezing
10:00 am 35

In reality, the rate of cooling would be slowed by cloud cover. It would also
be faster to start with and slow the closer the air temp got to 6 degrees. The wind was blowing at about 11 mph/gusting to 21 mph which would have speeded up the cooling effect. Also, I think it is possible for the higher altitude air to be warmer than the ground temp, consequently, it may not have started snowing exactly when the air temp near the ground (5 feet above the ground) dropped below freezing. Or vice versa. And, we don't know the rate of the snow fall, other than it was "light" or "trace", and we don't know the duration.

The conclusion I draw from this exercise is that the light snow fall probably occured between midnight and 2:00 am, which would be earller than I had previously thought, but this seems to be more of an educated guess than just a plain guess based on possibilities. It also tells me that an intruder would have had a one to two hour window to do his crime. My view is that this murder was planned and carried out in under 30 minutes. Yet, the one or two hour window allows for a more disorganized killer. It also fits the extimated TOD.

If anyone has previously saved HOURLY data from Dec. 26, 1996, when/if it was availiable at the time, and is willing to share, we probably could be more specific.

And a special link just for Mikie:

http://www.wunderground.com/sky/ShowSky.asp?TheLat=39.900002&TheLon=-105.099998&TimeZoneName=America/Denver&Year=1996&Month=12&Day=26

DocG:
"I also want to commend you on your very thorough job of handwriting comparison. Sorry I never commented on that sooner. I found it very interesting."

Coming from you (figured out what the G stands for) this is a compliment.