The small hidden room
Man: Then another story appeared - The room where JonBenet was found was so hidden, whoever murdered her knew the house - even the mayor of Boulder said so.

Mayor: By all reports, there were no visible signs of forced entry. The body was found in a place
where people are saying, someone had to know the house.

Man: Television hammered the message home.

American Journal - "But the biggest clue to this mystery is this maze of a house itself, this house with a hidden room where JonBenét's body was found.

Linda Hoffman - Housekeeper - I didn't even know that room was there. I cleaned that house, I
cleaned that basement many times and didn't even know that room was there.

American Journal Questioner (To Linda Hoffman) It tells you something about the killer, doesn't it?

Linda Hoffman - That's right.

Questioner - What does it tell you?

Linda Hoffman - It tells me somebody had to know that house.


But the room was not hidden in any way. From the foot of the stairs, you can see the door to the room straight ahead of you. Linda had gone into the room many times to get out Christmas trees and other junk. But when the police asked her about the room, they didn't WANT her to say she knew about the room - so they didn't make it clear where the body was found.   (I think they suggested you had to go THROUGH the boiler room to get to the small room where she was found - - like it was very small and hidden.  JMO)
In saying that the perpetrator who killed JonBenét Ramsey had to have known the layout of the house and such similar things, people usually act as though they have drawn the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, given the facts.

This not true; what they seem to regard as a conclusion is actually a presumption, and their reasoning is circular.

The claim that the killer must have known the house necessarily is based on the presumption that the killer intended to put  JonBenét into that particular room prior to doing so.  That is, this claim presumes that the killer and JonBenét didn't just so happen to end up in that particular room; there is a presumption of the formation of intent.  This presumption of intent necessarily carries, in a sort of piggyback fashion, the presumption that the killer knew the house already.

The killer knew the house already, so decided on that particular room to place the body.  That room would be difficult to find for someone who is given a description of the room, but who isn't familiar with the house.  So the person who placed the body in that particular room must have known the house already.

The way in which the circular nature of this reasoning is hidden comes from the failure to list the conclusion also as a necessary presumption for this particular argument.  One cannot decide in advance to use a particular room in a house without knowing the house.  Presumption of intent necessarily includes presumption of knowledge.

The reasoning of these people is entirely circular when you examine it closely enough.  There really isn't anything there to consider that helps identify the killer.

As an illustrative alternative example, there may not have been any specific intent to use that room formed ahead of time.  Any intent may have been entirely spur-of-the-moment, and any knowledge extremely limited: “I've got to hide this body where it won't be found so quickly.”  Opens all doors in the basement --- “This one looks best!”  In this example, the “intent” and “knowledge” are almost non-existent.  No one is excluded as a suspect other than the victim.
(01-28-2017, 10:28 AM)jameson245 Wrote: But the room was not hidden in any way. From the foot of the stairs, you can see the door to the room straight ahead of you. 

Link to diagram of basement:
(04-18-2017, 03:34 PM)CA4Now Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 10:28 AM)jameson245 Wrote: But the room was not hidden in any way.
From the foot of the stairs, you can see the door to the room straight ahead of you. 

Yes. Even those utter clods from the BPD found the room quite promptly and photographed its door rather early on. It would be rather difficult to NOT find that so-called hidden room. They just did not think to open the door to it.

The room became hidden in the tabloids (a term I use that embraces BPD press releases and televised statements from the Mayor). This was probably done to instill and maintain the "insider" theme, a theme that focuses attention on those with prior knowledge of the house but more importantly it reinforces the focusing on the most obvious of all the insiders, the parents. 

That is why the "hidden" facet of the room arose and that is why it continues to this day. It is extremely convenient to those who want to keep the focus on the parents and away from the BPD in particular or the city of Boulder in general. It is an example of what I've termed "the Chamber of Commerce" aspect to the investigation. 

It is a theme found in the investigation of many campus rapes and campus drug arrests. Statistics and descriptions are skewed in favor of public relations. It is a theme found in many tourist-oriented resort areas: No crime here, no murders, only minor pilferage from unattended luggage and occasional pick pockets. A cruise ship is a happy and safe place, no crime here, just people having fun.

In the JonBenet case, the primary motive is the BPD's virtually department-wide rage at the Ramseys that literally halted the investigation in its tracks. Reporters know that ratings depend upon blaming the Ramseys. Authors know that royalties depend upon blaming the Ramseys. That is why the room is hidden and will always remain as being hidden.
I think the police described the room to LHP as being a room that was BEYOND the boiler room, a small windowless room. I think they WANTED her to say that was a room no one knew about. I think she was led to make misstatements.

We know the room was not hidden or so very small - - and we know LHP went in there to take out Christmas trees.

Like the window the police said only a midget could pass through, this was a lie, a legal lie, used to see how witnesses might respond.

But we work hard at this forum and elsewhere to make sure the truth gets told.
(04-18-2017, 03:34 PM)CA4Now Wrote:
(01-28-2017, 10:28 AM)jameson245 Wrote: But the room was not hidden in any way. From the foot of the stairs, you can see the door to the room straight ahead of you. 

Link to diagram of basement:

My post was addressed to those who disagree with Jams's claim about not being hidden.  From photographs and floor plans, I myself agree with Jams.

But suppose that the room actually was hidden because the door was disguised as a bookcase.  That fact would not by itself prove that the killer had to be familiar with the house any more than Patsy's "hidden" paintbrush handle proves that only Patsy could have killed JonBenet.  The killer found the paintbrush handle; he found that room.  That is all that can be said.  That the killer must have known the house is sheer speculation, not the result of logic.
Agreed. He found a pad and a pen in the home. Its not too difficult a task, most homes have pads and pens somewhere, particularly near the phone.

Finding the art supplies tote is not too surprizing, just look at the general clutter and disarray in the basement. It is, as with most basements, chock full of a variety of materials that would be useful. After all, it is probably necessary to make use of items that are close at hand, the intruder could hardly bring too many items with him. Bulging pockets might make him 'memorable' as he walked along the street enroute to the Ramsey home.

Finding the suitcase to use as an exit-assisting step does not imply the slightest foreknowledge of its existence and location. The intruder looked around and found something suitable.
The killer most likely was there for a long time while the Ramseys were out in about... he had more then enough time to search the layout of the house. If he came in from the window downstairs then there is no reason he wouldnt see the wine cellar.
Absolutely right.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)