Patsy and John Killed Their Daughter? [Archive] - Page 3

rosebud

09-19-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
good thoughts Rose....

If John killed her while molesting her......I do not think PR knew that part and if she is upstairs doing her part she would not see John do anything including inserting paint brush......to mislead...

she had to particpate until death ..maybe knowing she was sick and more than likely would die .. she thought that punishment enough? Or she would not be around long enough to endure a trial?

Maybe so. Maybe John made her believe it was an accident and somehow she bought it until she died. A relationship between wife and husband can be complicated.

Then there is the apparent resentment Patsy may have felt that the Ramseys, good Christians that they were, were being "persecuted" by the non-believing liberal heathens out there trying to destroy Jesus. It is always important for me to remind myself that these people actually believe such stuff. They ain't kidding, folks. That seems to be one theme of their book, if the reviews I have read are accurate.

Some people who insisted the Ramseys did it may have went too far with their rhetoric for Patsy to reverse course. Even if she knew what exactly happened to JB, she probably knew also that JB was loved very much. She was not killed out of hate. Maybe it was an accident or a moment of quickly regretted anger that killed her, but those who said Patsy was a horrible mother may have built a wall of resentment that Patsy just could not scale to admit that it was a Ramsey after all who killed her.

Maybe she just could not go back, admit it was all a farce, reverse herself, and tell the truth. Doing so would have meant all the hated people out there who kept calling her a monster, were proven right. Maybe she could not face her family with the truth. Maybe she knew that if John went down, he would take her down with him.

Maybe docg has it right after all.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Maybe so. Maybe John made her believe it was an accident and somehow she bought it until she died. A relationship between wife and husband can be complicated.

Then there is the apparent resentment Patsy may have felt that the Ramseys, good Christians that they were, were being "persecuted" by the non-believing liberal heathens out there trying to destroy Jesus. It is always important for me to remind myself that these people actually believe such stuff. They ain't kidding, folks. That seems to be one theme of their book, if the reviews I have read are accurate.

Some people who insisted the Ramseys did it may have went too far with their rhetoric for Patsy to reverse course. Even if she knew what exactly happened to JB, she probably knew also that JB was loved very much. She was not killed out of hate. Maybe it was an accident or a moment of quickly regretted anger that killed her, but those who said Patsy was a horrible mother may have built a wall of resentment that Patsy just could not scale to admit that it was a Ramsey after all who killed her.

Maybe she just could not go back, admit it was all a farce, reverse herself, and tell the truth. Doing so would have meant all the hated people out there who kept calling her a monster, were proven right. Maybe she could not face her family with the truth. Maybe she knew that if John went down, he would take her down with him.

Maybe docg has it right after all.

JMO Good afternoon, Rose! :) If the Ramseys are innocent...and, I believe they are...they must have felt like they were being persecuted....they literally went through he(( from the public and the media.....and all of that during the time their beloved daughter was murdered...I can't imagine how they endured..but I just can't see Patsy covering for John...Patsy was not a dimwitted, subservient wife....imo she would not have went these limits to cover an accidental death or her husband molesting her daughter!

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 03:46 PM

I am wondering if, maybe, this wasn't primarily a sex crime after all. If, maybe, JonBenet was violated only because she could be, as she lay dying. Why was the ransom note left? Would the killer have even expected it to be taken seriously as a ransom note? Virtually everything in it was taken from the movies. Even the breaking the amount down into specific denominations, bring a large attache case, and the needing to be well-rested for the delivery of the money. Why would the killer go to all that trouble? Maybe there was a message in it that he wanted to deliver. Maybe it was the ransom amount of $118K. I'm not saying I think it was the man who thought AG owed him $118K, but others had to be aware of that situation and in sympathy with it. Maybe the crime was simply the murder of John's daughter and "Are you willing to pay the $118K NOW? Sorry, it's too late."

harz

09-19-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

I'm surprised no one has yet suggested that JB killed herself. Harz, you have a strong imagination, what do you think about that theory?

Lol. Well umm if she killed herself, then have you seen movie "Exorcist", do you think that explains JB's vagina and the broken paintbrush? Then how can you explain the ransom note, JB being wrapped with blanket inside wine cellar? If she killed herself, why would Ramseys staged the scene and cover up every bases they can? That would means one of Ramseys is so gulity of something that they don't want anyone to know, probably about John molested her or something. I dont believe JB would killed herself intentionally since she only 6 years old, accident maybe. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 03:51 PM

I would be able to accept molestation within the family. I would be able to accept a fatal bash on the head out of anger. But, whoever killed JonBenet tied a cord twice around her neck and, then, stood with their foot on her prone body and pulled that handle with all their might. To kill her. Not an accidental death from a sexual game. I cannot believe that either parent, unless in the middle of a psychotic break, murdered her in that manner.

rosebud

09-19-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I am wondering if, maybe, this wasn't primarily a sex crime after all. If, maybe, JonBenet was violated only because she could be, as she lay dying. Why was the ransom note left? Would the killer have even expected it to be taken seriously as a ransom note? Virtually everything in it was taken from the movies. Even the breaking the amount down into specific denominations, bring a large attache case, and the needing to be well-rested for the delivery of the money. Why would the killer go to all that trouble? Maybe there was a message in it that he wanted to deliver. Maybe it was the ransom amount of $118K. I'm not saying I think it was the man who thought AG owed him $118K, but others had to be aware of that situation and in sympathy with it. Maybe the crime was simply the murder of John's daughter and "Are you willing to pay the $118K NOW? Sorry, it's too late."

JMO, but the $118,000 as a ransom amount is proof to me that John Ramsey collaborated in the writing of the ransom note. It was a direct attempt to try and make the police think it was an inside job. He wanted the police to think it either was their housekeeper who had seen or learned somehow of the 118,000 dollar bonus, or that it was the disgruntled employee who made that the ransom amount as a "dig" at his forced exit from John's company. John told Linda Arndt very soon after finding JB's body in the basement that it "had to be" an inside job, someone who knew the house and the family.

That is why there was no obvious sign of forced entry on the first floor, because he wanted the police to suspect someone who had a key, or someone who conceiveably MIGHT have a key. I think he broke the window in the basement as a last minute hedge to give the police a possible forced entry point.

I think the mention of an "early recovery" of JB was an attempt to make the police think the kidnappers were making a desperate attempt to get the money in a hurried rush to get JB safe back at home before anyone searched the house and found the body.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 03:59 PM

There is nothing sexual in the ransom note. No "JonBenet and I love each other and are running off together". Her name isn't even mentioned. The ransom note is all about John.

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 04:03 PM

To MissOtisregrets: I totally agree with you, there is no way that her death was in any way accidental, then staged to cover up. I know that the murderers motivation quite often makes no sense to normal people; however to me the motivation has to be someone trying to bring down the Ramseys. Whoever wrote the note did so knowing it would forever taint them; because it seems to so clearly point to them. I certainly don't think it was a Ramsey. bullmoose

rosebud

09-19-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I would be able to accept molestation within the family. I would be able to accept a fatal bash on the head out of anger. But, whoever killed JonBenet tied a cord twice around her neck and, then, stood with their foot on her prone body and pulled that handle with all their might. To kill her. Not an accidental death from a sexual game. I cannot believe that either parent, unless in the middle of a psychotic break, murdered her in that manner.

It is hard for me to accept also. However there is the possibility that the person who pulled on the garrotte thought she was already dead, and was doing this to suggest something else, or was doing it to hide something else. There is still the triangular abrasion mark on her neck to be explained, for example. What caused that?

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 04:06 PM

rosebud

09-19-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, if John were guity, why would he want the police to suspect it might be an inside job? Better the faceless stranger. He can never be eliminated. And he can be adapted to fit into any scenario.

Well, by breaking the basement window John gave credence to any intruder theory, insider or random pedophile. However the reason why I think John went mostly for the "insider" theory was because of the lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence of a stranger that he knew the police would question.

I think it was very shrewd and smart to write the ransom note so that an insider would be first suspected. He knew several people had keys to the house, and he knew the housekeeper was short of money and a former employee hated his guts. Remember that this was in the middle of the night and he had to come up with something or he was looking at group showers for a long time.

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-19-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

JMO, but the $118,000 as a ransom amount is proof to me that John Ramsey collaborated in the writing of the ransom note. It was a direct attempt to try and make the police think it was an inside job. He wanted the police to think it either was their housekeeper who had seen or learned somehow of the 118,000 dollar bonus, or that it was the disgruntled employee who made that the ransom amount as a "dig" at his forced exit from John's company. John told Linda Arndt very soon after finding JB's body in the basement that it "had to be" an inside job, someone who knew the house and the family.

That is why there was no obvious sign of forced entry on the first floor, because he wanted the police to suspect someone who had a key, or someone who conceiveably MIGHT have a key. I think he broke the window in the basement as a last minute hedge to give the police a possible forced entry point.

I think the mention of an "early recovery" of JB was an attempt to make the police think the kidnappers were making a desperate attempt to get the money in a hurried rush to get JB safe back at home before anyone searched the house and found the body.

JMO

Speaking of the broken window - just when do you suppose it was broken?

The housekeeper denies cleaning up glass with PR months before, and if I'm not mistaken, the housekeep said she didn't know anything of a broken window prior to the 26th. It seems unlikely to me that a housekeeper wouldn't notice such a thing.

It also seems unlikely to me that people who live in Boulder allow a window to remain broken through the winter months. Not to mention the security issue.

The broken window doesn't fit with the idea of staging the crime as being comitted by someone with a key. Perhaps though, JR simply told police he'd locked up all the doors and windows, thinking they'd see the basement window and conclude that was the entry point (which Lou Schmit did do)

Another window proble (same window) is that the first two officers on the scene did a check and found no visible sign of forced entry. Isn't a broken window a sign of forced entry?

So, if JR broke the window the night of the 25/26, how'd he do it without making a heck of a racket ?
Is it possible to crack a window fairly quietly? Then tap out pieces w/o having that "breaking glass" sound? Is this the concrete on metal sound? Sounds can easily be mistaken.

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To MissOtisregrets: I totally agree with you, there is no way that her death was in any way accidental, then staged to cover up. I know that the murderers motivation quite often makes no sense to normal people; however to me the motivation has to be someone trying to bring down the Ramseys. Whoever wrote the note did so knowing it would forever taint them; because it seems to so clearly point to them. I certainly don't think it was a Ramsey. bullmoose

Bull, while I have problems with things like Burke not being woken up and friends being called over, I have to remember that Linda Arndt didn't wake Burke up or declare the house off limits and a crime scene, either. There was a lot of behavior inappropriate to a kidnapping that day, and the Ramseys would, at least, have the excuse of being in a panic. But, when it comes down to it, I just can't get past that garrotte. I can't believe either of the Ramseys did that. There's nothing about that garotte that was staged or for effect. Except the use of the Ramseys belongings to kill their child. I think this killing was intended to hurt as much as possible and send a message.

MOO

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 04:26 PM

I am in total agreement with you; somebody had/has a murderous hatred of the Ramseys and vented it upon Jonbenet. bullmoose

WallyCleaver

09-19-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Bull, while I have problems with things like Burke not being woken up and friends being called over, I have to remember that Linda Arndt didn't wake Burke up or declare the house off limits and a crime scene, either. There was a lot of behavior inappropriate to a kidnapping that day, and the Ramseys would, at least, have the excuse of being in a panic. But, when it comes down to it, I just can't get past that garrotte. I can't believe either of the Ramseys did that. There's nothing about that garotte that was staged or for effect. Except the use of the Ramseys belongings to kill their child. I think this killing was intended to hurt as much as possible and send a message.

MOO

I won't argue about being able to see parents doing this - I'll just say that parents do the unimaginable sometimes.

I don't see why you assume the garrote wasn't staging - I think it could go either way. If the blow to the head came first then the killer may have thought she was dead. If the blow was the result of an accident, or parental anger, then the garrotte could be for staging. If it was an intruder I don't see why he'd use two different methods to try to kill her.

You mention that the killer used materials from the house to kill JBR. To me that favors an RDI theory. Why would a killer not come prepared with the tools he'd need?

harz

09-19-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

So, if JR broke the window the night of the 25/26, how'd he do it without making a heck of a racket ?
Is it possible to crack a window fairly quietly? Then tap out pieces w/o having that "breaking glass" sound? Is this the concrete on metal sound? Sounds can easily be mistaken.

I don't think glasses can make that much sound to upstairs or outside if its thinner. IIRC, no one could hear JB scream while someone were upstairs. Someone here said John realized BPD will know the signs of intruder such as spider web, dust, fibers, dirt, etc, so John had to unstage by claiming he broke the window sometimes ago. IMO

rosebud

09-19-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Speaking of the broken window - just when do you suppose it was broken?

The housekeeper denies cleaning up glass with PR months before, and if I'm not mistaken, the housekeep said she didn't know anything of a broken window prior to the 26th. It seems unlikely to me that a housekeeper wouldn't notice such a thing.

It also seems unlikely to me that people who live in Boulder allow a window to remain broken through the winter months. Not to mention the security issue.

The broken window doesn't fit with the idea of staging the crime as being comitted by someone with a key. Perhaps though, JR simply told police he'd locked up all the doors and windows, thinking they'd see the basement window and conclude that was the entry point (which Lou Schmit did do)

Another window proble (same window) is that the first two officers on the scene did a check and found no visible sign of forced entry. Isn't a broken window a sign of forced entry?

So, if JR broke the window the night of the 25/26, how'd he do it without making a heck of a racket ?
Is it possible to crack a window fairly quietly? Then tap out pieces w/o having that "breaking glass" sound? Is this the concrete on metal sound? Sounds can easily be mistaken.

Wally, I stated elsewhere that John probably broke it when he went down to the basement at around 10:30 AM on 26 Dec, but that is wrong. Fleet White found the window broken before that when he said he searched the basement and also found the broken glass under the window.

One has to always keep in mind that this was an ad hoc plan made up on the fly and John must have been desperately trying to think what was necessary to divert attention from himself and his family. This wasn't the Brinks job where the criminals there had been going into and out of the building for weeks before undetected and observing everything that was going on and planning how they would pull it off.

I think John in the ransom note tried to suggest that either his housekeeper had done it, the former employee who very angrily left his company did it, or that some other person who had a key did it.

I think what happened was that sometime during the night John had second thoughts and figured maybe it would be better to let them think some random sicko did it. So he breaks the basement window during the night. I agree that it is very doubtful the window would have not been fixed during the winter. Plus it is very doubtful someone would not have noticed the broken glass.

I think that was something that John messed up on. I think he simply forgot to clean up the glass before morning. Or maybe he got caught vacillating going back and forth between the two plans--random intruder or insider. Maybe he was going to leave the glass there for the police to find, then suddenly realized that was a mistake also, and it was better if the "intruder" would have found an already broken window.

John might have been better off claiming ignorance of the broken window, but remember that if he said he knew nothing about it, that would probably have let his housekeeper off the hook of suspicion. She had a key and probably "knew" they had stopped using the burglar alarm.

Hey, what can we say: It is tough covering up the death of a six year old girl on the spur of the moment. Let's have some understanding and sympathy for what John must have been going through that night, folks.

"Allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste...."

JMO

rosebud

09-19-2006, 04:49 PM

I also suspect that the weapon used to hit JB in the head was the baseball bat they found outside the house. A neighbor noticed that an outside light was off on the southeast corner of the Ramsey home and found it odd because it was normally on every night. I suspect John turned it off when he went outside to put the bat outside the house. The bat had no prints on it or anything else that connected it to the crime. One ME speculated that the weapon used was a bat or flashlight.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't see why you assume the garrote wasn't staging - I think it could go either way. If the blow to the head came first then the killer may have thought she was dead. If the blow was the result of an accident, or parental anger, then the garrotte could be for staging. If it was an intruder I don't see why he'd use two different methods to try to kill her.

You mention that the killer used materials from the house to kill JBR. To me that favors an RDI theory. Why would a killer not come prepared with the tools he'd need?

But, why would they assume she was dead? Why not take her pulse or check to see if she was still breathing? And, if they felt she was already dead, why the need to stage a fake "kill"? She was already dead.

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428
TWW - here is the reference in the autopsy report about the foreign material...

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

Mimi, birefringent foreign material couldn't be splinters from a wooden paintbrush handle.

Birefringence is the resolution or splitting of a light wave into two unequally reflected or transmitted waves by an optically anisotropic medium such as calcite or quartz. Also called double refraction.

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Myr Dawn, no evidence of an intruder for me means a 100% certainly that someone in the house is responsible. I am also sure that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I realize that many disagree with that. I am not attempting to force that opinion on anyone else. I do not think that is proof that Patsy killed JB, though.

The body was in the house and was in a place that appeared to be an attempt to hide it. This when an intruder could easily have removed the body, live or not, from the house. The body was in a room with only one door and no windows and where an intruder could have trapped himself. No intruder would go in that room.

There is no CREDIBLE foreign DNA left at the crime scene or on JB's body. Since there was either real or staged sexual molestation of her that night, it is impossible for me to believe that a random pedophile in the act of sex would not leave copious amounts of his DNA. If it was a pedophile there would be plenty of his DNA left behind instead of none.

One of the three people in the house killed JB and staged the scene to divert suspicion to one of two or even several people who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house. I think that was very shrewd because the stager apparently realized that lack of foreign DNA would be a problem for him or her.

I will say also that even though the immediate reaction of the parents was overwhelming devastation and profound grief and deep mourning, some of their actions immediately afterwards would tend to indicate an evasion of and fear of speaking to the police. I am not one who thinks the parents were sociopathic monsters who did not love JB. They did love her, very much. However there is no reason why grief cannot be mixed with self-preservation also.

JMO

Thanks for answering, Mimi. While I'm not 100% certain it wasn't a Ramsey, I do lean very heavily towards their innocence. After all, the only one that knows who really did it is the killer themself, (or themselves).

IMO, if no evidence of an intruder means 100% certainty that one of the Ramsey's is guilty, that must mean David Westerfield is innocent of the abduction and murder of Danielle Van Dam. I just don't buy that.

As far as the ransom note, I think it was written by a man, from the tone. And, I think if one of the Ramsey's had written it, they'd have made it more to the point and much shorter, like an "average" ransom note, to make it seem more realistic to the police.

Kidnappers often take increcible risks, even so far as kidnapping a child in front of witnesses in the case of Polly Klaas.

And, sexual molesters don't always leave copius amounds of DNA. Many of them have a "performance" problem. And, the intruder could have worn gloves, and other things to keep their DNA from getting on anything.

As far as the Ramsey's actions and reactions, they were partly what led me to believe they were innocent.

I also find it hard to believe a Ramsey could have done the whole thing alone, without any of the others knowing about it, or having a strong suspicion. And, I don't think they'd have remained so staunchily supportive of each other if either had a clue the other was guilty. Personally, if I found out my husband had done that to our daughter, I'd have an almost impossible time eeping myself from killing him and taking my chances with a temporary insanity plea. Of course, not every one thinks like I do, but I'd have expected them to separate, at the very least.

Isn't it weird how some of the same evidence can make us both come to opposite conclusions?

WallyCleaver

09-19-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, why would they assume she was dead? Why not take her pulse or check to see if she was still breathing? And, if they felt she was already dead, why the need to stage a fake "kill"? She was already dead.

Her breathing and pulse might have been too faint to detect. Remember she might well have died of the head wound alone, if not strangled, so it's quite possible she appeared dead.

Why stage a fake kill? Well, an intruder wouldn't, IMO. So if you like IDI, then you just have to explain why he used two methods. Another reason to stage a fake kill is if the RDI they'd need to make it look like an intruder came in and did it.

WallyCleaver

09-19-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

...

As far as the ransom note, I think it was written by a man, from the tone. And, I think if one of the Ramsey's had written it, they'd have made it more to the point and much shorter, like an "average" ransom note, to make it seem more realistic to the police. ...

...
I also find it hard to believe a Ramsey could have done the whole thing alone, without any of the others knowing about it, or having a strong suspicion. And, I don't think they'd have remained so staunchily supportive of each other if either had a clue the other was guilty. Personally, if I found out my husband had done that to our daughter, I'd have an almost impossible time eeping myself from killing him and taking my chances with a temporary insanity plea. Of course, not every one thinks like I do, but I'd have expected them to separate, at the very least.

Isn't it weird how some of the same evidence can make us both come to opposite conclusions?

Fair points I think. It does stike me more as a man's style of expression.

I suppose I can see it from both sides as to the suspicion. If say JR killer her, and PR suspected, I think you're right. I think she'd have split with him. OTOH, if she just couldn't immagine the man she loved doing such a thing, then she might have bought the whole intruder idea and believed it.

Of course there remains the possibility that they were both in on it.

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

It is hard for me to accept also. However there is the possibility that the person who pulled on the garrotte thought she was already dead, and was doing this to suggest something else, or was doing it to hide something else. There is still the triangular abrasion mark on her neck to be explained, for example. What caused that?

That triangular mark sure is a puzzle! It's one of the few times I can remember a mark that large not being identified during an autopsy. They should have had Dr. G do the autopsy. ;)

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Well, by breaking the basement window John gave credence to any intruder theory, insider or random pedophile. However the reason why I think John went mostly for the "insider" theory was because of the lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence of a stranger that he knew the police would question.

I think it was very shrewd and smart to write the ransom note so that an insider would be first suspected. He knew several people had keys to the house, and he knew the housekeeper was short of money and a former employee hated his guts. Remember that this was in the middle of the night and he had to come up with something or he was looking at group showers for a long time.

JMO

IMO, if John wanted the broken window to give credence to an intruder, he would never have said he'd broken it himself when he locked himself out.

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Her breathing and pulse might have been too faint to detect. Remember she might well have died of the head wound alone, if not strangled, so it's quite possible she appeared dead.

Why stage a fake kill? Well, an intruder wouldn't, IMO. So if you like IDI, then you just have to explain why he used two methods. Another reason to stage a fake kill is if the RDI they'd need to make it look like an intruder came in and did it.

I think an intruder used a second method because she wasn't dead yet from the first. She did not die instantly from the garrotte, and, unlike inflicting a second head injury, the garrotte could only be applied once. That is why I think the garrotting came first. I think the intruder was leaving and JB was still alive. I think he bludgeoned her (JB was prone during the garrotting and a blow to the head from someone standing over her would be consistent with a blow struck from behind) to speed things up.

MOO

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 05:44 PM

It seems clear to me that the window was broken from the outside. I have never heard of there being glass shards outside the window, only in the basement. If JR broke it that night it had to be from outside, yet there was no sign of footprints in the snow or frost. John's story makes simple sense to me. bullmooose

docg

09-19-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Maybe so. Maybe John made her believe it was an accident and somehow she bought it until she died. A relationship between wife and husband can be complicated.

Then there is the apparent resentment Patsy may have felt that the Ramseys, good Christians that they were, were being "persecuted" by the non-believing liberal heathens out there trying to destroy Jesus. It is always important for me to remind myself that these people actually believe such stuff. They ain't kidding, folks. That seems to be one theme of their book, if the reviews I have read are accurate.

Some people who insisted the Ramseys did it may have went too far with their rhetoric for Patsy to reverse course. Even if she knew what exactly happened to JB, she probably knew also that JB was loved very much. She was not killed out of hate. Maybe it was an accident or a moment of quickly regretted anger that killed her, but those who said Patsy was a horrible mother may have built a wall of resentment that Patsy just could not scale to admit that it was a Ramsey after all who killed her.

Maybe she just could not go back, admit it was all a farce, reverse herself, and tell the truth. Doing so would have meant all the hated people out there who kept calling her a monster, were proven right. Maybe she could not face her family with the truth. Maybe she knew that if John went down, he would take her down with him.

Maybe docg has it right after all.

JMO

Maybe???? :rolleyes:

Lots of people think they agree with me. Until they realize I see Patsy as essentially innocent. And I don't see an accident. I see cold, calculated murder.

docg

09-19-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Speaking of the broken window - just when do you suppose it was broken?

The housekeeper denies cleaning up glass with PR months before, and if I'm not mistaken, the housekeep said she didn't know anything of a broken window prior to the 26th. It seems unlikely to me that a housekeeper wouldn't notice such a thing.

It also seems unlikely to me that people who live in Boulder allow a window to remain broken through the winter months. Not to mention the security issue.

The broken window doesn't fit with the idea of staging the crime as being comitted by someone with a key. Perhaps though, JR simply told police he'd locked up all the doors and windows, thinking they'd see the basement window and conclude that was the entry point (which Lou Schmit did do)

Another window proble (same window) is that the first two officers on the scene did a check and found no visible sign of forced entry. Isn't a broken window a sign of forced entry?

So, if JR broke the window the night of the 25/26, how'd he do it without making a heck of a racket ?
Is it possible to crack a window fairly quietly? Then tap out pieces w/o having that "breaking glass" sound? Is this the concrete on metal sound? Sounds can easily be mistaken.

I feel sure the window must have been broken the night of the crime. By John. His story about breaking it earlier has to be understood as an alibi. Once it was clear the police weren't buying that window as an entry point, he must have realized he needed to UNstage the window breakin.

The reason the police saw no sign of forced breakin is that the window staging didn't fool them. Regardless of whether the window was broken, there was no sign anyone went through it. If John hadn't said he broke that window earlier, they'd have seen through his staging and arrested both of them as soon as the body was found.

Also, it seems to me that forensics must have determined that to be a fresh break, because if it was old, there'd have been no reason to question both John and Patsy at such length about the window in both '97 AND '98. If the break was old, that would have confirmed their story and there'd have been no need for such questioning.

And no, he wouldn't have been staging someone with a key, not at first. But when he was forced to unstage at the window, it became necessary for him to refocus attention on all those "unlocked doors and windows." Right . . . . :rolleyes:

And yes it is possible to break a window quietly. You just tap it lightly, bit by bit and catch the pieces in a towel or shirt or something before letting them fall softly to the floor. Also you do it in the basement.

docg

09-19-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

That triangular mark sure is a puzzle! It's one of the few times I can remember a mark that large not being identified during an autopsy. They should have had Dr. G do the autopsy. ;)

Dr. G at your service! I think the mark might be telling us she was manually strangled. And the "garotte" was needed to literally cover that up, i.e., destroy any prints that might have been left on her neck. I think John struck her from behind with the maglite (a bat would have drawn LOTS of blood from her scalp) to stun her so she'd feel no pain and never see her attacker. I think he then strangled her manually. And finally constructed the "garotte" to destroy his prints.

A simple plan.

docg

09-19-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
It seems clear to me that the window was broken from the outside. I have never heard of there being glass shards outside the window, only in the basement. If JR broke it that night it had to be from outside, yet there was no sign of footprints in the snow or frost. John's story makes simple sense to me. bullmooose

He'd have opened the window, which opens in. He'd have climbed onto the suitcase and broken it from the outer side of the pane, probably with a baseball bat, so the glass would fall inside.

John's story makes no sense at all.

harz

09-19-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I think an intruder used a second method because she wasn't dead yet from the first. She did not die instantly from the garrotte, and, unlike inflicting a second head injury, the garrotte could only be applied once. That is why I think the garrotting came first. I think the intruder was leaving and JB was still alive. I think he bludgeoned her (JB was prone during the garrotting and a blow to the head from someone standing over her would be consistent with a blow struck from behind) to speed things up.

MOO

Curious, was the pan of paintbrush sticks inside moved to basement from other area of house? It makes me wonder about how did the killer took the time to make garrotte? Did the killer prepared garrotte while JB was sleeping or awake? If it was intruder, I didn't think JB would be easily controlled while the intruder prepared the garrotte. IMO

lucky13

09-19-2006, 06:47 PM

bullmoose, why couldn't the window have been broken from the inside?? It does open INTO the basement- it swings out to the right. It could have easily been opened & broken from right there inside. MOO

lucky13

09-19-2006, 06:54 PM

docg, I'm very curious to know what YOU think the 'stun gun?' marks are on JonBenet. I almost always agree with your theories....

rosebud

09-19-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Thanks for answering, Mimi. While I'm not 100% certain it wasn't a Ramsey, I do lean very heavily towards their innocence. After all, the only one that knows who really did it is the killer themself, (or themselves).

IMO, if no evidence of an intruder means 100% certainty that one of the Ramsey's is guilty, that must mean David Westerfield is innocent of the abduction and murder of Danielle Van Dam. I just don't buy that.

As far as the ransom note, I think it was written by a man, from the tone. And, I think if one of the Ramsey's had written it, they'd have made it more to the point and much shorter, like an "average" ransom note, to make it seem more realistic to the police.

Kidnappers often take increcible risks, even so far as kidnapping a child in front of witnesses in the case of Polly Klaas.

And, sexual molesters don't always leave copius amounds of DNA. Many of them have a "performance" problem. And, the intruder could have worn gloves, and other things to keep their DNA from getting on anything.

As far as the Ramsey's actions and reactions, they were partly what led me to believe they were innocent.

I also find it hard to believe a Ramsey could have done the whole thing alone, without any of the others knowing about it, or having a strong suspicion. And, I don't think they'd have remained so staunchily supportive of each other if either had a clue the other was guilty. Personally, if I found out my husband had done that to our daughter, I'd have an almost impossible time eeping myself from killing him and taking my chances with a temporary insanity plea. Of course, not every one thinks like I do, but I'd have expected them to separate, at the very least.

Isn't it weird how some of the same evidence can make us both come to opposite conclusions?

Myr Dawn, in this scenario the "intruder" not only entered the house and "abducted" JBR, but that intruder stuck around to molest her inside the home. Not only is that irrational behavior to the point of impossible for me to believe, since he had her and could easily have left the house with her, but it meant he molested her without leaving semen, blood, saliva, clothing fibers, or even hair.

I think that Patsy wrote the note with John basically telling her what to write. The note is so long because there are subtle hints in it as to who John wants the police to suspect did it.

I feel that Patsy and John together staged the crime scene and wrote the ransom note. I am not sure how JB died.

Maybe John was not the one who killed JB.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-19-2006, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by harz

Curious, was the pan of paintbrush sticks inside moved to basement from other area of house? It makes me wonder about how did the killer took the time to make garrotte? Did the killer prepared garrotte while JB was sleeping or awake? If it was intruder, I didn't think JB would be easily controlled while the intruder prepared the garrotte. IMO

The paintbox had been moved to the basement some time ago by the housekeeper at Patsy's request. She was finished with painting for a while. Fragments thought to be from the breaking of the paintbrush were found just outside the door to the wine cellar. I think JB might have been first strangled with the cord alone until she passed out. Then, on impulse, the killer made the garrotte to add strength. I think the duct tape may have been placed over JB's mouth at this point, in case she woke up, while the garrotte was being fashioned.

rosebud

09-19-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

IMO, if John wanted the broken window to give credence to an intruder, he would never have said he'd broken it himself when he locked himself out.

I disagree. The mistake he made was in not cleaning up the glass under the window. If he had done that and then said that the window had been broken for weeks, it would have been a much more credible story. John just screwed up here.

It is easy to fall into the mindset that since the crime scene was not staged perfectly that it makes no sense. John simply made a mistake in the night and should have cleaned up the glass and hidden it or better yet, thrown it in a neighbor's garbage can.

I think John Ramsey had decided to try and cast suspicion on two people specifically: one his housekeeper who needed money, and two the former friend and employee who had left saying they owed him $118,000.

In trying to make the police think either one of them was a very viable suspect John had a dilemma: the housekeeper had a key and the disgruntled employee probably did not. So to make the police think the housekeeper did it, it was better to leave no point of forced entry. But to make the disgruntled employee option more viable to them, it would be better if there was a point of possible entry for him also.

What he actually accomplished was getting some investigators to buy each story: some think the intruder entered through the basement and others may think the intruder used a key.

I will give you a scenario that might have happened. Around 1 AM John Ramsey realizes he has a major problem: JB is dead and the police will suspect murder. For some reason he cannot fake an accident and he has to make it look like someone came into the house and killed her. His mind starts racing and he is working on a plan to keep his butt out of prison.

The obvious one may be to make it look like some lunatic pedaphile did it. So he goes into the basement and breaks a window. Then he gets to thinking: his housekeeper and her husband are broke and there is always the mad as a hornet employee who had threatened in writing (fax) to "get John Ramsey."

He has just watched the OJ trial, with its DNA evidence, and he knows that no foreign DNA can be counted on being found. A problem for him. So he starts working on a plan to cast suspicion on people who have been inside his house.

Patsy is ambidextrous so she is the likely person to write the note. He tells her what to write. I am going to say that along with deciding what to put in the note along with the other staging that we suspect and the staging we might not even know about the hours flew by.

They have a hard deadline because they have an early flight in the morning. I think that in the confusion John may have forgotten to clean the glass up.

JMO

Devotion

09-19-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by harz

Curious, was the pan of paintbrush sticks inside moved to basement from other area of house? It makes me wonder about how did the killer took the time to make garrotte? Did the killer prepared garrotte while JB was sleeping or awake? If it was intruder, I didn't think JB would be easily controlled while the intruder prepared the garrotte. IMO
:shrug: imo: Another point is: the intruder would had to taken the time to search the house in the DARK to find the paint brushes and the cord to make the garrotte' in the dark.
Finally finding the room in the basement that night, that the LE couldn't find in the daylight...jmo

docg

09-19-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
docg, I'm very curious to know what YOU think the 'stun gun?' marks are on JonBenet. I almost always agree with your theories....

Thanks for asking, lucky. I think the stun gun marks are evidence. Evidence of the lengths Lou Smit will go to bend the evidence to fit his theory. And I wonder how many times he's done that sort of thing in the past.

I have no idea what caused those marks. And to tell the truth I have no idea what caused marks I routinely find on my own body from time to time. People get bruised, they get bitten by insects, they get poked by friends at parties, they stumble, they trip, they fall on things. And if they are victims of a sexual attack I imagine there are all sorts of things that could mark them up.

One thing I know for sure. There is NO evidence a stun gun was used. It's a stretch to think those marks are even consistent with a stun gun. Which is ALL Smit could ever hope to prove.

He found some marks on some photos. A pair on her back and one other mark on her cheek. He tried to pair that off with a completely different mark also on her cheek -- and to claim that too was caused by the same stun gun. Because, by sheer coincidence they were the same distance apart -- and matched the stun gun!

Wow! Hey, they matched the stun gun, didn't they? Wellll, not quite. Because there WAS no stun gun to match them to, remember? More accurate to say that Smit went shopping till he found a type of stun gun that matched those marks. He could have gone shopping for all sorts of things that could have matched, but he was looking for a stun gun, so that's where he shopped, at the stun gun store.

You'll have to forgive my tone, I always talk like this after watching House. Now THERE's a sleuth! :beer:

Devotion

09-19-2006, 09:22 PM

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by docg

Thanks for asking, lucky. I think the stun gun marks are evidence. Evidence of the lengths Lou Smit will go to bend the evidence to fit his theory. And I wonder how many times he's done that sort of thing in the past.

I have no idea what caused those marks. And to tell the truth I have no idea what caused marks I routinely find on my own body from time to time. People get bruised, they get bitten by insects, they get poked by friends at parties, they stumble, they trip, they fall on things. And if they are victims of a sexual attack I imagine there are all sorts of things that could mark them up.

One thing I know for sure. There is NO evidence a stun gun was used. It's a stretch to think those marks are even consistent with a stun gun. Which is ALL Smit could ever hope to prove.

He found some marks on some photos. A pair on her back and one other mark on her cheek. He tried to pair that off with a completely different mark also on her cheek -- and to claim that too was caused by the same stun gun. Because, by sheer coincidence they were the same distance apart -- and matched the stun gun!

Wow! Hey, they matched the stun gun, didn't they? Wellll, not quite. Because there WAS no stun gun to match them to, remember? More accurate to say that Smit went shopping till he found a type of stun gun that matched those marks. He could have gone shopping for all sorts of things that could have matched, but he was looking for a stun gun, so that's where he shopped, at the stun gun store.

You'll have to forgive my tone, I always talk like this after watching House. Now THERE's a sleuth! :beer: Good evening, DocG.....I disagree.....what sort of things match those marks? Please don't tell me that she just got poked at the party they attended...John and Patsy would have seen those marks and explained them...they didn't....those marks happened during her murder..imo.......and I do believe they are from a stun gun...that theory makes more sense than it could have been a button, snap, etc...! :seeya:

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I am in total agreement with you; somebody had/has a murderous hatred of the Ramseys and vented it upon Jonbenet. bullmoose I think the murderer got what he wanted...his sexual fantasy with JB....this was a sadistic ritualistic murder...the RN imo was an afterthought....he disliked John for some reason....I think he or a family member was working or had previously worked for them....John might have made him feel unimportant or inept in his work.....the ransom note was just to hurt John!!! IMHO

Devotion

09-19-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm sorry, ladies, I know you love the Ramseys and don't want to believe anything was wrong with JonBenet's medical history, but please! The amount of vaginal exams and genital issues that poor baby went through are just NOT NORMAL.

Patsy didn't take JonBenet to a pediatric urologist because Beuf said she didn't need one? Since when does a parent not get a second opinion or see a specialist just because one doctor said she's okay? If my daughter went through that many vaginal and urination issues and I had the same health insurance as the Ramseys claim they did, you can bet your sweet bippy I would have had her to see a specialist whether Beuf thought she needed one or not.

Page four of the autopsy describes the evidence of acute and chronic abuse, but Meyer doesn't lay it down in those words.

Please read post #107 of this thread. I won't copy it because I didn't write it, but what the poster who did write it says pretty much sums it all up (in better words than I could find.)

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40789&page=5&pp=25
:read: imo: This is a very detailed article explaining what the 7 experts based their sexual abuse findings on. The details and measurements convinced me...jmo

WallyCleaver

09-19-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
There is nothing sexual in the ransom note. No "JonBenet and I love each other and are running off together". Her name isn't even mentioned. The ransom note is all about John.

Which to my mind, makes it unlikely to be the work or an intruder paedophile.

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: imo: Another point is: the intruder would had to taken the time to search the house in the DARK to find the paint brushes and the cord to make the garrotte' in the dark.
Finally finding the room in the basement that night, that the LE couldn't find in the daylight...jmo That's exactly why I think the killer was very familiar with their home.....I think, too, that's why...to their horror..John and Patsy began to realize the killer was probably someone they themselves knew.....imo

rosebud

09-19-2006, 09:58 PM

One question that has bugged me and apparently others, is why the Ramseys did not just claim JB fell and hit her head. I am going to conclude that the evidence of sexual molestation was obvious and that is the reason they had to stage a kidnapping. Someone wiped her off and there was still drops of blood on her panties. I am thinking they knew the ME would realize she had been assaulted and therefore the accidental fall theory was not going to fly, except to send them to prison.

I think it is a real possibility that the sexual molestation led to her death. I am still not sure about the exact circumstances, but that seems logical to me.

JMO

docg

09-19-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, DocG.....I disagree.....what sort of things match those marks? Please don't tell me that she just got poked at the party they attended...John and Patsy would have seen those marks and explained them...they didn't....those marks happened during her murder..imo.......and I do believe they are from a stun gun...that theory makes more sense than it could have been a button, snap, etc...! :seeya:

She was struck so hard by that maglite it produced what, a six inch long crack in her skull? Her cheek could have slammed against something protruding from the wall at that moment. Only someone familiar with the house could say what, maybe an electric can opener, the edge of a microwave, the knob of a cabinet. Then she could have fallen full force backward, slamming her back against a chair, a table edge, a doorknob, and then fallen to the floor, where a stray spoon or fork, or toy or doll might have been lying. It could have happened in a thousand different ways, involving a great many different possible objects that could have been lying around. To say these marks could only have been made by a stun gun is to admit you've been hoodwinked by a master con artist. I'll give him that.

sweetcharlotte

09-19-2006, 10:28 PM

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by docg

She was struck so hard by that maglite it produced what, a six inch long crack in her skull? Her cheek could have slammed against something protruding from the wall at that moment. Only someone familiar with the house could say what, maybe an electric can opener, the edge of a microwave, the knob of a cabinet. Then she could have fallen full force backward, slamming her back against a chair, a table edge, a doorknob, and then fallen to the floor, where a stray spoon or fork, or toy or doll might have been lying. It could have happened in a thousand different ways, involving a great many different possible objects that could have been lying around. To say these marks could only have been made by a stun gun is to admit you've been hoodwinked by a master con artist. I'll give him that. If I have been hoodwinked then so be it.....but I do think it is unfair to call Smit a master con artist....I think he is a good man, that really wants to find the killer of JB....he has no reason to lie....it is his theory that a stun gun was probably used...and it makes more sense to me than any of the others...I think the killer brought it along with him with him along with the duct tape and rope....and imo he possibly wore latex gloves! jmho

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 10:45 PM

Didn't the kidnapper of the girl in S. or N. Carolina have a stun gun? Remember the girl that sent a text message and was rescued! Kidnappers and Pedophiles use these things! jmho

LadyFisher

09-19-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Exactly WC

~~~~~

http://www.petitiononline.com/cfj2002/petition.html

I was watching A&E tonight on an old case of wrongful incarceration (Cruz) on the rape /sodomy and murder of a little girl: the J. Nicarico case.

As I watched it I tried to use it as a schemata for the JB case and again it is not the intruder theory...

...the real POI is Brian Dugan who had a history of this violence.......so where is the history of the intruder for JB?

BD wanted recognition of that JN case...where is the infamy for the intruder in JB case?

This ped broke into the house and stole JN and raped and killed her in an isolated place......why noy do as the JB intruder did and kill her at home...NO ONE was even home and he could have left without any one seeing a thing..... like every other intruder ped/murder..the child is abducted from the home and found in a remote area...EXCEPT in the Ramsey case...

the ped BD is as violent as what we know happened to JB yet nothing else fits the scene at the Ramsey home.....NOTHING....

just some thoughts:) The thing of it is...there is no exact mold for a pedophile/sadistic murderer.....there are just some similarities in the case....we don't know if the killer intended to take her along or not....I thought there was some evidence her body was put in the suitcase? He changed his mind for some reason and killed her there!

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

Myr Dawn, in this scenario the "intruder" not only entered the house and "abducted" JBR, but that intruder stuck around to molest her inside the home. Not only is that irrational behavior to the point of impossible for me to believe, since he had her and could easily have left the house with her, but it meant he molested her without leaving semen, blood, saliva, clothing fibers, or even hair.

I think that Patsy wrote the note with John basically telling her what to write. The note is so long because there are subtle hints in it as to who John wants the police to suspect did it.

I feel that Patsy and John together staged the crime scene and wrote the ransom note. I am not sure how JB died.

Maybe John was not the one who killed JB.

JMO

Perhaps the intruder didn't have anyplace they could take JonBenet. It was a very cold night, so doing it in a remote location exposed to the elements, would have been a logical choice. And, they may not have lived alone, which would have taking them to their own house out of the question, IMO.

In this case, I don't think the molestation was sexual to the killer, at all. And, the intruder probably wore very protective clothing, including gloves.

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

I disagree. The mistake he made was in not cleaning up the glass under the window. If he had done that and then said that the window had been broken for weeks, it would have been a much more credible story. John just screwed up here.

It is easy to fall into the mindset that since the crime scene was not staged perfectly that it makes no sense. John simply made a mistake in the night and should have cleaned up the glass and hidden it or better yet, thrown it in a neighbor's garbage can.

I think John Ramsey had decided to try and cast suspicion on two people specifically: one his housekeeper who needed money, and two the former friend and employee who had left saying they owed him $118,000.

In trying to make the police think either one of them was a very viable suspect John had a dilemma: the housekeeper had a key and the disgruntled employee probably did not. So to make the police think the housekeeper did it, it was better to leave no point of forced entry. But to make the disgruntled employee option more viable to them, it would be better if there was a point of possible entry for him also.

What he actually accomplished was getting some investigators to buy each story: some think the intruder entered through the basement and others may think the intruder used a key.

I will give you a scenario that might have happened. Around 1 AM John Ramsey realizes he has a major problem: JB is dead and the police will suspect murder. For some reason he cannot fake an accident and he has to make it look like someone came into the house and killed her. His mind starts racing and he is working on a plan to keep his butt out of prison.

The obvious one may be to make it look like some lunatic pedaphile did it. So he goes into the basement and breaks a window. Then he gets to thinking: his housekeeper and her husband are broke and there is always the mad as a hornet employee who had threatened in writing (fax) to "get John Ramsey."

He has just watched the OJ trial, with its DNA evidence, and he knows that no foreign DNA can be counted on being found. A problem for him. So he starts working on a plan to cast suspicion on people who have been inside his house.

Patsy is ambidextrous so she is the likely person to write the note. He tells her what to write. I am going to say that along with deciding what to put in the note along with the other staging that we suspect and the staging we might not even know about the hours flew by.

They have a hard deadline because they have an early flight in the morning. I think that in the confusion John may have forgotten to clean the glass up.

JMO

The major problem I have with that scenario is that means Patsy was perfectly willing to help John cover up his murder of JonBenet, and John would have assumed before he asked her to help that she'd go along with him, or he'd never have let her in on it. To me, that just isn't logical.

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think the murderer got what he wanted...his sexual fantasy with JB....this was a sadistic ritualistic murder...the RN imo was an afterthought....he disliked John for some reason....I think he or a family member was working or had previously worked for them....John might have made him feel unimportant or inept in his work.....the ransom note was just to hurt John!!! IMHO

I agree with you except for a couple things. I don't think any sexual fantasy with JonBenet was involved. I think he hated John and did what he did to JonBenet, and wrote the ransom note, to hurt John as much as possible. Also, it may have been someone they knew other than a family member or someone that had worked for John.

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by docg

Dr. G at your service! I think the mark might be telling us she was manually strangled. And the "garotte" was needed to literally cover that up, i.e., destroy any prints that might have been left on her neck. I think John struck her from behind with the maglite (a bat would have drawn LOTS of blood from her scalp) to stun her so she'd feel no pain and never see her attacker. I think he then strangled her manually. And finally constructed the "garotte" to destroy his prints.

A simple plan.

Actually, I had Doctor Garavaglia, in mind. The ME on the DiscoveryHealth channel show "Dr. G - Medical Examiner". :D

IMO, that triangular abrasion doesn't look like anything caused by manual strangulation, and she had no internal signs of manual strangulation.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The major problem I have with that scenario is that means Patsy was perfectly willing to help John cover up his murder of JonBenet, and John would have assumed before he asked her to help that she'd go along with him, or he'd never have let her in on it. To me, that just isn't logical.

Nowhere in that post did I say that John murdered JonBenet. I said that John Ramsey was the one behind the COVERUP of JonBenet's death. My posts here start with the time frame of JB is dead and John realizes there is no chance of making it look like an accident.

I also agree and have stated several times that I find it illogical that Patsy would have protected John if she knew he murdered her while molesting her.

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

Nowhere in that post did I say that John murdered JonBenet. I said that John Ramsey was the one behind the COVERUP of JonBenet's death. My posts here start with the time frame of JB is dead and John realizes there is no chance of making it look like an accident.

I also agree and have stated several times that I find it illogical that Patsy would have protected John if she knew he murdered her while molesting her.

I'm sorry I missunderstood. When I read where you said "I will give you a scenario that might have happened. Around 1 AM John Ramsey realizes he has a major problem: JB is dead and the police will suspect murder. For some reason he cannot fake an accident and he has to make it look like someone came into the house and killed her. His mind starts racing and he is working on a plan to keep his butt out of prison."

I assumed you meant it was a scenario in which John killed JonBenet. Otherwise, why would it be HIS major problem and why would he have to keep HIS butt out of prison?

I have the same problem with John covering for Patsy as I do with Patsy covering for John. She'd have to have told him what she did, assuming he'd be willing to go along with her and help.

I just don't think both the Ramseys are evil people.

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 09:32 AM

I don't think the Ramseys are necessarily evil people, either. I do, however, think they were both rather self-centered people, and when JonBenet ended up seemingly dead by accidental head injury, they decided they could do nothing else to help her and kicked into extreme save-ourselves-from-prison mode.

I think one of them killed her (Patsy sounds most likely, since her fibers are on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot) and the other helped cover it up - to preserve themselves, their social standing, and the future of their other child, Burke.

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I agree with you except for a couple things. I don't think any sexual fantasy with JonBenet was involved. I think he hated John and did what he did to JonBenet, and wrote the ransom note, to hurt John as much as possible. Also, it may have been someone they knew other than a family member or someone that had worked for John. Good morning, Myr :)....I do think it was a pedophile....imo he brought along with him the duct tape, the cord, and the stun gun (I do think those marks are from a stun gun)....I do think the killer knew them...it could have been someone else other than an employee....but whoever it was...he was very family with their home and knew their routines imo I don't think he liked John..from the note John perhaps made him feel inadequate as a man...I think when the author of the note wrote..we are a small foreign faction...he was deliberately trying to suggest there was more than one person that did this..to perhaps point away from himself...I think there was only one intruder in that home the night of the murder exactly who he was I have no idea! imo

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 09:55 AM

lucky13

09-20-2006, 10:24 AM

The marks on JonBenet are very puzzling to me. On one hand, an instructional video & booklet about stun guns was found in the house(kitchen drawer), so maybe one was used & disposed of later.(Aunt Pam carried it out- hidden in one of the many boxes she removed from the CRIME SCENE just days after the murder.-big mistake IMO) Why would you have instructions for a stun gun, but no stun gun? It's not logical. Plus, the Ramseys refusing to have JB's body exhumed so that they could make an absolute conclusion, one way or another, is suspicious IMO. Yeah, yeah, I know some will say "I don't blame them!" To me, that's ludicrious! They should do any & everything possible to try & solve this case for their dead daughter.(IF they REALLY want it solved) C'mon!!. On the other hand, Dr. Werner Spitz, a nationally known pathologist,(who worked on JFK assassination) is 100% sure the marks are not from a stun gun. He stated that the marks look like what was left from a snap on a piece of clothing. One mark had a 'boat-shaped' structure that the others did not. (info from Oct.4'02 '48 Hours Investigates'-Searching for a Killer-acandyrose site) I had always wondered if the Barbie nightgown had any snaps or buttons on it. Maybe the killer had it twisted up & tried to use it to strangle JB so as to not leave fingerprints on her neck, only it didn't totally work. That could also explain the big red mark on her neck- it was from a thumb, pressing hard onto the cloth of the nightgown. Just speculation, I know. MOO

bookratt

09-20-2006, 10:36 AM

perform the paintbrush maneuver. Perhaps they themselves did not do the killing but instead covered for someone they loved, whom they knew had to be the one who did it? They either discovered the body and evidence and knew who had done it or discovered the killer in the act or just afterwards---then went into protect- and -cover mode.

Perhaps the intention of the killer was not actually to cause death--but to frighten, warn, maim or injure JB, perhaps out of anger or jealousy--but something went wrong and poor JB was horribly hurt and close to death.

Now what? Well, if I were that killer in that home that night, I know what I would do at this point.

Get help from the adults in the home who knew and loved me and wanted me to be kept as safe as possible.

Remember, John had lost his daughter Beth, now JB. Could the family survive the loss of another child--in this horrible way--and the possible loss of another--to a detention or psychiatric treatment facility?

The stress of Patsy's cancer on the family was profound; the children began wetting and soiling their beds, John was taking sleep and other aids, Patsy also. She was away for long periods of time during treatment, they missed her, John may have felt lost without her there. Her absence was felt quite strongly in that home. Who knows how two small children would feel about all that?

Serious illness and the strain on the family can result in strained marital relations even between two happily married people; it can even cause divorce--even when the affected person eventually recovers and seems to be better. Sometimes you are not actually grateful to have survived. Sometimes the aftermath is instead, that you take stock of your life and begin to see the chinks in the armor and begin to put those to rights, rather than just being grateful to have survived.

Pasty may have thought bedwetting was no big deal---or have been so put off by it that she snapped: impatience, resentment and anger being the motivator to the crime?

Not everyone after cancer recovery behaves as an angel. I've known people to become drunks, who had never had a drink before in their lives, or destroy rock-solid marriages by suddenly having an affair when they had always been faithful before.

Why? I don't know, I'm no psychologist, but near-brushes with death, whether as a fighter pilot or cancer recovery victim, often change people irrevocably in very odd ways. Sometimes the use of antidepressants, especially the older ones that are little used in combo as they were then, cause serious behavioral changes.

And remember, too, that Patsy had a complete hysterectomy and had gone into early menopause and had to take hormonal replacement therapy as a result. Hormonal imbalance, whether in the form of postpartum depression or post menopausal, goes a long way toward explaining how an otherwise rational person might suddenly snap or do something totally out of character.

After she recovered from cancer and began plying JB with love and attention via the pagaents and all that entailed, in a desperate effort to use what time there was left to her (as Patsy herself put it in her book), is it possible that two other people in that home became resentful of that?

One perhaps controlled themselves and their anger---but perhaps one did not, or could not? Perhaps the non-adult had the greater problem and greater lack of impulse control and then acted out in anger. There seemed to be no discipline whatever in that house.

The two adults, perhaps sensing a problem earlier but doing nothing to avert the disaster looming ahead of them, feel guilty about not intervening (thus explaining the problem with polygraphs they both had early on---ie: consciousness of guilt, though not technically guilty).

Then this horrible thing happens and they jump into action. By God, it's not too late--we can do what we need to do, do it for him, we can save him! Thus save ourselves and our family. And hence, the odd ransom note. The staged crime scene. Their odd behavior afterwards.

It's the only scenario I can imagine where both Patsy and John would work together to cover something of this nature up and then stick together afterwards and do everything in their power to divert attention and suspicion from who they believed to be the killer.

I read Death of Innocence and Perfect Murder/Perfect Town. I read DOI first, then PM/PT.

PM/PT intrigued me because despite much misinformation that has since been reversed, retracted, disproven or clarified, it actually puts the Ramseys in a good light. The authors try very hard to remain impartial and for the most part succeed at that.

But I have to tell you, the Ramseys were complete idiots to have "written" that DOI book together and to claim it was "to help JonBenet" or to find her killer.

Their self-serving arrogance, Patsy's ditsy "we were conservatives in a heathen town that hates Christians and that's why this happened to us, THEY did this to us" attitude? Her "I thought of Jackie O" when she was trying to decide what to wear to JB's funeral? John's comments on "I don't know why I didn't tell the police about finding and closing the basement window earlier in the day"? Their joint decision to claim the day of death as Dec 25th, rather than the 26th, on Jb's headstone, was "so the world would know what they had done to us on Christ's day, forever"? WTF? Most of the book is all about Patsy and John and their lives and their needs, not JB and her life (and Burke is just a footnote throughout). As I supect their real lives always were.

I actually thought at one point while reading it "this is a joke, they don't really think we believe this crap, do they?" and I also thought "their ghost writer or editor should be shot for allowing this crap to be put in print in their names".

Laughable.

If it weren't for the fact that the end result of all this is that JB is still just as dead as she ever was and her killer has never been punished for that crime.

Whoever he may be.

MOO, JMO, JMHO, IMHO

docg

09-20-2006, 10:45 AM

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by docg

If you really think your wife killed your daughter, "accidently" or not, then the best way to preserve your social standing and protect your child is to report what you know to the authorities. And if you really believe your wife "lost it" in a fit of rage, then you certainly don't want your other child living anywhere near her ever again.

Also, if a father has been molesting his daughter, and she then turns up dead, I'd look at the father NOT the mother as the most likely suspect by FAR!

To me the theory that both Ramseys suddenly became conspirators in the crime of the century in an effort to cover up an accident is one of the most bizarre aspects of this case. How do you protect your social standing by staging such a violent murder, complete with obviously phoney ransom note written in your own hand?

And if Pasty knew that John was molesting her daughter, why would she want to help him in any way shape manner or form and why would she continue to live with him in apparent peace and harmony? There has been not a single report of any conflict or even serious argument between them since the murder.

I definitely agree with you docg. If John is guilty, and I don't really believe he is, I don't think for a minute Patsy had a clue what he did. No, if he did it, he acted entirely alone, IMO.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I'm sorry I missunderstood. When I read where you said "I will give you a scenario that might have happened. Around 1 AM John Ramsey realizes he has a major problem: JB is dead and the police will suspect murder. For some reason he cannot fake an accident and he has to make it look like someone came into the house and killed her. His mind starts racing and he is working on a plan to keep his butt out of prison."

I assumed you meant it was a scenario in which John killed JonBenet. Otherwise, why would it be HIS major problem and why would he have to keep HIS butt out of prison?

I have the same problem with John covering for Patsy as I do with Patsy covering for John. She'd have to have told him what she did, assuming he'd be willing to go along with her and help.

I just don't think both the Ramseys are evil people.

I should have worded it differently. What exactly the "problem" was that John Ramsey had that necessitated him staging a kidnapping is only suspected by me and I am not sure exactly.

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 11:26 AM

Good questions, docg.

They protect their social standing by becoming victims who couldn't possibly have done something so terrible - and that worked. People on this board today who didn't even know the Rs refuse to believe they could have done that to their own child. I think that whole scene was Patsy in a panic doing what Patsy did - being a total drama queen. Quote from DOI - "Patsy doesn't know the meaning of low profile." I'm not sure how much John had to do with the staging.

I can't see John Ramsey writing that rambling nonsense ransom note, either, and it intrigues me how you do. Wouldn't John know that a RN is as brief and as succinct as possible? That was classic Patsy, right down to the phrases and elaborate detail, and, imo, handwriting. I have seen examples of John's pre-murder writing that looks a LOT like the RN, but I think Patsy's is much closer - especially when the RN sounds like her style of speech. She also admitted to writing the practice note (but gave an innocent reason.)

I think JR thought Burke was okay with Patsy because the relationship between Burke and Patsy was very different from the one between Patsy and JonBenet. JB was Patsy's Mini Me, and she didn't act the same way toward Burke as she did to JB. John also didn't spend much time at home, and didn't spend much time with the kids - much easier to deny, deny, deny.

I'm not sure John was the molester. I don't know who did that to JonBenet, but someone was doing something bad to her.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by bookratt
perform the paintbrush maneuver. Perhaps they themselves did not do the killing but instead covered for someone they loved, whom they knew had to be the one who did it? They either discovered the body and evidence and knew who had done it or discovered the killer in the act or just afterwards---then went into protect- and -cover mode.

MOO, JMO, JMHO, IMHO

Escecially if that "loved one" was doing something he knew he was not supposed to do. JB says, "stop it or I will tell Mommy, and you know what happened the LAST time," and turns to leave. The "loved one" picks up a bat, or a flashlight, and hits her with it. The "loved one" knows he is in deep doo-doo right away, but let's say her body starts to convulse soon afterwards. I read once that is a possibility. The "loved one" picks up something handy in a desperate attempt to quiet her. He wraps it around her neck, and she is dead this time for sure."

A parent either hears something or gets up because JB has not gone to the bathroom. The parents realize what has happened; JB is definitely already dead; and what has happened is obvious--sexual molestation.

They both decide to protect the "loved one." And the staging begins.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 12:23 PM

Rosebud, the problem I have with your theory is that it would be more natural for him to hit her a second time than to go to the trouble of making a garrotte.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Rosebud, the problem I have with your theory is that it would be more natural for him to hit her a second time than to go to the trouble of making a garrotte.

MissOtis, I can think of a lot more "problems" with it than that. However I still think it is the most plausible theory. It would explain almost everything that happened afterwards. It would also explain some of the peculiar wording of the Boulder DA's office and it might explain some of their "kids gloves" treatment of the Ramseys.

Keep in mind that a nine year old could not legally even commit murder in Colorado at that time--the minimum age was ten. That fact has to be considered when they "cleared" him. Cleared him of what? Murder? He could not be legally prosecuted for that anyway. It could be the DA's version of legalistic hair-splitting.

One "problem" with it is that he was sent quickly to Fleet Whites house on 26 Dec. On first glance that might be exculpatory. However you could see it as John Ramsey seeing all the cops around and trying to get him away from them as quickly as possible. He may not have figured a policeman might question him at the Whites.

The policemen there apparently got nothing useful out of him, let alone incriminating. However the policeman may not have even suspected him.

Another problem with it is that the Ramseys tried to get him back in his school in Boulder a few days after the Christmas break ended. Again at first glance that would seem exculpatory. However if he was "holding up surprisingly well" it could also be seen as a way to indicate he had nothing to do with it. A shrewd move.

On the other hand it would explain the insistance of the Ramseys that he slept all through it until he was awakened to take to the Whites. It would explain why the husband and wife have clung to one another all these years and haven't hinted at cracking.

From Patsy's point of view she "neglected him" and that "caused" it. It is natural for a mother to blame herself here no matter what. Also Patsy could honestly think that she is suffering so her last child does not have to. She is a martyr who is taking all the abuse for her son. She is serving a noble cause and being persecuted so he does not have to bear it.

It is also telling that the Boulder DA would not sign a document presented to them by Lin Wood that said in plain no uncertain terms that he was not the perpetrator. Why wouldn't they sign it if he had been "cleared?"

And finally while it might be hard to believe that a nine year old could stand up to police questioning--he was questioned alone the first week of January--but with the proper coaching to stick to a story that he slept all through the night--he may have been able to pull it off. I read in PM/PT that Patsy was there in a room watching it and she was a nervous wreck the whole time he was being questioned.

JMO

rosebud

09-20-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Rosebud, the problem I have with your theory is that it would be more natural for him to hit her a second time than to go to the trouble of making a garrotte.

I don't think he made the garrotte. I think the actual strangulation was with something else. The triangular abrasion on her neck may indicate that. The garrotte may have just been window-dressing. The parents have done their duty before this and educated themselves about pedaphiles and child molestors. They read that they sometimes use garrottes. Exit stage right.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

I don't think he made the garrotte. I think the actual strangulation was with something else. The triangular abrasion on her neck may indicate that. The garrotte may have just been window-dressing. The parents have done their duty before this and educated themselves about pedaphiles and child molestors. They read that they sometimes use garrottes. Exit stage right.

JMO

According to the ME, she was alive when the garrotte was put on. It wouldn't have made the marks it did, if she wasn't. I wonder if the triangular mark could have been made by something she fell on, when she lost consciousness.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

According to the ME, she was alive when the garrotte was put on. It wouldn't have made the marks it did, if she wasn't. I wonder if the triangular mark could have been made by something she fell on, when she lost consciousness.

There is always the former assumption that the parent(s) thought she was already dead when he/she/they applied the garrotte. Again, they know there has been sexual molestation. So they try and divert suspicion to a pedaphile/intruder and away from the person who actually did it. They have read about garrottes and pedaphiles and they go with it.

JMO

diplomat

09-20-2006, 02:52 PM

diplomat

09-20-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

There is always the former assumption that the parent(s) thought she was already dead when he/she/they applied the garrotte. Again, they know there has been sexual molestation. So they try and divert suspicion to a pedaphile/intruder and away from the person who actually did it. They have read about garrottes and pedaphiles and they go with it.

JMO

The parents have read about making garrotes and pedophiles?

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 02:56 PM

The garotte was staging. She'd already been hit on the head and was unconscious. You can tell from her complete lack of struggle against the strangulation, and the fact that her head wound was fully developed.

Why strangle an unconscious child? So that it looks like the crime was anything other than what it was. No one thinks a parent would use a garotte on a child. It worked brilliantly.

Mimi428

09-20-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I don't think the Ramseys are necessarily evil people, either. I do, however, think they were both rather self-centered people, and when JonBenet ended up seemingly dead by accidental head injury, they decided they could do nothing else to help her and kicked into extreme save-ourselves-from-prison mode.

...- to preserve themselves, their social standing, and the future of their other child, Burke.

<snipped>

I agree, NP. I do not think an evil, murderous mindset was present before that night. I believe a very rational theory could be presented that J & R Ramsey were, at heart, very concerned about appearances, about status, about money.

A dead child in the house puts a focus on the residents to explain how that child died. I believe they may have had an overwhelming fear that the explanation would jeopardize everything they had both worked so hard to portray.

They gambled - they altered the situation to resemble a tragedy. An intruder story protected them from exposure. Protected their status as people to be admired. Protected their reputation. Protected their image. Protected John's ability to earn a living.

Where would Patsy be if John had been arrested? There is no way her lifestyle would have been able to be maintained. He was the breadwinner - & their entire lifestyle would have been reduced to something out of Walmart - instead of something out of House Beautiful.

Regular folks, even very RICH folks, are satisfied to put up one beautiful Christmas tree. I wonder what motivations drive a person to decide that in THEIR house, one tree is not good enough? What personal reward is achieved by putting a tree in every room? What personal reward is accomplished by entering a 3 year old in beauty pageants? What satisfaction is gained? What need is being fed?

I don't buy the "just for fun, just because I can afford it" explanations - simply because of the work, the time & effort that had to go into things like multiple trees & entry into numerous pageants. For that much effort to be put forth, a corresponding need was being addressed, imo.

And what drives a person to put lipstick on a 6 year old child on Christmas morning before snapshots are taking of her opening her presents???

Look at that picture of JonBenet on Christmas morning - sitting in her pj's - opening presents. She has LIPSTICK on! I don't know what the heck is driving THAT train, but it is utterly bizarre to me that on an occasion for casual photos - makeup has to be applied to a six year old.

Link here for multiple pix of JonBenet - notice the top right photo of her smiling - this is the one taken while she was sitting at home, in her pj's opening presents.

You can do a Google search on her name, for images - & see it in a bigger format.

Dressing up for pageants or formal photos - ok, I can accept that some people would put lipstick on a child. But for a casual, family photo?

Too weird for me!

JMO

ETA - OOPS! forgot the link!

Here...

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/new_transcripts.htm

WallyCleaver

09-20-2006, 04:11 PM

I'm not addressing this to anyone in particular because we are all entitled to our opinions, and non of us knows for sure what the truth is.

I'm just not buying this idea of the Rs staging a bizzaro sex murder to cover an accident. I'm no Ramsey defender, but I'll give them enough crredit to say that if they're innocent of molestation, then they'd have put their daughter's well being above their social standing. I think if the blow to the head was accidental - even an accident caused by rage- thier first reaction would be to call an ambulance.

I don't buy the BDI theories either. Burke was 9. He couldn't be tried for murder. I don't know if he could have been tried on lesser charges, but I think it's unlikely that at age 9 he'd be facing anything other than some counseling. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that they went to this extent to cover for a 9 year old.

The only cover up that makes any sense to me is if JR was molesting her, (I guess I'm being sexist in assuming that PR wasn't molesting her) then he may have staged the murder scene to make it look like a pervy intruder.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

The parents have read about making garrotes and pedophiles?

I think that is what happened. They knew JB had been sexually assaulted that night and they wanted to give the police a reason to suspect an intruder/pedaphile. So yes, I think that is what the garrotte was there for.

JMO

rosebud

09-20-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

It just doesn't seem plausible to me that they went to this extent to cover for a 9 year old.

You don't think they would go to "this extent" to cover for their 9 year old SON?

JMO

rosebud

09-20-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The garotte was staging. She'd already been hit on the head and was unconscious. You can tell from her complete lack of struggle against the strangulation, and the fact that her head wound was fully developed.

Why strangle an unconscious child? So that it looks like the crime was anything other than what it was. No one thinks a parent would use a garotte on a child. It worked brilliantly.

np, do you know if Burke ever assisted JB in cleaning herself up in the bathroom?

WallyCleaver

09-20-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

You don't think they would go to "this extent" to cover for their 9 year old SON?

JMO

No, because there is no reason for it. It's not as if Burke was looking at prison time.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I'm not addressing this to anyone in particular because we are all entitled to our opinions, and non of us knows for sure what the truth is.

I'm just not buying this idea of the Rs staging a bizzaro sex murder to cover an accident. I'm no Ramsey defender, but I'll give them enough crredit to say that if they're innocent of molestation, then they'd have put their daughter's well being above their social standing. I think if the blow to the head was accidental - even an accident caused by rage- thier first reaction would be to call an ambulance.

I don't buy the BDI theories either. Burke was 9. He couldn't be tried for murder. I don't know if he could have been tried on lesser charges, but I think it's unlikely that at age 9 he'd be facing anything other than some counseling. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that they went to this extent to cover for a 9 year old.

The only cover up that makes any sense to me is if JR was molesting her, (I guess I'm being sexist in assuming that PR wasn't molesting her) then he may have staged the murder scene to make it look like a pervy intruder.

Wally, if JB was killed by her brother while he was molesting her, you don't see a problem with that? The ME found evidence of the molestation. You don't think the parents considered that something to try and hide?

JMO

rosebud

09-20-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped

Regular folks, even very RICH folks, are satisfied to put up one beautiful Christmas tree. I wonder what motivations drive a person to decide that in THEIR house, one tree is not good enough? What personal reward is achieved by putting a tree in every room? What personal reward is accomplished by entering a 3 year old in beauty pageants? What satisfaction is gained? What need is being fed?

I don't buy the "just for fun, just because I can afford it" explanations - simply because of the work, the time & effort that had to go into things like multiple trees & entry into numerous pageants. For that much effort to be put forth, a corresponding need was being addressed, imo.

And what drives a person to put lipstick on a 6 year old child on Christmas morning before snapshots are taking of her opening her presents???

Look at that picture of JonBenet on Christmas morning - sitting in her pj's - opening presents. She has LIPSTICK on! I don't know what the heck is driving THAT train, but it is utterly bizarre to me that on an occasion for casual photos - makeup has to be applied to a six year old.

Link here for multiple pix of JonBenet - notice the top right photo of her smiling - this is the one taken while she was sitting at home, in her pj's opening presents.

You can do a Google search on her name, for images - & see it in a bigger format.

Dressing up for pageants or formal photos - ok, I can accept that some people would put lipstick on a child. But for a casual, family photo?

Too weird for me!

JMO

ETA - OOPS! forgot the link!

Here...

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/new_transcripts.htm

Some of it is pretty weird to me also, and maybe there is something to those who say the cancer "speeded everything up" for Patsy. She wanted JB to be successful at something she valued right now.

The many Christmas trees were put up by hired help. They put them up and took them down apparently. The Ramseys were rolling in dough. If they wanted to make Christmas a big deal while their kids were small, why is that a problem?

Reading part of PM/PT (I tend to agree with one other person here that reading this book is something of a trivia filled bore) I have not gotten the impression that Patsy Ramsey was some sort of bad person. She seems to me to be no worse than most and better than a lot of people. She volunteered her time with the school and other activities. The biggest complaint was that she was a little overzealous. People that tend to put pressure on people to actually get things done in those settings often rub some the wrong way.

When Linda Hoffman Pugh asked her for a loan just before Christmas, Patsy immediately gave it to her. She confided somewhat to her about some of her problems, specifically one was about her lack of interest in sex since her cancer.

Patsy had friends and some of them stayed with her for a long time into the ordeal. She is not accused of beating her children, in fact she seems to have given them too much leash if anything. She is not accused of verbally abusing them.

At one point LHP told the police that Patsy did not consider JB's wetting the bed to be a "big deal." Patsy had stopped making JB wear pull-ups to bed and just changed the sheets out in the morning. Patsy often had them in the wash by the time LHP got there.

I also read in that book that if JB really did not want to go to a pageant that Patsy did not force her to go.

I don't see where the basis for this "Patsy as Lucifer" stuff comes from.

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-20-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Wally, if JB was killed by her brother while he was molesting her, you don't see a problem with that? The ME found evidence of the molestation. You don't think the parents considered that something to try and hide?

JMO

I don't believe a 9 year old molests his sister. Playing doctor isn't molestation (imo). I've never heard of a 9 year old playing doctor with a broken stub of paintbrush handle. It would have hurt. She'd have cried. She'd have complained to her parents. it's just not a likely scenario.

Even if he did molest her with the paint brush it indicates he needs counseling. Since he wouldn't be going to prison, why not simply tell the cops what happened and then make sure he got the professional help needed ?

sweetcharlotte

09-20-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't believe a 9 year old molests his sister. Playing doctor isn't molestation (imo). I've never heard of a 9 year old playing doctor with a broken stub of paintbrush handle. It would have hurt. She'd have cried. She'd have complained to her parents. it's just not a likely scenario.

Even if he did molest her with the paint brush it indicates he needs counseling. Since he wouldn't be going to prison, why not simply tell the cops what happened and then make sure he got the professional help needed ?

I agree. She was his baby sister. She sometimes went to his room and crawled in bed with him. It didn't happen.

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-20-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't believe a 9 year old molests his sister. Playing doctor isn't molestation (imo). I've never heard of a 9 year old playing doctor with a broken stub of paintbrush handle. It would have hurt. She'd have cried. She'd have complained to her parents. it's just not a likely scenario.

Even if he did molest her with the paint brush it indicates he needs counseling. Since he wouldn't be going to prison, why not simply tell the cops what happened and then make sure he got the professional help needed ?

I made a mistake above. It wouldn't have been Burke using the painbrush handle. But he'd have to have caused some type of vaginal injury that needed to be disguised by doing further injury with the handle. It seems unlikely to me a 9 year old would do more than touch, or maybe insert a finger - and that wouldn't look like molestation. It wouldn't need to be covered up.

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
MOR, I am thinking that if you want to stage a scene to look like a crazed psycho killer did this then the over staged over kill makes sense.

But, it wasn't staged. IT KILLED HER. INTENTIONALLY. HORRIBLY. If you want to lay this at the parent's door, you have to lay THAT at the parent's door. IT WASN'T A COVER-UP!

Sorry about caps. More chocolates on the way.

:seeya:

MissO

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

Yes, why spend the time and energy on making the garrotte. That was done for torture rather than just to kill.

That is what I think, too, diplomat. For the killer, she represented John Ramsey. It was not only important that she suffer, it was important that John knew that she had suffered.

MOO

rosebud

09-20-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, it wasn't staged. IT KILLED HER. INTENTIONALLY. HORRIBLY. If you want to lay this at the parent's door, you have to lay THAT at the parent's door. IT WASN'T A COVER-UP!

Sorry about caps. More chocolates on the way.

:seeya:

MissO

Let's try and read what each other is saying. I believe the garrotting was done when the person doing it believed JBR was already dead. I have said that already. It has been suggested that the blow to the head may have made JB appear to be dead.

I think it was probably included as a stage prop to suggest the sexual molestation, which the Ramseys knew had occurred, and that the ME would find, was done by an intruder/lunatic. Since they knew the ME would find it the best they could hope for was to suggest someone outside the house did it. That was what the garrotte was for.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
:eek: I get chocolates every time you make a mistake? its a deal!

MOR - Mimi started a thread to explain how posters are not understanding the term 'staged'....I cannot explain it any more than I have there or anywhere here.....I know it killed her but it is staged to hide something else...it was not the primary motive or purpose for killing Jon Bonet

It was done to hide something else therefore it was staged ....she still was killed by it YES....that does not change the fact that it was staged to hide and distract and deceive the real issues....

I do not understand your part on laying at the parents door...can you clarify please...:)

I have posted on who I think did what, they both are fully aware of what the other did by now...IMO

By "laying it at the parents' door", I meant holding the parents responsible for the garrotting. I think it is easier to think the Ramseys killed their daughter, if one thinks the garrotting was only staged to cover up a head injury. Otherwise, one has to accept that the Ramseys were capable of garrotting their daughter without the head injury. IMO a person couldn't stage (pretend) this, if he couldn't do it in the first place. It is too sick.

Athena

09-20-2006, 09:56 PM

I'd just like to add if the Ramseys had staged a scene to cover up an accident and make it look like a foiled kidnapping - that ransom note puts that idea way over the top.

A simple kidnapping note would have done the job. "We've kidnapped your daughter. We are demanding $xxxx for her safe return. Do not call the police." Word a simple note however you want to make it look like a kidnapping.

There is NO way anyone can convince me that either one of the Ramseys wrote this 3 page wordy note after killing their daughter and use the words beheaded and executed and then leave the paper and marker in plain sight but remove the duct tape and cord. That note, imo did everything it could to point to the Ramseys rather than away from them and damn if it did not do the job.

I still stick to my gut that whoever wrote that note was not leaving a note for ransom or kidnapping but was sending a message. And until they find the killer(s) and writer of that note we will never understand exactly what the significance of that note was.

The only thing that is a general consensus of most of us whether anti- or pro-Ramsey is that it was a 'fake' note in the sense it was not meant for a kidnapping/ransom.

I personally believe there was a deeper meaning hidden within that message. A message not a "note". JMHO

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Let's try and read what each other is saying. I believe the garrotting was done when the person doing it believed JBR was already dead. I have said that already. It has been suggested that the blow to the head may have made JB appear to be dead.

I think it was probably included as a stage prop to suggest the sexual molestation, which the Ramseys knew had occurred, and that the ME would find, was done by an intruder/lunatic. Since they knew the ME would find it the best they could hope for was to suggest someone outside the house did it. That was what the garrotte was for.

JMO

It appears that the molestation that night occurred AFTER the garrotte was made. That either part of the broken paintbrush or a finger that had broken the paintbrush had been used to penetrate her.

Evidence of previous (non-intruder) molestation would not have been hidden by the garrotting.

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I'd just like to add if the Ramseys had staged a scene to cover up an accident and make it look like a foiled kidnapping - that ransom note puts that idea way over the top.

A simple kidnapping note would have done the job. "We've kidnapped your daughter. We are demanding $xxxx for her safe return. Do not call the police." Word a simple note however you want to make it look like a kidnapping.

There is NO way anyone can convince me that either one of the Ramseys wrote this 3 page wordy note after killing their daughter and use the words beheaded and executed and then leave the paper and marker in plain sight but remove the duct tape and cord. That note, imo did everything it could to point to the Ramseys rather than away from them and damn if it did not do the job.

I still stick to my gut that whoever wrote that note was not leaving a note for ransom or kidnapping but was sending a message. And until they find the killer(s) and writer of that note we will never understand exactly what the significance of that note was.

The only thing that is a general consensus of most of us whether anti- or pro-Ramsey is that it was a 'fake' note in the sense it was not meant for a kidnapping/ransom.

I personally believe there was a deeper meaning hidden within that message. A message not a "note". JMHO

I agree, Athena. Virtually everything in that note was from a movie:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Movie%20Comparisons

There was no reason for the killer to go to the trouble of writing this "joke ransom note" and being compulsive about the wording of it, changing of "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" to just "Mr. Ramsey", etc. unless he had a point to get across, if only for himself. I think the motive is in the note.

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 10:27 PM

$118,000.00 ........... Victory! .......... S.B.T.C. (plaque in basement closet near room JB's body was in)

The SBTC thing is a stretch, but I think the killer may have had a long list of grievances against John and was in sympathy with the man who claimed AG owed him $118K.

"Here's what you get for not paying the $118K."

diplomat

09-20-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I agree, Athena. Virtually everything in that note was from a movie:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Movie%20Comparisons

There was no reason for the killer to go to the trouble of writing this "joke ransom note" and being compulsive about the wording of it, changing of "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" to just "Mr. Ramsey", etc. unless he had a point to get across, if only for himself. I think the motive is in the note.

I agree about the note. There are so many clues in it.

rosebud

09-20-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

It appears that the molestation that night occurred AFTER the garrotte was made. That either part of the broken paintbrush or a finger that had broken the paintbrush had been used to penetrate her.

Evidence of previous (non-intruder) molestation would not have been hidden by the garrotting.

It would if the molestor was their son.

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

It would if the molestor was their son.

The garrotte would not hide the fact of the physical evidence of previous molestation (had there been any). The garrotte is pointless in terms of staging to cover up past molestation. It wouldn't cover up present molestation, either. And a bash on the head is more suggestive of an intruder than a homemade garrotte.

MOO

Ames

09-21-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by boscorelli
From the get-go of the tragic case Dec. 1996 to the present,I have always maintained that the Ramseys killed their daughter Jon Benet.

The only person now who shed some light on this case is;their son Burke,who is now 20???
Money talks and speaks loud and clear. Burke may be in fear of his life;or more in love with being the sole heir to a fortune after his father dies.
I personally don't think Burke had anything to do with his sister's murder;but does any knowledge.

Now that John Mark Karr,has been cleared of the murder,John Ramsey remain # ONE Suspect.How he can go on with his life,with this always 'shadowing him',is beyond me.

Boscorelli

I agree, and think that Burke needs to be given a Polygraph, now that he is of age. I also think that JR knew that JMK was not guilty, and that HE (John R.) again would be focused on as a suspect, and possibly questioned again, and thats why he (John R.) said that he was leaving the country when JMK was arrested. He KNEW without a shadow of a doubt that JMK did NOT murder JB. IMO Why would anyone want to leave the country, if their daughter's murderer had possibly been caught? Unless, it was to get out of the "spotlight". If thats the case...why get out of the "spotlight"? I personally would want that "spotlight" to shine on, until my child's murderer was caught. His actions speak louder than words...IMO

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Regular folks, even very RICH folks, are satisfied to put up one beautiful Christmas tree. I wonder what motivations drive a person to decide that in THEIR house, one tree is not good enough? What personal reward is achieved by putting a tree in every room? What personal reward is accomplished by entering a 3 year old in beauty pageants? What satisfaction is gained? What need is being fed?

I don't buy the "just for fun, just because I can afford it" explanations - simply because of the work, the time & effort that had to go into things like multiple trees & entry into numerous pageants. For that much effort to be put forth, a corresponding need was being addressed, imo.

You don't "buy" the "just for fun..."?

Just because you don't understand why someone devotes a lot of time and money to something doesn't mean there's some underlying motivation in what they're doing that is in any way odd or sinister.

If a person loves something, the work time and effort put into it is enjoyable. They don't consider it work!

What motivation drives a person to decide they need multiple Christmas trees? What personal reward? How about a love of Christmas, and the beauty of the decorations?

My inlaws decorate their house to the hilt every Christmas. They have more than one tree in most rooms of their house, from large trees to small "theme" trees. We put up more than one tree ourselves. A large one in the living room and in the family room, small ones on tables in the dining room and bedrooms.

I don't find that any stranger than I do grownups that devote entire rooms in their homes to doll or teddy bear collections, beer can collections, electric train collections or any other kind of collection. I even know one woman that has a massive collection of pink flamingo items spread over her house.

As far as the beauty pageants, the motivation that drives people to do that is enjoyment. Just like decorating the house at Christmas time with many trees and other decorations, and other hobbies.

Some people love cooking and own a LOT of cooking utensils and spend a lot of time cooking. Some people eat out all the time and rarely use their stove and have barely any cooking utensils.

Some people love collecting antiques and spend hours and hours scouring flea markets, garage sales, and thrift stores, then more hours cleaning and restoring their finds.

MANY people have hobbies and spend hours and hours and a lot of their spare cash devoted to their hobby. Do you not "buy" their reseasons for doing that?

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

You don't "buy" the "just for fun..."?

<snipped for bandwidth only - not content>

I don't understand peoples' need to project what they would do on others or judge others by their standards.

What's the saying "variety is the spice of life?"

JMO

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 07:46 AM

Athena

09-21-2006, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't understand peoples' need to project what they would do on others or judge others by their standards.

What's the saying "variety is the spice of life?"

JMO

How about to "To each his own". I have to admit I don't understand the personal attacks on what the Ramseys chose to do or not do based on what others believe they should or should not have done. One thing having an opinion but another when one is judgemental. :shrug:

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Athena

How about to "To each his own". I have to admit I don't understand the personal attacks on what the Ramseys chose to do or not do based on what others believe they should or should not have done. One thing having an opinion but another when one is judgemental. :shrug:

IMO - the need to personally attack the Ramseys says nothing about the Ramseys. ;)

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

IMO - the need to personally attack the Ramseys says nothing about the Ramseys. ;)

But it says a lot about the attacker, IMO.

circulon

09-21-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Helping Hand
Patsy killed her daughter and John was an accomplice. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until I hear conclusive evidence otherwise.

That's the sentiment at CTV today and I want to scream !!! How can people 1) ignore the evidence that has been indpendently assessed by investigators and a judge that the Ramsey's did not kill their daughter and 2) be so darn sure that they did kill their daughter.

I guess people like this won't come around until the DNA hits a match (which I am praying for so there will finally be conclusive proof of the Ramsey's innocence)... All My Opinion as always.

I skipped the whole thread because i just want to respond to this one.

Firstly, there was no EVIDENCE that cleared John and Patsy. A judge was shown an incomplete case file at a hearing that was NOT about convicting the Ramseys. Sorry, no link, but i know that to be fact. Slate me for the lack of links, i dont care.

Second, the 'intruder' theory is based on what-ifs and speculation on the part of people who's job it was to know better.
If you know anything about the Boulder DA's office and powers that be, you would know that they wanted to keep the image of Boulder as a crime free town, so the DA made deals with crims rather than go to court (source: Steve Thomas's book).
If the BPD were given the freedom to conduct the investigation properly, the case would have been solved and the 'unknown' guilty party would be behind bars long ago. As it was, the DA's office prevented warrants being issued, interviews being conducted and leads fully checked out!

Third, the BPD did not focus only on the Ramseys. They followed every lead they found, most of them being rubbish leads given to them by Team Ramsey in their "what-if" scenarios. BPD followed them all. The only lead they could not follow, as in NOT ALLOWED to follow, was that of the Ramseys.

There's lots more, but i dont have the patience to type all day.

What really gets my goat is all the IDI people who think the R's couldnt POSSIBLY have done it. Lou Smit has that same opinion "the R's couldnt be guilty because a good christian just wouldnt kill their own child" (yeah i read it in Steve's book, he did say that). Absolute trash.

Forgive me for being so blunt and harsh, but i'm fed up with all you ignorant, naive idiots who go on slating anyone who dares to believe the R's are guilty.
Heck yeah i reckon they're guilty, and you know what, thats my story and i'm sticking to it til i hear conclusive evidence otherwise!

I now welcome your abuse.

:mad:

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by circulon

<snip>

Forgive me for being so blunt and harsh, but i'm fed up with all you ignorant, naive idiots who go on slating anyone who dares to believe the R's are guilty.
Heck yeah i reckon they're guilty, and you know what, thats my story and i'm sticking to it til i hear conclusive evidence otherwise!

<snip>

I'm from the south (USA) and all I can say is "Bless Your Heart."

JMO

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
We know that is not true..We know that pagents tend to be a place where mothers compete and at clinical levels at times. We know it is also a place where mothers live out their own fantasies despite what their child wants....

We know this is true for ALL mothers? Link please, and TIA.

diplomat

09-21-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Athena

How about to "To each his own". I have to admit I don't understand the personal attacks on what the Ramseys chose to do or not do based on what others believe they should or should not have done. One thing having an opinion but another when one is judgemental. :shrug:

It has been a constant theme running through all of the Ramsey threads by some posters. I don't think it's just the Ramsey's they project their ideas on, it's a personality trait.

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

We know this is true for ALL mothers? Link please, and TIA.

Yes, I'd like to know what else I know and don't know I'd know. ;)

Mimi428

09-21-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

We know this is true for ALL mothers? Link please, and TIA.

Why would you even ask that? :confused:

VF's post did not claim it was true for ALL mothers in the first place.

Mimi428

09-21-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by circulon

Forgive me for being so blunt and harsh, but i'm fed up with all you ignorant, naive idiots who go on slating anyone who dares to believe the R's are guilty.
Heck yeah i reckon they're guilty, and you know what, thats my story and i'm sticking to it til i hear conclusive evidence otherwise!

I now welcome your abuse.

:mad:

<snipped>

Bravo, circulon :beer:

About that abuse you anticipate - hang in there, don't worry about it, don't let it bother you. Most of the time I think it's simply a way to divert the attention away from the case. A situation like 'if you can't debate the case, malign your fellow posters'.

Ignore it. Continue to discuss & debate the CASE & it will all be fine.

JMO

circulon

09-21-2006, 12:41 PM

Thanks Mimi.
I dont post here all that i often but i lurk alot. Its good to see someone who is really into the case. We seem to be a bit sparse here.

nuisanceposter

09-21-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

np, do you know if Burke ever assisted JB in cleaning herself up in the bathroom?

I haven't ever heard anyone say that, but considering that JonBenet would ask any adult available to help her wipe, I don't see why she wouldn't also ask her brother.

Mimi428

09-21-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

You don't "buy" the "just for fun..."?

Just because you don't understand why someone devotes a lot of time and money to something doesn't mean there's some underlying motivation in what they're doing that is in any way odd or sinister.

If a person loves something, the work time and effort put into it is enjoyable. They don't consider it work!

What motivation drives a person to decide they need multiple Christmas trees? What personal reward? How about a love of Christmas, and the beauty of the decorations?

My inlaws decorate their house to the hilt every Christmas. They have more than one tree in most rooms of their house, from large trees to small "theme" trees. We put up more than one tree ourselves. A large one in the living room and in the family room, small ones on tables in the dining room and bedrooms.

I don't find that any stranger than I do grownups that devote entire rooms in their homes to doll or teddy bear collections, beer can collections, electric train collections or any other kind of collection. I even know one woman that has a massive collection of pink flamingo items spread over her house.

As far as the beauty pageants, the motivation that drives people to do that is enjoyment. Just like decorating the house at Christmas time with many trees and other decorations, and other hobbies.

Some people love cooking and own a LOT of cooking utensils and spend a lot of time cooking. Some people eat out all the time and rarely use their stove and have barely any cooking utensils.

Some people love collecting antiques and spend hours and hours scouring flea markets, garage sales, and thrift stores, then more hours cleaning and restoring their finds.

MANY people have hobbies and spend hours and hours and a lot of their spare cash devoted to their hobby. Do you not "buy" their reseasons for doing that?

Hobbies? Since WHEN is a child a HOBBY? How is a flesh and blood human being comparable to a collectible item?

You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between hunting for your favorite collectibles - & making a decision to enroll a 4 year old child in hours of lessons, hours of fittings, hours of photography sessions, hours of preparation for pageants. JonBenet was not an object - she was a CHILD!

If someone claimed that Patsy (or John) had a passion for collecting antique Santas & loved to display them at Christmas time - THAT is a hobby. I can certainly relate.

If it is claimed that Patsy (or John) had a passion for a sport that they played and spent hours improving their performance - THAT I can relate to.

But that is not what she is reported to have been AT ALL. Not when it requires OTHER people to do the work.

And if you can offer a rational explanation for the necessity to put lipstick on a 6 year old wearing PJ's & opening her Christmas presents in her own home - I would certainly love to hear it.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Hobbies? Since WHEN is a child a HOBBY? How is a flesh and blood human being comparable to a collectible item?

You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between hunting for your favorite collectibles - & making a decision to enroll a 4 year old child in hours of lessons, hours of fittings, hours of photography sessions, hours of preparation for pageants. JonBenet was not an object - she was a CHILD!

If someone claimed that Patsy (or John) had a passion for collecting antique Santas & loved to display them at Christmas time - THAT is a hobby. I can certainly relate.

If it is claimed that Patsy (or John) had a passion for a sport that they played and spent hours improving their performance - THAT I can relate to.

But that is not what she is reported to have been AT ALL. Not when it requires OTHER people to do the work.

And if you can offer a rational explanation for the necessity to put lipstick on a 6 year old wearing PJ's & opening her Christmas presents in her own home - I would certainly love to hear it.

JMO

Who the heck said anything about a child being a hobby? I was referring to Christmas decorations and beauty pageants.

Remember, all the Christmas trees in the Ramsey house you though were so strange?

I've never heard anyone state JonBenet hated the beauty pageants. From all accounts, JonBenet ejoyed the beauty pageants as much as any child enjoys things like music lessons, gymnastic lessons, dance lessons, sports, etc. No, not every child enjoys every minute of those activities, but many of them stay in them because they enjoy most of it.

If you have a link that proves Patsy put lipstick on JonBenet Christmas morning, I'd love to see it.

lucky13

09-21-2006, 01:56 PM

To all of the IDI theorists...you say that the Ramseys were good Christian people who couldn't have possibly done this? what about all of the priests, MEN OF GOD, who are constantly being arrested for molestation??
And if this psycho intruder pedophile came in to molest JB because of his sick fantasies, why did he garrot her from behind? It seems he would want to see her face as he did the deed. Doing it from behind seems like the cowardly way to do it- couldn't handle looking at her poor face. MOO

LindaA

09-21-2006, 01:59 PM

I tried to see the pictures the OP was talking about with lipstick, but it was too small. I also tried Googling it, but came up with zillions of pictures, but not that one, oddly. Then I followed the link Harz, I think, posted earlier today and I think I see what the OP meant. IT does look as if JB was wearing lipstick. But how do we know JB didn't put it on herself? Kids do things like that all the time. Or maybe the photo was retouched. ANd if PR did put the lipstick on her, does that mean she also murdered her?

Harz, as for the pictures of JB in the trash: models and others in pageants and the performing arts often have hundreds of duplicates made of "head shots" to give to the press, include with entry forms, and for auditions. These could well have been some of those.

Athena

09-21-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

It has been a constant theme running through all of the Ramsey threads by some posters. I don't think it's just the Ramsey's they project their ideas on, it's a personality trait.

I here ya! Glad they are not my neighbors! LOL

Mimi428

09-21-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

If you have a link that proves Patsy put lipstick on JonBenet Christmas morning, I'd love to see it.

Hang on & we'll have a thread on it in a few minutes. (don't think it's appropriate on a thread entitled "killed their daughter?")

LindaA

09-21-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by lucky 13

<snip>
The marks on JonBenet are very puzzling to me. On one hand, an instructional video & booklet about stun guns was found in the house(kitchen drawer
<snip>

I hadn't heard that. I do believe I erad early on in the inventigation that a sales brochure and tape were found, but nothing about an instruction manual. Sorry no link, but I read it years ago. ANyone else have any help on this?

thewhitewitch1

09-21-2006, 02:55 PM

I read about the video and instruction manual in the Ramseys book. JR tried to blow it off as "it was written in spanish so how could I read it" but geeze, some manuals have pictures demonstrating how to use a product and a video shows you how to use it. I'm sure he could figure it out.

WallyCleaver

09-21-2006, 03:01 PM

First, for those who think the parents just couldn't have done it - if that's based on a cold assessment of the facts of the case, then fine. If it's based on emotion, then it's time you got clued in. Every day children are abused, sexually and otherwise, by their parents. It's just a fact of life. And it isn't just poor people living in trailers. It can be, and sometimes is, wealthy people living in posh neighborhoods.

Right now, near where I live, there is a case involving a little boy who was abused repeatedly, over the course of several years, by his parents. Finally the abuse killed him, so they drove his body to the sticks and burried him in a shallow grave. Then they reported him missing and even went with search parties looking for him. It took about a year before his body was discovered. The police suspected the parents, and soon the father claimed the mother killed the boy. It's now in court, and the parents are looking at life sentences. (We don't do CP here in the civilized states)

So if a cold analyisis of the evidence leads you to IDI, fine. But if you just can't immagine the parent(s) doing this then you need to work on your immagination.

circulon

09-21-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
To all of the IDI theorists...you say that the Ramseys were good Christian people who couldn't have possibly done this? what about all of the priests, MEN OF GOD, who are constantly being arrested for molestation??

snipped...

I totally agree! I find it ludicrous that anyone could say they didnt do it coz "its just not plausible, how could someone do that?".

Not to mention, the way JR reacted when his daughter Beth was killed, he was distraught for ages, and a quote i heard was something along the lines that he was heard almost howling with greif (not sure who said that, but it wasnt a poster, it was a friend of JR who said it).
Yet when JB was found dead, he was stony and stoic. He went on tv all calm and collected.
Why the difference?
Not to say that that proves he killed her, but there are just so many different sides to a person, who is to say that he/she is incapable of anything?

WallyCleaver

09-21-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I'd just like to add if the Ramseys had staged a scene to cover up an accident and make it look like a foiled kidnapping - that ransom note puts that idea way over the top.

A simple kidnapping note would have done the job. "We've kidnapped your daughter. We are demanding $xxxx for her safe return. Do not call the police." Word a simple note however you want to make it look like a kidnapping.

There is NO way anyone can convince me that either one of the Ramseys wrote this 3 page wordy note after killing their daughter and use the words beheaded and executed and then leave the paper and marker in plain sight but remove the duct tape and cord. That note, imo did everything it could to point to the Ramseys rather than away from them and damn if it did not do the job.

I still stick to my gut that whoever wrote that note was not leaving a note for ransom or kidnapping but was sending a message. And until they find the killer(s) and writer of that note we will never understand exactly what the significance of that note was.

The only thing that is a general consensus of most of us whether anti- or pro-Ramsey is that it was a 'fake' note in the sense it was not meant for a kidnapping/ransom.

I personally believe there was a deeper meaning hidden within that message. A message not a "note". JMHO

If docg's theory is correct -and I know you've read it- then the note simply couldn't be short; it had too many jobs it had to perform.

If it was a message - if it was a revenge killing to let JR know he had been "gotten" then why bother with the obviously fake ransom business?

Why not just a short note saying -Johnny boy, we got you back. We hit you where it hurts. Victory -SBTC. Why would a revenge killer leave a "message" containing a bunch of stuff having to do with a non-existant kidnapping.

rosebud

09-21-2006, 03:56 PM

On the garrote itself, if it was used by John or Patsy in some sort of sex game with JB, why did they leave it around her neck?

That is, if it was one or both of the parents using it on JB and they strangled her with it, why not take it off and dispose of it so the police would always wonder what exactly it was that killed JB? We still do not know what exactly hit her in the head. But the strangulation device (apparent anyway) is left around her neck.

The fact that they did leave it around her neck indicates to me that they WANTED it found there. It was part of the staging. Again we have to remember here that each aspect of the staging only had to make sense at that moment to the person doing the staging.

If that person thought the garrote would divert suspicion to someone else and away from the person who actually killed JB, then it was part of the staging. I think it was done to suggest some intruder/pedaphile did it.

I believe what happened during the early morning was that the person(s) doing the staging thought about different scenarios and got some of them confused. That is why some evidence suggests a kidnapping for money, some suggests a random pedaphile, and some just suggests one weird person did it.

I think both parents staged it so if they were going for one scenario and one of them, say Patsy, after the plan was under way said that under no circumstances were they taking JB's body outside to be dumped in some field, then John had to think up another scenario to fit the body being found in the house.

That could account for some of the seemingly conflicting clues we are left with.

Remember they had a "hard" deadline for staging all of this and it was about 5:30 AM. So if the "staging" started later in the morning (the time the staging started is almost as important as the time of death, in my opinion), say perhaps 2 or even 3 AM, they were running on a very short time frame.

When people discuss the staging or try and cast doubt on it, there is a tendency to assume the stagers had a lot of time. That is not necessarily so. If JB was killed much later in the possible time frame, the stagers may have been on a very short time leash. Even if it occurred earlier in the time line, they probably thought the time flew by.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-21-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

If docg's theory is correct -and I know you've read it- then the note simply couldn't be short; it had too many jobs it had to perform.

If it was a message - if it was a revenge killing to let JR know he had been "gotten" then why bother with the obviously fake ransom business?

Why not just a short note saying -Johnny boy, we got you back. We hit you where it hurts. Victory -SBTC. Why would a revenge killer leave a "message" containing a bunch of stuff having to do with a non-existant kidnapping.

It has a very protective background. Ten years have passed and nobody knows for sure what is rubbish and what legitimate in that note.

rosebud

09-21-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

If docg's theory is correct -and I know you've read it- then the note simply couldn't be short; it had too many jobs it had to perform.

I agree with docg on that one. I do not think the ransom note was randomly written. I think the author(s) had an agenda in it and they wanted to suggest certain people were responsible to divert attention from themselves.

How do you write a ransom note in which you want to tell the police "who" you want arrested for it, without making it too obvious? That was the dilemma of the writer. That is why it is so long.

JMO

rosebud

09-21-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

It has a very protective background. Ten years have passed and nobody knows for sure what is rubbish and what legitimate in that note.

There is a lesson here folks: if you decide to "off" someone, don't leave a logical trail of clues--leave many and ones that directly conflict with each other--so that no one can ever know the truth. Can you imagine what a defense attorney would have done with all this conflicting evidence?

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-21-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

It has a very protective background. Ten years have passed and nobody knows for sure what is rubbish and what legitimate in that note.

We didn't know anymore 10 years ago. All we can do is come up with theories.

IMO, the theory that a revenge killer wrote a RN, then left the body in the basement where it was sure to be discovered - thus making the note a fake- just doesn't add up at all.

" Ha Ha John, we killed your daughter. We got even with you. BTW, were putting a lot of crap about kidnapping and ransom in our "message" note, even though we expect you'll find the body in 15 minutes and know that kidnapping has nothing to do with any of this".

It just doesn't make sense.

And if it was a revenge kiling, why the sexual abuse (or whatever you want to call vaginal penetration with a brush handle) ? And if it was for revenge, why not both kids who were in the house? You figure JB meant more to the R's than Burke ?

WallyCleaver

09-21-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

There is a lesson here folks: if you decide to "off" someone, don't leave a logical trail of clues--leave many and ones that directly conflict with each other--so that no one can ever know the truth. Can you imagine what a defense attorney would have done with all this conflicting evidence?

JMO

The other lesson is - Do it in Boulder.

rosebud

09-21-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I'd just like to add if the Ramseys had staged a scene to cover up an accident and make it look like a foiled kidnapping - that ransom note puts that idea way over the top.

A simple kidnapping note would have done the job. "We've kidnapped your daughter. We are demanding $xxxx for her safe return. Do not call the police." Word a simple note however you want to make it look like a kidnapping.

There is NO way anyone can convince me that either one of the Ramseys wrote this 3 page wordy note after killing their daughter and use the words beheaded and executed and then leave the paper and marker in plain sight but remove the duct tape and cord. That note, imo did everything it could to point to the Ramseys rather than away from them and damn if it did not do the job.

JMHO

Athena, you make some good points. However consider this: some experts think neither Ramsey wrote the note and that it is the real deal; some are sure Patsy wrote it Some detectives are sure it was a Ramsey who did it and some detectives are sure it was an intruder.

You say the ransom note "did nothing" but cast suspicion on the Ramseys. It would seem not to be the case. Patsy died out of prison. John will die out of prison. I would say the ransom note accomplished its purpose.

What would everone think if NO ransom note was found? Methinks there is a good chance the Ramseys would have been sent to prison.

JMO

rosebud

09-21-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The other lesson is - Do it in Boulder.

I am writing it down. 1. Confuse issue. 2. Confuse issue in Boulder.

harz

09-21-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Athena, you make some good points. However consider this: some experts think neither Ramsey wrote the note and that it is the real deal; some are sure Patsy wrote it Some detectives are sure it was a Ramsey who did it and some detectives are sure it was an intruder.

You say the ransom note "did nothing" but cast suspicion on the Ramseys. It would seem not to be the case. Patsy died out of prison. John will die out of prison. I would say the ransom note accomplished its purpose.

What would everone think if NO ransom note was found? Methinks there is a good chance the Ramseys would have been sent to prison.

JMO

Excatly, I agree that was their purpose of this ransom note. IMO

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Who the heck said anything about a child being a hobby? I was referring to Christmas decorations and beauty pageants.

Remember, all the Christmas trees in the Ramsey house you though were so strange?

<snip>

LOL

diplomat

09-21-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Exactly M, dressing one daughter and expecting her to perform as a seductress IS NOT FUN.....it is sick....

So far JB has been described to perform as a hooker and now a seductress. I never saw her as anything but a dressed up little girl in various costumes. I think Julia Roberts played a hooker in a movie once and I just don't see she and JB as the same. :shrug:

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Yes, I'd like to know what else I know and don't know I'd know. ;)

And all I want is a link that supports what we all "know." JMO

sweetcharlotte

09-21-2006, 05:04 PM

harz

09-21-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

Harz, as for the pictures of JB in the trash: models and others in pageants and the performing arts often have hundreds of duplicates made of "head shots" to give to the press, include with entry forms, and for auditions. These could well have been some of those.

Perhaps your correct, that person who found photos in trash might be assuming too much. But I still like to be sure if thats the case. JMO

diplomat

09-21-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
WC, if I really wanted to torment someone I would not even write a note...I would leave them hanging forever in total mental anguish with NO CLUES at all..

It is like not replying to obnoxious or obtuse posters: to ignore doing any replies/notes to them... is more effective....

Why leave them hanging when one could play with their minds via a note. And not just the minds of John and Patsy Ramsey but millions of other people who have followed this case and continue to be completely dumbfounded by the note.

diplomat

09-21-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

It has a very protective background. Ten years have passed and nobody knows for sure what is rubbish and what legitimate in that note.

So if the person who wrote that note meant it to be cryptic, then they were successful. Not one brilliant mind has been able to decipher it.

MissOtisRegrets

09-21-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

So if the person who wrote that note meant it to be cryptic, then they were successful. Not one brilliant mind has been able to decipher it.

Yes. And, at the same time, the author had the satisfaction of saying directly to John, "This one's for you."

MOO

rosebud

09-21-2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
"A source close to the investigation told CBS News the reason investigators moved in on Karr was because of details, in emails to University of Colorado professor Michael Tracey, about the Ramsey house that had not been made public.

According to the source, Karr wrote about a check stub on John Ramsey's desk in the amount of $118,000, specifics about a staircase in the Ramsey’s home and details about the basement where JonBenet was killed."

The ransom note only makes sense (allowing you to decipher it) if you believe it was a ransom note written by John Karr.

You come up with wild theories, then you say that none of it makes any sense, only tells you that your theories are wrong. Sometimes, a ransom note is a ransom note.

No, it only makes sense when one considers that Michael Tracey had interviewed the Ramseys privately more than once and that (Probably) they had conveniently leaked information about the crime scene that was known only to the police and to them. Tracey, who has claimed at least once before to have "cracked the case" by finding the guilty party, slips this information to Karr and bingo, Karr is on CNN.

Tracey is not an objective observer. He has clearly gone over to the Ramsey defense side. If the Ramseys are leaking information to their defenders, such as Tracey, that the police need withheld to help solve this case, it is just another indication that they are guilty and that they are more interested in their reputations than in justice.

rosebud

09-21-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
What about the fact that John Karr's handwriting is so close he could probably recopy an exact duplicate of the ransom note, if asked to.

Getting John Karr to recopy the ransom note live on the air, then comparing it to the original would make a great TV show for CNN or courtTV.

And why can you drag the Ramseys through the mud, but not anyone else?

The media has destroyed John Karr. Let him defend himself by showing that he actually wrote the note.

Patsy's handwriting is much, much closer. The Boulder DA probably destroyed her own political career by admitting Karr had nothing to do with it and letting him go. Considering many DA's are about as ruthless as the people they send to prison, she would not have released him if she thought she could make the charges stick.

WallyCleaver

09-21-2006, 10:11 PM

MissOtisRegrets

09-21-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr's handwriting comparison. (http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php)

Patsy Ramsey's handwriting (http://www.acandyrose.com/millerexemplar1misskitt1.jpg)

Ransom note (http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif)

He said her death wasn't intended. It was an accident. The guilt he felt over that is why he confessed.

Vaughan, dozens of people confessed.

MissOtisRegrets

09-21-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
But his was believable, and then, the press and officials, even federal officials skim over this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209825,00.html) looked for every reason to make him not the guy, while taking into account none of the reasons why he may have been the one.

They couldn't link him to the actual case. His DNA didn't match, and he couldn't be placed in Boulder.

LadyFisher

09-21-2006, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
$118,000.00 ........... Victory! .......... S.B.T.C. (plaque in basement closet near room JB's body was in)

The SBTC thing is a stretch, but I think the killer may have had a long list of grievances against John and was in sympathy with the man who claimed AG owed him $118K.

"Here's what you get for not paying the $118K." I am beginning to think you might be right about some of this....I think John Douglas the former FBI profiler hired by the Ramseys...thought it was a white male...possibly oone with a grievance against John...former employee or coworker....and a sexual pervert!

thewhitewitch1

09-22-2006, 12:42 AM

Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

Lili007

09-22-2006, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by diplomat

So far JB has been described to perform as a hooker and now a seductress. I never saw her as anything but a dressed up little girl in various costumes. I think Julia Roberts played a hooker in a movie once and I just don't see she and JB as the same. :shrug:

Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

harz

09-22-2006, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

I agree with what you stated. It makes me wonder if it was a reason why John Ramsey killed her? Is it because he see her as disgrace in his opinion to his family? I do not know John well enough to discover what excatly his beliefs were. Maybe he had deep dark secrets about being against JB's pageant activities, & her being treated or viewed as woman that Patsy never knew of? So its possible John killed JB base on his beliefs. IMO

Lili007

09-22-2006, 04:46 AM

Harz,

My post didn't say or imply in any way anything about her parents killing their daughter. Just a comment on JonBennet's young years and how she was spending them, with the full encouragement and support of her parents. I just think that's wrong, and - more than that - I think it was the cause of her death.

I don't know who did it. If I had, I'd go to LE, rather than talk about it on message boards. This is all speculation but also a lot of information, and sharing of opinions. Individually, they probably lead nowhere. Collectively, in the hands of some investigators now or at whatever time, they might help in some way.

I'm personally not eager to point the finger at either parent, or at the brother. But at the same time, it has never 'felt' like an 'outsider' crime to me. I hope one day the family will know, so they can put all of it to rest in good conscience. And that JonBennet can be left in peace, once justice is done.

JMO
Lili

MyrDawn

09-22-2006, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

Good grief, they don't approve of the shape of her mouth?

LadyFisher

09-22-2006, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili ...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered? :shrug:

Ames

09-22-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Good grief, they don't approve of the shape of her mouth?

Yeah, I didn't quite understand that about the mouth and eyes, either. Good point though, about "JB Potholder Making Loom" making the marks on her, though...instead of a stun gun. Whatever happened to her loom, anyway? IMO

Ames

09-22-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I read about the video and instruction manual in the Ramseys book. JR tried to blow it off as "it was written in spanish so how could I read it" but geeze, some manuals have pictures demonstrating how to use a product and a video shows you how to use it. I'm sure he could figure it out.

I agree...but, a bigger question would be, WHY...would he have a manual, written in Spanish, if he couldn't read Spanish? Alot of different items come with an English manual, along with other languages, and I simply throw the ones that I can't understand, into the garbage...and keep the English one. Maybe, just maybe...there HAD been an English version of the stun gun instuction book, but someone threw it away. IMO

MyrDawn

09-22-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered? :shrug:

Or all the child actors that are dressed up in all sorts of get-ups for movies and TV, and taught to say some of the strangest things. Are those poor abused kids being murdered?

MyrDawn

09-22-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree...but, a bigger question would be, WHY...would he have a manual, written in Spanish, if he couldn't read Spanish? Alot of different items come with an English manual, along with other languages, and I simply throw the ones that I can't understand, into the garbage...and keep the English one. Maybe, just maybe...there HAD been an English version of the stun gun instuction book, but someone threw it away. IMO

In DOI, John said he and Patsy visted security type store and the clerk sent them home with a videotape catalog that was in Spanish. Which was it...a catalog or an instruction manual? Or a poromotional video, which I've also heard. Did the clerk give him the wrong tape? There are so many versions of this floating around!

diplomat

09-22-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered? :shrug:

Their father was not John Ramsey, who had an employee who wanted to settle a score. And that employee knew that it would cause far more grief for John to kill JB than to kill him. Couple that with the fact that the employee might have been a pedophile and that narrows the list.

diplomat

09-22-2006, 11:49 AM

LadyFisher

09-22-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by diplomat

Their father was not John Ramsey, who had an employee who wanted to settle a score. And that employee knew that it would cause far more grief for John to kill JB than to kill him. Couple that with the fact that the employee might have been a pedophile and that narrows the list. I believe that is exactly what the former FBI profiler hired by the Ramseys said, too. I agree! :beer:

diplomat

09-22-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

What disturbs me is that there are people who would actually view JB as a hooker, no matter what costume she had on. I don't view her that way, dressed up in costume or just being a little girl. The alarm that goes off when I see those terms written about JB is that there are many pedophiles out there reading and watching and waiting (maybe even posting) for little girls with these very same ideas in mind. Ready to do harm. Not the fault of the child. These people ready to do harm would have the same thoughts no matter what JB was wearing.

harz

09-22-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered? :shrug:

Because John was not the father of all these little pageants girls, except for JonBenet. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-22-2006, 12:40 PM

lynda_a_c

09-22-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

What disturbs me is that there are people who would actually view JB as a hooker, no matter what costume she had on. I don't view her that way, dressed up in costume or just being a little girl. The alarm that goes off when I see those terms written about JB is that there are many pedophiles out there reading and watching and waiting (maybe even posting) for little girls with these very same ideas in mind. Ready to do harm. Not the fault of the child. These people ready to do harm would have the same thoughts no matter what JB was wearing.

Hi Diplomat

I don't see her as a hooker, what I see is a little girl dressed provocatively and inappropriate for her age - jmo.

As a wee girl once myself, dressing up meant smudging makeup over my face and dressing up in 'costumes' made of wraps of material and my mums shoes - not my parents placing me on stage strutting my stuff.

You said yourself that there are many pedophiles out there waiting, it begs the question why any parent would dress their child in this provocative manner?

To a certain extent I agree that it if they are that way inclined it doesn't matter what the child is wearing - but why invite trouble?

Lastly - I have never seen anyone ever blame JBR for what happened.

Wherever the blame lays it's not with her.

Mimi428

09-22-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered? :shrug:

Your car is stolen. You call the police. Do you believe the crime will be solved if the police look for data on other STOLEN cars? Or do you think the crime will be solved by looking at the UNSTOLEN cars that remain?

We do not determine common elements in different crimes by looking at no crimes. We find common elements by looking at similar crimes.

If you tell the police the mugger just ran north - you would expect them to GO north to track him down. If the escapee ran downstairs - you don't head off by going UPstairs.

Same rules apply here. We don't look at everyone who WASN'T murdered & expect to find an answer to this murder.

Ames

09-22-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

They picked that brochure up in another country? I think I read this in DOI.

:lol: They did? But, they can't speak or read spanish! Okay, now "that" makes "sense". Duhhhh IMO

sweetcharlotte

09-22-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Ames

:lol: They did? But, they can't speak or read spanish! Okay, now "that" makes "sense". Duhhhh IMO

Actually, I think John was given the brochure up at a trade show in Miami. Spanish? That would make sense.

Ames

09-22-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Why is "bussiness" so prominently misspelled?

IMO...I have heard that it is to make the author of the note look "uneducated"...it was written that way on purpose.

Ames

09-22-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Actually, I think John was given the brochure up at a trade show in Miami. Spanish? That would make sense.

Yes, it does make sense....BUT...why keep something that you cannot read? IMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-22-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Ames

IMO...I have heard that it is to make the author of the note look "uneducated"...it was written that way on purpose.

"Bussiness" is the only word misspelled in the entire note (other than the fact that "out smart" should be one word and not two). Other, more difficut imo words are spelled correctly throughout. No businessman would misspell the word. So, is the author not a businessman or is he a businessman trying to cover himself? If this were an honest mistake, I would think there would be others.

MOO

sweetcharlotte

09-22-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes, it does make sense....BUT...why keep something that you cannot read? IMO

You should see the things that are stuffed in my desk drawers and night table. :)

Ames

09-22-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You should see the things that are stuffed in my desk drawers and night table. :)

LOL...and MINE too!!! But, you can bet, to avoid clutter...I would throw out anything that was written in a different language that I could not read. It was posted that J was handed that manual in Miami, thats why it was in spanish. If he could not read it, why pack it, and bring it home with him? Why not throw away in Miami? Or give it back, and say..."Sorry, but I can't read spanish". IMO

WallyCleaver

09-22-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr misspelled conqueror as conquerer in the yearbook, and bussiness looks like a spelling mistake he would have made.

People could see a mother pushing her daughter out on stage to be provocative, denying her a normal childhood. The truth was probably that this beauty pageant activity didn’t define JonBenet’s life to a great extent and didn’t deny her a childhood. That aside, to some people it appeared a bad thing the Ramseys were doing with their daughter.

That in addition to John Ramsey’s job in defense were the two most obvious things about the Ramseys. The most obvious things probably caused the murder. The question is, who would be motivated by those two things to do this crime?

The ransom note says it was a small foreign group who didn’t like the attitudes of Americans, who respected the military and defense business but didn’t respect the country it served.

That statement is closely tied to the most obvious facts about the Ramseys, which makes the ransom note a legitimate document. Though it seems crazy and weird, it is directly addressing the most prominent thing about the Ramseys.

People that don’t understand philosophical motivations say the ransom note is weird and they dismiss it. When a weird man comes along and confesses; even though his personal motives, his handwriting and spelling mistakes match the ransom note, they dismiss him, saying he is weird.

Let’s take a bold step and arrest him on the federal charge of kidnapping. Take him to trial. The Ramseys had no reservations about parading the American market-oriented values on stage with their 6-year-old girl. The most obvious thing about John Karr is he would have reacted in every way the ransom note and crime suggested.

The authorities already took a bold step and asked Thailand to send him to CA. From there he went to CO. They decided they didn't have any evidence. No DNA match, no fingerprints of his at the crime scene, the couldn't even place him in Denver in Dec. '96. What makes you think there is a basis for arresting him and charging him with kidnapping?

Just as with other "intruders" who've been fingered, this didn't pan out. Probably because an intruder didn't do it.

cantaloupe

09-22-2006, 04:43 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

--------------------------

i am so sorry, i find this particular website somewhat obtuse. Is the poster asserting that the marks were made by the loom? and if so, how were they made and what does that tell us about the murder? I just can't figure out why someone would press the loom against the side of her neck and her arm and what possible purpose that would serve.

I just can't seem to put two and two together the way the rest of you do.

Ames

09-22-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The authorities already took a bold step and asked Thailand to send him to CA. From there he went to CO. They decided they didn't have any evidence. No DNA match, no fingerprints of his at the crime scene, the couldn't even place him in Denver in Dec. '96. What makes you think there is a basis for arresting him and charging him with kidnapping?

Just as with other "intruders" who've been fingered, this didn't pan out. Probably because an intruder didn't do it.

EXACTLY...you hit the nail on the head!! No intruder. I personally think that John R. planned to leave the country, after Karr's arrest, because he KNEW that Karr was NOT guilty, and he knew that after it was discovered, the fingers would again, start pointing in JR direction. IMO

WallyCleaver

09-22-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
If a stun gun was used, that suggested a paramilitary operation. Other evidence for a paramilitary operation was a size 10, Hi-Tech boot print; and the ransom note said it was a group that does not respect what America stands for.

The crime was against AMERICA, not a 6 six-year-old girl. In fact, the ransom note made a particular effort to say emphatically she would in no way be harmed.

But some people are going to great lengths to discredit any suggestion that it was paramilitary, or an intruder. Someone comes out with a website that says it was a potholder loom, not a stun gun, after the corner said it looked like a particular brand of stun gun that he had seen marks from before JonBenet.

That website is an outrageous attempt to discredit the idea of a paramilitary intruder. Use of a stun gun would point directly to a sophisticated paramilitary intruder. The fact that the theory is so outrageous makes me think it really was paramilitary operation done by the very people who are claiming it was a plastic loom.

That's when you ask the question, “But why would someone press a loom into her arm?” That makes the whole theory looks as ridiculous as it really is. And that’s when you ask yourself, “Why are so many people making so much effort to discredit the intruder theory?” Was it a paramilitary operation carried out by people inside THIS country in places of authority who don’t like the idea that sex sells, nor do they like any of the other capitalistic free market principles America is all about (but they do like the military weapons "bussiness")?

When I read that, I coluld actually hear the theme from the Twilight Zone.

Ames

09-22-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

When I read that, I coluld actually hear the theme from the Twilight Zone.

:lol: Me too ..along with Rod Serling's voice in my head. :D

thewhitewitch1

09-22-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by cantaloupe
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

--------------------------

i am so sorry, i find this particular website somewhat obtuse. Is the poster asserting that the marks were made by the loom? and if so, how were they made and what does that tell us about the murder? I just can't figure out why someone would press the loom against the side of her neck and her arm and what possible purpose that would serve.

I just can't seem to put two and two together the way the rest of you do.

I'm not sure what the author was suggesting. Maybe that JB fell on the loom? I keep seeing pictures of that loom in the crime scene photos and have been wondering what the significance of it is/was. I believe the author was also suggesting that some of the ties in JBs hair were the loops from the loom...whatever significance that may have on anything.
I just thought it was an interesting observation and so posted the link. Everyone was wondering what the marks on JB were from, if not a stun gun and that was a possibility. Not that I am convinced or anything but it was worth thinking about, at least.

sweetcharlotte

09-22-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Ames

EXACTLY...you hit the nail on the head!! No intruder. I personally think that John R. planned to leave the country, after Karr's arrest, because he KNEW that Karr was NOT guilty, and he knew that after it was discovered, the fingers would again, start pointing in JR direction. IMO

So why didn't he leave?

WallyCleaver

09-22-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
You want Twilight Zone? Okay. The general outline of the ransom note was likely composed by people who were behind the kidnapping.

They put in threats about beheading before John Karr or anyone else in America knew terrorists beheaded people. That’s a fact, which has been overlooked.

If the terrorists were the kind who behead people, and they gave John Karr the general composition of the ransom note to recopy in his own words, they inserted a glaring contradiction in the general composition that they gave to John Karr. They said. “We respect your business.”

If regular terrorists had said, “We respect your business.” They might have been talking about a company that makes hand grenades, not the company that makes F-16 fighter jets.

So we have people who knew about beheading before anyone else knew, and they have so much respect for Lockheed F-16’s that they made sure to mention how much respect they have for Lockheed when they said how they didn’t like what America stood for.

Moslem terrorist don’t have any need to make sure they don’t offend Lockheed. But Right Wing fanatics who seem to be taking over this country, transforming it into a country most Americans wouldn’t recognize have the need not to offend Lockheed. How did the people who behead people get linked together with the people who love F-16s in a ransom note written by a failure school teacher who later traveled the world?

(Go to Twilight Zone theme.)

You should always go to Twilight Zone theme at the begining of your posts - it helps set the tone.

Ames

09-22-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

So why didn't he leave?

I have no idea, probably because people thought that it was weird that he wanted to leave the country, as soon as a possible suspect in his daughter's death had been arrested. I am sure that his lawyers adviced him against it. But, it was ALL OVER the news that he was planning on leaving. Why he didn't....I haven't a clue. I am sure that his Lawyer pulled him aside and said..."John, you know, if I were you, I would stay put. Leaving the country would make you look suspicious to some people." IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-22-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
...a failed school teacher who later traveled the world. Interesting theory.

Why keep thinking the Ramseys did it?

Because no matter how you try to dismiss them, all of the evidence keeps coming back to them. IMO

John Karr did not kill Jonbenet. Give it up.

harz

09-23-2006, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

So why didn't he leave?

John didn't have to after Karr announced on national news that he was responsible of JB's death, but he did thought about leaving the country before Karr's announcement. :) IMO

Ames

09-23-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Because no matter how you try to dismiss them, all of the evidence keeps coming back to them. IMO

John Karr did not kill Jonbenet. Give it up.

:lol: WOW..I cannot believe that there are people out there, that STILL think that John Karr did it. That guy is a fruit loop, murderer of Jonbenet WANNABE! One or both of the parents did it...one did it, and the other one covered for them, and helped to stage the crime scene....my gosh...it is SOOOOO obvious!!! IMO

Ames

09-23-2006, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by harz

John didn't have to after Karr announced on national news that he was responsible of JB's death, but he did thought about leaving the country before Karr's announcement. :) IMO

YEP..he sure did think about it...it was all over the news. My guess is, that his lawyer talked him out of it. Probably telling him that it would make him look guilty, if John Karr didn't pan out. IMO And, also IMO...I think that John R. KNEW that John Karr wouldn't turn out to be the killer, because John R. sees the killer of his daughter, every single time he looks in the mirror. IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-23-2006, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
TWW, you are so right, the evidence keeps coming back to them and does not exonerate either one of them...why??????

When John Karr confessed John Ramsey must have been shocked....he would be the most shocked....for he knows what happened.

I know. Remember he made the statement that he wasn't going to be quick to judge Karrs' guilt because he knew how it felt or some crap like that. You sure could tell that he knew it was a fake confession by his lack of enthusiasm. I know there have been other confessions before but this one should have seemed a lot more legit to him, given all that led up to it. Pam Paugh sure seemed to think they'd gotten their man.

I really don't understand how a person can live with themselves after brutally murdering someone, let alone your own child but it happens all the time.
I had an aquintance in high school who was stabbed to death when she was 26 years old. She was 7 months pregnant and involved in a "love triangle". Those who were closest to her knew exactly who was responsible for her murder, if not being the actual murderer herself, yet this woman went on to live her life for 10 years before the case was reopened. The womans body was exhumed and the murderer was arrested and convicted based on a bite mark on her cheek. There was a lot of controversy over whether it was an actual bite mark or livor mortis but the killer is in prison now and that's all that matters.
It was a very horrifying murder. She "gutted" this pregnant woman like a deer. I often wonder if her boyfriend wasn't in on it as well since there was no forced entry into the home and there was no way this woman would let that other woman in her house.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. It just boggles my mind how people who do this kind of thing can just continue with their lives as if nothing ever happened. Like JR, this woman had no history of mental illness or criminal record...and yet it happened.

Da Wench

09-23-2006, 01:21 PM

I have no opinion on who killed JonBenet Ramsey. I keep trying to form an opinion, but there are too many contradictory things and too many things that cut both ways or just plain don't make sense no matter how you look at them.

But I'm completely bemused by people who insist there's no way, no chance, she could have been abused.

Here we have:

- a child whose physicality is highly over-sexualised, as seen on the pageant videos

- a child who has had several recent episodes of vaginitis

- a child of six who has regressed, not only to bed-wetting but to wetting during the day

- a child whose physical privacy boundaries are inappropriate (asking the nearest adult to wipe her)

- a child whose autopsy shows chronic inflammation of the vaginal mucosa and erosion of the hymen

All of these are accepted signs of abuse. Any one of those things, on its own, could easily be explained. Together, they add up, NOT by any means to proof of abuse, but to the possibility of abuse.

I don't know whether she was abused or not. But if I were given that list of signs, without being told what child they referred to - and therefore without having any preconceptions - I would think there was a possibility of abuse.

All this is, of course, JMO, but I'm completely bewildered by people who insist that there's no such possibility.

Athena

09-23-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
TWW, you are so right, the evidence keeps coming back to them and does not exonerate either one of them...why??????

When John Karr confessed John Ramsey must have been shocked....he would be the most shocked....for he knows what happened.

I do not believe Karr killed JBR either but how can you say the evidence points to the Ramseys? There was NO evidence which is why the Ramseys hadn't been arrested in the first place. Too many questions and no answers.

The BPD knew that there was no evidence that could be presented to the Grand Jury that would be convincing and what little they did have was because the Ramseys lived in the house and could be easily explained.

There were over 4000 hairs and fibers found. They admitted it would be an enormous and tedius task to try to identify every fiber that had been found on or around JBR’s body. The BPD tried as hard as they could but could NOT find a match for the fibers found on JBR’s labia or on her inner thighs and they DID NOT match the Ramseys. The BPD admitted they were stumped.

The results of other DNA testing were inconclusive but the BPD nevertheless excluded suspects based on the fingernail DNA even though it was contaminated. Even Barry Sheck told them they couldn’t have their cake and eat it. He told them you can’t say the DNA is iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. He even recommended they use newer types of PCR testing. During the presentation they made that would also be presented to the Grand Jury – the DNA evidence and the test results were the weakest part of this case.

Thomas even went so far as to say the Ramseys should just be arrested for probable cause and the audience basically laughed at him. He believed it would make Patsy confess if she were arrested. Thomas and his cronies did not even consider any other suspects.

This was all taken out of PMPT and since this book was written the DNA was isolated and all of those suspects that were excluded including Fleet White and Chris Wolf should have been re-tested. In PMPT also there was additional information turned over by White to the BPD that in their opinion was so old and late they had a problem with his credibility and his info was questionable. The only one that believed White to be innocent was Thomas. jmo

circulon

09-23-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I do not believe Karr killed JBR either but how can you say the evidence points to the Ramseys? There was NO evidence which is why the Ramseys hadn't been arrested in the first place. Too many questions and no answers.

The BPD knew that there was no evidence that could be presented to the Grand Jury that would be convincing and what little they did have was because the Ramseys lived in the house and could be easily explained.

There were over 4000 hairs and fibers found. They admitted it would be an enormous and tedius task to try to identify every fiber that had been found on or around JBR’s body. The BPD tried as hard as they could but could NOT find a match for the fibers found on JBR’s labia or on her inner thighs and they DID NOT match the Ramseys. The BPD admitted they were stumped.

The results of other DNA testing were inconclusive but the BPD nevertheless excluded suspects based on the fingernail DNA even though it was contaminated. Even Barry Sheck told them they couldn’t have their cake and eat it. He told them you can’t say the DNA is iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. He even recommended they use newer types of PCR testing. During the presentation they made that would also be presented to the Grand Jury – the DNA evidence and the test results were the weakest part of this case.

Thomas even went so far as to say the Ramseys should just be arrested for probable cause and the audience basically laughed at him. He believed it would make Patsy confess if she were arrested. Thomas and his cronies did not even consider any other suspects.

This was all taken out of PMPT and since this book was written the DNA was isolated and all of those suspects that were excluded including Fleet White and Chris Wolf should have been re-tested. In PMPT also there was additional information turned over by White to the BPD that in their opinion was so old and late they had a problem with his credibility and his info was questionable. The only one that believed White to be innocent was Thomas. jmo

How on earth can you say there was no evidence? The BPD had so many reasons to investigate the Ramseys, and were stonewalled by the DA every single time! The DA refused to issue warrants. The cheif of police was a hippy 'cant we all just get along' type of guy who made stupid public statements that werent consistent with the truth. The DA did everything they could to keep Boulders reputation clean and unmarked.
If the BPD didnt have any proof and evidence, its because they werent allowed to investigate like they would have any other murder.
The BPD tried, and it was idiots like Arndt, Koby, Hunter and DeMuth (and that fool Smit) who got in their way as much as possible.

circulon

09-23-2006, 02:39 PM

posted by Athena:
"Thomas and his cronies did not even consider any other suspects."

Thats absolute trash, and it really makes me mad everytime i hear someone parrot it.
They followed every lead they were given, including too many bogus leads supplied by the DA and Team Ramsey. For once i have a link:
http://www.khow.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=fullshow_boyles.xml

Scroll down to find the interview with Jeff Merrick.

thewhitewitch1

09-23-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I do not believe Karr killed JBR either but how can you say the evidence points to the Ramseys? There was NO evidence which is why the Ramseys hadn't been arrested in the first place. Too many questions and no answers.

The BPD knew that there was no evidence that could be presented to the Grand Jury that would be convincing and what little they did have was because the Ramseys lived in the house and could be easily explained.

There were over 4000 hairs and fibers found. They admitted it would be an enormous and tedius task to try to identify every fiber that had been found on or around JBR’s body. The BPD tried as hard as they could but could NOT find a match for the fibers found on JBR’s labia or on her inner thighs and they DID NOT match the Ramseys. The BPD admitted they were stumped.

The results of other DNA testing were inconclusive but the BPD nevertheless excluded suspects based on the fingernail DNA even though it was contaminated. Even Barry Sheck told them they couldn’t have their cake and eat it. He told them you can’t say the DNA is iffy and then exclude people because their DNA doesn’t match. He even recommended they use newer types of PCR testing. During the presentation they made that would also be presented to the Grand Jury – the DNA evidence and the test results were the weakest part of this case.

Thomas even went so far as to say the Ramseys should just be arrested for probable cause and the audience basically laughed at him. He believed it would make Patsy confess if she were arrested. Thomas and his cronies did not even consider any other suspects.

This was all taken out of PMPT and since this book was written the DNA was isolated and all of those suspects that were excluded including Fleet White and Chris Wolf should have been re-tested. In PMPT also there was additional information turned over by White to the BPD that in their opinion was so old and late they had a problem with his credibility and his info was questionable. The only one that believed White to be innocent was Thomas. jmo

Well, some of us believe that ALL of the evidence points towards them. Just because it is not the kind of evidence that the police need to make an arrest does not make it any less evidence.
We've all gone into what specifically points the finger towards the Ramseys so I'm not going to go into that again.
The entire intruder theory is so farfetched that it could be a plot from a very bad movie. IMO

circulon

09-23-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Well, some of us believe that ALL of the evidence points towards them. Just because it is not the kind of evidence that the police need to make an arrest does not make it any less evidence.
We've all gone into what specifically points the finger towards the Ramseys so I'm not going to go into that again.
The entire intruder theory is so farfetched that it could be a plot from a very bad movie. IMO

:beer:
Well said, TWW! I could not possibly agree more!

circulon

09-23-2006, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
INCLUDE ME TWW !
I want a membership jacket on this POV...

strong CE is good enough for some LE, if we were anywhere but BOULDER they would be in their cells...IMO

in BOULDER they are in the stone ages or have rocks for brains :tongue:

That is so true, Vic. Anywhere but Boulder and they both would have gone straight to prison, IMO.
I'll take a jacket too.
Hey, i have a t-shirt company. Maybe i should make t-shirts that say "Ramsey's did it!" :biggrin:

bullmoose

09-23-2006, 04:32 PM

Not everyone thinks the evidence, circumstancial or whatever, points at the Ram,seys as being in any way responsible. If all the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury, which needs a much less convincing burden of proof than a trial does was not strong enough to idict anyone, then the evidence would certainly not have convicted anyone. Anywhere else than Boulder, the cops would probably have taken the offered help from the FBI and others who knew what they were doing; maybe competant cops would have solved the case. The BPD of 1996 did a horrible job by choice, they wanted the glory of solving the case, but probably ensured that it would never be solved. bullmoose

MyrDawn

09-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Not everyone thinks the evidence, circumstancial or whatever, points at the Ram,seys as being in any way responsible. If all the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury, which needs a much less convincing burden of proof than a trial does was not strong enough to idict anyone, then the evidence would certainly not have convicted anyone. Anywhere else than Boulder, the cops would probably have taken the offered help from the FBI and others who knew what they were doing; maybe competant cops would have solved the case. The BPD of 1996 did a horrible job by choice, they wanted the glory of solving the case, but probably ensured that it would never be solved. bullmoose

:beer:

Athena

09-23-2006, 04:53 PM

MissOtisRegrets

09-23-2006, 05:14 PM

I don't know where it is now, but someone posted that Christmas would not be a likely day for an intruder to enter a home. Where I live we receive warnings each Christmas from the police about this in relation to burglary. Entire families leave together for hours. The gifts under the tree are sometimes gone, when they return.

diplomat

09-23-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen

By saying that, you are calling Karr a liar and ruining his life beyond recovery. When, in fact, Karr didn't say he killed her. He said he was there when she died. He has expressed intense anger at the Boulder police, calling them incompetent for years in his writings and conversations, for not being able to solve the crime.

He also said in Thailand, "I can't tell you what happened right now, it would take too long, but it is not what people think."

Some people even suggest Karr is not man enough to kill her, and so therefore he's worse than a murderer. That ruins Karr's life for coming forward after Boulder police couldn't solve it.

And his handwriting matches the ransom note.

I am beginning to think Boulder police are covering up for important people who are behind the crime. I think the police know what happened, and that is the real story here. John Karr wants to tell what happened; but they (all the way up to secret service handwriting experts who say "Oh no, the handwrig is not similar") don't want Karr to tell the story.

John Karr could be indicted by a Grand Jury based on the handwriting.

Poor old John Karr's computer has been misplaced. I'm not sure if that is good or bad news for him since he seems to want to be convicted of something. It would truly be beyond ironic if John Karr really killed JB.

Athena

09-23-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
:D Great shirt... I would wear one....

I have a few slogans how about...

'I AM the bad that happens to bad people'....:tongue:

'If you can read this shirt you are standing too close to this person'

seriously though...C if people started wearing shirts etc it may cause enough attention that the case may break or John will....if we cannot wait him out we can 'force' him out....

Oh please -- John and his family have been to hell and back and I certainly don't think a t-shirt is going to change a thing - you can't coerce a confession from someone who has not done anything wrong! jmo

diplomat

09-23-2006, 10:20 PM

thewhitewitch1

09-23-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Name the evidence please.

You've got to be kidding. Haven't you been reading all of the threads? I don't have the time nor inclination to rehash what has already been written. You must be ignoring anything written that isn't pro-Ramsey.
Screw the Grand Jury. There wasn't enough evidence to take them to court and they didn't because they knew that they could not convict them based on the evidence they do have. Not everyone has the kind of money that can hire the best lawyers to keep their asses out of jail. Am I saying that's one of the reasons that GJ didn't indict them? You bet I am. If this had been some poor person, they'd be in prison right now.
It's a well known fact that people with money and a position in society get away with a whole lot more than poor folk do.
Why don't you give us your evidence of an intruder that can't be torn apart as staging...and forget the DNA. That isn't worth a dime as far as I'm concerned.
You don't seem to understand that most of us have considered the intruder theory and have discarded it as crap. We keep telling you we don't want the Ramseys to be guilty (why would we??) but we are playing slueths here and trying to do it impartially and the evidence against the Ramseys is there whether you like it or not.
I do not understand how you could be studying this case and still not have a doubt in your mind about their innocence. I think the truth is that you don't want them to be guilty (why??) and that is why you seem not to pay attention to anything that throws suspicion on them. So maybe you need to ask yourself "why do I want so badly for them not to have done this?"

thewhitewitch1

09-23-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
"It would truly be beyond ironic if John Karr really killed JB."

No, John Karr didn't kill JonBenet. John Karr was there. The authorities want to cover up something. John Karr is placed on the scene by his handwriting. It's a 100% match. No Grand Jury would not indict.

But to say he didn't kill her and the DNA proves it so he is a wannabe. You weren't listening to him. He never said he killed her.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. He did admit to killing her. He admitted it in the e-mails and phone calls to that professor. Surely you don't believe that the police haven't withheld certain facts of the murder to the public.
Karr is a nutcase and had nothing to do with JB's murder and he was not with the person who did it either. Furthermore, who really cares how "ruined" his life is because of this. I don't. He is a very sick person and needs to be removed from society. The fact that you think he is anything but a whackjob kind of makes you a rather scarey individual too. IMO

diplomat

09-23-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
I think he said to the professor, "I feel as though I killed her myself."

I don't think I have heard that phrase, would you have a link for that?

thewhitewitch1

09-24-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
No, but I remembered it. Now that I remember harder, I think it was in the phone tapes to the woman, not to the professor.

What woman would that be?

thewhitewitch1

09-24-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
I don't remember her name. The woman who recorded some phone calls and had a tape.
Here is an interesting link. His words to the professor. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html)

He is dancing around the issue. He doesn't want to come out and say that he killed her because he doesn't want to go to jail. Or wait...maybe he does. Don't know what he hoped to gain by all of this crap. The dude is delusional. He wasn't there. He didn't do it and he doesn't know who did.
I'm sure the police didn't release him just because his DNA didn't match. He was supposed to know something about the murder that nobody but the killer would know. Apparently he didn't.
The bobbleheaded pediphile weirdo was obsessed with JB and wrote himself into her story. Back to square one.

Mimi428

09-24-2006, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You don't seem to understand that most of us have considered the intruder theory and have discarded it as crap. We keep telling you we don't want the Ramseys to be guilty (why would we??) but we are playing slueths here and trying to do it impartially and the evidence against the Ramseys is there whether you like it or not.

I do not understand how you could be studying this case and still not have a doubt in your mind about their innocence. I think the truth is that you don't want them to be guilty (why??) and that is why you seem not to pay attention to anything that throws suspicion on them. So maybe you need to ask yourself "why do I want so badly for them not to have done this?"

<bandwidth snip>

:beer:

Thank you! Truer words never spoken, imo.

The IDI theories are the only ones which require... the improbable...
stacked on top of the implausible...
combined with the incredible...
mixed in with the illogical...
tossed around with the flimsy...
sandwiched between the irrational...
stewed with the unreasonable...
and poured into the bowl of IDI.

The one & the ONLY case that demands so much defiance of logic & historical record to support an IDI theory.

thewhitewitch1

09-24-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
Sure, he said a lot of weird things and his definition of murder is vague at best.

It's hard to have handwriting that close to a match, and talk about something that sincerely if he was not involved.

The police and authorities may have had some other motive besides coming to the honest conclusion he wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. The honest conclusion is, he was involved.

So you are saying that his obsession with having sex with little girls is normal? Or are you saying that we misunderstood what he meant by all of that.
I read every single one of his e-mails to Michael Tracey and what I got out of them is that the guy is mentally unbalanced and a threat to society, especially to children. You think this guy is some kind of hero?
Please do not damn me to hell for what I think or say. You don't have the power.
Also, Your honest conclusion is that he was involved.
I'm not going to sit here and debate this with you any more. This forum is about Jonbenet, not John Karr and as far as I am concerned, he is out of the picture.

thewhitewitch1

09-24-2006, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<bandwidth snip>

:beer:

Thank you! Truer words never spoken, imo.

The IDI theories are the only ones which require... the improbable...
stacked on top of the implausible...
combined with the incredible...
mixed in with the illogical...
tossed around with the flimsy...
sandwiched between the irrational...
stewed with the unreasonable...
and poured into the bowl of IDI.

The one & the ONLY case that demands so much defiance of logic & historical record to support an IDI theory.

:beer:

That about sums it up!

harz

09-24-2006, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
After reading 13 pages of his correspondence with the professor, I can see where a lot of the hatred and misunderstanding about John Karr comes from.

I am a person who always sees others in the best possible light. I take them at their word, and don't conclude they are crazy.

In our country, you are innocent until proven guilty. In real life, that would mean you assume someone is telling the truth until you know beyond a shadow of doubt he is not.

In the Old Testament there were Ten Commandments. Few people realize in the New Testament there is one.

A commandment is defined as: if you do this act you will be punished for it, like, if you murder, if you steal, if you commit adultery, covet, etc; bad things will happen to you. For example if you covet you will never be happy with yourself or anything you have, and that’s a bad thing.

Okay, so, in the New Testament there is one and only one commandment. The commandment is “If you call your brother a fool (or a nutcase) you are in danger of hell fire. It is no less bad for him than if you had murdered him.”

The news media has made it standard that we should all believe John Karr is a nutcase. In that way we have murdered him, and we have broken the only Law God kept intact after he covered the rest of the Law with his sacrifice on the cross.

You can see the genius of Christianity when you realize that by thinking a person is a fool you have done the worst thing you can do to him. That’s the only Law God kept intact after he covered all the other Laws with his blood. He gave that as a commandment in the New Testament, and it was genius.

Now you are ruining John Karr’s life when in fact he could be a hero. If Lee Harvey Oswald had been able to tell all about all the people he worked with in assassinating John Kennedy, we could have removed those people from our country and we would have a very much better country today. But Oswald was murdered to keep him from talking.

I think people in high places were behind the kidnapping. I take the ransom note as a statement of their motives. That is my opinion.

Many of John Karr's words are very emotional and highly prone to be misunderstood.

But I don't tend to see anything as a ruse, and I take everything at face value. That approach might solve this crime. I am sure John Karr was there. I want to know the rest of his story, and he wants to tell it, and someone is trying to stop him: all the elements of a good story.

You forgot to mention about Mark Klaas's connection to this lol.

MOO

Ames

09-24-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You've got to be kidding. Haven't you been reading all of the threads? I don't have the time nor inclination to rehash what has already been written. You must be ignoring anything written that isn't pro-Ramsey.
Screw the Grand Jury. There wasn't enough evidence to take them to court and they didn't because they knew that they could not convict them based on the evidence they do have. Not everyone has the kind of money that can hire the best lawyers to keep their asses out of jail. Am I saying that's one of the reasons that GJ didn't indict them? You bet I am. If this had been some poor person, they'd be in prison right now.
It's a well known fact that people with money and a position in society get away with a whole lot more than poor folk do.
Why don't you give us your evidence of an intruder that can't be torn apart as staging...and forget the DNA. That isn't worth a dime as far as I'm concerned.
You don't seem to understand that most of us have considered the intruder theory and have discarded it as crap. We keep telling you we don't want the Ramseys to be guilty (why would we??) but we are playing slueths here and trying to do it impartially and the evidence against the Ramseys is there whether you like it or not.
I do not understand how you could be studying this case and still not have a doubt in your mind about their innocence. I think the truth is that you don't want them to be guilty (why??) and that is why you seem not to pay attention to anything that throws suspicion on them. So maybe you need to ask yourself "why do I want so badly for them not to have done this?"

Its almost like the Pro-Ramsey's think that they "know" them, somehow, and maybe feel a connection or something. Because, they think that they "know" them, they are turing a blind eye to the obvious...which is...THERE WAS NO INTRUDER. It tears me up to think (or KNOW, rather) that JB was killed by her own parent/parents. What must have been going through that little girls mind, when all of that was happening to her, by the hands of the people that she loved so much. It is just SO sad, but...like it or NOT, there is NO evidence of an intruder. Chances are, none of the posters here even KNOW the Ramsey's, so how in the world could they possibly know what went on behind the Ramsey's closed doors. You cannot watch a couple of interviews and/or read their book, and think that you possibly know them, because you DON'T. EARTH TO PRO-RAMSEY'S.....THERE WAS NO INTRUDER!!! IMO

breezy1234

09-24-2006, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Its almost like the Pro-Ramsey's think that they "know" them, somehow, and maybe feel a connection or something. Because, they think that they "know" them, they are turing a blind eye to the obvious...which is...THERE WAS NO INTRUDER. It tears me up to think (or KNOW, rather) that JB was killed by her own parent/parents. What must have been going through that little girls mind, when all of that was happening to her, by the hands of the people that she loved so much. It is just SO sad, but...like it or NOT, there is NO evidence of an intruder. Chances are, none of the posters here even KNOW the Ramsey's, so how in the world could they possibly know what went on behind the Ramsey's closed doors. You cannot watch a couple of interviews and/or read their book, and think that you possibly know them, because you DON'T. EARTH TO PRO-RAMSEY'S.....THERE WAS NO INTRUDER!!! IMO

EARTH TO ANTI RAMSEY'S, you do not KNOW there was no intruder! How could YOU possibly KNOW what went on behind closed doors? :rolleyes:

circulon

09-24-2006, 07:12 AM

These debates honestly make me so annoyed. Pro-Ramseys, i cant believe you are all so naive. Like the sensible, so called "anti-Ramseys" have said, the intruder theory is improbable, implausible, incredible and most of all, ILLOGICAL! (Well said, Mimi).
You keep parroting the same nonsense about how the BPD never looked away from the Ramseys and the Judge Judy woman couldnt convict, therefore they MUST have been innocent, etc etc.
All of those things are, as i said, nonsense; things that have been made up and spread for IDI's to cling to.
And like TWW said, you dont seem to actually learning anything real about the case.
If you are really so into it, why havent you got your facts straight?

And i agree with TWW on another point: JMK has nothing to do with this. He inserted himself into the case for whatever bizarre reason, and has now been let go. He didnt do it, we all know it. Why are we wasting our time bringing him into it again?

Da Wench

09-24-2006, 12:40 PM

To be honest, I'm confused by anyone who's 100% positive either that the Ramseys did it or that an intruder did it, and who presents that as fact rather than opinion.

There is evidence that points towards the Ramseys. To me, it's utterly bizarre to say that there isn't. There's also evidence that points away from them, and to me, it's bizarre to say that there isn't. I see people performing the most incredible contortions in order to ignore one set of evidence or the other, and I don't understand it.

My gut feeling leans slightly towards the idea that one of the Ramseys killed their child, but I don't consider that to be fact. I don't consider it to be evidence. I don't even consider it to be enough to count as an opinion. It's just a slight, vague hunch.

I just don't think there's any way to be 100% certain based on the facts we've got.

breezy1234

09-24-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by circulon
These debates honestly make me so annoyed. Pro-Ramseys, i cant believe you are all so naive. Like the sensible, so called "anti-Ramseys" have said, the intruder theory is improbable, implausible, incredible and most of all, ILLOGICAL! (Well said, Mimi).
You keep parroting the same nonsense about how the BPD never looked away from the Ramseys and the Judge Judy woman couldnt convict, therefore they MUST have been innocent, etc etc.
All of those things are, as i said, nonsense; things that have been made up and spread for IDI's to cling to.
And like TWW said, you dont seem to actually learning anything real about the case.
If you are really so into it, why havent you got your facts straight?

And i agree with TWW on another point: JMK has nothing to do with this. He inserted himself into the case for whatever bizarre reason, and has now been let go. He didnt do it, we all know it. Why are we wasting our time bringing him into it again?

Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét

R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily Report
04-07-2003

Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

circulon

09-24-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét

R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily Report
04-07-2003

Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

After reading all the literature, i can easily say that i dont see any evidence that points to an intruder. Lou Smits 'evidence' is grasping-at-straws, if-i-twist-this-it-loooks-like-this baloney.
The fed. judge that did that hearing did not see all the evidence; she was presented with only what was relevant to the hearing - which was not whether or not the R's were guilty.
Are you not aware that the police were not allowed to follow up on the Ramseys to gather evidence? The case was botched from the start - if it had been investigated properly, with the crime scene roped off so that nobody could walk around it (instead of 100's of people), then i believe that there would have plenty of evidence to support the RDI theory.
As it was, nothing was done properly at the start, and the whole case was ruined. Now i think we'll never know who dunnit. At least, not while JR is alive.

WallyCleaver

09-24-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Da Wench
To be honest, I'm confused by anyone who's 100% positive either that the Ramseys did it or that an intruder did it, and who presents that as fact rather than opinion.

There is evidence that points towards the Ramseys. To me, it's utterly bizarre to say that there isn't. There's also evidence that points away from them, and to me, it's bizarre to say that there isn't. I see people performing the most incredible contortions in order to ignore one set of evidence or the other, and I don't understand it.

My gut feeling leans slightly towards the idea that one of the Ramseys killed their child, but I don't consider that to be fact. I don't consider it to be evidence. I don't even consider it to be enough to count as an opinion. It's just a slight, vague hunch.

I just don't think there's any way to be 100% certain based on the facts we've got.

Well said. Though I lean hard towards RDI, I leave a little room for intruder theory - though frankly I find IDI theories unconvincing. But I do agree we can't be 100% certain.

Ames

09-24-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

EARTH TO ANTI RAMSEY'S, you do not KNOW there was no intruder! How could YOU possibly KNOW what went on behind closed doors? :rolleyes:

DO NOT ROLL YOUR EYES AT ME! No, I do not know the Ramseys...nor do I know what went on behind their doors. BUT , I DO know that the intruder evidence does NOT exist. I am using common sense. Why don't YOU try it?

Ames

09-24-2006, 05:37 PM

Da Wench

09-24-2006, 06:16 PM

See, Wally, I can completely understand that - leaning hard towards the idea that the Ramseys did it. It's the people who are 100% certain who bewilder me.

Maybe I'm a natural fence-sitter, though. The only other case I've ever followed was the Scott Peterson one, and it took me ages to have an opinion on that. (I thought he was guilty.) Either that or I only get interested in the most mixed-up, hard-to-call cases.

rosebud

09-24-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Oh please -- John and his family have been to hell and back and I certainly don't think a t-shirt is going to change a thing - you can't coerce a confession from someone who has not done anything wrong! jmo

What evidence is there that an intruder did it?

Ames

09-24-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Da Wench
See, Wally, I can completely understand that - leaning hard towards the idea that the Ramseys did it. It's the people who are 100% certain who bewilder me.

Maybe I'm a natural fence-sitter, though. The only other case I've ever followed was the Scott Peterson one, and it took me ages to have an opinion on that. (I thought he was guilty.) Either that or I only get interested in the most mixed-up, hard-to-call cases.

And I am not 100 percent certain either, just 99.9 percent. I wasn't there though, and have no idea who did it, but, I do have a gut feeling that the Ramsey's are involved, somehow. One or both of them...I do NOT want to believe it...but, the intruder theory just does not add up to me. And really, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, and I am not trying to change anyones views. I only know what I believe...its not my job to try and convince other people. (As the saying goes....opinions are like butts...eveyone has one) I knew the minute that I saw Scott Peterson's smirky look, that he was guilty as sin...and I couldn't care less what the jury says, OJ Simpson is guilty too, as the civil suit proved. The justice system is not always fair...there are probably thousands of innocent people sitting in jail right now, and on the other hand, thousands of people that have committed crimes, that have actually gotten away with it. IMO

LindaA

09-24-2006, 08:46 PM

the RDI folks seem to find it necessary to resort to shouting and sarcasm to make their points...

Ames

09-24-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
the RDI folks seem to find it necessary to resort to shouting and sarcasm to make their points...

Not sure what RDI means...unless it stands for Ramsey's did it...if thats the case, I am not one that has resorted to shouting or sarcasm. Wasn't real clear on who exactly you were referring to. IM0

thewhitewitch1

09-24-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét

R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily Report
04-07-2003

Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm

What kind of evidence do they want? Pictures of them actually doing it? How ridiculous to say that there is NO evidence that they killed her. How about the body being found in their home? How about most of the crime scene articles belonging to the Ramseys? I could go on and on but what is the point.
I'm sure that these things alone cannot be used to convict the Ramseys because all they point to is suspicion. It does not mean that the Ramseys didn't do it. IMO
(ok...so I was a little sarcastic but I did use my "indoor voice") :D

Ames

09-24-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What kind of evidence do they want? Pictures of them actually doing it? How ridiculous to say that there is NO evidence that they killed her. How about the body being found in their home? How about most of the crime scene articles belonging to the Ramseys? I could go on and on but what is the point.
I'm sure that these things alone cannot be used to convict the Ramseys because all they point to is suspicion. It does not mean that the Ramseys didn't do it. IMO
(ok...so I was a little sarcastic but I did use my "indoor voice") :D

You are absolutely right! I heard a newslady say, while covering the Scott Peterson trial, in a case of "circumstantial evidence", you have to take pieces of the puzzle (being the evidence), and when you start putting the puzzle together piece by piece, when you are done, you have a picture of the murderer. The same applies to the JB case. Think of ALL of the evidence as puzzle pieces, put them all together, and what do you have...IMO...a picture of the Ramsey's. (IMO)

diplomat

09-24-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Da Wench
To be honest, I'm confused by anyone who's 100% positive either that the Ramseys did it or that an intruder did it, and who presents that as fact rather than opinion.

There is evidence that points towards the Ramseys. To me, it's utterly bizarre to say that there isn't. There's also evidence that points away from them, and to me, it's bizarre to say that there isn't. I see people performing the most incredible contortions in order to ignore one set of evidence or the other, and I don't understand it.

My gut feeling leans slightly towards the idea that one of the Ramseys killed their child, but I don't consider that to be fact. I don't consider it to be evidence. I don't even consider it to be enough to count as an opinion. It's just a slight, vague hunch.

I just don't think there's any way to be 100% certain based on the facts we've got.

Yet evidently some have convinced themselves beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other.

diplomat

09-24-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by circulon

After reading all the literature, i can easily say that i dont see any evidence that points to an intruder. Lou Smits 'evidence' is grasping-at-straws, if-i-twist-this-it-loooks-like-this baloney.
The fed. judge that did that hearing did not see all the evidence; she was presented with only what was relevant to the hearing - which was not whether or not the R's were guilty.
Are you not aware that the police were not allowed to follow up on the Ramseys to gather evidence? The case was botched from the start - if it had been investigated properly, with the crime scene roped off so that nobody could walk around it (instead of 100's of people), then i believe that there would have plenty of evidence to support the RDI theory.
As it was, nothing was done properly at the start, and the whole case was ruined. Now i think we'll never know who dunnit. At least, not while JR is alive.

If there is someone posting here who has solved more cases than Lou Smit stand up and be counted. To say that a professional like Lou Smit is grasping at straws is far fetched. He gave his opinion and whether you agree with it or not, I don't think he created a theory from grasping at straws. JMO

lucky13

09-24-2006, 10:31 PM

I have to say....I am totally convinced that there was NO intruder in this case. All of these years, I've yet to hear a reasonable intruder theory. Sure, an idea here & there, but never a beginning to end scenario that made any sense. There is no evidence of anyone else being in that house besides the family. It seems there would be lots of peoples fingerprints, handprints, fibers, etc. all throughout the house. There had been kids over on Christmas day playing with JB & Burke & their new CMas toys. And hadn't the Ramseys just had some people over on the 23rd for a dinner or something? Someone did some extensive cleaning if you ask me. Lots of 'wiping down'. And they put the pen & notepad back in their original places. They wipe down JB & redress her. They 'strangle' her from behind so they wouldn't have to see her face?! The ropes on her wrists are so loose they serve no purpose other than a strange staging attempt. They cover her up with her blanket.( Sounds like someone who really cares IMO.) They took all that time to give all those instructions & details for a kidnapping, & then leave the intended victim. All of this took a long time. They do all of this without waking the family, & in the dark inside of a house that is like a maze. They knew the burgler alarm wasn't activated, knew the dog was not there, knew they'de be able to find every single thing they needed to pull off this planned?(yeah, right) attack/murder.....I could go on & on but theres no point. It seems SO obvious.... I just don't see how anyone can believe that the Ramseys are innocent. Sorry. MOO

rosebud

09-24-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

If there is someone posting here who has solved more cases than Lou Smit stand up and be counted. To say that a professional like Lou Smit is grasping at straws is far fetched. He gave his opinion and whether you agree with it or not, I don't think he created a theory from grasping at straws. JMO

He may not have been grasping at straws. He may have been paid off.

lucky13

09-24-2006, 10:43 PM

Lou Smit??? No offense to anyone, but every time I see that picture of him coming through that window I have to laugh. His hands are touching everything around & his rear end is literally dragging across the bottom of the window sill. If that's how HE thinks the intruder came in, why didn't this intruder at least leave his fibers from coming through that window? And without disturbing the dust? Did he fly in? Jump in without touching the window sill at all? And how lucky was that intruder that there was a suitcase there just for his convenience.... Oy.

Ames

09-24-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
I have to say....I am totally convinced that there was NO intruder in this case. All of these years, I've yet to hear a reasonable intruder theory. Sure, an idea here & there, but never a beginning to end scenario that made any sense. There is no evidence of anyone else being in that house besides the family. It seems there would be lots of peoples fingerprints, handprints, fibers, etc. all throughout the house. There had been kids over on Christmas day playing with JB & Burke & their new CMas toys. And hadn't the Ramseys just had some people over on the 23rd for a dinner or something? Someone did some extensive cleaning if you ask me. Lots of 'wiping down'. And they put the pen & notepad back in their original places. They wipe down JB & redress her. They 'strangle' her from behind so they wouldn't have to see her face?! The ropes on her wrists are so loose they serve no purpose other than a strange staging attempt. They cover her up with her blanket.( Sounds like someone who really cares IMO.) They took all that time to give all those instructions & details for a kidnapping, & then leave the intended victim. All of this took a long time. They do all of this without waking the family, & in the dark inside of a house that is like a maze. They knew the burgler alarm wasn't activated, knew the dog was not there, knew they'de be able to find every single thing they needed to pull off this planned?(yeah, right) attack/murder.....I could go on & on but theres no point. It seems SO obvious.... I just don't see how anyone can believe that the Ramseys are innocent. Sorry. MOO

Excellent post!! Like I said before in one of my other posts...the circumstantial evidence is like puzzle pieces...you place each piece one at a time, until you have a picture...the picture, in this case, is of the Ramseys. IMO

Ames

09-24-2006, 10:50 PM

harz

09-24-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Lucky, maybe the intruder used Pixie Dust. :D
No intruder entered through that window..no way, no how. It didn't happen! IMO

Lol, with that much activities inside Ramsey house that nite, I think the intruder would need dustbuster or bigger vacuum to cover all of his traces. That would wake up everybody, would it? :D Obviously JB's death & the staging was an inside job. An outside job? nah, never was.

MOO

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
Lou Smit??? No offense to anyone, but every time I see that picture of him coming through that window I have to laugh. His hands are touching everything around & his rear end is literally dragging across the bottom of the window sill. If that's how HE thinks the intruder came in, why didn't this intruder at least leave his fibers from coming through that window? And without disturbing the dust? Did he fly in? Jump in without touching the window sill at all? And how lucky was that intruder that there was a suitcase there just for his convenience.... Oy.

The intruder would not have needed a suitcase or other prop to get in the window, only to get out. And Lou Smit is an unusually tall man if you consider average heights as, well average. So it is a better than average possibility that the intruder was not the exact height and weight of Lou Smit, thus not requiring as much space to get in. Of course no one is going to like the Smit theory if they think a Ramsey killed JB. JMO

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

He may not have been grasping at straws. He may have been paid off.

I assume you are referring to Lou Smit. And who do you think paid him off, if this is your theory as opposed to a substantiated claim? Perhaps there is written proof of this, a cancelled check, an admission of a payoff?

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
I have to say....I am totally convinced that there was NO intruder in this case. All of these years, I've yet to hear a reasonable intruder theory. Sure, an idea here & there, but never a beginning to end scenario that made any sense. There is no evidence of anyone else being in that house besides the family. It seems there would be lots of peoples fingerprints, handprints, fibers, etc. all throughout the house. There had been kids over on Christmas day playing with JB & Burke & their new CMas toys. And hadn't the Ramseys just had some people over on the 23rd for a dinner or something? Someone did some extensive cleaning if you ask me. Lots of 'wiping down'. And they put the pen & notepad back in their original places. They wipe down JB & redress her. They 'strangle' her from behind so they wouldn't have to see her face?! The ropes on her wrists are so loose they serve no purpose other than a strange staging attempt. They cover her up with her blanket.( Sounds like someone who really cares IMO.) They took all that time to give all those instructions & details for a kidnapping, & then leave the intended victim. All of this took a long time. They do all of this without waking the family, & in the dark inside of a house that is like a maze. They knew the burgler alarm wasn't activated, knew the dog was not there, knew they'de be able to find every single thing they needed to pull off this planned?(yeah, right) attack/murder.....I could go on & on but theres no point. It seems SO obvious.... I just don't see how anyone can believe that the Ramseys are innocent. Sorry. MOO

So what was the motive for the Ramsey's to kill JB? An accidental killing would not have necessitated all that was done to JB. Just crack her skull, then write the ransom note, and be done with it. There was no need for all the rest, plus the fact that the more that was done, the better the chance for being caught. The more noise, the better the chance that Burke would awaken. Too much overkill for the Ramsey's to have been involved. This was a very angry murder. JMO

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Well, some of us believe that ALL of the evidence points towards them. Just because it is not the kind of evidence that the police need to make an arrest does not make it any less evidence.
We've all gone into what specifically points the finger towards the Ramseys so I'm not going to go into that again.
The entire intruder theory is so farfetched that it could be a plot from a very bad movie. IMO

And speaking of movies, those were some very bad lines from movies used in that ransom note.

Athena

09-25-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

He may not have been grasping at straws. He may have been paid off.

Wow. I hope you really do not believe that. He was hired as a Consultant by the DA's office. Whether he's right or wrong I don't believe after 33 years - the man would jeopardize his integrity. He is working for JBR not the Ramseys. jmo

Athena

09-25-2006, 01:49 AM

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Athena

The suitcase wasn't just there. Fibers from the blanket inside that suitcase were found on JBR's body which indicates the suitcase was opened for whatever reason and that blanket was placed in there and the suitcase moved. In addition to that Fleet White also admitted picking up the glass and moving the suitcase under the window. jmo

I thought fiber evidence wasn't conclusive. I also don't remember reading that those blanket fibers were found on JB.
So if FW moved the suitcase under the window, there goes Lou Smits intruder theory. Why doesn't Lou Smit know that FW moved the suitcase or put the piece of glass on it?? :shrug:

Athena

09-25-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I thought fiber evidence wasn't conclusive. I also don't remember reading that those blanket fibers were found on JB.
So if FW moved the suitcase under the window, there goes Lou Smits intruder theory. Why doesn't Lou Smit know that FW moved the suitcase or put the piece of glass on it?? :shrug:

Good morning TWW:

The blanket fibers being found and identified were in a response by Thomas in his depo given to a series of questions re: fiber. Maybe he said "consistent with" don't remember his exact words but do know that he said they were found on JBR.

As far as the suitcase being moved don't know if Smit knew or not - guess he was going by Police photos. The better question in my mind is why did Fleet White pick up that glass and move the suitcase? jmo

MyrDawn

09-25-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
Lou Smit??? No offense to anyone, but every time I see that picture of him coming through that window I have to laugh. His hands are touching everything around & his rear end is literally dragging across the bottom of the window sill. If that's how HE thinks the intruder came in, why didn't this intruder at least leave his fibers from coming through that window? And without disturbing the dust? Did he fly in? Jump in without touching the window sill at all? And how lucky was that intruder that there was a suitcase there just for his convenience.... Oy.

Take a look at the closeup pictures of that window and the surrounding area on this site. There are signs of disturbance:
http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm

The dirt on the window sill definitely look like it's been disturbed.

There is a black streak like mark on the wall underneath the window that could have been made by a shoe.

The foliage is pinched UNDER the leading edge of the grate, like the grate was picked up then put back down, pinching the foliage. Maybe the police did that, maybe not. But, if they did, they were sloppy as heck and didn't care if they disturbed a crime scene. Who knows what other evidence they disturbed, if they'd do that!

There are what look like fingerprints near the top of the window frame, where the two windows join.

Now tell me there aren't any signs of distrubance around that window!

MyrDawn

09-25-2006, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I thought fiber evidence wasn't conclusive. I also don't remember reading that those blanket fibers were found on JB.
So if FW moved the suitcase under the window, there goes Lou Smits intruder theory. Why doesn't Lou Smit know that FW moved the suitcase or put the piece of glass on it?? :shrug:

Did FW move the suitcase away from the window or put it under the window? I've heard most often, including on LKL, that FW first found the suitcase directly under it up against the wall and he moved it away from the wall to where it shows in the pictures.

"The position of that suitcase when it was first observed there, by Fleet White, was that it was directly against the wall, directly underneath that open window..."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

LindaA

09-25-2006, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Not sure what RDI means...unless it stands for Ramsey's did it...if thats the case, I am not one that has resorted to shouting or sarcasm. Wasn't real clear on who exactly you were referring to. IM0

Not sure why this is unclear at this point. "RDI" has been shorthand for "Ramseys did it" and "IDI" hs been the same for "intruder did it" for quite some time around here. As a newbie, even I figured that out. I guess you would need a third category, "IDNWDI" for people like me -- "I don't know who did it."

Athena

09-25-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Take a look at the closeup pictures of that window and the surrounding area on this site. There are signs of disturbance:
http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm

The dirt on the window sill definitely look like it's been disturbed.

There is a black streak like mark on the wall underneath the window that could have been made by a shoe.

The foliage is pinched UNDER the leading edge of the grate, like the grate was picked up then put back down, pinching the foliage. Maybe the police did that, maybe not. But, if they did, they were sloppy as heck and didn't care if they disturbed a crime scene. Who knows what other evidence they disturbed, if they'd do that!

There are what look like fingerprints near the top of the window frame, where the two windows join.

Now tell me there aren't any signs of distrubance around that window!

In the link you provided there is a picture of someone who a stun gun was used on and there is a comparison between the marks on him and JBR.

Here is another link to the window: These are great pictures of the windows as well. You can do a comparison on the debris of left, right and broken windows and can see differences more clearly. You can also enlarge the pictures.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

rosebud

09-25-2006, 09:59 AM

John Ramsey said he broke the basement window weeks before that. So why was the glass from that break still on the floor under the window? Why did neither the housekeeper nor the groundskeeper remember seeing a broken basement window?
In winter in Colorado a millionaire doesn't have a basement window repaired for weeks?

Ames

09-25-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by harz

Lol, with that much activities inside Ramsey house that nite, I think the intruder would need dustbuster or bigger vacuum to cover all of his traces. That would wake up everybody, would it? :D Obviously JB's death & the staging was an inside job. An outside job? nah, never was.

MOO

I totally agree with ya!! :D imo

Ames

09-25-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

Not sure why this is unclear at this point. "RDI" has been shorthand for "Ramseys did it" and "IDI" hs been the same for "intruder did it" for quite some time around here. As a newbie, even I figured that out. I guess you would need a third category, "IDNWDI" for people like me -- "I don't know who did it."

Well, it wasn't unclear...I said in my post that I FIGURED thats what it meant...and I AM kinda a newbie...I haven't been posting long enough to know what all of the initials stand for. Thats a good one though, IDNWDI....I will remember that one. LOL IMO

MyrDawn

09-25-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Athena

In the link you provided there is a picture of someone who a stun gun was used on and there is a comparison between the marks on him and JBR.

Here is another link to the window: These are great pictures of the windows as well. You can do a comparison on the debris of left, right and broken windows and can see differences more clearly. You can also enlarge the pictures.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

Thanks, Athena! I hadn't see the pictures at that link before.

That picture of JonBenet's vace, clearly shows there are two marks there, and it says same distance apart as marks on back. The differences in size and shape could have occurred when one side of the stun gun made less contact with the skin than the other. Yet, people STILL say there's only one mark on her face from what might be a stun gun. :shrug:

I've heard for a long time about the leaves and debris from the window well were observed on the basement floor directly below the open window, but forgot to mention it in my previous post.

I don't understand how anyone can say there's no sign of disturbance by that window.

:beer: