Patsy and John Killed Their Daughter? [Archive]

nuisanceposter

08-19-2006, 11:13 AM

The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

On November 19, 2002, The Rocky Mountain News reported the unknown male DNA recovered from JonBenet's panties could have been left on the garment at the time the clothing was manufactured. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured in the plant in Southeast Asia, tested them and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
______________

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

nuisanceposter

08-19-2006, 11:17 AM

Focus Remains on Patsy Ramsey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13345463/

So many things don’t add up in the JonBenet Ramsey case even after that creepy reptile of a suspect was allowed to slither out of his Bangkok prison cell.

Last night I spoke to Patsy Ramsey’s sister on Scarborough Country.

She was obviously relieved that the world finally had a reason to divert their suspicions from her dead sister to a serial child molester. But investigators I am talking to on and off camera tell me that their focus remains on JonBenet’s mother.

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

Investigators say even taking the rap for a brutal murder will be a better deal if it gets him back on American soil.

Besides, they say his performance in the press conference was pathetic. One told me, "He looked like he was lying through his teeth."

Others still don’t buy Patsy Ramsey’s story. Remember after the murder how watching the slain girl’s mom made you feel uneasy in all those interviews? Her story didn’t seem to add up then and it doesn’t add up now.

athy

08-19-2006, 11:23 AM

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

what people seem to be constantly missing is that he wasn't in jail for anything having to do with Thailand. he was there ONLY at the request of the US LE for warrents in cali and jon benet. so if LE hadn't asked them to hold him he would still be out on the streets in Thailand.

cougermom

08-19-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by athy
Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

what people seem to be constantly missing is that he wasn't in jail for anything having to do with Thailand. he was there ONLY at the request of the US LE for warrents in cali and jon benet. so if LE hadn't asked them to hold him he would still be out on the streets in Thailand.
And if they "can`t get it" they surely want get,the Ramsey`s are good people who loves their children and had NOTHING to do with their daughters death..........CM

rosebud

08-20-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/feb_13.html

On November 19, 2002, The Rocky Mountain News reported the unknown male DNA recovered from JonBenet's panties could have been left on the garment at the time the clothing was manufactured. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured in the plant in Southeast Asia, tested them and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
______________

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

I don't find it surprising that fibers from a parent's clothing would find their way onto a six year old girl's clothes or body on Christmas Day. I think that is nothing.

A Grand Jury and a Federal Judge both found that the DNA evidence was compelling enough to cast doubt on the guilt of the Ramseys and to find that someone else might have or probably killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Lili007

08-20-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula
Even if it turns out that John Karr didn't kill JonBenet, I think LE should keep its focus on pedophiles, who lived in Boulder at the time or were visiting nearby relatives at the time, during the Christmas holiday.

As facts begin to unfold, we may learn that Karr is indeed the perp. But, I must say, that from what we know thus far, I am not convinced. However, if the DNA found beneath JBR's fingernails and on the blood spot found on her underpants matches Karr's, then there is no reasonable way it to have gotten there, unless he was at the crime scence itself.

John Karr researched this case obsessively, and probably knows more about it than almost anyone. Even the so-called details, which were never publically disclosed, could have reached him through someone close to the investigation who had either shared the info with him, or with someone else who shared it with him.

I'm most interested in that Santa teddy bear Jean Casares spoke of, which was found in JBR's bedroom when she was murdered - the same, or similar one, which belonged to Karr. That teddy bear could end up being a key piece of evidence in this case.

IMO

Hi Hey Paula,

If he researched this case in such depth that he knew details which hadn't been disclosed to "the public", why does he get such BASICS wrong as 'picked her up from school and took her to the Ramsey's basement", when everyone knows there was no school that day and that she was tucked in that night by her mother. And if Patsy is lying about that, I still don't think that JonBenet could have been absent from the house from the time "school finished" (ie early afternoon time, though there was NO school anyway) up until the time she was supposed to be in bed, without her parents missing her. A 6-year-old can't just 'not be there' for the afternoon, whole evening and night without her parents raising hell if that were the case.

So if Karr researched this case so obssessively, as I've no doubt he did, why make such a stupid statement?

I haven't heard about the teddy bear yet... please could you either post a link, or else just tell me where you heard/read it. Thanks :)

JMO,
Lili

PS - or just what you know about it

rosebud

08-20-2006, 08:24 AM

Even when I suspected that the Ramsey parents were involved in the death of JonBenet, one thing that always bothered me was the possible motive. I have never seen a believable one presented.

And while I can believe that a tired or angry and frustrated parent might accidently harm their own child, I cannot believe that John or Patsy would deliberately make a garrotte and strangle her with it. I was always troubled by that.

Neither John nor Patsy had any history of harming their children and we know of no evidence of it for the last ten years. Yet I am expected to believe that both of them apparently went nuts on one day and planned to murder their six year old daughter.

It never made any sense.

Lili007

08-20-2006, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

To me, that's not rational at all. If some factory-worker(s) had left their male DNA on JonBenet's panties is unlikely enough. But DNA was also recovered from under JonBenet's fingernails. If that DNA is NOT the same as that on the panties - supposedly left there 'by a factory worker', then the two will not match each other. On the other hand, if the two match each other, then either

1. the factory worker who left his DNA on the panties JonBenet was wearing is the same person who got his DNA caught under JonBenet's fingernails - OR

2. the DNA on the panties comes from a factory worker, but is different from the DNA cound under her fingernails, in which case the DNA from under her fingernails becomes the most likely to identify her killer.

There are various other possibilities and many permutations, but it really boils down to this very simple concept, IMO.

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

JonBenet would have had at least one set of panties changed and one set of clothes changed, and at least one bath by that stage, AFTER the Christmas party, I would hope.

So unless the killer/s wore the same type jackets or shirts on the following night when they kidnapped and killed JonBenet, whether by accident or not, why would those fibers still be there?

Anyway, I'm, getting carried away here, so I'll back off. But the more I read, the more I find it unlikely that this Karr had anything to do with it, unless he was somehow involved after the 'accident', or unless he's just plain delusional. Or maybe he's guilty, after all.

There - I've covered all grounds.

JMO,
Lili

nuisanceposter

08-20-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

<snip>

A Grand Jury and a Federal Judge

<snip>

The Civil Case

From: www.supportramsey.com

In March of 2003, United States District Judge Julie E Carnes issued a lengthy report, which stated, among other things:

a. "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so"

Link To: Judge Carnes Order March 31, 2003

What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters

What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters is that Judge Julie Carnes presided over a CIVIL lawsuit, in CIVIL court, a lawsuit filed by Chris Wolf against the Ramseys for defamation of character, after they named him as a murder suspect in their book, "Death of Innocence."

The Ramseys’ civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

That's right - over 40,000 pages of police documentation that Judge Carnes did not see. Pretty difficult to make a unbiased decision when your evidence is lacking in favor of the Ramseys.

________________________

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

____________________

Hunter's judgments about the case are no longer relevant because his term ended early 2001 when he chose not to run for re-election. Unfortunately, his successor doesn't show any more inclination to get to the bottom of the case than he did.

New D.A. Mary Keenan, who was an assistant D.A. under Hunter, didn't take any publicly known action on the case until nearly two years into her term, and then she did so only after receiving a letter from Ramsey attorney Wood informing her, according to press reports, that the Ramseys were considering suing Boulder unless they were exonerated.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm
_______________

Plus there's the recent CTV program about JonBenet where they interviewed a grand juror who said that she went into the jury proceedings unable to believe a parent could do to their child what was done to JonBenet (and she wasn't the only one.) So much for fair and unbiased jurors.

I find it very interesting that the grand jurors never heard from either the parents who were in the home at the time the child was killed nor the lead investigator, who, by PMPT author Lawrence Schiller's account, "may know what happened better than anyone."

TuscanDreams

08-20-2006, 10:24 AM

I don't know who killed JonBenet, but I don't believe it was Karr.

Lili007

08-20-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by TuscanDreams
I don't know who killed JonBenet, but I don't believe it was Karr.

Nor do I.

Apart from the discrepancies we've already talked about in various threads, the fact remains that he got his facts wrong. It has been suggested that he got those facts "wrong" on purpose, to avoid "real" prosecution. I don't think so, but that's JMO.

The interesting thing is, that, when he was asked to very minimally elaborate on his public confession, he kept saying "no comment".

I mean, after all, we have a self-confessed child abuser and murderer who has no problem proclaiming to the world that he'loved' JonBenet and that he was'with her when she died' and that 'it was an accident'. Case closed.

But then he says things like 'I picked her up from school and took herto the (Ramseys') basement. And then ... NO COMMENT.

ASSUMING HE DID ANYTHING AT ALL,

1. What did he do with JonBenet, and why

2. Why 'no comment'? as to anything else related, that the media might ask?

I just do not think he's the guy who killed JonBenet, at this stage.

JMO,
Lili

LI_Mom

08-20-2006, 12:30 PM

Thailand is retracting a lot of things they said Karr said.

I wonder if they really DID get their facts wrong or whether they were asked by the US authorities to back off.

Amy

08-20-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Focus Remains on Patsy Ramsey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13345463/

So many things don’t add up in the JonBenet Ramsey case even after that creepy reptile of a suspect was allowed to slither out of his Bangkok prison cell.

....snip....

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

Investigators say even taking the rap for a brutal murder will be a better deal if it gets him back on American soil.

....snip

He was arrested at his apartment, and despite initial reports that he had been arrested on unrelated sex charges in Thailand, Thai officials have denied this in all the news reports.

Not to say that, if he had not "confessed" to this crime, that they might have eventually arrested him. Sounds like they would rather have "undesirables" deported back to their homelands than to support them for years in prision.

And, perhaps JMK was aware that something was up, that he would probably be arrested on Thai charges, and indeed prefered a sentence in a US prison whether he was guilty or not, than to take the chance that he would rot in a Thai prison.

Just seems to me, he had logical (and while heinous--not as heinous as murder of a 6 y/o girl) charges against him in CA that he could have been extradited back to the US for. Unless he tho't those charges may not have been serious enough (child porn as opposed to child molestation) for the US to come after him?

LI_Mom

08-20-2006, 01:21 PM

I think they declared him an "undesribale" for political reasons only.

Instead of wading through extradition headaches bewteen the 2 countries, this is probably a much faster way to proceed.

Pull his visa, hold him in custody at the request of DHS, name him as an "undesirable" and let the US authorities bring him back to Calif bypassing a lot of red tape.

I don't believe much that's coming out of Thailand.

rosebud

08-20-2006, 03:10 PM

It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

Reply: That is IF it is true that the fibers found on the duct tape were from there. I am not so sure of anything found on the internet.

I also read somewhere that the police found doors and windows unlocked when they got to the house, and yet all we have heard is about the basement window. The intruders may have just walked in a door.

rosebud

08-20-2006, 03:14 PM

The Ramseys’ civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

That's right - over 40,000 pages of police documentation that Judge Carnes did not see. Pretty difficult to make a unbiased decision when your evidence is lacking in favor of the Ramseys.

________________________

reply: Well those 40,000 pages of police documentation did not get an indictment through a Grand Jury in Boulder to indict the Ramseys. And we are often told that a DA could indict a "ham sandwich."

nuisanceposter

08-20-2006, 03:22 PM

Not Alex Hunter.

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

NursingHomeDiva

08-20-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by rosebud
Even when I suspected that the Ramsey parents were involved in the death of JonBenet, one thing that always bothered me was the possible motive. I have never seen a believable one presented.

And while I can believe that a tired or angry and frustrated parent might accidently harm their own child, I cannot believe that John or Patsy would deliberately make a garrotte and strangle her with it. I was always troubled by that.

Neither John nor Patsy had any history of harming their children and we know of no evidence of it for the last ten years. Yet I am expected to believe that both of them apparently went nuts on one day and planned to murder their six year old daughter.

It never made any sense. EXACTLY.

nuisanceposter

08-20-2006, 07:14 PM

Some people, myself included, believe the head wound preceded the strangling. Experts such as Dr Werner Spitz said the skull fracture would have made a loud sound and rendered JonBenet unconsciousand entering a coma, with eventual death.

I have no problem believing an enraged parent may have struck JonBenet on the head, and, seeing her appear lifeless, decide that calling for medical help was beyond question, and resort to staging a different scene, including tying a cord around JB's neck to make it look like she was strangled instead of bludgeoned.

The knot at the back of JB's neck was not a noose knot. Meyer decribed it in the autopsy as a "double knot". Anyone who can tie a shoelace can tie that knot. it was this fixed knot that ended JonBenet's life, but I think the strangler already thought her dead when it was applied.

Her hair is entwined in the knot...that indicates to me that it was "built" on her neck in a rush, after she was unconscious (since there is no defense marks on her neck and no internal damage from a struggle) while she laid face-down on the floor. Backing this up is the fact that her undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front - where the urine would flow if she was lying face-down while killed and her bladder let go.

Also interesting to note was that there was very little internal damage to JB's neck - her hyoid bone was intact, her thyroid was undamaged, there was no bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue was unblemished. Usually strangulation victims bite the inside of their cheeks and tongue. Why would she not fight the person tying a cord around her neck and strangling her? She's already unconscious.

IMO, it's completely conceivable that someone, perhaps Patsy, hit JonBenet in anger and then staged the rest of the scene to look like anything else.

Hey Paula

08-20-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

Hi Hey Paula,

If he researched this case in such depth that he knew details which hadn't been disclosed to "the public", why does he get such BASICS wrong as 'picked her up from school and took her to the Ramsey's basement", when everyone knows there was no school that day and that she was tucked in that night by her mother. And if Patsy is lying about that, I still don't think that JonBenet could have been absent from the house from the time "school finished" (ie early afternoon time, though there was NO school anyway) up until the time she was supposed to be in bed, without her parents missing her. A 6-year-old can't just 'not be there' for the afternoon, whole evening and night without her parents raising hell if that were the case.

So if Karr researched this case so obssessively, as I've no doubt he did, why make such a stupid statement?

I haven't heard about the teddy bear yet... please could you either post a link, or else just tell me where you heard/read it. Thanks :)

JMO,
Lili

PS - or just what you know about it

Hi Lili,

There could be different reasons why Karr made statements which contradict the facts. Here are a couple.

1) If he is truly guilty, making such contradictory statements make it appear as though he might be innocent.

2) If he had molested and/or killed another little girl, he might have picked her up from school and the two events became enmeshed.

The Santa teddy bear has been spoken of extensively on TV. Patsy sister, Pam Paugh, was asked about it too. It seems that either the same Santa teddy bear, or one similar to it appearing in a childhood photo of John Karr, was found in JonBenet's bedroom (on her twin bed) after she was murdered. No one in the family had seen it before.

IMO

rosebud

08-20-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Some people, myself included, believe the head wound preceded the strangling. Experts such as Dr Werner Spitz said the skull fracture would have made a loud sound and rendered JonBenet unconsciousand entering a coma, with eventual death.

I have no problem believing an enraged parent may have struck JonBenet on the head, and, seeing her appear lifeless, decide that calling for medical help was beyond question, and resort to staging a different scene, including tying a cord around JB's neck to make it look like she was strangled instead of bludgeoned.

The knot at the back of JB's neck was not a noose knot. Meyer decribed it in the autopsy as a "double knot". Anyone who can tie a shoelace can tie that knot. it was this fixed knot that ended JonBenet's life, but I think the strangler already thought her dead when it was applied.

Her hair is entwined in the knot...that indicates to me that it was "built" on her neck in a rush, after she was unconscious (since there is no defense marks on her neck and no internal damage from a struggle) while she laid face-down on the floor. Backing this up is the fact that her undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front - where the urine would flow if she was lying face-down while killed and her bladder let go.

Also interesting to note was that there was very little internal damage to JB's neck - her hyoid bone was intact, her thyroid was undamaged, there was no bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue was unblemished. Usually strangulation victims bite the inside of their cheeks and tongue. Why would she not fight the person tying a cord around her neck and strangling her? She's already unconscious.

IMO, it's completely conceivable that someone, perhaps Patsy, hit JonBenet in anger and then staged the rest of the scene to look like anything else.

REPLY: Why would John or Patsy want the police to think she had been strangled instead of dying from a blow to the head? It would make more sense for them to stage some sort of accident scene, where the head wound was inflicted by a fall, perhaps off a table, or down a flight of stairs or off of a banister. I can think of no reason why they would strangle their, what they think is their dead daughter, after they think she has died from an accidental blow to the head.

It makes no sense for them to want the police to think she had been strangled instead of dying from head trauma. Head trauma could be seen as accidental death, a strangulation is homocide.

The theory that Patsy or John Ramsey staged a strangulation of what they thought was a dead JonBenet makes no sense.

However an intruder may have wanted to make sure she was dead before he left the house so she could not ID him.

rosebud

08-20-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Not Alex Hunter.

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

REPLY: Is that all you got? Pretty lame. Do you actually think this case could be made against the Ramseys with the DNA evidence of an "unknown male" on JonBenet's panties? Not a chance.

nuisanceposter

08-20-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: Is that all you got? Pretty lame. Do you actually think this case could be made against the Ramseys with the DNA evidence of an "unknown male" on JonBenet's panties? Not a chance.

More important than the presence of DNA is the fact that it was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's was fresh and complete. There's a very good chance that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear before JonBenet's blood got on them.

The underwear that JonBenet was dressed in were Bloomie's size 12/14. They were fresh and unwashed out of the package. When other packages of underwear were tested, they were also found to have DNA on them.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence#IsthisaDNAcase

# Here's what one of the investigators had to say about the DNA "evidence": "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence." (Rocky Mountain News, November 19, 2002.)
# According to the same article, investigators did some tests on similar panties from the same plant and found that some also contained DNA. Since the bits of DNA molecule found mixed with JonBenet's blood were fragmented and degraded to the point that they couldn't even be sourced to any particular type of cell, contamination from the plant is the most likely explanation for its presence -- and the fact that it was never sourced to anyone connected to the family or anyone in the CODIS database.

Hey Paula

08-20-2006, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I read - and I don't have a link - that a lady who was involved with the pageants came forward and identified the bear as one that had been given away at one of the pageants - and stated that JonBenet got one at a pageant.

I had heard something like that too. But, even if JonBenet had received it at a pageant, I'd still like to know if the teddy bear is actually John Karr's. I've always wondered if he had attended any of JonBenet's beauty pageants.

rosebud

08-20-2006, 10:18 PM

nuisance poster, thank you for the informative website. I am not sure how much is true and how much is not though.

rosebud

08-20-2006, 10:28 PM

I saw Cyril Wecht's rants that JBR was sexually abused for a period before she was killed and saw that some disagree with him.

I can say that I know of Wecht from reading about the JFK assassination and I have total contempt for him. I believe he will say anything in any high profile case that will get him a soapbox and attention.

Lili007

08-21-2006, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by rosebud
It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

Reply: That is IF it is true that the fibers found on the duct tape were from there. I am not so sure of anything found on the internet.

I also read somewhere that the police found doors and windows unlocked when they got to the house, and yet all we have heard is about the basement window. The intruders may have just walked in a door.

Fair point. IF the fibers did come from Patsy's jacket, and IF the other fibers came from John's shirt. Granted.

But if one doesn't trust the internet, it works both ways.

The fact that you 'read somewhere' that LE found doors and windows open doesn't make it so. If you don't believe the report that only the basement window was open, why should you believe that 'doors and windows' were open through the house?

Both reports come from 'we read somewhere' (I include myself in this). So who is to say one is wrong and the other right, and vice-versa?

IMO, the internet is a pretty reliable source of information, IF the source has credibility. If not, it's open house for al sort of speculation. And, let's face it - that's what we do here: speculate and theorize on what transpires through the media and other sources, some more credible than others.

JMO,
Lili

Lili007

08-21-2006, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Hi Lili,

There could be different reasons why Karr made statements which contradict the facts. Here are a couple.

1) If he is truly guilty, making such contradictory statements make it appear as though he might be innocent.

2) If he had molested and/or killed another little girl, he might have picked her up from school and the two events became enmeshed.

The Santa teddy bear has been spoken of extensively on TV. Patsy sister, Pam Paugh, was asked about it too. It seems that either the same Santa teddy bear, or one similar to it appearing in a childhood photo of John Karr, was found in JonBenet's bedroom (on her twin bed) after she was murdered. No one in the family had seen it before.

IMO

Thanks for that, Hey Paula.

What you say makes sense, but this still niggles at me: if this guy is truly guilty and is making contradictory statements to appear innocent, why did he "confess" in the first place? Without this 'confession', he'd have no need to make up lies to contradict what he wouldn't have said in the first place. And, when asked by the press "are you an innocent man?", he replied "no".

Interesting point about the possiblity of him confusing or 'merging' two incidents into one... But confessing to murder is a bit more dire than confessing to abduction. The two are equally horrible, but one is permanent and there's no therapy on earth that can change it around. So why not confess to abduction, if he felt the need to confess? Then again, why is he a pedophile? Impossible to answer.

Thanks for the info about the teddy bear - I missed that in the broadcasts. If that is true, that that teddy bear just happened to 'appear' on JonBenet's twin bed without anyone knowing anything about it, and Karr having the same teddy bear when he was a child... that should really clench it, I would think.

I wonder if there's any DNA on the teddy bear? If Karr was clutching it as a child and if it had been his favourite (or one of his fovourite) toys, he must have slept with it, cuddled it, kissed it, chewed on it, whatever. If that's the case, there could be some residual DNA, or at least marks that would indicate that that teddy bear was not brand new. No child leaves a toy unmarked - it's almost a ritual. Everything gets a mark from eager teeth, playful fingers and rough-and-tumble play, even from being tucked in to sleep with its loving owner.

If Karr had that teddy bear before it 'appeared' in JonBenet's room, someone should be able to establish that. Or at the very least, if it was a 'previously-loved' toy.

JOM,
Lili

rosebud

08-21-2006, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Fair point. IF the fibers did come from Patsy's jacket, and IF the other fibers came from John's shirt. Granted.

But if one doesn't trust the internet, it works both ways.

The fact that you 'read somewhere' that LE found doors and windows open doesn't make it so. If you don't believe the report that only the basement window was open, why should you believe that 'doors and windows' were open through the house?

Both reports come from 'we read somewhere' (I include myself in this). So who is to say one is wrong and the other right, and vice-versa?

IMO, the internet is a pretty reliable source of information, IF the source has credibility. If not, it's open house for al sort of speculation. And, let's face it - that's what we do here: speculate and theorize on what transpires through the media and other sources, some more credible than others.

JMO,
Lili [/B]

REPLY: And according to the website "np" sent me to, the police never found the roll of duct tape that the tape on JBR's mouth came from. According to that the parents they did not have duct tape in the house (which if true, it must have been one of the few in America that did not have a roll of it, I will admit).

There was enough mold on the floor around the body in the basement for Hi-Tec shoe imprints near it, but no Hi-Tec shoes were found in the house, apparently. I assume no fingerprints were found on the piece of wood used in the garrotte.

Here I would have to assume that the parents had the presence of mind to dispose of shoes and duct tape before the police were called, but left the garrotte around her neck with the wooden handle put back in the paintbrush box in the basement, (If the garrotte was never found, it would clearly help the parents's case) and did not have sense enough to get a crowbar and force open a door or break a window to make it appear an intruder had clearly broken in, and did not dispose of the pad of paper the ransom note was written on or the felt pens used to write it.

What the third DNA sample not found on JBR's body was (semen, blood, spit?) and where it was located (her bedroom, the basement, a bathroom, the kitchen?) must be one of the great mysteries about this case. I wonder if it has been matched to anything and what condition it was in. I am surprised I never saw more speculation about that.

I will withdraw the claim that doors had been left unlocked when the Ramseys went to bed that night, but apparently the police did find unlocked windows. I discount the report that the "Butler's door" was open that morning. John Ramsey says he checked all of them before going to bed, however, I also suspect that if an intruder did it, that intruder was already in the house and was hiding when the family returned home from the Whites.

I did not see where it says that the burglar alarm was activated while they were at the Whites. I saw that it was not activated that night, which is odd, and I would wonder why it was not. I did not see a reason given for that. I would be curious if Ramsey had checked for locked doors before they went to the Whites, and whether he activated the burglar alarm.

If an intruder was in the house waiting, the time that Burke stopped playing with his new toys and actually fell asleep would be relevent. That might have been what the intruder(s) was/were watching for. I did not see that time mentioned.

I did notice that Burke was questioned by the police apparently away from his parents the day after the murder or soon after, and that he later testified to the Grand Jury. Apparently he said nothing earth-shattering. If the police were not able to get incriminating testimony from a 9 year old boy, they must be more inept than anyone has even yet imagined.

The discussion on the "garrotte being used as a sex toy" on JBR went over my head. I might be a little naive on this one, but a "six year old girl" was being semi-asphyxiated in a sex act? I thought that a choking device was what the adult male used on himself--although I thought it was usually a plastic bag over his head.

As for Cyril Wecht's "theory" that the head wound was inflicted after she was strangled, I would have to say that that made the least sense of all. (I am happy to report that--Wecht is beneath contempt, IMO) That makes no sense. And can I imply that the cord was found still around her neck? Well, Cyril, if the cord was still around her neck, I would think that "attempt" to confuse the issue by faking a head injury would be something that even Inspector Clousseau might see through immediately.

Whether JBR was sexually assaulted on the night she died, or had been repeatedly molested in the months before, I don't know what to think. It seemed that the experts did not agree among themselves.

LindaA

08-21-2006, 06:58 AM

I've often wondered why the Ramseys would not have gotten rid of so much incriminating evidence and not other things unless they were staging the crime.

I also read in the past that JR said they did not generally set the alarm because ir was so loud and frightening and the children sometimes set it off by accident and were terribly scared of it. I'm sorry I cannot provide a link, but I did not read it online.

Likewise with doors being open or unlocked. I read about the so-called butler's door being either open or unlocked years ago -- not online.

Lili007

08-21-2006, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: And according to the website "np" sent me to, the police never found the roll of duct tape that the tape on JBR's mouth came from. According to that the parents they did not have duct tape in the house (which if true, it must have been one of the few in America that did not have a roll of it, I will admit).

There was enough mold on the floor around the body in the basement for Hi-Tec shoe imprints near it, but no Hi-Tec shoes were found in the house, apparently. I assume no fingerprints were found on the piece of wood used in the garrotte.

Here I would have to assume that the parents had the presence of mind to dispose of shoes and duct tape before the police were called, but left the garrotte around her neck with the wooden handle put back in the paintbrush box in the basement, (If the garrotte was never found, it would clearly help the parents's case) and did not have sense enough to get a crowbar and force open a door or break a window to make it appear an intruder had clearly broken in, and did not dispose of the pad of paper the ransom note was written on or the felt pens used to write it.

What the third DNA sample not found on JBR's body was (semen, blood, spit?) and where it was located (her bedroom, the basement, a bathroom, the kitchen?) must be one of the great mysteries about this case. I wonder if it has been matched to anything and what condition it was in. I am surprised I never saw more speculation about that.

I will withdraw the claim that doors had been left unlocked when the Ramseys went to bed that night, but apparently the police did find unlocked windows. I discount the report that the "Butler's door" was open that morning. John Ramsey says he checked all of them before going to bed, however, I also suspect that if an intruder did it, that intruder was already in the house and was hiding when the family returned home from the Whites.

I did not see where it says that the burglar alarm was activated while they were at the Whites. I saw that it was not activated that night, which is odd, and I would wonder why it was not. I did not see a reason given for that. I would be curious if Ramsey had checked for locked doors before they went to the Whites, and whether he activated the burglar alarm.

If an intruder was in the house waiting, the time that Burke stopped playing with his new toys and actually fell asleep would be relevent. That might have been what the intruder(s) was/were watching for. I did not see that time mentioned.

I did notice that Burke was questioned by the police apparently away from his parents the day after the murder or soon after, and that he later testified to the Grand Jury. Apparently he said nothing earth-shattering. If the police were not able to get incriminating testimony from a 9 year old boy, they must be more inept than anyone has even yet imagined.

The discussion on the "garrotte being used as a sex toy" on JBR went over my head. I might be a little naive on this one, but a "six year old girl" was being semi-asphyxiated in a sex act? I thought that a choking device was what the adult male used on himself--although I thought it was usually a plastic bag over his head.

As for Cyril Wecht's "theory" that the head wound was inflicted after she was strangled, I would have to say that that made the least sense of all. (I am happy to report that--Wecht is beneath contempt, IMO) That makes no sense. And can I imply that the cord was found still around her neck? Well, Cyril, if the cord was still around her neck, I would think that "attempt" to confuse the issue by faking a head injury would be something that even Inspector Clousseau might see through immediately.

Whether JBR was sexually assaulted on the night she died, or had been repeatedly molested in the months before, I don't know what to think. It seemed that the experts did not agree among themselves.

IF an intruder was involved, I agree with your supposition that he/she/they would already have been in the house before the Ramseys returned. That makes more sense than anything else.

And if that is true, then the time Burke fell asleep may be important. The fact that no time was mentioned is probably because no-one (including Burke) noticed what time he actually fell asleep.

And, again assuming that the intruder in the house theory is correct, it would give the perp(s) plenty of time to write the ransom note on the Ramsey's note-paper. Makes a lot more sense than someone coming in in the middle of the night, abducting JB and then taking their time to write a ransom note on her parents' stationery.

But that implies premeditation and suggests that a fair amount of planning was involved. And if that's the case, then why kill JonBenet? If she was kidnapped for a ransom, why was her body found in the basement?

Presumably the person or persons who abbducted her were adults, or at least a lot bigger than she was. So even if she had started to scream and kick, an adult is more than capable of stopping her without hitting her on the head and then strangling her, or vice-versa. If someone wanted to abduct her for other reasons in addition to a ransom, they would have taken her away from her house, where her parents and her brother slept, to some other, more 'private' place, where they wouldn't run the risk of being heard or interrupted.

I believe JonBenet was found wearing clothes other than those she was last seen in, which means the abductor(s) got her to change clothes as she was being abducted, or else changed her into other clothes after they killed her, accidentally or otherwise. Does that make sense?

"Clothing and fabric stained with body fluids. When John Ramsey discovered his daughter in the basement, she wore a white turtleneck, white long underwear and blood-stained panties, sources said. "The Ramseys originally said they last saw JonBenet wearing a red turtleneck and white longjohns," a source said. Authorities found the red turtleneck on JonBenet's bathroom sink.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html

To be fair, there's also reference - on another site, in another article - to open windows and at least one door:

The police report on December 26 noted that there were a number of open windows and at least one open door, therefore an intruder would not need to break in. One possible point of entry was the basement window. Not only was it easily accessible via a ground level lift-out grille, it had been broken sometime before Christmas and could not be secured.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

But going back to the change in clothing, why would any 'abductor' change JonBenet into other clothes before either taking her away, or after killing her as a result of an accident, or otherwise? And how did they move so freely around the house, and how did they know where to find JB's clothes and what she should wear other than what she was already wearing?

And, more importantly, WHY? I would've thought that would be the last thing on their minds at that point.

JMO,
Lili

rosebud

08-21-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

IF an intruder was involved, I agree with your supposition that he/she/they would already have been in the house before the Ramseys returned. That makes more sense than anything else.

And if that is true, then the time Burke fell asleep may be important. The fact that no time was mentioned is probably because no-one (including Burke) noticed what time he actually fell asleep.

And, again assuming that the intruder in the house theory is correct, it would give the perp(s) plenty of time to write the ransom note on the Ramsey's note-paper. Makes a lot more sense than someone coming in in the middle of the night, abducting JB and then taking their time to write a ransom note on her parents' stationery.

But that implies premeditation and suggests that a fair amount of planning was involved. And if that's the case, then why kill JonBenet? If she was kidnapped for a ransom, why was her body found in the basement?

Presumably the person or persons who abbducted her were adults, or at least a lot bigger than she was. So even if she had started to scream and kick, an adult is more than capable of stopping her without hitting her on the head and then strangling her, or vice-versa. If someone wanted to abduct her for other reasons in addition to a ransom, they would have taken her away from her house, where her parents and her brother slept, to some other, more 'private' place, where they wouldn't run the risk of being heard or interrupted.

I believe JonBenet was found wearing clothes other than those she was last seen in, which means the abductor(s) got her to change clothes as she was being abducted, or else changed her into other clothes after they killed her, accidentally or otherwise. Does that make sense?

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html

To be fair, there's also reference - on another site, in another article - to open windows and at least one door:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

But going back to the change in clothing, why would any 'abductor' change JonBenet into other clothes before either taking her away, or after killing her as a result of an accident, or otherwise? And how did they move so freely around the house, and how did they know where to find JB's clothes and what she should wear other than what she was already wearing?

And, more importantly, WHY? I would've thought that would be the last thing on their minds at that point.

JMO,
Lili

REPLY: If an intruder is responsible, I think all the evidence points to someone who intended to take JBR from the house alive. The murder weapon was found by the killer inside the house (He did not bring it with him into the house.) and it seems certain that the wooden handle was originally in the paintbrush box. Since the murder weapon appears improvised, the murder was probably committed because of something that happened in the basement and was not planned in advance, and it is clear to me the killing was not what the intruder intended when he/they entered the house.

A neighbor did hear a scream from the Ramsey house in the middle of the night and maybe that triggered the murder. When she screamed, maybe the perp panicked and hit her in the head.

I did read somewhere that later her body may have suddenly started to convulse and maybe that triggered the strangulation as the perp was entering the basement. He saw the box with the paintbrush handles and there was a cord nearby and he killed her then.

If the murder happened as the perp was trying to exit the house, he would probably not go back for the ransom note and would just leave it there. That would explain why the note was inside the house and the victim was there also. It would also explain why the perp did not call the next day. He figured they would quickly find the body.

In this scenario something happened, the perp either accidently dropped JBR and thought he killed her or hit her in the head when she screamed and then later strangled her when she showed signs of "life." He then exited the house without returning for the ransom note in fear that the parents might have heard something.

If the intruder planned to enter and exit through the basement, it might seem more logical that there were more than one of them.
One person getting the girl through the narrow window would seem to be a chore.

The change of clothes is perplexing. Again if the parents killed her and tried to cover up why not say they put her in the clothes she was found in? Is it instead possible that JBR herself got up at some point and changed clothes, perhaps because she wet herself? I am just asking. There would seem to be no reason for the intruder to do it.

rosebud

08-21-2006, 09:29 AM

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/18-1.html

To be fair, there's also reference - on another site, in another article - to open windows and at least one door:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

REPLY: Your second link here that gives a description of the house that says JBR's room was close to the stairs from the kitchen to the second and third floor (parents room) and that the basement stairs started in the kitchen. That might also explain why the intruder left the note there.

It seemed to him as if it was a straight shot all the way to JBR's room and even to the parents bedroom (to make sure they were asleep). He/they entered the basement, ascended the stairs to the kitchen, then ascended the stairs to the second floor and JBR's room was right there. It would seem to be the natural path for an intruder from the basement to take. So the reason for leaving the ransom note on these stairs might seem a logical one for him.

Lili007

08-21-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: If an intruder is responsible, I think all the evidence points to someone who intended to take JBR from the house alive. The murder weapon was found by the killer inside the house (He did not bring it with him into the house.) and it seems certain that the wooden handle was originally in the paintbrush box. Since the murder weapon appears improvised, the murder was probably committed because of something that happened in the basement and was not planned in advance, and it is clear to me the killing was not what the intruder intended when he/they entered the house.

A neighbor did hear a scream from the Ramsey house in the middle of the night and maybe that triggered the murder. When she screamed, maybe the perp panicked and hit her in the head.

I did read somewhere that later her body may have suddenly started to convulse and maybe that triggered the strangulation as the perp was entering the basement. He saw the box with the paintbrush handles and there was a cord nearby and he killed her then.
.........................................

That's what I was saying as well - if they bothered to write a ransom note, they wouldn't be intending JB to die - quite the contrary.

But - this rope and paintbrush-handle garotte is such overkill. She's a 6-year-old, for goodness' sake! And if she was intent on screaming, she would hardly stop to allow time for whoever to get the rope and the paintbrush handle to make a garotte to strangle her. Their first instinct would have been to stop the screaming. An adult hand over a tiny mouth would do it. Not to mention the duct tape used. Think about it.

Finding some rope, and a paintbrush handle, fashioning some 'garotte' out of them and using it took deliberation, it was not done 'in the heat of the moment'. If the duct tape was not in place by then, she would have screamed the roof off the house, not waited to watch someone get some rope and a paintbrush handle and wind it around her throat. If the tape was already gagging her, why the garotte?

And if she was either already restrained or unconscious (remember the massive injury to her head), then why on earth make a garotte and strangle her?

It's not an act of sudden rage - it's a calculated act: get the rope, get the paintbrush handle, make into a garotte to strangle a little girl who by then was most probably (hopefully, pray God!) unconscious and beyond fear. Besides, she had been silenced with duct tape. So what's the deal with the garotte?

Overkill. Unnecessary. Doesn't make sense. And usually, what doesn't make sense turns out to have another explanation.

You don't get one or more perps hiding in the house, writing ransom notes for and EXACT sum of money (I wonder how THAT came to be!), waiting patiently for the family to return and go to their respective rooms to sleep, only to then tiptoe out, whisk JonBenet out of her bed, change her clothes, take her to the basement, put duct tape over her mouth, hit her on the head and proceed to make a garotte to strangle her with.

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The change of clothes is perplexing. Again if the parents killed her and tried to cover up why not say they put her in the clothes she was found in? Is it instead possible that JBR herself got up at some point and changed clothes, perhaps because she wet herself? I am just asking. There would seem to be no reason for the intruder to do it.

It is indeed. I don't know whether her parents killed her - but I think they're covering up. For each other, maybe, or maybe for someone else.

If JBR got up to change her clothes because she had wet herself, I would expect to see the bottoms on the sink, not the turtle-neck TOP .

But more than that, she was wearing panties underneath and they don't appear to have been changed. Or at least I haven't seen any report to say that, along with the top found on the sink, there was a pair of panties, or 'bottoms'.

If she wet herself, the first thing she would change would be her panties if she wore them to bed - and how many children her age wear panties underneath their PJs, I wonder? And if she didn't wear panties to bed, then what were they doing on her body when she was found?

Whichever way I look at it, it doesn't add up. That doesn't mean that I believe her parents "did it" and there's no other explanation (though I think they're at least covering up).

But it just does not make sense for some intruder to walk into all of this and do all that was done to little JonBenet, including clothing changes, while the rest of the family slept peacefully. I don't care how big their house is - when a child screams terror, a mother - or a father - hears it. If not with their ears, then with their hearts and souls. There's no way JonBenet could be abducted from her bedroom without a scream, which is probably where the duct tape came in. But once the duct tape was in place, why was there a need for a blow to the head and a carefully-fashioned garotte to strangle her? Kidnappers keep their victims alive, at least until they get their ransom. They don't kill them several times over, and in the same house where they kidnapped them from.

JMO
Lili

nuisanceposter

08-21-2006, 11:56 AM

JonBenet normally wore size 4/6 panties, and she was found in size 12/14 panties, unwashed, taken fresh from a package in a drawer in her bathroom.

I do not believe JonBenet wore those size 12s when she out at the White's house at their party. They had to have been put on her by the person who wiped her down after sexual assault.

Many people have discussed the significance of the size 12 undies. They were floral printed with the word Wednesday on them. That Christmas Day just happened to be a Wednesday. She was wearing them under the long johns she went to bed in, and both the undoes and the long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front.

My opinion is that she was strangled face-down after the head wound was inflicted, and the strangling is staging to point away from the head wound being the cause of death.

It's important to note that the tape over JonBenet's mouth not only showed NO signs of having been present on her face when she was alive, but it also showed signs of having been used before, meaning it wasn't taken fresh off of a roll and placed on her - it looked like it had already been on something else.

It was black duct tape, not the standard silver kind, and it's been noted that pictures from the Ramsey home had the same type of black tape on them. Perhaps that's why a roll of tape was never found - maybe there wasn't one.

IMO, this crime reeks of an untentional rage incident that was covered up with staging to make it look like an intruder. The strangling did very little damage to the interior of JonBenet's throat, and the cord doesn't appear to have been struggled against once it was in place on her neck. There are no defense wounds on her throat from clawing at the cord, as if she was unconscious when it was applied.

rosebud

08-21-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

That's what I was saying as well - if they bothered to write a ransom note, they wouldn't be intending JB to die - quite the contrary.

But - this rope and paintbrush-handle garotte is such overkill. She's a 6-year-old, for goodness' sake! And if she was intent on screaming, she would hardly stop to allow time for whoever to get the rope and the paintbrush handle to make a garotte to strangle her. Their first instinct would have been to stop the screaming. An adult hand over a tiny mouth would do it. Not to mention the duct tape used. Think about it.

Finding some rope, and a paintbrush handle, fashioning some 'garotte' out of them and using it took deliberation, it was not done 'in the heat of the moment'. If the duct tape was not in place by then, she would have screamed the roof off the house, not waited to watch someone get some rope and a paintbrush handle and wind it around her throat. If the tape was already gagging her, why the garotte?

And if she was either already restrained or unconscious (remember the massive injury to her head), then why on earth make a garotte and strangle her?

It's not an act of sudden rage - it's a calculated act: get the rope, get the paintbrush handle, make into a garotte to strangle a little girl who by then was most probably (hopefully, pray God!) unconscious and beyond fear. Besides, she had been silenced with duct tape. So what's the deal with the garotte?

Overkill. Unnecessary. Doesn't make sense. And usually, what doesn't make sense turns out to have another explanation.

You don't get one or more perps hiding in the house, writing ransom notes for and EXACT sum of money (I wonder how THAT came to be!), waiting patiently for the family to return and go to their respective rooms to sleep, only to then tiptoe out, whisk JonBenet out of her bed, change her clothes, take her to the basement, put duct tape over her mouth, hit her on the head and proceed to make a garotte to strangle her with.

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It is indeed. I don't know whether her parents killed her - but I think they're covering up. For each other, maybe, or maybe for someone else.

If JBR got up to change her clothes because she had wet herself, I would expect to see the bottoms on the sink, not the turtle-neck TOP .

But more than that, she was wearing panties underneath and they don't appear to have been changed. Or at least I haven't seen any report to say that, along with the top found on the sink, there was a pair of panties, or 'bottoms'.

If she wet herself, the first thing she would change would be her panties if she wore them to bed - and how many children her age wear panties underneath their PJs, I wonder? And if she didn't wear panties to bed, then what were they doing on her body when she was found?

Whichever way I look at it, it doesn't add up. That doesn't mean that I believe her parents "did it" and there's no other explanation (though I think they're at least covering up).

But it just does not make sense for some intruder to walk into all of this and do all that was done to little JonBenet, including clothing changes, while the rest of the family slept peacefully. I don't care how big their house is - when a child screams terror, a mother - or a father - hears it. If not with their ears, then with their hearts and souls. There's no way JonBenet could be abducted from her bedroom without a scream, which is probably where the duct tape came in. But once the duct tape was in place, why was there a need for a blow to the head and a carefully-fashioned garotte to strangle her? Kidnappers keep their victims alive, at least until they get their ransom. They don't kill them several times over, and in the same house where they kidnapped them from.

JMO
Lili

REPLY: I admit the garrotte is hard to figure in one way or another, but I don't know why the parents would have done it either. It would have made far more sense for the parents to make it try look like an accidental fall and that JBR had hit her head.

I do not agree that the garrotte shows cold calculation. I think it shows just the opposite: improvisation for some reason, a spur of the moment decision, perhaps desperation: the perp looked around and the paintbrush box was sitting there and a length of cord was also. He used what was available.

As for the restraint of JBR, apparently someone screamed inside the Ramsey house around midnight. I did read somewhere that a neighbor heard it and the article sounded reputable. So either JBR or someone else screamed.

The oversized underwear is hard to understand if it has anything to do with the murder, but I would say the most likely explanation is that a child did that. Maybe she changed in the bathroom and the oversized underwear was sitting there so she put it on. I don't see how it affects the murder.

Again if the parents did it and are covering up, it would make more sense for them to describe exactly what JBR had on when she was found. They just created problems for themselves by not doing that. And maybe they were both tired and forgot what she was wearing when she went to bed. I know mothers everywhere will say this is impossible, but I could see not being able to recall exactly what she was wearing, especially in such a stressful situation.

If the perps were in the house for a long time before the Ramseys returned home it is possible that they saw some document with the amount of the Christmas bonus money on it. Maybe the intruders initially did not intend to ransom her, but only intended to kidnap her because one of them was obsessed with JBR. Maybe the ransom note was also a spur of the moment decision when they saw a document stating that John Ramsey had got that amount for his Christmas bonus.

I don't know what happened, but I am suggesting possibilities.

The explanation that the parents did it also makes no sense to me. No matter what that just makes no sense.

When I read that Burke was questioned by police the day after the murder without his parents being with him, it pretty much rules him out as a suspect in my mind. I was not aware of that until now and I do not see him able to get past a police interview if he did kill her. We know that the police suspected all three of the Ramseys very quickly, so I don't see Burke as a likely killer anymore.

rosebud

08-21-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
JonBenet normally wore size 4/6 panties, and she was found in size 12/14 panties, unwashed, taken fresh from a package in a drawer in her bathroom.

I do not believe JonBenet wore those size 12s when she out at the White's house at their party. They had to have been put on her by the person who wiped her down after sexual assault.

Many people have discussed the significance of the size 12 undies. They were floral printed with the word Wednesday on them. That Christmas Day just happened to be a Wednesday. She was wearing them under the long johns she went to bed in, and both the undoes and the long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front.

My opinion is that she was strangled face-down after the head wound was inflicted, and the strangling is staging to point away from the head wound being the cause of death.

It's important to note that the tape over JonBenet's mouth not only showed NO signs of having been present on her face when she was alive, but it also showed signs of having been used before, meaning it wasn't taken fresh off of a roll and placed on her - it looked like it had already been on something else.

It was black duct tape, not the standard silver kind, and it's been noted that pictures from the Ramsey home had the same type of black tape on them. Perhaps that's why a roll of tape was never found - maybe there wasn't one.

IMO, this crime reeks of an untentional rage incident that was covered up with staging to make it look like an intruder. The strangling did very little damage to the interior of JonBenet's throat, and the cord doesn't appear to have been struggled against once it was in place on her neck. There are no defense wounds on her throat from clawing at the cord, as if she was unconscious when it was applied.

REPLY: np, why would Patsy or John, or Burke even, put oversized panties on JBR, even if they had done something improper with her sexually? Why wouldn't they just go to her room and get the correct panties?

Do you know if the black duct tape was on the front of the pictures, in plain view, or was on the back of the pictures, where someone would have had to turn the pictures over/around to find the black tape?

Does it sound like someone somehow inflicted a blow to JBR's head, probably unintentionally, and then was afraid of discovery, and afraid JBR would come to and cry out, so they knew where some tape was, and took it off of a picture and put it on her mouth "just in case?" Is that what it sounds like happened?

np, if John Ramsey was abusing his daughter, and killed her in doing so, is it plausible that Patsy would have defended him all these years? By all accounts the mother and daughter were close, even if some don't like the kid beauty pageant part of their relationship.

I will suggest something here that may sound a little crazy, but people who break into houses sometimes are apparently looking for some kind of "thrill" they cannot get the way more "normal" people get them. Is it possible that the intruder waited until the family was asleep, crept into the JBR's room, threatened her, perhaps said he/they would kill her parents if she cried out, took her to the bathroom, sexually assaulted her, cleaned her up, and then dug around, found the oversized panties and put them on her?

I know that sounds implausible but so do all other theories here. I have seen things and read things on some of these people who commit high risk crimes like burglary (where I live just about every homeowner has a gun, for example), and it indicates they remain incredibly calm in very stressful situations that would excite, scare, or panic most people.

Is it possible that she was sexually assaulted right there in her home that night and it was done by an intruder?

Lili007

08-21-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: I admit the garrotte is hard to figure in one way or another, but I don't know why the parents would have done it either. It would have made far more sense for the parents to make it try look like an accidental fall and that JBR had hit her head.

I do not agree that the garrotte shows cold calculation. I think it shows just the opposite: improvisation for some reason, a spur of the moment decision, perhaps desperation: the perp looked around and the paintbrush box was sitting there and a length of cord was also. He used what was available.

But WHY? JonBenet was already gagged with duct tape, and probably immobilized as well. I wasn't suggesting that the 'perp' knew he was going to find some rope and other makings for a garotte - I was suggesting that there was no need for one, and that - since JonBenet was already silenced by either a duct tape or a blow on her head which made her unconscious, the garotte was simply overkill. I use that word to illustrate my point. But I'll subsitute another: SUPERFLOUS. The garotte was totally superflous at that stage. We don't have a live-kicking-and-screaming child waiting patiently while her abductors get a rope, paintbrush handle and make it into a garotte to strangle her with, do we? And if she's not alive-and-kicking-and-screaming, why the garotte?

Why did "he" use what was available? What does that mean? He wasn't dealing with some gorgon so that he'd have to use whatever was "available" to defend himself from it, or to restrain it. We're talking about a little girl aged 6 years. Was she that scary that he had to find whatever was available to kill her, even when he was supposed to hold her up for ransom, even when they still were in her own parents' house? Sorry - that just doesn't make any sense at all.

As for the restraint of JBR, apparently someone screamed inside the Ramsey house around midnight. I did read somewhere that a neighbor heard it and the article sounded reputable. So either JBR or someone else screamed.

Don't you find it even remotely interesting that a NEIGHBOUR reportedly heard someone screaming inside the Ramsey's house around midnight, but no-one INSIDE the Ramsey house heard anything? If JBR screamed and was heard by the neighbour, why didn't her parents hear her? If someone else in the Ramsey house screamed and the neighbour heard them, why didn't the Ramseys hear that? Surely they were closer than the neighbour, and more immediately concerned?

The oversized underwear is hard to understand if it has anything to do with the murder, but I would say the most likely explanation is that a child did that. Maybe she changed in the bathroom and the oversized underwear was sitting there so she put it on. I don't see how it affects the murder.

So we have a garotte that doesn't need to be used, clothes that don't have to be changed, neighbours who hear screams while no-one in the house hears or knows anything, a girl who supposedly changes her clothes because she wet herself, but only changes her top, then puts on oversized underwear and then somehow ends up killed in the basement of her own home while everyone else is fast asleep.

Does that sound plausible to you? It doesn't to me.

JMO,
Lili

nuisanceposter

08-21-2006, 02:15 PM

The underwear: Much speculation has gone into why the redresser chose these size 12s instead of the size 6s, and what makes the most sense to me is that the redresser needed the undies to look exactly like the ones JB had been wearing.

The Bloomie's size 4/6s and size 12/14s were same in appearance, only different sizes. Patsy claims that the size 12s were bought on a trip to NYC and were intended to be a Christmas present for her 12 yr old niece Jenny, but for some reason ( Patsy's inconsistent in her stories about the undies) they decided not to send the underwear and the package ended up in JB's underwear drawer in her bathroom. I think JB had been wearing the smaller Wednesday undies, and they got soiled, and the killer changed them for the larger ones that looked the same. The urine staining that was on the size 12s came from JB's bladder releasing after she died.

Please take a look at these pictures that are result of an experiment with size 4/6 and size 12/14 Bloomie's a poster named Jayelles did on another board. Tell me if it looks like JB would have been wearing these undies at the party she attended at the White's.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

The black duct tape was found on the backs of pictures. A Boulder photographer, his name escapes me right now but I'll go look for it, was asked about the tape and identified as tape he used in his photography business to secure pictures.

JonBenet would have been rendered unconscious immediately by the head wound. She would have been entering a coma and it eventually would have killed her. She most likely gave every appearance of being dead after struck on the head. The print of her lips on the back of the tape was perfect, and showed no sign of struggle. Why would an intruder need to duct tape the mouth of an unconscious child? I think a parent did it to make it look like it had been there when she awake and alive. Interesting to note: four fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy wore that night were found on the back of the tape - but she said she had never worn the jacket in the basement, and the tape had been ripped off by John and left on the floor in the basement.

I don't think Patsy would have stayed with John if she thought he killed JonBenet, but I don't think he killed JonBenet. I think Patsy did. And yes, I think John would stay with her and cover for her if he knew she did it.

Yes, that's possible, but is it more likely that an intruder broke in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, waited an hour for to digest, then assaulted and killed her and staged evidence including cleaning her up and redressing her and writing a ransom and escaping without leaving any forensic evidence - all without fear of being caught as he moved around and did whatever he wanted...or is it more likely that a parent who snapped and then staged a crime scene and cover up, comfortable in their own home, did it?

Again, yes, but many pathologists, and I can give you a list, examined the autopsy and slides from JB's body and came to the conclusion that she had abused prior to the night she died. Did an intruder do that too?

Lili007

08-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The underwear: Much speculation has gone into why the redresser chose these size 12s instead of the size 6s, and what makes the most sense to me is that the redresser needed the undies to look exactly like the ones JB had been wearing.

The Bloomie's size 4/6s and size 12/14s were same in appearance, only different sizes. Patsy claims that the size 12s were bought on a trip to NYC and were intended to be a Christmas present for her 12 yr old niece Jenny, but for some reason ( Patsy's inconsistent in her stories about the undies) they decided not to send the underwear and the package ended up in JB's underwear drawer in her bathroom. I think JB had been wearing the smaller Wednesday undies, and they got soiled, and the killer changed them for the larger ones that looked the same. The urine staining that was on the size 12s came from JB's bladder releasing after she died.

Please take a look at these pictures that are result of an experiment with size 4/6 and size 12/14 Bloomie's a poster named Jayelles did on another board. Tell me if it looks like JB would have been wearing these undies at the party she attended at the White's.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

The black duct tape was found on the backs of pictures. A Boulder photographer, his name escapes me right now but I'll go look for it, was asked about the tape and identified as tape he used in his photography business to secure pictures.

JonBenet would have been rendered unconscious immediately by the head wound. She would have been entering a coma and it eventually would have killed her. She most likely gave every appearance of being dead after struck on the head. The print of her lips on the back of the tape was perfect, and showed no sign of struggle. Why would an intruder need to duct tape the mouth of an unconscious child? I think a parent did it to make it look like it had been there when she awake and alive. Interesting to note: four fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy wore that night were found on the back of the tape - but she said she had never worn the jacket in the basement, and the tape had been ripped off by John and left on the floor in the basement.

I don't think Patsy would have stayed with John if she thought he killed JonBenet, but I don't think he killed JonBenet. I think Patsy did. And yes, I think John would stay with her and cover for her if he knew she did it.

Yes, that's possible, but is it more likely that an intruder broke in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, waited an hour for to digest, then assaulted and killed her and staged evidence including cleaning her up and redressing her and writing a ransom and escaping without leaving any forensic evidence - all without fear of being caught as he moved around and did whatever he wanted...or is it more likely that a parent who snapped and then staged a crime scene and cover up, comfortable in their own home, did it?

Again, yes, but many pathologists, and I can give you a list, examined the autopsy and slides from JB's body and came to the conclusion that she had abused prior to the night she died. Did an intruder do that too?

No, an intruder didn't do it, IMO.

Compelling post, nuisanceposter.

JMO,
Lili

rosebud

08-21-2006, 03:25 PM

If the abuse had been ongoing, would that be a reason for murder? Why should it be easier to believe that a parent with no history of violence made a garrotte and strangled her than a stranger?

If Patsy struck her daughter's head and thought JBR was dead, isn't it more likely that she would try and fake an accident?

As for the scream, I read somewhere that the police found that a scream from the basement probably would not be heard from the third floor, but was more likely to be heard from outside.

Why would Patsy lie about feeding/not feeding JBR pineapple? I am not sure I am following the significance of why she would deny she gave her pineapple.

Anyway, I thought I read that it was decided that JBR may have eaten pineapple at the Whites.

While some think the TV appearances of the Ramseys indicate that they did do it, I have tended to believe that guilty people would shun the spotlight and would have tried to fade away. It is just too risky to appear on TV and make a mistake. Like Mark Twain said, "a liar has to have a good memory." And a lying murderer appearing on national TV has to have a real good one.

Lilli, you asked me why a perp would garrotte her while her mouth was taped and my answer is that if her body showed signs of life suddenly, as in convulsions, the perp became afraid she would come to and recognize him after he left and so he had to kill her with whatever he could find--the garrotte.

rosebud

08-21-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The underwear: Much speculation has gone into why the redresser chose these size 12s instead of the size 6s, and what makes the most sense to me is that the redresser needed the undies to look exactly like the ones JB had been wearing.

The Bloomie's size 4/6s and size 12/14s were same in appearance, only different sizes. Patsy claims that the size 12s were bought on a trip to NYC and were intended to be a Christmas present for her 12 yr old niece Jenny, but for some reason ( Patsy's inconsistent in her stories about the undies) they decided not to send the underwear and the package ended up in JB's underwear drawer in her bathroom. I think JB had been wearing the smaller Wednesday undies, and they got soiled, and the killer changed them for the larger ones that looked the same. The urine staining that was on the size 12s came from JB's bladder releasing after she died.

Please take a look at these pictures that are result of an experiment with size 4/6 and size 12/14 Bloomie's a poster named Jayelles did on another board. Tell me if it looks like JB would have been wearing these undies at the party she attended at the White's.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

The black duct tape was found on the backs of pictures. A Boulder photographer, his name escapes me right now but I'll go look for it, was asked about the tape and identified as tape he used in his photography business to secure pictures.

JonBenet would have been rendered unconscious immediately by the head wound. She would have been entering a coma and it eventually would have killed her. She most likely gave every appearance of being dead after struck on the head. The print of her lips on the back of the tape was perfect, and showed no sign of struggle. Why would an intruder need to duct tape the mouth of an unconscious child? I think a parent did it to make it look like it had been there when she awake and alive. Interesting to note: four fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy wore that night were found on the back of the tape - but she said she had never worn the jacket in the basement, and the tape had been ripped off by John and left on the floor in the basement.

I don't think Patsy would have stayed with John if she thought he killed JonBenet, but I don't think he killed JonBenet. I think Patsy did. And yes, I think John would stay with her and cover for her if he knew she did it.

Yes, that's possible, but is it more likely that an intruder broke in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, waited an hour for to digest, then assaulted and killed her and staged evidence including cleaning her up and redressing her and writing a ransom and escaping without leaving any forensic evidence - all without fear of being caught as he moved around and did whatever he wanted...or is it more likely that a parent who snapped and then staged a crime scene and cover up, comfortable in their own home, did it?

Again, yes, but many pathologists, and I can give you a list, examined the autopsy and slides from JB's body and came to the conclusion that she had abused prior to the night she died. Did an intruder do that too?

I am not sure why one would think the man would be more likely to stay with the wife if she killed their daughter but a wife would be unlikely to stick by the husband. A lot of men that successful in life like John Ramsey are pretty self centered. I would think he would have resented the hell she put him through. Of course she may have had something on him.

Are you saying that you think John Ramsey was abusing JBR and that when Patsy killed her, he had no choice but to defend her because of that?

Lili007

08-21-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Lilli, you asked me why a perp would garrotte her while her mouth was taped and my answer is that if her body showed signs of life suddenly, as in convulsions, the perp became afraid she would come to and recognize him after he left and so he had to kill her with whatever he could find--the garrotte.

Thanks for replying, Rosebud, It could well be as you say. But why was she still in the basement of her own house, where the perp(s) risked discovery at any time? If they gained entry to the home, they would have much more easily be able to exit the home, with or without JonBenet, who was, after all, their 'collateral'.

Why do you think the perp was afraid that JB might recognise him? If he was a stranger, he most probably wouldn't care, as no-one had seen him before, or would hence, So he could wear a false wig, a stocking over his head, or both. JonBenet wouldn't have recognised him. Pity he didn't realise that when he killed her...

JMO,
Lili

rosebud

08-21-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

Thanks for replying, Rosebud, It could well be as you say. But why was she still in the basement of her own house, where the perp(s) risked discovery at any time? If they gained entry to the home, they would have much more easily be able to exit the home, with or without JonBenet, who was, after all, their 'collateral'.

Why do you think the perp was afraid that JB might recognise him? If he was a stranger, he most probably wouldn't care, as no-one had seen him before, or would hence, So he could wear a false wig, a stocking over his head, or both. JonBenet wouldn't have recognised him. Pity he didn't realise that when he killed her...

JMO,
Lili

REPLY: I guess the obvious answer is that the supposed intruder was not a stranger. The police suspected it was someone who had been in the house before. The kidnapper of the little girl in Salt Lake City had been there before. Maybe JBR knew her intruder/kidnapper. Maybe she went with him/her willingly.

Maybe everything took place in the basement. Maybe the sexual assault took place there, she screamed, was struck, then strangled there also. Maybe the perp got "excited" before leaving and had to assault her. Like I said I don't know what happened.

And of course there is always the possibility that JBR was abused before that by someone else and it had nothing to do with her death at all. Maybe the abuser was not the one who came to her bedroom, left with her, and killed her. Maybe the poor little girl was doubly unlucky.

I was also going to ask you and np if the tape on her mouth had any fingerprints on it. I am assuming not, but unless the person who put it on had gloves, it would seem likely that it would.

rosebud

08-21-2006, 04:38 PM

I had wondered why an intruder would not just leave through a door. If the supposed intruder entered through the basement the only reason I can think of for not leaving through a door is that maybe he/she thought it would set off a burglar alarm on the way out? With a kidnapped girl it would seem like opening a door would be easier and faster.

Again if the parents did it and staged everything else, why didn't they break a door? They could at least have put scratches all around a lock. I have seen it a hundred times on TV. I understand that they may have been acting under a lot of stress and thinking fast, but it took someone a long time to write the note.

If the parents did do it, why didn't they take the body outside the house before calling the police? If it occurred in the middle of the night, and both of them were in on it from that point, why didn't they dispose of the body? If they were cold blooded enough to garrotte their own daughter, why weren't they cold blooded enough to dump the body?

RogerV

08-21-2006, 07:44 PM

The trouble with this case is that things simply don't add up, no matter what scenario you believe. SOMETHING is out of place or wrong, whether you think an intruder or a family member is guilty.

I think the only confession I'll believe is one that explains ALL the inconsistencies.

Lili007

08-22-2006, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

.............................

I was also going to ask you and np if the tape on her mouth had any fingerprints on it. I am assuming not, but unless the person who put it on had gloves, it would seem likely that it would.

I haven't heard anything about fingerprints on the duct tape, rosebud. But if fibers resembling those from the jacket patsy wore that night were found on the tape, then I'd think *some* fingerprints were present as well. Maybe not clear enough to identify, but they should have been there unless, as you say, the killer wore gloves.

On another note about your earlier post, re TV appearances by the Ramseys... It just reminds me of Scott Peterson. At first, he was reluctant to be seen, but then he gave interviews which were broadcast not only nation-wide in the US, but world-wide as well, via cable/satellite. That didn't make him innocent, as we all know. He was so confident that he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes and project the loving, concerned and grieving husband that everyone must believe him. Well, they/we didn't. And they/we were right.

I'm only using this example to illustrate a point: that tearful TV appearances are not always what they seem to be.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this was the case with the Ramseys.

JMO,
Lili

rosebud

08-22-2006, 12:29 PM

Lilli, let me ask you a question about how to rationalize Patsy Ramsey killing her daughter.

I have followed this case off and on since the beginning. Even at the height of the "Patsy Ramsey is a monster who tortured and murdered JonBenet" periods on the internet, I don't remember anyone claiming they thought Patsy was not very close to JBR and that the little girl seemed close to the mother.

The bond between a mother and a small daughter is strong. And it appeared to all that the bond here was strong.

How do you rationalize it going from there to Patsy cold-bloodedly strangling her daughter to death on Christmas Day? How do you find it easy (if you do) to believe that such a mother would make a garrotte and strangle her loving daughter, a daughter that a large part of her own life revolved around?

And for nuisance poster: You seem to put a lot of stock in the fact that fibers consistent with Patsy's clothing was found on JBR and on the garrotte, but fibers consistent with John Ramsey's shirt were found on JBR's private area.

Using the same logic: Isn't that an indication of something? Sexual abuse by the father? If one of them did kill her, doesn't it seem that they both were present when she was murdered and both were complicit?

np, if you are going to judge Patsy on fibers, how do you give John Ramsey a skate?

Doesn't this tend to indicate that if she was killed by a parent, that both parents were involved in the killing itself, and it may have been intentional, not accidental? Either it was intentional or it occurred "accidently" while something was happening that would have sent them both to prison for a long time?

rosebud

08-22-2006, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

I haven't heard anything about fingerprints on the duct tape, rosebud. But if fibers resembling those from the jacket patsy wore that night were found on the tape, then I'd think *some* fingerprints were present as well. Maybe not clear enough to identify, but they should have been there unless, as you say, the killer wore gloves.

On another note about your earlier post, re TV appearances by the Ramseys... It just reminds me of Scott Peterson. At first, he was reluctant to be seen, but then he gave interviews which were broadcast not only nation-wide in the US, but world-wide as well, via cable/satellite. That didn't make him innocent, as we all know. He was so confident that he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes and project the loving, concerned and grieving husband that everyone must believe him. Well, they/we didn't. And they/we were right.

I'm only using this example to illustrate a point: that tearful TV appearances are not always what they seem to be.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this was the case with the Ramseys.

JMO,
Lili

REPLY: Well my image of Scott Peterson is a narcissistic, sociopathic, and extremely self centered person who thought he could manipulate the world any way he wanted for his own desires and needs. Of course there the evidence clearly indicated that he did murder Lacey. The only thing that surprised me after the trial was over was that my opinion had changed from "he murdered her in a spur of the moment rage" to "he planned to kill her and the only thing that may not have been part of the plan was the time when he actually did murder her." I think something happened to speed up the timetable.

Maybe it is the same with the Ramseys. I will tell you that years ago when the woman Susan Smith first appeared on TV tearfully pleading for help in finding her sons, I "knew" instantly that she was lying and I knew they were at the bottom of a river or lake. I am not psychic, but I just knew from the way she was acting.

I never had that feeling with John and Patsy Ramsey. I don't know what happened.

EDDIEisMINE

08-22-2006, 02:10 PM

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.

It's a good thing it is only your opinion because as a mother, (and I'll guess you're a man) I don't think just because of crazed people like Andrea Yates, we should always point the fingers to the people who are the backbone of these children, their moms. I can tell from pictures that JonBenet was a very happy child. I don't think there was any wrong doing on either parents part in this case. I think every1 listens to the media too much. They just wanted a story, and no other killer could be found, so they turned it into a spectical and made the parents look guilty. They took Lie detector test. I don't blame them for not wanting too. Those things can produce false positive results. I would be terrified to take one if I didn't kill my kid and every1 was pointing their finger at me, afraid that I would be so nervous that it would come out positive, so, I can't blame them there, as a mother. But, that doesn't mean they did it. I think a lot of the people who are blaming Patsy and john will be surprised when this man is convicted.

rosebud

08-22-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE

It's a good thing it is only your opinion because as a mother, (and I'll guess you're a man) I don't think just because of crazed people like Andrea Yates, we should always point the fingers to the people who are the backbone of these children, their moms. I can tell from pictures that JonBenet was a very happy child. I don't think there was any wrong doing on either parents part in this case. I think every1 listens to the media too much. They just wanted a story, and no other killer could be found, so they turned it into a spectical and made the parents look guilty. They took Lie detector test. I don't blame them for not wanting too. Those things can produce false positive results. I would be terrified to take one if I didn't kill my kid and every1 was pointing their finger at me, afraid that I would be so nervous that it would come out positive, so, I can't blame them there, as a mother. But, that doesn't mean they did it. I think a lot of the people who are blaming Patsy and john will be surprised when this man is convicted.

REPLY: You have a point about them being reluctant to take a lie detector test. Aldrich Ames, the most vicious CIA spy in years, was apparently taking them and not being detected, and the spy at the FBI whose name excapes me right now (the member of Opus Dei) also went undetected even though his job required lie detector tests.

nuisanceposter

08-22-2006, 05:36 PM

The Ramseys also didn't want to take a lie detector test from anyone who required a drug test.

rosebud

08-22-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Ramseys also didn't want to take a lie detector test from anyone who required a drug test.

REPLY: The Ramseys did not want to take a drug test?

rosebud

08-22-2006, 07:09 PM

Ok, you both have me thinking that the DNA is questionable and probably not from the killer. Assuming John Mark Karr did not do it, and the case is still up in the air, please give me some of your thoughts. You have me back to thinking that the parents did it.

If the fibers incriminate John and Patsy, then do they exonerate Burke?

I would like for you both to expound on this scenario:

I am thinking that if it was me and I got up with a child in the middle of the night who had wet the bed or wanted something to eat or just couldn't sleep and I was very tired and angry and I got mad and pushed her into a toilet and thought I had killed her, what would be my reaction.

Well my first reaction would be to call 911 or rush her to the hospital or perform CPR. While waiting/driving, if I got panicky and started worrying about being charged with murder and the very low opinion inmates have of child killers and my prospects in prison, I might start inventing a viable story to avoid that.

Here a viable story is easy to come up with. I could say she must have climbed on the kitchen counter to get cookies and when I was out of the room I heard a "thump" and ran back in and found her on the floor.

I could say that I found her at the bottom of the stairs. I could say she was found below the banister of the stairs as if she had fallen off the banister. I could say she fell out of bed, even.

Wouldn't this be the natural story to give? After all sometimes parents or baby sitters sometimes claim that injuries they inflicted were caused by falling. It probably works sometimes too.

Why wasn't this the reaction of the Ramseys? What was different about this that made them fake a kidnapping?

nuisanceposter

08-22-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: The Ramseys did not want to take a drug test?

That's right. Patsy was heavy into tranquilizers like Valium by then, and that would affect the results of the test. They didn't want to be tested by someone who would require them to not be on anything.

Also interesting to note is that the first guy who tested them, Jerry Toriello, judged the test to be inconclusive. The Ramseys shopped around til they found another tester and then she passed.

They also refused to be tested by the FBI.

Hmmm.

TN_Profiler

08-22-2006, 07:39 PM

I'll have to admit that I was very skeptical of the Ramsey's story for a long time. I have since decided they are not involved. (IMO)

They passed 5 independent lie detector tests and that should account for something. Even if one passed .... how likely is it that they both could pass?

The fibers on her clothes and in the tape that match her parents are all worthless because of the laws of transfer. All of us have fibers on our clothes consistent with the materials in our home. Where exactly do you think JBR clothes were being washed?

The note and the complexity of the house can be easily explained when you allow the possibility that the person was in the house while they were out or had been in the house before. One week before her death .... the Ramsey's held an open house for the holidays. Many people had access to that house including trades people, family, friends, and neighbors.

JBR was strangled to within a breath of her life BEFORE she was struck in the head. This is spelled out in the ME exam and is common knowledge. The small amount of blood proves that her heart stopped beating almost as soon as she was struck. This means the principle cause of death is related to the garrot enduced strangulation. What parent uses this as a means to kill a child?

If there is foreign DNA on her body, in several versions, that does not match anyone else in her family ..... how can that be ignored?

I believe she was targeted by a child predator and was killed in her own house by this person. I have seen enough examples of child abductions that occur while the parents are home (Klaas, Lundsford, Groene, Smart, etc...) to know this is a real possibility.

The ransom note is nothing but a diversion drafted by a twisted person.

nuisanceposter

08-22-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by rosebud
Ok, you both have me thinking that the DNA is questionable and probably not from the killer. Assuming John Mark Karr did not do it, and the case is still up in the air, please give me some of your thoughts. You have me back to thinking that the parents did it.

If the fibers incriminate John and Patsy, then do they exonerate Burke?

I would like for you both to expound on this scenario:

I am thinking that if it was me and I got up with a child in the middle of the night who had wet the bed or wanted something to eat or just couldn't sleep and I was very tired and angry and I got mad and pushed her into a toilet and thought I had killed her, what would be my reaction.

Well my first reaction would be to call 911 or rush her to the hospital or perform CPR. While waiting/driving, if I got panicky and started worrying about being charged with murder and the very low opinion inmates have of child killers and my prospects in prison, I might start inventing a viable story to avoid that.

Here a viable story is easy to come up with. I could say she must have climbed on the kitchen counter to get cookies and when I was out of the room I heard a "thump" and ran back in and found her on the floor.

I could say that I found her at the bottom of the stairs. I could say she was found below the banister of the stairs as if she had fallen off the banister. I could say she fell out of bed, even.

Wouldn't this be the natural story to give? After all sometimes parents or baby sitters sometimes claim that injuries they inflicted were caused by falling. It probably works sometimes too.

Why wasn't this the reaction of the Ramseys? What was different about this that made them fake a kidnapping?

Burke was cleared by police. As hard as I look, I see no evidence that he was involved in any of this at all. I seriously doubt he would have been able to stand up to police questioning if he had been involved.

I don't know why the Rs wouldn't just call 911 and explain any the injury as an accident. All I can figure it that either they figured that a story like that would not be believed when the injury was examined, or they thought she was dead and wanted to save themselves socially and legally from responsibility. Doctors have said that the 8 and a half inch fracture splitting JB's skull would have been very loud and dropped her immediately, and she would have gone into a coma and eventually died - I assume she looked dead already and Patsy went into a panic trying to figure out how to explain a dead JonBenet.

Dr. Werner Spitz, a highly accredited and experienced pathologist, measured the skull fracture and believes the Maglite flashlight that was found on the kitchen counter is a perfect fit. The Maglite had been a gift from JAR and it was wiped down inside and out, including the batteries. Patsy claimed she didn't know if it was theirs or not, and it waseventually determined to belong to them. I think it was the instrument that cracked JB's skull and that's why it was wiped down.

It was Patsy's custom to get up during the night and take JonBenet to the bathroom so as to avoid a wet bed. There was no overhead light in JB's room - it had been taken out and replaced with a ceiling fan during an earlier renovation. The only light in JB's room was a lamp on a table between her twin beds...but Patsy used a flashlight to take her to the bathroom. Patsy says that that Christmas night was the one night that she slept through and did not awaken to take her to the potty. I think she's lying.

nuisanceposter

08-22-2006, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
I'll have to admit that I was very skeptical of the Ramsey's story for a long time. I have since decided they are not involved. (IMO)

They passed 5 independent lie detector tests and that should account for something. Even if one passed .... how likely is it that they both could pass?

The fibers on her clothes and in the tape that match her parents are all worthless because of the laws of transfer. All of us have fibers on our clothes consistent with the materials in our home. Where exactly do you think JBR clothes were being washed?

The note and the complexity of the house can be easily explained when you allow the possibility that the person was in the house while they were out or had been in the house before. One week before her death .... the Ramsey's held an open house for the holidays. Many people had access to that house including trades people, family, friends, and neighbors.

JBR was strangled to within a breath of her life BEFORE she was struck in the head. This is spelled out in the ME exam and is common knowledge. The small amount of blood proves that her heart stopped beating almost as soon as she was struck. This means the principle cause of death is related to the garrot enduced strangulation. What parent uses this as a means to kill a child?

If there is foreign DNA on her body, in several versions, that does not match anyone else in her family ..... how can that be ignored?

I believe she was targeted by a child predator and was killed in her own house by this person. I have seen enough examples of child abductions that occur while the parents are home (Klaas, Lundsford, Groene, Smart, etc...) to know this is a real possibility.

The ransom note is nothing but a diversion drafted by a twisted person.

You don't know about the inconclusive tests or the fact that they searched for a tester who would test them under their conditions? Kinda changes the whole thing.

The fibers - you have to understand that the jacket Patsy was wearing that night was not something that she normally wore. It was a Christmas outfit, and she said she was never in the basement that day or in that jacket. So how did the fibers get on the tape, in the paint tray (she said was never near that in the jacket either) and TIED into the knot? The fibers from Patsy's jacket were TIED into the knot!!! There is NO innocuous explanation for that! Same with the fibers from John's shirt in her undies and on her pubic area!

The Ramseys held an open house, yes, but the basement was not part of that tour. The note - Patsy was never excluded as the author - not even by experts hired by the Ramseys.

Please look at the comparisons between the note and Patsy's writing here:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404

The autopsy also describes the amount of blood that was in JonBenet's head wound. There were three areas of pooled blood, not just one, and each one was substantial, but flattened out, making it appear as less. Read the cubic area each pocket of blood covered. The head wound was also fully developed, with her brain swollen and pressing against the insides of her skull. Experts say that takes about ten minutes to an hour to occur. Her heart was beating when she was struck on the head, and it continued to beat afterwards, or her head wound with swelling would not have been pronounced as it was.

The DNA was fragmented and degraded, whereas JonBenet's DNA was not. The DNA was not depositied at the same time or both samples would have been fresh and complete.

I believe she was targeted by a crazy woman at her wits end who lied and obfuscated from day one about what really happened to her daughter, and I believe her husband stood right beside her and helped her.

nuisanceposter

08-22-2006, 08:13 PM

I forgot to point out - those other girls you mentioned - Polly Klaas, Shasta Groene, Jessica Lunsford, Elizabeth Smart - were all TAKEN from their homes and attacked ELSEWHERE, not in the child's own house.

A child predator simply would not take the risk of being caught while assaulting and killing a child in her own home. They get the child out as quickly as possible and take her to where they feel safe to do whatever they intend to do.

The person who attacked JonBenet shows a very measure of comfort and zero fear of being caught as s/he roamed around up and down the stairs, feeding JonBenet pineapple, waiting at least an hour for it to digest, hitting her on the head, strangling her, wiping her down, redressing her, getting her blanket, wrapping her up in it, writing the ransom note...

No intruder would dare that much. Someone who lived there did all of that, imo.

rosebud

08-22-2006, 09:53 PM

Dr. Werner Spitz, a highly accredited and experienced pathologist, measured the skull fracture and believes the Maglite flashlight that was found on the kitchen counter is a perfect fit. The Maglite had been a gift from JAR and it was wiped down inside and out, including the batteries. Patsy claimed she didn't know if it was theirs or not, and it waseventually determined to belong to them. I think it was the instrument that cracked JB's skull and that's why it was wiped down.

It was Patsy's custom to get up during the night and take JonBenet to the bathroom so as to avoid a wet bed. There was no overhead light in JB's room - it had been taken out and replaced with a ceiling fan during an earlier renovation. The only light in JB's room was a lamp on a table between her twin beds...but Patsy used a flashlight to take her to the bathroom. Patsy says that that Christmas night was the one night that she slept through and did not awaken to take her to the potty. I think she's lying. [/B][/QUOTE]

REPLY: That is the first I heard about a flashlight. A Maglite flashlight is used by police sometimes as an ad hoc club and it would get the job done. np, if Patsy had sense enough and was cool enough to take out the batteries and wipe the flashlight down, why didn't she get rid of the pad of paper the note was written on? Why didn't she make sure the garrotte was never found? Why didn't she break open a window or door to make it look obvious an intruder had entered?

At the same time hitting a six year old with a maglite flashlight in the head hard enough to kill her is no accident. Now we are getting into her intentionally murdering JonBenet. What is the motive? We have a woman with no history of harming her daughter, who she spends a lot of time with and dotes on, clobbering her with a Maglite flashlight?

EDDIEisMINE

08-22-2006, 10:21 PM

Those monsters who killed those other girls also didn't confess. It just proves that John Karr is not an ordinary killer and that what he does doesn't go along with what usually happens.
Everything about this is different from the other murders you mention.

rosebud

08-22-2006, 10:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lili007

But - this rope and paintbrush-handle garotte is such overkill. She's a 6-year-old, for goodness' sake! And if she was intent on screaming, she would hardly stop to allow time for whoever to get the rope and the paintbrush handle to make a garotte to strangle her. Their first instinct would have been to stop the screaming. An adult hand over a tiny mouth would do it. Not to mention the duct tape used. Think about it.

Finding some rope, and a paintbrush handle, fashioning some 'garotte' out of them and using it took deliberation, it was not done 'in the heat of the moment'. If the duct tape was not in place by then, she would have screamed the roof off the house, not waited to watch someone get some rope and a paintbrush handle and wind it around her throat. If the tape was already gagging her, why the garotte?

REPLY: Lilli, The only thing I can think of here is that the person who hit her in the head realized afterwards that she was still alive. At that point he/she wanted to make sure she did not awaken to describe him/her to police. If it was an intruder, it would imply that he/she changed his/her mind about taking JBR from the house after the head injury.

We know that the medical experts have said that she "appeared dead" after being struck in the head. But maybe she was still breathing hard enough so that the killer could tell she was still alive--unconcious, but alive.

np has told us that her neck had little damage to it, not like one would expect from a strangulation. Maybe the killer realized she was still breathing a little, and found the parts for the makeshift garrotte, and choked her "gently" until she stopped breathing.

Lili007

08-23-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by rosebud
Ok, you both have me thinking that the DNA is questionable and probably not from the killer. Assuming John Mark Karr did not do it, and the case is still up in the air, please give me some of your thoughts. You have me back to thinking that the parents did it.

If the fibers incriminate John and Patsy, then do they exonerate Burke?

I would like for you both to expound on this scenario:

I am thinking that if it was me and I got up with a child in the middle of the night who had wet the bed or wanted something to eat or just couldn't sleep and I was very tired and angry and I got mad and pushed her into a toilet and thought I had killed her, what would be my reaction.

Well my first reaction would be to call 911 or rush her to the hospital or perform CPR. While waiting/driving, if I got panicky and started worrying about being charged with murder and the very low opinion inmates have of child killers and my prospects in prison, I might start inventing a viable story to avoid that.

Here a viable story is easy to come up with. I could say she must have climbed on the kitchen counter to get cookies and when I was out of the room I heard a "thump" and ran back in and found her on the floor.

I could say that I found her at the bottom of the stairs. I could say she was found below the banister of the stairs as if she had fallen off the banister. I could say she fell out of bed, even.

Wouldn't this be the natural story to give? After all sometimes parents or baby sitters sometimes claim that injuries they inflicted were caused by falling. It probably works sometimes too.

Why wasn't this the reaction of the Ramseys? What was different about this that made them fake a kidnapping?

I think JonBenet's death was "accidental" - as in 'not deliberate'. I also think there were some weird dynamics in the family at that time. I think that maybe JonBenet had become sexually attractive to one or other member of the close or extended family, due to the way she was portrayed as toddler "beauty queen".

I think her parents have a lot to answer for. Whoever killed JonBenet, whether it was one of her own family or an intruder, I cannot believe it would have happened at all at her age, if she hadn't been made to dress up and put on make up to look YEARS older, and if she she hadn't been coached into acting like some sort of sex diva in those shows.

I dpn't know if Patsy and/or John were responsible for JonBenet's murder, but, even if indirectly, they will always be. They didn't want a daughter - they wanted a trophy. Poor JonBenet, God rest her soul.

JMO,
Lili

dandb729

08-23-2006, 10:21 AM

The DNA underneath JBR's fingernails and in her panties DO NOT MATCH ANY RAMSEY whatsoever. Don't you guys read? You should read this article ...

http://cbs5.com/topstories/topstories_story_235092054.html

rosebud

08-23-2006, 10:38 AM

I have read a lot of the information on the websites the posters here have given out and have learned a lot.

I have decided that no one heard a scream in the middle of the night after all. The woman neighbor who said she heard one initially told police she heard and saw nothing unusual that night, but later changed her story. The scream can be discounted.

A neighbor apparently did report seeing the light in the Ramsey kitchen on in the early morning hours. Since all three survivors in the house said they did not get up between about 10:30 and about 5:30 the next morning, that is significant. It is highly unlikely that an intruder would turn it on.

JonBenet was found in a room in the basement that had one door and no windows. It was at the farthest possible point from the "basement window" that some claim the intruder used to get in the house. To leave by that window from the room she was found in would have necessitated going the length of the basement and passing through several doors.

That means if an intruder put her in there and the family had got up and realized something was wrong, he/she/they would have been trapped in the one room in the house, other than closets and bathrooms, that he had no retreat from. It is not likely a burglar or kidnapper would go in that room, since it was empty anyway. Actually it appears to be an effort to hide the body.

I did not read anywhere if John and Patsy had checked to see that all doors were locked BEFORE going to the Fleet Whites Christmas evening. So the fact that the house was probably locked up when they went to bed may have been too late--the intruder may already have been inside the house.

I do not believe the basement window was used as the entry point for the intruder if there was one. If the intruder did enter, he probably walked in an unlocked door.

Patsy said she was in the basement on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day wrapping presents. She did say that the presents were kept in the room JBR was found in. That means she walked within inches of the box her paint brushes were in and the same one from which the garrotte's handle was taken.

rosebud

08-23-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by dandb729
The DNA underneath JBR's fingernails and in her panties DO NOT MATCH ANY RAMSEY whatsoever. Don't you guys read? You should read this article ...

http://cbs5.com/topstories/topstories_story_235092054.html

REPLY: I read that also. However that may be just one side of the argument--the side of the Ramsey publicists and those police detectives who believe they did not do it. If you go back in this thread you will find out that there is considerable doubt if the DNA is from a family member OR an intruder--it may have been from the person who sewed the underwear himself. Apparently the DNA is so degraded and old that nothing definitive can be said about it's owner.

dandb729

08-23-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: I read that also. However that may be just one side of the argument--the side of the Ramsey publicists and those police detectives who believe they did not do it. If you go back in this thread you will find out that there is considerable doubt if the DNA is from a family member OR an intruder--it may have been from the person who sewed the underwear himself. Apparently the DNA is so degraded and old that nothing definitive can be said about it's owner.

Didn't realize that but I highly doubt the person sewing the underwear himself would *ahem* over it, savvy? Have you ever watched A&E Cold Case Files? The DNA that they extract some 15-20 years ago is ok enough to test for a profile so I really am hoping this will hold up as well. I posted something last week regarding my ignorance ... I wept when I heard about the possible suspect who knew more than his share of less than public info regarding this case. I didn't weap for Patsy, John or Jonbenet rather I wept for my own bullheadedness - for condemming them as 98% of the entire nation did once the story broke. Guilty until proven innocent. I swear, if this come in that JMK did infact do this, I will NEVER THINK THAT WAY AGAIN. Gut reaction or bandwagon jumping? I've often wondered that about my initial reaction ... I still couldn't tell you honestly.

Amy

08-23-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

I think JonBenet's death was "accidental" - as in 'not deliberate'. I also think there were some weird dynamics in the family at that time. I think that maybe JonBenet had become sexually attractive to one or other member of the close or extended family, due to the way she was portrayed as toddler "beauty queen".

I think her parents have a lot to answer for. Whoever killed JonBenet, whether it was one of her own family or an intruder, I cannot believe it would have happened at all at her age, if she hadn't been made to dress up and put on make up to look YEARS older, and if she she hadn't been coached into acting like some sort of sex diva in those shows.

I dpn't know if Patsy and/or John were responsible for JonBenet's murder, but, even if indirectly, they will always be. They didn't want a daughter - they wanted a trophy. Poor JonBenet, God rest her soul.

JMO,
Lili

But, what about Polly Klaas and Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford? They weren't little beauty princesses, yet, someone came into their homes in the middle of the night.

JBR's involvement in pageants only comes into play if the intruder was involved in pageants. Otherwise, she is the unlucky victim of a sick mind, just as the other girls were, and her death would NOT be because of her parents' allowing her to be in pageants. IMO

dandb729

08-23-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

I think JonBenet's death was "accidental" - as in 'not deliberate'. I also think there were some weird dynamics in the family at that time. I think that maybe JonBenet had become sexually attractive to one or other member of the close or extended family, due to the way she was portrayed as toddler "beauty queen".

I think her parents have a lot to answer for. Whoever killed JonBenet, whether it was one of her own family or an intruder, I cannot believe it would have happened at all at her age, if she hadn't been made to dress up and put on make up to look YEARS older, and if she she hadn't been coached into acting like some sort of sex diva in those shows.

I dpn't know if Patsy and/or John were responsible for JonBenet's murder, but, even if indirectly, they will always be. They didn't want a daughter - they wanted a trophy. Poor JonBenet, God rest her soul.

JMO,
Lili

I respect your opinion however please read this ...

From 3 til I was 10 or so I was in a dance academy and on at least 3 occasions per year, I was made-up and dressed-up just as much if not MORE than JBR. Does this mean MY parents wanted a trophy and not a daughter? Now, I currently am involved in a dance studio program for underprivileged kids and they too get dressed-up and made-up for their recitals every year and their photos every year. I highly doubt J&P Ramsey had her made-up 365 days per year. Pageants are much like recitals ... you're on a stage and need theatrical make-up to be seen.

rosebud

08-23-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The DNA has been entered in the FBI CODIS system........ the have a profile from the DNA - the profile indicates the suspect is a white male. The DNA is not that of a Ramsey.............

REPLY: I read that, however I also read that it did not have the full "13 markers" they normally require. I read that it only had at most "10 markers" on the DNA profile. It also appeared to be older than JBR's DNA on the panties.

And in reply to another post I believe the experts reversed themselves and decided the DNA on the panties was not semen afterall--they thought initially it was--and so the sewer of the panties may have just sneezed on them and not "ahem-ed" on them.

EDDIEisMINE

08-23-2006, 12:11 PM

You can't live your life in fear. You can't NOT put a little girl into a pagent because you are scared of pedophiles. You might as well not let them go play at Mcdonalds or a park or outside for that matter, because Pedophiles are everywhere. They could care less whether a little girl is in a pagent or out riding a bike in a poor neighborhood. Some things JR and PR may of done wrong are leaving windows open, and not having security on that big home, since, huge homes can be a target for theives. I would of made sure all windows in home secured good and doors with alarm systems but, you know, none of us are perfect. We don't live in fear so they probably never worried about something like this.

dandb729

08-23-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: I read that, however I also read that it did not have the full "13 markers" they normally require. I read that it only had at most "10 markers" on the DNA profile. It also appeared to be older than JBR's DNA on the panties.

And in reply to another post I believe the experts reversed themselves and decided the DNA on the panties was not semen afterall--they thought initially it was--and so the sewer of the panties may have just sneezed on them and not "ahem-ed" on them.

You liked my little *ahem* didn't ya?! You could be absolutely right ... I never thought about a sneeze or cough.
;)

Lili007

08-23-2006, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by rosebud
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lili007

But - this rope and paintbrush-handle garotte is such overkill. She's a 6-year-old, for goodness' sake! And if she was intent on screaming, she would hardly stop to allow time for whoever to get the rope and the paintbrush handle to make a garotte to strangle her. Their first instinct would have been to stop the screaming. An adult hand over a tiny mouth would do it. Not to mention the duct tape used. Think about it.

Finding some rope, and a paintbrush handle, fashioning some 'garotte' out of them and using it took deliberation, it was not done 'in the heat of the moment'. If the duct tape was not in place by then, she would have screamed the roof off the house, not waited to watch someone get some rope and a paintbrush handle and wind it around her throat. If the tape was already gagging her, why the garotte?

REPLY: Lilli, The only thing I can think of here is that the person who hit her in the head realized afterwards that she was still alive. At that point he/she wanted to make sure she did not awaken to describe him/her to police. If it was an intruder, it would imply that he/she changed his/her mind about taking JBR from the house after the head injury.

We know that the medical experts have said that she "appeared dead" after being struck in the head. But maybe she was still breathing hard enough so that the killer could tell she was still alive--unconcious, but alive.

np has told us that her neck had little damage to it, not like one would expect from a strangulation. Maybe the killer realized she was still breathing a little, and found the parts for the makeshift garrotte, and choked her "gently" until she stopped breathing.

rosebud, I must say I'm having a hard tine reconcilling this. If it was an intruder and if 'he' wrote that ransmo note, WHY on earth would he kill JonBenet?

Lili007

08-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Amy

But, what about Polly Klaas and Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford? They weren't little beauty princesses, yet, someone came into their homes in the middle of the night.

JBR's involvement in pageants only comes into play if the intruder was involved in pageants. Otherwise, she is the unlucky victim of a sick mind, just as the other girls were, and her death would NOT be because of her parents' allowing her to be in pageants. IMO

It was not a matter of "allowing" her to be in pageants. It was more like "this is your life". JonBenet was MADE to perform for the audience, much liie a seal or a gifted dog does.

rosebud

08-23-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

rosebud, I must say I'm having a hard tine reconcilling this. If it was an intruder and if 'he' wrote that ransmo note, WHY on earth would he kill JonBenet?

REPLY: I had thought about that and this is one scenario I thought of: the intruder decides to tie her hands for some reason. He gets one arm tied and she resists. He cannot get the other wrist tied, and she starts to break away. He has something nearby--a flashlight maybe--and he hits her with it. It might explain the cord on the wrist and the head injury.

A better question is why an intruder would leave her where they found her. It would seem the most unlikely room in the house for him to leave her body.

dandb729

08-23-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: I had thought about that and this is one scenario I thought of: the intruder decides to tie her hands for some reason. He gets one arm tied and she resists. He cannot get the other wrist tied, and she starts to break away. He has something nearby--a flashlight maybe--and he hits her with it. It might explain the cord on the wrist and the head injury.

A better question is why an intruder would leave her where they found her. It would seem the most unlikely room in the house for him to leave her body.

I agree with both of you. It is the craziest thing, right? Now think of the crazy things JMK has said and done. May not be too far off.

Anyone watch Nancy Grace last night? She played taped conversations she had between Wendy Hutchins and JMK from 2001. Wanna talk about weird??? GOOSEBUMPS!

rosebud

08-23-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by dandb729

You liked my little *ahem* didn't ya?! You could be absolutely right ... I never thought about a sneeze or cough.
;)

When I was a fifteen year old boy eons ago, we never referred to it as "ahem" though. :)

dandb729

08-23-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

When I was a fifteen year old boy eons ago, we never referred to it as "ahem" though. :)

Oh, I know ... but we're on a public board! LOL!:tongue:

rosebud

08-23-2006, 07:36 PM

Am I understanding that there are some whose opinions might matter who suspect John Mark Karr might just be the killer of JBR? If so, I will be floored.

And if so this little girl was murdered by the pathetic pedophile?

I need a double bourbon to absorb this. If true this is about as depressing as it gets.

Then again it was depressing no matter how it went down I guess.

EDDIEisMINE

08-23-2006, 10:48 PM

I think Mark Karr is a freak who gets off by talking to people who he thinks he can trust, like telling his wife he likes little girls and his fantasys, and trusting this woman who taped their calls etc.
He told the lady on the phone that he bashed in Jonbenets scull, so, why did they wait so long? I think he'll try to get off though and make out like he didn't do it, but, I think he really did. He is too obsessed not to of done this. I really think he did this.

rosebud

08-23-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
I think Mark Karr is a freak who gets off by talking to people who he thinks he can trust, like telling his wife he likes little girls and his fantasys, and trusting this woman who taped their calls etc.
He told the lady on the phone that he bashed in Jonbenets scull, so, why did they wait so long? I think he'll try to get off though and make out like he didn't do it, but, I think he really did. He is too obsessed not to of done this. I really think he did this.

REPLY: In another thread on this message board, someone had a link to handwriting samples of his and the ransom note that looked very similar. I am beginning to think he did it. But then again I did listen to some of Nancy Grace tonight and that segment seemed to be suggesting the Boulder DA is already deciding he ain't the guy. Like the truth here, I don't know what to think.

Kathy*Rae

08-24-2006, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

It was not a matter of "allowing" her to be in pageants. It was more like "this is your life". JonBenet was MADE to perform for the audience, much liie a seal or a gifted dog does.

you seem pretty sure that was the case. are you perhaps related, or a friend of the Ramsey family?

i didn't know them at all, but from photos and videos i've seen all over the news, this child seems to be enjoying herself, and not miserable.....

imo, of course

Lili007

08-24-2006, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by dandb729

I respect your opinion however please read this ...

From 3 til I was 10 or so I was in a dance academy and on at least 3 occasions per year, I was made-up and dressed-up just as much if not MORE than JBR. Does this mean MY parents wanted a trophy and not a daughter? Now, I currently am involved in a dance studio program for underprivileged kids and they too get dressed-up and made-up for their recitals every year and their photos every year. I highly doubt J&P Ramsey had her made-up 365 days per year. Pageants are much like recitals ... you're on a stage and need theatrical make-up to be seen.

Good for you. I'm truly happy it worked well for you. I also trained in classical ballet from age 7 to 16. I know about stage make up just as I know that what I did was hard work, not just looking pretty. Of course you use stage make up when you're on stage. But , usually, that doesn't mean being painted and dressed to be "sexy" and way beyond your years, and being taught to ACT like some sex kitten at age 5 or 6. Ballet is much more hard work than people realise, as well as an art form.

Being raised to act like a sex object at age 5 or 6 has nothing to do with art, or artistic performance. It's just sick.

That's not art, it's not ballet, it has nothing to do with performing arts or any other form of art - it's just plain sleaze. Poor JonBenet - she only knew what she was taught to do, and be. I don't think any stranger or intruder taught her to do and be that. Do you?

JMO,
Lili

Lili007

08-24-2006, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Kathy*Rae

you seem pretty sure that was the case. are you perhaps related, or a friend of the Ramsey family?

i didn't know them at all, but from photos and videos i've seen all over the news, this child seems to be enjoying herself, and not miserable.....

imo, of course

No, Kathy*Rae, I'm not related to the Ramseys. But that doesn't mean that I can't relate to the circumstances.

Of course JonBenet seems to be enjoying herself - she most probably actually did. But she is not the adult here - she is a 6 year old who doesn't know any better than what her RESPONSIBLE adult parents teach her.

But that's not the point. I used to play 'dress-ups' and I don't know any girl who didn't. But it didn't include wearing provocative costumes and acting in a sex-kittenish manner on stage or on camera, or even at home.

This poor kid did it all, and then some, with the encouragement and 'nurture' of her mother.

Forgive me if I find it all more than a bit sick.

JMO,
Lili

dandb729

08-24-2006, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Good for you. I'm truly happy it worked well for you. I also trained in classical ballet from age 7 to 16. I know about stage make up just as I know that what I did was hard work, not just looking pretty. Of course you use stage make up when you're on stage. But , usually, that doesn't mean being painted and dressed to be "sexy" and way beyond your years, and being taught to ACT like some sex kitten at age 5 or 6. Ballet is much more hard work than people realise, as well as an art form.

Being raised to act like a sex object at age 5 or 6 has nothing to do with art, or artistic performance. It's just sick.

That's not art, it's not ballet, it has nothing to do with performing arts or any other form of art - it's just plain sleaze. Poor JonBenet - she only knew what she was taught to do, and be. I don't think any stranger or intruder taught her to do and be that. Do you?

JMO,
Lili

You know, Lili, I really didn't think about it that way until I watched the video tapes again last night. I guess since I had the thought in my head, I could totally see the what you're saying. Know what's funny? Last night while I was watching Nancy Grace, I thought of you because my eyes were opened to the 'suggestiveness' of her ways on stage. Who taught her that? I highly doubt she picked it up on her own. What a sin, don't you think? So many children in those positions and not knowing different. Well, as I said, I am involved in a studio for underprivileged kids who love it and are truly appreciative of all the time and effort we put into it. I will keep it in my head this year to be objective and not subjective regarding their routines. Since they aren't the most well off kids and their neighborhoods leave a lot to be desired, this is something I really should have thought about initially.

Do you still dance?

Duchess

08-24-2006, 10:46 AM

*TTL*

I have one major problem with the garotte that hasn't been brough up as far as I can see.

If we go on the theory that the killer is dealing with a six-years old girl who is unconcious and yet still showing enough signs of life to make the killer realize she is not dead yet - then why bother with something as elaborate as a garotte anyway?

I mean, she is unconscious right? And her mouth is duct-taped?

In that case, why didn't the killer just strangle her with bare hands? Why bother with making a garotte?

The only reason I can think of is that the killer found it "too personal" to put their hands around her neck.

And I am not saying that to point a finger at any member of the Ramsey family, a psychopath with a crush on JBR could well have been "squeamish" in the same way, thinking that he or her actually loved the little girl.

I just don't see the point of the garotte at all, period.

EDDIEisMINE

08-24-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: In another thread on this message board, someone had a link to handwriting samples of his and the ransom note that looked very similar. I am beginning to think he did it. But then again I did listen to some of Nancy Grace tonight and that segment seemed to be suggesting the Boulder DA is already deciding he ain't the guy. Like the truth here, I don't know what to think.

I guess all that can prove it is the DNA match.

A_seeker

08-24-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by dandb729

You know, Lili, I really didn't think about it that way until I watched the video tapes again last night.

Hello Dandb,

I followed this case years ago, but haven't kept up in quite some time. I am now reading on this forum trying to get back "up to speed". Could you tell me which video tapes you are referring to? Is there a link on this forum? Thanks so much.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Duchess
*TTL*

I have one major problem with the garotte that hasn't been brough up as far as I can see.

If we go on the theory that the killer is dealing with a six-years old girl who is unconcious and yet still showing enough signs of life to make the killer realize she is not dead yet - then why bother with something as elaborate as a garotte anyway?

I mean, she is unconscious right? And her mouth is duct-taped?

In that case, why didn't the killer just strangle her with bare hands? Why bother with making a garotte?

The only reason I can think of is that the killer found it "too personal" to put their hands around her neck.

And I am not saying that to point a finger at any member of the Ramsey family, a psychopath with a crush on JBR could well have been "squeamish" in the same way, thinking that he or her actually loved the little girl.

I just don't see the point of the garotte at all, period.

REPLY: I think you may have a point here. It seems to indicate an emotional attachment, one way or another, natural or unnatural, to JBR. If it was just a criminal who wanted the money and nothing else, he would probably have strangled her with his hands.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE

I guess all that can prove it is the DNA match.

REPLY: That is assuming there is DNA to match to JMK. The Catch-22 here might be that if the DNA on her panties is from the person who made them and sewed them together, that fact might make it impossible to convict Karr, or anyone else.

They say that DNA evidence has been a 2-edged sword for prosecutors, as too many people have heard Grisham (CSI--Thursday nights on CBS) claim that criminals ALWAYS leave DNA at a crime scene. Juries expect to see it.

The thing here that could get real dicey for the prosecution is that if they do try Karr for it, you have a pedophile who is obsessed with JBR. He was then, and he is now.

How believable is it if someone like THAT left no DNA at a crime scene? Even I find that unlikely, if she was murdered by any pedophile.

I did read somewhere on one of the links in a thread on this message board that there were actually three DNA samples: one from her panties, one from under her fingernails, and one that is a big question mark to the public: the police have never said what it is or where it was found, only that it is part of the crime scene.

I guess the theme music from Jaws is appropriate as we sit on the edge of our seats waiting in eager anticipation.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 02:04 PM

I also read that one of the Ramsey's housekeepers said that the basement of the Ramsey home "freaked JonBenet out." It was creepy and it scared her.

If JMK tried to make her go down there while conscious, maybe she resisted and cried out in protest?

dandb729

08-24-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by A_seeker

Hello Dandb,

I followed this case years ago, but haven't kept up in quite some time. I am now reading on this forum trying to get back "up to speed". Could you tell me which video tapes you are referring to? Is there a link on this forum? Thanks so much.

Just the vids Nancy Grace shows on her CNN show. No link, I'm sorry!

dandb729

08-24-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

SNIP - for obvious reasons :)

I did read somewhere on one of the links in a thread on this message board that there were actually three DNA samples: one from her panties, one from under her fingernails, and one that is a big question mark to the public: the police have never said what it is or where it was found, only that it is part of the crime scene.

I guess the theme music from Jaws is appropriate as we sit on the edge of our seats waiting in eager anticipation.

I believe the 3rd piece of DNA is a pubic hair and I think I heard that on Nancy Grace. I'll do a bit of research and come back with a link.

Jaws theme music ... exit stage right. :D

dandb729

08-24-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by rosebud
I also read that one of the Ramsey's housekeepers said that the basement of the Ramsey home "freaked JonBenet out." It was creepy and it scared her.

If JMK tried to make her go down there while conscious, maybe she resisted and cried out in protest?

Would chloroform show up in toxicology tests? I just think that because he was a teacher at the time maybe it would have been easy for him to get a hold of it. Just a thought.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by dandb729

I believe the 3rd piece of DNA is a pubic hair and I think I heard that on Nancy Grace. I'll do a bit of research and come back with a link.

Jaws theme music ... exit stage right. :D

REPLY: you are probably right. I read somewhere a third DNA source was found and there is did not say what it was, but I also read pubic hair was found. After all we know samples of pubic hair were taken from Patsy and John.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by dandb729

Would chloroform show up in toxicology tests? I just think that because he was a teacher at the time maybe it would have been easy for him to get a hold of it. Just a thought.

REPLY: I read somewhere on this message board in a post that chloroform may not show up later. A rather lot of it is required for it to show up in blood. At least that is what a poster at a CourtTV message board said about it. And we all know that the posters here are irrefutable sources of facts. :)

dandb729

08-24-2006, 02:28 PM

dandb729

08-24-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

REPLY: I read somewhere on this message board in a post that chloroform may not show up later. A rather lot of it is required for it to show up in blood. At least that is what a poster at a CourtTV message board said about it. And we all know that the posters here are irrefutable sources of facts. :)

Alright, in all seriousness, here is the link for Chloroform-

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts6.html#bookmark07

You'll see IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST ...

It does not difinitively tell you it shows or not HOWEVER is DOES say the tests are only useful for a short time after exposure. So, lets just say JonBenet was murdered at the 5am mark, wasn't found until afternoon ... would it show? I don't think so. JMO.

dandb729

08-24-2006, 04:47 PM

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/jonbenet_casefile.html

All I have to say is WOW.

rosebud

08-24-2006, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by dandb729
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/jonbenet_casefile.html

All I have to say is WOW.

It was a very good site with a lot of information. I noticed that John Ramsey actually personally handed one of the detectives the pad of paper that it was later determined the ransom note was written on, and that John Ramsey told the detectives that morning that all the doors were locked before he went to bed and they were still locked after they had found the ransom note. I guess he had checked that morning.

Actually that does not sound like the action of a guilty person or one who was trying to cover up culpability of him or Patsy in the death. It would have helped them in that respect to say he had found a door unlocked and of course he should have destroyed the pad of paper if Patsy wrote the ransom note on it.

It no longer sounds like JBR was hit with a hammer either. I had a wrong idea about the head wound.

Lili007

08-25-2006, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by dandb729

You know, Lili, I really didn't think about it that way until I watched the video tapes again last night. I guess since I had the thought in my head, I could totally see the what you're saying. Know what's funny? Last night while I was watching Nancy Grace, I thought of you because my eyes were opened to the 'suggestiveness' of her ways on stage. Who taught her that? I highly doubt she picked it up on her own. What a sin, don't you think? So many children in those positions and not knowing different. Well, as I said, I am involved in a studio for underprivileged kids who love it and are truly appreciative of all the time and effort we put into it. I will keep it in my head this year to be objective and not subjective regarding their routines. Since they aren't the most well off kids and their neighborhoods leave a lot to be desired, this is something I really should have thought about initially.

Do you still dance?

Dandb, I think what you're doing is truly wonderful. It's amazing what something like that can do for self-esteem and self-confidence. I wish you, the people you work with and especially the kids, every success.

Do I still dance? Only socially :) But the sound of Swan Lake or Giselle will bring tears to my eyes every time, guaranteed. I loved it and I know what it did for me in terms of confidence, so I know how important what you do for these kids really is.

Best wishes,
Lili

Lili007

08-25-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

Dandb, I think what you're doing is truly wonderful. It's amazing what something like that can do for self-esteem and self-confidence. I wish you, the people you work with and especially the kids, every success.

Do I still dance? Only socially :) But the sound of Swan Lake or Giselle will bring tears to my eyes every time, guaranteed. I loved it and I know what it did for me in terms of confidence, so I know how important what you do for these kids really is.

Best wishes,
Lili

PS - What JonBenet performed on stage had nothing to do with any form of art - she was a child impersonating a woman in the most inappropriate way, for her age. She was like Marilyn Monroe. I like Marilyn Monroe as an acress and she was a very attractive woman, but look at where her life went. Still, she was a little older than 6... And you're quite right: a little girl doesn't just "pick up" that sort of acting, she was taught to act that way. I don't think it was her father who did that, or any stranger. That doesn't mean I think her mother killed her, just that I think she put her daughter in danger, even if she didn't realise it.

JMO

EDDIEisMINE

08-25-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Lili007

PS - What JonBenet performed on stage had nothing to do with any form of art - she was a child impersonating a woman in the most inappropriate way, for her age. She was like Marilyn Monroe. I like Marilyn Monroe as an acress and she was a very attractive woman, but look at where her life went. Still, she was a little older than 6... And you're quite right: a little girl doesn't just "pick up" that sort of acting, she was taught to act that way. I don't think it was her father who did that, or any stranger. That doesn't mean I think her mother killed her, just that I think she put her daughter in danger, even if she didn't realise it.

JMO

blah. There is nothing wrong with the way Jon Benet danced or acted or anything else. The problem is people who put it into other peoples mind that there is something wrong with it.

Lili007

08-25-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE

blah. There is nothing wrong with the way Jon Benet danced or acted or anything else. The problem is people who put it into other peoples mind that there is something wrong with it.

Well, that's your opinion.

Mine is that, if you want to encourage your child to be involved in performing arts, you don't teach her or make her up to emulate some sort of sex symbols 20-30 years older than she is. You don't dress her up to look like that, and you certainly don't teach her to ACT like that. But that's just me.

IMO, if you believe your child has the potential, the talent and the dedication to hard work to do anything else than model sexy costumes in provocative postures in "pageants", wearing more war-paint than anyone I've ever seen at that age, then the poor kid deserved more of a chance then JonBenet had. Her parent's idea of "achievement" or "talent" extended only as far as how closely she could resemble the adult female stars they wanted her to emulate at the time. Whether it be "country", "rock-and-roll" or urban "chique". She did the whole bunch, and then some - after all, she was all of 6. How 'accomplished' is that?!

None of this is JonBenet's "fault" - her parents were the responsible 'adults', her mother should have thought of her daughter as an individual to be cared for, nurtured and respected. Not as an extension of herself and what she wanted to be. Her daughter didn't deserve to bear that burden.

I know Patsy lost her battle with cancer, and I'm truly sorry for her. But what she put JonBenet through was not 'motherly' or 'caring'. That little girl never got to be just a little girl, and then, she just wasn't, anymore. Not fair.

JMO,
Lili

EDDIEisMINE

08-25-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

Well, that's your opinion.

Mine is that, if you want to encourage your child to be involved in performing arts, you don't teach her or make her up to emulate some sort of sex symbols 20-30 years older than she is. You don't dress her up to look like that, and you certainly don't teach her to ACT like that. But that's just me.

IMO, if you believe your child has the potential, the talent and the dedication to hard work to do anything else than model sexy costumes in provocative postures in "pageants", wearing more war-paint than anyone I've ever seen at that age, then the poor kid deserved more of a chance then JonBenet had. Her parent's idea of "achievement" or "talent" extended only as far as how closely she could resemble the adult female stars they wanted her to emulate at the time. Whether it be "country", "rock-and-roll" or urban "chique". She did the whole bunch, and then some - after all, she was all of 6. How 'accomplished' is that?!

None of this is JonBenet's "fault" - her parents were the responsible 'adults', her mother should have thought of her daughter as an individual to be cared for, nurtured and respected. Not as an extension of herself and what she wanted to be. Her daughter didn't deserve to bear that burden.

I know Patsy lost her battle with cancer, and I'm truly sorry for her. But what she put JonBenet through was not 'motherly' or 'caring'. That little girl never got to be just a little girl, and then, she just wasn't, anymore. Not fair.

JMO,
Lili

When I look at Jon Benet in those videos in the pagents, she just looks like a cute little girl to me. Nothing more. I guess only sick minded people would see anything more.

Stop Judging Patsy Ramsey. You don't know what kind of mother she was. It is only a figment of your imagination that she was a bad mother. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because Jon Benet was murdered doesn't mean Patsy was a bad parent. There are plenty of mothers who put their kids in pagents who love their kids dearly. Jon Benet got to be just as much a child as any child. Maybe they should of dressed her up in a suit and tie instead? And, you're right. It is my opinion, and yours is your opinion and not true at all.

A_seeker

08-25-2006, 02:00 PM

Jody

08-26-2006, 03:52 PM

bigmikenash

08-27-2006, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by A_seeker

Wow...you are accusing a lot of the posters here of being sick minded...although you have no evidence of that. Don't you think that is pretty harsh, considering the fact you lambast anyone who even speculates that Patsy MIGHT have had a sick mind, even though there's been quite a few things that might suggest that?? seeker the dna tested under the fingernails and the panties didnt match.EVERYONE IN THE RAMSEY HOUSE WAS TESTED AND NONE MATCHED...that said i would assume that it would be safe to say it clears them.instead lambasting (as you say)other posters do it to yourself...........

rosebud

08-27-2006, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by bigmikenash
seeker the dna tested under the fingernails and the panties didnt match.EVERYONE IN THE RAMSEY HOUSE WAS TESTED AND NONE MATCHED...that said i would assume that it would be safe to say it clears them.instead lambasting (as you say)other posters do it to yourself...........

And since we know that the DNA found there was so degraded that it did not even have the minimum number of detectable markers on it, it probably means absolutely nothing.

Other reports about it probably are coming from the Ramsey "camp" and that means it means nothing.

rosebud

08-27-2006, 08:31 AM

The real DNA Test is whether the DNA of the pubic hair found matches the DNA found on the panties or under the fingernails. I also wonder if a match here can be made. I know hair is different than blood or semen or spit or mucous when it comes to DNA sometimes. (Maybe someone can check with Grisham. :) )

Since John and Patsy both submitted sample pubic hairs and I am assuming neither matched this pubic hair.

A_seeker

08-27-2006, 10:17 PM

rosebud

08-28-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The DNA was not inconclusive. A DNA profile has been entered into the FBI system CODIS.

The DNA found did not match the Ramseys or several other individuals tested. The person whose DNA was found has not been identified.

JMO

I never read anything to indicate that the DNA from the fingernails and panties was "conclusive" either. What I read was that it was degraded, and it did not have the minimum markers the FBI normally requires for "positive" indentification, but that they entered it into the FBI's data base for DNA anyway. That is how I understood it.

I assumed here that it may be more valuable for eliminating suspects or raising the "possibility" that a suspect might be involved than positively IDing suspects.

dandb729

08-28-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Link re: DNA

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

That is a great article.

I've often wondered about that guy who committed suicide. I didn't know they checked the DNA sample with his and it came back negative - There goes that.

today

08-30-2006, 11:05 AM

Let Patsy Ramsey rest in peace with her daughter, she and her husband John have been cleared of this crime, let it go------this family has been through enough, all we can do is hope and pray the real killer be caught. Shame on all of you for pointing fingers at this family who has lost everything. THEY ARE INNOCENT,IT HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER. Dont you think if there was a shred of evidence, the Boulder Dectectives would have really pursued this case and arrested them of courst they would have----again----NO EVIDENCE, NO DNA MATCH----NOTHING FOLKS
LEAVE THE RAMSEYS ALONE LET THEM TRY AND BE NORMAL AGAIN

irishlady

08-30-2006, 06:18 PM

i think that maybe people are having a problem believing that a mother could do this to her baby but one only has to read thru crime library to realise that it is possible.i'm not saying that patsy was a bad person,but obviously something made her snap,good mothers have their bad days too,but i just wish that IF she did kill jb that she would have confessed on her deathbed and the circus that we've seen the last two weeks could have been avoided.having said that at least now many children will be safe from that creep so some good has come of iti hope that someday this case will be resolved and jb can finally rest in peace.
jmo

irishlady

08-31-2006, 06:44 PM

may i ask you why you are so sure of this?i do not pretend to be an expert on murder but having read quite a lot on this case i could not come to a definite conclusion as you seem to have...but methodically putting the pieces of it together it points to just one person...i really hoped it would be karr but in my heart i knew it was'nt especially when i saw the handwriting analysis...for ten years now i felt the same way and nothing has changed to make me think anything different...jmo

Lili007

09-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by victims feel

.......................................

Let children be children there is plenty of time to grow up later.

This is the most concise, and for that, all the more eloquent statement I've seen so far on this thread, if not on this board. Needless to say, I agree 100%.

I know this comment will be unpopular with some posters, but I believe that if JonBenet hadn't been made to parade in provocative costumes, strike even more provocative poses and look like some sort of sex-kitten, her life might have been saved.

Every little girl likes to play dress-ups, but there's a HUGE difference between playing dress-ups for fun, donning mom's jewelry, tottering in her high heels, painting lipstik all over the face and eyeshadow all over the eyes and probably all over the face, and laughing with friends or relies, in the comfort and within the protection of her own home, as opposed to being subtely made-up to look like a seductive 20-25 year old, dressed in miniature "sexy" wear, and, worst of all, made to strut and pose on the stage as though she were competing for the next Miss Playboy centerfold. That's just sick, IMO. And very, very dangerous.

Whatever vicarious pleasure or pride mothers or other family derive from seeing their girls paraded like that just to have them bring home some sort of gilded trophy should never take precedence over a child's right to be a child, enjoy her life as a child, feel safe and loved without having to live up to some "Miss Beautiful" standard every time her parents wanted to enter her in some "competition".

JMO,
Lili

Lili007

09-01-2006, 01:42 PM

At least, we now all know who DIDN'T do it - much as I'd wish it to be different.

On the strength of the international media blitz following his arrest, I believed it was possible or even probable that Karr was responsible for JonBenet's death. That lasted for all of day or so until I read those excerpts of his "confessions". I think most posters recognised the same telling discrepancies and impossible scenario he came up with. Sick mind. So sad. But not guilty, much as he might want to believe he is, in his unbelievable fantasy world. Yikes! makes my skin crawl.

JMO,
Lili

Devotion

09-01-2006, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Lili007

To me, that's not rational at all. If some factory-worker(s) had left their male DNA on JonBenet's panties is unlikely enough. But DNA was also recovered from under JonBenet's fingernails. If that DNA is NOT the same as that on the panties - supposedly left there 'by a factory worker', then the two will not match each other. On the other hand, if the two match each other, then either

1. the factory worker who left his DNA on the panties JonBenet was wearing is the same person who got his DNA caught under JonBenet's fingernails - OR

2. the DNA on the panties comes from a factory worker, but is different from the DNA cound under her fingernails, in which case the DNA from under her fingernails becomes the most likely to identify her killer.

There are various other possibilities and many permutations, but it really boils down to this very simple concept, IMO.

It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

JonBenet would have had at least one set of panties changed and one set of clothes changed, and at least one bath by that stage, AFTER the Christmas party, I would hope.

So unless the killer/s wore the same type jackets or shirts on the following night when they kidnapped and killed JonBenet, whether by accident or not, why would those fibers still be there?

Anyway, I'm, getting carried away here, so I'll back off. But the more I read, the more I find it unlikely that this Karr had anything to do with it, unless he was somehow involved after the 'accident', or unless he's just plain delusional. Or maybe he's guilty, after all.

There - I've covered all grounds.

JMO,
Lili
:read: IMO: Do you remember where you read this, I'd like to read the entire report...jmo

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE

When I look at Jon Benet in those videos in the pagents, she just looks like a cute little girl to me. Nothing more. I guess only sick minded people would see anything more.

Stop Judging Patsy Ramsey. You don't know what kind of mother she was. It is only a figment of your imagination that she was a bad mother. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because Jon Benet was murdered doesn't mean Patsy was a bad parent. There are plenty of mothers who put their kids in pagents who love their kids dearly. Jon Benet got to be just as much a child as any child. Maybe they should of dressed her up in a suit and tie instead? And, you're right. It is my opinion, and yours is your opinion and not true at all.

I'm not judging Patsy Ramsey or saying she was "sick" for putting her daughter in pageants, though I, personally, disapprove of pageants for little girls.

No, entering JB in pageants, per se, doesn't make Patsy a bad parent unless JB hated to be in those pageants and it detracted from the quality of her life. If she did, and I say if, because I don't know, then it would amount to emotional abuse by Patsy as far as I'm concerned.

A LOT of perfectly normal (not sick minded) people, see little girls being dressed up like Las Vegas showgirls as sexualizing them. It doesn't mean WE'RE pedophiles and attracted to little girls, it just means we feel those little girls are being exploited. I think JB seemed like a cute and sweet kid in the photos of her as "just as kid." But I can hardly bear to look at the photos of her in heavy makeup and grown up clothes. There's just something fundamentally WRONG about it, IMO.

And no, we don't know if Patsy Ramsey was a good parent or a bad parent or an in between parent, but neither do you. It might not be a figment of our imagination that she was a bad mother. It might be a figment of your imagination that JB got to be a child as much as any other child.

I think it's fine to have your own opinon, but it's not fine to tell someone what's true and what's not true.

The fact is: We don't know.

JMO

Devotion

09-01-2006, 07:16 PM

deputydi

09-01-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Lili007
<snip> I know this comment will be unpopular with some posters, but I believe that if JonBenet hadn't been made to parade in provocative costumes, strike even more provocative poses and look like some sort of sex-kitten, her life might have been saved.<snip>
I know you have a right to post whatever opinion you choose to adopt, but this IMO is an irresponsible statement. I strongly disagree with "beauty pageants" -- especially for very little girls. My disapproval, though, is for very different reasons. I think it just perpetuates the belief by some that all you need to succeed in life is a cute face and a taut body. To me, that is simply demeaning. Having made that political statement -- children are abducted from their own front yards, while riding bicycles, from malls and sleeping in their own bedrooms. Would you blame a parent for letting them play in their own yard unsupervised or sleep in their own bed without a parent present?

My daughter competed in gymnastics from the time she was 8 until she graduated from college. These little 8 yr old children wore makeup (blush, mascara and lipstick) and they wore skin tight leotards (with no underwear). They would probably look provacative to a pedophile but it is a sport -- just like any other. Not one child that I'm aware of was ever stalked, kidnapped or murdered. If JonBenet was killed by an intruder, he may have noticed her at a pageant, but I don't blame the pageant for what happened to her. I blame the killer.

You also don't know that Patsy was responsible for teaching her daughter to look seductive. Most of these kids have coaches who teach them how to look, how to walk and how to win. Personally, I think the pictures of JonBenet strutting around on that stage are disgusting. But, let's put the blame where it belongs -- with the murderer.

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I think we can take a clue from the way Burke has turned out and the fact that her step-children have said nothing derogatory about her that Patsy was a good mother. JMO

It's a clue, sure, but just a clue, nothing else.

None of us really knows.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The same can be said about little boys and their sports trophies. JMO

In some cases, I agree. But sports are something natural for a kid to engage in. And, they're geared down to "kid size," like T-ball, Little League, etc.

But putting heavy makeup and a Las Vegas showgirl costume on a six-year-old isn't "natural" IMO.

I do believe in motivating children to excel, but I don't believe in pushing girls OR boys to over-achieve in ANYTHING. And I don't think any kid should be made to do things beyond his/her years.

I don't think pageants contributed to JB's death. I don't think some deranged stalker or pedophile saw her at a pageant and decided to kill her. I don't think any jealous mother decided to kill her. I just think pageants, in general, are exploitative and send the wrong message to impressionable children, especially girls. Many of them probably grow up thinking beauty can "buy" happiness or become anorexic and filled with self-hatred if they fail to live up to their own expectations.

I'm not saying this would have happened to JB, just stating something general regarding my feeling about pageants for kids.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

What you read was just another poster's opinion. Wouldn't you rather read documents pertaining to the case than depend on someone else's opinions - especially when they offer no links to suport what they post? For example, there was no evidence the tape had been on her face when she was alive, the tape was not new. Don't you even wonder where that information came from and if it true? JMO

The trouble is, the posts I've seen supporting the Ramseys innocence rarely offer links, so people like me, who don't have time to sit around poring over documents all day (actually, I wouldn't even if I had the time) rely on links to credible sources.

People supporting the Ramseys innocence could convince others more if they would provide links to back up their statements.

I, too, have read that the tape allegedly covering JB's mouth hadn't been covering her mouth at all and that it was not new. But I really don't know. I just take that with a grain of salt until I see a credible link.

JMO

jerzeegirl

09-01-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Are the boys looking like sex toys? Are they done up with a subtle promise of flirtation? Anyone how thinks it is the same is confused on the issues.

I agree with these thoughts Sun.

i think that comparing tball and beauty pageants is like comparing apples and oranges. Tball teaches very young ones how to work in groups as a team. Yes it sure can be competitive but i c a difference between teaching your child how to hit or throw a ball and teaching your child that coloring your hair (at six no less) would make you accomplish anything. I know people say that pageants are based on talent but ive watched ms america and all those, i dont think they are being judged on their talent, its all about looks.

mo

jerzeegirl

09-01-2006, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Exactly J.....sports have much to teach our children that is positive for their development.

If I had a daughter she would not even be allowed to have a barbie.

Now my son was in a baby contest and has modelled for a family and cars (commercials) but no make up. ......but I wont brag.:o

He did get a chance to be in aTV series..The money they were willing to pay would have really set us up nicely. I said no...as the main scene was about a monster (sci-fi)was looking fondly back at his 'conquests' and he was thinking of my son in Turkish bath...well me and the director fought and he increased money offered.

I pulled my 8 year old beautitful son..I said the script was criminal ped Director said it is not ped material the male is a monster..I said that is metaphoric as all know Turkish baths are boy love baths.....my son was not doing anything that smelled like sex..... now my refusal to let my son do this TV show ruined his call backs for other shows but that is the price you pay for you not wanting your child prostituted by others.

well im sure your son will be a very happy child without all that. And im sure he will become successful also. I believe there should be an age limit for this pageant thingy. The youngest years are the most impressionable.

I must say, i never really cared for the pageant thing, but when i heard that JBR's hair was dyed blonde, that really bothered me. Thats way over the top.

Do i think it had anything to do with her murder? No i dont.

Jadedblueeyes

09-02-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

As far as these pageants are concerned I think sex is in the eye of the beholder. You see what you want to see.

Have your read Thomas' 16 reasons for thinking the Ramseys were involved? Even some experts stated that some of his reasons are laughable.......JMO

Does he have experience in investigating homicide cases like Lou Smit who had over thirty years didn't he?

Thanks.

Good morning Rosy. Have a good holiday.

IMO

Ocean

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

People need to provide links - but you wouldn't read them? ROFL........

Now you know exactly what I mean. Can't you suspend attempting to bait me on a holiday? Especially when you know by now I don't take bait like that?

I'm not going to sit around looking for a document on the Internet, then pore over that document looking for the ONE THING under discussion (such as wearing the white shirt to the party), however, IF the poster provides a link, I'll gladly read it, accept the correction (if the link is credible), apologize, and not repeat misinformation.

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

That's more than has been provided to show that she wasn't a good mother. And her step children are certainly not children so if they had anything differently to say I'll bet they would have said it by now. JMO

Bleaching a six-year-old's hair from it's lovely natural brunette to light blonde is evidence of being a bad mother to me and to several others, judging by what they said.

It's sending a message to the child that she's "not good enough" the way she is.

Parading a child around in clothes like a Las Vegas showgirl is not being a good mother.

JMO

I could go on and on, but I have better things to do in a few minutes than think about Patsy Ramsey.

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
J

I have no doubt JRB did not enjoy this as much as her mother did.

I have never liked the vibes I get from the Ramseys and I have not been wrong yet.:read:

Vibes are not enough to charge. Steve Thomas says it too well for me to change it: there is more against the Ramseys than there was against Karr. (NG show)

There are many abusive parents who look like outstanding pillars to the outside world.

Snipped for bandwidth only.

I agree with you completely. I think the pageants were "all about Patsy." (And Nedra) JB was too young to want to do something like that.

I get a feeling there is/was something "wrong" with the Ramseys, too. Weird, strange. If they weren't guilty, maybe they knew who was or there was trouble in their marriage or something. I don't know, but there is definitely something strange, IMO. One example is their LKL interview when Steve Thomas was present. Larry would ask Patsy something and Patsy would attempt to answer and John would always cut her off and answer for her. It's certainly not like Patsy was shy or couldn't speak for herself.

Sure there is more to charge the Ramseys than Karr. For one thing, there is proof the Ramseys were in the house. There isn't even proof Karr was in Boulder. There was no evidence of an intruder. Everything used in connection with the murder came from within the house. IMO, and this is speculation only, the "thing" around JB's neck was already in the house and was used to carry Patsy's paintings. I have a painter friend who uses one very similar.

JMO on the above.

Many "pillars of the community" have been found to have been abusive. I recall one case a friend told me about: a man in Texas gave his own small son tainted Halloween candy just so he (the father) could collect his life insurance benefit. When the father was arrested everyone said, "But he was such a WONDERFUL man and SUCH a good father!"

You never know.

Have a good holiday weekend, victims feel.

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes

Does he have experience in investigating homicide cases like Lou Smit who had over thirty years didn't he?

Thanks.

Good morning Rosy. Have a good holiday.

IMO

Ocean

Strange, then, that Lou Smit couldn't definitively clear the Ramseys of all suspicion and find the real killer.

Maybe he just wasn't as good a detective as he'd have us believe. Or, maybe he was looking in the wrong direction. ;)

Of course...

JMO ;)

Louisadelmar

09-02-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Strange, then, that Lou Smit couldn't definitively clear the Ramseys of all suspicion and find the real killer.

Maybe he just wasn't as good a detective as he'd have us believe. Or, maybe he was looking in the wrong direction. ;)

Of course...

JMO ;)

I'm curious, what sort of evidence, barring the arrest of someone else, would you consider sufficient to definitively clear the Ramseys?

LadyFisher

09-02-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by bigmikenash
seeker the dna tested under the fingernails and the panties didnt match.EVERYONE IN THE RAMSEY HOUSE WAS TESTED AND NONE MATCHED...that said i would assume that it would be safe to say it clears them.instead lambasting (as you say)other posters do it to yourself........... I know that the dna did not match any of the Ramseys.....but were the housekeeper and her family members ever tested to see if they were a match? Couldn't it have been someone that was working for the Ramseys or had previously worked for them......either the killer knew them or had stalked this family for quite some time!!! imho

LadyFisher

09-02-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Bleaching a six-year-old's hair from it's lovely natural brunette to light blonde is evidence of being a bad mother to me and to several others, judging by what they said.

It's sending a message to the child that she's "not good enough" the way she is.

Parading a child around in clothes like a Las Vegas showgirl is not being a good mother.

JMO

I could go on and on, but I have better things to do in a few minutes than think about Patsy Ramsey. Oh, baloney....bleaching a little girl's hair isn't evidence of bad parenting or grandparenting for that matter.....I just highlighted my granddaughter's hair...she is older than JonBenet though...she is 12 almost 13...it's all the rage around here...I really screwed it up...I was trying to save money by doing it myself...she had to go to a salon and get my mess fixed professionally.....but now all the little girls in the neighborhood have gotten their hair highlighted by their moms even some at the age of 8...theirs just doesn't look as good as my granddaughters though :)....I am not a bad gramma...really!!!:) Everyone better beware of speeding this weekend...my poor hubby, who is over 60 y/o just got a speeding ticked...his first in over 40 years.....arrrgh......we really are good grandparents, sun....it just doesn't look that way right now!!!

deputydi

09-02-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Bleaching a six-year-old's hair from it's lovely natural brunette to light blonde is evidence of being a bad mother to me and to several others, judging by what they said.<snip>

You know for a fact that JonBenet's hair was bleached? If this is true, Patsy must have been bleaching it from birth. I've never seen a picture of her with hair any color other than blonde.

Jayelles

09-02-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

You know for a fact that JonBenet's hair was bleached? If this is true, Patsy must have been bleaching it from birth. I've never seen a picture of her with hair any color other than blonde.

Patsy admitted lightening it.

deputydi

09-02-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles
Patsy admitted lightening it.
But that doesn't mean her hair was naturally brunette nor does it mean she "bleached" it.

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

But that doesn't mean her hair was naturally brunette nor does it mean she "bleached" it.

How else do you get darker hair light blonde? Even most of the over-the-counter drugstore stuff has bleach in it. Even the stuff that doesn't make hair blonde, but just lightens it "a shade."

You can't get darker hair light blonde without using chemicals.

Jadedblueeyes

09-02-2006, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Strange, then, that Lou Smit couldn't definitively clear the Ramseys of all suspicion and find the real killer.

Maybe he just wasn't as good a detective as he'd have us believe. Or, maybe he was looking in the wrong direction. ;)

Of course...

JMO ;)

:lol: I think he knew the direction the other side was hotly pursuing. lol

IMO

Ocean

deputydi

09-02-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
How else do you get darker hair light blonde? Even most of the over-the-counter drugstore stuff has bleach in it. Even the stuff that doesn't make hair blonde, but just lightens it "a shade."

You can't get darker hair light blonde without using chemicals.
I have always been a blonde but when I was about 11 or 12 my hair started to darken slightly. My mother used something called "Light and Bright" and it did not contain bleach. It also only lightened my hair a shade. I still have my hair colored, but my natural color is now a light brown, so my hairdresser obviously uses a product with bleach in it.

The point is you keep referring to JonBenet as a brunette and I seriously doubt she would have gone from almost white hair as a baby to a dark brunette in 6 years. If she was using some product on her hair to lighten it, it wouldn't have to contain bleach. Lemon juice rinse will also keep a child's hair light -- only for a while, though. It doesn't actually change the color, the acid just brings out highlights and will lighten it slightly -- especially if you spend a lot of time in the sun. (This works on freckles too).

Can you tell I've had years of experience with this stuff?? :D

sunsplashed

09-02-2006, 05:48 PM

I think I referred to her as "brunette" once or twice, maybe. And I never referred to her as a "dark brunette."

It's just a question of semantics. By brunette, I don't mean she had black-brown or black hair, just "not light blonde" hair.

I think her hair was actually some shade of light brown and it was lightened by Patsy to light blonde.

This:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/jonbenet.html

...mentions Patsy telling someone that the Michigan sun bleached JB's hair, but I, too (as have other posters), have read that Patsy later admitted to lightening JB's hair chemically.

The above site isn't authoratative, IMO, but it's the only reference I can find right now about the color of JB's hair being altered.

deputydi

09-02-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I think I referred to her as "brunette" once or twice, maybe. And I never referred to her as a "dark brunette."
<snip>
This is a silly issue to focus on, but "brunette" is by definition DARK.

Definitions of brunette on the Web:

brunet: a person with dark (brown) hair
brunet: marked by dark or relatively dark pigmentation of hair or skin or eyes; "a brunette beauty"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You are just giving the impression that Patsy turned her daughter's hair from a dark brown to a pale blonde and somehow that contributed to JonBenet's death. That simply isn't true. I don't know if Patsy is guilty or innocent, but it's going to take a whole lot more than whether she lightened JonBenet's hair to convince me of anything. I have stated many times that I personally don't approve of "beauty pageants" for a 6 yr old but I don't think participation in them has anything to do with murder. Same goes for the hair color -- personal preference is personal preference and it has nothing to do with a child's murder.

deputydi

09-02-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Oh, baloney....bleaching a little girl's hair isn't evidence of bad parenting or grandparenting for that matter.....I just highlighted my granddaughter's hair...she is older than JonBenet though...she is 12 almost 13...it's all the rage around here...I really screwed it up...I was trying to save money by doing it myself...she had to go to a salon and get my mess fixed professionally.....but now all the little girls in the neighborhood have gotten their hair highlighted by their moms even some at the age of 8...theirs just doesn't look as good as my granddaughters though :)....I am not a bad gramma...really!!!:) Everyone better beware of speeding this weekend...my poor hubby, who is over 60 y/o just got a speeding ticked...his first in over 40 years.....arrrgh......we really are good grandparents, sun....it just doesn't look that way right now!!!
You are absolutely right! And, I believe that as a grandmother, you are the best! Sorry about hubby's speeding ticket. However, I don't believe that makes him a bad granddad either!

You want to talk about some bad highlighting jobs -- ask my daughter. We spent a rainy weekend when she was either 15 or 16 highlighting her hair and what a mess I made of it. We still laugh about it. LOL

LadyFisher

09-02-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

You are absolutely right! And, I believe that as a grandmother, you are the best! Sorry about hubby's speeding ticket. However, I don't believe that makes him a bad granddad either!

You want to talk about some bad highlighting jobs -- ask my daughter. We spent a rainy weekend when she was either 15 or 16 highlighting her hair and what a mess I made of it. We still laugh about it. LOL LOL! I have another one to tell, too! My mom turned my hair a light orange trying to lighten it when I was about 16....I never let her forget it...she just passed away in March...I shared that story with my granddaughter...we had a good laugh...it evoked such good memories...lol......my mom was the best, too!!! I still cannot see how anyone could think it was bad parenting on Patsy's part either! jmho

deputydi

09-02-2006, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Nancy shows a couple pictures of her hair brunette. I seen them.Yes her hair is dyed blond.
Why don't you stop posting your own twisted version of the truth. I don't know what you think you "SEEN", but it wasn't a picture of JonBenet as a brunette.
<snip> it is spooky they way the Ramseys behaved...and my hat off to Steve for hanging in there when it was not popular to do so : he was not caught up to sentiments of feeling bad for the parents. How can you feel badly for people you think killed a little girl? I cannot feel anything for them until they have been ruled out with exonerating evidence. I have not seen any yet but I will be open to it.<snip>
I doubt you would be open to much of anything that doesn't support your opinion. There are fair posters on this board who aren't afraid to admit there is as much exculpatory evidence as inculpatory evidence. They are the ones who are truly open. You've already managed to convict Patsy of murder because she entered her child in a few beauty pageants and MAY HAVE lightened her daughters hair.

Please post a link to a picture of a brunette JonBenet -- wigs don't count.

Jayelles

09-03-2006, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by deputydi

Why don't you stop posting your own twisted version of the truth. I don't know what you think you "SEEN", but it wasn't a picture of JonBenet as a brunette.

I doubt you would be open to much of anything that doesn't support your opinion. There are fair posters on this board who aren't afraid to admit there is as much exculpatory evidence as inculpatory evidence. They are the ones who are truly open. You've already managed to convict Patsy of murder because she entered her child in a few beauty pageants and MAY HAVE lightened her daughters hair.

Please post a link to a picture of a brunette JonBenet -- wigs don't count.

Here is a collection of photos showing JonBenet's changing hair colour:-

Hair Photos (http://people.delphiforums.com/jayelles/hair.jpg)

Lili007

09-03-2006, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The same can be said about little boys and their sports trophies. JMO

With the essential difference that - traditionally - the boys win trophies for playing some sort of sport. Most girls, thank God!, do exactly the same to win trophies.

I'd be just as concerned if little boys were paraded in the same way for some beauty pageant. The gender doesn't matter. The age does.

JMO,
Lili

Lili007

09-03-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

You say you would be concerned if little boys were paraded, but then you say gender doesn't matter. I don't get your point.

What does the age have to do with anything?

Other than something else to use to criticize Patsy what does this have to do with JonBenet's murder?

If you read my post, you'll see I said I'd be "just AS concerned". Meaning I'd be equally concerned whether the little children on beauty pageants were boys or girls, hence my comment that gender doesn't matter.

Why does age matter? Because as we all know, there are sick people out there who prey on CHILDREN for their own deviant pleasure. In their sick minds, they already see children of only a few years old as sex objects. Making them up to look like sex objects and getting them to strut in provocativew gear on stage is just adding fuel to the fire.

I don't know whether Patsey is guilty or innocent, but I certainly wouldn't base my opinion one way or another, on the fact that she brought JonBennet up to be a child 'beauty queen'. Neither does that make her a bad parent, or a good one.

I'm merely stating my opinion that children of that age do not belong in clothing, make-up, hair-do's and most of all the sort of vampish routines they are taught to perform on stage, in front of who knows who might be watching. For the sake of what? A trophy?

I saw part of a show tonight which only served to strengthen my opinion of these child beauty pageants. It made me so angry I had to change channels. The last thing I saw was a mother waking up her little girl and cajoling her to jump on some make-shift round stage to try it out, and she kept asking her to perform a little bit, just one more time. The child was tired, teary and she just plain didn't want to do it. Her mother got angry and when the crying child tried to hang on to her mother's leg, seeking some comfort, the mother pulled her little hands off and pushed her away, walking off in a huff. The child was crying, whe went to cry in a bush, but grandma followed her and cajoled her away, telling her that if she'd only do it once more, then there's be some sort of reward. The child came out, but when she got to the little stage, she just wouldn't get on it. She kept saying "no", or "I don't want to".

It made me cry for the little girl and shake with anger at her mother. Her mother then made a comment that (words to this effect) 'they pushed her like that once or twice a year to see how much she could stand'. I just couldn't believe it.

Note that this was a documentary on the 'behind the scene' aspects of chldren's beauty pageants, ie. how they prepare, what they wear, what it takes to be in a beauty pageant, how much work goes into it, etc, which did not set out to condemn child beauty pageants. What I saw was not just concerning, it was disgusting.

Just my opinion.

Lili

deputydi

09-03-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
J, thanks for posting I had no intention of enabling the venom. Anyway, there are a few more pictures and Nancy had them on her clip. She is clearly a beautiful brunette.
I do owe you an apology. The point of this board, however, is not whether Patsy was a good or bad parent. The point, as I see it, is whether her actions on behalf of her daughter contributed to JonBenet's murder. I don't believe that the fact she colored her daughter's hair or entered her in pageants had anything whatsoever to do with it.

I have a personal problem with the concept of beauty pageants for a 6 year old but that doesn't make Patsy a bad parent. I agree that Patsy is not a particularly likeable person, but I don't believe that makes her a murderer either. If she is, in fact, guilty of killing her daughter, I'd like to see some real evidence. Not accusations about her parenting skills.

I've seen first hand these "stage mothers" at little league games and at gymnastic competitions. I watched as one mother berated her daughter all the way out the door at one practice when her daughter broke her arm falling off the balance beam. She was yelling at this crying child as they were on their way to the emergency room. It's not just these beauty pageants that brings out the competition in parents. I have always believed that some parents live vicariously through their children and EXPECT them to win, win, win. To me, that is just sick.

IMO, the color of JonBenet's hair is totally irrelevant and it makes me angry when posters use this as evidence that this somehow makes Patsy a child killer or an uncaring parent. If there was evidence that she forced her daughter to participate in an activity she hated, I'd agree with your assessment of her parenting. There is no evidence that JonBenet was doing this against her will. And, believe me, little girls even at 6 yrs old have a mind of their own. If JonBenet hated what she was doing, others would have noticed.

Patsy may be guilty of the murder or she may be innocent -- I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. As I've said before, children have been kidnapped and murdered while they played in their own yard or slept in their own bed. There is nothing unique about it. I still believe it is possible that an intruder murdered her.

I hope we can start again -- without the "venom" -- but with some debate about the facts having to do with the murder. I'll start by asking a question that has kept me on the innocent side of the fence. Do you really believe that a mother who is NOT psychotic and has no history of abuse could murder a daughter she clearly loved in the manner JonBenet died? I know parents kill their children -- but I just can't imagine a parent using a garotte either to kill a child or to cover up an accident. To me, this is incomprehensible.

sunsplashed

09-03-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
DD, I am not one who thinks that because she colors her hair ergo she is a murderer..I do accept that to go to those extremes to win....and the hours and type of pagents is obsessive and excessive by anyone's meaure.

Snipped for bandwidth only.

I've mentioned Patsy changing the color of JB's hair, but I DON'T think that makes her a murderer. I think Patsy was a little narcissistic and obsessive about pageants and I feel pageants are exploitation of a child as young a six, but I DON'T think that makes Patsy a murderer.

JMO

Louisadelmar

09-03-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Snipped for bandwidth only.

I've mentioned Patsy changing the color of JB's hair, but I DON'T think that makes her a murderer. I think Patsy was a little narcissistic and obsessive about pageants and I feel pageants are exploitation of a child as young a six, but I DON'T think that makes Patsy a murderer.

JMO

How many pageants do you think JonBenet was in?

jerzeegirl

09-03-2006, 12:57 PM

I know ive read a few articles in the last few days about pageants since jonbenet died. Alot of these articles state that although there is no clear connection from the murder to the pageants, pageants ARE being frowned upon.

Ten years later, the pageants remain popular, though some have modified their competitions, some pageant experts say.

Most noticeably, about 15 percent of pageants for those younger than 13 have switched from glamour pageants with makeup, fancy hairstyles and expensive clothing to a more natural look, estimates Mike Maki, president of EPIC International Association, a group made up of more than 1,150 pageant directors, judges, vendors and contestants of all ages. Judges deduct points if they detect makeup, he said. He estimates that 90 percent of the children's pageants run by EPIC members are "natural" pageants."If you enter (these) pageants and you have lipstick on, you're going to be at the bottom of the list at the end," he said.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/family/abox/article_1250805.php

so i think it would be safe to say that the posters on here that think the pageant thing may not have contributed to her murder, but certainly seems unacceptable for a six year old to be dolled up like that in public, isnt unusual.

deputydi

09-03-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
<snip>My guess is as good as any....and vice versa...except it was not a stranger...that I can bet on.

IMO
My problem with this case is that I WANT to believe the parents are innocent. I just can't allow myself to believe that any sane parent would do something so unthinkable to a child.

The first trial I became obsessed with was the Scott Peterson case. I started posting on the fence and WANTING to believe in his innocence. It really didn't take very long for me to realize that he had, in fact, murdered his pregnant wife. This one is different. I haven't found anything leading me to believe that Patsy, John or Burke had anything to do with the murder. Then, I come back to those nagging questions that make me wonder. There are so many unanswered questions for which I can find no rationale that makes sense to me. I truly believe this mystery will never be solved and that is unbearably sad.

jerzeegirl

09-03-2006, 01:21 PM

i remain on the fence about this whole case. Sheesh i was even on this fence (along with others) when Karr admitted publicly to being there when she died. I really in all reality can only exclude one person, that is myself, as ive never been to colorado ever.

I was different in the SP case. I felt that all circumstantial evidence pointed directly at SP. I was never a fence sitter during that trial. When Lacy was just considered missing, i did sit on the fence. Once she was found, where she was found, i jumped right off and remained off.

This case is so different in every way.

sunsplashed

09-03-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
i remain on the fence about this whole case. Sheesh i was even on this fence (along with others) when Karr admitted publicly to being there when she died. I really in all reality can only exclude one person, that is myself, as ive never been to colorado ever.

I was different in the SP case. I felt that all circumstantial evidence pointed directly at SP. I was never a fence sitter during that trial. When Lacy was just considered missing, i did sit on the fence. Once she was found, where she was found, i jumped right off and remained off.

This case is so different in every way.

I always believed Scott Peterson was guilty. Always.

JMO

In the JBR case I can only exclude myself (I was living in Europe at the time) and the people who were with me, and the people I telephoned that day in other states. And I have been to Colorado. Lived in Boulder. But not in 1996.

LadyFisher

09-03-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

My problem with this case is that I WANT to believe the parents are innocent. I just can't allow myself to believe that any sane parent would do something so unthinkable to a child.

The first trial I became obsessed with was the Scott Peterson case. I started posting on the fence and WANTING to believe in his innocence. It really didn't take very long for me to realize that he had, in fact, murdered his pregnant wife. This one is different. I haven't found anything leading me to believe that Patsy, John or Burke had anything to do with the murder. Then, I come back to those nagging questions that make me wonder. There are so many unanswered questions for which I can find no rationale that makes sense to me. I truly believe this mystery will never be solved and that is unbearably sad. I do hope this mystery will be solved someday...I am with you on wanting to believe in the parents innocence.....I do believe that the evidence leads to an intruder...imho.....but....others like my dad thinks John had something to do with the murder...while many here on this board believe Patsy did....I just cannot buy the bedwetting theory...that she went into a rage over something so minor....I don't believe there was anything brought forth that Patsy would go into uncontrollable rages, etc....if she did...the world would have heard it by now....and I don't believe she would have covered up the murder of her beautiful daughter to save her husband if he had done such a thing....it doesn't make sense to me....that's why I keep leaning to an intruder....but who? IMO the intruder knew the home quite well...perhaps had been a guest there or a former employee of the Ramseys......still a lot of questions to be answered in this case! mho Di, I wanted SP to be innocent, too..I didn't really post on that board often only a couple of times....but when I heard the phone calls he made to Amber while others were searching desperately for his pregnant wife....well....imo that was just so perverted and self centered on his part.....it really didn't leave any room to believe that he thought his wife and unborn child were alive.....he did kill her...there is no doubt in my mind!!!

LadyFisher

09-03-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by deputydi

I do owe you an apology. The point of this board, however, is not whether Patsy was a good or bad parent. The point, as I see it, is whether her actions on behalf of her daughter contributed to JonBenet's murder. I don't believe that the fact she colored her daughter's hair or entered her in pageants had anything whatsoever to do with it.

I have a personal problem with the concept of beauty pageants for a 6 year old but that doesn't make Patsy a bad parent. I agree that Patsy is not a particularly likeable person, but I don't believe that makes her a murderer either. If she is, in fact, guilty of killing her daughter, I'd like to see some real evidence. Not accusations about her parenting skills.

I've seen first hand these "stage mothers" at little league games and at gymnastic competitions. I watched as one mother berated her daughter all the way out the door at one practice when her daughter broke her arm falling off the balance beam. She was yelling at this crying child as they were on their way to the emergency room. It's not just these beauty pageants that brings out the competition in parents. I have always believed that some parents live vicariously through their children and EXPECT them to win, win, win. To me, that is just sick.

IMO, the color of JonBenet's hair is totally irrelevant and it makes me angry when posters use this as evidence that this somehow makes Patsy a child killer or an uncaring parent. If there was evidence that she forced her daughter to participate in an activity she hated, I'd agree with your assessment of her parenting. There is no evidence that JonBenet was doing this against her will. And, believe me, little girls even at 6 yrs old have a mind of their own. If JonBenet hated what she was doing, others would have noticed.

Patsy may be guilty of the murder or she may be innocent -- I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. As I've said before, children have been kidnapped and murdered while they played in their own yard or slept in their own bed. There is nothing unique about it. I still believe it is possible that an intruder murdered her.

I hope we can start again -- without the "venom" -- but with some debate about the facts having to do with the murder. I'll start by asking a question that has kept me on the innocent side of the fence. Do you really believe that a mother who is NOT psychotic and has no history of abuse could murder a daughter she clearly loved in the manner JonBenet died? I know parents kill their children -- but I just can't imagine a parent using a garotte either to kill a child or to cover up an accident. To me, this is incomprehensible. Reflecting back....one can understand now that it probably wasn't a good idea to have a child in the pageants...but we must remember that 10 years ago...we didn't hear almost daily about child molesters...pedophiles...and little girls or boys for that matter being kidnapped from their own homes...I truly do not think Patsy realized that there was any danger there....and we are still not certain that that her murder was a result of her being in pageants....to me that ransom not seems to be someone possibly who was a sicko, but also had some type of vendetta against the Ramseys.....whew....I wish the true killer of this beautiful child would be found! imo

Jadedblueeyes

09-03-2006, 09:37 PM

I do not have the mindset that these parents couldn't have murdered their daughter as I certainly know for many children home is the most unsafe and scariest place in the world to be.

When this unfolded I too questioned why the Ramseys hired and attorney...comparing what I would do and expecting them to be the same as me, of course. But then I sat down and thought about how it would feel to them that they were being accused of the worst possible crime there is and no longer was I sure they shouldn't have done what they did. I would think that we have not been accused of murdering our own children......but even if innocent.......that would be the scariest thing in the world. Innocent people can go to prison.

O/T but it reminded me of JBR case.
I just watched a true story on TV that reminded me some of this case, A man was accused of killing his little girl...it was a circumstantial case, no DNA linkage...just a dead little girl and a jury wanting someone to pay for it. He spent three years in prison before being released to go home again to the rest of his family. They have an idea who the intruder murderer is but they have no evidence only his confession that he told a reporter but even then he said he was "spiritually there" but he knew everything right down to her clothing and floorplan of the home. All along they kept trying to convince LE that it was an intruder..there was evidence that it was....the police or the DA however would have no part of it and blamed it on this father who was known as a good father to his children. The DA leaked false information to the media before the trial about this father continuously. Of course no one owned up to the leaks.

But anywho..lol I have looked for evidence in this case for years.....not POVs or theories from each side but real evidence as to who may have committed this crime. Parent or no parents........I do not see any evidence against the Ramseys tying them to this case as the perpetrators. In fact I do not consider them suspects at all anymore.

So I will personally do as I did in the Greone, Horowitz/Vitale and Lunsford cases. I will not accuse someone of murder without evidence to support it. My personal thoughts only....on that is to do so "I" would feel "I" had betrayed the victim that is owed the highest respect. If I accused her parents for 10 years and it turned out to be wrong then imo "I" have done the most grave injustice to JonBenet and the family that I am sure she loved dearly.

However if someone else has their own opinion completely opposite from mine they certainly are entitled, as it should be. I am just guided by my own.

I think whomever did this left Boulder and the Ramseys a riddle. A riddle he knew no one would ever solve.

IMO

Ocean

FurthurBB

09-04-2006, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by today
Let Patsy Ramsey rest in peace with her daughter, she and her husband John have been cleared of this crime, let it go------this family has been through enough, all we can do is hope and pray the real killer be caught. Shame on all of you for pointing fingers at this family who has lost everything. THEY ARE INNOCENT,IT HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER. Dont you think if there was a shred of evidence, the Boulder Dectectives would have really pursued this case and arrested them of courst they would have----again----NO EVIDENCE, NO DNA MATCH----NOTHING FOLKS
LEAVE THE RAMSEYS ALONE LET THEM TRY AND BE NORMAL AGAIN

Even more telling than the fact that no formal charges were ever brought against them is the fact that the DFS never took Burke away. They do not need the same kind of evidence that the police need.

FurthurBB

09-04-2006, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by irishlady
i think that maybe people are having a problem believing that a mother could do this to her baby but one only has to read thru crime library to realise that it is possible.i'm not saying that patsy was a bad person,but obviously something made her snap,good mothers have their bad days too,but i just wish that IF she did kill jb that she would have confessed on her deathbed and the circus that we've seen the last two weeks could have been avoided.having said that at least now many children will be safe from that creep so some good has come of iti hope that someday this case will be resolved and jb can finally rest in peace.
jmo

I have no problem believing that a mother could do this to their own child. I do not believe Patsy Ramsey did this to her own child. There is a big difference.

FurthurBB

09-04-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

How many pageants do you think JonBenet was in?

5 or 6

sunsplashed

09-04-2006, 01:35 AM

According to Patsy, eight or ten.

It's at the top of page 13:

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/35.html

sunsplashed

09-04-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

Even more telling than the fact that no formal charges were ever brought against them is the fact that the DFS never took Burke away. They do not need the same kind of evidence that the police need.

OJ Simpson has full custody of his children, IIRC.

The court said he was not a threat to them.

breezy1234

09-04-2006, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

OJ Simpson has full custody of his children, IIRC.

The court said he was not a threat to them.

OJ was not accused of killing or abusing his kids.

aproudmom

09-04-2006, 09:59 AM

here are some depositions that shoe alot of lies by the lead detective

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

this is Patsy's
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

sunsplashed

09-04-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

OJ was not accused of killing or abusing his kids.

Well, of course he didn't kill his kids. If they were dead, how could he be awarded custody of them?

He's a fine, upstanding man in whose care anyone would entrust their kids. We all know that.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
And they are a mess today. It is deplorable the way the courts ignore the best interest of the child. Great Point Sun..I know he may not have abused his children directly but watching him abuse their mother and they KNOW he killed their mother is abuse for a lifetime.

Abuse on a spouse is felt upon the children.

It just shows the courts don't always make the best decisions.

In the city where I used to live, we'd read about a child being abused or killed by a parent, and then it was revealed a day or two later that that child had been removed from the home, but placed back in the home later by the court.

I'm not saying OJ will some day kill his kids. I don't think he will. I'm just saying that I think the courts make terrible decisions at times.

I once read that the best gift a father can give his children is to love and respect their mother.

Have a nice Labor Day! I hope you have lots of sunshine there. :)

JMO

jerzeegirl

09-04-2006, 12:30 PM

i thought it was horrible that his children remained in his custody after the civil suit. If he was found at fault in a civil suit, what judge could sleep at night knowing his kids are living with him? I think its horrible.

sunsplashed

09-04-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
You too Sun..and it was gorgeous until last few hours.. lots of rain..but had lots of sun before that. But alas not Labor FREE day for the wicked..I laugh at myself as I take breaks from work to do CTV stuff yet I am never rested when I return back to projects...wonder why...;)

What a beautiful quote Sun. I shall steal it, I mean borrow it.LOL

Glad you've had some sun. We're getting a little hazy sun now and at least it's warming up a little.

Oh, that's not my quote. Wish it were. I can't remember who said it. Please feel free to use it as much as you want. :)

LadyFisher

09-05-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes
I do not have the mindset that these parents couldn't have murdered their daughter as I certainly know for many children home is the most unsafe and scariest place in the world to be.

When this unfolded I too questioned why the Ramseys hired and attorney...comparing what I would do and expecting them to be the same as me, of course. But then I sat down and thought about how it would feel to them that they were being accused of the worst possible crime there is and no longer was I sure they shouldn't have done what they did. I would think that we have not been accused of murdering our own children......but even if innocent.......that would be the scariest thing in the world. Innocent people can go to prison.

O/T but it reminded me of JBR case.
I just watched a true story on TV that reminded me some of this case, A man was accused of killing his little girl...it was a circumstantial case, no DNA linkage...just a dead little girl and a jury wanting someone to pay for it. He spent three years in prison before being released to go home again to the rest of his family. They have an idea who the intruder murderer is but they have no evidence only his confession that he told a reporter but even then he said he was "spiritually there" but he knew everything right down to her clothing and floorplan of the home. All along they kept trying to convince LE that it was an intruder..there was evidence that it was....the police or the DA however would have no part of it and blamed it on this father who was known as a good father to his children. The DA leaked false information to the media before the trial about this father continuously. Of course no one owned up to the leaks.

But anywho..lol I have looked for evidence in this case for years.....not POVs or theories from each side but real evidence as to who may have committed this crime. Parent or no parents........I do not see any evidence against the Ramseys tying them to this case as the perpetrators. In fact I do not consider them suspects at all anymore.

So I will personally do as I did in the Greone, Horowitz/Vitale and Lunsford cases. I will not accuse someone of murder without evidence to support it. My personal thoughts only....on that is to do so "I" would feel "I" had betrayed the victim that is owed the highest respect. If I accused her parents for 10 years and it turned out to be wrong then imo "I" have done the most grave injustice to JonBenet and the family that I am sure she loved dearly.

However if someone else has their own opinion completely opposite from mine they certainly are entitled, as it should be. I am just guided by my own.

I think whomever did this left Boulder and the Ramseys a riddle. A riddle he knew no one would ever solve.

IMO

Ocean Ocean.....I agree with your post...but...I believe the riddle that was left to the Ramseys can and hopefully will be solved..the ramsom note was obviously written by someone who was very familiar with them....I can understand why the Ramseys looked closely at the housekeeper and even White.....imho ................

LadyFisher

09-05-2006, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Lady we may not have known what we know now about how many peds there are HOWEVER we did know 10 years ago in fact since Gloria Steniem what damage pagents do to little girls and that was in the '60'-70's. We know as it has been an informal discussion with feminists for decades and a formal one in womens studies for the same time. Victims, I appreciate you post....but..quite honestly I've never been a fan of Gloria Steinems (sp?)...or other cohorts of hers.....I believe there were good and not so good results from the feminist movement during that time..!

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 04:22 PM

...in a terrible manner:

http://www.arkwebshost.com/family/neb//abuse.html

A few, not all, were wealthy. One, who threw his BABY out of the car because he was angry with traffic, was a doctor.

Most had no prior history of abuse.

sunsplashed

09-05-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by victims feel

Dang Sun where did you find that link! That was so visceral. So maddening....

It makes the point about no prior history needed.

Great link for child advocacy for sure. [/QUOTE]

I probably have 2000 links, VF. I'm a good Internet researcher, though I don't particularly like to do research.

I think I found that one by accident while searching for something else.

I hope you're having a good week. Almost half over already! :)

Ames

09-08-2006, 01:01 PM

msgatorslayer

09-08-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I agree with you, and I read somewhere, that Patsy threw on a long fur coat when she left that day. If my daughter was found murdered, I would be so numb, that I wouldn't have needed a coat, no matter HOW cold it was outside!! IMO

Oh my, there are plenty of questionable things to be specualting about, but putting a coat on? :lol:

My whole family could have been killed an I assure you, this warm blooded gal would have put not one, but 2 coats on in that Colorado weather.:chicken: :chicken:

Ames

09-08-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

Oh my, there are plenty of questionable things to be specualting about, but putting a coat on? :lol:

My whole family could have been killed an I assure you, this warm blooded gal would have put not one, but 2 coats on in that Colorado weather.:chicken: :chicken:

LOL .. I didn't say that putting on a coat in cold weather, made her the killer. I was just making an observation. Being from the south, and now living in the northwest, not very far from Colorado, was a huge adjustment for me. But, I have actually seen people wear tank tops and shorts in below zero weather. All that I was saying is that, if it had of been ME, I would have been so NUMB after finding my daughter murdered, that I would not even think to put on a coat, OR need one.

msgatorslayer

09-08-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Ames

LOL .. I didn't say that putting on a coat in cold weather, made her the killer. I was just making an observation. Being from the south, and now living in the northwest, not very far from Colorado, was a huge adjustment for me. But, I have actually seen people wear tank tops and shorts in below zero weather. All that I was saying is that, if it had of been ME, I would have been so NUMB after finding my daughter murdered, that I would not even think to put on a coat, OR need one.

:seeya: Fair enough, Ames. I'm a Floridian and your post just made me laugh. I'm scared of the cold.:chicken:

Ames

09-08-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

:seeya: Fair enough, Ames. I'm a Floridian and your post just made me laugh. I'm scared of the cold.:chicken:

:lol: I, too, lived in Florida for four years....but I am originally from SC....so, I can see WHY you would be scared of the cold!! LOL I was too at first...nothing worse than feeling your nose hairs freeze.

waraven

09-08-2006, 03:45 PM

I just read a book by Steve Thomas (Johbenet). According to him the Boulder D. A. and Asst. D. A. dropped the ball. It seems obvious that John and Patsy Ramsey had something to do with the death of their daughter and the Judge and everyone else tried and and did give the Ramseys a free ride by saying there was a breakin. Where is the outrage?

I plan to read Lawrence Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town next.

Sure seems like something could and should be done.

Athena

09-08-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I do hope this mystery will be solved someday...I am with you on wanting to believe in the parents innocence.....I do believe that the evidence leads to an intruder...imho.....but....others like my dad thinks John had something to do with the murder...while many here on this board believe Patsy did....I just cannot buy the bedwetting theory...that she went into a rage over something so minor....I don't believe there was anything brought forth that Patsy would go into uncontrollable rages, etc....if she did...the world would have heard it by now....and I don't believe she would have covered up the murder of her beautiful daughter to save her husband if he had done such a thing....it doesn't make sense to me....that's why I keep leaning to an intruder....but who? IMO the intruder knew the home quite well...perhaps had been a guest there or a former employee of the Ramseys......still a lot of questions to be answered in this case! mho Di, I wanted SP to be innocent, too..I didn't really post on that board often only a couple of times....but when I heard the phone calls he made to Amber while others were searching desperately for his pregnant wife....well....imo that was just so perverted and self centered on his part.....it really didn't leave any room to believe that he thought his wife and unborn child were alive.....he did kill her...there is no doubt in my mind!!!

I actually agree with your entire post. I believe what may have led me to believe the intruder theory was the fact that I had followed this case many years ago and Steve Thomas along with his cronies had me convinced that John and Patsy absolutely killed JonBenet. It wasn't until I started finding contradictions to what Steve hypothesized that I began to think they had nothing to do with their daughter's death.

Then the investigation started to lend itself more to the intruder theory and I am still researching LOL. One thing I know for sure is that Steve Thomas and others who thought like him have no credibility at all to me; none!

Right now I am inclined to believe as you do that someone that knew them right within their circle committed this crime which is why I am so eager to read, listen etc to reports of Fleet White, Bill McDonalds, etc and these guys were strange and are just "not right".

Even though I don't know who killed JBR and I do want to believe the Ramseys had nothing to do with it; I will also be the first to admit that if anyone were to come up with a valid theory that made sense to point to the Ramseys may convince me but I have not seen any yet. jmo

Belly Button

09-10-2006, 05:28 AM

I always believed that Patsy killed JonBenet. I also think it was Patsy who wrote the ransom note. Who else knew of John Ramsey's $118,000 bonus? Certainly, not some intruder. It was Patsy who did the unthinkable and John who helped her cover her tracks.

aproudmom

09-12-2006, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by waraven
I just read a book by Steve Thomas (Johbenet). According to him the Boulder D. A. and Asst. D. A. dropped the ball. It seems obvious that John and Patsy Ramsey had something to do with the death of their daughter and the Judge and everyone else tried and and did give the Ramseys a free ride by saying there was a breakin. Where is the outrage?

I plan to read Lawrence Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town next.

Sure seems like something could and should be done.

You wasted your money that guy is a bad cop I have read all of the legal documents that I could find and I encourage you to read the Deposition that Steve T gave he lied and was getting ready to be caught for leaking info to the tabliods that is why he resigned. But before he turned in all of the evidence he made sure he made copies of everything for that book you just read. Which by the way was against LE policy.

I am just giving you my opinion. But I made sure I read everything I could find and I did not believe anything I read in the papers or in any books and I have read all of them except for Steve T. book because I was not going to give him a dime of my money to read about all his lies.

And the only injustice is that the LE messed this case up from day one and Little JonBenet may never get justice.

And before we assume the parents did it we should read all the facts and not just the lies. the Ramseys passed a total of 5 poly's and a grand jury did not find evidence pointing to the parents. I really don't think this was some big cover up protecting the parents they were put thru hell and continue to be accused by alot of people.

This is JMO....

aproudmom

09-12-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Belly Button
I always believed that Patsy killed JonBenet. I also think it was Patsy who wrote the ransom note. Who else knew of John Ramsey's $118,000 bonus? Certainly, not some intruder. It was Patsy who did the unthinkable and John who helped her cover her tracks.

You need to read more about the case unless you have read something I missed. You might get alot of your questions answered if your willing to read legal doc. :flamemad:

cantstandnuts

09-13-2006, 06:00 PM

Louisadelmar

09-13-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by waraven
I just read a book by Steve Thomas (Johbenet). According to him the Boulder D. A. and Asst. D. A. dropped the ball. It seems obvious that John and Patsy Ramsey had something to do with the death of their daughter and the Judge and everyone else tried and and did give the Ramseys a free ride by saying there was a breakin. Where is the outrage?

I plan to read Lawrence Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town next.

Sure seems like something could and should be done.

The best overall book to go by is PMPT by Schiller. He has since come out and said he believes the Ramseys didn't kill their daughter.

Be very careful reading Thomas as he twists words so they seem to imply one thing yet he leaves himself wiggle room to deny that is what he meant should he be cornered. The erroneous belief that Patsy's handwriting was the only one that couldn't be eliminated came from Thomas. I just recently read a sentence from his book that implies semen was found in her bed. He says the parents "simply walked away" after her body was found but never mentions they were told they had to leave the house. He suggests the Ramseys "headed for parts unknown" after the funeral. Not true. They were returning to Boulder and he knew it. He says it took a year to get their clothing from that night but fails to tell us it took a year for BPD to ask for it. There are many other examples of Thomas Twists in his book and once you are up to speed on the real facts you can spot them easily. If you want to know the under oath version of Thomas' book read his deposition - it's an eye-opener how shoddy his work was.

The Ramsey's book Death of Innocence is worth reading, if only to get their perspective on the murder and its aftermath.

There are a lot of books out there written by crazies and it's safe to ignore them.

bullmoose

09-13-2006, 06:28 PM

If a person read only Steve Thomas' book[which I have] you would get a very distorted, uneven view of the case. The book PM-PT is much more balanced. I've read every account from the people there, and I remain totally unconvinced of the Ramsey's involvement in any aspect of the murder. I do believe Steve Thomas and Linda Arndt, who both wrote books honestly believe the Ramseys to be guilty, but I believe their inexperience in murder investigations to be a fatal flaw; it shows in their books, IMO. bullmoose

bullmoose

09-13-2006, 06:36 PM

To Louisadelmar: I didn't want to go back and have to reread Thomas' book to give examples of his twisted phony reasonings; when I read his book it seemed obvious that he was leaking to the tabloids all along; I think his motivation was to convict the Ramseys in the public eye, if he couldn't do anything else. bullmoose

Louisadelmar

09-13-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Louisadelmar: I didn't want to go back and have to reread Thomas' book to give examples of his twisted phony reasonings; when I read his book it seemed obvious that he was leaking to the tabloids all along; I think his motivation was to convict the Ramseys in the public eye, if he couldn't do anything else. bullmoose

A couple weeks I started a collection of Thomas Twists. If you think of any feel free to send them to me. Page number is nice but not necessary.

One of my favorites is where he waxes lyrical about "what a wonderful life [JonBenet] would have had." And yet he has her growing up with a mother prone to murderous rages over bedwetting and physical punishments that damaged her hymen???? I'm not sure even he believed his own theory.

Hopeintown

09-13-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by waraven
I just read a book by Steve Thomas (Johbenet). According to him the Boulder D. A. and Asst. D. A. dropped the ball. It seems obvious that John and Patsy Ramsey had something to do with the death of their daughter and the Judge and everyone else tried and and did give the Ramseys a free ride by saying there was a breakin. Where is the outrage?

I plan to read Lawrence Schiller's book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town next.

Sure seems like something could and should be done.

I believe there are many people that are outraged.

I'm angry at the D.A for handing over police reports from December 26th to the Ramsey's attorney's before they were formally questioned. It's unheard of that a little girl is found murdered in her home, the parents "lawyer up" and then THEY call the shots in the investigation and the D.A. listens.

I'm angry that trained police officers didn't secure a crime scene at the moment it turned from a kidnapping into murder. And still can't understand why the parents were not taken to the police station that day and questioned.

I have never read Steve Thomas' book, and there is nothing that will convince me that there was ever an intruder in the home. I have looked at the autopsy, the ransom note, read interviews, and transcripts, and the more I read the more I am convinced JonBenet was murdered by someone she knew.

It's sad really that 10 years later and this little girl has yet to have justice. Many people have made lots of money though and spoke out, attorneys, cops, the Ramsey's, forensic experts, ex-district attorneys, family members, the list goes on. The only people I can't recall making any money or speaking out to sell their story is the people who have been smeared the worst, and that is the Fleet and Priscilla White. Even after 10 years they have not spoken out about the dinner party that JonBenet attended the night before she was murdered along with her parents, and they have not said anything publicly surrounding the events the following day. That gives me hope.......still.

IMO

Athena

09-13-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

I believe there are many people that are outraged.

I'm angry at the D.A for handing over police reports from December 26th to the Ramsey's attorney's before they were formally questioned. It's unheard of that a little girl is found murdered in her home, the parents "lawyer up" and then THEY call the shots in the investigation and the D.A. listens.

I'm angry that trained police officers didn't secure a crime scene at the moment it turned from a kidnapping into murder. And still can't understand why the parents were not taken to the police station that day and questioned.

I have never read Steve Thomas' book, and there is nothing that will convince me that there was ever an intruder in the home. I have looked at the autopsy, the ransom note, read interviews, and transcripts, and the more I read the more I am convinced JonBenet was murdered by someone she knew.

It's sad really that 10 years later and this little girl has yet to have justice. Many people have made lots of money though and spoke out, attorneys, cops, the Ramsey's, forensic experts, ex-district attorneys, family members, the list goes on. The only people I can't recall making any money or speaking out to sell their story is the people who have been smeared the worst, and that is the Fleet and Priscilla White. Even after 10 years they have not spoken out about the dinner party that JonBenet attended the night before she was murdered along with her parents, and they have not said anything publicly surrounding the events the following day. That gives me hope.......still.

IMO

I agree partially with your post as it is someone who knew the Ramseys -- and Fleet and Priscilla White were still suspects when they "disappeared". They were never cleared. jmo

Mimi428

09-13-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

I believe there are many people that are outraged.

I have never read Steve Thomas' book, and there is nothing that will convince me that there was ever an intruder in the home. I have looked at the autopsy, the ransom note, read interviews, and transcripts, and the more I read the more I am convinced JonBenet was murdered by someone she knew.

<bandwidth snip>

Hope, I read your post & immediately thought "TWINS - separated at birth". Your opinion mirrors my own. I'm another one who has not read ST's book.

Fleet White, IIRC, also pushed for this case to get a special prosecutor. That says a lot to me about where his priorities lie. The day the Ramsey family also asks for one, I will reassess where I believe THEIR priorities lie. Until that time, I think it it has been made very plain that they have been, from day one, more interested in surrounding themselves with the best defense money can buy than they are in solving the case of their little daughter's murder.

JMO

Hopeintown

09-13-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I agree partially with your post as it is someone who knew the Ramseys -- and Fleet and Priscilla White were still suspects when they "disappeared". They were never cleared. jmo

I guess I'm confused with your post.

Are you saying the White's "disappeared"? when did this happen? were they cleared after they were found?

IMO

On April 16, 1997, City of Boulder issued a press release stating: "In response to media inquiries and to clarify inaccurate statements, Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby has the following statement: “Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White, Jr. are not suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. They are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Intruder%20Theories

Hopeintown

09-13-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<bandwidth snip>

Hope, I read your post & immediately thought "TWINS - separated at birth". Your opinion mirrors my own. I'm another one who has not read ST's book.

Fleet White, IIRC, also pushed for this case to get a special prosecutor. That says a lot to me about where his priorities lie. The day the Ramsey family also asks for one, I will reassess where I believe THEIR priorities lie. Until that time, I think it it has been made very plain that they have been, from day one, more interested in surrounding themselves with the best defense money can buy than they are in solving the case of their little daughter's murder.

JMO

Mimi,
We MUST be twins because your post could have been written by me. :)

Your right, when the day comes that JR ask for a special prosecutor, then and ONLY then would I even begin to look at this case differently. Fleet White had his priorities in the right place from the beginning.

IMO

docg

09-13-2006, 10:59 PM

The case is complicated. Reading Thomas's book will only confuse you, IMO. He worked too hard to put it all together and found himself trying to force a square peg into a round hole. He didn't need to "prove" that Patsy killed JonBenet and wrote the note. All he needed to prove was that no intruder theory made any sense and that it must have been an inside job. THAT's easy to prove. Figuring out who did what is the hard part.

Nevertheless, I believe he was correct in criticizing the DA's office for cooperating inappropriately with the Ramseys and not being more forceful with them. There was no excuse for the Ramsey's delaying tactics. They should have been told to fully cooperate or be arrested. At the very least they could have been held for obstruction of justice.

It WAS an outrage that the Ramseys were allowed to stall for so long. And it was another outrage that they were able to get away with such vague answers during questioning, when they were hardly ever pressed for details or in fact treated like murder suspects rather than victims.

The outrage continues to this day, when people like Tracey, Smit, Wood, etc. waste time and resources on a series of wild goose chases, aka red herrings, and blow smoke over the stark facts of the case: there is no WAY an intruder was present when JonBenet was killed. This was an inside job and that was clear from the start!

Athena

09-13-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

I guess I'm confused with your post.

Are you saying the White's "disappeared"? when did this happen? were they cleared after they were found?

IMO

On April 16, 1997, City of Boulder issued a press release stating: "In response to media inquiries and to clarify inaccurate statements, Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby has the following statement: “Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White, Jr. are not suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. They are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Intruder%20Theories

One mistake you make Hope is reading sites that other posters have put together as that is old information that needs to be updated.

When the DA's office AND the BPD refused to give Fleet White copies of his statements but would allow him to review them for the Grand Jury he refused to testify and he and Priscilla were no longer considered key witnesses to the case. Fleet hated the DA, and was very friendly with Steve Thomas. He was NOT investigated thoroughly. He knew he made conflicting statements and his depo is sealed.

The ONLY suspects totally cleared publically out of the circle of friends were the McReynolds. jmo

Athena

09-13-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

Mimi,
We MUST be twins because your post could have been written by me. :)

Your right, when the day comes that JR ask for a special prosecutor, then and ONLY then would I even begin to look at this case differently. Fleet White had his priorities in the right place from the beginning.

IMO

The only thing Fleet and his wife wanted to do was get the suspicion deflected from them and as a result alot of people said he wanted justice for JBR. Guess he fooled some of you. :rolleyes: They were scared and knew the DA suspected them. It is a case of "me protesteth too much!". jmo

Athena

09-13-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by aproudmom

You wasted your money that guy is a bad cop I have read all of the legal documents that I could find and I encourage you to read the Deposition that Steve T gave he lied and was getting ready to be caught for leaking info to the tabliods that is why he resigned. But before he turned in all of the evidence he made sure he made copies of everything for that book you just read. Which by the way was against LE policy.

I am just giving you my opinion. But I made sure I read everything I could find and I did not believe anything I read in the papers or in any books and I have read all of them except for Steve T. book because I was not going to give him a dime of my money to read about all his lies.

And the only injustice is that the LE messed this case up from day one and Little JonBenet may never get justice.

And before we assume the parents did it we should read all the facts and not just the lies. the Ramseys passed a total of 5 poly's and a grand jury did not find evidence pointing to the parents. I really don't think this was some big cover up protecting the parents they were put thru hell and continue to be accused by alot of people.

This is JMO....

I agree.

And when asked to produce copies of what he had taken -- he claims he couldn't find them. All one has to do is read his depo and find out what he claimed to KNOW he didn't. All speculation, conjecture and lies. jmo

Hopeintown

09-14-2006, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Athena

One mistake you make Hope is reading sites that other posters have put together as that is old information that needs to be updated.

When the DA's office AND the BPD refused to give Fleet White copies of his statements but would allow him to review them for the Grand Jury he refused to testify and he and Priscilla were no longer considered key witnesses to the case. Fleet hated the DA, and was very friendly with Steve Thomas. He was NOT investigated thoroughly. He knew he made conflicting statements and his depo is sealed.

The ONLY suspects totally cleared publically out of the circle of friends were the McReynolds. jmo

The press release that was released by the City of Boulder is now considered "old information"? by whom?. The information is easily obtained just by entering the following in a google search......"Fleet White key witness Ramsey case".

Of course Fleet White disliked the D.A. as he thought the Ramsey's were hiding behind their attorney's and getting special treatment by the D.A.'s office, and they WERE. Who could blame Fleet White for requesting copies of his statements, after all, he was only asking the same that had been given to the Ramsey's. Like I said previously, I am glad that Fleet White has never spoken publicly and it is a blessing his deposition remains sealed.

IMO

Athena

09-14-2006, 12:47 AM

Yes old -- the article you posted above is dated April 1997. Try doing a search without keywords "key witness". Of course if you search for "key witness" you will come up with articles relating to that phrase. :shrug:

Why should he be given copies of his statements -- noone gets hard copies of their statements. They gave him permission to read them. Why would he need copies to take with him -- to study/memorize?? Think about it.

As far as not speaking publically -- he didn't have to - his written documents did it for him. Notice everything he tried backfired. He even tried to sue the papers for printing the story about Mary Kreb the woman who said he molested her as a child but does not deny that his family and hers go way back. I repeat Fleet White had his own selfish interests at heart not Jonbenet. jmo

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/legalstuff.htm

Hopeintown

09-14-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Yes old -- the article you posted above is dated April 1997. Try doing a search without keywords "key witness". Of course if you search for "key witness" you will come up with articles relating to that phrase. :shrug:

Why should he be given copies of his statements -- noone gets hard copies of their statements. They gave him permission to read them. Why would he need copies to take with him -- to study/memorize?? Think about it.

As far as not speaking publically -- he didn't have to - his written documents did it for him. Notice everything he tried backfired. He even tried to sue the papers for printing the story about Mary Kreb the woman who said he molested her as a child but does not deny that his family and hers go way back. I repeat Fleet White had his own selfish interests at heart not Jonbenet. jmo

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/legalstuff.htm

Athena,
I am not going to argue with you over Fleet White. The fact remains is he was cleared as a suspect as I posted and was named as a "key witness". The murder took place in 1996 and the press release was in 1997.

The reason Fleet White was asking for copies of his statements is because the Ramsey's were provided with copies of the December 26th police reports that the D.A. approved so they could study BEFORE they were ever formally questioned. When has that ever been done before in a murder investigation?

Of course Fleet White would try and sue for printing that fabricated story that was made up by some internet posters to smear his name. After all, if you take Fleet White out of the picture who is left?

IMO

Athena

09-14-2006, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

Athena,
I am not going to argue with you over Fleet White. The fact remains is he was cleared as a suspect as I posted and was named as a "key witness". The murder took place in 1996 and the press release was in 1997.

The reason Fleet White was asking for copies of his statements is because the Ramsey's were provided with copies of the December 26th police reports that the D.A. approved so they could study BEFORE they were ever formally questioned. When has that ever been done before in a murder investigation?

Of course Fleet White would try and sue for printing that fabricated story that was made up by some internet posters to smear his name. After all, if you take Fleet White out of the picture who is left?

IMO

Please tell me what "fabricated" story you are speaking about on the internet?

sweetcharlotte

09-14-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

Athena,
I am not going to argue with you over Fleet White. The fact remains is he was cleared as a suspect as I posted and was named as a "key witness". The murder took place in 1996 and the press release was in 1997.

<snip>

IMO

Actually, Fleet and Priscilla were not "cleared." The PD with agreement from the DA's office issued a statement that they were "not suspects." Hunter did not want to go so far as to say they were "cleared."

diplomat

09-14-2006, 11:30 AM

nuisanceposter

09-14-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Actually, Fleet and Priscilla were not "cleared." The PD with agreement from the DA's office issued a statement that they were "not suspects." Hunter did not want to go so far as to say they were "cleared."

Fleet White has been cleared.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/25arams.html

Police cleared White as a suspect in April 1997.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

BOULDER -- Police have ruled out two Ramsey family friends as suspects in the Dec. 26 death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Police chief Tom Koby said Wednesday that he took the rare public move because Fleet White Jr. -- who was with John Ramsey when he found the body of his 6-year-old daughter -- and his wife, Priscilla White, have been cast as culprits by some publications.
"They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''
Boulder police have formally cleared only two people, John Andrew Ramsey and Melissa Ramsey, John Ramsey's older son and daughter.
Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.
"They had no peace in their lives, and it got to a point where we felt we had to say something,'' he said.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/020600ramsey.html

Although police cleared White, John and Patsy Ramsey have remained the focus of a Boulder police investigation.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1234839,00.html

Fleet White hosted the Christmas party JonBenet attended before her death. His family served her last meal. White, cleared early by the police, was sentenced to 30 days for ignoring a subpoena in a spinoff case.

sunsplashed

09-14-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

True. Are we actually allowed to state this fact here?

I don't think you're supposed to state something as fact without a credible link. Without that, it's...

JMO

sunsplashed

09-14-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Hopeintown

Athena,
I am not going to argue with you over Fleet White. The fact remains is he was cleared as a suspect as I posted and was named as a "key witness". The murder took place in 1996 and the press release was in 1997.

The reason Fleet White was asking for copies of his statements is because the Ramsey's were provided with copies of the December 26th police reports that the D.A. approved so they could study BEFORE they were ever formally questioned. When has that ever been done before in a murder investigation?

Of course Fleet White would try and sue for printing that fabricated story that was made up by some internet posters to smear his name. After all, if you take Fleet White out of the picture who is left?

IMO

It's easy to take Fleet White out of the picture. He didn't know where Burke's Swiss Army knife was hidden. Only Patsy, John, and LHP knew that. And it was hidden quite well.

JMO

cantaloupe

09-14-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

It's easy to take Fleet White out of the picture. He didn't know where Burke's Swiss Army knife was hidden. Only Patsy, John, and LHP knew that. And it was hidden quite well.

JMO

I didn't follow this case initially, but have pieced together that LHP must have been a housekeeper or something??? What about her and her extended network--a boyfriend, husband whatever? any suspects there?

Mimi428

09-14-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by cantaloupe

I didn't follow this case initially, but have pieced together that LHP must have been a housekeeper or something??? What about her and her extended network--a boyfriend, husband whatever? any suspects there?

She was the housekeeper. She was also the first person the Ramsey's named as a possible suspect. IIRC (don't have PM/PT with me anymore) she & her family were first interviewed by the police on the 26th, several hours after JonBenet was reported as having been kidnapped.

bullmoose

09-14-2006, 02:01 PM

I think that every high-profile case of murder has its unique circumstances. DOESn't everyone remember OJ's low speed chase where the cops wouldn't move to stop the bronco because he was holding a gun to his head? That was bizarre, all by itself; this case has its own unique oddities. I know that Burkes' Swiss Army Knife was found in the basement; what particular signifigance does it have? and how can it be stated as fact that John and Patsy knew where it was hidden. I know where two of my pocket Knifes are hidden: in my pocket. Are you saying that there was fiber evidence on the knife? I may be missing something here. bullmoose:confused:

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

It's easy to take Fleet White out of the picture. He didn't know where Burke's Swiss Army knife was hidden. Only Patsy, John, and LHP knew that. And it was hidden quite well.

JMO

Well, it was stuck in a cupboard. Anyone poking around could have come across it. It's not like she buried it in the backyard.

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

She was the housekeeper. She was also the first person the Ramsey's named as a possible suspect. IIRC (don't have PM/PT with me anymore) she & her family were first interviewed by the police on the 26th, several hours after JonBenet was reported as having been kidnapped.

When questioned by the police about who they knew who needed money etc her name came up but the Ramseys said they didn't think she would do such a thing. Somewhere at WS I once posted excerpts from ST, PMPT and DOI about how her name came up in the initial interviews on the 26th. They differ considerably in tone.

trt

09-14-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Well, it was stuck in a cupboard. Anyone poking around could have come across it. It's not like she buried it in the backyard.

Yeah, but in the dark? And this all goes back to why the perp was so nonchalant about time constraints when the family was asleep upstairs. Who would spend time looking for a swiss army knife, or going through the cupboards period? I'm sure she didn't just sit it in front of a couple of glasses or anything, it had to be where Burke wouldn't see it if he were getting a dish. JMO

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by trt

Yeah, but in the dark? And this all goes back to why the perp was so nonchalant about time constraints when the family was asleep upstairs. Who would spend time looking for a swiss army knife, or going through the cupboards period? I'm sure she didn't just sit it in front of a couple of glasses or anything, it had to be where Burke wouldn't see it if he were getting a dish. JMO

My recollection is it was in the upstairs laundry cupboard where the Pullups were. BUt I'd have to look it up to be sure.

Since I think someone entered the house while they were at the White's and this someone probably knew he had at least a couple hours, there would be no family sleeping upstairs while he roamed around the house.

Mimi428

09-14-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Well, it was stuck in a cupboard. Anyone poking around could have come across it. It's not like she buried it in the backyard.

How many cupboards & cabinets do you suppose are in a house with the square footage of the Ramseys?

My guess is they are all over the place. On every floor. Probably a whole lot of them in the kitchen area & a whole lot more in the basement area.

Do you think it was sheer luck or pure coincidence that the knife was found & removed? Or do you think the 'intruder' poked around in all the cupboards & cabinets on every floor of the house? Or what?

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

How many cupboards & cabinets do you suppose are in a house with the square footage of the Ramseys?

My guess is they are all over the place. On every floor. Probably a whole lot of them in the kitchen area & a whole lot more in the basement area.

Do you think it was sheer luck or pure coincidence that the knife was found & removed? Or do you think the 'intruder' poked around in all the cupboards & cabinets on every floor of the house? Or what?

I think he could have been just poking around, saw the knife and thought it might come in handy. I don't think he knew it was there or was looking for it. It's not like needing a key for a specific lock and finding it in a large house. The knife was just there and he picked it up when he saw it.

nuisanceposter

09-14-2006, 02:34 PM

And how was this intruder able to wander around the Ramsey house for hours, poking around, peeking here and there, and not leave any forensic evidence?

How did he get JonBenet to eat the pineapple, and why did he wait around for two hours after she ate it before killing her?

How was he able to write ransom note that so closely matches Patsy's writing that she was never able to be excluded as the author of the note, even by experts the Rs hired themselves?

bullmoose

09-14-2006, 02:38 PM

I think what it shows is that the intruder had plenty of time to look around before Ramseys came home. An intruder might have watched them leave the house and then gone in. He/they may have been testing the alarm system to see if it was on or off so as to make plans for the incursion. IMO bullmoose

Mimi428

09-14-2006, 02:46 PM

trt

09-14-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I think what it shows is that the intruder had plenty of time to look around before Ramseys came home. An intruder might have watched them leave the house and then gone in. He/they may have been testing the alarm system to see if it was on or off so as to make plans for the incursion. IMO bullmoose

Yeah, but he/she would still have to have known that they didn't have an infinite amount of time, or how much time they had at all. I think that looking through cabinets for different things wouldn't be something that an intruder would be doing if trying to optimize the time alone in the house to *set up* this crime. As well, it had to be in the dark, other guests coming to the party late(or overly cautious neighbors) would have seen a light(like another neighbor claimed he did later on) flashing around just peeking through cabinets, etc. Or if he turned on lights in the house, I'm sure someone would've noticed it suspicious that the Ramseys were next door, yet lights were turned on and off in their home before they returned.

Also, this knife being in the cupboard still should have been out of plain view so if Burke was to go in there, he couldn't see it and retrieve it again. What do you suppose the intruder were looking for when he/she came across the knife?

bullmoose

09-14-2006, 02:49 PM

I have not read anywhere before that handwriting experts, hired by the Ramseys could not exclude her from having written that note. nuisanceposter, do you have link for that? The only handwriting analysis I've seen in print was the one done by experts hired by the BPD, all five of whom excluded John from possibly being the writer; with regards to Patsy, four of the five excluded her, too. Only the one gave the opinion that she could not be excluded. But he also did not call it a match. Got that link? bullmoose

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
And how was this intruder able to wander around the Ramsey house for hours, poking around, peeking here and there, and not leave any forensic evidence?

How did he get JonBenet to eat the pineapple, and why did he wait around for two hours after she ate it before killing her?

How was he able to write ransom note that so closely matches Patsy's writing that she wa nevers able to be excluded as the author of the note, even by experts the Rs hired themselves?

I expect he wore gloves. As for other evidence we don't know what he might have left. Don't forget - the people who processed the house were the same ones who initially thought 90 minutes was a sufficient amount of time to process a 5,000 sq ft house.

The pineapple is still an unanswered question. She could have eaten it before she left for the White's or perhaps she and the White's daughter had some from the White's refrigerator. The Whites have never said whether or not they had pineapple in their house.

You're right Patsy couldn't be excluded although she was at the low end of probability. There were a number of others who also couldn't be excluded. How did he make his handwriting match theirs as well? I have read that Chris Wolf's handwriting was a closer match than Patsy's.

nuisanceposter

09-14-2006, 03:11 PM

According to Steve Thomas's book, JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, the Whites not only did not serve any pineapple that evening, but the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was tested and found to be consistant down to the rind with what was sitting in a bowl on the Ramsey breakfast table - a bowl that had only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on it.

And seeing as how the pineapple was in JB's small intestine, we know according the digestive rate studies that she ate it 1 to 2 hours prior to her death - which according to rigor mortis studies, was approximately 1 a.m.

Not only that, in the piolice interview in Atlanta, Burke Ramsey testified that JonBenet was awake when the family arrived home that night and walked into the house in front of their mother.

This backs up the original stories that John and Patsy told police on the 26th - that they tucked JonBenet in bed that night, Patsy singing to her, and John reading to her.

They changed that story, though, by the time they finally allowed themselves to be interviewed by police on April 30th, 1997. They now claimed that she had been asleep when they got home, contradicting their earlier stories.

Why would John and Patsy lie about the pineapple, and whether JonBenet was awake or not?

And what about the fiber evidence?

bullmoose

09-14-2006, 03:15 PM

nuisance poster, what about that link to the handwritng experts you claim the Ramseys hired? I would very much like to see it. bullmoose

Louisadelmar

09-14-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
According to Steve Thomas's book, JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, the Whites not only did not serve any pineapple that evening, but the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was tested and found to be consistant down to the rind with what was sitting in a bowl on the Ramsey breakfast table - a bowl that had only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on it.

And seeing as how the pineapple was in JB's small intestine, we know according the digestive rate studies that she ate it 1 to 2 hours prior to her death - which according to rigor mortis studies, was approximately 1 a.m.

Not only that, in the piolice interview in Atlanta, Burke Ramsey testified that JonBenet was awake when the family arrived home that night and walked into the house in front of their mother.

This backs up the original stories that John and Patsy told police on the 26th - that they tucked JonBenet in bed that night, Patsy singing to her, and John reading to her.

They changed that story, though, by the time they finally allowed themselves to be interviewed by police on April 30th, 1997. They now claimed that she had been asleep when they got home, contradicting their earlier stories.

Why would John and Patsy lie about the pineapple, and whether JonBenet was awake or not?

And what about the fiber evidence?

I didn't say they served pineapple. I said teh Whites have never said whether they had pineapple in the house.

Our knowledge of digestive times is rudimentary at best. What happens to the rates in an excited child who may or may not have eated much else or may have snacked on candy is unknown.

Burke has testified both that she was asleep and she was awake. ST concluded Burke couldn't remember.

Consistent down to the rind? What does that mean? What they concluded was both were fresh pineapple as opposed to canned pineapple. There was no "match' between what was in her stomach and what was in the house.

rosebud

09-14-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think he could have been just poking around, saw the knife and thought it might come in handy. I don't think he knew it was there or was looking for it. It's not like needing a key for a specific lock and finding it in a large house. The knife was just there and he picked it up when he saw it.

Ok, so now you and others have this supposed intruder "poking around" presumably everywhere something can be stored or hidden and finding the swiss army knife in a second floor cupboard and using it to cut the cord for the garotte and the wrist binding. There are plenty of knives in the kitchen, but he searches around and finds and uses the swiss army knife.

So this "intruder" was so curious that he/she/they were looking in all of these sundry places, but guess what?

Not one thing of value was reported missing from the house that night. Not that I know of anyway.

So we have an intruder who was looking in virtually all storage places of the house. He explored the basement so well that he found the old wine cellar that one housekeeper never knew existed. But he stole absolutely nothing.

And enters a room in the basement that is empty, and has only one door, no windows, and no exit. The room is at the farthest point away from the "basement window" that we are told he/she entered from.

So we have an intruder who searches the house diligently, steals nothing, writes a ransom note AFTER he enters the house, kills the intended target, and then instead of taking the body, as the Lindbergh kidnapper did (he got the money too), he leaves it in the one room in the house that has no exit for him if he got surprised there, and in the room that is at the farthest point in the basement from his planned exit window.

Mighty strange intruder.

docg

09-14-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
How was he able to write ransom note that so closely matches Patsy's writing that she was never able to be excluded as the author of the note, even by experts the Rs hired themselves?

The note does NOT match Patsy's writing. No more than it matches Karr's. Patsy couldn't be excluded, that's all. John shouldn't have been excluded either, that was a huge mistake IMO.

When Patsy wasn't excluded and it became clear how shaky any intruder theory must be, then all eyes focused on her and certain "experts" with a "sure thing" in their sights saw her as fair game for their own ambitions. The exact same thing happened with Karr. The only difference is that the Karr thing came and went, leaving certain "experts" with egg on their face, while the Patsy thing may go on forever.

The people who examined the full range of her exemplars saw no real evidence that she wrote the note, just some indications that she might have. Which is why she was never completely ruled out.
But because John WAS ruled out, and an intruder was so unlikely, the pressure to "nail" Patsy became very great and every thing she ever did or said that seemed a bit unusual became proof positive of her guilt.

breezy1234

09-14-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
According to Steve Thomas's book, JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, the Whites not only did not serve any pineapple that evening, but the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was tested and found to be consistant down to the rind with what was sitting in a bowl on the Ramsey breakfast table - a bowl that had only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints on it.

And seeing as how the pineapple was in JB's small intestine, we know according the digestive rate studies that she ate it 1 to 2 hours prior to her death - which according to rigor mortis studies, was approximately 1 a.m.

Not only that, in the piolice interview in Atlanta, Burke Ramsey testified that JonBenet was awake when the family arrived home that night and walked into the house in front of their mother.

This backs up the original stories that John and Patsy told police on the 26th - that they tucked JonBenet in bed that night, Patsy singing to her, and John reading to her.

They changed that story, though, by the time they finally allowed themselves to be interviewed by police on April 30th, 1997. They now claimed that she had been asleep when they got home, contradicting their earlier stories.

Why would John and Patsy lie about the pineapple, and whether JonBenet was awake or not?

And what about the fiber evidence?

Thomas LIES.

"6 Relying solely on the testimony of Mr. Thomas, who has no apparent expertise as a medical examiner, plaintiff fixes the time of death at around one a. m. "suggested by the digestion rate of pineapple found in the child's stomach." (PSDMF 47.) The coroner's report does indicate that a vegetable or fruit matter consistent with pineapple was found in JonBenet's stomach during the autopsy. (Boulder Coroner Report at 6.) The report, however, does not establish a time of death based on the digestion rate of the unidentified matter.

Plaintiff also theorizes, based on the presence of the unidentified matter in JonBenet's stomach that, contrary to Mrs. Ramsey's testimony, she was up during the night and fed JonBenet the pineapple. (PSDMF 45.) There is no evidence in the record that indicates when JonBenet ate the pineapple. Defendants state they did not feed JonBenet pineapple upon returning home from the White's party that evening. (SMF 13.) Mr. White does not recall if pineapple was served at his dinner party on December 25, 1996. (F. White Dep. at 202.)"

You do not KNOW what Burke testified to. His testimony was kept secret. Why lie that it is fact when it is NOT?

John NEVER said he read to JonBenet, he said he read to himself.

:rolleyes:

rosebud

09-14-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by docg

The note does NOT match Patsy's writing. No more than it matches Karr's. Patsy couldn't be excluded, that's all. John shouldn't have been excluded either, that was a huge mistake IMO.

When Patsy wasn't excluded and it became clear how shaky any intruder theory must be, then all eyes focused on her and certain "experts" with a "sure thing" in their sights saw her as fair game for their own ambitions. The exact same thing happened with Karr. The only difference is that the Karr thing came and went, leaving certain "experts" with egg on their face, while the Patsy thing may go on forever.

The people who examined the full range of her exemplars saw no real evidence that she wrote the note, just some indications that she might have. Which is why she was never completely ruled out.
But because John WAS ruled out, and an intruder was so unlikely, the pressure to "nail" Patsy became very great and every thing she ever did or said that seemed a bit unusual became proof positive of her guilt.

REPLY: Somewhere in these threads there is a link to a detailed comparison of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note's. I think the handwriting is very, very close. I think that handwriting analysis is not a science like fingerprints are or DNA evidence has become. However the similarities of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note and several oddities in her writing that were similar to the handwriting in the ransom note has me convinced that she did write the note.

docg

09-14-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I have not read anywhere before that handwriting experts, hired by the Ramseys could not exclude her from having written that note. nuisanceposter, do you have link for that? The only handwriting analysis I've seen in print was the one done by experts hired by the BPD, all five of whom excluded John from possibly being the writer; with regards to Patsy, four of the five excluded her, too. Only the one gave the opinion that she could not be excluded. But he also did not call it a match. Got that link? bullmoose

I don't have a link handy, but that's not quite it, bullmoose. Check with a standard reference such as PMPT. The six "experts" who ruled John out (huge mistake) were unable to rule out Patsy. However, they agreed it was unlikely she wrote it. Their decision is sometimes described as giving John a rating of 5, for exclusion, and Patsy a 4 or 4.5, as the next step up -- not excluded but unlikely. Darnay Hoffmann found several "experts" willing to conclude beyond question that Patsy wrote it, but their efforts are laughable. For one thing, some of them confused a crooked xerox with "margin drift." For another they were working with an entirely inadequate and tiny set of exemplars, which may not even have been written by Patsy -- and at least one of which was probably by Burke or JonBenet. They were clearly giving Darnay what he wanted to see, which is the case with a great many such "experts for hire."