In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey

[Paisley]

Originally posted by nutmeg22

My thoughts exactly...so this means that this person is completely a sociopath ...without conscience in my book. JMO ditto

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Am I not allowed to communicate with kindeekat on this board?

I was not aware of that. When the moderator tells kindeekat and I not to communicate with each other, we will stop.




Use the ignore button and carry on my friend!

:patriot:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat





Use the ignore button and carry on my friend!

:patriot:

I've got a few on Ignore now. I usually just post around people who want to start trouble. LOL

I hope you have sun today like we do here. Well, hazy sun, but it's sun! :)

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I've got a few on Ignore now. I usually just post around people who want to start trouble. LOL

I hope you have sun today like we do here. Well, hazy sun, but it's sun! :)



It is absolutely beautiful---my favorite time of the year. We actually have a few trees starting to turn bright red. *sigh* I love it but it means summer is over...

Bandit'sMom? Right on.

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I've got a few on Ignore now. I usually just post around people who want to start trouble. LOL

I hope you have sun today like we do here. Well, hazy sun, but it's sun! :)

That is usually the best way to handle it.

I'm anxious to hear your theory too. I hope you post it soon.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


The DA decides whether to turn a case over the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury decides whether to indict.

Judge Carnes was making a decision in a civil suit, not a criminal one.

None of these people "cleared" the Ramseys of murder.

I can come up with an entire scenario of why ONE Ramsey is guilty of murder and back it up with facts. Can't you come up with anything in the Ramseys defense other than this silly Judge Carnes stuff? It doesn't help the Ramseys one bit.

JMO Sun...I thought in a civil trial that you didn't need as much evidence to determine guilt as in a criminal trial....am I wrong?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Your logic makes no sense to me. She called the police because John asked her too. Most educated/intelligent people know to contact the police when something like this happens regardless of what the note says. What was unintelligent was the way the Boulder PD showed on at the house.

JMO

Most educated/intellegent people would stress to the 911 operator not to send marked cars to their home. How do you know what "most educated/intellegent" people would do? I think the reaction would vary.
My logic makes perfect sense. You would recognize the logic if you had any kind of open mind about this but you are so dead set on the Ramseys being innocent that you have refused to see suspicious activity when it is fairly screaming in your face. JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Sun...I thought in a civil trial that you didn't need as much evidence to determine guilt as in a criminal trial....am I wrong?

You're right.

In a civil trial, one only needs to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence," while in a criminal trial one need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Judges always caution jurors in criminal trials that some doubt is permissible. Almost nothing can be proven beyond any doubt at all.

http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor222222

[hohum]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Despicable because some people see Mark Klass differently from the way you see him.



I've heard plenty about Klaas during this Karr fiasco and it ain't pretty. He is a judgmental know it all who does not want to share any compassion with the Ramsey's. He has found the spotlight and loves it.

[hohum]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, of course you can communicate with kindeekat........and you can continue answering follow-up questions put to her posts, too. (But, it would be nice to see her responses to some of the questions regarding the content of her posts. You know?)

My gosh, have you noticed it's like posting on the weather channel thread. :lol:

[hohum]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The gloves came off in Atlanta following JonBenet's funeral when Fleet found out John & Patsy were going on CNN. He wanted them to go back to Boulder and talk to the PD. By this time the Ramseys already knew they were under the umbrella of suspicion SO why did Fleet think he knew better what should be done than John and his attorneys?

Fleet's behavior was so erratic that no one in the extended Ramsey/Paugh family would host him as originally intended. He scared everybody with his angry behavior and he and Priscilla ended up in a hotel. This was not the time for Fleet to get in John's face, they were in Atlanta to bury JB. Fleet showed poor judgment and bad taste in doing so. I think the Ramsey's were lucky to be rid of him.

[Athena]

Originally posted by kindeekat
Even other Parents of Murdered Children are fair game if they happen to disagree with the Ramsey defenders---No matter how you look at it, Marc Klaas is as much a victim as the Ramseys, and for CERTAIN he didn't have anything to do with the murder of his child.

Despicable.

What I find despicable is someone making blanket statements like this about posters on the board. I believe each poster is an individual and should be treated as such. If you have an issue with a particular poster perhaps you should respond to that poster. jmo

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by hohum


Fleet's behavior was so erratic that no one in the extended Ramsey/Paugh family would host him as originally intended. He scared everybody with his angry behavior and he and Priscilla ended up in a hotel. This was not the time for Fleet to get in John's face, they were in Atlanta to bury JB. Fleet showed poor judgment and bad taste in doing so. I think the Ramsey's were lucky to be rid of him.

Where did you get this information hohum? or, do I have to guess?

Imagine, someone that was THERE and witnessed the body of this little girl being found, had actually just seen her the night before, was called to the home that morning by the parents saying she had been "kidnapped".......

Then, the parents of this little girl suddenly "lawyer up" and decide not to cooperate with authorities and instead make an appearance on CNN to the public.

My, if I were Fleet White I know that I would have done just what HE did. I would have cooperated FULLY with the authorities, gave them all the information I knew, and remembered from the previous night AND that morning. My friendship would have halted immediately as I wouldn't cover for anyone if I suspected them of a violent crime.

My thoughts would have been for the victim.

IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Where did you get this information hohum? or, do I have to guess?

Imagine, someone that was THERE and witnessed the body of this little girl being found, had actually just seen her the night before, was called to the home that morning by the parents saying she had been "kidnapped".......

Then, the parents of this little girl suddenly "lawyer up" and decide not to cooperate with authorities and instead make an appearance on CNN to the public.

My, if I were Fleet White I know that I would have done just what HE did. I would have cooperated FULLY with the authorities, gave them all the information I knew, and remembered from the previous night AND that morning. My friendship would have halted immediately as I wouldn't cover for anyone if I suspected them of a violent crime.

My thoughts would have been for the victim.

IMO

I believe your heart is in the right place Hope but I don't agree that Fleet's was. jmo

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by hohum


Fleet's behavior was so erratic that no one in the extended Ramsey/Paugh family would host him as originally intended. He scared everybody with his angry behavior and he and Priscilla ended up in a hotel. This was not the time for Fleet to get in John's face, they were in Atlanta to bury JB. Fleet showed poor judgment and bad taste in doing so. I think the Ramsey's were lucky to be rid of him.


Could it be that Fleet was showing his grief over the murder of a child he treated like his own? The Ramseys showed their grief differently they brought it to CNN. jmo

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by hohum


I've heard plenty about Klaas during this Karr fiasco and it ain't pretty. He is a judgmental know it all who does not want to share any compassion with the Ramsey's. He has found the spotlight and loves it.

You know nothing about Mark Klass personally.

The only thing you, and the others that think the Ramsey's are innocent have against him, is that he does not think they are.



IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Athena


I believe your heart is in the right place Hope but I don't agree that Fleet's was. jmo

I do. I alway's have believed the White's only interest was justice for JonBenet.

And, I'm glad that they never wrote a book, or sold their story as the information they have can hopfully be used someday.

IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Good morning, LadyFisher. I hope you're having a nice day.

I think a very emotional case like this one can bring out the worst in people if they get too involved in it, and that's easy to do, since the victim was a little six-year-old girl.

I think John was the guilty Ramsey, not Patsy. There is another poster who shares my theory and perhaps developed aspects of it first. (Our theories are close, but not identical, though we both believe John is the guilty one.)

I'll be very happy to share my theory with you. I have to write it better than I have so far, though, and when I do (probably tomorrow), I'll PM you and let you know.

When talking about something like this, I never have my mind set in stone. I'm still very willing to accept a plausible intruder theory.

I hope you have a nice day. I have to go out into the countryside soon to take photos. It would be nice if the leaves were turning, but they aren't. Not yet. :(

Hi sunsplashed,
I was trying to catch up on some of the threads and your post caught my eye. Lately I have been trying to read through some of the old transcripts and other things pertaining to this case, as well as the autopsy report and re-reading through that ransom note again. It is my opinion that you are right. All this time, I have been leaning towards the wrong person.

Of course, I would accept an intruder theory if I ever heard one that was believable, but I haven't so far.

If you get a chance to write out your theory could you PM it to me also? I would be really interested in reading it. Hope you had success with your photos today. The leaves here in my area (Michigan) are slowly starting to turn, but I do love this time of year. Have a nice evening. :)

IMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


You know nothing about Mark Klass personally.

The only thing you, and the others that think the Ramsey's are innocent have against him, is that he does not think they are.



IMO

And you know nothing about the Ramsey's personally, but that's not stopped you so far.

BTW, any time Klaas is on TV I switch the channel and had no clue what he thought about the Ramsey's guilt or innocence. Only that he was always espousing what they should and should not have done in the most obnoxious way possible.

[hohum]

Originally posted by jmgos1



Could it be that Fleet was showing his grief over the murder of a child he treated like his own? The Ramseys showed their grief differently they brought it to CNN. jmo

I might have agreed with you about Fleet but for his odd behavior years beyond the murder. Now I wouldn't trust any feelings Fleet has since he has shown himself to be so erratic. He doesn't seem to have any concept of when to back off. Something is odd about him.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Where did you get this information hohum? or, do I have to guess?



Why don't you guess.

[Hopeintown]

I sit here in amazement that there are posters that continue to try and point a finger at Fleet White even though I posted last night that this man, along with his wife had been CLEARED by the authorities, and was named "KEY WITNESSES" in the Ramsey case.

Now I realize that it's because Fleet White deflects from the Ramsey's, just like he did 10 years ago. This man was used then to point a finger at, his name and reputation was dragged through the mud ALL because he chose to cooperate with the authorities. And, he's being used again. For if there is no Fleet White, and there is no intruder, who does that leave?

IMO

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by hohum


I might have agreed with you about Fleet but for his odd behavior years beyond the murder. Now I wouldn't trust any feelings Fleet has since he has shown himself to be so erratic. He doesn't seem to have any concept of when to back off. Something is odd about him.


Just how would you grieve the murder of your best friends child? How would you have acted if you were among the persons who found the body? You cann't say his behavior was/is "odd" unless you know him personally. Where is this book on how to grieve for fiends. Different people react to things differently. The only "odd" behavior I see in this case is that of the parents. Again I ask, just why didn't they wake Burke up and ask him if he knew where his sister was. Instead they hustled him out to the home of the Whites. I guess Fleet was not acting "odd" then. jmo

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL.......well, if YOU said it I guess we'd all better accept it and move on.........

:lol: yep, even the child sex ring is not to be brought up because she said they were "cleared". I think that is why Fleet was acting so strange............. so his own dirty laundry wouldn't come out.:shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by jmgos1



Just how would you grieve the murder of your best friends child? How would you have acted if you were among the persons who found the body? You cann't say his behavior was/is "odd" unless you know him personally. Where is this book on how to grieve for fiends. Different people react to things differently. The only "odd" behavior I see in this case is that of the parents. Again I ask, just why didn't they wake Burke up and ask him if he knew where his sister was. Instead they hustled him out to the home of the Whites. I guess Fleet was not acting "odd" then. jmo

I guess the friend gets a pass because his friends child is murdered but the parents themselves should "act" as others think they should or it is called "odd behavior". :rolleyes: After all is is so much stressful for a friends child to be murdered than for your own child to be murdered. :rolleyes:

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL.......well, if YOU said it I guess we'd all better accept it and move on.........



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

[Athena]

Something else bugs me about FW. His long rambling letters in which he writes quite a bit about JR's business. Seems he knew alot of personal business info. Remind you of anything? jmo

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown




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

White ignored a subpoena but i guess that is what BPD and you consider "co-operation". :rolleyes:

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Same mayor that said there was no killer on the loose?

If your referring to the Ramsey case, there was no killer on the loose.

IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Who had they locked up?

Unfortunately, nobody

IMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


If your referring to the Ramsey case, there was no killer on the loose.

IMO

And you know that how???

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



Um huh.........

-His open letter to the citizens of CO
-His demand that the governor appoint a special prosecutor

"Methinks he protesteth too much!" jmo

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Athena


"Methinks he protesteth too much!" jmo

IMO you are right.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by breezy1234


And you know that how???

In my opinion there was no intruder.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Sailing - knots and such......

JR was familiar with sailing too.

:)

IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


In Judge Carnes opinion, there was.

Not that again.

"Civil Case"

But, go ahead and try to convince others if you want, thats what this board is all about.

IMO

:seeya:

[breezy1234]

"GOLDEN — A Jefferson County district judge sentenced Fleet White Jr. to 30 days in jail today for ignoring a subpoena in connection with a case related to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.

White, a former friend of the Ramseys, took off his suit coat and tie and was handcuffed and led away to jail.


The Boulder man pleaded guilty earlier today to indirect contempt of court charges for failing to appear as a witness in the criminal trial of Thomas C. Miller. Miller, also of Boulder, was accused of bribery in connection with an alleged attempt to buy a copy of the ransom note in the JonBenet homicide. He was cleared at trial in June.

Miller's attorney, Gary Lozow, had sent a letter to the court suggesting White be sentenced to five days in jail.

White's attorney, Craig Truman, urged Judge Frank Plaut not to sentence White to any jail time.

But Plaut called both suggestions "woefully inadequate."

Referring to a 6 1/2 page letter White submitted to the court, the judge said it was clear that White had not acknowledged the severity of his actions by ignoring the subpoena in the Miller case.

[b]"You don't get to make the rules, and you thought you did," Plaut told White. [/b[

That letter was sealed by the court.

White, however, previously told the court that he ignored the subpoena in the best interest of the JonBenet investigation, the justice system and his family.

The judge said he found White's conduct "offensive to the authority and dignity of the court."

"People are going to respond to subpoenas if this court has anything to say about it," Plaut said.

White was with John Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996, when Ramsey found his 6-year-old daughter's beaten and strangled body in the basement of the family's Boulder home, hours after she was reported kidnapped.

Please see full story in Friday's edition of the Daily Camera.




October 25, 2001"

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2002/1025white.html

Doesn't look like co-operating to me. WHAT is he hiding???

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Not that again.

"Civil Case"

But, go ahead and try to convince others if you want, thats what this board is all about.

IMO

:seeya:

IMO Carnes opinion is a hell of a lot better than yours. WHO are you trying to convince your opinion is better than hers? :rolleyes:

[samsong]

Originally posted by jmgos1



Could it be that Fleet was showing his grief over the murder of a child he treated like his own? The Ramseys showed their grief differently they brought it to CNN. jmo

Now, everyone grieves differently. I'm sure many people grieve by going on CNN or other new outlets. :D

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by samsong


Now, everyone grieves differently. I'm sure many people grieve by going on CNN or other new outlets. :D

The Ramseys went on CNN to warn others that there was a killer loose as the keystone cops didn't seem concered.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by breezy1234
"GOLDEN — A Jefferson County district judge sentenced Fleet White Jr. to 30 days in jail today for ignoring a subpoena in connection with a case related to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide.

White, a former friend of the Ramseys, took off his suit coat and tie and was handcuffed and led away to jail.


The Boulder man pleaded guilty earlier today to indirect contempt of court charges for failing to appear as a witness in the criminal trial of Thomas C. Miller. Miller, also of Boulder, was accused of bribery in connection with an alleged attempt to buy a copy of the ransom note in the JonBenet homicide. He was cleared at trial in June.

Miller's attorney, Gary Lozow, had sent a letter to the court suggesting White be sentenced to five days in jail.

White's attorney, Craig Truman, urged Judge Frank Plaut not to sentence White to any jail time.

But Plaut called both suggestions "woefully inadequate."

Referring to a 6 1/2 page letter White submitted to the court, the judge said it was clear that White had not acknowledged the severity of his actions by ignoring the subpoena in the Miller case.

[b]"You don't get to make the rules, and you thought you did," Plaut told White. [/b[

That letter was sealed by the court.

White, however, previously told the court that he ignored the subpoena in the best interest of the JonBenet investigation, the justice system and his family.

The judge said he found White's conduct "offensive to the authority and dignity of the court."

"People are going to respond to subpoenas if this court has anything to say about it," Plaut said.

White was with John Ramsey on Dec. 26, 1996, when Ramsey found his 6-year-old daughter's beaten and strangled body in the basement of the family's Boulder home, hours after she was reported kidnapped.

Please see full story in Friday's edition of the Daily Camera.




October 25, 2001"

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2002/1025white.html

Doesn't look like co-operating to me. WHAT is he hiding???

"Hiding"?

I highly doubt Mr. White is hiding anything. By that point he had probably had enough of the justice system in this case. Obviously there were certain people in Boulder who were going to great lengths to see to it that justice was NOT served properly.

As I said before, the Whites have never spoken out, never written a book, or never sold their story. So whatever they may be "hiding" (as you say) will be of good use if and when it is needed someday.

IMO

[samsong]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


"Hiding"?

I highly doubt Mr. White is hiding anything. By that point he had probably had enough of the justice system in this case. Obviously there were certain people in Boulder who were going to great lengths to see to it that justice was NOT served properly.

As I said before, the Whites have never spoken out, never written a book, or never sold their story. So whatever they may be "hiding" (as you say) will be of good use if and when it is needed someday.

IMO

That is a good point. I don't think the day will ever come, but they would be one the few witnesses that wouldn't be tainted.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


(don't say stun gun out loud, either.) STUN GUN! Okay...I screamed it! ;) A lot of the theories that I've read on here completely ignore the fact that a stun gun was probably used on JB.......after viewing the crime scene photos last night....how else can those marks on that child be explained....imo it had to be a STUN GUN! A parent would not imo have to use one!

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


"Hiding"?

I highly doubt Mr. White is hiding anything. By that point he had probably had enough of the justice system in this case. Obviously there were certain people in Boulder who were going to great lengths to see to it that justice was NOT served properly.

As I said before, the Whites have never spoken out, never written a book, or never sold their story. So whatever they may be "hiding" (as you say) will be of good use if and when it is needed someday.

IMO

You doubt so we all should and you "think" whatever he is hiding will be of good use if and when it is needed someday???? :rolleyes:

NO one can "have enough" and refuse a subpoena.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
STUN GUN! Okay...I screamed it! ;) A lot of the theories that I've read on here completely ignore the fact that a stun gun was probably used on JB.......after viewing the crime scene photos last night....how else can those marks on that child be explained....imo it had to be a STUN GUN! A parent would not imo have to use one!

The keystone cops are going with the theory of Dr. Spitz that they were made by rocks or buttons. :lol:

[hohum]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
STUN GUN! Okay...I screamed it! ;) A lot of the theories that I've read on here completely ignore the fact that a stun gun was probably used on JB.......after viewing the crime scene photos last night....how else can those marks on that child be explained....imo it had to be a STUN GUN! A parent would not imo have to use one!

Those marks were so obviously from a stun gun. And that means the Ramsey's are innocent. So that's why you are seeing some who will not entertain the idea of the stun gun. One poster even said that Lou Smit backed away from the stun gun theory.. that is so false the post should have been deleted.

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The Ramseys went on CNN to warn others that there was a killer loose as the keystone cops didn't seem concered.

How many murder have taken place in Boulder in these last 9 1/2 years that the victim was found in the basement of their home? How many other similiar murders have taken place else where?
Where is the killer on the loose?

[hohum]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The keystone cops are going with the theory of Dr. Spitz that they were made by rocks or buttons. :lol:

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Like they would make the same marks the same distance apart. Right. I might mention that Spitz helped get Michael Peterson LWOPP. Thank goodness he is on the "other" side.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by hohum


Those marks were so obviously from a stun gun. And that means the Ramsey's are innocent. So that's why you are seeing some who will not entertain the idea of the stun gun. One poster even said that Lou Smit backed away from the stun gun theory.. that is so false the post should have been deleted. I agree totally! I just cannot see those marks explained away other than a stun gun....John or Patsy would not have needed to use it....it does definitely point to their innocence and not guilt! imo

[hohum]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Did someone say tainted?

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2002/1025white.html

"Referring to a 6 1/2 page letter White submitted to the court, the judge said it was clear that White had not acknowledged the severity of his actions by ignoring the subpoena in the Miller case.

"You don't get to make the rules, and you thought you did," Plaut told White."


Nice to see White is a law abiding citizen. Arrogant and argumentative as usual.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by jmgos1


How many murder have taken place in Boulder in these last 9 1/2 years that the victim was found in the basement of their home? How many other similiar murders have taken place else where?
Where is the killer on the loose?

I don't know but not every murder of the same killer is exactly the same. I also don't know where the killer is loose or if he is now dead. Unfortunately unlike some posters I don't have a crystal ball.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The keystone cops are going with the theory of Dr. Spitz that they were made by rocks or buttons. :lol: There is no way those marks were created by rocks or buttons....he needs to look at those photos of JB's body again! imho

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


By that point he had probably had enough of the justice system in this case.
IMO

Just like the Ramsey's. Though one small difference. The Ramsey's did not have to be subpoeaned, nor were they handcuffed and taken off to jail. :lol:

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The keystone cops are going with the theory of Dr. Spitz that they were made by rocks or buttons. :lol:

That's the theory I am going with too.

I almost fell for the stun gun theory, almost. Until I looked at some of the evidence.

I just could not see an intruder lurking in that home, taking their time to write and re-write that letter while the Ramsey's were out of the home, not knowing when they would return. Then, somehow the intruder gets JB out of her bed along with her blanket, takes her down the winding steps then takes the time to feed her pineapple and wait 2 to 3 hours to murder her as the autopsy showed. Then, this intruder walked right past a door that led outside with no alarm set just before entering the basement with JB.

Now when did the intruder leave the ransom letter on the winding steps? before he lead JB down the steps? that would mean he would have had to step over it on the way down. Both the intruder and JB would have had to step over the ransom letter. Or, JB was carried down the steps, this is where a stun gun would come into play. So, how could she have eaten the pineapple?

There was no stun gun used, and the ransom letter was staged.

IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Was the blanket from her bed brought downstairs with JonBenet or afterward? What about the Barbie nightgown with the blood on it?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


That's the theory I am going with too.

I almost fell for the stun gun theory, almost. Until I looked at some of the evidence.

I just could not see an intruder lurking in that home, taking their time to write and re-write that letter while the Ramsey's were out of the home, not knowing when they would return. Then, somehow the intruder gets JB out of her bed along with her blanket, takes her down the winding steps then takes the time to feed her pineapple and wait 2 to 3 hours to murder her as the autopsy showed. Then, this intruder walked right past a door that led outside with no alarm set just before entering the basement with JB.

Now when did the intruder leave the ransom letter on the winding steps? before he lead JB down the steps? that would mean he would have had to step over it on the way down. Both the intruder and JB would have had to step over the ransom letter. Or, JB was carried down the steps, this is where a stun gun would come into play. So, how could she have eaten the pineapple?

There was no stun gun used, and the ransom letter was staged.

IMO

Well folks, case solved by Hopeintown so let's all stop positng and tell Carnes, Lacy, and the grand jurors they were wrong. :rolleyes:

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Was the blanket from her bed brought downstairs with JonBenet or afterward? What about the Barbie nightgown with the blood on it?

In my opinion, afterward. It may have been cold in that room. Was there blood on the nightgown?

[Athena]

Originally posted by breezy1234


The keystone cops are going with the theory of Dr. Spitz that they were made by rocks or buttons. :lol:

Buttons/snaps on the face?

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Was the blanket from her bed brought downstairs with JonBenet or afterward? What about the Barbie nightgown with the blood on it?

The blanket was believed to have been brought down with JonBenet and for the life of me I cannot find anything out about that Barbie nightgown other than the fact that JBR did own one and it was found next to her body?

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


That's the theory I am going with too.

I almost fell for the stun gun theory, almost. Until I looked at some of the evidence.

I just could not see an intruder lurking in that home, taking their time to write and re-write that letter while the Ramsey's were out of the home, not knowing when they would return. Then, somehow the intruder gets JB out of her bed along with her blanket, takes her down the winding steps then takes the time to feed her pineapple and wait 2 to 3 hours to murder her as the autopsy showed. Then, this intruder walked right past a door that led outside with no alarm set just before entering the basement with JB.

Now when did the intruder leave the ransom letter on the winding steps? before he lead JB down the steps? that would mean he would have had to step over it on the way down. Both the intruder and JB would have had to step over the ransom letter. Or, JB was carried down the steps, this is where a stun gun would come into play. So, how could she have eaten the pineapple?

There was no stun gun used, and the ransom letter was staged.

IMO

The Ramsey home was probably nicer than the killer's home. Might as well stay a spell.

How would the killer know if the alarm was set or not? He wouldn't.

A stun gun was used, twice. The note was not left until after the killer brought JB downstairs. Why would he leave a note where he would have to step over it? She ate the pineapple before she went to the White's. Why is no one interested in the glass with the tea bag. That should be of equal interest to the pineapple.

And BTW, there is no evidence the Ramsey's killed their daughter.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Athena


The blanket was believed to have been brought down with JonBenet and for the life of me I cannot find anything out about that Barbie nightgown other than the fact that JBR did own one and it was found next to her body?

People have shown about as much interest in that Barbie nightgown as they have the glass with the tea bag sitting next to the bowl of pineapple. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Athena


Buttons/snaps on the face?

Yep and the exact same distance between the two marks on face and the two marks marks on her back. Strange huh? :lol:

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Was the blanket from her bed brought downstairs with JonBenet or afterward? What about the Barbie nightgown with the blood on it?

MissO,
The best I recall JonBenet was found covered with a blanket and the barbie nightgown was beside her in the cellar. I do believe the blanket was from her room (although I could be wrong).

IMO

[samsong]

Originally posted by jmgos1


How many murder have taken place in Boulder in these last 9 1/2 years that the victim was found in the basement of their home? How many other similiar murders have taken place else where?
Where is the killer on the loose?

I can't think of any. :)

[Athena]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


That's the theory I am going with too.

I almost fell for the stun gun theory, almost. Until I looked at some of the evidence.

I just could not see an intruder lurking in that home, taking their time to write and re-write that letter while the Ramsey's were out of the home, not knowing when they would return. Then, somehow the intruder gets JB out of her bed along with her blanket, takes her down the winding steps then takes the time to feed her pineapple and wait 2 to 3 hours to murder her as the autopsy showed. Then, this intruder walked right past a door that led outside with no alarm set just before entering the basement with JB.

Now when did the intruder leave the ransom letter on the winding steps? before he lead JB down the steps? that would mean he would have had to step over it on the way down. Both the intruder and JB would have had to step over the ransom letter. Or, JB was carried down the steps, this is where a stun gun would come into play. So, how could she have eaten the pineapple?

There was no stun gun used, and the ransom letter was staged.

IMO

What evidence is there that a stun gun was NOT used. The primary expert witness in this case Robert Stratbucker was removed as "the" expert from the JonBenet case. I put "the" in quotes because everything I've read on other forums calls him "the stun gun man". Well the stun gun man's expert testimony was thrown out. The man is on Taser's payroll and just in case you question this article -- I posted the transcript last night during the depo.


"When PETA revealed conflicts of interest involving the project—including Webster’s cozy connection with Taser International—one of Webster’s paid consultants, Robert Stratbucker, disappeared from the project. Stratbucker is employed as Taser’s medical director but failed to include that critical piece of information in his curriculum vitae, and Webster failed to mention it in his grant application to the government. This is not the first time that Stratbucker’s failure to disclose his affiliation with Taser has gotten him in trouble—his expert testimony was thrown out of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case when he did something similar."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/do-dastardly-deeds-at-the_b_5938.html?view=print

The Boulder police were skeptical of Smit's stun-gun theory, and showed some of the autopsy pictures to Arapahoe County coroner Dr. Michael Doberson, who had researched stun-gun wounds. Doberson said he didn't think the marks were from a stun gun. But recently, NEWSWEEK asked Doberson to review Smit's stun-gun evidence. Doberson says the police never showed him Smit's pictures comparing the size and orientation of the marks with the electrical contacts on the Air Taser. He now calls Smit's stun-gun theory "compelling."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14395331/site/newsweek/page/2/

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


Those marks were so obviously from a stun gun. And that means the Ramsey's are innocent. So that's why you are seeing some who will not entertain the idea of the stun gun. One poster even said that Lou Smit backed away from the stun gun theory.. that is so false the post should have been deleted.

Yes, I said Lou Smit backed away from the ridiculous stun gun theory because the ONLY stun gun that was around in 1996 that left marks with spacing even remotely similar to those found on JBR's body was the Air Taser and Lou Smit was even GIVEN one of their guns by Air Taser to test. The spacing was different, the marks were different, they left indentation, and the gun was LOUD. Being only seven watts it could NOT have incapacitated even someone as young as JBR and she would have screamed in pain, alerting her mother.

A stun gun could NOT have been used.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-4708

Now, please don't use that argument that Air Taser "...didn't want to be associated with a murder" or that it was "bad publicity." It's not like Air Taser was manufacturing little girls pajamas.

Air Taser's primary customers in 1996 were LE and private security firms. They didn't care what private citizens used the stun guns for. All they cared about was the fact that THEY had them to use, if needed.

Okay, if you want to say Lou Smit didn't back away from this ridicuous theory, fine. He didn't. No wonder he didn't make any progress in the case then if he can't even see the obvious, i.e., NO stun gun was used.

JMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Athena
Something else bugs me about FW. His long rambling letters in which he writes quite a bit about JR's business. Seems he knew alot of personal business info. Remind you of anything? jmo

yep.. The Ransom note. Has been bugging me too. and as the saying goes... "the best defense is an offense"

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


That's the theory I am going with too.

I almost fell for the stun gun theory, almost. Until I looked at some of the evidence.

I just could not see an intruder lurking in that home, taking their time to write and re-write that letter while the Ramsey's were out of the home, not knowing when they would return. Then, somehow the intruder gets JB out of her bed along with her blanket, takes her down the winding steps then takes the time to feed her pineapple and wait 2 to 3 hours to murder her as the autopsy showed. Then, this intruder walked right past a door that led outside with no alarm set just before entering the basement with JB.

Now when did the intruder leave the ransom letter on the winding steps? before he lead JB down the steps? that would mean he would have had to step over it on the way down. Both the intruder and JB would have had to step over the ransom letter. Or, JB was carried down the steps, this is where a stun gun would come into play. So, how could she have eaten the pineapple?

There was no stun gun used, and the ransom letter was staged.

IMO

Hi Hopeintown,

If you read the link below (you have to scroll down a little), you'll see just how utterly ridiculous a stun gun theory is and why one couldn't have been used on JBR:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-4708

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


In my opinion there was no intruder.

You are right. There was no intruder. No intruder would have had reason to write that note. But, one of the Ramseys had a very, very GOOD reason for writing it.

JMO

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes, I said Lou Smit backed away from the ridiculous stun gun theory because the ONLY stun gun that was around in 1996 that left marks with spacing even remotely similar to those found on JBR's body was the Air Taser and Lou Smit was even GIVEN one of their guns by Air Taser to test. The spacing was different, the marks were different, they left indentation, and the gun was LOUD. Being only seven watts it could NOT have incapacitated even someone as young as JBR and she would have screamed in pain, alerting her mother.

A stun gun could NOT have been used.



JMO

Good information. I have never agreed with the stun gun theory. It didn't really make sense, but then again. little of this case does.

[breezy1234]

"Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. “The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart,” he says.

While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523887.shtml

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
snipped.......

NO stun gun was used.

JMO

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by DixieChick


• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist

But the experts here KNOW better. :lol:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by samsong


Good information. I have never agreed with the stun gun theory. It didn't really make sense, but then again. little of this case does.

The ransom note now makes perfect sense to me. As soon as I read the transcript of the interview of the Ramseys and Steve Thomas on LKL, I knew exactly what the ransom note meant. I read the ransom note over very slowly today, and yes, everything fit. Perfectly.

No intruder, no stun gun, but someone (ONE guilty Ramsey) who had to buy time and a whole lot more.

Here's a link that will show you why a stun gun could not have been used:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-4708

JMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by hohum


The Ramsey home was probably nicer than the killer's home. Might as well stay a spell.

How would the killer know if the alarm was set or not? He wouldn't.

A stun gun was used, twice. The note was not left until after the killer brought JB downstairs. Why would he leave a note where he would have to step over it? She ate the pineapple before she went to the White's. Why is no one interested in the glass with the tea bag. That should be of equal interest to the pineapple.

And BTW, there is no evidence the Ramsey's killed their daughter.

Now your saying the intruder wouldn't have been clever? the intruder that had studied the Ramsey's, knew everything about them down to when they would go to a dinner party and what JR's bonus was? that this intruder wouldn't even know that a simple alarm wouldn't have been set in the home if they had been lurking inside? the intruder got in didn't they? if there was one.

According to the autopsy JB didn't eat the pineapple before the White's party. So, we are back to how she could have possibly eaten the pineapple after someone used a stun gun on her.

I don't understand why the glass and tea bag are important, was tea found in JB's system as well?

IMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


You are right. There was no intruder. No intruder would have had reason to write that note. But, one of the Ramseys had a very, very GOOD reason for writing it.

JMO
What is that good reason? To point at themselves using the $118K figure? lol...

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


You are right. There was no intruder. No intruder would have had reason to write that note. But, one of the Ramseys had a very, very GOOD reason for writing it.

JMO

Sun I asked you on another thread why you believe this note to make "perfect sense" to you. Now I would like to know what the good reason was for writing it. You make claims such as this but never explain. Why don't you share your knowledge?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Now your saying the intruder wouldn't have been clever? the intruder that had studied the Ramsey's, knew everything about them down to when they would go to a dinner party and what JR's bonus was? that this intruder wouldn't even know that a simple alarm wouldn't have been set in the home if they had been lurking inside? the intruder got in didn't they? if there was one.

According to the autopsy JB didn't eat the pineapple before the White's party. So, we are back to how she could have possibly eaten the pineapple after someone used a stun gun on her.

I don't understand why the glass and tea bag are important, was tea found in JB's system as well?

IMO

The autopsy did NOT say when she ate the pineapple. :rolleyes: The autopsy couldn't even give a time of death.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Now your saying the intruder wouldn't have been clever? the intruder that had studied the Ramsey's, knew everything about them down to when they would go to a dinner party and what JR's bonus was? that this intruder wouldn't even know that a simple alarm wouldn't have been set in the home if they had been lurking inside? the intruder got in didn't they? if there was one.

According to the autopsy JB didn't eat the pineapple before the White's party. So, we are back to how she could have possibly eaten the pineapple after someone used a stun gun on her.

I don't understand why the glass and tea bag are important, was tea found in JB's system as well?

IMO

IIRC, from one of the books, they never drank tea out of a glass.

But I don't know for sure. I don't for one second by an intruder theory.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


Sun I asked you on another thread why you believe this note to make "perfect sense" to you. Now I would like to know what the good reason was for writing it. You make claims such as this but never explain. Why don't you share your knowledge?

I will, Athena, but you have to give me a chance to write it and proofread it. :) I'll have it done tomorrow or Friday. Tomorrow, if I don't have to go out to the country with my husband again, Thursday night or Friday if I do. I promise.

I'm sorry. I didn't your other post or I would have responded to you.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


You are right. There was no intruder. No intruder would have had reason to write that note. But, one of the Ramseys had a very, very GOOD reason for writing it.

JMO

Thank you, sunsplashed

I am going to find the link to that LK interview and read it again. I was so hoping they would air that segment again.

IMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Now your saying the intruder wouldn't have been clever? the intruder that had studied the Ramsey's, knew everything about them down to when they would go to a dinner party and what JR's bonus was? that this intruder wouldn't even know that a simple alarm wouldn't have been set in the home if they had been lurking inside? the intruder got in didn't they? if there was one.

According to the autopsy JB didn't eat the pineapple before the White's party. So, we are back to how she could have possibly eaten the pineapple after someone used a stun gun on her.

I don't understand why the glass and tea bag are important, was tea found in JB's system as well?

IMO

The intruder could be someone who knew them well, possibly even had a key to their house. The yellow veg/could be pineapple found in her small intestine, could have been eaten hours before. 3-4 hrs. a non-issue. imo

[Athena]

Originally posted by hohum


People have shown about as much interest in that Barbie nightgown as they have the glass with the tea bag sitting next to the bowl of pineapple. :shrug:

My question is why would a teabag be in a glass (not a hot cup)?

Is it possible that a teabag was used for swelling of someone's eyes due to crying and the glass was just there and the used teabag was placed in it?? This doesn't look like a glass that someone would dunk a teabag in. Bowl of pineapple in picture as well. jmo

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/2006-06-29_schiller13.jpg

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Thank you, sunsplashed

I am going to find the link to that LK interview and read it again. I was so hoping they would air that segment again.

IMO

Here it is, Hope.

No way do I agree with everything Steve Thomas says, but I do agree that ONE of the Ramseys is guilty and that same Ramsey is the writer of the note. And it's not confusing at all.

JMO

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

[Athena]

Originally posted by DixieChick

What is that good reason? To point at themselves using the $118K figure? lol...

Oh come on Dixie -- it is evident that the Ramseys did it and then framed themselves! :rolleyes:

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by Athena


My question is why would a teabag be in a glass (not a hot cup)?

Is it possible that a teabag was used for swelling of someone's eyes due to crying and the glass was just there and the used teabag was placed in it?? This doesn't look like a glass that someone would dunk a teabag in. Bowl of pineapple in picture as well. jmo

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/2006-06-29_schiller13.jpg


I love it. Just who would know about a tea bag for that purpose?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by DixieChick


The intruder could be someone who knew them well, possibly even had a key to their house. The yellow veg/could be pineapple found in her small intestine, could have been eaten hours before. 3-4 hrs. a non-issue. imo

Oh, I am positive the killer had a key to the house! LOL

JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Athena


Oh come on Dixie -- it is evident that the Ramseys did it and then framed themselves! :rolleyes:

AND staged the crime scene and then deliberately destroyed it. :rolleyes:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by breezy1234


AND staged the crime scene and then deliberately destroyed it. :rolleyes:

You're actually a lot closer than you think you are.

JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


You're actually a lot closer than you think you are.

JMO


:lol: Detective sunsplashed I presume? :lol:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by hohum


Geez, where did you find that? Doubtful that the caller would think to instruct the police what to do. Although in the case of the BPD, any help would have been prudent.

You're right. Most educated/intellegent people would read the entire note first. Don't most kidnap/ransom notes warn you not to call the police? A little common sense is a good thing...especially when you believe your childs life depends upon your actions. But, as I said before with my not so logical logic (according to some), no need to worry about a kidnapper seeing the police and all of your friends arrive if you know your child is already dead.

[harz]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You're right. Most educated/intellegent people would read the entire note first. Don't most kidnap/ransom notes warn you not to call the police? A little common sense is a good thing...especially when you believe your childs life depends upon your actions. But, as I said before with my not so logical logic (according to some), no need to worry about a kidnapper seeing the police and all of your friends arrive if you know your child is already dead.

I think most educated/intelligent people with healthy mentally would be overwhelm by their emotions acting out over their truely love ones sametime losing the stability of their logics.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You're right. Most educated/intellegent people would read the entire note first. Don't most kidnap/ransom notes warn you not to call the police? A little common sense is a good thing...especially when you believe your childs life depends upon your actions. But, as I said before with my not so logical logic (according to some), no need to worry about a kidnapper seeing the police and all of your friends arrive if you know your child is already dead.

I'm still trying to understand the actions of the Ramsey's after that note was found. Do you know if they ever picked it up? or, did both of them bend over to read it?

In some of the descriptions I have read it has Patsy not reading the note entirely as she reads it when she finds it on the stairs while bending over. Then, I have read in another post that John Ramsey comes downstairs after he is alerted by Patsy while emerging from the shower, still in his underwear, and he bends over to also read the note while Patsy calls 911.

Wouldn't your first instinct be to pick up the note? this just seems odd to me that they didn't, if that is the case.

IMO

[Hopeintown]

Just wanted to clarify my above post (Too late to edit), I didn't mean for it to sound like John Ramsey was exiting the shower still in his underwear, but reading the note downstairs before he got dressed.

lol

Sorry, no disrespect intended (honest)

IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


I'm still trying to understand the actions of the Ramsey's after that note was found. Do you know if they ever picked it up? or, did both of them bend over to read it?

In some of the descriptions I have read it has Patsy not reading the note entirely as she reads it when she finds it on the stairs while bending over. Then, I have read in another post that John Ramsey comes downstairs after he is alerted by Patsy while emerging from the shower, still in his underwear, and he bends over to also read the note while Patsy calls 911.

Wouldn't your first instinct be to pick up the note? this just seems odd to me that they didn't, if that is the case.

IMO

Patsy read it while bending over (not the enire note, though) and John read it while sitting on the floor with it spread out in front of him. Somehow the note made it from the step to the floor without having either of their fingerprints on it. There has been some speculation about whether paper shows fingerprints but regardless, I still find it very strange that Patsy chose such an awkward way to read it. Guess she didn't want her incriminating prints on it, would be my guess. The question is....if she didn't know it was a ransom note when she first saw it, why would she care if her prints were on it or not?
John said he read it on the floor with the pages spread out so he could read it faster. Don't really understand how reading it like that would be faster than holding it. :confused:

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Patsy read it while bending over (not the enire note, though) and John read it while sitting on the floor with it spread out in front of him. Somehow the note made it from the step to the floor without having either of their fingerprints on it. There has been some speculation about whether paper shows fingerprints but regardless, I still find it very strange that Patsy chose such an awkward way to read it. Guess she didn't want her incriminating prints on it, would be my guess. The question is....if she didn't know it was a ransom note when she first saw it, why would she care if her prints were on it or not?
John said he read it on the floor with the pages spread out so he could read it faster. Don't really understand how reading it like that would be faster than holding it. :confused:

Thank you,
This gets stranger all the time. How did the note get from the stairs to the floor without them picking it up?

Your right, if Patsy didn't know it was a ransom note when she first found it, why would she care if her prints were on it? It would seem to me it would be difficult to read a letter that was laying on stairs early in the morning unless you picked it up. I wonder how the lighting was during that time of the morning? hmm......

IMO

[docg]

The article in question is a perfect example of what Tracey has called media manipulation. Only this time it's coming from the other side. Does that make it better?

There is no substitute for actually knowing something about the evidence in this case, evidence that points AWAY from an intruder. If the authorities were lax, it was NOT because they failed to investigate other possibilities than an inside job. They looked into thousands of leads and investigated over 150!

They were lax in failing to vigorously question the most likely suspects as soon as possible. In such cases, where the evidence so clearly points in only one direction, it is customary to insist on questioning -- and if the suspects refuse, to then arrest them. How many criminals would be now walking the street if prosecutors treated everyone as they treated John and Patsy Ramsey? And the Ramseys had the nerve, after what can only be called kid glove treatment, to accuse the BPD AND the FBI of mounting a campaign to intimidate and frame them!

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The real question - why would any intelligent PD send marked cars to the home of a possible kidnap victim?

Your serious?

The Ramsey's were instructed not to contact anyone or their child would be beheaded as they were being scrutinized. Did Patsy Ramsey tell 911 that the "kidnapper" had left that message in the ransom note? still, they continued to defy the "kidnapper" and contact 911 immediately as well as call over friends to the home.

IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by hohum


I know for sure that I would have called the police, thinking of course they were competent, no matter what the vile person "instructed" in his arrogant ransom note. And as it went, he didn't keep his part of the bargain now did he? Thank goodness they didn't sit around twiddling their thumbs on some vague hope of getting a call about their daughter from that murderer. :flamemad:

Wouldn't have made a difference if they sat and twiddled waiting for the call or not. The end results were the same so I don't know why you "thank goodness" for it.
Of course "he" didn't keep his end of the bargain. There was no bargain. The note was a farce.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You're right. Most educated/intellegent people would read the entire note first. Don't most kidnap/ransom notes warn you not to call the police? A little common sense is a good thing...especially when you believe your childs life depends upon your actions. But, as I said before with my not so logical logic (according to some), no need to worry about a kidnapper seeing the police and all of your friends arrive if you know your child is already dead.

The way I read the transcript, Patsy immediately understood it was a kidnapping when she skimmed the note; called for John and he told her to call 911. Maybe she freaked out. I consider myself educated, intelligent and reasonably sound but when unexpected events occur in my life nowhere near this traumatic, I turn to my husband; I completely lose my calm where he is the one that is able to keep his composure. I even think he may have told her to call 911 because she may have been freaking out just to have her do something she could focus on.

I don't know what Patsy should have done or shouldn't have done; I haven't read the manual -- but a blanket statement like this cannot be attributed to what you think you would have done; although I doubt anyone can really know until something happens to them. You may even surprise yourself and do exactly the opposite of what you think you may have done under hypothetical situations. JMO

[cantaloupe]

If I woke up and found a note saying that my child had been kidnapped, the last thing I would do is sit down and read a three page note. I would drop the note, immediately fly to my kid's room and see if she were there while screaming for my husband, and then I would call the cops.

Wow, that sounds like what Patsy Ramsey did!

[bullmoose]

I couldn't agree with you more, cantalope; that is exactly how it would go down at my house,too. According to one line reasoning, it means she wasn't educated; hmm, no Patsy was a college graduate, so it means she wasn't very intelligent. But at the same time we aew supposed to believe that Patsy was intelligent and devious enough to set up the whole crime and crime scene. It doesn't make sense to me; is that because I'm uneducated and/or unintelligent? To my uneducated eye,much of that ransom note reads almost like the ransom note in the movie 'Ruthless People'. But perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to remember. :biggrin: bullmoose

[Regina.Lampert]

IMO she did it. Went into a rage and delivered the blow to the skull, who knows why, perhaps the bed wetting, perhaps Jon Benet was being a normal, tired six year old......

Then, John stepped in and staged the scene to look like
something else.

That's what I think and nothing I have ever read has
convinced me otherwise.

[docg]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
IMO she did it. Went into a rage and delivered the blow to the skull, who knows why, perhaps the bed wetting, perhaps Jon Benet was being a normal, tired six year old......

Then, John stepped in and staged the scene to look like
something else.

That's what I think and nothing I have ever read has
convinced me otherwise.

Well, prepare yourself, Regina. Maybe you'd better sit down. :)

If John and Patsy were collaborating in a coverup, then there is no way Patsy would have called the police so soon. The note was written in such a way as to give them the perfect excuse to delay such a call. During which time they could have dumped the body under pretext of delivering the ransom.

Patsy called the police. John didn't. If that was his decision, he's the one who would have made the call. Ergo, John wrote the note. Patsy must be innocent.

You may stand up now.

[cantaloupe]

What if you take out the ransom note? What if that note didn't exist? Then what would the case look like? that's the angle I'm thinking about right now, because it's the ransom note that messes everything up.

It is just too weird that it was written on stationery belonging to Patsy Ramsey and all the stuff in it is weird too.

[trt]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
What if you take out the ransom note? What if that note didn't exist? Then what would the case look like? that's the angle I'm thinking about right now, because it's the ransom note that messes everything up.

It is just too weird that it was written on stationery belonging to Patsy Ramsey and all the stuff in it is weird too.

IMO, that is the crux of the case, so you really can't just take it out. Yeah, it throws a huge monkey wrench in every and all theories, IMO, but its important, it has to be thought about because whoever wrote it, wanted it there, for a very strange and unknown reason, again MO.

[docg]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Specifically, what evidence points AWAY from an intruder?

I LOVE that sort of question, it makes my day!

1. No sign of forced breakin.

2. John checked all doors that morning and found them locked.

3. The police rechecked the doors and confirmed that they were all locked.

4. No footprints in the pervasive layer of frost and snow surrounding the house. See: http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/087yardsnow.jpg

5. Signs of staging at the basement window: debris on floor, suitcase underneath, window freshly broken.

6. All alleged "intruder evidence" has been found to have an innocent source, including the palm print, the hair, the Hi-Tec bootprint. DNA was found in panties similar to the ones JonBenet was wearing, telling us that the DNA might well be irrelevant as intruder evidence.

7. Fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's panties.

8. There was no reason for any intruder to do all the things that were done, including write a phoney ransom note and hide the body away in the most remote place in the house.


Also, you are aware the Boulder PD questioned the Ramseys off and on all day on the 26th, including Burke (without his parents' knowledge or approval) as well as John Andrew and Melinda.

The Ramseys became "unavailable" for interviews after that found out about Eller's brilliant idea to withhold JonBonet's body for burial......Between him and Steve Thomas they let the Ramseys know where they stood with the PD.

JMO

What happened on the 26th can hardly be called "questioning" in the sense of a police interrogation. Sure the police asked them some questions but so what? Whenever I read such nonsense I can actually hear something spinning frantically in the air around me.

As far as witholding the body, you've got it backwards. The police withheld the body because the Ramseys were refusing to cooperate. Again I hear lots of spinning sounds when such nonsense is repeated. The police were frantically trying to find SOME way to get the Ramseys into their office and willing to be questioned separately. Withholding the body was a dumb idea, but it was born out of a sincere attempt to do their job and investigate.

[cantaloupe]

Originally posted by trt


IMO, that is the crux of the case, so you really can't just take it out. Yeah, it throws a huge monkey wrench in every and all theories, IMO, but its important, it has to be thought about because whoever wrote it, wanted it there, for a very strange and unknown reason, again MO.

No you're right and I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant was working backward from the ransom note. Take the scene without the note and what do you conclude? IMO the ransom note was written to confuse the situation, so teh killer was worried that something in the scene without the ransom note might point to him/her. Then overlay the ransom note and maybe you get more clarity about what it was the ransom note was intended to make the investigators miss.

[docg]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
What if you take out the ransom note? What if that note didn't exist? Then what would the case look like? that's the angle I'm thinking about right now, because it's the ransom note that messes everything up.

It is just too weird that it was written on stationery belonging to Patsy Ramsey and all the stuff in it is weird too.

What a great question! Without the ransom note the Ramseys would be looking a lot less suspicious. It's patently phoney, it's clear that there was NO kidnapping. So what it looks like is an attempt on the part of one or both of them to stage a kidnapping and point away from their own complicity.

Paradoxically, however, it has also helped them because the person most likely to have written it, John, was "ruled out" in one of the dumbest decisions ever made by any investigation team in history. Patsy couldn't have written it, because she called 911, something she would NOT have done if she knew the body was in the house. Also it's clearly not in her hand, which is totally different, despite the fantasies of Steve Thomas and Darnay Hoffmann and his "experts."

What all the above tells me is that something must have gone wrong with the plan the notewriter first had in mind when he wrote the note.

Now, WHAT plan do you suppose this person had?

In 1 million words or less, please.
;)

[cantaloupe]

I went back and reread the ransom note--somebody, maybe docg, talked about how the note sounded.

OK, assumption: ramsey's innocent

1. The note writer seems to be someone who is very pleased to now be in control and telling the Ramsey's what to do. Someone who thinks the balance of power has shifted in his favor. Someone who may have been sick and tired of his position in life or at work vis a vis the Ramseys.

2. The note has some truly outrageous elements that point to someone with delusions of grandeur. It makes some ridiculous remarks about foreign factions, etc- that are quite implausible---perhaps showing us that the person isn't too smart or has read too many conspiracy novels? It also has the ring of a young person--the movie images, the "movie type" plot line of several conspirators, foreign factions. In fact it sounds almost like something a teen age boy who plays too much Xbox would dream up.

3. It vascillates between formal---Mr Ramsey, attache, law encforcement countermeasures---and too casual---John, outsmart us, fat cat.

4. The money amount--again this is pointing me in the direction of a young person who would think that's a lot of dough.

5. The tone is quite mocking. The person is really enjoying that the tables are turned.

6. The level of detail---brown paper bag, precise call times----speaks to me of someone who has watched too many episodes of Baretta. It's so stylized that it almost isn't real.

My conclusion--look for a young adolescent or young adult male who perhaps did some casual work for the Ramseys and perhaps felt resentful about what he got paid or how he was treated. Also maybe he was the child of a Ramsey employee or acquaintance who had some less than delightful interactions with the Ramseys. Also, maybe the boyfriend, brother, or husband of a female in a similar situation. ???


JMO.

I'll make a stab at thinking about the letter with the Ramseys guilty.

[cantaloupe]

OK assumption: the Ramseys are guilty.

1. The note is long, implying that the writer wasn't worried about the time it took to write it, implying that they knew they wouldn't be interrrupted.

2. It clearly is trying to point the direction of the investigation out of the house, perhaps giving the killers time to get rid of the body.

3. It almost works too hard to create an image of someone who hated the Ramseys. Most kidnap notes don't try to explain WHY the kidnapper took the person, just what to do to get them back. It's working too hard to set up a motive.

4. The note gives so many detailed instructions it's almost as though the writer knew that he wasn't going to have a chance to call. Most kidnappers don't want to give so much info up front becuase it aids the police in their investigation. You keep it simple stupid if you are really serious about the crime.

5. The word "hence" is quite interesting and rarely used in casual conversation. It points to an organized and educated mind, a "cause-effect" linear thinking. John's job in computers would tend to that kind of thinking.

6. The note almost sounds like it was composed by more than one person, perhaps one person dictating to another, with the "logical" parts dictated by one individual and the more fanciful parts by another. The crossed out word also implies collaboration about exactly how to say something so that it would be construed a certain way.

7. The percentages are also interesting---the exactness, the precision. Not sure what it means, but it is interesting.

again JMO

[Magnolia01]

Interesting way to look at this cantaloupe. Very interesting! Going to read the two theories again ;)

Do you mind if I copy those two scenarios onto my "theory" thread?

[cantaloupe]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Interesting way to look at this cantaloupe. Very interesting! Going to read the two theories again ;)

Do you mind if I copy those two scenarios onto my "theory" thread?

Not at all Magnolia. I'm going to think a little more about that note. These were sort of "off the cuff" thoughts. I've never really studied that note on its own, I've always studied what someone thought about the handwriting or something similar. I may add some stuff to my lists.

Yes this note sounds like something my 17 year old son would consider plausible---he watches way too much "24" and "Lost." It's quite a remarkable note now that I am reading it with a fresh eye.

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


:lol:

Now that WAS funny, no matter what side of the fence you're on :D

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by docg


Well, prepare yourself, Regina. Maybe you'd better sit down. :)

If John and Patsy were collaborating in a coverup, then there is no way Patsy would have called the police so soon. The note was written in such a way as to give them the perfect excuse to delay such a call. During which time they could have dumped the body under pretext of delivering the ransom.

Patsy called the police. John didn't. If that was his decision, he's the one who would have made the call. Ergo, John wrote the note. Patsy must be innocent.

You may stand up now. LOL, prepare myself for what? Your view of what occurred? :tongue:

[Athena]

Originally posted by cantaloupe


Not at all Magnolia. I'm going to think a little more about that note. These were sort of "off the cuff" thoughts. I've never really studied that note on its own, I've always studied what someone thought about the handwriting or something similar. I may add some stuff to my lists.

Yes this note sounds like something my 17 year old son would consider plausible---he watches way too much "24" and "Lost." It's quite a remarkable note now that I am reading it with a fresh eye.

I have to give you props for your really giving that note some fresh thoughts. Interesting -- I haven't really "analyzed" yet LOL but at first read -- definitely interesting -- both of them. jmo

[sweetcharlotte]

Well, actually Steve's boss (Eller) wanted to withhold the body until he forced the Ramseys to talk.....but the coroner refused.
Seems the coroner knew a little about being moral and ethical....

[docg]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Thank you,
This gets stranger all the time. How did the note get from the stairs to the floor without them picking it up?

Your right, if Patsy didn't know it was a ransom note when she first found it, why would she care if her prints were on it? It would seem to me it would be difficult to read a letter that was laying on stairs early in the morning unless you picked it up. I wonder how the lighting was during that time of the morning? hmm......

IMO

There can be no question that all sorts of people handled it. Fingerprints are not automatically deposited every time someone handles something. If you've recently washed then it's especially unlikely you'll leave any prints. My house was burglarized some years ago and many objects were obviously handled by the burglar. Yet the police found no prints on anything. A neighbor was burglarized, probably by the same guy, and they were able to lift prints there.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by docg


There can be no question that all sorts of people handled it. Fingerprints are not automatically deposited every time someone handles something. If you've recently washed then it's especially unlikely you'll leave any prints. My house was burglarized some years ago and many objects were obviously handled by the burglar. Yet the police found no prints on anything. A neighbor was burglarized, probably by the same guy, and they were able to lift prints there.

You are missing the point. The point is, by her own admission, Patsy read the note by hovering over it instead of picking it up. You don't find that a bit odd? Sounds to me like she didn't want her fingerprints on it but why would that bother her if she didn't know at first that what she was reading was a ransom note.
Seriously, ask yourself....if you saw a piece of paper laying on the ground or on your stairs...would you awkwardly bend over to read it or would you pick it up?
Whether or not her prints would show up is a moot point. You can't expect her to have known that they may not have.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You are missing the point. The point is, by her own admission, Patsy read the note by hovering over it instead of picking it up. You don't find that a bit odd? Sounds to me like she didn't want her fingerprints on it but why would that bother her if she didn't know at first that what she was reading was a ransom note.
Seriously, ask yourself....if you saw a piece of paper laying on the ground or on your stairs...would you awkwardly bend over to read it or would you pick it up?
Whether or not her prints would show up is a moot point. You can't expect her to have known that they may not have.

Patsy interview 1997

TT: Okay. You pick up the note and start to read it, um, go back upstairs to JonBenet’s room? Is that correct?
PR: Well, I don’t remember if I picked it or, or just leaned over and read it. I can’t remember. I don’t think I picked it up cause I remember just then bounding up the stairs toward her room.
[…]
TT: Okay. Patsy, do you recall who moved the note from the bottom of the stairs down to where John could read it with the good lighting.
PR: I think he did. I, I (inaudible) . . .
TT: Okay.
PR: . . .don’t remember exactly, but, I mean it was just, I was just, I was just nuts I (inaudible)


John interview 1997

ST: Did she show the note on the second floor landing?
JR: I don’t remember, uh it seems like I came downstairs, but I think she was running up and I was running down, I think, as best as I can remember, the note was still down on the first floor.

JR: Well I’m, it’s a lot of screaming going on around that, but we saw the note and read the first part. Ah, I think I might have run upstairs to look in JonBenet’s room. At one point I laid it on the floor and spread it out so I could read it real fast without having to sit and read it.

JR: Ah, well, it wasn’t very long before the uniformed officer showed up. And I met him, I remember talking to him in the hallway, the front hallway. And I said our daughter’s missing and I remember him saying did she run away, and I said she was only six years old. And at one point, I don’t remember if I had the note in my hand or Patsy brought it, but I showed him the note. And then some other people started to arrive.
TT: OK. You talking about the front hallway, kind of there right there at the living room entrance?
JR: Uh-huh.
TT: Is that where you showed him the note also?
JR: That’s my recollection, yeah.

[WallyCleaver]

What are we left with if we take away the note?

For starters we are left with no prompt to call police at 6am. Assuming for the moment the Rs are innocent - PR would have made coffe. At some time she'd have got the kids up to get ready for their trip. Then she'd have discovered JBR missing.
Then they'd have searched the entire house - doing a real search, the way people would if their kids were actually missing. Then they'd have found the body. Then called police.

At this point, we are left with a dead body, and no note. It would have been investigated as a possible homocide from the start. It would also look very bad for the Rs. It wouldn't make much difference from an IDI perspective.

If the R's aren't innocent, then they'd go dump the body, but they'd be stuck having to explain JBR's disappearance. They could perhaps make up a story - she went to grandmas, she went to visit an Aunt,.... etc. They wouldn't be able to keep that story up indefinitely.

We are also left w/o any clue as to who the intruder might be. No reason to consider someone who knew the amount of JR's bonus. No reason to consider a small foreign faction which respects JR's business, but not his country. No reason to think it was someone jealous of his success and wealth.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Well, actually Steve's boss (Eller) wanted to withhold the body until he forced the Ramseys to talk.....but the coroner refused.
Seems the coroner knew a little about being moral and ethical....

According to Thomas's book, police asked Meyer if there wasn't some more testing he could do, and Meyer said he was done. It wasn't a battle of morals and ethics between the cops and the doc.

Looking back, it seems to me that Meyer should have done some more examination - then we might have an answer to this stun gun question. Of course, that theory wasn't around yet when Meyer told police he had done what he needed to do.

[docg]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You are missing the point. The point is, by her own admission, Patsy read the note by hovering over it instead of picking it up. You don't find that a bit odd? Sounds to me like she didn't want her fingerprints on it but why would that bother her if she didn't know at first that what she was reading was a ransom note.
Seriously, ask yourself....if you saw a piece of paper laying on the ground or on your stairs...would you awkwardly bend over to read it or would you pick it up?
Whether or not her prints would show up is a moot point. You can't expect her to have known that they may not have.

If she'd picked it up you'd say she was deliberately contaminating the evidence. She says she probably didn't pick it up so you find that "a bit odd."

If she'd written the note why wouldn't she welcome the chance to place her fingers all over it later, so there'd be an innocent reason for her prints to be on it?

[harz]

Originally posted by docg


If she'd picked it up you'd say she was deliberately contaminating the evidence. She says she probably didn't pick it up so you find that "a bit odd."

If she'd written the note why wouldn't she welcome the chance to place her fingers all over it later, so there'd be an innocent reason for her prints to be on it?

Indeed, gulity people do fumble their explainations sometimes.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
OK assumption: the Ramseys are guilty.

1. again JMO

The ransom note seems strange and irrational unless you assume that when Patsy and John wrote it they had a plan in mind. I think they did. I believe they were targeting two people specifically as suspects. I am beginning to think that was exactly what they were doing--targeting someone specifically to "take the rap" or at least someone who would remain a viable suspect that could "never" be entirely ruled out.

You said it sounded like someone who might have been angry at or rather, in my words, resented the Ramseys wealth. By asking for $118,000 dollars, a strange amount, it would MAKE the police assume it was an inside job, someone who had access to the house, perhaps when people were not looking or not around and who might have found the financial records (that we now know were in the house) indicating that was the amount of the Christmas bonus. It would be someone who had a key to the house.

Not asking for a huge amount of money also implies that it was NOT a professional criminal. We say the amount makes no sense. It makes no sense that a professional criminal would have asked for that low of a ransom. But it might be something two amateurs, desperate for money, might ask for.

Two people who are not "sophisticated" enough to ask for more, and two people who, as the police might see it, only wanted what was due them, and after all the Ramseys surely didn't need "just" $118,000, since they had so much. Two pathetic people who can't even pay their rent (John's way of thinking anyway) might just reason that "they will be glad to just pay this little amount and get their daughter back, and it is not like we are really hurting them."

The two people I think that the note was tailor made to target were the very first people who came under suspicion outside the house: their housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh and her husband, Merv. John Ramsey told the police after finding JB's body that it had to be an "inside job" since no one else knew about the wine cellar in the basement. In other words, John himself told the police the day of finding JB's body that it was NOT an outside person, but someone familiar with the Ramseys and the house.

Patsy told police about the $2000 check she wrote so the Pughs could pay their rent. Linda Hoffman Pugh had a key to the house. People wonder why John did not "stage" an entry point for the intruder. He did not break a window or put scratches around a door lock because he wanted it to look like Linda Hoffman Pugh and her husband had used the key to get into the house.

Again who better to know that the Ramseys had stopped turning on the burglar alarm than the housekeeper? In a pinch Patsy could always say that she had let that "slip" to Linda Pugh Hoffman.

If John had broken a window or staged an entry point on the first floor during the night then the police may not have suspected Pugh and her husband. So John, thinking as clearly as one can to desperately and quickly come up with a plan to keep out of prison, had to make a choice and he chose to let the police think it was someone who had a key. After all we know that several people had keys to the Ramsey house, anyway. He could always suggest someone else as a possible suspect later if he had to.

This was a pretty good plan on the spur of the moment. John knew that no outside intruder DNA would be found. So he tries to pin it on someone who he knew was in the house before, Linda Hoffman Pugh. I believe I read somewhere that her husband sometimes did odd jobs in the Ramsey house. Bingo. If JB's body is discovered in the morning by the police, they can always suspect that poor Merv got sexually excited and killed JB, or that she screamed and he killed her. The reason the note makes reference to the possibility of an "early" recovery of JB may be an attempt by John Ramsey to make the police think that the Pughs made a desperate attempt to get the money BEFORE the body was discovered. After all, since this is two presumbaly "desperate" people the police might figure the Pughs thought it was worth a shot.

You ask why the note was so long. The reason is because John wants it to suggest someone wrote it that he wants the police to suspect. It sounds like a note that is being written to make it sound like someone who cannot spell well wrote it. John Ramsey we know has a contempt for lower class economic people. He had Patsy misspell words to suggest that was who wrote it. It also suggests anger toward the Ramseys for their wealth. Who better to resent the Lord of the Manor than his lowly housekeeper?

The reason the note is so long is because John was dropping hints as to who might have written it. The cheesy movie lines might be something a couple of blue collar amateurs might include, too. The "foreign faction." Well you have to figure (John might be thinking it anyway.) a housekeeper probably could not find Iraq on a map anyway. Just keep it general. Make it look like a hick wrote it.

There are also personal touches, such as addressing "John" specifically, as if the writer may have met him. Again that would be LPH and her husband. LPH knows the Ramseys previously lived in Georgia, and the reference to the South might be good enough for the police to suspect her.

John then had to come up with a plan to explain why the kidnappers never called. So he calls the police and all their friends and their pastor to come over and "console Patsy." It is something that a distraught family might do, isn't it? After all one can never predict how they are going to react, can one? There you go, the kidnappers, who the note well states, are "monitoring" the house, don't call because they see all the cars. (Of course if that isn't good enough, they know the body is in the basement.) And of course if John gets real lucky, maybe he can get rid of the body the next day.

Now you say, "Ah-hah rosebud, you forgot something. John DID go down the basement and may have broken the basement window to stage an entry point that morning." What I think happened was this: John knows JB's body is in the basement. He probably also knows that Rick French, the first police officer on the scene searched the basement, and APPARENTLY found nothing.

Key word--apparently. John does not know that. All he knows is that a police officer went down there and reported nothing. How could the policeman have NOT found the body? Now John is probably wondering, "did they find her body and now they are just messing with me? Are they trying to see how we will react? Are they just watching us? Do they know her body is down there all this time and they know she is dead, and they suspect us, and this is all a charade?"

That explains the trip John made to the basement around 10 AM. He was checking to see if the body was still there. I think also his mind had to be racing a mile a minute and he was having second doubts about the plan. He thinks, "maybe it would be better if they think a random, mysterious pedophile did it." He decides to hedge his bets, another good decision: he breaks the basement window so that some poor slob of a cop will think it is an entry point.

Now you have TWO viable theories: an inside job or some deranged pedophile. Hey there are people arguing one or the other is the truth on this message board right now.

Then you say, "but John DID find the body." True, but I think at that point Linda Arndt forced his hand by asking him to look around again.

Let's give John Ramsey some credit: on the spur of the moment that was a pretty good plan.

Anyway, JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by rosebud


The ransom note seems strange and irrational unless you assume that when Patsy and John wrote it they had a plan in mind. I think they did. I believe they were targeting two people specifically as suspects. I am beginning to think that was exactly what they were doing--targeting someone specifically to "take the rap" or at least someone who would remain a viable suspect that could "never" be entirely ruled out. ...


... The two people I think that the note was tailor made to target were the very first people who came under suspicion outside the house: their housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh and her husband, Merv. John Ramsey told the police after finding JB's body that it had to be an "inside job" since no one else knew about the wine cellar in the basement. In other words, John himself told the police the day of finding JB's body that it was NOT an outside person, but someone familiar with the Ramseys and the house.




The biggest problem with the case, imo, is there is both a dead body and a RN in the house.

That's a big problem for staging as well, imo.

If the Rs were trying to make it look as if it were done by particular individuals, then it's useful to just ask ourselves -what if these individuals really did it? What would we have at the crime scene?

As far as we know, Merv wasn't a paedophile, so no reason to think he'd molest and kill JBR. Even if he were a paedo, why not take her back to his place? The Pughs, if they are suspects, would be thought to have primarily financial motives. Leaving the body doesn't fit with collecting ransom. If the Pughs really did it, we wouldn't expect to find the body in the house. Presumably they would come by car, so they'd have a means of getting her away from the house.

If it was staged to cast suspicion on the Pughs, it doesn't seem to have worked, and rightly so, because the crime scene makes no sense consistant with a Pughs did it theory.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver



The biggest problem with the case, imo, is there is both a dead body and a RN in the house.

That's a big problem for staging as well, imo.

If the Rs were trying to make it look as if it were done by particular individuals, then it's useful to just ask ourselves -what if these individuals really did it? What would we have at the crime scene?

As far as we know, Merv wasn't a paedophile, so no reason to think he'd molest and kill JBR. Even if he were a paedo, why not take her back to his place? The Pughs, if they are suspects, would be thought to have primarily financial motives. Leaving the body doesn't fit with collecting ransom. If the Pughs really did it, we wouldn't expect to find the body in the house. Presumably they would come by car, so they'd have a means of getting her away from the house.

If it was staged to cast suspicion on the Pughs, it doesn't seem to have worked, and rightly so, because the crime scene makes no sense consistant with a Pughs did it theory.

I am going to say also that John had a problem with Patsy during the night. Patsy probably refused to allow him to take the body outside the house that night and "dispose" of it. So John did the next best thing and did the best he could with what he had. He "hid" the body in the wine cellar room. Had John been able to take the body outside the house that night, it would have been a much different story.

Whether targeting the Pughs worked or not, I believe that is what the ransom note was intended to do.

I would remind everyone that the supposedly "incompetent staging" of the crime scene was still done well enough to keep the Ramseys out of prison.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by harz


Indeed, gulity people do fumble their explainations sometimes.

As do innocent people who's child has just been kidnapped or murdered. That would be enough stress to cause many a parent to not think too clearly about every little thing going on around them that day.

[WallyCleaver]

Whether targeting the Pughs worked or not, I believe that is what the ransom note was intended to do.


Others believe that as well. It could be true. In your prior post you said something along the lines of - Let's give the Ramseys some credit. I'm just giving them credit for being able to see that the way the scene was stagged doesn't look at all like the Pughs did it.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Others believe that as well. It could be true. In your prior post you said something along the lines of - Let's give the Ramseys some credit. I'm just giving them credit for being able to see that the way the scene was stagged doesn't look at all like the Pughs did it.

I would disagree with that. John Ramsey clearly intended for the police to suspect an insider. He told the police it was an "inside job" that afternoon after finding the body. He knew the Pughs had a key and Patsy immediately told the police they needed money desperately to pay their rent.

It is easy to fall into the "since the crime scene was not staged perfectly or the way I think it should be staged then it either makes no sense to anyone or it was not staged to begin with" trap. It was staged but staged by desperate tired parents who did the best they could and forgot a few things.

John make a logical choice: he chose to make it look like an insider who had a key and who knew the burglar alarm was not activated had done the crime. The Pughs were the most likely suspects in that scenario. They were questioned that day.

He probably still is angry at Patsy, if she did refuse to allow him to take the body outside the house that night.

[docg]

Originally posted by rosebud


I am going to say also that John had a problem with Patsy during the night. Patsy probably refused to allow him to take the body outside the house that night and "dispose" of it. So John did the next best thing and did the best he could with what he had. He "hid" the body in the wine cellar room. Had John been able to take the body outside the house that night, it would have been a much different story.

Whether targeting the Pughs worked or not, I believe that is what the ransom note was intended to do.

I would remind everyone that the supposedly "incompetent staging" of the crime scene was still done well enough to keep the Ramseys out of prison.

Rosebud, there is much in your theory that makes sense to me. And much that is consistent with my own theory. So I'm wondering what it is in my theory that bothers you?

Your explanation for why we have both the body and note in the house at the same time is that Patsy didn't want John to remove the body -- thus spoiling a major component of their plan. Seems to me that such a major change of plan would have required them to forget about the ransom note as well. Because the whole point of the ransom note was to stage a phoney kidnapping. If you insist on keeping the body in the house, then why not write a different note, staging a pedophile attack or someone with a grudge killing JonBenet to get even?

According to my theory John killed her, John wrote the note and it was John's plan completely, including the staging at the window. Patsy knew nothing, and called 911 despite the threats in the note, possibly because she didn't even read them, just went immediately into panic mode. That would explain why we see both the note and body in the house when the police arrive.

This seems a lot simpler and more logical than your theory and I'm wondering why you have a problem with it.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by rosebud


I would disagree with that. John Ramsey clearly intended for the police to suspect an insider. He told the police it was an "inside job" that afternoon after finding the body. He knew the Pughs had a key and Patsy immediately told the police they needed money desperately to pay their rent.

It is easy to fall into the "since the crime scene was not staged perfectly or the way I think it should be staged then it either makes no sense to anyone or it was not staged to begin with" trap. It was staged but staged by desperate tired parents who did the best they could and forgot a few things.

John make a logical choice: he chose to make it look like an insider who had a key and who knew the burglar alarm was not activated had done the crime. The Pughs were the most likely suspects in that scenario. They were questioned that day.

He probably still is angry at Patsy, if she did refuse to allow him to take the body outside the house that night.

I've said before that your theory is possible. But you were the one wanting to give the Rs some credit for intelligence. It's possible they were in a panic-adled state of mind and did what they thought looked right. I'm just saying that if you were a detective and decided to ask yourself -How should the crime scene look if PHP and her husband did this ? - then you'd quickly conclude they didn't because of the presence of both a body and a note.

To put it another way, even if their intent was to cast suspicion on the Pughs, they were smart enough to realize the police weren't going to go for that theory for very long.

docg has asked an interesting question of you. I think his theory works well.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by docg


If she'd picked it up you'd say she was deliberately contaminating the evidence. She says she probably didn't pick it up so you find that "a bit odd."

If she'd written the note why wouldn't she welcome the chance to place her fingers all over it later, so there'd be an innocent reason for her prints to be on it?

Actually, if her prints were on it, I would NOT find that odd at all. I find it odd that she did not pick the note up to read it period. If she didn't know what the note was, why on earth would she NOT pick it up? Why don't you test this out on someone in your family. Write a note, place it on the floor or on your stairs...whatever and see if they bend over to read it or pick it up when they find it.
In that transcript, she says she doesn't remember if she picked it up or not, but in her book she specifically states that she did not pick it up. This may seem like a minor detail but it is a very questionable thing. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

What I find odd is how she says she skipped the step that the note was laid out on. It's not real easy to skip a step coming downstairs on a spiral staircase early in the morning.

Also odd is her not taking a shower and putting on the same clothes she wore the night before. Former beauty pageant winner, wife of a multi-millionaire with a closet full of clothes, some who is overly concerned with appearances - and she skips the shower and puts on the same outfit she wore for six hours the night before? But she took the time to put her make up on - and John says she wasn't up when he got up....it just doesn't add up.

[harz]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


As do innocent people who's child has just been kidnapped or murdered. That would be enough stress to cause many a parent to not think too clearly about every little thing going on around them that day.

Thats true too. Patsy might not be gulity of this crime, but she might be gulity of John or someone. One of diffcult parts to me about John & Patsy, they tend not remember the details to many questions. I learned a true story long time ago from my teacher about a person who went to trail for a crime, he kept saying "I don't remember" which got him free. JMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
What I find odd is how she says she skipped the step that the note was laid out on. It's not real easy to skip a step coming downstairs on a spiral staircase early in the morning.

Also odd is her not taking a shower and putting on the same clothes she wore the night before. Former beauty pageant winner, wife of a multi-millionaire with a closet full of clothes, some who is overly concerned with appearances - and she skips the shower and puts on the same outfit she wore for six hours the night before? But she took the time to put her make up on - and John says she wasn't up when he got up....it just doesn't add up.

I've always thought it was unfortunate they didn't have her recreate that.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I've said before that your theory is possible. But you were the one wanting to give the Rs some credit for intelligence. It's possible they were in a panic-adled state of mind and did what they thought looked right. I'm just saying that if you were a detective and decided to ask yourself -How should the crime scene look if PHP and her husband did this ? - then you'd quickly conclude they didn't because of the presence of both a body and a note.

To put it another way, even if their intent was to cast suspicion on the Pughs, they were smart enough to realize the police weren't going to go for that theory for very long.

docg has asked an interesting question of you. I think his theory works well.

And if the body was found in the house WITHOUT the note? How would that have helped the Ramseys?

The note diverted attention from the Ramseys and gave the plausible theory of an intruder.

I have already stated why the body was still in the house. I don't think Patsy could bear the thought of dumping her six year old daugher's body out like in a field somewhere like some garbage.

[docg]

Originally posted by rosebud


I have already stated why the body was still in the house. I don't think Patsy could bear the thought of dumping her six year old daugher's body out like in a field somewhere like some garbage.

But she COULD accept dumping her in a dark, dank and dingy windowless room, filled with old paint cans and all sorts of other filthy detritus?

[docg]

Originally posted by harz


Thats true too. Patsy might not be gulity of this crime, but she might be gulity of John or someone. One of diffcult parts to me about John & Patsy, they tend not remember the details to many questions. I learned a true story long time ago from my teacher about a person who went to trail for a crime, he kept saying "I don't remember" which got him free. JMO.

Very true, Harz. If you "don't remember" certain details then they can't be checked. It's up to the interrogators to press them on such issues, keep returning to those details, until they say something that gives them away. In this case however, the interrogators spent more time apologizing than interrogating. They had gone to a lot of trouble getting the Ramseys to agree to the interviews and were terrified they might say something that would cause them to change their minds and clam up again. The problem with this case is that the chief suspects have been in the driver's seat practically from the start.

[harz]

Originally posted by docg


But she COULD accept dumping her in a dark, dank and dingy windowless room, filled with old paint cans and all sorts of other filthy detritus?

Perpahs, Patsy wanted to give JB a proper burial in secret when the dust settles. IMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by docg


Rosebud, there is much in your theory that makes sense to me. And much that is consistent with my own theory. So I'm wondering what it is in my theory that bothers you?

Your explanation for why we have both the body and note in the house at the same time is that Patsy didn't want John to remove the body -- thus spoiling a major component of their plan. Seems to me that such a major change of plan would have required them to forget about the ransom note as well. Because the whole point of the ransom note was to stage a phoney kidnapping. If you insist on keeping the body in the house, then why not write a different note, staging a pedophile attack or someone with a grudge killing JonBenet to get even?

According to my theory John killed her, John wrote the note and it was John's plan completely, including the staging at the window. Patsy knew nothing, and called 911 despite the threats in the note, possibly because she didn't even read them, just went immediately into panic mode. That would explain why we see both the note and body in the house when the police arrive.

This seems a lot simpler and more logical than your theory and I'm wondering why you have a problem with it.

docg, the way the ransom note was written I think a reader COULD take the meaning to be that the kidnapping was personal. Certainly it hints that the kidnapper KNOWS John. So the theory that it was someone who did not like the Ramseys, or had something against rich people is clearly possible if one thinks the note is genuine.

I think that hinting some things about WHO did it is why the note is so long. You can't have meaning like that from, "we have girl, get money, don't call cops, we will call."

I have already stated elsewhere that I am positive, in my mind anyway, that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I am not asking anyone else to accept that. I am going on that certainty.

As for why the body was in the house and not in a field somewhere, I can only speculate. Maybe at the last minute Patsy put her foot down and just could not bear to dump it somewhere. I think it was emotions that kept John from dumping the body.

As for the ransom note: I still think the Ramseys were better off WITH the ransom note and the body in the house, than WITHOUT the ransom note and the body in the house. I think subsequent events and the fact that the Ramseys will both die out of prison proves that. If John Ramsey had to choose a scenario that mandated that JB's body was to be in the house, he was better off leaving the note in play.

I feel strongly that the note was an attempt to cast suspicion on LHP and her husband. And if not them, then anyone who had been in the house, was a close friend of theirs, or who worked with John. When two people are sitting in a kitchen at 3 in the morning and worrying about prison for the rest of their lives, they will be thinking very hard at how to make the police think someone else did it. If nothing else the note was a desperate attempt to do that.

docg, I do not believe that Patsy would have stayed by John's side all these years if John had killed JB, particularly if it was NOT an accident of any kind, but intentional. I cannot believe she was that cold. I believe she cared about JB very much.

The more I have thought about it, the more I feel sure that the ransom plan and the staging was a collaborative effort between the two of them. I think John helped her with what to put in the note, but I think the ambidextrous Patsy wrote the note, probably with her "off" hand.

If you are now asking me what happened BEFORE all this to cause them to stage the crime scene, I am still working on that. I am just not sure.

JMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by docg


Rosebud, there is much in your theory that makes sense to me. And much that is consistent with my own theory. So I'm wondering what it is in my theory that bothers you?

Your explanation for why we have both the body and note in the house at the same time is that Patsy didn't want John to remove the body -- thus spoiling a major component of their plan. Seems to me that such a major change of plan would have required them to forget about the ransom note as well. Because the whole point of the ransom note was to stage a phoney kidnapping. If you insist on keeping the body in the house, then why not write a different note, staging a pedophile attack or someone with a grudge killing JonBenet to get even?

According to my theory John killed her, John wrote the note and it was John's plan completely, including the staging at the window. Patsy knew nothing, and called 911 despite the threats in the note, possibly because she didn't even read them, just went immediately into panic mode. That would explain why we see both the note and body in the house when the police arrive.

This seems a lot simpler and more logical than your theory and I'm wondering why you have a problem with it.

docg, in fact with the broken basement window some people (like the present Boulder DA for example) apparently think it WAS a pedophile who killed JB.

I think the answer to your question for why John did not go all out for the pedophile intruder theory is because he knew no strange DNA (or he figured the odds were very long against it) would be found at the crime scene, on the body, or anywhere in the house. He was smart enough to know that that would always be a problem with the random pedophile theory. (In fact, for many detectives and others IT IS A PROBLEM.)

Then you could say, "well one of their friends or acquaintances would do as well for the pedophile killer." Well, most of the time those people have some sort of record of pedophilia. So that might make the police doubt that theory. (And from reading these boards some still think one of their friends is the pedophile killer anyway. So John in a sense got his way on this one, too.)

Where is a convenient pedophile with some readily available DNA when a child killer needs it? They don't sell it at the local 7-11.

What John ended up doing was giving some credence to "every" intruder theory: the ransom note hints at an angry acquaintance; the broken basement window hints at a random pedophile; the "unforced entry" (if one believes there was none) hints that one of the several /many people who had keys to the house did it.

Remember also that all of these "theories" will be used by a defense attorney if John ever is arrested for killing JB. The defense only needs reasonable doubt. Any and all of these theories will be milked for all they are worth by a good defense attorney.

His "incompetent staging" has kept his butt out of prison so far.

JMO

[docg]

Originally posted by rosebud


docg, the way the ransom note was written I think a reader COULD take the meaning to be that the kidnapping was personal. Certainly it hints that the kidnapper KNOWS John. So the theory that it was someone who did not like the Ramseys, or had something against rich people is clearly possible if one thinks the note is genuine.

I think that hinting some things about WHO did it is why the note is so long. You can't have meaning like that from, "we have girl, get money, don't call cops, we will call."

I have already stated elsewhere that I am positive, in my mind anyway, that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I am not asking anyone else to accept that. I am going on that certainty.

As for why the body was in the house and not in a field somewhere, I can only speculate. Maybe at the last minute Patsy put her foot down and just could not bear to dump it somewhere. I think it was emotions that kept John from dumping the body.

As for the ransom note: I still think the Ramseys were better off WITH the ransom note and the body in the house, than WITHOUT the ransom note and the body in the house. I think subsequent events and the fact that the Ramseys will both die out of prison proves that. If John Ramsey had to choose a scenario that mandated that JB's body was to be in the house, he was better off leaving the note in play.

I feel strongly that the note was an attempt to cast suspicion on LHP and her husband. And if not them, then anyone who had been in the house, was a close friend of theirs, or who worked with John. When two people are sitting in a kitchen at 3 in the morning and worrying about prison for the rest of their lives, they will be thinking very hard at how to make the police think someone else did it. If nothing else the note was a desperate attempt to do that.

docg, I do not believe that Patsy would have stayed by John's side all these years if John had killed JB, particularly if it was NOT an accident of any kind, but intentional. I cannot believe she was that cold. I believe she cared about JB very much.

The more I have thought about it, the more I feel sure that the ransom plan and the staging was a collaborative effort between the two of them. I think John helped her with what to put in the note, but I think the ambidextrous Patsy wrote the note, probably with her "off" hand.

If you are now asking me what happened BEFORE all this to cause them to stage the crime scene, I am still working on that. I am just not sure.

JMO

Thanks, rosebud, this helps me understand your position. I've always had a hard time seeing much resemblance between Patsy's printing and the note, to me they represent totally different styles. And I've never been able to accept that John should be ruled out, regardless of what those "experts" saw.

But I realize that a great many people, including some QDE professionals, have found many similarities between Patsy's writing and the note, so you are certainly in good company.

To respond to what you've said about Patsy's willingness to stand by John, I agree. If she believed him guilty of any aspect of this crime I feel sure she'd have blown the whistle on him without hesitation. And there's no way she'd have continued to live with him.

This, I think, is the hardest part of my theory to get across. I believe Patsy never suspected John was involved. If she'd had any doubts they would have been dispelled by the reports of his being eliminated as note writer. In her mind that would mean it could ONLY have been an intruder.

Consider: when she awoke, John was already up and taking his shower (BEFORE the alarm went off). She has never actually said that she saw him in his pajamas and in bed at any time that night. If he did this crime on his own, as I believe he did, then she'd have no way of knowing that if she'd been asleep all night. But she was unable to say she actually spent the whole night in bed with him and she has never in fact stated that.

Her support for John, as I see it, stemmed from the fact that she didn't suspect him and also the fact that they were "in it together" and needed to work together to mount a mutual defense. It's clear to me that she has lied about certain details, but in every case this was to support John's version of what happened.

If John is our murderer, he has to be an extraordinarily manipulative individual. And if he could manipulate the authorities, the media, large segments of the public, Lou Smit, Lin Wood, Michael Tracey, and two different DA's, then he could certainly have manipulated his wife.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by docg




If John is our murderer, he has to be an extraordinarily manipulative individual. And if he could manipulate the authorities, the media, large segments of the public, Lou Smit, Lin Wood, Michael Tracey, and two different DA's, then he could certainly have manipulated his wife.

docg, even if John is not the murderer, he is still a very manipulative person and someone who is very cool under pressure. He did not panic, whatever he was presented with that night and he came up with something to save the Ramseys from prison.

Remember the song, "You're So Vain?" In the song Carly Simon says that "he" is so conceited that "he prob'ly thinks" the song, devastating though it is, "is about [him]."

Well, if John Ramsey is reading what we have just said about him, I suspect he has just smiled.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by rosebud


And if the body was found in the house WITHOUT the note? How would that have helped the Ramseys?

It wouldn't. There had to be a kidnapping note to explain the child's disappearance.



The note diverted attention from the Ramseys and gave the plausible theory of an intruder.

Exactly. And for the note to do it's job, it was unnecessary to point at the housekeeper specifically. In fact, it seems unlikely, to me anyway, the housekeeper would have said "We are a small foreign faction". The note was simply to lead cops to look for intruders. Any intruder. The more vague and senseless the note, the better. Look how many wacky intruder theories have been spun w/o a shred of evidence.


I have already stated why the body was still in the house. I don't think Patsy could bear the thought of dumping her six year old daugher's body out like in a field somewhere like some garbage. [/B]

There are other possible explanations - such as wanting to dump the body later.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry


You certainly have a vivid imagination given John is completely innocent. Have you thought about writing for comic books?

John is completely innocent is a given?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry


You certainly have a vivid imagination given John is completely innocent. Have you thought about writing for comic books?


Is that Lawyer Larry, or is it Lawyer Lin? :lol:

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


John is completely innocent is a given?

I'm sure you've heard of doctors or lawyers "playing God". Maybe the poster in question is really God playing lawyer on the CTV message boards.

Not saying for sure, mind you...

LOL

[diplomat]

Originally posted by rosebud


docg, even if John is not the murderer, he is still a very manipulative person and someone who is very cool under pressure. He did not panic, whatever he was presented with that night and he came up with something to save the Ramseys from prison.

Remember the song, "You're So Vain?" In the song Carly Simon says that "he" is so conceited that "he prob'ly thinks" the song, devastating though it is, "is about [him]."

Well, if John Ramsey is reading what we have just said about him, I suspect he has just smiled.

I imagine the person who killed JonBenet would more likely be reading here than John Ramsey. What person(s) who knows John Ramsey has said that he is manipulative?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
What I find odd is how she says she skipped the step that the note was laid out on. It's not real easy to skip a step coming downstairs on a spiral staircase early in the morning.

Also odd is her not taking a shower and putting on the same clothes she wore the night before. Former beauty pageant winner, wife of a multi-millionaire with a closet full of clothes, some who is overly concerned with appearances - and she skips the shower and puts on the same outfit she wore for six hours the night before? But she took the time to put her make up on - and John says she wasn't up when he got up....it just doesn't add up.

Wasn't Patsy's talent in the Miss WV pageant "skipping?"

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by diplomat


Wasn't Patsy's talent in the Miss WV pageant "skipping?"

In the Miss West Virginia pageant, she did a scene from "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" for her talent.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by diplomat


I imagine the person who killed JonBenet would more likely be reading here than John Ramsey. What person(s) who knows John Ramsey has said that he is manipulative? I think you could be right in the point you made here...the killer is probably keeping up with every detail of the murder...he could possible be on some message boards! Scary thought, though! :seeya:

[LindaA]

Previously posted by Rosebud:
<snip> I think the answer to your question for why John did not go all out for the pedophile intruder theory is because he knew no strange DNA (or he figured the odds were very long against it) would be found at the crime scene, on the body, or anywhere in the house. He was smart enough to know that that would always be a problem with the random pedophile theory. (In fact, for many detectives and others IT IS A PROBLEM.) <snip>

The problem I see with that theory is that at the time of the murder DNA was just coming into its own. How would JR have known how the science would progress in the years to come, and how well could his mind process all this in the heat of the moment? Was he even familiar with the science as it existed at that time? This all sounds like something someone would have had to have thought about for days before acting, and the most I'm willing to believe is that either JR or PR accidentally killed JBR then attempted to cover it up, making it up as they went along. And actually, I don't even believe that. JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by LindaA

The problem I see with that theory is that at the time of the murder DNA was just coming into its own. How would JR have known how the science would progress in the years to come, and how well could his mind process all this in the heat of the moment? Was he even familiar with the science as it existed at that time? This all sounds like something someone would have had to have thought about for days before acting, and the most I'm willing to believe is that either JR or PR accidentally killed JBR then attempted to cover it up, making it up as they went along. And actually, I don't even believe that. JMO

I don't see how he could not have been aware of DNA testing. The OJ Simpson trial had just been the year before. Most of America, if not the free world, was made aware of DNA testing during that, even if they hadn't heard of it before.

[docg]

Originally posted by diplomat


I imagine the person who killed JonBenet would more likely be reading here than John Ramsey. What person(s) who knows John Ramsey has said that he is manipulative?

I don't think you can cheat on your wife for two years without being manipulative. I don't think you can be away from home as often as John was without being manipulative. I don't think you can stonewall the police for months, claiming your lawyers made you do it, without being manipulative.

John tried to manipulate his questioners into believing a door might have been unlocked when he knew very well he'd checked ALL those doors the morning after the crime. John claimed he'd broken the basement window months earlier and then told them a story that's unbelievable from beginning to end.

Now we see evidence that John could have manipulated the handwriting "experts" by withholding or destroying examples of his printing that closely resemble the ransom note, such as the court document on Brugnatelli's site, and providing them with innocuous looking exemplars instead.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think you could be right in the point you made here...the killer is probably keeping up with every detail of the murder...he could possible be on some message boards! Scary thought, though! :seeya:

Yes, it is.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by docg


I don't think you can cheat on your wife for two years without being manipulative. I don't think you can be away from home as often as John was without being manipulative. I don't think you can stonewall the police for months, claiming your lawyers made you do it, without being manipulative.

John tried to manipulate his questioners into believing a door might have been unlocked when he knew very well he'd checked ALL those doors the morning after the crime. John claimed he'd broken the basement window months earlier and then told them a story that's unbelievable from beginning to end.

Now we see evidence that John could have manipulated the handwriting "experts" by withholding or destroying examples of his printing that closely resemble the ransom note, such as the court document on Brugnatelli's site, and providing them with innocuous looking exemplars instead.

So you are saying if a husband is away from home a lot then they are manipulative? It would have nothing to do with earning a living, right?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think you could be right in the point you made here...the killer is probably keeping up with every detail of the murder...he could possible be on some message boards! Scary thought, though! :seeya:

Indeed it is, especially if we are posting with them here and now. :seeya:

[Ames]

Originally posted by diplomat


Indeed it is, especially if we are posting with them here and now. :seeya:

Somehow, I couldn't imagine John Ramsey, posting on a message board. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


I don't think you can cheat on your wife for two years without being manipulative. I don't think you can be away from home as often as John was without being manipulative. I don't think you can stonewall the police for months, claiming your lawyers made you do it, without being manipulative.

John tried to manipulate his questioners into believing a door might have been unlocked when he knew very well he'd checked ALL those doors the morning after the crime. John claimed he'd broken the basement window months earlier and then told them a story that's unbelievable from beginning to end.

Now we see evidence that John could have manipulated the handwriting "experts" by withholding or destroying examples of his printing that closely resemble the ransom note, such as the court document on Brugnatelli's site, and providing them with innocuous looking exemplars instead.

docg -- John was in a room supervised by BPD when he gave handwriting samples. In addition to that he turned over two pads -- one that he used on his bar and the one Patsy had on the table both with handwriting already in them. And again Brugnatelli is a graphologist so won't get into that again.

John did cheat on his first wife many years ago and personally I believe he learned a life lesson from that experience as many who cheat do. I would not think he would be proud of that fact. jmo

[lucky13]

So, even though Patsy had lost all interest in sex, because of her ovarian cancer, (which I totally understand) & John had cheated before, you think he just 'did without'??
Once a cheater/always a cheater!!
A long time ago I wrote this down from somewhere(w/o a link)
Kimberly Ballard, Johns mistress, said "I don't know if he actually did it, but I feel that he was definitely involved, knowing his personality the way I do." John denied the affair.
Anyone ever hear of her???

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena


<snip>

John did cheat on his first wife many years ago and personally I believe he learned a life lesson from that experience as many who cheat do. I would not think he would be proud of that fact. jmo

John said in "Death of Innocence" that was the worst thing he ever did in his life. I agree that he probably learned a lot from that experience. MOO

[bullmoose]

To luckythirteen: I'm sorry that its taken me two days to notice your post in regards to Kimberly Ballard, a complete fraud who offered herself to the media[at a price] as John Ramsey's mistress. She has been bebunked for so long as a complete phony who had never even met or had any contact of any kind with JR that I was shocked to see your post. A long time ago she slithered back under the rock she came out from under to try to grab her 15 seconds of fame.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by lucky13
So, even though Patsy had lost all interest in sex, because of her ovarian cancer, (which I totally understand) & John had cheated before, you think he just 'did without'??
Once a cheater/always a cheater!!
A long time ago I wrote this down from somewhere(w/o a link)
Kimberly Ballard, Johns mistress, said "I don't know if he actually did it, but I feel that he was definitely involved, knowing his personality the way I do." John denied the affair.
Anyone ever hear of her???

When you figure in even Steve Thomas dismissed her as a kook - I think one can say she has no relevance to John Ramsey or this case.

[shill]

The Ramseys Did it.
It was an accident, but they where afraid no one would believe it was an accident. So they staged this whole elaborate kidnapping so they could plea insanity in court to escape a prison sentence.
And to prove to the DA and Jurors that they really are crazy, they stuffed the body in their own wine cellar instead of getting rid of it.

[sweetcharlotte]

With all due respect I don't buy that they Ramseys did what was done to their child. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
The Ramseys Did it.
It was an accident, but they where afraid no one would believe it was an accident. So they staged this whole elaborate kidnapping so they could plea insanity in court to escape a prison sentence.
And to prove to the DA and Jurors that they really are crazy, they stuffed the body in their own wine cellar instead of getting rid of it.

Funny but your reasoning directly conflicts the enhanced photos you just presented.

So what actually do you believe caused those marks on her neck now since I cannot see a Ramsey using a wonderbar? :confused:

[shill]

Sarcasm Athen.
I'm an IDI believer.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by docg


Rosebud, there is much in your theory that makes sense to me. And much that is consistent with my own theory. So I'm wondering what it is in my theory that bothers you?

Your explanation for why we have both the body and note in the house at the same time is that Patsy didn't want John to remove the body -- thus spoiling a major component of their plan. Seems to me that such a major change of plan would have required them to forget about the ransom note as well. Because the whole point of the ransom note was to stage a phoney kidnapping. If you insist on keeping the body in the house, then why not write a different note, staging a pedophile attack or someone with a grudge killing JonBenet to get even?

According to my theory John killed her, John wrote the note and it was John's plan completely, including the staging at the window. Patsy knew nothing, and called 911 despite the threats in the note, possibly because she didn't even read them, just went immediately into panic mode. That would explain why we see both the note and body in the house when the police arrive.

This seems a lot simpler and more logical than your theory and I'm wondering why you have a problem with it.

This, IMO, is the only way RDI can work. If one parent was responsible and all the staging was for the other parents benefit. I am not saying either or, because I do not believe they did it. Also, if one parent was responsible and the other parent knew, I do not believe they could have stayed together all this time.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by docg


But she COULD accept dumping her in a dark, dank and dingy windowless room, filled with old paint cans and all sorts of other filthy detritus?

Exactly. I think outside in the snow would have been better actually. MOO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by harz


Perpahs, Patsy wanted to give JB a proper burial in secret when the dust settles. IMO

When the dust settles!?! No one would believe that the police would not find her body in the basement of their own house.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by rosebud


Snipped

His "incompetent staging" has kept his butt out of prison so far.

JMO

If JR is the killer no amount of incompetent staging could have kept him out of prison, only incompetent police work could.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Snipped

There are other possible explanations - such as wanting to dump the body later.

No, if they had wanted to dump the body later that could have very well been accomplished by not calling the police, going to the bank and withdrawing money and taking the money and JB's body somewhere. It would have looked like they were following the kidnappers demands. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


No, if they had wanted to dump the body later that could have very well been accomplished by not calling the police, going to the bank and withdrawing money and taking the money and JB's body somewhere. It would have looked like they were following the kidnappers demands. IMO

But that would have been exhausting and John would have had to be "well rested". :eek:
Since they were supposed to BE somewhere early that morning, there would have had to have been some 'splaining to do to quite a few people. Too risky. Keep it "simple". IMO

[docg]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


This, IMO, is the only way RDI can work. If one parent was responsible and all the staging was for the other parents benefit. I am not saying either or, because I do not believe they did it. Also, if one parent was responsible and the other parent knew, I do not believe they could have stayed together all this time.

I don't think the "other parent" ever knew. I think the "other parent" was manipulated from day one. We see what we want to see. She didn't want to see anything but an intruder. The "experts" had ruled John out. So what would you expect her to believe?

The only motive that makes sense is incest-related -- to keep the victim from destroying his life by "telling."

The only logical reason for writing such a note would be to stage a phoney kidnapping as part of a plan involving dumping the body BEFORE calling the police.

The only reason Patsy would have called 911 was if she were innocent. That call spoiled John's plan and he had to improvise. Which is why the case seems so puzzling and nothing appears to add up.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If JR is the killer no amount of incompetent staging could have kept him out of prison, only incompetent police work could.

You forgot a corrupt district attorney and an aggressive defense team fueled by Ramsey money. All of those things kept the Ramseys out of prison, not just incompetence on the part of the police.

[docg]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


No, if they had wanted to dump the body later that could have very well been accomplished by not calling the police, going to the bank and withdrawing money and taking the money and JB's body somewhere. It would have looked like they were following the kidnappers demands. IMO

You got it, BB, you figured it out. Part of it, at least. Now look again, more closely, at the note and see how consistent it is with exactly such a plan. The call from the kidnapper is to come "tomorrow," leaving the note writer a full day to dump the body, complete the window staging and get rid of all the evidence. If anyone sees his car as he's on his way to the dumpoff place, he can always say he was following directions for dropping off the ransom money. (He could have even destroyed the note itself (after making a copy), claiming the kidnappers insisted he return it.) There are all sorts of threats about what would happen if the police are called. Clearly the writer did NOT want them called that morning. The note puts John in control of the situation, it is "up to" him to deal with the kidnappers. Patsy isn't even mentioned.

What you have figured out is the principle reason why they could not have been in on it together. If they were, then they would have done exactly what you say above. But if BOTH were innocent, then there is no way to explain the note.

I think Patsy was innocent, made the call despite the note and against John's wishes, and then agreed to go along with his version of what happened, simply so she could be a "team player" in their mutual defense. I think she was manipulated and NOT part of any conspiracy.

[lucky13]

docg, your theory makes a LOT of sense IMO. It sure does explain a lot of things. I have a similar theory myself.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by docg


I don't think the "other parent" ever knew. I think the "other parent" was manipulated from day one. We see what we want to see. She didn't want to see anything but an intruder. The "experts" had ruled John out. So what would you expect her to believe?

The only motive that makes sense is incest-related -- to keep the victim from destroying his life by "telling."

The only logical reason for writing such a note would be to stage a phoney kidnapping as part of a plan involving dumping the body BEFORE calling the police.

The only reason Patsy would have called 911 was if she were innocent. That call spoiled John's plan and he had to improvise. Which is why the case seems so puzzling and nothing appears to add up.

How would the lack of a phone call from the kidnapper to John be explained away in your scenario, doc? Surely John would have expected the police to check phone records.

[shill]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
How would the lack of a phone call from the kidnapper to John be explained away in your scenario, doc? Surely John would have expected the police to check phone records.
There would be no call. They'd search for JB and eventually find JB murdered and molested and determine it was a fake ransom note meant for the killer to make his get away and allow him time to play with his victim, or the body would never be found and JB's photo would end up on a milk carton.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by shill

There would be no call. They'd search for JB and eventually find JB murdered and molested and determine it was a fake ransom note meant for the killer to make his get away and allow him time to play with his victim, or the body would never be found and JB's photo would end up on a milk carton.

If John was planning on removing the body from the house without receiving instructions from a kidnapper, why didn't he do it? Why bother to stage a kidnapping in the first place? Writing a 3 page ransom note is taking a huge risk of exposing oneself. Particularly, when there's no follow-up. Why not a simple abduction?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


If John was planning on removing the body from the house without receiving instructions from a kidnapper, why didn't he do it? Why bother to stage a kidnapping in the first place? Writing a 3 page ransom note is taking a huge risk of exposing oneself. Particularly, when there's no follow-up. Why not a simple abduction?

MissO, if there had not been a ransom note, how much more suspicious do you think the Ramseys would have looked to LE? I would think a whole lot more. There had to be something written to explain her "disapearance". The cops would have been on them instantly. IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


MissO, if there had not been a ransom note, how much more suspicious do you think the Ramseys would have looked to LE? I would think a whole lot more. There had to be something written to explain her "disapearance". The cops would have been on them instantly. IMO

Whitewitch, as I understand it, docg is saying that he believes that John had planned to take JonBenet's body from the house in the suitcase and that his excuse for carrying a suitcase from the house and returning without it would be that it had contained the $118K demanded in the ransom note. My question to docg was, "How was the kidnapper meant to have contacted John to tell him where to deliver the money?"

[MissOtisRegrets]

I may have misunderstood your theory, docg, but, if John only brought JB out of the suitcase after Fleet White had looked in the wine cellar, how could she have been in full rigor in a stretched position with her arms above her head? Wouldn't she have been in a fetal position?

If John was planning to dump JB's body away from the house to divert suspicion from himself and his wife, why would he have left Patsy's paintbrush on the cord?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I may have misunderstood your theory, docg, but, if John only brought JB out of the suitcase after Fleet White had looked in the wine cellar, how could she have been in full rigor in a stretched position with her arms above her head? Wouldn't she have been in a fetal position?

If John was planning to dump JB's body away from the house to divert suspicion from himself and his wife, why would he have left Patsy's paintbrush on the cord?

Brilliant observation, MissO! (about the suitcase and rigor mortis)
Sorry bout previous post. I must have missed reading something. :eek:

[lucky13]

MissO, I've never heard docg state that John was going to use the suitcase to remove JB's body. (That is MY theory)
I don't think he had her in there for very long at all- not enough time for rigor to set in. I think he just put her in long enough to see IF she would fit, then took her out & lay her in the wine cellar where she was found. He probably would have removed the paintbrush handle before he dumped her body. MOO

[LindaA]

Lucky13, why didn't he remove it when he lay her body in the wine cellar? Was that his "PLan B" -- to have her found there?

[docg]

Originally posted by lucky13
docg, your theory makes a LOT of sense IMO. It sure does explain a lot of things. I have a similar theory myself.

Thanks Lucky. I'm glad we agree. I don't think I've ever seen your theory, though. Have you discussed it here and if so where?

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


How would the lack of a phone call from the kidnapper to John be explained away in your scenario, doc? Surely John would have expected the police to check phone records.

Excellent question. I can't read John's mind, but if it were MY plan, what I'd do is head for the bank the morning of the 26th, pick up the ransom money, then find the nearest public phone and call either my home or my own cell phone, keeping the line open for 3 or 4 minutes. The call, but NOT its contents, would then be on phone company records. The police would have evidence that someone called John from a phone booth near the bank. In other words, "if we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early," etc.

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


If John was planning on removing the body from the house without receiving instructions from a kidnapper, why didn't he do it? Why bother to stage a kidnapping in the first place? Writing a 3 page ransom note is taking a huge risk of exposing oneself. Particularly, when there's no follow-up. Why not a simple abduction?

As I said above, he could have arranged to call himself from a phone booth near the bank, so he could later claim he DID receive instructions.

Why stage a kidnapping at all, why not just a simple abduction? You're forgetting that a simple abduction would also require getting the body out of the house and dumping it in some remote spot. That would have been extremely risky, because if someone spotted his car in the vicinity of where the body would later be found, the jig would be up. The ransom note gave him the perfect alibi in case his car might be spotted -- he was delivering the ransom.

You are also forgetting Patsy. If she were innocent, as I feel sure she was, then she'd have scoured the house looking for JonBenet, and she'd want to call the police as soon as she realized she was gone. John could have written the note to 1. discourage Patsy from searching the house and 2. frighten her into NOT calling the police.

As far as the note itself is concerned, I can't read John's mind, but I strongly doubt he ever intended for that note to be found by the police. It would have been easy for him to claim the kidnappers insisted on him returning it and he could then have simply destroyed it -- after making a copy, natch.

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I may have misunderstood your theory, docg, but, if John only brought JB out of the suitcase after Fleet White had looked in the wine cellar, how could she have been in full rigor in a stretched position with her arms above her head? Wouldn't she have been in a fetal position?

If John was planning to dump JB's body away from the house to divert suspicion from himself and his wife, why would he have left Patsy's paintbrush on the cord?

As Lucky has explained, placing her in a suitcase is not part of my theory. As far as the paintbrush and cord are concerned, it seems to me that the safest place for ALL the evidence, including the body itself, was the most remote place in the house, the windowless room in the basement. IMO he was storing everything there until he had the opportunity to get it all out of the basement and into the trunk of his car. Once he got to some remote spot he'd have dumped the body and probably also have removed and destroyed the potentially incriminating paintbrush handle.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by docg


As Lucky has explained, placing her in a suitcase is not part of my theory. As far as the paintbrush and cord are concerned, it seems to me that the safest place for ALL the evidence, including the body itself, was the most remote place in the house, the windowless room in the basement. IMO he was storing everything there until he had the opportunity to get it all out of the basement and into the trunk of his car. Once he got to some remote spot he'd have dumped the body and probably also have removed and destroyed the potentially incriminating paintbrush handle.

You think he actually though no one would find JB in the basement room?

Why is getting rid of her body so risky if it is staged as an abduction, but not if it is staged as a kidnapping? Seems the same risks if being spotted are attached to both crimes.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by docg


As I said above, he could have arranged to call himself from a phone booth near the bank, so he could later claim he DID receive instructions.

Why stage a kidnapping at all, why not just a simple abduction? You're forgetting that a simple abduction would also require getting the body out of the house and dumping it in some remote spot. That would have been extremely risky, because if someone spotted his car in the vicinity of where the body would later be found, the jig would be up. The ransom note gave him the perfect alibi in case his car might be spotted -- he was delivering the ransom.

You are also forgetting Patsy. If she were innocent, as I feel sure she was, then she'd have scoured the house looking for JonBenet, and she'd want to call the police as soon as she realized she was gone. John could have written the note to 1. discourage Patsy from searching the house and 2. frighten her into NOT calling the police.

As far as the note itself is concerned, I can't read John's mind, but I strongly doubt he ever intended for that note to be found by the police. It would have been easy for him to claim the kidnappers insisted on him returning it and he could then have simply destroyed it -- after making a copy, natch.


Docg, I believe the $118K becomes a problem if John is the kidnapper. An intruder who had gone through his desk and seen his bankbook/paystub may have misunderstood that he had a deposit of $118K and could draw it out in cash, but he didn't and he would have known that. He had to involve other people in this in order to get the money. I believe he was given a line of credit through a friend at Merrill Lynch in Atlanta for $118K. He didn't actually recieve the $118K deferred payment until 1997.

Who is going to answer the phone and keep it open for 3 or 4 minutes? Patsy? Burke? A machine? Police would check his time at the bank against the time of the phone call.

How was JonBenet going to be removed from the house? If that was the plan, why wasn't she already in the trunk of the car? Was it possible to go directly from the house to the garage without going outside? What was he going to wrap her in? Police would check the trunk for forensic evidence.

I believe the line/idea about having a suitcase large enough for the ransom is taken from the movies.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, I've never heard docg state that John was going to use the suitcase to remove JB's body. (That is MY theory)
I don't think he had her in there for very long at all- not enough time for rigor to set in. I think he just put her in long enough to see IF she would fit, then took her out & lay her in the wine cellar where she was found. He probably would have removed the paintbrush handle before he dumped her body. MOO

Apologies for confusing the theories, lucky.

The way JB was posed, she wouldn't have fit in the suitcase a second time. The idea to remove her from the house had to have been abandoned before the rigor set in.

[Ames]

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, I've never heard docg state that John was going to use the suitcase to remove JB's body. (That is MY theory)
I don't think he had her in there for very long at all- not enough time for rigor to set in. I think he just put her in long enough to see IF she would fit, then took her out & lay her in the wine cellar where she was found. He probably would have removed the paintbrush handle before he dumped her body. MOO

Thats what I think too...he put her in there...she wouldn't fit...so he took her out and went to plan B.

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


As I said above, he could have arranged to call himself from a phone booth near the bank, so he could later claim he DID receive instructions.

Why stage a kidnapping at all, why not just a simple abduction? You're forgetting that a simple abduction would also require getting the body out of the house and dumping it in some remote spot. That would have been extremely risky, because if someone spotted his car in the vicinity of where the body would later be found, the jig would be up. The ransom note gave him the perfect alibi in case his car might be spotted -- he was delivering the ransom.

You are also forgetting Patsy. If she were innocent, as I feel sure she was, then she'd have scoured the house looking for JonBenet, and she'd want to call the police as soon as she realized she was gone. John could have written the note to 1. discourage Patsy from searching the house and 2. frighten her into NOT calling the police.

As far as the note itself is concerned, I can't read John's mind, but I strongly doubt he ever intended for that note to be found by the police. It would have been easy for him to claim the kidnappers insisted on him returning it and he could then have simply destroyed it -- after making a copy, natch.

I still believe that if that were John's plan he wouldn't have let Patsy call 911. No reason why he couldn't have talked her out of it while he went to retrieve the money. Patsy wouldn't have done anything to jeopardize JBR's being killed. jmo

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Athena


I still believe that if that were John's plan he wouldn't have let Patsy call 911. No reason why he couldn't have talked her out of it while he went to retrieve the money. Patsy wouldn't have done anything to jeopardize JBR's being killed. jmo

I agree, Athena. He would have to have taken Patsy into account while conceiving the plan. If he didn't want to risk her calling 911, he wouldn't have left the note for her to find while he was asleep or in the shower.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


<snipped>

Patsy wouldn't have done anything to jeopardize JBR's being killed. jmo

Except for maybe calling all of her friends over, when the note plainly stated that JB would be beheaded, if the Ramsey's even spoke to a dog. I have always found that odd...and the fact that she failed to mention that "little" piece of information to the 911 operator. Just wondering why YOU think that she didn't follow the ransom notes orders...and why she didn't tell the 911 operator about what the note said (regarding talking to anyone). IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I agree, Athena. He would have to have taken Patsy into account while conceiving the plan. If he didn't want to risk her calling 911, he wouldn't have left the note for her to find while he was asleep or in the shower.


This is why I do not think that docg's theory is correct...I think that one of the Ramsey's ACCIDENTLY harmed her in a tragic way...and the other one helped to take part in the staging. This is just my opinion, though...

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Ames


Except for maybe calling all of her friends over, when the note plainly stated that JB would be beheaded, if the Ramsey's even spoke to a dog. I have always found that odd...and the fact that she failed to mention that "little" piece of information to the 911 operator. Just wondering why YOU think that she didn't follow the ransom notes orders...and why she didn't tell the 911 operator about what the note said (regarding talking to anyone). IMO

I have always had a problem with this, myself, Ames. The only thing I can think to explain it in Patsy's favor is that perhaps she was just running on instinct at the moment and she was in the habit of turning to her friends for support. She may not have been thinking. Just reacting.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I have always had a problem with this, myself, Ames. The only thing I can think to explain it in Patsy's favor is that perhaps she was just running on instinct at the moment and she was in the habit of turning to her friends for support. She may not have been thinking. Just reacting.

Yeah, maybe...but WHY didn't she inform the 911 operator? If I had of found a ransom letter, and it said that MY CHILD would be beheaded if I talked to ANYBODY (I am sure THAT meant the operator, too), I would have told the operator that. I just don't see why Patsy failed to mention that "little" tidbit. Maybe she could have said..."Oh...the note says...not to talk to anyone or JB will be BEHEADED....so PLEASE tell the police when they arrive to not use their sirens or lights, and to be as discreet as possible....my baby's life depends on it." .....or at LEAST something to that effect. I am sorry...I just have a problem with the fact that she didn't even MENTION it to the 911 operator. And I KNOW that she was upset....and always turned to her friends....AND...so do I. BUT, if I had of found a ransom note that stated NOT to talk to so much as a DOG or my daugther would be beheaded. I believe that I would refrain from calling ANYBODY...I would have probably have even woke up Burke and taken him and John with me, and went to a payphone to call the 911 operator...just in case the author or the note was listening. I just find it strange that she NOT ONLY failed to tell the operator what the note said about the beheading, but ALSO FAILED to obey, the author of the note, orders. I just wouldn't have taken that chance if I were HER and KNEW that the ransom note was the REAL DEAL. I believe that SHE knew that it was fake...so thats why she did those things. One investigator said that when he arrived at the scene...Patsy was sitting on the couch, "crying"...with her hands over her face with splayed fingers, looking at him through her fingers (sort of like I do when I watch a scarey movie..ha ha). WHY would she do that?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I have always had a problem with this, myself, Ames. The only thing I can think to explain it in Patsy's favor is that perhaps she was just running on instinct at the moment and she was in the habit of turning to her friends for support. She may not have been thinking. Just reacting.

Possibly...but if this had been a real kidnapping, her "habit" would have cost JonBenet her head. I don't believe Patsy would have endangered JB's life like that unless she knew there was no risk - she wasn't known to have been a normally hysterical person who acted on impulse without considering the situation first.

And how about allowing Burke to leave the house and her protective watch to send him over to the White's? How could she or JR be sure that Burke would be safe, that the kidnapper wouldn't go after him as well? I can tell you that personally, if my youngest child was gone and there was a ransom note, none of my other children would be going anywhere I couldn't watch them firsthand. That's an awful big risk...unless they already knew there was no risk.

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Possibly...but if this had been a real kidnapping, her "habit" would have cost JonBenet her head. I don't believe Patsy would have endangered JB's life like that unless she knew there was no risk - she wasn't known to have been a normally hysterical person who acted on impulse without considering the situation first.

And how about allowing Burke to leave the house and her protective watch to send him over to the White's? How could she or JR be sure that Burke would be safe, that the kidnapper wouldn't go after him as well? I can tell you that personally, if my youngest child was gone and there was a ransom note, none of my other children would be going anywhere I couldn't watch them firsthand. That's an awful big risk...unless they already knew there was no risk.

Exactly!

[lucky13]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I agree, Athena. He would have to have taken Patsy into account while conceiving the plan. If he didn't want to risk her calling 911, he wouldn't have left the note for her to find while he was asleep or in the shower.


IMO John truly thought that Patsy wouldn't make the 911 call on her own. He thought for sure that she would confront him with the note first, & he would talk her out of calling- for the sake of JB's life. I believe that Patsy FREAKED OUT as soon as she saw the note & made the call without John's knowledge. No one (except for them) REALLY knows the sequence of events that happened that morning. I think he was finishing up in the shower as she screamed out. Burke heard her & came down to see what was wrong & John followed right after. They arrived just as Patsy was ending the conversation with the 911 operator, hence the conversation between John & Burke at the end of that call. And maybe thats why she just 'hung up' on the 911 operator so abruptly too. MOO

[docg]

Originally posted by LindaA


You think he actually though no one would find JB in the basement room?

Why is getting rid of her body so risky if it is staged as an abduction, but not if it is staged as a kidnapping? Seems the same risks if being spotted are attached to both crimes.

I think his original plan involved removing the body from the basement BEFORE the police were called. I think an important purpose of the note was to frighten Patsy into NOT calling the police -- but she called them anyhow, spoiling the plan.

As I said above, with no ransom note, Patsy would have scoured the house looking for JonBenet and would have had no reason not to call the police even if she didn't find her. Also with no ransom note John wouldn't have had a reason to drive to some remote spot to dump the body. If his car had been spotted, the jig would have been up.

[nuisanceposter]

Patsy says in DOI that John was the one who told her to make the 911 call.

"What do we do?" I stammer.
He shouts. "Call the police!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Call them!"

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Patsy says in DOI that John was the one who told her to make the 911 call.

"What do we do?" I stammer.
He shouts. "Call the police!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Call them!"

So THERE you go folks...John TOLD Patsy to call the police. Why would he do that, if he wanted to talk her out of calling the police?...That makes absolutely NO sense. And..now that we have established that John TOLD Patsy to call the police, I will ask again....why in God's name, didn't she tell the 911 operator that the note said NOT to talk to ANYONE (ANYONE would be INCLUDING the operator), or JB would be beheaded....and WHY did she call all of her friends over? It was NOT a party...or maybe in Patsy's mind...it WAS. JUST MY OPINION!

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by diplomat


Wasn't Patsy's talent in the Miss WV pageant "skipping?"

No, it was dramatic reading. As in hysterical ransom call
type of drama.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by lucky13



IMO John truly thought that Patsy wouldn't make the 911 call on her own. He thought for sure that she would confront him with the note first, & he would talk her out of calling- for the sake of JB's life. I believe that Patsy FREAKED OUT as soon as she saw the note & made the call without John's knowledge. No one (except for them) REALLY knows the sequence of events that happened that morning. I think he was finishing up in the shower as she screamed out. Burke heard her & came down to see what was wrong & John followed right after. They arrived just as Patsy was ending the conversation with the 911 operator, hence the conversation between John & Burke at the end of that call. And maybe thats why she just 'hung up' on the 911 operator so abruptly too. MOO

I have to admit, that scenario has the ring of truth to it. However, are we forgetting it was PAtsy who could not be ruled out as the writer of the note. John was ruled out. Or do we now think the handwriting experts were all wrong? In that case, the note could have been written by anyone.

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets



Docg, I believe the $118K becomes a problem if John is the kidnapper. An intruder who had gone through his desk and seen his bankbook/paystub may have misunderstood that he had a deposit of $118K and could draw it out in cash, but he didn't and he would have known that. He had to involve other people in this in order to get the money. I believe he was given a line of credit through a friend at Merrill Lynch in Atlanta for $118K. He didn't actually recieve the $118K deferred payment until 1997.

Who is going to answer the phone and keep it open for 3 or 4 minutes? Patsy? Burke? A machine? Police would check his time at the bank against the time of the phone call.

How was JonBenet going to be removed from the house? If that was the plan, why wasn't she already in the trunk of the car? Was it possible to go directly from the house to the garage without going outside? What was he going to wrap her in? Police would check the trunk for forensic evidence.

I believe the line/idea about having a suitcase large enough for the ransom is taken from the movies.

These are all qood questions, but IMO John was way ahead of you. He was a millionaire. I'm sure he had at least $118,000 in the bank. He had to get a line of credit because the police seem to have misread the note and were expecting the call to come THAT morning at 8 AM. The banks wouldn't have been open that early. By that time his plan would have been blown anyhow, so at that point it wouldn't have mattered to him.

You have a good point regarding the phone call. If he'd called home the police could have checked on the timing, yes (though IMO his plan included getting Patsy and Burke out of the house "for their own safety"). He'd have called his cell phone instead.

I'm not sure why he didn't put the body directly into the trunk. Maybe he thought that would be too risky. What if Patsy or Burke saw him moving it from the basement to the garage? Better to wait till both of them are out of the house, staying with some of the friends who were called that AM.

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena


I still believe that if that were John's plan he wouldn't have let Patsy call 911. No reason why he couldn't have talked her out of it while he went to retrieve the money. Patsy wouldn't have done anything to jeopardize JBR's being killed. jmo

Interesting that you should say that! Because Patsy DID make the call, remember? Despite the warnings in the note.

There is no way John could have forcibly prevented Patsy from calling the police without standing over her continually the entire day. If she wanted that call made she'd have been able to get away from him long enough to dial 911. I think she could have made the call simply because she felt vulnerable at that moment and wanted the police (and friends) there with her.

Bottom line: they have told conflicting stories about whose idea that call was and where they were when it was made. They finally settled on a story that suited both of them, but that wasn't until later, when they wrote their book. Nothing about their story adds up anyhow. If John wanted the call made he'd have made it himself.

[Ames]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


No, it was dramatic reading. As in hysterical ransom call
type of drama.


LOL...good one!

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA


I have to admit, that scenario has the ring of truth to it. However, are we forgetting it was PAtsy who could not be ruled out as the writer of the note. John was ruled out. Or do we now think the handwriting experts were all wrong? In that case, the note could have been written by anyone.


How could John trying to convince Patsy have a ring of truth to it. According to this:

nuisanceposter
Member

Registered: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 834
Patsy says in DOI that John was the one who told her to make the 911 call.

"What do we do?" I stammer.
He shouts. "Call the police!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yes. Call them!"



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

10-31-2006 07:36 PM



It plainly states that John TOLD Patsy to call the police....

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I agree, Athena. He would have to have taken Patsy into account while conceiving the plan. If he didn't want to risk her calling 911, he wouldn't have left the note for her to find while he was asleep or in the shower.

John "awoke" and was in the shower BEFORE the alarm was due to go off! If he'd been up all night as I suspect, he would have HAD to shower and change before Patsy got up. So he probably didn't have much choice as far as the timing was concerned. Patsy was awakened by John showering, NOT by the alarm clock. John might have assumed she'd remain asleep until the alarm went off, giving him time to get dressed and be prepared to deal with her reaction to the note.

This could never have been a perfect plan. There were certainly risks involved. But it was probably his best bet, so he took those risks. And it worked for him, after all, despite all the foulups.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


Interesting that you should say that! Because Patsy DID make the call, remember? Despite the warnings in the note.

There is no way John could have forcibly prevented Patsy from calling the police without standing over her continually the entire day. If she wanted that call made she'd have been able to get away from him long enough to dial 911. I think she could have made the call simply because she felt vulnerable at that moment and wanted the police (and friends) there with her.

Bottom line: they have told conflicting stories about whose idea that call was and where they were when it was made. They finally settled on a story that suited both of them, but that wasn't until later, when they wrote their book. Nothing about their story adds up anyhow. If John wanted the call made he'd have made it himself.

Wasn't John too busy reading the note in its entirety, to make that call to 911? Or maybe he knew that Patsy would be way more dramatic than him...(remember...he never even shed a tear during his interviews), and thats why he told her to call. IMO

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames



This is why I do not think that docg's theory is correct...I think that one of the Ramsey's ACCIDENTLY harmed her in a tragic way...and the other one helped to take part in the staging. This is just my opinion, though...

No, docG's theory is correct, trust me. :D

If both of them were in on it together, the call would never have been made. Read the note again and you'll see why.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Ames



This is why I do not think that docg's theory is correct...I think that one of the Ramsey's ACCIDENTLY harmed her in a tragic way...and the other one helped to take part in the staging. This is just my opinion, though...

This is my theory as well. I think it was most likely Patsy that harmed her and then John that assisted with the staging, with Patsy writing the note.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


No, docG's theory is correct, trust me. :D

If both of them were in on it together, the call would never have been made. Read the note again and you'll see why.

I have asked this question 100 times....and haven't gotten an answer. SO...I will ask YOU...maybe you can help me here. If Patsy was NOT in on it....WHY then did she not tell the 911 operator about the part in the note that said that if they so much as talked to a DOG...that JB would be beheaded? If she had of thought that the note was serious...and NOT a fake...I would THINK that she would have said..."Please....tell the police when they come NOT to use their lights or sirens....the note says that if we so much talk to a DOG that JB will be beheaded....so....please, please....tell them to be as discreet as possible. Please tell them not to do anything that would endanger my baby". BUT NO...she didn't say that....what DID she do? She promptly called all of her friends over after calling 911. So, NOT ONLY did she not mention that little tidbit to the 911 operator, about not talking to anyone ....but she also made a party out of it by calling all of her friends over. Maybe she needed them for "support"....BUT...her child's safety should have come before her support. I have a real problem with this...obviously....please..if you can...explain to me why YOU THINK that she did what she did. Also, if the note said not to talk to ANYBODY....that would INCLUDE the 911 operator....I would have been afraid that the "kidnapper" was still around somewhere...and that he could possibly be watching me or listening to my phone calls. Bottom line....why not wake up Burke...take John with her, and either call from a pay phone or a neighbors house? Why invite all of her friends over...it was NOT a party. The actions of Patsy's that night, are just bizarre....IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


This is my theory as well. I think it was most likely Patsy that harmed her and then John that assisted with the staging, with Patsy writing the note.


I couldn't believe the similarities between the ransom note and Patsy's sample. GEEZ.....there is NO DOUBT in my mind that she wrote that ransom "letter". The writing on the ransom letter was a bit shakier....but, I would be shaking too...if I had of just killed my daughter, and was trying to write a fake ransom note. IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by docg


John "awoke" and was in the shower BEFORE the alarm was due to go off! If he'd been up all night as I suspect, he would have HAD to shower and change before Patsy got up. So he probably didn't have much choice as far as the timing was concerned. Patsy was awakened by John showering, NOT by the alarm clock. John might have assumed she'd remain asleep until the alarm went off, giving him time to get dressed and be prepared to deal with her reaction to the note.

This could never have been a perfect plan. There were certainly risks involved. But it was probably his best bet, so he took those risks. And it worked for him, after all, despite all the foulups.

You are talking about a man who had built a business that was taking in billions coming up with this scheme. I don't believe that if he had come up with it he would have allowed Patsy to find the note. He would have "found" the note at the bottom of the basement stairs, himself, when he went down to see if JonBenet was playing or hiding down there. When it was time for breakfast. The note would have been hidden until the time came for it to be "found".

With all the time spent on this cover-up (during which Patsy could have woken up at any point and noticed he wasn't in bed), the body could easily have been disposed of in the alley and the window left wide open.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


No, if they had wanted to dump the body later that could have very well been accomplished by not calling the police, going to the bank and withdrawing money and taking the money and JB's body somewhere. It would have looked like they were following the kidnappers demands. IMO

Yes, but what I meant in the post you quoted was that the reason the body was in the house was they had planned to dump it -later that day. Something went wrong with the plan and they couldn't do it.

[WallyCleaver]

I reall like docg's theory - it explains a lot. It's clever and takes account of most of the evidence.

Yet I have some problems with it.

One, the note and PR's exemplars are too similar to be coincidence. In addition to the way she forms letters there are habits such as repetition of phrases. I think PR wrote the note.

Two, and by far the most serious problem - this plan absoluetly hinges on PR not calling the police. I think JR would have made sure she didn't, to the point of physically restraining her, if need be, until he could convince her that calling the police would endanger JB. A few minutes of persuasive talk would have made her realize they couldn't risk it.

Three, and this is very much related to number 2, JR allows her to call friends. Even if she somehow called police despite his (lack of) effort to prevent that, he still needs to maintain the fiction that JB is in danger if they make calls. He has to treat the note as if it's real. I suppose one could say the plan was destroyed anyway, so what did it matter, but it's just hard to see him allowing either the call to the police, or to friends.

Four, if PR was innocent, why didn't she search the house? We can argue all day about how people "ought" to behave, but everyone I talk to says they'd search the house top to bottom. If the note didn't disuade her from calling police, why would it disuade her from searching?

Five, the fibers in the garrotte very possibly came from PR's jacket.

Six, I don't quite see the note's "tomorrow" as refering to the 27th. It's certainly possible, but it seems more likely it meant the 26th as the banks were open that day.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I reall like docg's theory - it explains a lot. It's clever and takes account of most of the evidence.

Yet I have some problems with it.

One, the note and PR's exemplars are too similar to be coincidence. In addition to the way she forms letters there are habits such as repetition of phrases. I think PR wrote the note.

Two, and by far the most serious problem - this plan absoluetly hinges on PR not calling the police. I think JR would have made sure she didn't, to the point of physically restraining her, if need be, until he could convince her that calling the police would endanger JB. A few minutes of persuasive talk would have made her realize they couldn't risk it.

Three, and this is very much related to number 2, JR allows her to call friends. Even if she somehow called police despite his (lack of) effort to prevent that, he still needs to maintain the fiction that JB is in danger if they make calls. He has to treat the note as if it's real. I suppose one could say the plan was destroyed anyway, so what did it matter, but it's just hard to see him allowing either the call to the police, or to friends.

Four, if PR was innocent, why didn't she search the house? We can argue all day about how people "ought" to behave, but everyone I talk to says they'd search the house top to bottom. If the note didn't disuade her from calling police, why would it disuade her from searching?

Five, the fibers in the garrotte very possibly came from PR's jacket.

Six, I don't quite see the note's "tomorrow" as refering to the 27th. It's certainly possible, but it seems more likely it meant the 26th as the banks were open that day.

I agree with everything that you posted...I would like to add..

Another thing that makes Patsy look guilty to me, is the fact that one of the investigators said that when he arrived, she was sitting on the couch and "crying" with her hands over her face....BUT was looking at him through splayed fingers. (What? Was she trying to make sure that he was buying her little act?) IMO

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames


I have asked this question 100 times....and haven't gotten an answer. SO...I will ask YOU...maybe you can help me here. If Patsy was NOT in on it....WHY then did she not tell the 911 operator about the part in the note that said that if they so much as talked to a DOG...that JB would be beheaded? If she had of thought that the note was serious...and NOT a fake...I would THINK that she would have said..."Please....tell the police when they come NOT to use their lights or sirens....the note says that if we so much talk to a DOG that JB will be beheaded....so....please, please....tell them to be as discreet as possible. Please tell them not to do anything that would endanger my baby". BUT NO...she didn't say that....what DID she do? She promptly called all of her friends over after calling 911. So, NOT ONLY did she not mention that little tidbit to the 911 operator, about not talking to anyone ....but she also made a party out of it by calling all of her friends over. Maybe she needed them for "support"....BUT...her child's safety should have come before her support. I have a real problem with this...obviously....please..if you can...explain to me why YOU THINK that she did what she did. Also, if the note said not to talk to ANYBODY....that would INCLUDE the 911 operator....I would have been afraid that the "kidnapper" was still around somewhere...and that he could possibly be watching me or listening to my phone calls. Bottom line....why not wake up Burke...take John with her, and either call from a pay phone or a neighbors house? Why invite all of her friends over...it was NOT a party. The actions of Patsy's that night, are just bizarre....IMO

I would not have done it that way if I thought my child had been kidnapped, no. But the manner in which Patsy made that call doesn't point to either guilt OR innocence. The fact that she made the call in the first place DOES tell us, however, that she must be innocent.

If she were guilty there'd still be no reason not to explain the note to the 911 operator. And there'd still be no reason to call in friends. If she were guilty and for some reason decided to call the cops despite the warnings in the note she herself wrote, then she'd have every reason to behave as "properly" as possible and do everything by the book. She didn't. Clearly she was genuinely stressed, hysterical, confused.

My guess is that she must have felt very vulnerable at that point, and in need of help. John wasn't being helpful so she called the cops and called her friends. Not what you and I might do, but clearly what SHE did.

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


You are talking about a man who had built a business that was taking in billions coming up with this scheme. I don't believe that if he had come up with it he would have allowed Patsy to find the note. He would have "found" the note at the bottom of the basement stairs, himself, when he went down to see if JonBenet was playing or hiding down there. When it was time for breakfast. The note would have been hidden until the time came for it to be "found".

With all the time spent on this cover-up (during which Patsy could have woken up at any point and noticed he wasn't in bed), the body could easily have been disposed of in the alley and the window left wide open.

The same man who had built up that business told his hysterical WIFE to call the police? I think he wanted Patsy to find the note, not himself. The whole idea was to point away from himself, to make sure nothing connected him personally to the crime.

John couldn't risk dumping the body in his own alley. He could have been seen by a neighbor. Also, with no evidence linking the body to an intruder, nothing missing from the house, etc., both he and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot.

[docg]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I reall like docg's theory - it explains a lot. It's clever and takes account of most of the evidence.


Thanks.

>Yet I have some problems with it.

>One, the note and PR's exemplars are too similar to be coincidence. In addition to the way she forms letters there are habits such as repetition of phrases. I think PR wrote the note.

While there are some similarities of letter formation, the stylistic differences are huge. Besides, the experts who really matter, those who examined all her exemplars and saw the original of the note all agreed she was an unlikely match. The Secret Service expert said there was "no evidence" to indicate she wrote it. Go to Brugnatelli's site and check the similarities he found with John's printing. They are compelling!

>Two, and by far the most serious problem - this plan absoluetly hinges on PR not calling the police. I think JR would have made sure she didn't, to the point of physically restraining her, if need be, until he could convince her that calling the police would endanger JB. A few minutes of persuasive talk would have made her realize they couldn't risk it.

There is no way he could have hovered over her all day. If she wanted to make that call no one could have prevented her. All she needed to do was dial 911. If he'd have hung the phone up at that point it would have made things worse.

>Three, and this is very much related to number 2, JR allows her to call friends. Even if she somehow called police despite his (lack of) effort to prevent that, he still needs to maintain the fiction that JB is in danger if they make calls. He has to treat the note as if it's real. I suppose one could say the plan was destroyed anyway, so what did it matter, but it's just hard to see him allowing either the call to the police, or to friends.

Once she made the call his plan would have been blown. So at that point he might have just let her do what she wanted.

>Four, if PR was innocent, why didn't she search the house? We can argue all day about how people "ought" to behave, but everyone I talk to says they'd search the house top to bottom. If the note didn't disuade her from calling police, why would it disuade her from searching?

If PR is guilty, why did she call 911? THAT's what you need to focus on. Searching the house isn't a big deal, calling 911 is. One point of the ransom note was to convince Patsy that JonBenet had been taken from the house. So why bother to search? Just because you and some of your friends say they'd search anyhow? If John killed JonBenet and Patsy knew nothing about it, then he'd HAVE to figure out some way to prevent her from searching the house till he had a chance to get rid of the body in secret. He took a chance and wrote the note. It worked. She didn't search.

If they were in on it together neither would have wanted the police called in at that time.

>Five, the fibers in the garrotte very possibly came from PR's jacket.

So what? PR had been in intimate contact with JonBenet, so her fibers would have been all over her daughter and could have been transferred to the garotte that way. JonBenet's hair was found entwined in the knots so why wouldn't her mother's fibers be there too?

>Six, I don't quite see the note's "tomorrow" as refering to the 27th. It's certainly possible, but it seems more likely it meant the 26th as the banks were open that day.

No way it could have meant today. It HAD to mean tomorrow. The banks were probably open, but not before 8 AM. How could John have possibly done all the note demanded AND be "rested" as well prior to 8 AM on the 26th?

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


I would not have done it that way if I thought my child had been kidnapped, no. But the manner in which Patsy made that call doesn't point to either guilt OR innocence. The fact that she made the call in the first place DOES tell us, however, that she must be innocent.

If she were guilty there'd still be no reason not to explain the note to the 911 operator. And there'd still be no reason to call in friends. If she were guilty and for some reason decided to call the cops despite the warnings in the note she herself wrote, then she'd have every reason to behave as "properly" as possible and do everything by the book. She didn't. Clearly she was genuinely stressed, hysterical, confused.

My guess is that she must have felt very vulnerable at that point, and in need of help. John wasn't being helpful so she called the cops and called her friends. Not what you and I might do, but clearly what SHE did.

<My guess is that she must have felt very vulnerable at that point, and in need of help. John wasn't being helpful so she called the cops and called her friends. Not what you and I might do, but clearly what SHE did.>

Exactly why there is no reason I believe John could have persuaded her NOT to call 911. She would have depended upon his cool-headedness v her emotional state. If John had told her they had to follow those instructions I do sincerely believe she would NOT have made that 911 call. NO WAY; Patsy totally lost it and she would have deferred to John's decision. JMO

What would she have expected John to do (to be helpful?)

[WallyCleaver]

[i]Originally posted by docg



> While there are some similarities of letter formation, the stylistic differences are huge. Besides, the experts who really matter, those who examined all her exemplars and saw the original of the note all agreed she was an unlikely match. The Secret Service expert said there was "no evidence" to indicate she wrote it. Go to Brugnatelli's site and check the similarities he found with John's printing. They are compelling!

I've seen it. It could have been JR, but PR is the one who was not eliminated. But OK, I can see it being written by JR. PR's writing looks closer to me, but I'm no expert.

> There is no way he could have hovered over her all day. If she wanted to make that call no one could have prevented her. All she needed to do was dial 911. If he'd have hung the phone up at that point it would have made things worse.

I have to disagree. It's not a matter of hovering. It's a matter of getting her to understand that calling the police could be fatal to JB. If he wanted her to buy the note as genuine, he'd have made sure she didn't call 911 - at least not within minutes of finding the note. That would be the critical time. After getting her to read and understand, he wouldn't need to worry about her calling. I just can't see him letting his whole plan fail by allowing the 911 call. Had she called an hour or two later, deciding her judgment was better than his, I' might buy it. But calling within minutes is something JR surely would have been prepared to prevent.

> Once she made the call his plan would have been blown. So at that point he might have just let her do what she wanted.

Yeah, possible.


> If PR is guilty, why did she call 911? THAT's what you need to focus on. Searching the house isn't a big deal, calling 911 is. One point of the ransom note was to convince Patsy that JonBenet had been taken from the house. So why bother to search? Just because you and some of your friends say they'd search anyhow? If John killed JonBenet and Patsy knew nothing about it, then he'd HAVE to figure out some way to prevent her from searching the house till he had a chance to get rid of the body in secret. He took a chance and wrote the note. It worked. She didn't search.

I think searching -or rather not searching- is a big deal. She didn't search, you're right about that. No need perhaps? Why bother to search? I don't know, it's what most people say they would do. If she believed the note to the extent that JB was gone and therefore it wasn't necessary to search, why didn't she believe the other elements of the note? Why didn't JR impress upon her those other elements? He could have done a phoney search of the basement himself, while letting her search other parts of the house. That would make her feel the house had been searched.

I agree with you that calling 911 is a big deal. So big it casts doubt on your theory of the case. She called 911 and it's absoluetly crucial to the plan that you've come up with that no one call 911. Under that scenario I can't see JR sitting passively by and just hoping that PR doesn't pick up the phone.

> If they were in on it together neither would have wanted the police called in at that time.

Agreed. Something must have happened to prevent them carrying out the plan to get rid of the body.

Sooner or later there had to be a 911 call. Ideally after the body has been disposed of. But even then a 911 call must be made. If something happened to prevent them going through with their original plan, then the 911 simply got bumped up to an earlier time.

> So what? PR had been in intimate contact with JonBenet, so her fibers would have been all over her daughter and could have been transferred to the garotte that way. JonBenet's hair was found entwined in the knots so why wouldn't her mother's fibers be there too?

Maybe. But I doubt fibers would have gotten into the knots. Her hair was found entwined because her hair was right there - so maybe the jacket was right there too.

> No way it could have meant today. It HAD to mean tomorrow. The banks were probably open, but not before 8 AM. How could John have possibly done all the note demanded AND be "rested" as well prior to 8 AM on the 26th?

Well, that's the whole point - what do the words today and tomorrow mean? Is today this day because we havn't gone to bed yet, even though it's 1AM? Or is today this day, after the clock strikes midnight? Or is tomorrow when the sun comes up, even though it's 3AM right now? Or is tomorrow still 21 hours away?

It's kind of like when people say "next wednesday", and it's monday. Do they mean the day after tomorrow? Or do they mean a week from then?

I do agree that the note makes sense if interpreted your way. And you're right that there is no way JR could get rested when he just got up a couple hours before the ransom call was coming.

As for bank opening time, I don't know about Boulder in '96, but where I live, some open at 7:30. Actually those are S&Ls, or CUs, but most people use the word bank to cover those types of bsuinesses. Besides, the note says something about moinitoring them, and if they get the money early, and earlier delivery would be arranged.

There is no way they could have gotten the money earlier than when the bank opens, and it makes no sense in reference to the 27th, because if he'd gotten the money on the 26th, then any time would be earlier - compared with 8am on the 27th.

[docg]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


>I've seen it. It could have been JR, but PR is the one who was not eliminated. But OK, I can see it being written by JR. PR's writing looks closer to me, but I'm no expert.

According to Jameson, the "experts" who ruled John out never saw that document, or anything else like it.

>I just can't see him letting his whole plan fail by allowing the 911 call. Had she called an hour or two later, deciding her judgment was better than his, I' might buy it. But calling within minutes is something JR surely would have been prepared to prevent.

How do you know whether it was within minutes? Were you there? All we have is their version of what happened.

>I agree with you that calling 911 is a big deal. So big it casts doubt on your theory of the case. She called 911 and it's absoluetly crucial to the plan that you've come up with that no one call 911. Under that scenario I can't see JR sitting passively by and just hoping that PR doesn't pick up the phone.

And if they are both in on it, as YOU believe, I can't see why they'd want that call made so early, with the body still in the house. Patsy could have found a way to call despite John. But there is NO way they'd have decided to make the call if they were both guilty. Read the note, it provides the perfect reason NOT to call until the body is out of the house.

>Agreed. Something must have happened to prevent them carrying out the plan to get rid of the body.

What could that something have been? And if they were forced to drop their original plan, then why stick with the note, which would then be both meaningless and incriminating? Why not destroy the note and come up with some other story?

>Maybe. But I doubt fibers would have gotten into the knots. Her hair was found entwined because her hair was right there - so maybe the jacket was right there too.

Patsy was in close contact with JonBenet. Her fibers could easily have shed into her hair. So why wouldn't those fibers be found entwined in the knots if her hair was also entwined there? John's fibers were found in her crotch but no one seems to care about that. Sigh.

>Well, that's the whole point - what do the words today and tomorrow mean?

Forget about those words. Concentrate on the timing. There's no way John could have done everything the note told him to do prior to 8 AM on the 26th. Not close. Read the note again.

>As for bank opening time, I don't know about Boulder in '96, but where I live, some open at 7:30. Actually those are S&Ls, or CUs, but most people use the word bank to cover those types of bsuinesses. Besides, the note says something about moinitoring them, and if they get the money early, and earlier delivery would be arranged.

Earlier than 8 AM? C'mon!

>There is no way they could have gotten the money earlier than when the bank opens, and it makes no sense in reference to the 27th, because if he'd gotten the money on the 26th, then any time would be earlier - compared with 8am on the 27th.

Come again? John could have gone to the bank as soon as it opened. That would have been getting the money early. 8 AM on the 27th was when the call was supposed to come, not when he was supposed to get the money from the bank.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Doc, with all due respect, ALL ransom notes discourage the reader from calling the police.

[shill]

Originally posted by docg

>Earlier than 8 AM? C'mon!

>There is no way they could have gotten the money earlier than when the bank opens, and it makes no sense in reference to the 27th, because if he'd gotten the money on the 26th, then any time would be earlier - compared with 8am on the 27th.

Come again? John could have gone to the bank as soon as it opened. That would have been getting the money early. 8 AM on the 27th was when the call was supposed to come, not when he was supposed to get the money from the bank.
1) Even if it is known the Ramseys will wake at 5:30 am, there is no way they will get some rest before 7:30am, especially after reading that note.
2) Even if the bank opened at 7:30am, I doubt they could gather up that much cash and complete the transaction for them to get back for a possible 8am call.
3) If it wasn't a Ramsey(or the Ramseys wanted us to believe it wasn't them), how would the kidnapper know they would be up before 8am the day after Christmas. It would be bad planning to demand money that morning when the Ramseys might find the note to late to respond to.
4) The kidnapper knew he would not be able to kidnap until everyone went to sleep. So wether he wrote the note the 25th before the Ramseys got home, or 2am the 26th, he knew they would not read the note until they woke up. What would be the point of telling them to be well rested that morning unless he expected them to get another nights sleep.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


You are talking about a man who had built a business that was taking in billions coming up with this scheme. I don't believe that if he had come up with it he would have allowed Patsy to find the note. He would have "found" the note at the bottom of the basement stairs, himself, when he went down to see if JonBenet was playing or hiding down there. When it was time for breakfast. The note would have been hidden until the time came for it to be "found".

With all the time spent on this cover-up (during which Patsy could have woken up at any point and noticed he wasn't in bed), the body could easily have been disposed of in the alley and the window left wide open.

All he would have to do is take his shower before he wrote the note.

MOO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


I have asked this question 100 times....and haven't gotten an answer. SO...I will ask YOU...maybe you can help me here. If Patsy was NOT in on it....WHY then did she not tell the 911 operator about the part in the note that said that if they so much as talked to a DOG...that JB would be beheaded? If she had of thought that the note was serious...and NOT a fake...I would THINK that she would have said..."Please....tell the police when they come NOT to use their lights or sirens....the note says that if we so much talk to a DOG that JB will be beheaded....so....please, please....tell them to be as discreet as possible. Please tell them not to do anything that would endanger my baby". BUT NO...she didn't say that....what DID she do? She promptly called all of her friends over after calling 911. So, NOT ONLY did she not mention that little tidbit to the 911 operator, about not talking to anyone ....but she also made a party out of it by calling all of her friends over. Maybe she needed them for "support"....BUT...her child's safety should have come before her support. I have a real problem with this...obviously....please..if you can...explain to me why YOU THINK that she did what she did. Also, if the note said not to talk to ANYBODY....that would INCLUDE the 911 operator....I would have been afraid that the "kidnapper" was still around somewhere...and that he could possibly be watching me or listening to my phone calls. Bottom line....why not wake up Burke...take John with her, and either call from a pay phone or a neighbors house? Why invite all of her friends over...it was NOT a party. The actions of Patsy's that night, are just bizarre....IMO

I'm not sure why you think she had to give details of what the note said. She called 911; told the operator her daughter was kidnapped and gave her address. That is sufficient during a 911 call and answering questions the operator asked. :shrug:

She called two close friends for support. Her daughter was missing. I don't see anything sinister in that. She was freaked out and probably could not even think beyond that.

Re: the police/sirens - The BPD should have contacted the FBI immediately and they are the ones that should know the protocol of how to respond to a kidnapping -- not any civilian. JMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames


I have asked this question 100 times....and haven't gotten an answer. SO...I will ask YOU...maybe you can help me here. If Patsy was NOT in on it....WHY then did she not tell the 911 operator about the part in the note that said that if they so much as talked to a DOG...that JB would be beheaded? If she had of thought that the note was serious...and NOT a fake...I would THINK that she would have said..."Please....tell the police when they come NOT to use their lights or sirens....the note says that if we so much talk to a DOG that JB will be beheaded....so....please, please....tell them to be as discreet as possible. Please tell them not to do anything that would endanger my baby". BUT NO...she didn't say that....what DID she do? She promptly called all of her friends over after calling 911. So, NOT ONLY did she not mention that little tidbit to the 911 operator, about not talking to anyone ....but she also made a party out of it by calling all of her friends over. Maybe she needed them for "support"....BUT...her child's safety should have come before her support. I have a real problem with this...obviously....please..if you can...explain to me why YOU THINK that she did what she did. Also, if the note said not to talk to ANYBODY....that would INCLUDE the 911 operator....I would have been afraid that the "kidnapper" was still around somewhere...and that he could possibly be watching me or listening to my phone calls. Bottom line....why not wake up Burke...take John with her, and either call from a pay phone or a neighbors house? Why invite all of her friends over...it was NOT a party. The actions of Patsy's that night, are just bizarre....IMO

I do not even understand what part of this you find troubling. If she had been in on it she would not have called the police or anyone else. It would have given them time to get JBR out of the house. I agree with docg to an extent. The only way that it makes sense is if one of the parents staged the scene to fool the other parent. The one parent could have been JR or PR. If PR acted alone then I could see her calling the police because there would be no chance of getting JBR out of the house. IMOO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames



I couldn't believe the similarities between the ransom note and Patsy's sample. GEEZ.....there is NO DOUBT in my mind that she wrote that ransom "letter". The writing on the ransom letter was a bit shakier....but, I would be shaking too...if I had of just killed my daughter, and was trying to write a fake ransom note. IMO

I believe if Patsy had really written that note then she would be behind bars right now. MOO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


You are talking about a man who had built a business that was taking in billions coming up with this scheme. I don't believe that if he had come up with it he would have allowed Patsy to find the note. He would have "found" the note at the bottom of the basement stairs, himself, when he went down to see if JonBenet was playing or hiding down there. When it was time for breakfast. The note would have been hidden until the time came for it to be "found".

With all the time spent on this cover-up (during which Patsy could have woken up at any point and noticed he wasn't in bed), the body could easily have been disposed of in the alley and the window left wide open.

Not if he was trying to convince PR that an intruder did it. She would have found the note. Though, you would think that he would have brought her in the basement to witness the crime scene. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


If John was planning on removing the body from the house without receiving instructions from a kidnapper, why didn't he do it? Why bother to stage a kidnapping in the first place? Writing a 3 page ransom note is taking a huge risk of exposing oneself. Particularly, when there's no follow-up. Why not a simple abduction?

I must defer back to my original hypothesis; all to convince the univolved parent. If I had just killed my child, I would not think about the police until after I thought about my spouse. This is the only way to me that a RDI theory works. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames



This is why I do not think that docg's theory is correct...I think that one of the Ramsey's ACCIDENTLY harmed her in a tragic way...and the other one helped to take part in the staging. This is just my opinion, though...

That makes no sense to me at all. If one parent harmed her and the other knew then the one that helped cover up would be watching the other like a hawk to make sure they did not hurt Burke. The stress of living with a murderer and worrying about your other child safety would have been enough to drive a normal healthy person to a nervous breakdown. I would give a relationship under these circumstances about 3 months tops. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by LindaA


I have to admit, that scenario has the ring of truth to it. However, are we forgetting it was PAtsy who could not be ruled out as the writer of the note. John was ruled out. Or do we now think the handwriting experts were all wrong? In that case, the note could have been written by anyone.

Patsy was not ruled out by a couple out of many writing experts. I think even the ones that didn't rule her out said it was highly unlikely that she wrote the note. IIRC

[Athena]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


Patsy was not ruled out by a couple out of many writing experts. I think even the ones that didn't rule her out said it was highly unlikely that she wrote the note. IIRC

I do know that the Federal Prosecutors dropped the handwriting charge against Timothy McVeigh whose trial was in 1997 and decided not to bring in experts. The Judge in that case said they could present expert witnesses but they couldn't testify that there was any definitive conclusions as handwriting evidence had no verification-type testing of opinions. JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


I'm not sure why you think she had to give details of what the note said. She called 911; told the operator her daughter was kidnapped and gave her address. That is sufficient during a 911 call and answering questions the operator asked. :shrug:

She called two close friends for support. Her daughter was missing. I don't see anything sinister in that. She was freaked out and probably could not even think beyond that.

Re: the police/sirens - The BPD should have contacted the FBI immediately and they are the ones that should know the protocol of how to respond to a kidnapping -- not any civilian. JMO

Hi there..
The ONLY thing that I thought that she should have mentioned concerning the ransom letter...is the part about not talking to so much as a dog, or Jb would be beheaded. I would have thought hat would have been some important info. to give to the 911 operator....so that she could tell the police to not make a "scene" when they arrived...to do it as quietly as possible. Maybe even parking AWAY from the house...and walking up...or something of that nature. I just can't figure out why the 911 call was so short and abupt....she could have remained on the line, for at least another two or three minutes...and told the operator a little bit of what the note said...so that she could relay that back to the police. IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I believe if Patsy had really written that note then she would be behind bars right now. MOO

If Colorado Boulder Cty would have had a DA that didn't require a confession or airtight. There is every possibility that PR and or JR would have been behind bars. Did you know there was a plan in place for them to come to Colorado and to submit voluntairly to the arrest. They didn't want to be placed into cuffs. It would have been a mere formality with their attorneys bailing them shortly. But it never happened cause our DA wanted airtight. That is a fact. Sometimes you have to try the case in court. Not expect confessions to plea bargain down. Crazy our Boulder Cty prosecution team at the DA office were just totally ineffective as they never prosectuted cases anymore. Only pled them. You need to read not only Schillers book. But whether you agree or disagree also Steve Thomas's book JonBenet. It was pretty accurate as to why the case never saw the courtroom. The grand jury was a huge disappointment. As it was used as an investigative tool. :( I think the evidence is there not that any of us knows what all the evidence even is or was. This case needs to be tried. Not left in limbo. Exonerate or find guilty. One the other.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


If Colorado Boulder Cty would have had a DA that didn't require a confession or airtight. There is every possibility that PR and or JR would have been behind bars. Did you know there was a plan in place for them to come to Colorado and to submit voluntairly to the arrest. They didn't want to be placed into cuffs. It would have been a mere formality with their attorneys bailing them shortly. But it never happened cause our DA wanted airtight. That is a fact. Sometimes you have to try the case in court. Not expect confessions to plea bargain down. Crazy our Boulder Cty prosecution team at the DA office were just totally ineffective as they never prosectuted cases anymore. Only pled them. You need to read not only Schillers book. But whether you agree or disagree also Steve Thomas's book JonBenet. It was pretty accurate as to why the case never saw the courtroom. The grand jury was a huge disappointment. As it was used as an investigative tool. :( I think the evidence is there not that any of us knows what all the evidence even is or was. This case needs to be tried. Not left in limbo. Exonerate or find guilty. One the other.

I am sure the DA is not effective there and that played a major role on why they were never brought to trial. I still believe if they would have brought them to trial they would not have been convicted. Then they could never be tried again even if they were guilty. A big problem with this case is no one explaination so far has answered every question. That is why I think there must be some other fact that would clear everything up. Something that was missed or that we are missing. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I do not even understand what part of this you find troubling. If she had been in on it she would not have called the police or anyone else. It would have given them time to get JBR out of the house. I agree with docg to an extent. The only way that it makes sense is if one of the parents staged the scene to fool the other parent. The one parent could have been JR or PR. If PR acted alone then I could see her calling the police because there would be no chance of getting JBR out of the house. IMOO

Well, she would have had to call 911 at SOME point. And if they had of gotten the body out of the house, and THEN called...theres no telling what time it would have been, and THEN the police would have thought it was odd...if it had of been later that morning..or in the afternoon that she had of called, that they had JUST woke up...and found the ransom note..and JB missing. She had to call early, to make it seem more real....it fit with their plans for their vacation, too....thats the reason that they got up so early, because they were leaving for vacation....and probably some of her friends knew that they were leaving that day too...and they could have even possibly told their friends at the party...that they had to leave early, because they had to get up early for their trip...and needed to get some sleep. If Patsy had of called, say around noon...after disposing of the body...then that wouldn't jive with them telling their friends that they had to get up early. That is...IMO...why Patsy called when she did. At that point, they probably had already decided not to try to get rid of the body, but to leave it and let the police find it....when it became apparent that the police were NOT going to find it...then John "found" it for them. IMO

[LindaA]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I am sure the DA is not effective there and that played a major role on why they were never brought to trial. I still believe if they would have brought them to trial they would not have been convicted. Then they could never be tried again even if they were guilty. A big problem with this case is no one explaination so far has answered every question. That is why I think there must be some other fact that would clear everything up. Something that was missed or that we are missing. IMO

My thoughts exactly. I felt that way when they brought JMK there from Bangkok. I was recently reading about the Routier case again. The latest in that has to do with rather dramatic evidence that was suppressed at the trial by the prosecution. Had that evidence been seen by the jury, the case most likely would have turned out differently. So what does the Boulder DA know that has been suppressed ? I think there must be something.

[Ames]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I believe if Patsy had really written that note then she would be behind bars right now. MOO

Personally...I think that someone or ALOT of someones were either paid off, or exchanging favors....remember...John did run for some sort of public office...which tells me...that he knew alot of higher up people.

I think that Patsy wrote the note...the similarities between the note and her handwriting...is uncanny. Even the comma, after the date (,)....the bottom of it curves to the right, instead of the left, in both her handwriting AND in the ransom note. There are WAY more similarities than that, though....WAY MORE. Patsy is dead now, so I highly doubt that she would be behind bars right now....if she had written the note.

[Ames]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


That makes no sense to me at all. If one parent harmed her and the other knew then the one that helped cover up would be watching the other like a hawk to make sure they did not hurt Burke. The stress of living with a murderer and worrying about your other child safety would have been enough to drive a normal healthy person to a nervous breakdown. I would give a relationship under these circumstances about 3 months tops. IMO

Not if one of the parents KNEW that it was unintentional. Maybe Patsy shoved JB into the sink or the bathtub, while she was changing her out of her wet clothes...when she wet the bed. YES...I KNOW that Patsy said that JB didn't wet the bed that night...but, how do you explain the sheets being changed...and JB wearing those HUGE panties...that were double the size that she normally wears? I am sure that Patsy was probably tired...because she had to get up early on Christmas morning to put out SANTA stuff...and then they had that party to go to, and then she knew that she had to get up early for the trip....SO...why is it so farfetched that she became upset with JB after JB wet the bed, and she shoved her a "little" bit too hard...injuring her...and JB may have been even convulsing....they couldn't have taken her to the ER..because she would have been arrested for abuse....she may have even thought that JB was ALREADY dead from the head wound...so, then thats when they came up with the intruder plan. IN MY OPINION......

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames


Personally...I think that someone or ALOT of someones were either paid off, or exchanging favors....remember...John did run for some sort of public office...which tells me...that he knew alot of higher up people.

Snipped


Well, the key to how much power JR has is whether he, PR, or any of his children have ever had a traffic ticket. I will have to look for that. Money is not usually enough. There has to be power involved in this kind of crime. Though, real power would have covered the scene so absolutely no one would have suspected the Ramseys.

[Ames]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


Well, the key to how much power JR has is whether he, PR, or any of his children have ever had a traffic ticket. I will have to look for that. Money is not usually enough. There has to be power involved in this kind of crime. Though, real power would have covered the scene so absolutely no one would have suspected the Ramseys.

True...but, I believe that the ONLY reason that anybody suspected them, is because they were the only KNOWN people to have been in the house (besides Burke) when she was murdered. If it hadn't of been for that fact...I highly doubt that they would have ever been suspected. Yeah, the traffic ticket...thats a good idea to check that out. That would be interesting.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames


True...but, I believe that the ONLY reason that anybody suspected them, is because they were the only KNOWN people to have been in the house (besides Burke) when she was murdered. If it hadn't of been for that fact...I highly doubt that they would have ever been suspected. Yeah, the traffic ticket...thats a good idea to check that out. That would be interesting.

There is a difference between the way things are covered up for the elite and the way this crime would have been covered up if it was. In a house full of people, a crime can be commited by a member of the elite, witnessed by many people, and somehow not only does it not come back to them ... you doubt what you actually saw. That is power. IMO