In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

momocher

08-19-2006, 10:20 AM

Did anyone else happen to see an item in last week's news about John Ramsey running for some State office and the article stated that his chances of succeeding were almost "nil"? I'm bringing this up because I found it very coincidental that I read this announcement last week and -- now, just a few days later, a Mr. Karr pops up as a possible suspect. Maybe I am being cynical here, but the timing seems interesting. (I am not suggesting Mr. Ramsey is guility or innocent concerning the murder of his daughter, I am just saying that it is very coincidental that he's running for State office with not much support, and now, out of the blue, comes a media blitz about some nut, so it would seem, would could be the killer. A pedophile pornographer he might be, but a killer of children?) Any thoughts out there?

watson

08-19-2006, 04:56 PM

I'd have to agree with rosy... the election was 2004, and John Ramsey lost, BUT the really INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all? In 2004 there was no confessed suspect, Patsy's cancer had not yet returned, the whole country (rightly or wrongly) suspected that Ramsey might have had something to do with his daughters murder. The Ramsey's (again rightly or wrongly) were not the most popular people, and had moved to the far North seclusion of the MI wilds. So why would a unpopular man, under a cloud of suspicion, having opted for seclusion, then run for the most public of offices, where everything about him would be put under a microscope, and actually EXPECT to win? It would be like OJ Simpson coming out and running for govenor of Calf., or Claus Von Bulow running for govenor of CN! I always wondered if his bid for Congress didn't show a grandiose out of touch with reality fantasy life on Ramsey's part.

SundayMoon

08-19-2006, 05:57 PM

Remember that John found JonBenet's body and loosened the ligatures and took the duct tape off her mouth. If the crime scene was staged to look like an intruder then why would John UNstage the scene before anyone else saw it.

John would let someone else find the body if he was the guilty party. He would want someone else to view the "staged" crime scene.

Patsy denies giving JonBenet the pineapple. If she were guilty then why wouldn't she just say, "Yeah, I gave her pineapple." She had no reason to lie about that.

JonBenet didn't have an abusive history. I can't imagine that parents who don't beat their children would suddenly bash a child's skull in, wrap a rope with a garrote around the child's neck, and duct tape her face. Even so-called loving parents that suddenly snap and kill a child drown or poison the child so it's a "clean" kill and then wrap the child up lovingly in a blanket or make the child "comfortable". Patsy seemed like she doted on JonBenet and had she killed her in a fit of rage then I would think she would have wrapped her up in a more "comfortable" position.

JMO for what it's worth.

LI_Mom

08-19-2006, 06:03 PM

If I killed my child & wanted to cover up, I would want to leave as many 'clues' of an intruder as I could... so the police would look AWAY from my family.

Denying the pineapple, the flashlight, the Hi-tec boots, the baseball bat and the Santa Bear is very smart if I'm guilty.

SundayMoon

08-19-2006, 06:06 PM

But if Patsy gave her pineapple then there's no harm in saying so. She has no reaosn to lie about that.

Former Juror

08-19-2006, 06:11 PM

Jonbenet had pineapple. That cannot be disputed. Patsy could not say she fed it to her (and hold to their story) because then the police would have known that Jonbenet was not really asleep when they got home from the party.

IMO

Former Juror

08-19-2006, 06:34 PM

People are thinking too logically. IMO, the story of what occurred after the party was rehearsed AFTER her murder, which at that point would not be two logical, rational human beings discussing their evening.

The simplest response, and the easiest to remember, would be that 'Jonbenet fell asleep on the ride home. We put her to bed.' End of story.

There were obvious problems with the Ramsey story. But, a botched investigation from the very first second LE walked into the Ramsey home made a rather cut and dry case one that will never be 'solved' in a court of law.

IMOOC

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

If the Ramseys was covering their tracks then they also would have been trying to be as logical as they could be and I think that would have included some excuse for the pineapple.

That could NOT happen. They said they put her to bed asleep. If they later admitted to the pineapple, their story would have been debunked. They knew they could ever admit to the pineapple. JMHO

Former Juror

08-19-2006, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

That could NOT happen. They said they put her to bed asleep. If they later admitted to the pineapple, their story would have been debunked. They knew they could ever admit to the pineapple. JMHO

Exactly. It is hard to keep lies straight, so the simplest thing to do is make it short and sweet. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed. She fell asleep on the ride home, and we put her to bed....

IMO

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

If you scroll back on this thread you will see where I posted was all the Ramseys had to say was JonBenet might have got up sometime during the night and got some pineapples for herself.

Exactly, but they never said that, right? Why? maybe because they knew Jonbenet's fingerprints wouldnt be on that bowl of pineapple. :shrug:

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

The Ramseys said Burk remained downstairs while JonBenet was being tucked into bed when they got home. Wouldnt the Ramseys be worried that Burk would let out their little secret that JonBenet had not been asleep when they got home?

Now that is a possibility.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Or maybe because they had no idea how she got pineapple in her stomach because they were asleep the whole night.

That is a possibility also.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

Why wouldnt her fingerprints be on the bowl? It was found in her stomach. Do you think someone fed her? :shrug:

Report showed that only Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. :shrug:

msgatorslayer

08-19-2006, 06:52 PM

The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

I am still trying to figure that out. I am still a fence sitter.

Athena

08-19-2006, 06:55 PM

Honestly I cannot fathom a parent who has killed their child to write such a ransom note. There is no way a parent would not know they would be the first to be questioned and their handwriting the first to be analyzed - I don't care what the circumstances.

Even linguistics concur that it is extremely hard if not impossible to disguise one's handwriting in a note that length. Just does not make sense. Find the author and you find the killer and I do not believe it was any of the Ramseys. jmho

samsong

08-19-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

There is no definitive answer to this. It could be or it may not be.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Honestly I cannot fathom a parent who has killed their child to write such a ransom note. There is no way a parent would not know they would be the first to be questioned and their handwriting the first to be analyzed - I don't care what the circumstances.

Even linguistics concur that it is extremely hard if not impossible to disguise one's handwriting in a note that length. Just does not make sense. Find the author and you find the killer and I do not believe it was any of the Ramseys. jmho

Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

msgatorslayer

08-19-2006, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

I am still trying to figure that out. I am still a fence sitter.

It's an odd weapon for anyone to use. And I think it points to someone who has great knowledge of it's use. Either by background, studies, hobbies, etc.

caphill

08-19-2006, 07:02 PM

Foriegn male DNA on JonBenet's body, mixed in her blood and in her panties makes an arguement that Patsy or John violated her an absurd stretch of the imagination, IMO.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

I do not have a link to it but I read the bowl never was fingerprinted. The pineapple went basically unnoticed on the table til the autopsy showed pineapple in her stomach then someone recalled the pineapple on the table and it was also shown in pictures. But was never tested for fingerprints, by then it was to late.

I have read several reports that mentioned the fingerprints on the bowl. If you google it, I am sure you will get some hits on it.
I havent read any reports, that said the was the bowl wasnt fingerprinted. :confused: :shrug:

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

She died from strangulation.

That is what the reports show, but still the experts disagree on which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. It is all still very puzzling. :shrug:

samsong

08-19-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

That is what the reports show, but still the experts disagree on which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. It is all still very puzzling. :shrug:

You are correct and the blow to the head would have also been fatal.

There are so many puzzling aspects open to different interpretations.

robiss

08-19-2006, 07:07 PM

>>INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all

Why NOT..??... you talk as if he should be ashamed of something... he actually had much support in the Charlevoix area, & did much positive work in the community.

>>moved to the far North seclusion of the MI wilds

again... I would advise you to KNOW what you talk about... Charlevoix is hardly the 'boondocks'...& the Ramsey family had a home there YEARS before the murder..!! JonBenet was "Little Miss Charlevoix" the year BEFORE her death.

Star Diva

08-19-2006, 07:08 PM

But you must admit searching for your kidnapped child in your own home with your best friend but not the police who are the most important and reliable witnesses to crime scene evidence is more than a tad odd and bears explanation if you ask me.

Along with the 3-page Ransom Note, which no one, including Lou Smith, has ever had much success explaining.

:hat:

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:12 PM

caphill

08-19-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Yes, it was fingerprinted. Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. Burke's fingerprints were on the tea glass. From PM/PT.

And your point is........

If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

Former Juror

08-19-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by caphill

And your point is........

If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

Yet, she said she didn't do it. :shrug:

Athena

08-19-2006, 07:16 PM

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by caphill

And your point is........

If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

There is no point, the facts are just being presented. Patsy denied having anything to do with pineapple, though.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I do respect your opinion. Can you provide a link? I honestly have searched and read almost all of the handwriting analysis articles and I have read there was no consensus that Patsy wrote the note both by the linguistics the police hired (approximately 6) and the two that the Ramseys hired so it is possible I haven't read the one you refer to. I did do some extensive reading.

I just posted the one that caught my attention, just scroll back a bit, I thought you might want to see it. I respect you opinion, as well.

caphill

08-19-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror

Yet, she said she didn't do it. :shrug:

Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

SundayMoon

08-19-2006, 07:34 PM

Ok, forget the pineapple for now. Why would John unstage a "staged" crime scene? It doesn't make sense.

And Patsy writing the note. I can't imagine someone who is not a violent woman (by all accounts) bashing her daughter's skull in, staging a crime scene by twisting rope around her neck, tying her wrists, and duct taping her, and then spending time sitting and writing a ransom note. If Patsy was even capable of killing JonBenet so violently then she would be so rattled by it that I can't fathom her sitting and writing a note. What would be the purpose? She would realize that a ransom note would be even MORE for police to analyze. Why risk it?

Another point about the ransom amount. In John Douglas' book The Cases That Haunt Us he mentions that $118,000 was roughly 1 million pesos at that time. He theorized that the person could have been fleeing to Mexico or could have been Mexican. Of course, Karr is not from Mexico but that was just something else to ponder.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

I did find a link stating Patsy's fingerprints was on the bowl. I was looking for the link I had read, but that was some time ago.

I still feel if they wasnt telling the truth about JonBenet being asleep when they got home Burke would have made a slip to LE.

That it is possible, but Burke could have been carried to bed asleep. He wouldnt have much memory of anything if that is the case. It could have just as easily been the other way around, that Burke was carried up asleep and Jonbenet was awake. I am still a fence sitter, mainly because of the DNA under the fingernails. While the details of the pineapple are interesting, the DNA evidence it what I keep wanting answers for.

Former Juror

08-19-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

The pineapple was in the bowl. Burke and Patsy's prints were on the bowl; the maid's were not. Jonbenet's prints were not on the bowl, yet the pineapple was in Jonbenet's system. Someone fed it to her.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by SundayMoon
Ok, forget the pineapple for now. Why would John unstage a "staged" crime scene? It doesn't make sense.

And Patsy writing the note. I can't imagine someone who is not a violent woman (by all accounts) bashing her daughter's skull in, staging a crime scene by twisting rope around her neck, tying her wrists, and duct taping her, and then spending time sitting and writing a ransom note. If Patsy was even capable of killing JonBenet so violently then she would be so rattled by it that I can't fathom her sitting and writing a note. What would be the purpose? She would realize that a ransom note would be even MORE for police to analyze. Why risk it?

Another point about the ransom amount. In John Douglas' book The Cases That Haunt Us he mentions that $118,000 was roughly 1 million pesos at that time. He theorized that the person could have been fleeing to Mexico or could have been Mexican. Of course, Karr is not from Mexico but that was just something else to ponder.

I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Who cut the pineapple, put it in a bowl and put it in the table?

The maid? When was the maid last at the house. Was she there Christmas day?

Dont know that, all we know is Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were the only fingerprints on the bowl. :shrug: It appears someone would have to feed Jonbenet, since her prints were not on the bowl. But, if the bowl was merely placed before her on the table, she could have ate from it, without leaving a print, unlikely, but possible. Who knows:shrug:

SundayMoon

08-19-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

But there's no way that was an accidental murder. I've seen autopsy pictures and the gash in her skull is so violent. Even if it WAS possible that Burke did it do you really thing that the parents would cover it up by garroting JonBenet, tying her up, putting duct tape on her mouth, and writing a ridiculous ransom note? I just can't fathom it.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by SundayMoon

But there's no way that was an accidental murder. I've seen autopsy pictures and the gash in her skull is so violent. Even if it WAS possible that Burke did it do you really thing that the parents would cover it up by garroting JonBenet, tying her up, putting duct tape on her mouth, and writing a ridiculous ransom note? I just can't fathom it.

It is hard to believe most aspects of this case, that is why I try to keep an open mind. It doesnt sound like something the Ramsey's would do, but, going through many things in my life, I have learned quickly just becasue something doesnt sound right or thinking someone couldnt possibly have done something, and then finding out they did, makes me question everything. I have had monsters in my presence, and never knew it until it was too late. Why? because I believed they would or could have never done that, because it didnt make sense. But, when all was said and done, I was wrong, horribly wrong. JMHO

Cornblossom

08-19-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I do respect your opinion. Can you provide a link? I honestly have searched and read almost all of the handwriting analysis articles and I have read there was no consensus that Patsy wrote the note both by the linguistics the police hired (approximately 6) and the two that the Ramseys hired so it is possible I haven't read the one you refer to. I did do some extensive reading. handwriting analysis (http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/) :seeya:

Denise36

08-19-2006, 08:11 PM

From your Cornblossom's link 4. Certain words in the ransom note such as "instruction" "monitor" "execution" "scanned" "electronic" and "device" are computer terms. At the time of JonBenet's death, John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics a computer distribution company. What kind of drivel is that? Also, I hope I'm never convicted of a crime because I use a term such as and hence.

TuscanDreams

08-19-2006, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by robiss
>>INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all

Why NOT..??... you talk as if he should be ashamed of something... he actually had much support in the Charlevoix area, & did much positive work in the community.

Let me try to remember, how badly did he lose that election? If he had so much support- some of those friends should have cast a vote for him. JMO

Athena

08-19-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

I just posted the one that caught my attention, just scroll back a bit, I thought you might want to see it. I respect you opinion, as well.

Well Angelina -- found it and that is where I have been. I took a year of handwriting analyis in college for fun as an elective and actually used it in my Effective Public Speaking class to use as part of a persuasive presentation that I had to do. Admittedly when I first started reading it - I said this is like first semester linguistics. Trying to determine one's current personality by the way they write and where a letter falls on a line (on, below or above) whether the o's are closed or open, typographical a's, spacing, etc, male, female and did not think too much about it.

However, when I actually compared the two notes side by side even without reading the author's comments (did not want to be influenced - determined to be skeptical - lol) it was the lower case a's o's and u's that caught my attention immediately even as a layman. Then I went back to read the author's comments and he basically detailed what I had already concluded looking at the two notes side by side.

OMG - WOW - I can understand now why she could not be excluded as being the author of that note out of the people's handwriting that were analyzed. However, I can also see why it cannot be maintained without a doubt that she WAS the author because not enough samples were collected for comparison. I write my a's like typographical a's as well when writing in print. Never thought in a million years I would be posting this! jmo

Lianasmom

08-19-2006, 08:36 PM

Patsy's fingerprints would naturally be on the dishes since she lived in the house and probably did the dishes on a regular basis. The killer surely wore gloves, and hence :rolleyes: his prints weren't on the bowl or glass even if he fed the pineapple to JB.

Athena

08-19-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Cornblossom
handwriting analysis (http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/) :seeya:

Thanks - wish I had seen your link before I did the search. Would have saved me time. :)

robiss

08-19-2006, 08:39 PM

>>how badly did he lose that election

sheeez... I'm new to this forum... but do so many people post comments here w/o doing minimumal research FIRST..??

John Ramsey was a CLOSE 2nd for the 105th congressional race in the ;04 election. He lost by ~500 votes... his popularity in several Charlevoix districts was over 70%..!!... anybody that knew John & Patsy believed they did NOT have anything to do w/the crime.

Athena

08-19-2006, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

It is hard to believe most aspects of this case, that is why I try to keep an open mind. It doesnt sound like something the Ramsey's would do, but, going through many things in my life, I have learned quickly just becasue something doesnt sound right or thinking someone couldnt possibly have done something, and then finding out they did, makes me question everything. I have had monsters in my presence, and never knew it until it was too late. Why? because I believed they would or could have never done that, because it didnt make sense. But, when all was said and done, I was wrong, horribly wrong. JMHO

I understand -- now it is trust (not blindly) and verify ....... Sounds like we both learned the hard way. jmo

Angelina

08-19-2006, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Well Angelina -- found it and that is where I have been. I took a year of handwriting analyis in college for fun as an elective and actually used it in my Effective Public Speaking class to use as part of a persuasive presentation that I had to do. Admittedly when I first started reading it - I said this is like first semester linguistics. Trying to determine one's current personality by the way they write and where a letter falls on a line (on, below or above) whether the o's are closed or open, typographical a's, spacing, etc, male, female and did not think too much about it.

However, when I actually compared the two notes side by side even without reading the author's comments (did not want to be influenced - determined to be skeptical - lol) it was the lower case a's o's and u's that caught my attention immediately even as a layman. Then I went back to read the author's comments and he basically detailed what I had already concluded looking at the two notes side by side.

OMG - WOW - I can understand now why she could not be excluded as being the author of that note out of the people's handwriting that were analyzed. However, I can also see why it cannot be maintained without a doubt that she WAS the author because not enough samples were collected for comparison. I write my a's like typographical a's as well when writing in print. Never thought in a million years I would be posting this! jmo

That is so neat that you have knowledge of handwriting analysis. I am with you on this one, wow, is definitely a good word to describe it.

Athena

08-19-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

That is so neat that you have knowledge of handwriting analysis. I am with you on this one, wow, is definitely a good word to describe it.

LOL -- don't take it to the bank though!!! I really did it for fun and nothing more but I did learn certain things to look for. :)

athy

08-19-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
The garotte. Staged or not. IMO

if you look at the crime scene pictures it looks like marks on her neck where she was trying to fight and pull the garotte off her neck. if it were staged her neck would have been presteen except for the marks from the garotte.

LI_Mom

08-19-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Denise36
From your Cornblossom's link What kind of drivel is that? Also, I hope I'm never convicted of a crime because I use a term such as and hence.

No one reason is enough to say the Ramseys are definitely guilty. It's a sum of all the things that seem incrimminating that make it impossible to EXCLUDE them as suspects.

Things just do NOT add up & authorities just can't ignore them all just because it's hard to believe parents would do such a thing.

Angelina

08-19-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Athena

LOL -- don't take it to the bank though!!! I really did it for fun and nothing more but I did learn certain things to look for. :)

I take nothing to the bank on this case, I wont until they have a DNA match. There is just too many bizarre circumstances to take anything to the bank. JMHO

Denise36

08-19-2006, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

No one reason is enough to say the Ramseys are definitely guilty. It's a sum of all the things that seem incrimminating that make it impossible to EXCLUDE them as suspects.

Things just do NOT add up & authorities just can't ignore them all just because it's hard to believe parents would do such a thing. I was talking specifically about that particular handwriting "analysis." C'mon computer terms? What kind of stretch is that?

I haven't seen anything incriminating against the Ramseys. They were at the house that night- that's about it. Of course, that's JMHO.

Crimekid

08-19-2006, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Arizona

If the Ramseys was covering their tracks then they also would have been trying to be as logical as they could be and I think that would have included some excuse for the pineapple.

Histrionic and Narcissistic people will embellish ANY story given the chance. And one that is lying will add details to further embellish any given incident...ofen to the point that it is indefinable to anyone else that knew of or may have been present.

~just my thoughts

:patriot:

Pennibelle

08-19-2006, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by watson
I'd have to agree with rosy... the election was 2004, and John Ramsey lost, BUT the really INTERESTING thing to me was WHY he would run at all? In 2004 there was no confessed suspect, Patsy's cancer had not yet returned, the whole country (rightly or wrongly) suspected that Ramsey might have had something to do with his daughters murder. <snipped for space> I always wondered if his bid for Congress didn't show a grandiose out of touch with reality fantasy life on Ramsey's part.

Maybe he ran because he knew (knows) in his very 'being' that he is innocent. Just a point of view.

nuisanceposter

08-19-2006, 11:07 PM

[

LI_Mom

08-20-2006, 11:51 AM

Here's an article that they posted & talked about over at FreeRepublic, a VERY conservative and diehard Republican site.

(excerpt)

Not everyone in Ramsey's district cares for him, however.

"I don't think that he has a prayer, to tell you the truth," said Charlevoix resident Russ Mize, a Republican. "Because when they (area residents) hear his name, they're disgusted."

He paused as he finished up his breakfast at Judy's, a no-frills Charlevoix diner where local politics often get hashed out over hash browns.

"I know I'm disgusted. But I can't speak for everyone."

Mize then uttered a phrase often voiced, especially by people who choose to say far less about Ramsey than Mize did: "I have to live in this town."

Name recognition a value?

Charlevoix claims a population of only about 3,000 while in the grips of its relentless winter but 20,000 in the summer. Locals joke there are two seasons, winter and the Fourth of July.

And there's this one: Summer's going to be on a Tuesday this year.

It is a small enough town that visitors with notepads and cameras find they have a hard time arriving anywhere unannounced; somehow, word of their itinerary precedes them.

So John and Patsy Ramsey are well known in Charlevoix - and were well known before they became fodder for books, talk shows, supermarket weeklies.

As Mize conceded with a laugh, "You can't say that voters won't recognize the name."

That may be John Ramsey's greatest advantage.

But it also may be John Ramsey's downfall.

Political pundit Larry Sabato makes no claim to any specific knowledge of Michigan northwoods politics.

But Sabato, author of Sabato's Crystal Ball Web site and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, can't imagine Ramsey's baggage not dragging him down and out of the race well short of the finish line.

"There no way," said Sabato. "If he picked Louisiana or New Jersey, I might have seen it. They're inclined to elect unusual people. But not Michigan. It's very stable. That's Gerry Ford territory."

The full article & poster comments here:

http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1131989/posts

Amy

08-20-2006, 01:18 PM

Interesting that Mize first says "when area residents hear his name, they are disgusted." Then, he does graciously admit that he "can't speak for everyone."

That's the trouble with comments like that. Sure, and maybe the folks HE hangs around with are "disgusted" with John/Patsy Ramsey. But, what about all the folk he does NOT assosciate with?

Even in a town as small as 3000, there are cliques---and, while "Everyone might know everyone else" that does NOT mean that they all know each other's political views.

Since Mr Ramsey only lost by 500 votes, evidently there were plenty of people who were NOT "disgusted" by him. Or, maybe there were just MORE "disgusted" with his opponent(s)?

LI_Mom

08-20-2006, 01:31 PM

Yes, I caught how Mize covered his butt. lol

But if you read the comments left by conservative Republicans after the article, you'll see they did not feel he was someone they wanted in their party.

Ramsey lost by 500 votes BUT he only got 24% of the votes, that's hardly a good turnout.

John Ramsey picked up 24 percent of the vote and finished about 500 votes behind attorney Kevin Elsenheimer in the rural northern Michigan district.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics/main633681.shtml

SundayMoon

08-20-2006, 07:42 PM

I'm bringing this back up because I think I made a few valid points in my first post and still really haven't seen anything explaining them. For example, why would John unstage a staged crime scene?

killingvector

08-20-2006, 10:35 PM

Next to the bowl of pineapple was a water glass from which someone had drunken tea. Patsy said that no one in the house drank tea from a water glass. Fingerprint analysis found only burke and patsy's prints on the glass.

It is conceivable that the killer gave JBR pineapple while drinking a glass of tea; perhaps time to write the ransom note.

The tea glass was discussed on Court TV's 10th anniversary special on the JBR murder.

weepy willa

08-20-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror
People are thinking too logically. IMO, the story of what occurred after the party was rehearsed AFTER her murder, which at that point would not be two logical, rational human beings discussing their evening.

The simplest response, and the easiest to remember, would be that 'Jonbenet fell asleep on the ride home. We put her to bed.' End of story.

There were obvious problems with the Ramsey story. But, a botched investigation from the very first second LE walked into the Ramsey home made a rather cut and dry case one that will never be 'solved' in a court of law.

IMOOC

When our kiddies fall asleep in the car, we bring them in and put them to bed as they are,taking off the coat,shoes. I doubt if they undressed her, and made her go potty. IMO ,JBR, woke up later,after wetting her bed, and woke up Patsy, who became enraged. Did they say whether or not the clothes from that night was soiled?

hohum

08-20-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Denise36
I was talking specifically about that particular handwriting "analysis." C'mon computer terms? What kind of stretch is that?

I haven't seen anything incriminating against the Ramseys. They were at the house that night- that's about it. Of course, that's JMHO.

And that's about all they had. The Ramsey's were at their home that night.

weepy willa

08-20-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by killingvector
Next to the bowl of pineapple was a water glass from which someone had drunken tea. Patsy said that no one in the house drank tea from a water glass. Fingerprint analysis found only burke and patsy's prints on the glass.

It is conceivable that the killer gave JBR pineapple while drinking a glass of tea; perhaps time to write the ransom note.

The tea glass was discussed on Court TV's 10th anniversary special on the JBR murder.

Patsy's remark about knowing the difference from a tea glass and a water glass,shows she was a by the book woman. Maybe PRtook JBR downstairs to have a chat about her bed -wetting.They were going to Michigan the next day,and probably ,IMO,lectured her about what her grandparents would say about her little problem.

Angelina

08-20-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by weepy willa

Patsy's remark about knowing the difference from a tea glass and a water glass,shows she was a by the book woman. Maybe PRtook JBR downstairs to have a chat about her bed -wetting.They were going to Michigan the next day,and probably ,IMO,lectured her about what her grandparents would say about her little problem.

Why discuss with the child what could happen on their trip then bash her head in, tie her up and strangle her?:rolleyes:

hohum

08-20-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by weepy willa

Patsy's remark about knowing the difference from a tea glass and a water glass,shows she was a by the book woman. Maybe PRtook JBR downstairs to have a chat about her bed -wetting.They were going to Michigan the next day,and probably ,IMO,lectured her about what her grandparents would say about her little problem.

The Ramsey's were going to meet John's children from his first marriage in Michigan then on to a Disney cruise, "the big red boat." Who said anything about the grandparents being there?

Why in the world would Patsy bring JB downstairs, even to the basement, to "discuss" the bedwetting issue?

SundayMoon

08-20-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by weepy willa

Patsy's remark about knowing the difference from a tea glass and a water glass,shows she was a by the book woman. Maybe PRtook JBR downstairs to have a chat about her bed -wetting.They were going to Michigan the next day,and probably ,IMO,lectured her about what her grandparents would say about her little problem.

So then Patsy tied JonBenet up, garroted her, duct taped her mouth, bashed her skull in, took her down to the basement, wrote a 3 page ransom note, and pretended to be distraught all because JonBenet wet the bed? Especially when there was no history of any kind of abuse? Don't buy it!

barbsthoughts

08-20-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Arizona
The Ramseys would have been smart enough to break a window or leave a door unlocked to make it appear an intruder got in.

I agree.

barbsthoughts

08-20-2006, 11:04 PM

merical

08-20-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror

Yet, she said she didn't do it. :shrug:

Well, I would think that Patsy's fingerprints are pretty much going to be on all the dishes and glasses if she is the one who does the dishes or unloads the dishwasher, so I don't find anything odd about that...I'll bet there isn't a dish in my home that doesn't have my fingerprints on it...my fantasy maid doesn't do dishes....:D

SundayMoon

08-20-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

I have suspected Burke all along.

Why? What would be the motive? How would he know how to use a garrote? I can't imagine Burke going to his parents' room saying, "I just accidentally killed JonBenet". Then the Ramseys running around trying to cover it up.

Angelina

08-20-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

I have suspected Burke all along.

Well, I dont see how you could suspect him ALL ALONG. I have considered and speculated the possibility. That is it, there is not enough proof, to suspect Burke all along. JMHO

killingvector

08-20-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

Well, I dont see how you could suspect him ALL ALONG. I have considered and speculated the possibility. That is it, there is not enough proof, to suspect Burke all along. JMHO

The 8 inch long skull fracture pretty much eliminated Burke from my consideration.

Angelina

08-20-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by merical

Well, I would think that Patsy's fingerprints are pretty much going to be on all the dishes and glasses if she is the one who does the dishes or unloads the dishwasher, so I don't find anything odd about that...I'll bet there isn't a dish in my home that doesn't have my fingerprints on it...my fantasy maid doesn't do dishes....:D

I bet every clean dish in my home has my print on it. Now the dirty dishes, are probably plastered with everyone's fingerprints. :mad: It is not fair.

Angelina

08-20-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by killingvector

The 8 inch long skull fracture pretty much eliminated Burke from my consideration.

It is possible, but extremely unlikely IMHO. By son tied his bike to a come along(straps with latches) hung it from a tree. :rolleyes: Was swinging it back and forth while trying to ride the bike, I dont know why he did this. Well, anyway the come along slipped off of the tree branch he came crashing to the ground and the latches on the come along centered the top of his head. It busted it his head open about two inches, but didnt damage his skull, thank goodness. The force it would take to make a crack in a skull that is 8.5 inches in length would be amazing strong. I am wondering if maybe it was more than just one good swing, I read some articles that stated they believed it took many swings to cause this much damage. :( Just horrible.

bookratt

08-21-2006, 12:09 AM

any of these following possibilities can be imagined:

Burke kills JB, take your pick how and why: just playing with JB, sexually, wrestling around or in earnest out of jealousy or pushing her down the spiral staircase or dangling her over it and letting go, boom, she cracks skull, dies instantly ---not his intention, maybe he meant to scare her or perhaps hurt her a little "to show her", but she dies by accident is the end result. Mom and dad cover up. There was a bat in the yard and even a 9 year old could swing that and hit hard enough to crack the skull. Not sure how garotte fits in there, but...maybe John goes overboard on the "we MUST make it look like an ADULT did this, so I will do the ugly stuff and Patsy, you go write the note".

OR

JB found dead earlier than reported to police: whoever found her , probably Patsy, immediately jumps to conclusion it is either Burke or John (perhaps because of something she saw or knew already that lead her to that conclusion) and she covers up with note, etc; then she finds out it WASN'T who she thought it was, it actually was an outsider. Too late now, she already wrote the note and changed the scene, etc.

OR

John, who was once in the military (perhaps at Subic Bay Training Center ie: SBTC?????), killed her---why or how I don't know. Perhaps disciplining her, perhaps an accident. Perhaps sexually. A Navy man may have known the knots or a military man the garotte as killing tool. He then used what was at hand, ie: Patsy's paintbrush, rope from the basement, etc. He was taking sleeping pills regularly, took them that night--could they have reacted with alcohol he drank at the party and elsewhere that night?

OR

Patsy, angry or out of it, who I understand was taking something but I don't know what, hurt JB---again by accident, or perhaps with intent to hurt but not KILL, then whatever happened got out of hand. JB dies. They then both jump into cover-up mode.

OR

Someone other than the 3 of them--they say only the three of them were there but I am not so sure of that---are you?--did it and they knew it. They found the body or the person confessed and they do the cover up. Not sure who or why but that note BOTHERS me and so does the pineapple. So does the lack of fingerprints where we expect them to be , the inconsistancies in statements they made, etc.

I am so hoping and praying it wasn't them or Burke, but how can I feel any other way than use my own common sense to make sense of all the oddities, I always end up with them involved. The "evidence" is so contaminated, the witness (Ramsey's)statements so unbelieveable, even the usable dna is so contaminated I am concerned it will not be incontrovertible evidence---it will lead to "highly likely but not provable".

And we will be right back here again in a year or two pondering the unknowable.

Yeah, I know they both said the rope wasn't there before BUT they also said the bear in JB's room wasn't either and yet Patsy had been there with JB at the pageant she had received it from, less than 2 weeks earlier, and still said she never saw it before.

I am betting either they knew the rope was there and lied or they just don't know what they actually own, since they have so much in there and the house is so large. But in either case why KEEP INSISTING IT WASN'T THERE? Why not just say, I don't know, I don't think so, I haven't seen it before now.

Either way, it's their blanket she was found in, the tape was theirs on her face, the paintbrush was theirs also, the note paper, the pen to write the note with--so I am betting the rope is too. Perhaps the reason Patsy's sweater fiber was on the rope was the rope had previously been handled by her---perhaps to dry sweaters on?

Not Telling

08-21-2006, 03:24 AM

DixieChick

08-21-2006, 03:24 AM

barbsthoughts

08-21-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by SundayMoon
Remember that John found JonBenet's body and loosened the ligatures and took the duct tape off her mouth. If the crime scene was staged to look like an intruder then why would John UNstage the scene before anyone else saw it.

John would let someone else find the body if he was the guilty party. He would want someone else to view the "staged" crime scene.

Patsy denies giving JonBenet the pineapple. If she were guilty then why wouldn't she just say, "Yeah, I gave her pineapple." She had no reason to lie about that.

JonBenet didn't have an abusive history. I can't imagine that parents who don't beat their children would suddenly bash a child's skull in, wrap a rope with a garrote around the child's neck, and duct tape her face. Even so-called loving parents that suddenly snap and kill a child drown or poison the child so it's a "clean" kill and then wrap the child up lovingly in a blanket or make the child "comfortable". Patsy seemed like she doted on JonBenet and had she killed her in a fit of rage then I would think she would have wrapped her up in a more "comfortable" position.

JMO for what it's worth.

Pineapple, shimapple. It was an inside job, someone or more than one person in the Ramsey family is guilty. There may or may not be accomplices. Don't pick me for a juror to decide their innocence.

barbsthoughts

08-21-2006, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by killingvector

The 8 inch long skull fracture pretty much eliminated Burke from my consideration.

Why?

killingvector

08-21-2006, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

Why?

Because the amount of force it would require to cause that much of an injury would be difficult for a 8 or 9 year old child to muster. In addition, even if a young child were capable of such devastating afflictions on another human being, there would be a history of violent behavior: animal mutiliations, anti social behavior at school....

aproudmom

08-21-2006, 09:07 AM

:cuss:
I am sorry but I don't know why it matters if JR ran for a elected position. To the ones that want to keep judging the Ramsey's maybe they need to remember they have never be convicted of anything and believe me I think we all know they were convicted from day one and it still continues to this day. These parents lost a very special thing JonBenet so why do people want to pass judgement on them they have the right to live there life and do as they please and run for election who are we to judge someone that has not been found guilty of anything. And who cares if he lost by 500 votes or 5000 if he ran in 2004 that was 8 years after his daughter was murdered. I get sick and tired of people trying to just find every little thing to try to make the Ramsey's look bad and most of it has nothing to do with JonBenet. So get a life. When/IF he is ever found guilty then pass judgement.

What about the creep that says he did do it. I keep hearing that even though he has confessed he is innocent until proven guilty....I pray Karr did do it so all the people who have blamed the parents can be proven wrong..but I am sure someone will come up with some excuss like they hired Karr to do it..I think I have heard it all for the past 10 years. And don't believe everything you read in the papers....that is not a good place to find the true facts..

Justice for JonBenet and her Family:rose:

athy

08-21-2006, 09:26 AM

this isn't a suggested motive of everything but for me its part of what suggestes it wasn't a Ramsey.

from my understanding someone rapes another person with an object in order to humiliate that person. if this was done by a pediphile its possible the person was of the opinion that jon benet (or her family) thought they were better than everyone else because of their money. he could have used the paintbrush as a way of humiliating her because in his mind she rejected his advances, friendship...whatever.

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by skye

I agree. JonBenet was her life, think about it! She was so wrapped up in her daughters beauty pageants etc that she would never, ever have done anything to kill the child, much less mutilate or physically harm her. I do think PR had 'boundary issues' ie she was living her own life vicariously through JB. Absolutely NO WAY she would have harmed her, Jonbenet was an extension of her own ego (psychologically) and for anyone who has knowledge of these issues, you cannot conceive of PR being the killer.

Sometimes, you cant see the forest for the trees.

I can conceive of her being the killer, especially if it was done accidentally, then made to look like a murder. I also think Patsy was having a very difficult time battling ovarian cancer, living her life through her daughter, etc. People do lose their temper and do things they wish they hadn't, then panic. What I can't conceive of, or have not seen proof of, is that anyone outside the house was involved.

JMO.

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by athy
this isn't a suggested motive of everything but for me its part of what suggestes it wasn't a Ramsey.

from my understanding someone rapes another person with an object in order to humiliate that person. if this was done by a pediphile its possible the person was of the opinion that jon benet (or her family) thought they were better than everyone else because of their money. he could have used the paintbrush as a way of humiliating her because in his mind she rejected his advances, friendship...whatever.

Thank you for providing a reason for suspecting it is not one of the Ramseys.

I don't think she was raped. The autopsy report says there was "chronic interstitial inflammation" of the vagina, but no rape. At least, if there was, I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

I'm not saying she wasn't, just that I can't find it in the autopsy report.

Denise36

08-21-2006, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I can conceive of her being the killer, especially if it was done accidentally, then made to look like a murder. I also think Patsy was having a very difficult time battling ovarian cancer, living her life through her daughter, etc. People do lose their temper and do things they wish they hadn't, then panic. What I can't conceive of, or have not seen proof of, is that anyone outside the house was involved.

JMO. The people I know who have had or have cancer don't usually sweat the small stuff if you know what I mean. Of course, that's just my opinion but it seems to me that people that are facing possible death from disease and are aware that they might not have very long to live value life more and especially value the time that they have with their loved ones. And hence, Patsy was probably more patient with her children. IMHO

Also, I cannot conceive how that massive blow to the head could have possibly not been intentional.

Denise36

08-21-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Thank you for providing a reason for suspecting it is not one of the Ramseys.

I don't think she was raped. The autopsy report says there was "chronic interstitial inflammation" of the vagina, but no rape. At least, if there was, I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

I'm not saying she wasn't, just that I can't find it in the autopsy report. What do you think the blood in her underwear was from, if she wasn't penetrated?

Regina.Lampert

08-21-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Arizona
The Ramseys would have been smart enough to break a window or leave a door unlocked to make it appear an intruder got in. There were numerous windows found to be unlocked and the security system, that night, was conveniently turned off.

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Patsy had been in remission for at least two years. Living her life THROUGH her daughter? Patsy was very involved in many aspects of "living" and not everything centered around JonBenet.
JMO

Sheesh.........

Please direct your post to the OP who said Patsy was living her life through her daughter and not to me. I did not say that and I do not believe she was living through JonBenet. In my opinion, Patsy had a life independent of her daughter.

If you read the posts, I only said I could see her accidentally killing her daughter, then covering it up and I said dealing with cancer must be difficult. (JMO) I know even if cancer has been in remission for two years, it is not considered "cured" and Patsy was, indeed, NOT cured. The fact that she died from ovarian cancer proves that.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

There's no need to be rude simply because someone disagrees with you. IMO, it doesn't convert anyone to your way of thinking or add to a construction discussion of the facts.

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Denise36
What do you think the blood in her underwear was from, if she wasn't penetrated?

I have never seen any documented evidence that there was blood in her underwear, only a stain.

Would you please provide a link, as we are requested to do?

Regina.Lampert

08-21-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by skye

I agree. JonBenet was her life, think about it! She was so wrapped up in her daughters beauty pageants etc that she would never, ever have done anything to kill the child, much less mutilate or physically harm her. I do think PR had 'boundary issues' ie she was living her own life vicariously through JB. Absolutely NO WAY she would have harmed her, Jonbenet was an extension of her own ego (psychologically) and for anyone who has knowledge of these issues, you cannot conceive of PR being the killer.

Sometimes, you cant see the forest for the trees. ....unless Jon Benet began to balk at participating in these events and PR lost patience with her.

I believe this murder was committed by someone living in that house too.

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
There were numerous windows found to be unlocked and the security system, that night, was conveniently turned off.

Do you know if the security system was turned off just for that night or if it had been broken, etc.? I've been looking for a document that states something about this but can't find it.

IMO, Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter then tried to cover up her crime. I think the facts point in that direction only.

JMO

Denise36

08-21-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I have never seen any documented evidence that there was blood in her underwear, only a stain.

Would you please provide a link, as we are requested to do? You posted about the autopsy report, so I assume you know where to find it. Usually blood is needed to make a blood stain. Also, dried blood was found on her genitals. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

Prima~Facie

08-21-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
There were numerous windows found to be unlocked and the security system, that night, was conveniently turned off. It's this very fact that bugs the crap out of me. Of all night's for it to be off JonBenet dies. I'm trying to think of reason's for it to be off. But why have an alarm system and not use it? People on here have told me certain reasons' why it could have been off, but it still bugs me.

Denise36

08-21-2006, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
....unless Jon Benet began to balk at participating in these events and PR lost patience with her.

I believe this murder was committed by someone living in that house too. Or maybe JonBenet said she wasn't eating her vegetables anymore, or maybe she changed her favorite color from pink to blue and it ticked Patsy off because her favorite color was pink. Maybe, she sassed her mom! Sure, I'm sure that would cause a mother (who btw, has never shown any deviant or violent behavior) to suddenly grab some heavy object and hit her daughter so hard that she causes a gaping hole in her skull. Sure, I buy that. JMHO:rolleyes:

Denise36

08-21-2006, 10:02 AM

sunsplashed

08-21-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by SundayMoon
But if Patsy gave her pineapple then there's no harm in saying so. She has no reaosn to lie about that.

IMO, Patsy did have reason to lie about the pineapple. If she told LE that she gave JB the pineapple, the next questions would probably have been, "Why didn't you put JB in her pajamas/nightgown?" IMO, Patsy lied about the pineapple to cover up the fact that she and JB were up all night and neither had gone to bed.

Also, the autopsy report states that the pineapple was not digested. That means it was given to JB shortly before her death. If Patsy had admitted giving it to her, the question would have come up as to why she did not hear an intruder take JB from her room, take her to the basement, and murder her, write a note, and then leave.

JMO, of course.

Regina.Lampert

08-21-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Numerous windows were not found to be unlocked in the Ramseys home. One window was found open - a window that John Ramsey had broken several months before when he got locked out. I'm pretty sure you are incorrect about the windows. I just heard or read this. Perhaps it was on last night's msnbc show or in a link this morning, but I am sticking with the fact that numerous windows were found to be unlocked.

BTW, it is a fact that the basement window was open to the room where Jon Benet was found.

rrsafety

08-21-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Prima~Facie
It's this very fact that bugs the crap out of me. Of all night's for it to be off JonBenet dies. I'm trying to think of reason's for it to be off. But why have an alarm system and not use it? People on here have told me certain reasons' why it could have been off, but it still bugs me.

They say they seldom used the alarm and were naive about crime in the area.

I am the same way. We have an alarm and do not use it at night.

Denise36

08-21-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

IMO, Patsy did have reason to lie about the pineapple. If she told LE that she gave JB the pineapple, the next questions would probably have been, "Why didn't you put JB in her pajamas/nightgown?" IMO, Patsy lied about the pineapple to cover up the fact that she and JB were up all night and neither had gone to bed.

Also, the autopsy report states that the pineapple was not digested. That means it was given to JB shortly before her death. If Patsy had admitted giving it to her, the question would have come up as to why she did not hear an intruder take JB from her room, take her to the basement, and murder her, write a note, and then leave.

JMO, of course. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet7.html The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. It says "may" be pineapple. It also says it was in her small intestine and not her stomach.

Regina.Lampert

08-21-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Denise36
Or maybe JonBenet said she wasn't eating her vegetables anymore, or maybe she changed her favorite color from pink to blue and it ticked Patsy off because her favorite color was pink. Maybe, she sassed her mom! Sure, I'm sure that would cause a mother (who btw, has never shown any deviant or violent behavior) to suddenly grab some heavy object and hit her daughter so hard that she causes a gaping hole in her skull. Sure, I buy that. JMHO:rolleyes: There are numerous reasons why a parent kills a child.

Regina.Lampert

08-21-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

From what I've read only one window was unlocked so I'll just say - IMO.

Link to floor plans - there is no window in the room where JonBenet was found.

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

This is what I posted:

BTW, it is a fact that the basement window was open to the room where Jon Benet was found.

SteelerFan

08-21-2006, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

IMO, Patsy did have reason to lie about the pineapple. If she told LE that she gave JB the pineapple, the next questions would probably have been, "Why didn't you put JB in her pajamas/nightgown?" IMO, Patsy lied about the pineapple to cover up the fact that she and JB were up all night and neither had gone to bed.

Also, the autopsy report states that the pineapple was not digested. That means it was given to JB shortly before her death. If Patsy had admitted giving it to her, the question would have come up as to why she did not hear an intruder take JB from her room, take her to the basement, and murder her, write a note, and then leave.

JMO, of course.

The pineapples are important because she told police JB was asleep and put to bed. Eating requires one to have been awake. This would mean possible interaction and events that could have led to the death. You can't have it both ways.

nuisanceposter

08-21-2006, 11:41 AM

People don't need to try and find every little thing to make the Ramseys look bad - they do that just fine on their own.

Example: defunct JonBenet Ramsey Foundation, dead tipline and website. Ramsey can run for office but he can't be bothered to maintain the appearance of searching for "the real killer".

hohum

08-21-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by skye

I have to agree with you and I find it puzzling that people are so willing to stretch their imaginations far enough to suspect a lady who does not have demonstrable psychopathology in the past, or since. What is is about Patsy that we are uncomfortable with. I agree I toyed with the idea but each time I went back to the beginning and reconsidered... I realized Id been watching too much CSI. If she believed her life may be shortened by ovarian cancer, she would have been concerned about her little girls future. Im not saying shes a saint but c'mon folks...

If you look at the profiles of other infamous females who kill their children, they are young, unstable and it 'comes out' in the process of the trial. Patsy is neither.

A voice of reason.

Where in the world have you been when we needed you here posting before the story of Karr broke? And it was just a couple of us holding down the fort :beer:

DixieChick

08-21-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Kay Crowley

If you read the autopsy report of JBR, you will find that the coroner said the material found in her stomach resembled pineapple; he did not say for sure that it was pineapple.

Another thought is, maybe it was undigested because JB wasn't feeling well. My digestive system sometimes shuts down when I am ill. She could have eaten it at the party shortly before coming home....

LI_Mom

08-21-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Kay Crowley

If you read the autopsy report of JBR, you will find that the coroner said the material found in her stomach resembled pineapple; he did not say for sure that it was pineapple.

Well, since there was a bowl of pineapple on the table and she had something that 'resembled pinapple' in her digestive track that had been eaten recently, it would seem that the possibility is VERY, VERY high that she ate the pineapple.

LI_Mom

08-21-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Kay Crowley

The DNA found on JBR did not match John, Patsy or Burke.

The blood did not match any Ramseys. And the stuff under her nails did not.

The fiber evidence found on her body DID seem to match the Ramseys.

Jeff_H

08-21-2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The blood did not match any Ramseys. And the stuff under her nails did not.

The fiber evidence found on her body DID seem to match the Ramseys.

john carried JBR up from the basement.
patsy reportedly threw herself on JBR's body after it was brought upstairs...

Athena

08-21-2006, 11:57 PM

I'd like all who believe Patsy or Burke for that matter killed JRB just read 'the history of the garrote" that I posted on the CTV "A Closer Look" which gives a vivid description of how it is used. While you are reading it, really visualize what using it does -- and then come back here and convince me that ANY member of the family could have done that to JRB or any sane person for that matter.

Whoever used that weapon had to have some knowledge of what it is and how to use it and also had to be a really sick, perverted person not one just filled with rage for a child wetting the bed or a jealous brother. jmo

hohum

08-22-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Athena
I'd like all who believe Patsy or Burke for that matter killed JRB just read 'the history of the garrote" that I posted on the CTV "A Closer Look" which gives a vivid description of how it is used. While you are reading it, really visualize what using it does -- and then come back here and convince me that ANY member of the family could have done that to JRB or any sane person for that matter.

Whoever used that weapon had to have some knowledge of what it is and how to use it and also had to be a really sick, perverted person not one just filled with rage for a child wetting the bed or a jealous brother. jmo

You wouldn't believe the posters on the JB board here before this new development who used to post how easy it was to make a garrote and it never looked easy to me, I can't even secure our boat with a rope that will stay tied. They said oh Patsy could have easily tied that garrote. Right, Patsy's hobby was painting not garrote making.

Athena

08-22-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The blood did not match any Ramseys. And the stuff under her nails did not.

The fiber evidence found on her body DID seem to match the Ramseys.

I would think fiber found on a family member in their house would not be unusual. If this crime had not happened in the house or her body had been removed -- half of the innuendos pointing to a family member wouldn't even be an issue.

The more I read, decipher and understand, the more I do not believe it was a Ramsey that killed JRB.

There was no rage killing, no cover up (cover up of what?); the murder was cold, calculated and JRB was tortured. She suffered a horrific death but not at the hands of a family member. :rose:

DixieChick

08-22-2006, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I would think fiber found on a family member in their house would not be unusual. If this crime had not happened in the house or her body had been removed -- half of the innuendos pointing to a family member wouldn't even be an issue.

The more I read, decipher and understand, the more I do not believe it was a Ramsey that killed JRB.

There was no rage killing, no cover up (cover up of what?); the murder was cold, calculated and JRB was tortured. She suffered a horrific death but not at the hands of a family member. :rose:

Athena... In the report presented to the Grand Jury it states the "hair and fiber did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey household" Just more false info. from the BPD.

ssbailey02

08-22-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
If I killed my child & wanted to cover up, I would want to leave as many 'clues' of an intruder as I could... so the police would look AWAY from my family.

And so the opposite should apply. If an intruder committed the crime, surely he would want to make it look as much like an 'in house' job as possible. He didn't though! With the ransom note he's pointed the finger right back at himself!!! IMO

Angelina

08-22-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Prima~Facie
It's this very fact that bugs the crap out of me. Of all night's for it to be off JonBenet dies. I'm trying to think of reason's for it to be off. But why have an alarm system and not use it? People on here have told me certain reasons' why it could have been off, but it still bugs me.

John Ramsey said in his interview that they left the alarm off all the time, the fire protection was on, but not the security feature. They ask him why and he said because it would go off sometimes accidentally, and scare them half to death. He ended with saying I was scared it was going to give me a heartache.

DixieChick

08-22-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Angelina

John Ramsey said in his interview that they left the alarm off all the time, the fire protection was on, but not the security feature. They ask him why and he said because it would go off sometimes accidentally, and scare them half to death. He ended with saying I was scared it was going to give me a heartache.

Not uncommon. I use mine only when I'm not home. But also, mine isn't wired to all the windows anyway.

Jadedblueeyes

08-22-2006, 01:03 AM

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Angelina

Have you read the handwriting analysis regarding the Ramson note? It is hours of reading, I felt like you did about the Ramsey's until I read that report. It is very damaging to Patsy. They analyize not only the handwriting but also the form in which it is written. I assure you if you read it, it will floor you. I know it floored me. But, like I said be it is very very long.

Was a man on Fox today who said there were many experts who analyzed that ransom note and few of them who believed Patsy wrote it.

Does anyone know if anything that's been said or speculated about this case is actually true or not? Outside of the fact the child was dead for sure?

I've seen documentaries where both camps views are presented. Some think the parents killed the child & some say evidence was hidden and/or overlooked that prove an intruder did it.

Which leaves us at square one. Definitely. Nobody knows who killed the little girl.

Handwriting analysis is not an absolute science.

I have no idea who killed the child, but I never believed the parents were sexual sadists. And a sexual sadist definitely tortured and murdered that poor child.

If the parents are sexual sadists they've had a decade to find evidence to prove it. It's not there.

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by ssbailey02

With the ransom note he's pointed the finger right back at himself!!! IMO

No wonder they were able to pinpoint him so fast.

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by samsong

There is no definitive answer to this. It could be or it may not be.

The garotte was definitely used on that poor child. According to documentaries that have been on tv about the case. They said the autopsy showed multiple bruises on her neck where the garatte was used on her.

I don't believe there's any evidence to show either of the parents are sexual sadists. Since the parents aren't sexual sadists & a sexual sadist murdered her I don't see how the parents could've done it.

Sexual sadism isn't a one-time deal. It's what a person is for all of their lives and the evidence is there to show what they are.

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror

The pineapple was in the bowl. Burke and Patsy's prints were on the bowl; the maid's were not. Jonbenet's prints were not on the bowl, yet the pineapple was in Jonbenet's system. Someone fed it to her.

If it's true about the bowl it is a puzzling aspect but still it doesn't prove one way or another who killed the child. It doesn't even get us any closer to solving anything about this case.

Is it possible that Patsy's & Burke's prints could have been put on the outside of the bowl and never successfully washed off at another point in time?

It's anybody's guess.

I don't think that bowl will help solve this case, anyway.

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Angelina

I have thought about this myself. Remember I am speculating, I am a fence sitter. Patsy and John by all accounts were great parents, who would do anything for their children. Now, knowing that, if Burke accidentally killed Jonbenet, what lengths do you think they would go to in order to protect him. If they knew Jonbenet was dead, their precious baby, gone, wouldnt they do everything in their power to keep what was left of the family together? I think it is possible.

It wasn't an accident though. A stun gun, garatte and her head bashed in.

A sexual sadist murdered her.

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:47 AM

ssbailey02

08-22-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Adalena935

No wonder they were able to pinpoint him so fast.

LMAO - loving the sense of humour!!!!

By 'himself' I am referring to 'himself the intuder' rather than specifically JMK.

:biggrin:

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I have never seen any documented evidence that there was blood in her underwear, only a stain.

Would you please provide a link, as we are requested to do?

Fox & MSNBC have talked about it numerous times over the weekend and today. Nancy Grace on CNN also. And numerous documentaries on this case over the years on A&E.

"FOREIGN DNA" on her panties. blood.

You can probably google it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=jonbenet+blood+panties

Results 1 - 10 of about 28,400 for jonbenet blood panties. (0.22 seconds)

Adalena935

08-22-2006, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by ssbailey02

LMAO - loving the sense of humour!!!!

By 'himself' I am referring to 'himself the intuder' rather than specifically JMK.

:biggrin:

That's what I referred to also. 'himself the intruder'

Paisley

08-22-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Angelina

I found one of the links I read. See what you think.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404 I think it's hogwash.

Paisley

08-22-2006, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by ssbailey02

And so the opposite should apply. If an intruder committed the crime, surely he would want to make it look as much like an 'in house' job as possible. He didn't though! With the ransom note he's pointed the finger right back at himself!!! IMO Yes because a man like that is going to enjoy the idea of the Ramseys reading this note and revel in the power it is giving him. He at no point thinks he is ever going to get caught, and that he has every right to be in their house. I'm guessing he wrote the not first, boosting his own confidence, and then went upstairs to get her. He would have been too hyped up after the killing to write anything legible.

Something went wrong with the kidnapping, perhaps he couldn't get her out of the window, or she put up such a fight that he killed her.

Rapists will also blame the victim if they are not getting the sexual pleasure out of the act that they expect, and it causes rage, this is the most dangerous point for the victim because it is likely they will loose their life at that time.

Any theory I've read about the Ramsey's guilt has been a load of crap.

ferretplay

08-22-2006, 08:16 AM

Jonbenet had told someone,santa was going to visit her that night.When the intruder took her from her bed,maybe,she believed it had to do with santa.If it was MK ,I could see him or someone like him,telling her it was a secret,quiet.MK was so in love with her ,those kind of people do try to gain the victims trust,he could have fed her pineapple.He has said ,something,like he relates to children.When he tried to take her to the basement,she resisted & he started to lose control of the situation.He could have easily researched the Ramsey family & info.,about anything.Look how obessed he is about Jonbenet.She could have said something to make him lose control.Like, he surely wouldn't have taken rejection from her too well. Have you watched all the perverts that show up to the bait house for pedophiles on ,I think MSNBC specials.SICK PERVERTS!$^&^%$%#@#$^&^&*&*^*(MY HONEST OPINION:cuss:

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 10:21 AM

A couple of quick questions, thanks for any help you can provide:

1) Is there an online source for the "interview" done with Burke? Have the contents of that interview been make public?

2) To anyone's knowledge, was this question ever asked of John and/or Patsy: "Did Burke or JonBenet ever help with loading or unloading the dishwasher?"

3) Does anyone know if the spoon found in the bowl of pineapple had a finger print on it?

Thanks for any help.

msgatorslayer

08-22-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by hohum

You wouldn't believe the posters on the JB board here before this new development who used to post how easy it was to make a garrote and it never looked easy to me, I can't even secure our boat with a rope that will stay tied. They said oh Patsy could have easily tied that garrote. Right, Patsy's hobby was painting not garrote making.

The rope knots don't look that difficult to me. But I am a firm believer that not just anybody would have the IDEA of using a garrotte to kill someone. It's not a normal killing instrument. Far from it. IMO

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer

The rope knots don't look that difficult to me. But I am a firm believer that not just anybody would have the IDEA of using a garrotte to kill someone. It's not a normal killing instrument. Far from it. IMO

Good point... it is probable that I could come up with knots similar to what was used if I thought about it, but the concept of using a slip knot noose (similar to a dog's choke collar) with the end of the rope attached to a piece of wood as a murder method seems far fetched to someone who is "in the main stream of American life". Since the Ramsey were never found to have dabbled in "alternative" lifestyles, I think it unlikely they would come up with a garrote ... it's not the knot that bothers me, its the concept as a whole.

bookratt

08-22-2006, 10:51 AM

etc, all could easily make and use the knots. And unfortunately, the strength needed to subdue a sleepy, slightly built 6 year old who did not suspect until too late what was happeneing to her, probably was not all that great.

The point to a garotte as used here is that the tool does most of the "work", the user simply applies it properly and keeps it there once secured.

It may not have been a sexual game at all. Perhaps it was an accident. Somebody saw something like it in a film or heard about it from a friend, they were playing around and boom--death was the result.

Crafters and sewers like myself know how to secure a knot at one end (tied to a clamp, chair leg, dowel, etc) and twist threads to make coiled cords for drawstrings, for jewelry, for macrame etc. The knots used, the idea, the method; they're all well known and the method is well illustrated in easily available sewing and crafting books.

Campers and crafters, hunters and avid boaters or ex-navy men (like John?) may also have known the technique. Under stress it may have popped up and then been used.

Once, many years ago (and no I am NOT telling how many, a lady never tells her age), when I was a girl scout, we were shown how to make a clothesline out in the woods that used no clothespins or anything to secure the clothes, but would keep the edges or tips of the clothes twisted IN the clothesline so wind wouldn't blow them off while drying.

Guess what were shown how to make, in a larger form, using two trees close together as the "paint brushes" at the ends? We were also shown how to make what was called a pocket clothesline to take with us, which looked suspiciously like what that "garotte" looked like.

Not saying they did it, just saying the parts to construct it were all there and the method, in a slightly different form, may have been familiar to someone close to JB.

msgatorslayer

08-22-2006, 10:56 AM

Another thing that, forgive me if it has been mentioned, but this was Christmas night. A time when everyone is happy, giving a receiving gifts, caught up in family, sitting back thinking about how happy you just made your kids with their gifts, etc.

What parent could get so upset with their child on this special night, and kill them?

Of course, Christmas is a time when more people get depressed, suicidal, and arguments break out within the family, but that happens to people who do not have the money for Christmas.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
RR, this could exactly why they WOULD use this method. Now I do not think they are guilty but....throwing in a few curves.....outside of one's character....:shrug:

The only ones I know that use that method are mobsters. Who was trying to make it look like that?

But your reasoning is circular.... if you agree that using a garrote to murder is completely outside their character, then how would they know about it enough to use it as a "curve"?

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
Another thing that, forgive me if it has been mentioned, but this was Christmas night. A time when everyone is happy, giving a receiving gifts, caught up in family, sitting back thinking about how happy you just made your kids with their gifts, etc.

What parent could get so upset with their child on this special night, and kill them?

Of course, Christmas is a time when more people get depressed, suicidal, and arguments break out within the family, but that happens to people who do not have the money for Christmas.

I tend to agree with this. Given that this was a fairly "normal family" and JonBenet has been described as a pretty nice kid, I find it very hard to believe that she ended up dead as the result of sudden parental rage.

For instance, I have a daughter JonBenet's age.... very sweet. Can get on my nerves, but you can send her to her room, tell her to go play outside, or just discuss things with her if you are angry. This tends to be how "normal people" behave.

However, with my two year old twins, THEY can drive me insane!! When they are in one of their moods, nothing you do can stop their crying and whining. I can understand fully why some inexperienced parents might get so lost in rage and so out of control that "normal parents" might "shaken baby" a young child to death.

However, with a sweet six year old and normal parents, I just don't by the whole arguement that Patsy or John got lost in uncontrolable anger with JonBenet.... if she was a whining two year old, maybe...

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
No it is not circular, it could be how I typed it.
Your question and naiveity is fascinating!

If I want to rob a house I may think to put on size 10 shoes although I wear an 8 as it would be out of the character for me to wear anything other than my own shoe size.

I may not use a garrotte but I sure watch enough gangster movies to know who does use them so if I want to be so far removed from suspicion I, being clever or so I think I am, should use anything least like me.

A garrotte is out of my character but I know of them. And being a mobster would be so far removed from who I am.

Great curve.

So you say that the garrote IS in their character to know about.

I say it is outside of their knowledge base (as it probably was for 80% of Americans in 1996). You can only use a garrote if you know what they are and what they do.... I doubt the Ramseys did.

The use of shoes and shoe sizes is "within" normal people's knowledge base, garrotes are not.

DixieChick

08-22-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Jeff_H

john carried JBR up from the basement.
patsy reportedly threw herself on JBR's body after it was brought upstairs...

It was determined the fibers did NOT match Patsy....or anyone. These fabrications are the reasons people still think Patsy did it.
All do to the BPD. (See Grand Jury findings)

SteelerFan

08-22-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by rrsafety

So you say that the garrote IS in their character to know about.

I say it is outside of their knowledge base (as it probably was for 80% of Americans in 1996). You can only use a garrote if you know what they are and what they do.... I doubt the Ramseys did.

The use of shoes and shoe sizes is "within" normal people's knowledge base, garrotes are not.

How do you personally know anything about the Ramsey's charcter or what went on inside their home?

lisafremont

08-22-2006, 01:31 PM

I can understand why people want to believe a monster entered the house rather than the monsters being IN the house already.

JMO, but I think the majority who fervently defend the Ramseys don't believe that nice couple could be involved.

lucielle

08-22-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by skye

I understand this is your opinion but she does NOT fit the psychological profile given the highly sexualized nature of the killing. I could understand perhaps believing this 10 years ago but behavioral sciences is way more advanced today. Your mind would have to be a double pretzel to even get around the idea that Patsy did this. She couldnt have covered up that type of psychopathology before, and then -after- the murder. NO ONE could mask the rage that drove this killer.

My humble opinion '

Actually much has come out about profiling and its downfalls in the last 5 years. Not very accurate, basically anyone could be a profiler. And most criminals do not adhere to typical profiles, thye are usually 100% original.

Look at Gary Ridgway, Dennis Radar.

Athena

08-22-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
No it is not circular, it could be how I typed it.
Your question and naiveity is fascinating!

If I want to rob a house I may think to put on size 10 shoes although I wear an 8 as it would be out of the character for me to wear anything other than my own shoe size.

I may not use a garrotte but I sure watch enough gangster movies to know who does use them so if I want to be so far removed from suspicion I, being clever or so I think I am, should use anything least like me.

A garrotte is out of my character but I know of them. And being a mobster would be so far removed from who I am.

Great curve.

Please refer to the history of the garrotte in the "A Closer Thread". It is a weapon used for execution. Doubt that too many have the knowledge of making one or even knew what it was -- hell I saw the pictures, read the word and still had to look it up. Prior to realizing what it was and how it was used, I just thought it was a stick with some string around tied around her neck. I wish I still didn't know what it was. I shudder to think of what JBR was suffering.

Anything would be out of character for a non-violent parent -- so it just does not make sense that a garrotte -- a torture weapon would be used to kill a child. jmho

Paisley

08-22-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by lisafremont
I can understand why people want to believe a monster entered the house rather than the monsters being IN the house already.

JMO, but I think the majority who fervently defend the Ramseys don't believe that nice couple could be involved. It's more scary to me to think of someone breaking in my house and harming my children than to think that anyone is capable of accidentally killing their child.

Athena

08-22-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by lisafremont
I can understand why people want to believe a monster entered the house rather than the monsters being IN the house already.

JMO, but I think the majority who fervently defend the Ramseys don't believe that nice couple could be involved.

There are many reasons due to the evidence at hand why I may believe the Ramseys are did not kill JBR but I can assure you it is NOT because they are nice people. NICE has nothing to do with it. NICE people kill everyday. jmho

"Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people."

I Love Books

08-22-2006, 01:59 PM

I'm bringing this back up because I think I made a few valid points in my first post and still really haven't seen anything explaining them. For example, why would John unstage a staged crime scene?

I think your point is that he did the first thing a parent would do if they found their child in that condition........rip off the duct tape and untie the rope.

Well, if I were attempting to look like an innocent, shocked parent, I would try to do what an innocent, shocked parent would do. I doubt the first thought of a parent in that situation would be to not try to help the child because it might contaminate the crime scene.

If it were a "show", that makes perfect sense to me. (Attempting to appear shocked and to "help" her.)

TIAZ

08-22-2006, 02:14 PM

I don't see how anyone can even form an opinion since everything about this case seems to contridict itself. You hear about evidence one day, the next day it was a rumor or lie........Based on that fact, I could never make a fair assessement.

Paisley

08-22-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by TIAZ
I don't see how anyone can even form an opinion since everything about this case seems to contridict itself. You hear about evidence one day, the next day it was a rumor or lie........Based on that fact, I could never make a fair assessement. Our newspaper has (what I consider) unbiased articles about it... it's normal for the information to shift and change a bit...but the television media spins it to the point that it's garbage.

Paisley

08-22-2006, 02:22 PM

LI_Mom

08-22-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by rrsafety

3) Does anyone know if the spoon found in the bowl of pineapple had a finger print on it?

I've never heard anything about the spoon being tested.

And it's a strange ommission.

However, it's next to impossible to believe that an intruder would not leave fingerprints anyplace EXCEPT on the spoon and so we're back to family members.

TIAZ

08-22-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Our newspaper has (what I consider) unbiased articles about it... it's normal for the information to shift and change a bit...but the television media spins it to the point that it's garbage.

I don't understand why it is the way it is with this case. I don't remember getting this kind of mis-information with the Laci Peterson case. Of course that could be because the majority of the public had no sympathy for Scott, and the public seems very sympathetic towards the Ramsey's.

LI_Mom

08-22-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Don't you think that if Patsy and John killed their daughter that they would hide her body so no one would ever find it? If they are such egotistical monsters, wouldn't they hide the crime?

A few possibilities?

And leave her outside on the frozen ground? (FBI profilers think parents would be LESS likely to place the body outdoors.)

And risk a neighbor seeing you drive off in the middle of the night?

And waste valuable time moving the body when people expect you to be up very early in the morning for a trip? (Even if you say you overslept the next day, that looks suspicious & you do NOT want to appear supsicious)

Angelina

08-22-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

A few possibilities?

And leave her outside on the frozen ground? (FBI profilers think parents would be LESS likely to place the body outdoors.)

And risk a neighbor seeing you drive off in the middle of the night?

And waste valuable time moving the body when people expect you to be up very early in the morning for a trip? (Even if you say you overslept the next day, that looks suspicious & you do NOT want to appear supsicious)

Also, if they had moved her in their automoblie, they would have left trace evidence of the move. JMHO Remember this is speculation, I am a fencesitter.

Angelina

08-22-2006, 02:40 PM

Athena

08-22-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I've never heard anything about the spoon being tested.

And it's a strange ommission.

However, it's next to impossible to believe that an intruder would not leave fingerprints anyplace EXCEPT on the spoon and so we're back to family members.

Maybe there was no spoon -- fresh pineapple can be eaten with fingers or JRB could have been fed by hand. I still believe the fingerprints on the bowl is being much too emphasized. I am sure all of my dishes, silverware, cups, glasses, etc would have my fingerprints on them as I put them away out of the dishwasher. An intruder more likely than not would have worn gloves. jmho

Athena

08-22-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by skye

Yeah but why a garotte? Its a tool for assasins.
How many folks on the list would even -think- of using one even if we could envision a murder. People who think like that are in a 'different kind of world' which is very very SINISTER and deliberate.

I take it those posters on the board are still hanging around trying to put the noose around innocent parents.

My question is how many of us even knew what a garrotte was? :shrug:

Angelina

08-22-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by TIAZ
I don't see how anyone can even form an opinion since everything about this case seems to contridict itself. You hear about evidence one day, the next day it was a rumor or lie........Based on that fact, I could never make a fair assessement.

Join me on the fence, I will admit it is uncomfortable on the fence. In my honest opinion, after reviewing all the evidence and trying to stay current with the correction of the evidence, I dont see how anyone can say they know who killed Jonbenet. JMHO

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by SteelerFan

How do you personally know anything about the Ramsey's charcter or what went on inside their home?

Because if they had an "alternative" lifestyle it would have been reported on in big black letters across the front of every newspaper in the land.

Angelina

08-22-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

My question is how many of us even knew what a garrotte was? :shrug:

I had never heard of one until this case, good point.

TIAZ

08-22-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

Join me on the fence, I will admit it is uncomfortable on the fence. In my honest opinion, after reviewing all the evidence and trying to stay current with the correction of the evidence, I dont see how anyone can say they know who killed Jonbenet. JMHO

k, scoot over.

I am back to square one now. Reading all the initial reports and Patsy and John's book.

I have always had my theories, but given all the mis-information, they have flown out the window.

Paisley

08-22-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

A few possibilities?

And leave her outside on the frozen ground? (FBI profilers think parents would be LESS likely to place the body outdoors.)

And risk a neighbor seeing you drive off in the middle of the night?

And waste valuable time moving the body when people expect you to be up very early in the morning for a trip? (Even if you say you overslept the next day, that looks suspicious & you do NOT want to appear supsicious) Right, so the likelyhood is that they had nothing to do with. A staged discovery is even more unbelieveable.

Angelina

08-22-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by TIAZ

k, scoot over.

I am back to square one now. Reading all the initial reports and Patsy and John's book.

I have always had my theories, but given all the mis-information, they have flown out the window.

That window was it open or closed, was it latched or unlatched? LOL

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by I Love Books

I think your point is that he did the first thing a parent would do if they found their child in that condition........rip off the duct tape and untie the rope.

Well, if I were attempting to look like an innocent, shocked parent, I would try to do what an innocent, shocked parent would do. I doubt the first thought of a parent in that situation would be to not try to help the child because it might contaminate the crime scene.

If it were a "show", that makes perfect sense to me. (Attempting to appear shocked and to "help" her.)

So, in your eyes, if one is truly innoncent, one should be sure to "not act shocked" and be sure not to "try to help" because we now all know that that is EXACTLY what guilty people do.

But what happens in a few years when all the innocent people finally learn to "look innocent by acting guilty", won't the guilty-Ramsey-types catch up with that and when John Ramsey kills his grandkids he'll act innoncent by acting guilty by acting innocent???

Reminds me of The Princess Bride:

All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Mojo Bumpkin

08-22-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by rrsafety

Reminds me of The Princess Bride:

All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

I LOVE THE PRINCESS BRIDE!!!!!!

I'm the REAL Dread Pirate Roberts :biggrin:

sumner

08-22-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Angelina

Also, if they had moved her in their automoblie, they would have left trace evidence of the move. JMHO Remember this is speculation, I am a fencesitter.

Good point, plus the ones mentioned in the previous post.

If one was to do this, they would want to contain everything inside, so that there would be no chance of a neighbor seeing anything.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Please refer to my posts: you have made my point. You would not use one but you know of them and their history. Please also do not assume to speak for the Ramseys and what they did or did not know.

I did not know of garrotes in 1996, most people did not. It is unlikely the Ramsey's did. Therefore it would have been impossible for them to stage a crime scene using implements of murder with which they had no prior knowledge.

Now, if you think you can provide evidence as to Patsy's or John's participation in ritualized sadomasochist sex, then please provide it, I'm sure we'd all be interested....

Paisley

08-22-2006, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Mojo Bumpkin

I LOVE THE PRINCESS BRIDE!!!!!!

I'm the REAL Dread Pirate Roberts :biggrin: That's my alltime favorite movie. :biggrin:

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Great point SF apparently a few here think they can think for them and their behaviors and knowledge base. Amazing really.

Actually it is quite easy. One can begin by assuming that the family is "average" and has no specialized knowledge of implements of murdering other humans (probably they know just the basics, guns, knifes, etc.) Now that is a reasonable expectation for a knowledge base.

It would then be incumbent upon other's to prove or provide evidence for a specialized knowledge. To date, I am unaware of any such proof or evidence that the Ramseys possessed specialized knowledge of garroting kids to death.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 03:52 PM

Princess Bride quotes often come in handy...

Paisley

08-22-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by skye

I take it those posters on the board are still hanging around trying to put the noose around innocent parents. Let's hope the dna points to JMK.. My gut feeling is the DA has results already and is keeping it quiet, which is a good thing. It would mean that it's a match. If it were not a match his lawyer would already have had the information released to the media.

They took the sample last week...has it been enough time to process? I'm thinking yes.

Rotozaza

08-22-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Athena

My question is how many of us even knew what a garrotte was? :shrug:

I did, didn't you guys ever read The Godfather?

Luca Brasi, he sleeps with the fishes.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Let's hope the dna points to JMK.. My gut feeling is the DA has results already and is keeping it quiet, which is a good thing. It would mean that it's a match. If it were not a match his lawyer would already have had the information released to the media.

They took the sample last week...has it been enough time to process? I'm thinking yes.

I'm thinking that if they fly him to Boulder quickly then that means they have what they need.

If they delay him days and days, that means they are still looking for something to charge him with... not good.

But either way, I don't think he was in Boulder, so how could he have done it?

Star Diva

08-22-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by rrsafety

I tend to agree with this. Given that this was a fairly "normal family" and JonBenet has been described as a pretty nice kid, I find it very hard to believe that she ended up dead as the result of sudden parental rage.

For instance, I have a daughter JonBenet's age.... very sweet. Can get on my nerves, but you can send her to her room, tell her to go play outside, or just discuss things with her if you are angry. This tends to be how "normal people" behave.

However, with my two year old twins, THEY can drive me insane!! When they are in one of their moods, nothing you do can stop their crying and whining. I can understand fully why some inexperienced parents might get so lost in rage and so out of control that "normal parents" might "shaken baby" a young child to death.

However, with a sweet six year old and normal parents, I just don't by the whole arguement that Patsy or John got lost in uncontrolable anger with JonBenet.... if she was a whining two year old, maybe...

Pardon me for this personal question, but does your daughter wet the bed?

Some bed wetting is natural in younger children, but I'd say a 6-year old bed wetter was moving into the realm of problems. JonBenet was an occasional bed wetter and it is statistically factual that some parents, even those with no history of violence, become very upset with a child who wets the bed.

There was speculation that the clothes and bedding change resulted from JonBenet waking her parents and that Patsy may have acted violently toward her daughter's wet clothes and bed.

One FBI agent who worked on the investigation of this case said on the Biolgraphy show last night that just because we cannot accept that non-violent people turn violent toward their children doesn't mean they don't. He went on to describe horrendous things that were done to children by otherwise loving parents - including Susan Smith's drowning of her two little boys and watching as they drowned (an incomprhensible act).

Personally, I think the Ramseys went a little insane that night and that is one reason why we have so many mixed messages about what happened - because these people were not acting rationally and did things we, as parents and humans, cannot fathom. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it; doesn't mean they did either. But that 3-page note will be a hard nut to crack and in the end this case is going to turn on its explanation if you ask me.

:hat:

Rotozaza

08-22-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Let's hope the dna points to JMK.. My gut feeling is the DA has results already and is keeping it quiet, which is a good thing. It would mean that it's a match. If it were not a match his lawyer would already have had the information released to the media.

They took the sample last week...has it been enough time to process? I'm thinking yes.

I really hope you are right, if only to stop all the bickering on this board about the Ramseys :) What do you bet even if it does match that there will still be people trying to implicate them somehow?

Your posts are always so great and well thought through, Paisley, I enjoy reading them.

Paisley

08-22-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Rotozaza

Your posts are always so great and well thought through, Paisley, I enjoy reading them. Back atcha!

What do you bet even if it does match that there will still be people trying to implicate them somehow? I truely believe there are peole out there who will always think the Ramseys were involved.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Star Diva

Pardon me for this personal question, but does your daughter wet the bed?

Some bed wetting is natural in younger children, but I'd say a 6-year old bed wetter was moving into the realm of problems. JonBenet was an occasional bed wetter and it is statistically factual that some parents, even those with no history of violence, become very upset with a child who wets the bed.

There was speculation that the clothes and bedding change resulted from JonBenet waking her parents and that Patsy may have acted violently toward her daughter's wet clothes and bed.

One FBI agent who worked on the investigation of this case said on the Biolgraphy show last night that just because we cannot accept that non-violent people turn violent toward their children doesn't mean they don't. He went on to describe horrendous things that were done to children by otherwise loving parents - including Susan Smith's drowning of her two little boys and watching as they drowned (an incomprhensible act).

Personally, I think the Ramseys went a little insane that night and that is one reason why we have so many mixed messages about what happened - because these people were not acting rationally and did things we, as parents and humans, cannot fathom. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it; doesn't mean they did either. But that 3-page note will be a hard nut to crack and in the end this case is going to turn on its explanation if you ask me.

:hat:

Nope, no bedwetting so far.... thank goodness.

We all know that parents can get angry and in very rare occurences they can accidently kill their child (Susan Smith and some others often mentioned did not do it accidently, however).

The BPD says there was this accidental killing followed by a horrendously bizarre garroting as part of a crime scene. To support that, they'll need good evidence but until then it is just a theory.

So I am willing to believe parents can do anything, so long as there is evidence to support it. Until then, one has to assume that the parents in question are similar to you and me and that we would not go into a murderous rage over some undefined infraction culminating in the garroting and skull crushing of their six year old girl.

It would take good evidence to overcome that general presumption...

(btw, I suspected Susan Smith's story from the beginning, my first reaction was "black guys don't steal white kids")

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by victims feel

Can you provide a link to that most people did not know what a garrotte was before 1996. Especially since GODFATHER was out way before that?

I always assumed the guy was strangled with piano wire or something... I had NO idea what a garrote was or that it was a choke-chain-like slip knot attached to a piece of wood.... :shrug:

I Love Books

08-22-2006, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Paisley
Don't you think that if Patsy and John killed their daughter that they would hide her body so no one would ever find it? If they are such egotistical monsters, wouldn't they hide the crime?

No, I don't think that at all. I think all kinds of scenarios could (and did) go through the killer's mind about what to do about this horrible mess they are in. Take the body elsewhere? No, they would risk being seen by the neighbors. And where do they take it without being seen? And without making fresh footprints in the snow outside? I think the killer settled on this wacky scenario (silly, amateur ransom note, JB in the wine cellar) thinking it was their best option. And it was wacky because they are (were) not of a criminal mindset, so it was the best they could come up with. In fact, the fact that the whole thing was some wacky and almost clownish (if not for the horror of the precious girl's death) "crime" is what sways me in my belief. Obviously it was carried out by someone who has NO experience with crime or a "bad" past.

mendara

08-22-2006, 05:10 PM

2L82run

08-22-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
If I killed my child & wanted to cover up, I would want to leave as many 'clues' of an intruder as I could... so the police would look AWAY from my family.

Denying the pineapple, the flashlight, the Hi-tec boots, the baseball bat and the Santa Bear is very smart if I'm guilty.

That would all be very clever for a nonexperienced murderer. If you were really guilty wouldn't it make more sense to stage an obvious point of entry for the murderer and let the friend find the body instead of elaborately placing a mystery teddy bear in the bedroom that may or may not be noticed by a relative or denying feeding the child fruit that may or may not be found in the contents of her stomach????? :shrug:

2L82run

08-22-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by caphill

And your point is........

If Patsy cut up a pineapple and put it in a bowl for the family, why wouldn't her fingerprints be on it.

I bet my fingerprints are on all of the dishes in my cupboard - I'm the one who puts them away after they are washed in the dishwasher. I bet Pasty did her own dishes as well and so her prints would be all over her dishes too .:patriot:

2L82run

08-22-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Why in the world would Patsy bring JB downstairs, even to the basement, to "discuss" the bedwetting issue?

This is a great point! For what possible reason would Patsy take JonBenet down to the basement in the middle of the night to scold her for bedwetting????

And I've got to say something that's just bugs me---everyone says that who ever brought JonBenet down there would have had to know the layout of the house ahead of time. Why? They could have stumbled upon in just by roaming around trying to get as far away from the bedrooms as possible. In other words, maybe it wasn't a specific destination as much as it was a good place to hide her. No???? :shrug:

SteelerFan

08-22-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by rrsafety

Because if they had an "alternative" lifestyle it would have been reported on in big black letters across the front of every newspaper in the land.

I mean, for example, the true state of their marriage, how they disciplined their children, ect. Post after post states what nice people they are. How they just don't look like people that could murder their daughter. What exactly does a child murderer look like? And how do you know if they would have had anything of an alternative nature going on that any of us would know?

Cornblossom

08-22-2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by SteelerFan

I mean, for example, the true state of their marriage, how they disciplined their children, ect. Post after post states what nice people they are. How they just don't look like people that could murder their daughter. What exactly does a child murderer look like? And how do you know if they would have had anything of an alternative nature going on that any of us would know? ITA......imo...just looking at David Westerfield I'd never think he could harm a child either.:seeya:

Cornblossom

08-22-2006, 06:05 PM

Rotozaza

08-22-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by skye

"And when did YOU stop beating your wife??"

Innocent til proven guilty. Dont you think that after a grand jury investigation, continued harassment by papparazi, insistent scrutiny by rumormongerers... not to mention slander on a daily basis that SOME kind of plausible MOTIVE would have come out??? c'mon ppl get real.

Trust me, if they had anything to hide, paparazzi or LE would have found it.

The family has been under a microscope for a decade. If there had been any child abuse, reported or not, first, second or third hand info, it would have come out. And nothing did. Of course some people want to believe otherwise, so they will just ignore this or believe their gut or hunches instead of the facts.

Cornblossom

08-22-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by skye

You missed the point. That saying is often used to confront someone who is assuming guilt of another with no evidence. IE

I can ASSUME that you beat your husband absolutely until you show me evidence that you do NOT.

So when did you stop beating your husband?

:read: :lol: My husband is 6' 250 pounds...I'm 4' 11 1/2" 100 pounds.......I beat him ever' day LMAO:rolleyes:

Rotozaza

08-22-2006, 06:14 PM

I'm amazed reading these threads. There are people who don't know what garottes are and they haven't ever heard the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" conundrum? That amazes me.

I Love Books

08-22-2006, 06:29 PM

For the record, I don't think there was any child abuse going on in that household before the murder.

But I sure do believe that money and power can hide (or at least squelch) secrets and buy anything. A call or two from a politician to an editor of a paper telling them it's not in the best interests of the editor/paper to run a certain story...........hell yeah. To believe otherwise is naive IMO.

SteelerFan

08-22-2006, 06:55 PM

Have JonBenet's many trips to the pediatrician every been explained? Weren't there indications of irritation and infections that were, at the time, attributed to bubble baths? I thought doctors were required to report this stuff?

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 07:54 PM

I recall in an interview Patsy showing on a diagram where everyone sat for dinner on a typical night.

Does anyone know at which place setting the bowl of pineapple was?

cryostate

08-22-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by SteelerFan
Have JonBenet's many trips to the pediatrician every been explained? Weren't there indications of irritation and infections that were, at the time, attributed to bubble baths? I thought doctors were required to report this stuff?

They are required to report it if there is a suspicion of abuse. That's up to the doctor to decide. I would think repeated visits for that problem would be suspicious, but who knows.

DixieChick

08-22-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by TIAZ

I don't understand why it is the way it is with this case. I don't remember getting this kind of mis-information with the Laci Peterson case. Of course that could be because the majority of the public had no sympathy for Scott, and the public seems very sympathetic towards the Ramsey's.

In the Scott Peterson case there was a professional investigating team. In the Ramsey case the Boulder PD gave false information, dismissed evidence of an intruder and mislead the public. Therefore no sympathy for the Ramsey's... and most here still believe they are guilty.

rrsafety

08-22-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by DixieChick

In the Scott Peterson case there was a professional investigating team. In the Ramsey case the Boulder PD gave false information, dismissed evidence of an intruder and mislead the public. Therefore no sympathy for the Ramsey's... and most here still believe they are guilty.

BINGO!

lisafremont

08-22-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by skye
...Dont you think that after a grand jury investigation, continued harassment by papparazi, insistent scrutiny by rumormongerers... not to mention slander on a daily basis that SOME kind of plausible MOTIVE would have come out??? c'mon ppl get real.

Trust me, if they had anything to hide, paparazzi or LE would have found it.

Plausible motive? Apart from self-defense, what murder ever makes sense?

I read yesterday that a man in Chicago was convicted of killing a cabdriver over an $8 fare. Is that a plausible motive??

Scott Peterson had a beautiful wife with a baby on the way and he trashed them. Wanting to be a widower, is that a plausible motive?

A lot of people just didn't want to believe he would do that.

Motive isn't required for proof of murder. But if the facts, circumstantial or direct, add up, a defendant can get convicted.

And this collection of facts doesn't add up to an intruder, IMO.

Cornblossom

08-22-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by angelskye

You still missed the point.

Skye, give up on this one, it ain't gonna happen!

Lights are dim and no one's home! :chicken: Welcome back! I'm so glad you think you know me so well....it is also MO..the word polite isn't in your vocabulary. May I ask what I have done to you to make you post to me the way you do? I know exactly what she was talking about.

warhorse46

08-23-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by angelskye

You still missed the point.

Skye, give up on this one, it ain't gonna happen!

Lights are dim and no one's home! :chicken:

I see you do not learn from your past mistakes. Personal insults toward other board members are not allowed.

sunsplashed

08-23-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Arizona

It would have been easy enough for the Ramseys to say JonBenet may have got up during the night and got herself some pineapples.

No, don't think so. The bowl with the pineapple was kept where JB couldn't reach it and only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were found on it.

JMO

Athena

08-23-2006, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Rotozaza
I'm amazed reading these threads. There are people who don't know what garottes are and they haven't ever heard the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" conundrum? That amazes me.

Since you decided to single me out with the garrotte issue -- I did take the time to not only look up what it was, how it was used as well as the history of it. I knew it was a weapon -- and that was it until I saw a post by skye. I did read the Godfather and even saw all of the movies - but did not exactly focus on their weapons or possibly saw it but it did not connect.

I am sure I could describe the work I do in Communications and it is very possible you wouldn't have a clue as to what I was talking about but it doesn't make me any more or less knowledgeable than you. It would just indicate that I have expertise in a field that you don't or through life experience and vice-versa. jmho

Please explain to me WHY I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what a garrotte was prior to this case?

Thank you in advance.

Cotontail

08-23-2006, 02:37 AM

IMO...if anyone saw the autospy report...no way could a parent do what happened to JB. And the stun gun two times? I just don't believe they would have done that.

watson

08-24-2006, 12:40 PM

Well I don't know about Bradsley's 'campaign' against Patsy, but from when this case first happened I never thought Patsy did it and my opinion has never changed. There never was any real evidence against her at all. I think the whole Patsy thing started with the Bolder police. Back in 1997-98 from the evidence they were convinced a parent or someone very close to the family did it. Finding no one close to the family, they settled on the parents. They picked Patsy just on the weight of a printing analysis that said she 'could' have printed the kidnap letter, and probably as a strategy, because they thought she'd be an easier nut to crack than John if they were both involved. They then stupidily leaked this to the media. From there the media ran with making the 'campaign', getting 1/3 of America (or whatever) to believe Patsy 'did it' since way to many people blindly believe the media rather than thinking for themselves.

EDDIEisMINE

08-24-2006, 12:59 PM

I didn't think she did it either. Patsy was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer in 91 or 92. She had already been through a lot. Then has to deal with the death of her baby.

watson

08-24-2006, 01:57 PM

It's never seemed to me like the kind of crime a woman or mother would committ. The crime wasn't done the way a woman would do it. Patsy has always been consistent and sicnere sounding in her interviews, statements, and behavior, and the big kicker....Patsy called the police first thing, when the kidnap note she supposedly wrote to herself told her 10 times not to. If she bothered to put all that in the note, she never would have called the police (plus all her friends and her minister) on herself to get caught. It's just ridiculous.

polli

08-24-2006, 11:42 PM

The average villain is a male. But not all males are villains. So how do we distinguish between, the villain and the nonvillain? We do it by looking at the deeds, statistics are used to narow the criteria, for bether direction and faster search. But the villain is the one that does the deed. So lets look at JMK, does he do the deed, does he steel people? The parents of his wifes would say yes he does, but we would maybe interprit it difrently. What makes him credable is, that he does the deed. Not all pedo's steel small girls and boys. Most of them try to behave, they defenetly do not want to go to prisson or be institutionalized, that they are pedo's is there missfortune maybe. A lot of menn have fantasies about the newest movistars or model whatever, but they are not all rapists. The rapist steels a human and does to him after his own will. So look now in retrospect at Patsy and John, are they villains? Have they ever bin credable suspects? No, they never where. But when you open a can of worms, it is dificult to get them into the can again, or when you throw people to the dogs, they might get used to it. So it's understandable that they are hungry now. We should be glad it vas not us.

EDDIEisMINE

08-25-2006, 11:05 AM

It is rediculous and sad that the Boulder Police department wasted so much time on people that loved and cared for their daughter while a no good for nothing murderer continuted to enjoy his life and STILL people won't take the truth that this man killed Jon Benet. They STILL think her mother or father did it. Those people must of had bad parents but they need to realize that not all people have bad parents. Jon Benets mom n dad included. Their lives were ruined and still, even in Patsys death, continues to be called a killer.:(

A_seeker

08-25-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
It is rediculous and sad that the Boulder Police department wasted so much time on people that loved and cared for their daughter while a no good for nothing murderer continuted to enjoy his life and STILL people won't take the truth that this man killed Jon Benet. They STILL think her mother or father did it. Those people must of had bad parents but they need to realize that not all people have bad parents. Jon Benets mom n dad included. Their lives were ruined and still, even in Patsys death, continues to be called a killer.:(

Can you tell us why you are so convinced that Karr IS the killer, and why you are certain that the Ramseys are not??

aproudmom

08-29-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror
Jonbenet had pineapple. That cannot be disputed. Patsy could not say she fed it to her (and hold to their story) because then the police would have known that Jonbenet was not really asleep when they got home from the party.

IMO

I think I read that Dr. Lee i think said she could have eaten the pinapple the day before...I think it is in the 2001 Dep of Steve T..Who is the biggest LIAR in all of this...They even contacted the Dole company asking them questions about the pinapple and was trying to figure out if it was fresh or canned. read the Dep. It give alot of the bring out alot of lies...

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

hohum

08-29-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Rotozaza

The family has been under a microscope for a decade. If there had been any child abuse, reported or not, first, second or third hand info, it would have come out. And nothing did. Of course some people want to believe otherwise, so they will just ignore this or believe their gut or hunches instead of the facts.

There are usually indications of abuse, unexplained bruises, twisted arms, broken bones, emotional problems....neither Burke or JB had any of these so it's fair to say those children were well cared for. Every detail of the Ramsey family has gone through a fine sieve and absolutely nothing turned up. For all the people who think the pageants were vile, like it or not they were not abuse.

Dingy B Good

08-29-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Cotontail
IMO...if anyone saw the autospy report...no way could a parent do what happened to JB. And the stun gun two times? I just don't believe they would have done that.

The stun gun and DNA are the 2 things that lead me away from either of the parents killing her but then again parents have been known to use shock collars on their children and strangle drown and beat and stab to death their children. So I go back to thinking nobody should be excluded in this case until the truth of the real killer is known. I hope justice is served in this case whoever the killer(s) is/are

bobbywmatl

08-29-2006, 11:23 AM

This is probably a better place to post this becuase I would really like to know if anyone has a better idea(s)...

A member had implied that the Ramseys were obstructing the investigation by relying on lawyers and therefore not cooperating the way LE wanted them to...

My response and question was as follows:

I guess I can understand what you are saying about the Ramseys, although I don't agree with you on that point. If any LE official was accusing me of something that I knew I didn't do or behaving in a way to make me think that they were accusing me or suspecting me, I would get a lawyer.

This whole thing has made me understand that if, god forbid, I was questioned by LE on anything at all (even if only as a possible witness to some event), I would not answer unless I was in the presence of my attorney.

This seems to be the only way that I could assure that I would not be falsely accused or convicted of something that I didn't do.

Does anyone know of a better way to protect yourself if you are innocent and become involved with LE?

msgatorslayer

08-29-2006, 11:30 AM

Because their DNA didn't match any better than JMK's.

angelskye

08-29-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by aproudmom

I think I read that Dr. Lee i think said she could have eaten the pinapple the day before...I think it is in the 2001 Dep of Steve T..Who is the biggest LIAR in all of this...They even contacted the Dole company asking them questions about the pinapple and was trying to figure out if it was fresh or canned. read the Dep. It give alot of the bring out alot of lies...

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

Thanks for this link, it's quite interesting.

krismystery

08-29-2006, 01:05 PM

Very strange case to say the least...and way too many unanswered questions..... some of which may never be answered. Personally i don't see this case being solved anytime soon. Whether it was a cover up or bothced investigation remains to be seen and as of now is up for personal interpretation. Just as a side note...is it really neccessary to indicate on alot of these posts that these are your opinions? Of course they are..everyone knows that. But what really gets me is some posters indicating the posts are IMO, IMHO,JMO,JMHO when in actuality they are facts. For example..... From RosyRedRobin....

Again - there are no windows in the room where JonBenet was found.

JonBenet was found in the "wine cellar."

Windows in the basement:

-"Laundry room" - 1 window
- "Storage" has 2 windows
- A second "storage" area has 3 windows. The middle window in this area is the one that was broken.

JMO

This is not your opinion..... but actualy a fact.

But of course this is JMO !!! lol

Cornblossom

08-29-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I post JMO, IMO so that people don't repeatedly come back and ask for "links" re: commonly known "facts." IMO..ya just can't ever be too safe can ya? LMAO:seeya:

Bosox27

08-30-2006, 10:13 PM

A million and one reasons. No way in hell did either of the parents do it, and anyone who can even entertain the thought that they did is a complete and utter idiot.

If this whole karr thing taught people one thing it taught them just how many sickos are floating around.

Before karr, McReynolds was the most viable suspect. Helgoth was seriously up there too.

LI_Mom

08-30-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I post JMO, IMO so that people don't repeatedly come back and ask for "links" re: commonly known "facts."

If you call your own words 'opinions' then people won't be likely to mistake them for facts.

Athena

08-30-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by lisafremont

Plausible motive? Apart from self-defense, what murder ever makes sense?

I read yesterday that a man in Chicago was convicted of killing a cabdriver over an $8 fare. Is that a plausible motive??

Scott Peterson had a beautiful wife with a baby on the way and he trashed them. Wanting to be a widower, is that a plausible motive?

A lot of people just didn't want to believe he would do that.

Motive isn't required for proof of murder. But if the facts, circumstantial or direct, add up, a defendant can get convicted.

And this collection of facts doesn't add up to an intruder, IMO.

1) The guy who killed the cabdriver probably thought he had more money - motivation = money

2) Scott Peterson was having an affair -- the thought of him becoming a father and tied to Lacy forever and hampering a free lifestyle could have driven him to murder

3) The collection of FACTS DO NOT add up to the Ramseys. jmho

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena

1) The guy who killed the cabdriver probably thought he had more money - motivation = money

2) Scott Peterson was having an affair -- the thought of him becoming a father and tied to Lacy forever and hampering a free lifestyle could have driven him to murder

3) The collection of FACTS DO NOT add up to the Ramseys. jmho

Well, Jeffrey MacDonald had two daughters that he loved and a pregnant wife that he loved.

Although he had affairs AFTER his wife's death, no one ever knew of any affair he had prior to her death. (One night, I think, and that was it, neither Jeff nor the woman wanted to continue it and that was according to the woman, it was never proven.)

Jeff and his wife, Colette were not known to argue.

Jeff was not known for having a bad temper.

There was no history of abuse in Jeff's past.

He had an impeccable reputation as a Green Beret.

He had a reputation as a brilliant doctor who often diagnosed very complicated things other doctors missed. He planned on going to Princeton or Yale to specialize.

Yet, according to the jury that found him guilty, he killed both of his daughters and his pregnant wife one night.

He had no motivation...that we know of.

Most of this is taken from my private notes with Jeff, but you can read it online in CL or in Fatal Vison by Joe McGuiness.

There's an old saying, "You never know someone until you live with them." IMO that applies to the Ramseys.

JMO

Athena

08-30-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Well, Jeffrey MacDonald had two daughters that he loved and a pregnant wife that he loved.

Although he had affairs AFTER his wife's death, no one ever knew of any affair he had prior to her death. (One night, I think, and that was it, neither Jeff nor the woman wanted to continue it and that was according to the woman, it was never proven.)

Jeff and his wife, Colette were not known to argue.

Jeff was not known for having a bad temper.

There was no history of abuse in Jeff's past.

He had an impeccable reputation as a Green Beret.

He had a reputation as a brilliant doctor who often diagnosed very complicated things other doctors missed. He planned on going to Princeton or Yale to specialize.

Yet, according to the jury that found him guilty, he killed both of his daughters and his pregnant wife one night.

He had no motivation...that we know of.

Most of this is taken from my private notes with Jeff, but you can read it online in CL or in Fatal Vison by Joe McGuiness.

There's an old saying, "You never know someone until you live with them." IMO that applies to the Ramseys.

JMO

Beware the married couple that doesn't fight -- harbored resentment. jmo

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Beware the married couple that doesn't fight -- harbored resentment. jmo

For what? They had disagreements from time to time, but no knock-down-drag-out fights.

My husband and I don't fight and I know I harbor NO resentment.

When we got married we made a pact not to fight because once something is said in anger, even though an apology is made, the angry statement can never be erased.

We disagree at times, but we never fight.

JMO

Athena

08-30-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

For what? They had disagreements from time to time, but no knock-down-drag-out fights.

My husband and I don't fight and I know I harbor NO resentment.

When we got married we made a pact not to fight because once something is said in anger, even though an apology is made, the angry statement can never be erased.

We disagree at times, but we never fight.

JMO

Actually the word "fight" should have been argue. Your post says they did not argue. I did not mean "fight" literally. :o

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Actually the word "fight" should have been argue. Your post says they did not argue. I did not mean "fight" literally. :o

They disagreed. One disagreement they were having is whether or not to let their older daughter, Kimberley, sleep in their bed when she became frightened. Colette said one thing, Jeff said another.

They discussed things, expressed their opinions, disagreed. But a disagreement is not always an argument or a fight.

After nearly forty years, no one but Jeff MacDonald really knows what went on in his house the night of the murders.

I don't think anyone really knows what went on in the Ramseys house to make blanket statements about them.

We all have opinions, but blanket statements, I think are wrong.

JMO

angelskye

08-30-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by skye

"Your private notes with Jeff"? are you implying that you had a private interview with this man?

This is the THIRD time she's injected herself into people from this crime, so take it with a grain of salt. ;)

Athena

08-30-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

They disagreed. One disagreement they were having is whether or not to let their older daughter, Kimberley, sleep in their bed when she became frightened. Colette said one thing, Jeff said another.

They discussed things, expressed their opinions, disagreed. But a disagreement is not always an argument or a fight.

After nearly forty years, no one but Jeff MacDonald really knows what went on in his house the night of the murders.

I don't think anyone really knows what went on in the Ramseys house to make blanket statements about them.

We all have opinions, but blanket statements, I think are wrong.

JMO

See sunsplashed we can agree on something. I actually agree with most of this post however I concede I also don't know much about the MacDonald case so reserve comments. Disagreements between my husband and I turn into arguments because we are both very stubborn however we do have a pact never to go to bed angry and we've married too many years to mention thus my comment which was meant to be facetious.

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by skye

"Your private notes with Jeff"? are you implying that you had a private interview with this man?

If not could you supply a link for all this inside info?

Sure. I wrote extensively on the Jeff MacDonald case, corresponded with Jeff and spoke with him on the phone for ten years (1995-2005) and even interviewed him in prison.

It's not inside information at all. Everything I've posted has been made public. You can read about it in CL or in Joe McGuiness's book Fatal Vision.

Just for the record, the Jeffrey MacDonald case is the ONLY criminal case I've written about and is the ONLY case in which I've had contact with the people involved. I'm not really interested in writing about true crime and that is not my usual field of writing.

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Athena

See sunsplashed we can agree on something. I actually agree with most of this post however I concede I also don't know much about the MacDonald case so reserve comments. Disagreements between my husband and I turn into arguments because we are both very stubborn however we do have a pact never to go to bed angry and we've married too many years to mention thus my comment which was meant to be facetious.

Well, my husband and I aren't stubborn at all, so that might explain the difference. If anything, we both give in too easily.

Not always the best way, but people are people, I guess.

JMO

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by skye

Did you talk to him about his use of amphetamines?

I talked to him about lots of things.

I guess, since I'm not going to turn over my private notes and my correspondence with him, that I should say I allegedly talked to him about lots of things, amphetamines (alleged diet pills) included.

sunsplashed

08-30-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by swc

I knew there was a good reason why I liked you, I am a really famous author also but don't tell anyone, man I hope no one figures out what SWC stands for and if they do, my cover is blown!

I like you, too SWC! :) Let's just say it COULD mean Served With Class! ;)

day2day

08-31-2006, 12:16 AM

docg

08-31-2006, 12:37 AM

Some of you are saying some very sensible things about this case, things that are often overlooked. If John and Patsy were in on this crime together, then yes, they could have incorporated the pineapple into their story, no problem. No need to say she was asleep the whole time, why not tell the truth and say she had some pineapple and was THEN put to bed?

But when you consider the other side of the fence you run across another sort of problem. Why would JonBenet sit down with an intruder and eat pineapple? Karr's story is interesting because he actually accounts for such behavior by claiming he'd had an opportunity to befriend her earlier, so she trusted him. In his fevered mind I suppose such behavior would make sense, but realistically it is VERY hard to see how she wouldn't have been alarmed by his presence and screamed out for help. And if he had to disable her to keep her quiet, then how was he able then to feed her pineapple?

So we have a real conundrum here. Until we consider another hypothesis that, for some strange reason is hardly ever considered. If the Ramseys were NOT in on this together, but one were guilty and the other innocent, then the guilty party would NOT be in a position to acknowledge the pineapple, would he? Because the innocent one would say, "what, you had pineapple with her after I went to sleep? Why didn't you tell me?" And the police would say, "Hmmmm was this the last person to see her alive? And what was he doing with his daughter in the kitchen so late at night?"

Seems logical to me. But for some reason this is a scenario no one else wants to consider. I'm wondering why.

Paisley

08-31-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by docg
Some of you are saying some very sensible things about this case, things that are often overlooked. If John and Patsy were in on this crime together, then yes, they could have incorporated the pineapple into their story, no problem. No need to say she was asleep the whole time, why not tell the truth and say she had some pineapple and was THEN put to bed?

But when you consider the other side of the fence you run across another sort of problem. Why would JonBenet sit down with an intruder and eat pineapple? Karr's story is interesting because he actually accounts for such behavior by claiming he'd had an opportunity to befriend her earlier, so she trusted him. In his fevered mind I suppose such behavior would make sense, but realistically it is VERY hard to see how she wouldn't have been alarmed by his presence and screamed out for help. And if he had to disable her to keep her quiet, then how was he able then to feed her pineapple?

So we have a real conundrum here. Until we consider another hypothesis that, for some strange reason is hardly ever considered. If the Ramseys were NOT in on this together, but one were guilty and the other innocent, then the guilty party would NOT be in a position to acknowledge the pineapple, would he? Because the innocent one would say, "what, you had pineapple with her after I went to sleep? Why didn't you tell me?" And the police would say, "Hmmmm was this the last person to see her alive? And what was he doing with his daughter in the kitchen so late at night?"

Seems logical to me. But for some reason this is a scenario no one else wants to consider. I'm wondering why. What if JB was sitting alone in the kitchen eating the pineapple and the Peeping Tom from outside saw her, waved to her at the window and she let him in because he was dressed like Santa Claus? No forced entry......

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 09:47 AM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by kindeekat

Just because we don't know the motive(s) doesn't mean there wasn't one. Ah yes, the elusive "mystery motive"...

Terpmaniac

08-31-2006, 10:01 AM

So now not only did the "intruder" sit down and write a 3 page ransom note(in the home, with pad and pen found in the home). He or she also fed the girl pineapple as well????? I saw video tapes in which both the Ramsey's categorically DENIED feeding her pineapple before she went to bed. WHY? Why make such a big thing out of such a trivial matter? It makes no sense. Why not just say, "oh yes, she got up, we gave her some pineapple, she went back to sleep." That pineapple proves that Jonbenet DID NOT go straight to bed and stayed there. She was up, and out of her bed later that night. The pineapple in her stomach proves it (crime scene photos show in the kitchen a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table). Obviously, the Ramsey's are lying and this is a lie that has been proven. What baffles me is why lie about such an insignificant thing unless you have something to hide.

Former Juror

08-31-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Terpmaniac
So now not only did the "intruder" sit down and write a 3 page ransom note(in the home, with pad and pen found in the home). He or she also fed the girl pineapple as well????? I saw video tapes in which both the Ramsey's categorically DENIED feeding her pineapple before she went to bed. WHY? Why make such a big thing out of such a trivial matter? It makes no sense. Why not just say, "oh yes, she got up, we gave her some pineapple, she went back to sleep." That pineapple proves that Jonbenet DID NOT go straight to bed and stayed there. She was up, and out of her bed later that night. The pineapple in her stomach proves it (crime scene photos show in the kitchen a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table). Obviously, the Ramsey's are lying and this is a lie that has been proven. What baffles me is why lie about such an insignificant thing unless you have something to hide.

:beer:

IMOOC

Pruddennce

08-31-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror
Jonbenet had pineapple. That cannot be disputed. Patsy could not say she fed it to her (and hold to their story) because then the police would have known that Jonbenet was not really asleep when they got home from the party.

IMO

Hi Former Juror,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is there 'firm' substantiation she had pineapple to eat.

I have read over and over that JoBenet ate pineapple.

However, the autopsy report does not say that. It says:

'contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.

the autopsy results do not conclude exactly what those fragments were. 'may represent' is not conclusive.

best regards,
Pru

msgatorslayer

08-31-2006, 10:40 AM

I have a question in reference to the pineapple. Not trying to aruge, this is a serious question.

Lastnight, I read the autopsy report, which states that it was a fruit or vegatable, yellowish, brown, green, in color, which COULD be pineapple.

Now, my question is, at the time of the autopsy, did LE already make the power of suggestion to the ME about the pineapple? Is it known what types of things JB had over at the White's party?

Is the pineapple just a coincidence in this whole case? Was it something else in JB's stomach but the pineapple just kinda 'stuck' in the ME, LE, and everyone elses minds because it was something that the Ramsey's say she didn't eat and JB's finger prints were not on the bowl.

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I like to say "for example", but I read enough garbage last night.
;)

Any opinion other than yours is garbage?

trt

08-31-2006, 10:50 AM

SOmeone can correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it found out that the pineapple dish was not immediately noticed by the police, something like sometime later in the day?

Paisley

08-31-2006, 10:53 AM

angelskye

08-31-2006, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Pruddennce

Hi Former Juror,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is there 'firm' substantiation she had pineapple to eat.

I have read over and over that JoBenet ate pineapple.

However, the autopsy report does not say that. It says:

'contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.

the autopsy results do not conclude exactly what those fragments were. 'may represent' is not conclusive.

best regards,
Pru

You are correct.

A pineapple-LIKE substance is how it is termed.

There is no definite finding that she did, indeed, have pineapple.

There were also conflicting Dr. reports on just how long it would have taken to reach her small colon, whatever it was that she had eaten.

So, that too, isn't definite.

trt

08-31-2006, 10:56 AM

I also wanted to add that due to the time it takes for fruits and veggies to digest in the stomach(from 2-3 hours for most), even if it weren't pineapple, it had to be fed to her after returning home from the party(they returned at 10 or sometime thereafter) as it had not had a chance to properly digest. MOO

Paisley

08-31-2006, 10:57 AM

Paisley

08-31-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by trt
I also wanted to add that due to the time it takes for fruits and veggies to digest in the stomach(from 2-3 hours for most), even if it weren't pineapple, it had to be fed to her after returning home from the party(they returned at 10 or sometime thereafter) as it had not had a chance to properly digest. MOO That's not true.

angelskye

08-31-2006, 11:01 AM

thewhitewitch1

08-31-2006, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Paisley
What if JB was sitting alone in the kitchen eating the pineapple and the Peeping Tom from outside saw her, waved to her at the window and she let him in because he was dressed like Santa Claus? No forced entry......

So she wiped her fingerprints off the bowl of pineapple, washed her dishes, put them away and let Santa in...?

trt

08-31-2006, 11:08 AM

Could either of you provide links to your assertions that I am incorrect? I am not trying to be argumentative, however, I have done some impromptu searches to find out that what I stated was correct. I could provide a couple of the links I found to substantiate the digestion times I just stated.

http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm
http://www.livingnutrition.com/fwn/read.php?2,388

nutmeg22

08-31-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by angelskye

There was an entire host of Medical experts who disagreed with you.

angelskye, I still wondered about that fact..so the med experts believe JB could possibly have eaten the pineapple at the party before the family came home?

kindeekat

08-31-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

So she wiped her fingerprints off the bowl of pineapple, washed her dishes, put them away and let Santa in...?

And they think the theory that somebody already IN the house committed this atrocious crime is far fetched...

trt

08-31-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Paisley
I think it's pretty insignificant in this case. I make pineapple casserole at holiday time. JB could have eaten "pineapple" or a pineapple -like fruit at any given time.

What's happening is, the anti-Ramseys are STUCK on the pineapple because they are insisting the Ramseys are lying about it for some unkown reason, which is about as unknown as their motive for sexually torturing and killing their own child.

Ok, this is the rub...I have children and my oldest is 7(almost 8). This may just be me because my children have allergies, but everyone who knows me, always asks me if its ok for any of my children to have something before giving it to them. I also do this for other parents, regardless of whether or not they have allergies because a small child is not the deciding factor on what they should or should not have to eat. So even if *they* themselves didn't give it to her, why wouldn't they know if she had received pineapple from ANYONE during that night?

I am not *anti-Ramsey*, I am *pro-JonBenet* and if that means not excluding her parents from this terrible tragedy involving her because there are too many unanswered questions surrounding them, then so be it.

Hopeintown

08-31-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
I have a question in reference to the pineapple. Not trying to aruge, this is a serious question.

Lastnight, I read the autopsy report, which states that it was a fruit or vegatable, yellowish, brown, green, in color, which COULD be pineapple.

Now, my question is, at the time of the autopsy, did LE already make the power of suggestion to the ME about the pineapple? Is it known what types of things JB had over at the White's party?

Is the pineapple just a coincidence in this whole case? Was it something else in JB's stomach but the pineapple just kinda 'stuck' in the ME, LE, and everyone elses minds because it was something that the Ramsey's say she didn't eat and JB's finger prints were not on the bowl.

A bowl of pineapple was found on the counter with only PR's and BR's fingerprints. However, PR denies feeding JB pineapple, nor does she remember purchasing it.

I don't think it's a coincidence. If JB ate the pineapple that night, then it means she was awake to eat it. The Ramsey's have always maintained that JB fell asleep in the car and was carried up to bed, where JR took off her shoes then PR prepared her for bed ONLY putting pajama bottoms on her.

What I do find interesting with the above, is JR saying he only took off JB shoes. Last night, I read a few things regarding the case that I have never read before, and one of them was Linda Arndt's deposition. She gave several reasons as to why she didn't think this was an intruder, and one of them was "JR was the last one to see JBR". This goes along with my theory.

I'm sure that several people have opinions on Linda Arndt, but she was in that home, she observed what was happening, she was there when JB's body was brought up form downstairs, I believed her when she described her "instincts". The one thing I do hope is that she does have police notes saved "in a safe place" as she stated, as others have disappeared when they were turned in by a fellow officer. And, I am thankful there is no statute on murder.

IMO

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/03082000Depo-LindaArndt-(JamesonsNotes).htm

Page 116 - 119 - Back to when Arndt decided John Killed JonBenét - - she had been in the house for about 5 hours - had taped off JBR's bedroom, she denies that she "lost track of John" or that he left the house - she says she merely noted that she saw him reading the mail. She said that before the body was found, she had NO suspicions that John was John might be a murderer.

Page 120 Linda lists the "evidence"

No forced entry

no tracks

no break-in

no sounds heard during the night

John was last to see JBR

JR's behavior

JR's bahevior with his wife

behaviors of others

the ransom note

she says there is more she can't list