Troubling Details: garland, shoe laces, footprints, ponytails, barbie nightgown, etc

[watson]

Now that the JB case is back on everyones mind it seems a good time to ask these. I've followed the case, but I'm new to the boards, and there's always been certain details of the case I've never been clear on and have never seen made clear in anything I've read etc. I figure if these things ever were clarified or discussed someone here would know. Forgive me if some of these questions are stupid.
1.) Where did the blanket that covered JB's body while it was hidden behind the furnace come from? I'd assume from her bed on the 2nd floor, but I've never seen this confirmed anywhere.
2.) It's accepted in the case that John Ramsey reported that black duct tape covered JB's mouth.....but the crime scene photos of the blanket on the basement floor, seem clearly to show grey duct tape....so was it 'black or 'grey'.
3.) I've heard it reported I think by Lou Smit that a coil of big dirty rope was found in the vacant bedroom next to JB's, but I heard it only once, and never again. Does anyone have more info on it? Was anything else found there? Any tests done?
4.) The bowl of pineapple, spoon, and a water glass with tea bag were tested for prints, but were they tested for DNA, anyone know?
5.) The ME in his report says 'a double loop knot' regarding the cord round JB's right wrist, but isn't a double loop knot a 'slip knot', and from the photos isn't every knot in the case, at the neck, wrist, around the stick the exact same type of knots? I've never heard this discussed but if true it would seem very significant as the vast majority of people don't make knots like that, has it been focused on?
6.) The door to the room where the body was hidden was closed...but was it also locked or 'latched' from the outside?
7.) The media always says JB was 'garroted' but that doesn't say much.....I assume she was strangled by the killer being behind her and holding the 'slipped down' knot with one hand against the back of her neck while pulling back on the stick 'handle' with the other, pulling the other end of the string through the knot tighter and tighter, but again I can't find much on 'how' she was garroted....has it ever been clarified?
With Lacy building her case on details the public knows or don't know, I'd like to get straight just what is known by the public. At any rate, thanks in advance.

[LindaA]

The only one I can reply to is #6. I read in one of the early books about this case that the door was not locked or latched but that it was "sticky" and when the officer searched the basement he pulled on it and since it did not open readily he didn't try to open it. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Sorry, no link as I read this in a book.

[athy]

Originally posted by LindaA
The only one I can reply to is #6. I read in one of the early books about this case that the door was not locked or latched but that it was "sticky" and when the officer searched the basement he pulled on it and since it did not open readily he didn't try to open it. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Sorry, no link as I read this in a book.

the creepy part about this is what if is stuck because the killer was still on the other side and had somehow made it so it couldn't be opened. after hearing someone trying the door the killer immediately, somehow.....slipped out without being noticed.

[nuisanceposter]

I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

1. The blanket either came from one of the washer/dryer units, or it came from JonBenet's bed. Housekeeper LHP thought she had last seen the blanket on JB's bed.

2. The accounts I have read describe the duct tape as black, and have specified that.

3. Yes, rope was found in JAR's room. It was not the same kind as what was used on JonBenet. Lou Smit made note of the dust ruffle on JAR's bed being in disarray, but no one knows when that happened.

4. I heard the glass had been tested for DNA, but to myu knowledge, the results have never been made public. I don't know about the bowl or the spoon, other than Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. Burke's prints were on the glass.

5. Meyer described the knot as a double knot, meaning the same kind you might tie in your shoelaces. It is not a complicated noose knot that would slide on the cord - it is fixed in place and the garotte would never have functioned as a garotte is meant to. Note: usually garottes have two handles.

6. Yes. The latch was a rectangular-shaped wooden block that spun on a nail. Patsy was the one who normally latched the door, and said she had done so that year because they were hiding gifts in that room. John said it was not his custom to latch that door, and the carpet out in the hall prevented the door from opening on its own, so it's not like the latch was needed to keep it shut. Fleet White said he checked that room looking for JB in the morning, and finding the door latched, relatched after he did not see her in that room.

7. The "garotte" was not functional in the tradintional form of a garotte. No turning or cranking was required to tighten it, as it was a fixed knot and would not "slide" as garotte knot would need to. JonBenet's hair was caught up in the knot along with fibers consistent with the jacket that Patsy wore that evening.

It appears as though JonBenet was strangled face down as her undies and long johns are urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, meaning the urine leaked out and flowed forward. There are no defensive wounds to her neck indicating that she clawed at the cord and tried to relieve the pressure, and her head wound was fully developed when she died, so it's my opinion that she was strangled from behind while unconscious face down on the floor after she had been struck on the head.

I'll be more than happy to elaborate on any of that.

[watson]

Thanks so far all. I was able to confirm the one about the latch too. Seems John Ramsey talks about it in his interview with Lou Smit about 6 months after the crime. Saying he unlatched it to open the door. If Fleet White says he found it latched, then relatched it that explains why John would have to unlatch it again later, of course that also means the killer besides closing the door, also latched it from the outside, even though there was no chance of the closed door coming open especially because of the carpet. I think it's real interesting that after 10 years we in the public can't say for sure where the blanket that covered JB came from, something investigators must have known on day 1. I'd agree her bed or the open linen closet near her room would be best bets. I agree to all I read or hear recently talks of the duct tape being black but when I look at crime scene photos supposedly taken 10 years ago, I see a crumpled white - off white blanket on the basement floor with a piece of grey duct tape stuck on the middle. Perhaps it's the lighting or photo?
NP I'll take you up on your offer of further elaboration/discussion...please see my post below, same thread.

[watson]

to Nusianceposter
As to the garotte and knots. Upon review I stand corrected about the knot at the other end of the string leading from the right wrist. I quoted the ME correctly (double loop knot) but he spoke imprecisely. Looking at the photos the cord leading from the right wrist ends in 2 loops, so he should of said something like....the other end of the cord is 'knotted' into a double loop. Also like you say he describes the knot at the mid line of the back of the neck as a 'double knot' without further elaboration. However, as I again look at the photos of these knots, I'm struck by their 'unusual' character. They still seem like slip knots to me. Why? Even after a lot of tightening, their not the tiny, scrunched in, hard, knot you'd expect from a static knot, but still fairly loose, if snug, where all their construction can still be seen.
They don't seem to be constructed like a shoe tie knot, which we make by repeatedly crossing the cord then tying it off (which as we all know if you don't make a bow, becomes a very small, tight knot almost impossible to undo).
Instead these knots seem to be made by crossing the cord only once, then wrapping and looping, making one of the many types of slip knots. It looks like you could call these knots 'wrap and loop knots' instead of 'crossing' knots. The difference.......by wrapping and looping the cord your making a movable knot that can easily be undone, whereas if you cross a cord twice or more you make a static tight knot hard to undo. You can really see this 'wrapping and looping effect' on the stick where there seems to be 6 of these wrapped looped knots made carefully in a row with the free end of the garotte carefully fixed in the middle.
A slip knot at the back of the neck would also explain away the problem you mention with the garotte, that a 1 handled garotte isn't really a 'garotte' (that would normally tighten a cord all around the neck equally by twisting). With a static knot even if you tie the cord tightly around the neck, pulling on the 1 handle only can tighten the knot, not the loop around the neck on the other side of the knot. This could only have the effect of pulling the cord hard against the front of the victims neck, and correspondingly pulling it less hard on the sides and AWAY from the back of the neck. In JB's case the ME is quite clear of a ligature furrow going all around the neck (in back too) with little movement, I'd say this indicates an equally tightening on all sides of the neck, which would be done by a slip knot, held against the neck, the handle pulling the loop around the neck through the knot tightening it equally on all sides with no or little movement of the cord. It would also explain why the killer had only to make that intricate tied only 1 handled garrot. What do you think? I also wonder if any investigator or expert has discussed this?

[thewhitewitch1]

This has been the most comprehensive thing I have read so far...and I have read a LOT.

http://www.childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_murder.html

[WarDEagle]

Most interesting/concise info I've read yet on this case. Thanks!

[Richard_Diamond]

It is an excellent article on why the Ramseys are viable suspects.
The whole Karr affair has deflected attention from the Ramseys. Perhaps attention should refocus on them again.
Everyone should remember Professor Tracy brought Mr. Karr to the attention of the police. He is firmly on the side of the innocence of the Ramseys. What better than to find another suspect than the Ramseys? It would vindicate both Professor Tracy and the Ramseys.

Here is an article on the role of Professor Tracy in this matter.

http://www.fortcollinsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=36

[EDDIEisMINE]

I read that she did here. A sister, Beth Ramsey, died in 1992.
http://jonbenet-ramsey.com/obituary.php.

If so, how did she die and how old was she?

[EDDIEisMINE]

Try this link. The one above isn't working for some reason.

http://www.jonbenet-ramsey.com/staff/ then go to the right and click on obituaries and you'll see it when you read it. Says she had a sister who died.

[WarDEagle]

This might be the grown daughter who died in a car wreck. It'd have been JonB's half-sister.

[EDDIEisMINE]

Interesting. Thanks.

[polli]

Pleace read this (http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/31.html) first. To get in the mood of the understanding of, that evrybody KNEW, ther vas just the WHO. I could speculate about why, and in so doing say stupid things, because I realy don't know, but when it came to the burden of proof, they failed. When I first heard this theory years back, I shook my head in disbelive. I mean did JonBenet pee in bed all the time, and where Patsy this short tempered, violent or unkind person, what ever. Or did the Ramsey's have a long history of coverups, and so on. What I mean is, that it is not okay from an investigative point of view, to make up a whole story, whitout being able to make it stick. If we say that there are two hurdles, one 'the death' two 'the coverup'. Let's for the argument sake say, the first hurdel, we say accsedent so now we got rid of the motive, two we say panic, and we are home free. I dont know, a jury might have belived it, why not, all the experts belive it. But the story is out, and i do understand why Patsy said to Steven Thomas, that he had done unreparable damage.

[LindaA]

Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

[aproudmom]

Beth died in a car accident. She was from John Ramsey's first marriage...No she was not murdered..

[EDDIEisMINE]

It is uncommon though, 2 deaths in 2 daughters at young ages.

[EDDIEisMINE]

Could she of ate it herself? I know my little child eats stuff all the time when I am doing something and not looking. Of course, I guess if she would have, there would of been evidence left out in the kitchen.

[EDDIEisMINE]

True but to me that is still young. I don't think he did it though. I think it is just odd and then, the name of the son and it's meaning. Of course, there is a Burke GA. Maybe that's why they named it Burke.:tongue:

[LindaA]

Eddie,
The Ramseys have always maintained that they brought her in asleep from the car and put her to bed and never saw her alive again. I suppose it is possible she got up and got herself the pineapple without waking the family, but why aren't her fingerprints on the bowl?

[EDDIEisMINE]

Originally posted by LindaA
Eddie,
The Ramseys have always maintained that they brought her in asleep from the car and put her to bed and never saw her alive again. I suppose it is possible she got up and got herself the pineapple without waking the family, but why aren't her fingerprints on the bowl?

I agree.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LindaA
Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

The pineapple bothers me, too, but the location of the ransom note points to the Ramseys guilt for me more than the pineapple.

How would an intruder KNOW to place the note on the back, circular stairs rather than on JB's bed, on the kitchen counter, or on the front stairs? How would an intruder know that Patsy always used the back circular stairs.

Regarding the pineapple, if JB got up in the middle of the night, or was awake when arriving home, John or Patsy could have given her the pineapple. However, if they were guilty, to support an intruder theory, they said she slept all night and they heard nothing. Well, if she was awake enough to have pineapple, the Ramseys couldn't say so. Not after saying she was asleep when she got home and, as far as they knew, was asleep all night long.

Pure speculation on my part.

JMO

[jerzeegirl]

to me, the pineapple means more than the ransom note. The ransom note, no matter who wrote it, points to a cover up. The question whether JBR ate pineapple in the middle of the nite, i believe, points to someone she was familiar with. Not saying J or P.....someone familiar. I dont think she would sit down and eat pine apple with someone she was scared of without screaming. Couldnt have had her mouth taped at the time for obvious reasons. Her prints werent on the bowl, but from what i hear, the bowl cabinet was too high for her to reach the bowls.

Like i stated, this part of the evidence confuses me more than the ransom note.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
to me, the pineapple means more than the ransom note. The ransom note, no matter who wrote it, points to a cover up. The question whether JBR ate pineapple in the middle of the nite, i believe, points to someone she was familiar with. Not saying J or P.....someone familiar. I dont think she would sit down and eat pine apple with someone she was scared of without screaming. Couldnt have had her mouth taped at the time for obvious reasons. Her prints werent on the bowl, but from what i hear, the bowl cabinet was too high for her to reach the bowls.

Like i stated, this part of the evidence confuses me more than the ransom note.

I have to admit jerzeegirl, that is very confusing. I can't see her sitting there eating pineapple (or anything) with a stranger. And why aren't someone's prints, other than those of Burke and Patsy on the bowl? Ramsey supporters say the killer wore gloves, but surely JB wouldn't have eaten pineapple with someone in gloves. That would be suspicious even to a six-year-old, IMO. And I can't see ANY intruder, one known to JB or one not known to JB, taking the time to give her some pineapple and risk someone coming down from upstairs.

JMO

[jerzeegirl]

I just dont get it......and so ;many people say its not important, i beg to differ.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
I just dont get it......and so ;many people say its not important, i beg to differ.

I don't get it, either, but I think it's very important. Especially since even the Ramsey supporters agree that pineapple was not served at the White's Christmas party.

JMO

[harz]

if suspicious that the killer wore the gloves, maybe not to JonBenet because it was during winter in Colorado also it looks like JonBenet did knew and trusted the killer.

[harz]

wow thanks for the link. I have a question about JonBenet's brother Bruke? He could possible have had done it somehow and the parents knew, but covered it up by tampering or alternating the evidences? I found it interesting that John hired lawyers for Bruke when he turned 18 sametime the polices want him for questioning.

[harz]

its interesting Ramsey's females dropping like flies in a decade, first JonBenet, Betsy, then Patsy.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by harz
wow thanks for the link. I have a question about JonBenet's brother Bruke? He could possible have had done it somehow and the parents knew, but covered it up by tampering or alternating the evidences? I found it interesting that John hired lawyers for Bruke when he turned 18 sametime the polices want him for questioning.

Wanted him for questioning about what? The murder? He'd been questioned about that years ago.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by harz
its interesting Ramsey's females dropping like flies in a decade, first JonBenet, Betsy, then Patsy.

It is all that interesting but it sure is very tragic and sad.

Reminds me of Rose Kennedy and all the children and other family members she lost in her lifetime.

IMO

Ocean

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
This has been the most comprehensive thing I have read so far...and I have read a LOT.

http://www.childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_murder.html I still notice the "no footprints in the snow" comment...when it's been proven there wasn't hardly any snow on the ground around the home......I just don't buy the bedwetting theory....as Patsy stated in one of her interviews....she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer....we all know how many people survive this type of cancel...almost zilch.......in the grand scheme of things..I think she knew what was important in life and what wasn't...and bedwetting wasn't! imho

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I still notice the "no footprints in the snow" comment...when it's been proven there wasn't hardly any snow on the ground around the home......I just don't buy the bedwetting theory....as Patsy stated in one of her interviews....she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer....we all know how many people survive this type of cancel...almost zilch.......in the grand scheme of things..I think she knew what was important in life and what wasn't...and bedwetting wasn't! imho

JonBenet also wasn't her first bedwetter. Burke and (I think) one of the other kids wet the bed as well. It's just no big deal. Except to Thomas.

[harz]

JonBenet was 6 yrs old, Bruke was 9-10, they wetted their bed at these ages? Its does makes me think something wrong was going on, especially during Xmas as if something fright them by going bathroom or something. I dont blame Thomas (the detective?) My daughter is age 7 now, and she hadnt wet her bed for years or I don't recall she ever does after she stopped wearing diappers around age 2. I remember my friend's son was molested at age 5 or 6, he wetted his pants. When he was temporary sent to foster home by CFS for a week then his real mother picked him up to bring him back home, she noticed his pants got wet. He was confused and frighten of everything happened to him. So I dont buy Ramsey's kids at their ages wetted their beds is a normal thing.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by harz
JonBenet was 6 yrs old, Bruke was 9-10, they wetted their bed at these ages? Its does makes me think something wrong was going on, especially during Xmas as if something fright them by going bathroom or something. I dont blame Thomas (the detective?) My daughter is age 7 now, and she hadnt wet her bed for years or I don't recall she ever does after she stopped wearing diappers around age 2. I remember my friend's son was molested at age 5 or 6, he wetted his pants. When he was temporary sent to foster home by CFS for a week then his real mother picked him up to bring him back home, she noticed his pants got wet. He was confused and frighten of everything happened to him. So I dont buy Ramsey's kids at their ages wetted their beds is a normal thing.

Bed-wetting tends to run in families. The fact that your child didn't have a problem with it most likely means it doesn't run in your family. It apparently did in the Ramsey family.

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/disorders/bedwetting.shtml
Most doctors consider a bedwetting child to be any girl older than age four and any boy over age five who wet the bed. Bedwetting generally declines with age. [b[About 10% of all six year olds and about 3% of all 14 year olds wet the bed. [/b]In a very small number of cases, bedwetting can continue into adulthood. Bedwetting (enuresis) is considered to be PRIMARY if the child has never been dry at night or only is occasionally dry at night. SECONDARY enuresis refers to bedwetting episodes that occur after a child has been dry at night for a considerable length of time.
[..]
Cause: Chronic bed-wetting is thought to be related to (1) a physically and/or neurologically immature bladder and/or (2) a deep sleeping pattern. Apparently these children often sleep so deeply that they are not aware of the message the bladder sends to the brain saying it is full. It is presumed that bed-wetting is an inherited condition. Usually a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent or other family member(s) will have had the condition. Also, children with attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities or allergies seem to be more likely to be bed-wetters than children in the general population.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by victims feel
Many children who are nervous pee their bed. In CPS work it is determinant of emotional issues ONLY ruled out by a dr.ped who says it is bladder/physical/medical problem..It is a big deal..

I believe you are in the minority on that issue. I do, however, think it is possible to cause emotional issues about bedwetting if a parent makes it an issue. Patsy didn't. The majority of kids just outgrow it.

[dave134]

I think everything points to the Ramsey's having done it except for 2 questions:

Why?? What is the motive? I really cannot believe the bedwetting theory.

Why would the method of killing be so harsh? Usually when you hear of parents killing their child, it is not so personal.

Here is a scenario I think may have happened:

After JBR gets home, either mom or dad is going to give her a bath. Sometime terrible happens and she slips, falls, and cracks her head on the bathtub. I don't think she was killed intentionally because I don't see a motive.

The Ramseys then panic and they know she is dead so they plan the coverup. Their pride is too much to admit the accident. So, not being seasoned criminals, they carry out a movie-like cover-up complete with a ransom note and gruesome murder.

This is the only scenario that adds up to me. An intruder spending so much time in the house and writing that ransom note doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that the Ramseys would have any reason to savagely kill her. It was an accident and cover-up IMO.

[harz]

I find it hard to believe that if her death was an accident in your theory and Ramseys covered it up by doing something to JonBenet's vagina making it looked like she was raped or molested?
How about this theory, maybe JonBenet's brother Bruke had sex with JonBenet that he was influenced from some television's sex show or movies, dirty magazines or maybe by someone else. Ramseys caught them then grew into rage instantly and furiously seperately them, knocking down JonBenet by pushing or hitting her. Maybe thats what killed her even if it was accident, then they spent all night to morning figuring out what to do, including brainwashing Bruke and planting the evidences.
I wonder if Bruke's DNA was taken for matching testing? If its not Bruke's DNA that was on JonBenet's underpants, then maybe Ramseys had someone's DNA they could obtain since they had plenty time to do so, probably through some favors or hired. Then this unidentified person came in to leave the handpalm prints in basement? or this print was there maybe some days before to many years ago.
Anyway, I would agree the theory about Ramseys would be shameful if the public had learned of Bruke and JonBenet having sex that Ramseys caught them and accidently killed JonBenet somehow. Maybe thats why John and Patsy were in seperate rooms, not clinching to each others worrying about where and how JonBenet is before they found the body and after. Usually normal parents clinch to each other when one of their children is missing or kidnapped that they are not resposible of.
I do thought varieties verisons of accident possibilities trying to see which one is likely possible. I really dont like trying figuring out how this tragedy happened that it has not be solved for a decade, I rather want to know what happened and that killer is caught. If it was an accident by Ramseys and they covered it up, then I would still see them as murders period.

[harz]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


JonBenet was seen regularly by her pediatrician. He didn't consider it a problem......

are you saying that JonBenet had bedwetting problems since she stopped wearing diapers? and so how often? Did her pediatrician identified what excatly type of bedwetting problem she had? Was it medical related to physical or was it psychology? I am still skeptical about your comment that her doctor didn't considerd it a problem. I felt there more need to investigate JonBenet's bedwetting issues or maybe I don't have enough informations. If her bedwetting had recorded history of medical or physical problems, then I will forget about her bedwetting issue.

[harz]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Wanted him for questioning about what? The murder? He'd been questioned about that years ago.

Yes he was questioned when he was child, but now he's adult, seems police want to question him again but in adult way that he more improved in communications than when he was 9-10 yrs old giving the polices better feedbacks from him.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by harz


are you saying that JonBenet had bedwetting problems since she stopped wearing diapers? and so how often? Did her pediatrician identified what excatly type of bedwetting problem she had? Was it medical related to physical or was it psychology? I am still skeptical about your comment that her doctor didn't considerd it a problem. I felt there more need to investigate JonBenet's bedwetting issues or maybe I don't have enough informations. If her bedwetting had recorded history of medical or physical problems, then I will forget about her bedwetting issue.

JonBenets medical record........October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed.


Thomas said that Lee began asking questions about the urine stains - asked if there was evidence the bed was wet. Were there matching stains on the sheets. "We didn't know..... those sheets should have been promptly collected for testing."

The sheets were NEVER tested for urine and Thomas KNEW it yet he came up with his WILD theory. Thomas knew the photos of the bed indicate NO wetting, NO staining...

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by breezy1234


JonBenets medical record........October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed.


Thomas said that Lee began asking questions about the urine stains - asked if there was evidence the bed was wet. Were there matching stains on the sheets. "We didn't know..... those sheets should have been promptly collected for testing."

The sheets were NEVER tested for urine and Thomas KNEW it yet he came up with his WILD theory. Thomas knew the photos of the bed indicate NO wetting, NO staining...


Could the wet sheets have been removed and dry ones put on the bed that night? That would account for no stains in the crime scene pictures. jmo

[rosebud]

Originally posted by dave134
I think everything points to the Ramsey's having done it except for 2 questions:

Why?? What is the motive? I really cannot believe the bedwetting theory.

Why would the method of killing be so harsh? Usually when you hear of parents killing their child, it is not so personal.

Here is a scenario I think may have happened:

After JBR gets home, either mom or dad is going to give her a bath. Sometime terrible happens and she slips, falls, and cracks her head on the bathtub. I don't think she was killed intentionally because I don't see a motive.

The Ramseys then panic and they know she is dead so they plan the coverup. Their pride is too much to admit the accident. So, not being seasoned criminals, they carry out a movie-like cover-up complete with a ransom note and gruesome murder.

This is the only scenario that adds up to me. An intruder spending so much time in the house and writing that ransom note doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that the Ramseys would have any reason to savagely kill her. It was an accident and cover-up IMO.


REPLY: The lack of motive for the parents killing JBR is hard to figure and the motive for trying to make it look like a kidnapping baffles me even more. If one of them hit her in anger without meaning to really hurt her and was remorseful afterwards, or knocked her against something "accidently" and hit her head, it would make more sense to grab her and rush her to the hospital and say she had fallen off a counter or something.

I don't know what happened inside that house that night, but I am now leaning toward the probability that one or both parents did kill her. The evidence points to an inside job. Either that or the intruder was a very, very strange person, one who might make JMK look "normal" in comparison.

I find the theories about "sex parties" and "farming JBR out" to be uncredible and unsupported by evidence. John R's computer had no child porn on it. I don't know why she was killed.

As for the pineapple and why Patsy or John might lie about getting up to feed it to her this is my understanding (maybe one of the better informed posters here can correct me if I am wrong):

The time of death for JBR was about 1:30 AM in the morning as I understood it. The three survivors in the house all said they slept through the night. The pineapple supposedly had been eaten about an hour before she died. Therefore whoever got up with her and fed her pineapple was with her an hour before she died.

John R said he took a sleeping pill that night. I don't think Patsy said she did. That might account for why John slept through whatever happened that night.

[rosebud]

I think the tape was put on her mouth by mom to teach her a lesson not to eat, I have seen this in my work, it is not impossible though highly upsetting to know..some parents use hot sauce.... locks on fridges.....welt marks from belts on their little hands....

And she accidentally suffocated....with tape on mouth from eating food she had to sneak as not to be seen by her mother-her manager of pagents and perfection.


REPLY: There was mucous under the tape and the lack of a tongue impression or lip impression on it is thought to indicate it was put on her after death, or after her breathing went very shallow, if not undetectable, from the blow to the head. That is what I understand.

Furthermore nuisance poster has informed me elsewhere in a thread here that the strip of tape was probably not taken new off a roll, but was instead already on something, and it may have been on the back of a photo and its picture frame in the Ramsey house. The roll for the duct tape on the mouth was never found. However strips of tape similar to that found on her mouth were found in the house on the backs of pictures in their frames.

I think Patsy told the police something about where the strip may have come from. I am not sure I remember exactly what she said.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by harz
I find it hard to believe that if her death was an accident in your theory and Ramseys covered it up by doing something to JonBenet's vagina making it looked like she was raped or molested?
How about this theory, maybe JonBenet's brother Bruke had sex with JonBenet that he was influenced from some television's sex show or movies, dirty magazines or maybe by someone else. Ramseys caught them then grew into rage instantly and furiously seperately them, knocking down JonBenet by pushing or hitting her. Maybe thats what killed her even if it was accident, then they spent all night to morning figuring out what to do, including brainwashing Bruke and planting the evidences.
I wonder if Bruke's DNA was taken for matching testing? If its not Bruke's DNA that was on JonBenet's underpants, then maybe Ramseys had someone's DNA they could obtain since they had plenty time to do so, probably through some favors or hired. Then this unidentified person came in to leave the handpalm prints in basement? or this print was there maybe some days before to many years ago.
Anyway, I would agree the theory about Ramseys would be shameful if the public had learned of Bruke and JonBenet having sex that Ramseys caught them and accidently killed JonBenet somehow. Maybe thats why John and Patsy were in seperate rooms, not clinching to each others worrying about where and how JonBenet is before they found the body and after. Usually normal parents clinch to each other when one of their children is missing or kidnapped that they are not resposible of.
I do thought varieties verisons of accident possibilities trying to see which one is likely possible. I really dont like trying figuring out how this tragedy happened that it has not be solved for a decade, I rather want to know what happened and that killer is caught. If it was an accident by Ramseys and they covered it up, then I would still see them as murders period.


REPLY: The "Burke did it and the parents rallied around him to protect their last child" theory is tempting, but I no longer think it is viable. Burke left the Ramsey house the morning of the day JBR was found and went to the Fleet Whites. He was questioned there alone away from his parents and was questioned at length alone a couple of weeks later and then again alone about six months later. He was only nine years old and clearly said nothing incriminating toward himself or anyone else.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I believe you are in the minority on that issue. I do, however, think it is possible to cause emotional issues about bedwetting if a parent makes it an issue. Patsy didn't. The majority of kids just outgrow it.
You're right. In looking for something to support the "emotional/psychological" reason for bedwetting, I found several links that state just the opposite. I'm still looking for one that supports the other theory, but here is just one example:
What causes bedwetting, a problem which affects nearly 20 million people in the US and millions more throughout the world?

In 99% of all bedwetting cases, the root cause is an inherited deep-sleep disorder. The brain sleeps so deeply that when signaled by the bladder, the brain cannot respond. The bladder empties involuntarily, causing a small bladder capacity and a weak and insensitive sphincter muscle (The sphincter muscle is the muscle that holds the urine inside the bladder).

As a result, many people with a bedwetting dilemma suffer from various daytime problems such as immediate "urges" to eliminate, having to go to the bathroom more frequently than others, wetting accidents, and bowel accidents.

What does NOT cause bedwetting?

Psychological problems, laziness, drinking fluids before bedtime, toilet training mistakes and poor parenting skills do not cause bedwetting. For more information and resources, see our online resource center.
http://www.drybed.com/

[deputydi]

Okay, here is another point of view. Seems there are differing opinions among professionals as to the cause of bedwetting. Confusing, isn't it?
Other causes of PNE include the following:

Abnormally positioned ureter (ectopic ureter; more common in females)
Constipation
Excessive urine output (polyuria; may result from excessive fluid intake)
Heart condition that causes an irregular heartbeat (heart block)
Neurological disorders (e.g., cerebral palsy, spinal cord disorders, neurogenic bladder)
Sleep arousal disorder (e.g., not awaking in response to sensory signals)
Urinary tract infection (UTI; e.g., cystitis)
Urethral obstruction (congenital or acquired as a result of trauma or infection)

Secondary nocturnal enuresis may be caused by psychological issues (e.g., death in the family, sexual abuse, extreme bullying) and is often associated with stress. It may also result from an acquired condition such as diabetes, overproduction of hormone by the thyroid gland (hyperthyroidism), seizure disorder (e.g., epilepsy), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
http://www.urologychannel.com/pediatric/enuresis.shtml

Who says these boards are not educational?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by LindaA
Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

I think it's simply possible that in their rush to stage the cover-up they simply overlooked the bowl & glass on the table.

Maybe they were accustomed to seeing dirty dishes left on the table for the housekeeper & they just didn't notice.

OR.....

As they were staging the cover-up they were interrupted by Burke waking up & they had to spend precious time telling him to say he slept all night & to stay in bed UNTIL the come upstairs & get him later.

I think it's rather easy to tell a child to not speak to police or anyone outside the family any 'personal business' and Burke's young age ensured that he was handled with kid gloves even when he was questioned by police & later by the child psychologist.

I never took Burke's silence for anything more than his following his parent's orders & probably knowing that the faster people believed he had no info, the faster they'd stop bothering him with questions.



And not to mention, leaving the bowl & glass on the table is one more little thing they can point to & say, 'It must have been an intruder, because we have no idea where that came from.'

[rosebud]

The MIA tape does not ring that an intruder brought his own then took it back. I think the MIA tape would show too many fingerprints of anybody including the Ramseys.

Why stifle the cries of someone already dead unless it is staged tape? A crying girl leaves mucous , lots, on her face....why is she crying?

The tape is important as is the pineapple. They preclude the ransom note which is of the charts for suspect.

IMO [/B][/QUOTE]

REPLY: I wondered about fingerprints on the tape. Apparently there were none. No one here knows about any at least. I am assuming that if there were fingerprints on the tape, that person would have been convicted of the crime. Mary Lacey said recently that there was no more unknown physical evidence in the case that had not come out publicly, and I assume this means no fingerprints on the tape?

I had read one time that fingerprints are not as plentiful at crime scenes as laymen like me assume sometimes. For example I read that fingerprints are seldom found on guns, because of the thin film of oil that most guns have on them. It is not relevent in this case, but from watching TV crime shows one would think all guns have fingerprints on them.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
I did at times think they were rallying around son but I do think son knows alot and Ramseys do not want him speaking.
Young children afraid of their parents know what to tell LE. The wrath is more powerful than any LE could ever be.


Burke was only nine years old. Do you think he could have kept from letting out some secrets from that night?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
Sorry Rose I didnot see that you quoted me:

It is my understanding that even after death her lips would have left an impression. I am not sure when it would have been placed as I am only speculating of course however if JBR knows about tape then it makes sense to tuck your lips inside your your mouth so that when it is ripped off it does not sting as much hence no impressions. It makes no sense that there are NO impressions other than her lips were already tucked in as to avoid the stickly tape... tape is a witch.
If there is mucous she was alive and had to stifling her cries I think.

The MIA tape is most curious as is the MIA object that the tape may have been ripped from. If it is ripped then I think that it is an after thought but maybe it is ripped from just a holding place. I have seen children hit with anything in the grasp of the parent's hands-pots, pans, shoes, plants you name it... tape could be just in the grasp of hands...

The MIA tape does not ring that an intruder brought his own then took it back. I think the MIA tape would show too many fingerprints of anybody including the Ramseys.

Why stifle the cries of someone already dead unless it is staged tape? A crying girl leaves mucous , lots, on her face....why is she crying?

The tape is important as is the pineapple. They preclude the ransom note which is of the charts for suspect.

IMO


victims feel, that she might have been suffocated by the tape is a new theory to me at least. I have not heard that offered as a theory before. If the tape was a punishment that would explain a very puzzling part of this killing. Do you think the parent was also tying her wrists?

[EDDIEisMINE]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Beth & her boyfriend were killed in a car accident in 1992 , JonBenet was coldly murdered and Patsy died as a result of recurring cancer.

I would hardly describe their deaths as "dropping like flies."

yea that was a bad way to put it.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
Rose after what I have seen nothing is impossible to me. You would never think a parent could put out ciggy butts on a child either but they do.

I did not mean to sound that she was suffocated by the tape as if that was the choice of death..I think the tape was either:

put on there as punishment to not eat
or
it was put there after she died to stage the scene
or
it was put on their to stifle her cries (could still be first idea) and she died from not breathing through her nose as it was full of mucous and could not breath through the tape......hence suffocated by the tape

but when and why was tape there?

I think before death as she tucked in her lips hence no impressions. She could not do that after death.

I have seen strapped hands with welt on welt so I think tying hands could be used. Good question Rose mmmmmmmmmm

no mouth to chew no hands to feed mouth.....

I know of a girl who ran awey so her parents tied her feet to the bed.

Anything...sadly and madly is possible Rose:(



I have come to believe that Patsy probably did it, although I do not have a chronology of events that explains everything that was found. Another troubling thing is that there there seems to be absolutely no history of violence by a parent against JBR or the other R children that was known or even suspected before JBR's death. It seems to me highly unlikely that a death would result when no violent history is involved.

I have seen Patsy Ramsey's sister on TV recently when JMK was first arrested in Thailand, and I have to say that I believe that SHE THINKS that Patsy was innocent. She seemed straighforward and direct with that assertion. I never got a real good handle for whether John and Patsy were lying or not when they were on TV.

That is a good suggestion that JBR may have tucked her lips and the tape might have been put on while she was alive.

You are aware I presume that the head wound would have been fatal if she had not suffocated first?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by victims feel
Great post LM my thoughts exactly...son would have not thought to do anything other than say what he knew his parents wanted him to say.

Though I do think JBR did get hungry on her own and went to eat.

I tend to think both kids ended up downstairs having a late night snack.

We know Patsy's prints are on the bowl & glass.

We know Burke's prints are in the glass.

What if, JB and Burke started horsing around & made enough noise to wake Patsy?

What if an overtired & now angry Patsy rushed downstairs and she went to whack Burke and missed hitting JB by mistake?

That alone would scare the heck of of Burke & give him good reason to remain silent.

If Burke is now screaming & Patsy can't think straight, who's to say she didn't snap & assume JB was already dead from the blow & go about the staging that would save the family from being completely torn apart?

Burke can run upstairs & get John & then stay in his room until they come fetch him to go to Fleet's house.

John goes completely numb when he finds out he lost a second daughter & does nothing to stop Patsy and ends up her unwilling accomplice in the coverup.

[Jadedblueeyes]

What I find very odd that some say this or that happened that night because the Ramseys were in a hurry to stage and cover up the crime.

That just does not compute imo.

They are running around in a mad dash? So they calmly sit down write a novel random note ...toss it and rewrite another one?:confused: That sure doesn't sound like someone in a panic at all to me but one who is simple coldly carrying out their mission from beginning to end.

Usually when a child is murdered by their parent it is quick wicked aggression of rage unless it is a long drawn out starvation, neglect there will also be gross abuses of those type children. Signs are there ...many through DFACS records. We know right here on this site when small children are killed most times than not there were many glaring red flags in fact I cant remember one case that didn't have major dysfunction in the child's life.

I have never heard of another parent that murdered their child by breaking their skull like an eggshell and then going through a process of a garrote, binding, taping...what would the purpose be the child's head wound would have caused death? If they wrote the ransom note then why in the heck would they leave her in her home? Wouldn't they want JB removed and hidden away from the home in a wooded area somewhere? It just makes no sense that these parents did anything to this sweet little girl.

If that were the case why not something much more simplistic and plausible .....like if they did strike her just take her body to the top of the long stairs and let her topple down as if an accident fall but to do all of this and then writing a 3 page ransom note just makes no sense. :shrug:

Whomever did this imo was in no rush or a panic. IMO he is cold as ice and went about what he had planned for sometime to do.

IMO

Ocean

[Zelda]

Originally posted by LindaA
Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

The pineapple has always bothered me -- for most of the reasons you question it.

It is important to remember that pineapple was in her stomach when they did the autopsy. And it showed, because of the digestion rate, to have been there for two-three hours.

So, if RDI or IDI killed her why wait two hours after she evidently had a snack? It's possble that one of the Ramsey gave her the snack, put her to bed, and then, for some reason killed JB two hours later.

I can't see an intruder fixing a snack for her, and waiting for two hours to kill her.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I tend to think both kids ended up downstairs having a late night snack.

We know Patsy's prints are on the bowl & glass.

We know Burke's prints are in the glass.

What if, JB and Burke started horsing around & made enough noise to wake Patsy?

What if an overtired & now angry Patsy rushed downstairs and she went to whack Burke and missed hitting JB by mistake?

That alone would scare the heck of of Burke & give him good reason to remain silent.

If Burke is now screaming & Patsy can't think straight, who's to say she didn't snap & assume JB was already dead from the blow & go about the staging that would save the family from being completely torn apart?

Burke can run upstairs & get John & then stay in his room until they come fetch him to go to Fleet's house.

John goes completely numb when he finds out he lost a second daughter & does nothing to stop Patsy and ends up her unwilling accomplice in the coverup.

But then they spend ten years and hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million+) on experts and investigators. One would think, given your scenario that they would just quietly fade from the American public's view. They still have their friends in Atlanta and CHX so its not like they were ostracized. They could have just stepped back into their old life.

[harz]

Hard for me to believe if Ramseys did cover up their accident or murder, how can we explain the unidentified DNA left in JonBenet's figernails and underpant? I did imaged if I were them, I could visit a graveyard to dig up a fresh corpse and sever its arm off then bring it back home for JonBenet to stratch it on, then drip some blood on her underpant from it? Then Ramseys had time to get rid of the severed arm? maybe that explains why no duct tape was found? I doubt Ramseys are that kind of people unless they had favors through family members or friends to do it for them.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by harz
Hard for me to believe if Ramseys did cover up their accident or murder, how can we explain the unidentified DNA left in JonBenet's figernails and underpant? I did imaged if I were them, I could visit a graveyard to dig up a fresh corpse and sever its arm off then bring it back home for JonBenet to stratch it on, then drip some blood on her underpant from it? Then Ramseys had time to get rid of the severed arm? maybe that explains why no duct tape was found? I doubt Ramseys are that kind of people unless they had favors through family members or friends to do it for them.

so many reasons to have foreign dna under your nails. Especially children.

I dont think they determined that the foreign dna in her underwear was blood. Her blood was there, but the foreign dna wasnt stated as blood.

[harz]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


so many reasons to have foreign dna under your nails. Especially children.

I dont think they determined that the foreign dna in her underwear was blood. Her blood was there, but the foreign dna wasnt stated as blood.

I learned two different verisons about dna left on underpants, they said from blood, other said from saliva. I dont know which one is correct, they said its white male. On other thread I noticed told by some posters that foregin dna could got on her underpants from one of underpants producing factories in Asia, then who blue collar white male worked there? If they can identified the dna that its male and color white, then how come thats all? how about color of eyes, hair, blood type, etc?

[aproudmom]

IMO
The BPD messed theis case up from day one and then they lied and lied and leaked false things to the media and to the Ramsey's freinds trying to get them to break well that never happened. And they were never found guilty

And as far as EX DET Steve Thomas he was caught in so many lies during his legal deposition..I encourage you to read this and then say they did not screw this case up from day one.

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

lies lies lies
A true dirty cop out to make a name for himself and to think he wrote a book and made even a dime of of JonBenet's murder

He should have prosecuted for leaking evidence to the news and tabloids trying to turn all of America against inncocent people. And becoming buddies with possible suspects..:no:

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
<snip>Like you I think suffocation came first and is reason of death.....head wound is overkill
I agree about the primary cause of death, but this is exactly why I have a hard time believing Patsy was the killer. The garotte pretty much disproves the "accident" theory. How do you accidently kill someone with a garotte? If the autopsy report listed the primary cause of death as blunt force trauma, I would totally buy the accidental death story. Then, the rest of the theories would pretty much fall in place. Fact is, it doesn't.

Patsy may have had a nasty temper, nothing I've seen indicates that but it's not impossible. JonBenet could have sneaked down in the middle of the night to eat the pineapple, but it's unlikely that the noise would have awakened a sleeping Patsy. Have you seen the layout of that house? If that did happen, and Patsy flew into a rage over it, the blunt force trauma would make sense. I CAN envision Patsy striking out and hitting JonBenet a little harder than she intended. But, the autopsy report indicates the garotte came first. I just can't believe a mother could have done that in anger.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by deputydi

I agree about the primary cause of death, but this is exactly why I have a hard time believing Patsy was the killer. The garotte pretty much disproves the "accident" theory. How do you accidently kill someone with a garotte? If the autopsy report listed the primary cause of death as blunt force trauma, I would totally buy the accidental death story. Then, the rest of the theories would pretty much fall in place. Fact is, it doesn't.

Patsy may have had a nasty temper, nothing I've seen indicates that but it's not impossible. JonBenet could have sneaked down in the middle of the night to eat the pineapple, but it's unlikely that the noise would have awakened a sleeping Patsy. Have you seen the layout of that house? If that did happen, and Patsy flew into a rage over it, the blunt force trauma would make sense. I CAN envision Patsy striking out and hitting JonBenet a little harder than she intended. But, the autopsy report indicates the garotte came first. I just can't believe a mother could have done that in anger.

Some people disagree on which injury came first:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0814jon1.htm

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/15-2.html

While they're only newspaper articles, which are sometimes wrong, they do quote the MEs.

I don't believe the autopsy report is infallible.

JMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes
What I find very odd that some say this or that happened that night because the Ramseys were in a hurry to stage and cover up the crime.

That just does not compute imo.

They are running around in a mad dash? So they calmly sit down write a novel random note ...toss it and rewrite another one?:confused: That sure doesn't sound like someone in a panic at all to me but one who is simple coldly carrying out their mission from beginning to end.

If that were the case why not something much more simplistic and plausible .....like if they did strike her just take her body to the top of the long stairs and let her topple down as if an accident fall but to do all of this and then writing a 3 page ransom note just makes no sense. :shrug:

Whomever did this imo was in no rush or a panic. IMO he is cold as ice and went about what he had planned for sometime to do.

IMO

Ocean

REPLY: You asked a lot of good questions. Why the parents, presuming they did it, did not try to make it look accidental is baffling.

The ransom note exists and it would seem that whoever wrote it was writing a ransom note for the first time and was writing it extemporaneously. Supposedly the handwriting experts could not rule out Patsy as the writer and that the note had the grammar and word tendencies of her past writing. Some also say that it had terms in it that sounded like a woman wrote it. However the threat to behead JB sounded masculine to some also. It was something a man would be more likely to threaten. There were also phrases in it that sounded inspired by Hollywood movies, like Dirty Harry. The letters SBTC may have been a reference to a Subic Bay base that John served at.

If it happened the way the Detective Steve Thomas's scenario said it did, one question I have is just when did John R come on board and decide to participate in the cover up? He said he took a sleeping aid that night, so he has a good reason to sleep through it. But did he hear something and get up and find that Patsy had accidently killed JBR and helped her to concoct the kidnapping story, with all the "trimmings" of the garrotte, tying her hands, and hiding the body in the basement, and then helped her write the ransom note?

Or did John get up earlier than he said, but after Patsy had done everything herself, and then went along with the whole thing when she told him that morning before calling the police?

Or did John actually think it was a kidnapping when the police arrived? I don't think that can be totally discounted for one reason: John actually handed the pad of paper the ransom note came from to a detective who requested something to write on. It was the actual pad the ransom note was taken from, with the aborted "starter letter" still on it. That seems unlikely he would hand it to the detectives if he had helped her write it.

If this was the case then was the ransom note what Burke is heard to refer to when he said something like "what did you find?" on the 911 call?

Or did John figure it out as the morning went on, or did he find out that night? Another intriguing question might be, did John ever find out? Did Patsy lie to him about what happened and he believed her forever afterward? Or did he finally figure out what she had done at some later date, but never discussed it with her, and just chose to keep defending her?

Is it possible that a married couple could not bring themselves to have a conversation about JBR's killing when both "know" what happened, and each knows the other knows, and they just cannot bring themselves to say the words?

Then you can get into all sorts of sexist theories: Would a hardheaded businessman like John Ramsey concoct the bizarre kidnapping with a million holes in it? Would a woman and former beauty queen be more likely to make up the dramatic kidnapping rather than the more practical "accidental fall" scenario?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by victims feel
Thanks for the links Sun...although ME reports are important documents they are not without fault, I so agree.

Look how many times we hear of exhumations( word?) to confirm cause of death?

True, and IIRC, LE wanted to exhume JB's body but the Ramseys would not let them. I don't know why they didn't obtain a court order.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


True, and IIRC, LE wanted to exhume JB's body but the Ramseys would not let them. I don't know why they didn't obtain a court order.


wow i didnt know the LE wanted to do this? DId they say for what reason? The tazer marks?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl



wow i didnt know the LE wanted to do this? DId they say for what reason? The tazer marks?

I will try to find it. I don't recall. I just remember something about the Ramseys saying no, no, she's at peace now and we don't want to disturb her. But I don't recall the details.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl



wow i didnt know the LE wanted to do this? DId they say for what reason? The tazer marks?

Yes, the taser marks. Even Lou Smit was not convinced it was a taser.

http://www.acandyrose.com/10042002-48hrs.htm

48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer
October 4, 2002 8pm DST CBS

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."

(Program showing Moriarty talking with Smit and Dobersen)

Erin Moriarty: "Wouldn't that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?"

Lou Smit: "Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet's death investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it."

John Ramsey: "We had buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought"

Erin Moriarty: "But John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue because if a stun gun was used it was not the parents."

John Ramsey: "Certainly and we've got people who told us who know what they are doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question."

Erin Moriarty: "But you would have known with a hundred percent with certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been."

John Ramsey: "That's my child you're talking, not a body, it's different."

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes, the taser marks. Even Lou Smit was not convinced it was a taser.

http://www.acandyrose.com/10042002-48hrs.htm

48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer
October 4, 2002 8pm DST CBS

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."

(Program showing Moriarty talking with Smit and Dobersen)

Erin Moriarty: "Wouldn't that have been or the best way to know or coming the closest to knowing is if you could have exhumed the body and line up a stun gun and see if it matches those injuries?"

Lou Smit: "Sure, I believe that would have been the most accurate way to do it."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Lou Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet's death investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed but decided against it."

John Ramsey: "We had buried our child, she was in peace, that was just a horrid thought"

Erin Moriarty: "But John that might have been the one way to know for sure, that could have resolved the whole issue because if a stun gun was used it was not the parents."

John Ramsey: "Certainly and we've got people who told us who know what they are doing that with 95% medical certainty that a stun gun was used. No question."

Erin Moriarty: "But you would have known with a hundred percent with certainty if you had exhumed the body, as tough as that would have been."

John Ramsey: "That's my child you're talking, not a body, it's different." I can fully comprehend what John was saying here....unless you have buried a child you really can't grasp it....it was is child in that grave.........I had and still have difficulty visiting the graveyard since my daughter's death......the parents were just following their emotions on this one...I wouldn't have allowed the body to be exhumed either! Don't be judging this reaction unless you've experienced the death of a child....it's really quite normal!! Please excuse any spelling errors....above I meant "his" child!!!

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I can fully comprehend what John was saying here....unless you have buried a child you really can't grasp it....it was is child in that grave.........I had and still have difficulty visiting the graveyard since my daughter's death......the parents were just following their emotions on this one...I wouldn't have allowed the body to be exhumed either! Don't be judging this reaction unless you've experienced the death of a child....it's really quite normal!! Please excuse any spelling errors....above I meant "his" child!!!

I'm sorry to hear about the death of your daughter, LadyFisher.

I have children but I can only imagine what it would be like to lose one of them and I hope I never have to know that pain.

I did lose both of my parents at a young age and I know I would NOT want their bodies exhumed for any reason.

Whether John and Patsy are guilty or not, I can well understand why they didn't want their daughter's body disturbed and I would not hold that against them.

Reading the transcripts of the police interrogations humanizes Patsy more for me. Makes her seem softer. She always came across as so defensive and abrasive to me on television, but she seems softer and more polite in her police interviews.

The BPD certainly wasn't infallible. I don't believe the Boulder ME was infallible and I believe IF (it's still an if with me, though I lean toward them being guilty) the Ramseys are guilty, the head wound came first and JB's death was accidental and the cover up the result of panic.

One has to feel sorry for the Ramseys. If JB was killed by one of them, that's a terrible burden to live with. If they are innocent, then they've suffered the worst thing any parent can ever suffer.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
:rose: for you Lady....
<snip>
If they could confirm taser marks then that would exclude 100% the Rasmeys as POI unless there is a receipt that they have one... why not for once and for all.....get that solved if only to exonerate the parents?
This is just another example of how incredibly sloppy the investigative team was. The origin of those marks should have been determined before JonBenet was buried. It's not like the death certificate says she died of a heart attack and it was later discovered that she may have been poisoned. That kind of exhumation I can understand. Those marks were CLEARLY visible from the moment her body was discovered.

I do not blame the parents AT ALL for refusing the exhumation.

[thewhitewitch1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by victims feel
[B]:rose: for you Lady....


I hear what you are saying and please do not think me rude....perhaps too clinical....



because people know that is how people feel even the public I think that is why it was left alone....however...if it meant to close the case.........what is best for daughter: to never have peace or to be disturbed for a moment to have eternal peace?

Please keep in mind disturbing a grave is a religious thing based on sentiment, we know scientifically the body is unaware of what is going on... I would think solving a crime by the taser marks would supercede that sentiment.




If they could confirm taser marks then that would exclude 100% the Rasmeys as POI unless there is a receipt that they have one... why not for once and for all.....get that solved if only to exonerate the parents?


Indeed. If it were proven conclusively that the marks were made by a taser, the Ramseys probably would have been cleared. Even I can't imagine them using a taser on her. That would prove premeditation. So...in light of that, I don't understand why they wouldn't agree to have her exhumed. They did say they would do anything to solve her murder...
Of course, if they knew that the marks didn't come from a taser (for obvious reasons), that would be a good reason to refuse to have the body exhumed.

I think Burke really doesn't know what really happened that night...only what he was told. I doubt that a kid his age wouldn't screw up his "story" under intense questioning. I doubt also that he would have been able to lead a normal life knowing his parents killed his sister...if, in fact they did. And it is my opinion that they did.
I believe it was an accident caused out of anger for something. Just the fact that Patsy or John injured her that badly out of anger would be reason enough to panic and stage a crime scene. After all, if they were to tell the truth that they hurt her that bad in a heated moment, they could conceivably still be arrested, could they not? And I still believe that the head wound came first and at that point, they probably thought she was already dead or near death. IMO, they just didn't want themselves to be suspected or blamed in any way, shape or form.

[watson]

Before the recent hoilday weekend, I posted it seemed like a good time for a fresh start in the JB case. So, here's my attempt at re-interpreting the the well known evidence from the start as if the original LE had not put false or misleading interretations in our heads from the begining and see what people think. Feel free to discuss any of the observations I bring up or my the proof for them. First, the murder weapon in this case seems almost certainly to be a pair of shoelaces........the reasons....
1.) Everything else from this crime was from a home environment, why not the murder cord too?
2.) What else can be found in the home, is made of synthetic material, is white, flat, 1/4" wide?
3.) Two cords were used in this case, just like the two shoelaces.
4.) Rumaging in my closet, I came up easily with white flat laces 1/4" wide, that seem to match exactley the crime scene photos, incidentally their from a pair of mens size 10 blue canvas over white rubber yaghting shoes, common among sail boaters in the Northeast and sold by outlets like BoatersWorld.
5.) The length of the 2 cords in the case (from the ME report and allowing for the knots) match with the length of the shoelaces of 53" each for the ones I found here.
So, although I never heard it mentioned before or by LE it looks like the murder weapon in this case are a pair of new bright white shoelaces (with the plastic ends cut off), possibly from Northeastern US boating shoes.
What does anyone else think?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I'm sorry to hear about the death of your daughter, LadyFisher.

I have children but I can only imagine what it would be like to lose one of them and I hope I never have to know that pain.

I did lose both of my parents at a young age and I know I would NOT want their bodies exhumed for any reason.

Whether John and Patsy are guilty or not, I can well understand why they didn't want their daughter's body disturbed and I would not hold that against them.

Reading the transcripts of the police interrogations humanizes Patsy more for me. Makes her seem softer. She always came across as so defensive and abrasive to me on television, but she seems softer and more polite in her police interviews.

The BPD certainly wasn't infallible. I don't believe the Boulder ME was infallible and I believe IF (it's still an if with me, though I lean toward them being guilty) the Ramseys are guilty, the head wound came first and JB's death was accidental and the cover up the result of panic.

One has to feel sorry for the Ramseys. If JB was killed by one of them, that's a terrible burden to live with. If they are innocent, then they've suffered the worst thing any parent can ever suffer. Thank you, Sun and thank you victim for your kind sentiments.....it is a horrible thing to lose a child...you are not supposed to bury your children.....I thank God that I didn't lose mine in such a horrible manner as the Ramseys did...I do feel so sorry for them....Have a great night! :)

[lisafremont]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
This has been the most comprehensive thing I have read so far...and I have read a LOT.

http://www.childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_murder.html

Got an error message!! Bummer!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


JonBenet started wetting herself during the time Patsy was away from home frequently for cancer treatments. Patsy's mother kept JonBenet part of the time and wasn't diligent in keeping up her potty habits.

Have you read anything about this case?

I've read a lot...and I have never read that...not even in the Ramseys own book. What's your source?
I do remember her saying in the book that JB slept soundly and if she didn't go to the bathroom before bed, it was likely she would wet the bed. She wasn't woken up on Dec 26 and Patsy said she was "zonked". Bt her own admission, JB probably wet the bed that night. JMO
Even I am still not convinced that bed wetting was what caused them to do this to her.
Also, hadn't Patsy been in remission for quite a while before the murder? Just because you survive cancer doesn't mean your emotions are on an even keel the rest of your life. You can't assume what would or would not push someones buttons, especially someone you don't even know.

[harz]

Interesting, did they found one of Ramseys shoes lying around without shoelaces? The killer might took one of Ramseys shoes to remove the shoelaces or he already had his own with him, but doesn't mean he took his shoelaces off his shoes he was wearing. He might have recently brought new shoes as he got extra shoelaces included. I wish this shoes details were identified sooner, right after the murder by police, and then maybe police can track at some shoe stores that sell this kind of shoe to find out who brought them recently. Maybe through credit card, checks, video camera, or people working at stores can remembering who brought it. The shoes size 10 suggests the killer is around 5 feet and 5 to 10 inches tall. Had they determine the killer’s weight yet? Looks like to me between 140 to 160 pounds if he didn’t have trouble entering/exiting the basement window. Anyway, I found it chilling when I looked at one of basement pictures, one with hall to wine cellar I think, where Ramsey had bunch of stuff lying around. I imaged or pictured how killer sneaked around in that basement taking whatever was used as evidences then carried JonBenet there from her bedroom.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Could have read that in Perfect Murder/Perfect Town. (I went back to library and got that book again today - I'll see if I can find.

Who wasn't woken up on the 26th? That's the day of the incident.

Patsy had been in remission since 1994. (PM/PT)

Sorry..got the date wrong...I meant the 25th when they returned home from the Whites party.
I am more likely to believe what the Ramseys have written themselves than any other source, though I am interested in reading the books written about them.
BTW, Victims Feel...I got the book from the library. I would never BUY their book.

[harz]

Originally posted by hohum


How did you get that? My husband is 5'9" and wears a size 8 shoe.

:shrug:

I was just guessing. My guess to me that it was averages of people I known. But I doubt the killer is any taller than 6 feet, probably 5'11" max.

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz
wow thanks for the link. I have a question about JonBenet's brother Bruke? He could possible have had done it somehow and the parents knew, but covered it up by tampering or alternating the evidences? I found it interesting that John hired lawyers for Bruke when he turned 18 sametime the polices want him for questioning.


I am new here...so, I may have missed it, if my question has already been addressed. I was just curious about whether or not Burke could be given a lie detector test, now that he is an adult? This is the first time that I have ever read that his dad hired lawyers for him, when he reached 18...very interesting.

[trt]

I'm not convinced of the bedwetting theory either, but I just wanted to state that no stains is not an indication that a bed has not been wet the night before. My son is two and drinks ALOT(he asks for water throughout the night-OT if anyone has any tips on helping me potty train him and wean him from drinking so much, please tell, lol). He also sleeps at the foot of our bed. I usually wake up at night to change him(sometime during the time our 5 month old wakes up for a feeding), but if I'm too late, there will be a huge wet spot at the end of our bed. Most nights, I am too lazy and don't feel like dealing with moving everyone out of the bed(including hubby, an impossible feat, lol), so I just put a towel or two in the spot and lay him and me back down. When we wake up(and this is 3 or 4 hours later), the wet spot is gone and there is no stain, probably because he drinks so much and the urine is filled with mostly water. Possibly because of the print on our sheets(even our spare pairs have prints). Just wanted to jump in and say that its not at all impossible to have a wet bed the night before with no stains or indications of bed wetting the next day.

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


And I bet you wouldn't kill your child because he wet the bet either would you? The fact that some people believe that theory or even concocted it in the first place makes me :flamemad: . The lengths some posters will go to convict the Ramsey's is very telling. I suppose they have never heard of innocent until proven guilty.

No, he's two. I would say though, that if he were six and did this regularly, I would be pretty doggone irritated by having to get up every night to tend to his bed. I would NEVER dream of killing him, but that's me. I'm not really convinced of this theory either(I don't know either way), but just wanted to point out that absence of stains does not mean absence of urine.

[docg]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I still notice the "no footprints in the snow" comment...when it's been proven there wasn't hardly any snow on the ground around the home......

Proven by whom? Lou Smit? He presented photos taken well after sunrise, when much of the "pervasive layer of light snow and frost" had melted. Here's an earlier photo that will give you a better idea of the weather conditions that morning:


http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/087yardsnow.jpg

While it is true that, as Smit claims, the walkways were clear of snow, I see only ONE walkway in this photo, the one leading to the front door. Please explain to me how anyone could walk around to or from the side or rear of the house without leaving footprints in the pervasive layer of light snow and frost on the lawn?

[Ames]

Originally posted by hohum


Why would Burke need to take a lie detector test?


I am not saying that he did it, but he could be covering for his one or both of his parents. Why not give him a lie detector test, just to make sure that he is actually telling the truth. Because, I have read that he changed his story from JonBenet being AWAKE when they arrived home from the party...to she was ASLEEP. So, which is it? Was she awake or asleep?? I just think that he should take the test, he knows more than we think....IMO

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


Who wet the bed every night?

Excuse me, I didn't mean to indicate that this was an every night occurence. It happens very often in my home now, and I did say regularly, but did not mean to indicate every night. So many nights. The rest of my response doesn't change.

[Magnolia01]

I can't get the original link to open? shoot...I so wanted to read that!!

Do you have another addy I can try?

Thanks!

Maggie :)

[Magnolia01]

Hi watson :seeya:

We met briefly on the other board last night....and then all of our posts were archived LOL

Welcome back and again, thanks for your perspective!

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Since you posted this I must respond. I don't think Patsy or John Ramsey EVER dreamed of killing their daughter - nor do I think they did. JMO

I agree that they never dremed of killing her, I can't say for sure that they didn't.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by hohum


Finally. After reading all the judgmental posts on this board re the Ramsey's it's a fresh perspective to hear reaction from a poster who has actually lost a child. :rose: to you. Thank you, Hohum.......I believe that a stun gun was used on JB...and maybe John didn't make the correct decision when he wouldn't let the body be exhumed...but I can most definitely understand why he didn't....it was HIS child....it is different to folks who just observe a death of a child and can say things like " I would have had the body exhumed"...but they really don't know unless they experience what he went through....the death/murder of their daughter was still so fresh in their minds and the horror of exhuming her probably overwhelmed them...I know that I would have reacted just as they did!!!

[msgatorslayer]

Anyone know if Burke was ever questioned about the pineapple?

[MissOtisRegrets]

What about the presence of the Barbie nightgown next to the body and the fact that JonBenet was covered by a blanket from her bed when found in the basement? What do those things represent? Who got them for her? I know the police suspected that Patsy had placed the nightgown next to JB for her journey. But, in that case, wouldn't she have actually changed JB into the nightgown rather than leave her in the soiled white pants? JonBenet's body had been cleaned of the urine and blood (remains found smeared). Why wasn't she changed into the Barbie nightgown after being cleaned? Her arms were raised over her head as though she was about to have her top taken off. Was the person who had cleaned her and preparing to change her suddenly interrupted? Did he/she just pull the dirty pants up (or put them back on) and, then, leave? Were there two people involved, one a caregiver-type?

Sorry if this rambles/makes no sense. I just woke up. But this nightgown bothers me.

[Magnolia01]

I agree with you that this nightgown business makes no sense at all.

I understand that the gown was kind of a "good luck charm" kind of thing during her pageant days....sorry, don't remember what document it was that stated that....I also read that she kept the nightgown under her pillow. Superstition maybe? I am curious as to why it was found NEXT to her body instead of ON it. I'm thinking if it were up to Patsy, JB would have the gown on her body.

I know I've kept my night clothes, as well as my daughter's, under our pillow for the sake of being easy to find when we are ready for bed. (and btw it's certainly no good luck charm for me ;))

[Athena]

MsOtis - for the past couple of days I have thought about that Barbie nightgown (thanks to you) and can come up with no significance to it other than I believe there must have been. I am so hoping that someone on the board can up with a valid explanation. Only the housekeeper from what I've read said that the Barbie nightgown was JBR's favorite. Patsy believed the one-piece "Genie" nightwear given to her by her Aunt (Patsy's sister) was her favorite and traveled with it to beauty pageants to use in between change in costumes because it was pulled down rather than lifted over the head (not to muss her hair).

Magnolia -- the nightwear found under her pillow was the one her Aunt gave her not the Barbie nightgown.

Also in Schiller's book he describes the Barbie nightgown as just a pink nightgown with the name Barbie inscribed on the front of it. I thought Patsy in the transcript of 4/97 said the Barbie nightgown actually had a Barbie face on it but she could not see the one the police had clearly because it was folded in a plastic bag. I'm wondering if this nightgown actually was the same one Patsy and the housekeeper refer to or was it even hers?

[Magnolia01]

Athena: Thanks for setting the "genie vs. barbie" issue straight. I knew I'd read somewhere one of them was something she used in pageants, just didn't remember the genie one.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
I agree with you that this nightgown business makes no sense at all.

I understand that the gown was kind of a "good luck charm" kind of thing during her pageant days....sorry, don't remember what document it was that stated that....I also read that she kept the nightgown under her pillow. Superstition maybe? I am curious as to why it was found NEXT to her body instead of ON it. I'm thinking if it were up to Patsy, JB would have the gown on her body.

I know I've kept my night clothes, as well as my daughter's, under our pillow for the sake of being easy to find when we are ready for bed. (and btw it's certainly no good luck charm for me ;))

Hi Magnolia! I did not know that the Barbie nightgown had been a "good luck charm" for JB during her pageant days. How many people would have known that and gotten it for her? Did she get it for herself or ask for it? The Barbie nightgown was not under JB's pillow that night. I believe that was the top to a pair of pink pajamas she had worn on Christmas eve. According to Patsy, the Barbie nightgown would have either been in a drawer in JB's bathroom (a drawer found open) or in the dirty clothes hamper,

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Athena
MsOtis - for the past couple of days I have thought about that Barbie nightgown (thanks to you) and can come up with no significance to it other than I believe there must have been. I am so hoping that someone on the board can up with a valid explanation. Only the housekeeper from what I've read said that the Barbie nightgown was JBR's favorite. Patsy believed the one-piece "Genie" nightwear given to her by her Aunt (Patsy's sister) was her favorite and traveled with it to beauty pageants to use in between change in costumes because it was pulled down rather than lifted over the head (not to muss her hair).

Magnolia -- the nightwear found under her pillow was the one her Aunt gave her not the Barbie nightgown.

Also in Schiller's book he describes the Barbie nightgown as just a pink nightgown with the name Barbie inscribed on the front of it. I thought Patsy in the transcript of 4/97 said the Barbie nightgown actually had a Barbie face on it but she could not see the one the police had clearly because it was folded in a plastic bag. I'm wondering if this nightgown actually was the same one Patsy and the housekeeper refer to or was it even hers?


Thanks, Athena! And wasn't that a photograph, rather than the actual bag that Patsy was being shown? How serious were they about solving this case?

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by hohum
Wouldn't you think since the detectives were asking Patsy to take a look at the nightgown (in the bag making it hard for her to see), that they would have donned some gloves and removed it from the bag for her to look at closely. It was important enough for them to ask her about yet she could not see it clearly. :shrug:


thats because they were only showing her a picture of it. The picture was taken of a barbie nightgown in a clear evidence bag.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets



Thanks, Athena! And wasn't that a photograph, rather than the actual bag that Patsy was being shown? How serious were they about solving this case?

Oh yes; it was a photo my apology for leaving that out. As a matter of fact Patsy had asked if there were another one because she couldn't see it clearly.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Athena


Oh yes; it was a photo my apology for leaving that out. As a matter of fact Patsy had asked if there were another one because she couldn't see it clearly.

right, and what i recall of that interview with patsy was, she didnt seem to think the barbie nightgown was her favorite and that she hadnt worn in xmas nor xmas eve to bed. She felt that the barbie nightgown must have been in JB's bathroom drawer.

from what i recall

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets



Thanks, Athena! And wasn't that a photograph, rather than the actual bag that Patsy was being shown? How serious were they about solving this case?

I can't help believe it was this seemingly obscure evidence that should have been examined. They were so focused on that note that I believe they ignored much of the other stuff or maybe it's just the way it seems to me. :shrug:

[Athena]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


right, and what i recall of that interview with patsy was, she didnt seem to think the barbie nightgown was her favorite and that she hadnt worn in xmas nor xmas eve to bed. She felt that the barbie nightgown must have been in JB's bathroom drawer.

from what i recall

I'd say your recollection is pretty good since I agree. (just kidding)

That is exactly what was said in the 4/97 transcript. She thought her favorite was the one her Aunt gave her that she took to the pageants with her.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by Athena


I'd say your recollection is pretty good since I agree. (just kidding)

That is exactly what was said in the 4/97 transcript. She thought her favorite was the one her Aunt gave her that she took to the pageants with her.

:)

[DixieChick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]

snipped... meaning of Barbie nitegown?

I think it was a symbolic message to Patsy-- "your Barbie is gone too" jmo

:rose: for Patsy

[Athena]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Athena: Thanks for setting the "genie vs. barbie" issue straight. I knew I'd read somewhere one of them was something she used in pageants, just didn't remember the genie one.

I hope I did not offend you the way it was posted. Sometimes I tend to be just "matter of fact" so it doesn't come across well. Believe me there are so many conflicting stories out here just trying to keep what we do know straight. :)

[Athena]

Originally posted by DixieChick
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]

snipped... meaning of Barbie nitegown?

I think it was a symbolic message to Patsy-- "your Barbie is gone too" jmo

:rose: for Patsy

Hmm...... it does make sense.

[DixieChick]

What if it was dried pineapple that she may have had at the christmas party?

My sister gave me a box of chocolate covered(dried) pineapple from Hawaii. and I recall how often people have platters of dried fruit at the holidays.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by DixieChick
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]

snipped... meaning of Barbie nitegown?

I think it was a symbolic message to Patsy-- "your Barbie is gone too" jmo

:rose: for Patsy

Whoever got it, knew where it was kept. It probably was JB's gown, as the drawer in the bathroom in which it was kept was found open. At first glance, it's very damning for Patsy or another family member. But it might not be. Particularly, if it wasn't JB's "good luck charm". The housekeeper would have known where it was kept. And she thought it was her favorite. JonBenet may have gotten it out, herself, to change into, if she woke up wet. Was someone in her room at that point? Was she told she was going to see Santa?

[msgatorslayer]

Hey Hohum, I'm not Watson but I think it's great to discuss to the knots and supposed 'garrotte'

Here's the link to another thread which was archived. You'll find it interesting.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273368

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Good question and I know I need to quit repeating myself but Thomas' line re: Patsy "she's good for it" always pops in my mind when I read a question like you just asked. BTW - I haven't forgotten that you want to know who my 3 prime suspects are. I'm still thinking......


I will be interested to hear, rosy. I respect your opinion. I am about 100 pages from the end of PMPT (the first book I have read on the case). I am all over the place. I can't figure anything out.

[msgatorslayer]

And this one also has alot about the knots. Page 13 and beyond.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=273989&perpage=40&pagenumber=13

I wish CW, or one of the waters would move all the Ramsey related threads over here.

[sunsplashed]

Patsy has always denied ever seeing the bowl of pineapple and the glass, yet her fingerprints were on the bowl and Burke's were on both.

Could JB have eaten something else (it was not definitively identified as pineapple) and the victims' advocates have brought the pineapple and the glass?

I don't know when Burke left the house for the White's. I don't know if it was before or after the VA's came, but he touched the bowl and the glass.

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I can fully comprehend what John was saying here....unless you have buried a child you really can't grasp it....it was is child in that grave.........I had and still have difficulty visiting the graveyard since my daughter's death......the parents were just following their emotions on this one...I wouldn't have allowed the body to be exhumed either! Don't be judging this reaction unless you've experienced the death of a child....it's really quite normal!! Please excuse any spelling errors....above I meant "his" child!!!

Oh LadyFisher,

Words cannot express how I just felt reading your post.

Not any one person should ever think they would ever know what they would do in situations they've never been in. :rose:

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
Patsy has always denied ever seeing the bowl of pineapple and the glass, yet her fingerprints were on the bowl and Burke's were on both.

Could JB have eaten something else (it was not definitively identified as pineapple) and the victims' advocates have brought the pineapple and the glass?

I don't know when Burke left the house for the White's. I don't know if it was before or after the VA's came, but he touched the bowl and the glass.

JMO

I did not read that Burke's prints were found on the bowl. I know they were found on the glass and Patsy's on the bowl. It would not be unusual for her prints to be found either since simply putting away dishes after washing would result in that. The glass strikes me odd with the teabag also. It is not a glass you would drink tea out of - a teabag could have simply been disposed of in the glass as well. Just a thought..... jmo

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


I did not read that Burke's prints were found on the bowl. I know they were found on the glass and Patsy's on the bowl. It would not be unusual for her prints to be found either since simply putting away dishes after washing would result in that. The glass strikes me odd with the teabag also. It is not a glass you would drink tea out of - a teabag could have simply been disposed of in the glass as well. Just a thought..... jmo

It looks to me like the teabag was just disposed of in the glass.

The problem with Patsy's prints on the bowl is that she denies every having seen the bowl and says she did not buy pineapple (interview with the BPD on April 30, 1997). If they were her dishes, she would have recognized them. That's why I thought the Victim Advocates could have brought them and Burke and Patsy could have touched them without remembering. In the confusion of that morning and early afternoon, I doubt that Patsy would have remembered everything she touched.

And, given the level of competency of the BPD, there might have been other prints on the bowl that were never made public.

JMO

[watson]

Hi everybody,
Watson here, When joining the boards back in July I didn't know that Court TV controlled Crime Library.....so my 'lost' posts and one tirade, but now I see it in full operation. So, we've been archived over there (or here), no matter, us boardies will keep posting on this case......the biggest unsolved criminal mystery of the century....and a very poignant case where justice still needs to be done.
On the shoe lace thing.....did I just think of it....sort of.
Since the Boulder LE flopped on this case early on (it happens no one is perfect), and the Boulder DA even a worse flop recently, it seemed a good time to go back to the begining.
The 'good' thing in this case is that so very much of the evidence has been made public over the years (I think almost all of it), that we can all now examine the ORIGINAL evidence and THINK for OURSELVES.
In reviewing the photos, and then the complete ME report it sounded and looked like they were describing shoe laces. You put that together with he FACT that amost everything else involved with with crime came from a home environment.....and you wonder....what's flat, bright white, 1/4 inch wide and comes in two's in the home, and you come up with flat white shoe laces.
Whatesmore, on measuring them, they come up close to, or at, the ME's measure for the 2 cords.
Can we prove their shoe laces? No, we don't have the actual evidence, and we DON'T have an actual FORENSIC report on the murder string either, because, as far as I know, none has EVER been released, although I'm sure one was done within 2 weeks of the crime.
So, if it looks like shoe laces, sounds like shoe laces, and if shoe laces fit with the 'home' environment of the crime, shouldn't we ASSUME their shoe laces, until LE releases a forensics report on the cords and their orgin saying different?
After this Boulder DA karr fiasco, it just seems like time for new thinking about the known evidence, since OBVIOUSLY no one has got it right yet.

[msgatorslayer]

Lot's of questions about the pineapple. But I don't feel it's a large clue in all of this since we can't be 100% sure it was pineapple.

What if it was crab meat? :shrug:

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Sunsplashed, I can't find anything in the trascript of the April 30, 1997 interview of BPD with Patsy about not never having seen the bowl before. But, I don't think the transcipt I see is the complete one, as it ends with Steve Thomas saying "OK. At 3 p.m., we’ll conclude this."

Do you have a link to the rest of the interview...the part you say contains the pinapple and bowl questions and answers?

Good morning MryDawn,

The questions are in the transcript of 6/98. When you open up the document do search for "pineapple". She does not deny owning the bowl or having pineapple -- just that she would not have served it that way or given it to JBR:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[cantaloupe]

I like your idea to start fresh. Shoelaces sound as plausible as any idea I've heard. I'd like to know if the LE specifically considered that idea. It seems very logical based on the photos of the cords, but LE handled the actual evidence and might have some reason to exclude shoelaces.

Then again, it may be one of those things that "only the killer knows."

[Athena]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
Lot's of questions about the pineapple. But I don't feel it's a large clue in all of this since we can't be 100% sure it was pineapple.

What if it was crab meat? :shrug:

I thought he same thing as well since the autopsy report says "consistent" with pineapple which IMO is not necessarily pineapple but something similar in texture. JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


It's just one of those nagging mysteries that people want to know the answer to. I don't know if crab meat is the same consistency or how they test for that.

Fleet White testified that he didn't even know IF pineapple was served at his party according to judge Carnes so it is very possible she at it there.

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by hohum


It's just one of those nagging mysteries that people want to know the answer to. I don't know if crab meat is the same consistency or how they test for that.

Oh yeah, a mystery for sure. And I'm new to discussing this case. So, I seen, I don't know how many people use the pineapple as proof Patsy was lying. Then I read the autopsy report for myself. And I was amazed.

And they didn't test it, to my knowledge. If they did, there is no broader report on the net, just the ME's opinoin.

I've asked this question before. But, what kind of training to ME's have on food content? Is it an area of study? Or do they just give a guess with what they know?

I haven't been able to fully put the pieces of the puzzle together. But some say that LE didn't know the about the pineapple till way later. Even though the bowl was taken as evidence on the night of the 26th.

IF, big IF, a detective did note it was pineapple, and asked Patsy about it that night and she said she didn't know anything about it, this would give LE something to question. Since they already thought it was an inside job.

And IF a Detective was present at autopsy, and curious about time of death and what JB had ate, he could have given the ME the idea of the pineapple. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer


Oh yeah, a mystery for sure. And I'm new to discussing this case. So, I seen, I don't know how many people use the pineapple as proof Patsy was lying. Then I read the autopsy report for myself. And I was amazed.

And they didn't test it, to my knowledge. If they did, there is no broader report on the net, just the ME's opinoin.

I've asked this question before. But, what kind of training to ME's have on food content? Is it an area of study? Or do they just give a guess with what they know?

I haven't been able to fully put the pieces of the puzzle together. But some say that LE didn't know the about the pineapple till way later. Even though the bowl was taken as evidence on the night of the 26th.

IF, big IF, a detective did note it was pineapple, and asked Patsy about it that night and she said she didn't know anything about it, this would give LE something to question. Since they already thought it was an inside job.

And IF a Detective was present at autopsy, and curious about time of death and what JB had ate, he could have given the ME the idea of the pineapple. JMO

Exactly MsGator. There were two law enforcement personnel at the autopsy and I know one of them was Linda Arndt but I do not recall who the second one was. Again the autopsy report does not specifically say she ate pineapple; it says consistent with. I think people confuse what consistent with means. It only means that there is no contradictory hypothesis given in what is already known. Which means that when the pineapple was discovered and nothing else that was available to contradict -- it is just a logical theory. Not a concrete fact. (I learned that in Physics which was a long time ago LOL so anyone can feel free to correct this if they believe it to be inaccurate). jmo

[msgatorslayer]

I can't find the exact quote, it's lost somewhere on an old thread, but, in DOI, JR describes the cords as 'shoelace like'

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by Athena


Exactly MsGator. There were two law enforcement personnel at the autopsy and I know one of them was Linda Arndt but I do not recall who the second one was. Again the autopsy report does not specifically say she ate pineapple; it says consistent with. I think people confuse what consistent with means. It only means that there is no contradictory hypothesis given in what is already known. Which means that when the pineapple was discovered and nothing else that was available to contradict -- it is just a logical theory. Not a concrete fact. (I learned that in Physics which was a long time ago LOL so anyone can feel free to correct this if they believe it to be inaccurate). jmo

I figured there was an LE officer at autopsy but since I've never read that as fact, I wrote IF, lol.

There is so many missing pieces. I realize that the Ramsey's never went in for 'formal' interviews till months later, but it's only reasonable that the Ramsey's were questioned about different things through the day of the 26th.

[Magnolia01]

LadyFisher....I'm so sorry you lost a child and I appreciate reading your perspectives regarding such. I can't imagine the pain of burying your child and again, my condolences to you. :rose:

As far as the ME goes, I'm really not convinced this ME did such a great job. He could not make a definitive statement about what killed JB first, what the contents were in her stomach or the unusual (tazer like) marks on her body. I tend to refer to Cyril Wecht on this issue.

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I found the cords described in PM/PT - page 32 - as flat, appx. 1/4 inch wide.

Also, I remember reading in PM/PT the name of a specific brand of cord that was sold by the hardware store (where the police speculated Patsy bought the cord and duct tape.) Anyone remember reading that?

Lots of article's, etc, describe the cords by their size, but I think it's interesting that none of them say 'shoe lace' but JR, who seen them first hand, describes them as such.

And from looking at them it's clear that they are not 'rope'

I haven't read anything about brand, Rosy. I do remember reading that a college class had done a research project and found, IIRC, some 2000 items in that store which sold for, IIRC, $2.29, the cost of tape, or some item that LE was saying that Patsy bought for the crime.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
LadyFisher....I'm so sorry you lost a child and I appreciate reading your perspectives regarding such. I can't imagine the pain of burying your child and again, my condolences to you. :rose:

As far as the ME goes, I'm really not convinced this ME did such a great job. He could not make a definitive statement about what killed JB first, what the contents were in her stomach or the unusual (tazer like) marks on her body. I tend to refer to Cyril Wecht on this issue.

REPLY: And I would question anything Cyril Wecht says that is remotely controversial about any high profile case such as the JBR case.

Cyril Wecht came to the public eye as an obscure Medical Examiner in the 1970s who said that John F Kennedy was struck by bullets fired from the front (Grassy Knoll & conspiracy stuff and all that). Now while some of you may believe that, there have been at least THREE (maybe more) different sets of Medical/Forensic Examiner teams over the years who have looked at the autopsy records and photos of JFK and guess what?

Every single medical examiner in all the teams (by unanimous vote) has concluded that JFK was struck twice FROM BEHIND and that there is NOTHING to indicate that he was struck from the front. And the peculiar thing about the phrase "every one" is that it INCLUDES Dr. Cyril Wecht. That is right, folks. Cyril Wecht's signature is at the bottom of a report in 1978 that concludes that JFK was struck twice from behind and that there is no physical/medical evidence that he was struck from the front.

Of course that has not stopped the good Dr Wecht from appearing in several "documentaries" over the years after he signed that report in which he suggests that JFK WAS struck from the front. So Wecht is on record on paper for posterity saying there is nothing medically to show JFK was struck from the front and that all of it indicates JFK was struck ONLY from the rear, but when the cameras start rolling Wecht changes his story to say JFK may have been struck from the front, which naturally gets him a headline. He will say ANYTHING that will get him some attention.

Wecht will say ANYTHING for publicity. His irresponsible publicity seeking got him into the public eye and he will say anything controversial about any high profile case that will get him in the public eye and on TV again. Wecht is a publicity seeker first and a Medical Examiner second. I would question anything Wecht has said about the JBR case that contradicts what the Boulder ME concluded. I would believe the Boulder ME well before I would believe Wecht.

[msgatorslayer]

Really stupid question here, but, what's the difference between 'cracked crab' and crab meat?:o

Is it just a fancy name, or what? Cause I love crab legs. Crack and eat. But never heard this term 'cracked crab'

Gator :confused:

[MissOtisRegrets]

I read on one of the boards that JonBenet had been sick earlier in the day and had lain down on the sofa at the Whites. She was given a dish of cracked crab in case she felt like eating later but that it wasn't known whether or not she had ever eaten the crab. If she had not eaten much that day, is it possible she woke up wet and hungry and went downstairs to get something to eat, surprising someone she knew but who shouldn't have been in the house?

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Cracked crab -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/12/24/FD18139.DTL&type=special

Personally, I think the name has a lot to do with the annual income of the household where it is being served. LOL LOL

:lol:

No wonder it's not on our menu!!

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Cracked crab -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/12/24/FD18139.DTL&type=special

Personally, I think the name has a lot to do with the annual income of the household where it is being served. LOL LOL

I'm thinking the same thing, Rosy. Just an elegant name for a crab, lmao.

I did a similar search for 'cracked crab' lastnight and couldn't find any 'special' recipe for it. No matter what ya call it, its all the same, crack, dip in butter, and enjoy.:D

[MissOtisRegrets]

Could it have been candied pineapple and taken longer to digest? Harry and David's Pineapple and Macadamia Nut Fruitcake?

[trt]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Could it have been candied pineapple and taken longer to digest? Harry and David's Pineapple and Macadamia Nut Fruitcake?

Yeah, but see I agree with another poster that stated that if it were possible that she got it from somewhere else, why didn't anyone else come forward and say *oh yeah, she had a piece of pineapple upside down cake* or oops, I had some dried pineapple out. Why didn't Patsy or John pursue this further? I mean, it could have been an innocent place that it came from, why just stick to *we didn't give it to her so it must've been an intruder*. Not saying this is what they said, but just that by denying it, it does seek to bolster their intruder theory.

[msgatorslayer]

Just speculating about the food.

I have read that the crab was leftovers from the White's party the night before. It was a Christmas Eve Tradition for them. The Ramsey's were not there. Do we know who was? Did the guests of that night bring any dishes with them to contribute to the dinner?

Could there have been a dish that someone else beside's Mrs. White made that she served to the Ramsey's?

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Maybe no one except us is plagued by the question of the pineapple?

LOL, maybe, we are kind of addicted, huh? I just think that if the police were asking, and they *kept* asking, so Patsy had to know they thought it was big enough to keep asking(after all it was probably the last thing her baby ate before she died and she can't remember giving it to her). That to me, would have bugged me and I would've made some effort to figure out where it came from. JMO

[bullmoose]

And of course as we all know the rest of the cord, and duct tape were not found in the house. If the cord was actually shoelace which from photos it does look like, then there would never have been a roll to find. bullmoose

[rosebud]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And I totally agree. I refer to him as an armchair detective. Makes judgments based on what he's read or by taking exception to others' opinions. I see him coming on tv I change the channel. JMO

REPLY: Thank you. The mere fact that someone else shares the contempt that I have had for that man for years now made my day. :beer:

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by hohum


The police didn't consider the "stun gun" marks on JB so I doubt they considered the cords as shoe laces. They were more caught up with infighting.

This morning on the news they have reported a missing person in Boulder and my immediate thought is you poor guy, why couldn't you have gone missing in Denver where they might be able to solve your disappearance.


LOL my thoughts exactly hohum!!! I thought of all the places for you to be missing..oh dear. I am going to keep watching and see what happens in this most recent case..the sheriff's office was in charge, it seems, so maybe more of a chance of finding him. JMO

[bullmoose]

To roseyredrobin: from the link you gave, it looks to be a whole line of ropes and tie cords, for the outdoorsy crowd. I've never heard of the brand, but I don't doubt that it is common in Boulder at the store where Thomas purchased it. I couldn't, of course see what the different types of cord looked like, to see if there was a match to that used on Jonbenet. I wonder, did the BPD test what Thomas bought to see if it was the same? I just do not have much faith in the then BPD to do anything right. bullmoose:shrug:

[bullmoose]

I don't recall seeing any similar twine or tiecord at my hardware store. Maybe in a roll of shoelace cord, but the stuff I've seen for boots is usually round. I'll have to keep looking. bullmoose

[jmgos1]

Just a wild thought, but could that cord have been used in the wrapping of Christmas presents? Didn't patsy say that she had wrapped some presents in the laundry area? Also the Christmas decorations were stored in that room, maybe it had been used to tie a box together. jmo

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by hohum


I doubt Patsy would have used that type cord to tie up presents, she probably used something more decorative for bows. JMO

Oh yes, I agree. For a woman who had a Christmas tree in every room of the home, you can beat she decorated her presents with a variety of nice ribbons and bows.

[Ames]

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm


I had never read this before, the article states that garland was found in JB hair. Any suggestions to where it might have come from?

[bullmoose]

Careful there roseyredrobin, you keep showing actual places you are quoting from, and you will confuse them badly.:lol: bullmoose

[Ames]

Originally posted by hohum


Good gosh, where have you been all these years? It was from the garland on the staircase. Probably after JB was shot with the stun gun, she was carried down the stairs and the garland got caught in her hair.

HA HA...well, I didn't start researching this case, until John Karr's arrest, brought it back into the spotlight, and I didn't start looking at the forums, until a couple of days ago. Still....I had never heard anything about the garland mentioned on tv.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by Ames


HA HA...well, I didn't start researching this case, until John Karr's arrest, brought it back into the spotlight, and I didn't start looking at the forums, until a couple of days ago. Still....I had never heard anything about the garland mentioned on tv.


I had never heard anything about the garland in her hair, either. I just this week read about it in PM/PT. I am stuck, have not read much more of the book..I will get back to it, though.

[Athena]

Originally posted by hohum


And I bet you wouldn't kill your child because he wet the bet either would you? The fact that some people believe that theory or even concocted it in the first place makes me :flamemad: . The lengths some posters will go to convict the Ramsey's is very telling. I suppose they have never heard of innocent until proven guilty.

Another thing that bothers me about the bedwetting incidents being an issue is that Patsy had at one time had Jonbenet wear pull-ups and then stopped and just wound up putting a plastic cover over the mattress. If the bedwetting incidents were that bothersome -- why not just continue the pullups. It did not appear to be an issue to her since there was a laundry room right outside Jonbenet's bedroom. So big deal - you throw sheets in the washer/dryer. And you don't know if she did that in the middle of the night or upon wakening JonBenet in the morning to get up and finding wet sheets. My son slept right through the night and I did not know he wet the bed until the next morning. jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Page 256 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town -

"......Patsy Ramsey was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It was one month short of JonBenet's third birthday. The child who went to stay with her granmother Nedra, regressed in her toliet training and eating habits."

More excerpts:

P 254 - "By now the officers has learned from several babysitters that JonBenet had regressed in her toilet training during Patsy's battle with caner."

Even at age 6 JBR still asked adults to wipe -- didn't matter where she was or who the adult was.

Her apparent lack of embarrassment about adults wiping her did make the detectives wonder if it has somehow invited activity which led to vaginal penetration.

When Nedra was asked if JonBenet would have fought an intruder -- Nedra replied, "I guarantee you"


I still believe that it was someone close to her OUTSIDE of the family that killed JonBenet. jmo

[bullmoose]

Athena:I think your idea about the killer makes infinitely better sense than thinking her parents did it; I doubt we'll ever know if it hasn't been solved by now. bullmoose:(

[LindaA]

I am aware that the ME's report said "consistant with pineapple" which is kind of a CYA way of putting it -- and standard in the field. Seems to me that fibers of pineapple would resemble fibers of crabmeat after being in the digestive tract for a while.

Even without that the bowl of pineapple is troublesome. I'm not sure exactly what PR said about it -- what she denied. The bowl was from her kitchen and would likely have her fingerprints on it and Burke's as well. Couldn't she have said it was left over from the party and have been in the clear? Seems to me like the only reason to say she had no idea where it had come from is if that were the truth. I don't see where it fits in with staging.

And speaking of staging most people who think the Ramseys are guilty think it was an accident at the start that was covered up with this elaborate staging. That makes less sense to me than the intruder theory. After accidentally mortally wounding their daughter they were calm enough to write the ransome note find or fashion the garotte ansd finish her off and still apply a full face of makeup before calling the police? I don't buy it. And I don't buy a premeditated murder by the Ramseys.

There is nothing that refutes the intruder theory to me. The ransome note could so easily have been written while the family were at the party. The garotte could have been prepared. The basement window has been shown to have been a possible means of entry as well as egress. Locked doors don't mean much. But didn't I read in one of the early books on the murder that a so-called "butler's door" was unlocked? Sorry, no link, I think it was in a book that I no longer have. I guess this is what maked this endlessly fascinating for so many of us...

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Has anyone entertained the idea that the killer may be a woman?

Yes. Or a couple.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I think Burke was too young for this crime and his parents were too old for the ransom note.

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


Proven by whom? Lou Smit? He presented photos taken well after sunrise, when much of the "pervasive layer of light snow and frost" had melted. Here's an earlier photo that will give you a better idea of the weather conditions that morning:


http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/087yardsnow.jpg

While it is true that, as Smit claims, the walkways were clear of snow, I see only ONE walkway in this photo, the one leading to the front door. Please explain to me how anyone could walk around to or from the side or rear of the house without leaving footprints in the pervasive layer of light snow and frost on the lawn?

I believe that picture is deceiving due to its angle. The pictures I have seen shown around the window well to that broken window had no snow. jmo

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by LindaA
I am aware that the ME's report said "consistant with pineapple" which is kind of a CYA way of putting it -- and standard in the field. Seems to me that fibers of pineapple would resemble fibers of crabmeat after being in the digestive tract for a while.

Even without that the bowl of pineapple is troublesome. I'm not sure exactly what PR said about it -- what she denied. The bowl was from her kitchen and would likely have her fingerprints on it and Burke's as well. Couldn't she have said it was left over from the party and have been in the clear? Seems to me like the only reason to say she had no idea where it had come from is if that were the truth. I don't see where it fits in with staging.

And speaking of staging most people who think the Ramseys are guilty think it was an accident at the start that was covered up with this elaborate staging. That makes less sense to me than the intruder theory. After accidentally mortally wounding their daughter they were calm enough to write the ransome note find or fashion the garotte ansd finish her off and still apply a full face of makeup before calling the police? I don't buy it. And I don't buy a premeditated murder by the Ramseys.

There is nothing that refutes the intruder theory to me. The ransome note could so easily have been written while the family were at the party. The garotte could have been prepared. The basement window has been shown to have been a possible means of entry as well as egress. Locked doors don't mean much. But didn't I read in one of the early books on the murder that a so-called "butler's door" was unlocked? Sorry, no link, I think it was in a book that I no longer have. I guess this is what maked this endlessly fascinating for so many of us...

Yes, I heard about the butlers door being unlocked as well. I dont understand this 'no intruder' theory. Intruders have entered locked homes with a credit card! This home was much easier for someone to be undetected because of its size. The killer probably had rehearsed the note over in his mind many times. Everything he did probably didn't take more than 30 min. imo

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I even know the page where Fleet White was not "cleared" but rather "not under suspicion.";)

He should have never been cleared. IMO He is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Athena


He should have never been cleared. IMO He is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO

Sorry too late to edit - but also wanted to add that I believe John Ramsey started putting all these pieces together and stands to reason why there was a huge rift between them. And let us not forget the other friends in the circle that reported Fleet had started acting peculiar. JMHO

[Athena]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Fleet White testified that he didn't even know IF pineapple was served at his party according to judge Carnes so it is very possible she at it there.

Hi breezy :seeya:

Considering Fleet White is my #1 suspect - don't think he would admit it anyway if he believes it to be part of the 'crime' jmo

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Athena


Hi breezy :seeya:

Considering Fleet White is my #1 suspect - don't think he would admit it anyway if he believes it to be part of the 'crime' jmo
:beer: That makes 2 of us.

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Athena


He should have never been cleared. IMO He is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO

:beer: I cant believe he was over looked. Unbelievable.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


He should have never been cleared. IMO He is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO

Why would Fleet admit to doing those things in the Ramsey home if he were guilty? Why would he cast suspicion on himself instead of away from himself?

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Why would Fleet admit to doing those things in the Ramsey home if he were guilty? Why would he cast suspicion on himself instead of away from himself?

Fingerprints. Why didn't he tell Det. Arndt at the time? A broken window in the basement might be important when a child is missing and a ransom note left.

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Why would Fleet admit to doing those things in the Ramsey home if he were guilty? Why would he cast suspicion on himself instead of away from himself?

How about since he touched the glass and the duct tape - his fingerprints would have been found or possibly fiber so why not beat them to the punch to cast suspicion away from him? jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


So, there's a good chance Fleet White saw it, too. Curiouser and curiouser!

The movie actually came out in 1995 starring Johnny Depp so it is possible he even saw it before that night. That note is more snippets from movies -- which is one of the reasons its so bizarre. jmo

[Athena]

Excactly MyrDawn!!!

What also troubles me about FW is that he initially refused to testify at the Grand Jury because he could not get copies of his interviews. BPD agreed to let him read them but not take copies. If you were telling the truth I see no reason to believe that once you read your notes it would refresh your memory. Why would you need copies -- to study them pehaps??? According to PMPT that is the time he also "dropped out" as a key witness in the case as he became so angry over their decision re: his interviews. Good thing he didn't have to be cross-examined, huh? jmo

[LindaA]

Originally posted by victims feel
Linda, I am one who thinks this is a staged scene after an accident...it make plenty sense to me as it happens so many times...what motive wouls there be to just out and kill their daughter that day that time.... but for a cover up due to an accident?

I have never ever believed that they DELIBERATELY killed their daughter...that makes no sense to me..
reply:

Nice to talk to you, Victims Feel. I might be convinced of the staging after an accident except for two things: 1.) If JB had been accidentally mortally injured I don't believe her parents would have been so calm as to have been able to carry out the staging, the ransome note, and 2.) The staging seems so over done and consists of things the Ramseys would seemingly not be familiar with such as the garotte. All in all, the murder seems more coldly deliberate than a panicky cover up of an accident. Lack of motive for a deliberate murder rules that our for me as well.

I really try with all of this to stick to facts, and not so what I call "soft reasoning" as "someone with cancer could never do this" or "any mother who would pupt her child in a beauty pageant woul be likely to murder her". With the pineapple its more difficult. Goven what we know, a logical explaination is hard to come by.

BTW, I'm really sorry all these threads were merged. It's so hard to follow any one of them now.

:mad:

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


Proven by whom? Lou Smit? He presented photos taken well after sunrise, when much of the "pervasive layer of light snow and frost" had melted. Here's an earlier photo that will give you a better idea of the weather conditions that morning:


http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/087yardsnow.jpg

While it is true that, as Smit claims, the walkways were clear of snow, I see only ONE walkway in this photo, the one leading to the front door. Please explain to me how anyone could walk around to or from the side or rear of the house without leaving footprints in the pervasive layer of light snow and frost on the lawn?

The window used by the intruder according to Smit's theory - was right off the walkway in the back of house:

http://hellhole_photos.tripod.com/windowgrate.htm

[deputydi]

Originally posted by LindaA
<snip>Nice to talk to you, Victims Feel. I might be convinced of the staging after an accident except for two things: 1.) If JB had been accidentally mortally injured I don't believe her parents would have been so calm as to have been able to carry out the staging, the ransome note, and 2.) The staging seems so over done and consists of things the Ramseys would seemingly not be familiar with such as the garotte. All in all, the murder seems more coldly deliberate than a panicky cover up of an accident. Lack of motive for a deliberate murder rules that our for me as well.
<snip>
Hi Linda -- if you're new WELCOME; if your not new WELCOME BACK. :seeya:

ITA with numbers 1 and 2 of your post. I had a very pleasant exchange with Victims Feel over the Labor Day weekend and she does make some viable points. The posters who are convinced of Patsy's guilt are asking us fence-sitters to believe that Patsy, who was clever and cunning enough to think through this elaborate cover-up (complete with the garotte and an unnecessarily lengthy ransom note), yet not have an explanation (and deny any knowledge of) a simple bowl of pineapple sitting in the kitchen.

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by victims feel
Good to see you too L. well your observations are very reasonable..dang...LOL..cut it out.....I think that perfectionist people are always on automatic pilot and hyper functional so while they should be in a distress mode they are in hyperfunctional mode.

Some get more hyper functional as they are unable to get emotional. We see that alot with people with repressed emotionality...they keep busy to avoid the pain etc...

so I think that they thought they killed her then John took over leaving PR to do the note which is why it took so many try sheets as she was still beside herself at the accident. Then out of sight out of mind John takes JB to the basement.......to 'clean up'...and PR can TRUTHFULLY say she did not know how that happend to JB-she never seen all that John did to her.

I really do think the scene is over done but why? like the note to create the version that a craze maniac did this.....it is so stereotypically craze maniac scene but then how does a craze maniac then turn around and write a letter that is not so crazed as it is linear and cohernet though tragic.........two people did this that is why....or one with two personalities but I highly doubt that.

Yes NO MOTIVE for deliberate homocide....nada

what IS also absent besides prints is the evidence that exonerates the Ramseys completely...

:shrug: nada

I certainly agree with you on the above. Though I'm not THOROUGHLY convinced it was John, could have been Burke....either way the pieces seem to fit.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
<snip>what IS also absent besides prints is the evidence that exonerates the Ramseys completely...

:shrug: nada
This is true, but they also have zero evidence to take into court that will secure a conviction. Isn't that the end LE always works toward?

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
Why thank you DD I enjoyed our exchanges too.

But I am confused... maybe I misread your post....but there was a few explanations on the pineapple bowl...I had stated that both Burke and JB snuck down in the night for a late night snack and were caught, PR touched the bowl and Burke had already touched it getting it for JB....did I misread your post? Others had agreed or had variations of.....there was lots of talk about the bowl....

:shrug:

please clarify:)
You did provide several possible explanations and I have read others, but none I found totally convincing. What I'm asking is how could she have carefully planned this elaborate cover up yet overlooked that seemingly innocuous bowl of pineapple?

I think at the end of our conversation, I had agreed that the garotte made sense only if the actual cause of death was the blow to the head. I had previously accepted the coroner's report that gave the primary cause of death "ligature strangulation". I now accept the possibility that the blunt force trauma could have come first -- but she would have had to strangle her before JB died because of the petechial hemorrhages.

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
Well DD I belive they have all kinds of CE to take to court and Steve T says so at every opportunity.....I believe in the power of CE.
I also believe in the power of CE, but I don't believe in the objectivity of Steve T. Don't forget, there was not enough of anything to get a GJ indictment. How far do you think the pros would have gotten with these "theories" and flimsy or non-existent evidence if they were in front of a jury?

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
<snip>GJ are not credible enough for me. But DA and the public will belive the truth.
<snip>
Why do you believe GJs are not credible? It is an absolute fact that DAs can get an indictment with only the flimsiest of evidece. Obviously, they didn't have enough on any of the Ramseys to secure an indictment -- where is all this "evidence"? If they had discovered anything after the GJ was dismissed, another could have been convened at any time. It wasn't. Shouldn't that tell you something?

[deputydi]

Originally posted by victims feel
<snip>We all have ad nausem talked about the CE and that same CE is what I think could have and should have led to indictments. There is just too much out there that points to the parent(s) and not an intruder.
<snip>
I could be wrong but I believe I'm in the majority and the jury would be comprised of 12 people who have no opinion of the guilt or innocence of the Ramseys.

The CE you are talking about (as I interpret it) is:

1. Patsy was in the home that night. (she lived there -- where would you expect her to be?)
2. The notepad belonged to Patsy, as did the pen.
3. Her handwriting could not be ruled out.
4. JonBenet had a brownish-yellow substance in her stomach -- could have been pineapple. A bowl containing pineapple was found in the kitchen with Patsy's prints on it.
5. Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the night before.
6. Patsy entered JonBenet in beauty pageants.
7. The coroner could have reversed the primary and secondary cause of death in his report.
8. Head trauma could have been accidental.
9. Seemingly lack of cooperation with LE.

Did I miss anything? Each and everyone of these items has an innocent explanation. In a trial, if the innocent explanation is reasonable, the jury has to accept it. No jury on the face of this earth would convict her on this information -- even if their "gut" told them she did it.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Was the paring knife (PMPT pg. 723) brought upstairs from the kitchen to cut the cord and then left on the counter in the utility area because it was ineffective and Burke's pocketknife (hidden earlier by LHP in a cabinet in the utility area and later found in the basement several yards from the body) used instead? I heard on TV that fibers consistent with those of the cord were found in JonBenet's bed. Was she tied up there? Was there a struggle? Hair ties normally kept in a basket in the bathroom were scattered at the foot of JB's bed and in front of her closet. One of the ties on the curtains behind her bed was undone.

Hoffmann-Pugh thought that the white blanket and the Barbie nightgown might have been in the dryer in the utility area.

[nutmeg22]

Hello MissO,
Is it a fact that fibers consistent with the cord around JB's neck were found in her bed? I don't remember hearing that, but I could have missed it on tv.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nutmeg22
Hello MissO,
Is it a fact that fibers consistent with the cord around JB's neck were found in her bed? I don't remember hearing that, but I could have missed it on tv.

I'm afraid I can't tell you who said it or what show it was on, nutmeg, but I believe it was within the last year and presented as part of the stun gun theory.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I'm afraid I can't tell you who said it or what show it was on, nutmeg, but I believe it was within the last year and presented as part of the stun gun theory.

Ok. I understand.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


Ok. I understand.

Nutmeg, I was able to Google a reference to it:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Patsy%20Ramsey

Fiber Evidence. "fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF P 168; PSMF P 168.) This evidence is inconsistent with plaintiff's proposed timeline of events. That is, plaintiff has hypothesized that Mrs. Ramsey, in a moment of anger, had *1356 hit JonBenet's head against something hard in the second floor bathroom, thereby rendering her child unconscious, and then spent the rest of the night staging an elaborate kidnapping and torture scenario in the basement. Discovery of cord fibers, used to tie JonBenet's hands, in the latter's bedroom arguably undermines plaintiff's sequence of events." (Carnes 2003:93).

[LindaA]

Thanks, DeputyDI for the welcome. I am new here but have been lurking on an off for quite some time. And I have been following this crime since it occurred.

To be fair, I suppose that we must add the fiber evidence to the list of CE. I'm referring to the fibers from PR's sweater jacket being found on the duct tape and from JR's shirt being found in JBR's panties.

I figured the PR fibers were transferred from PR to JBR when she was put to bed. I don't see an easy answer to JR's shirt fibers being in her panties unless those were the same panties she was wearing when he carried her in from the car. But I'm thinking they were the over-sized ones that had the fibers from his shirt. Possibly they could have gone from JR's shirt to JBR when she was carried in the have been transferred to the over-sized panties later.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by watson


7.) The media always says JB was 'garroted' but that doesn't say much.....I assume she was strangled by the killer being behind her and holding the 'slipped down' knot with one hand against the back of her neck while pulling back on the stick 'handle' with the other, pulling the other end of the string through the knot tighter and tighter, but again I can't find much on 'how' she was garroted....has it ever been clarified?
With Lacy building her case on details the public knows or don't know, I'd like to get straight just what is known by the public. At any rate, thanks in advance.

Sorry if this has been covered - I didn't want to read 7 pages of posts.

The handle most likely was inserted into the loop and turned like a turniquet. JBR's hairs are twisted up in the knotting at the handle. This wouldn't have occured if it had been pullled straight back.

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by Athena


I thought he same thing as well since the autopsy report says "consistent" with pineapple which IMO is not necessarily pineapple but something similar in texture. JMO

hi Athena,

actually the autopsy is worded : 'apparent' vegetable or fruit material' 'which may represent fragments of pineapple'. and of course, as discussed, it wasnt found in her stomach....it was the small intestine.

neither was the 'viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material' identified which was in her stomach.

you are right: it was never determined.

best regards,
Pru

[Athena]

Originally posted by victims feel
I support ST because he supports JBR. I do not agree with everythng said or done by LE but when you pull away the frills he is in the right place.

GJ are not credible enough for me. But DA and the public will belive the truth.

I do not think they are flimsy or non existent evidentiary wise at all...there was far more on them than Karr and it has been said by those I respect and I agree.

Karr confessed. Lacy did what she had to do. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


hi Athena,

actually the autopsy is worded : 'apparent' vegetable or fruit material' 'which may represent fragments of pineapple'. and of course, as discussed, it wasnt found in her stomach....it was the small intestine.

neither was the 'viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material' identified which was in her stomach.

you are right: it was never determined.

best regards,
Pru

Thanks Pru. :) I stand corrected and actually the correct description just further validates that it may not have been pineapple as it does say "vegetable OR fruit material". I had posted a while back that cauliflower and pineapple can possibly look alike broken down. Anyone know if she had cauliflower???

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by victims feel
Pru, I personally do not care what she ate it is WHEN she ate that determines the time line.....Now if guests brought certain things to eat then it would be important to establish who JBR interacted with but most foods I would imagine are put on same table to help yourself so still says nothing as to whom JBR interacted with.

You would have to believe the Intruder theory or NON family theory which I do not.

I would think that it any guest brought food the LE would have already inquired about who brought what if the type of food was relevant..... PIneapple is a festive exotic fruit at this season..so anyone and everyone could have brought it

hi victims feel,

I agree with you. It was important to establish 'when' and the autopsy simiply stated observations. I am astonished about that fact, considering this was a homicide.

Its odd to me that 'fragments' were found in the small intestine, because the stomach usually starts the process of liquifying food before it reaches the small intestine. The large intestine did in fact have 'small green fecal matter'.

Its odd to me the contents of her intestines were not delved into.

best regards,
Pru

[MissOtisRegrets]

All I know is it usually takes me about three days to digest my Christmas dinner. Wouldn't the amount of food eaten affect the rate of digestion? The "pineapple" may have had to wait in a long line. :shrug:


Go Andy!

[LindaA]

Originally posted by deputydi

You did provide several possible explanations and I have read others, but none I found totally convincing. What I'm asking is how could she have carefully planned this elaborate cover up yet overlooked that seemingly innocuous bowl of pineapple?

I think at the end of our conversation, I had agreed that the garotte made sense only if the actual cause of death was the blow to the head. I had previously accepted the coroner's report that gave the primary cause of death "ligature strangulation". I now accept the possibility that the blunt force trauma could have come first -- but she would have had to strangle her before JB died because of the petechial hemorrhages.

My view exactly!! This makes perfect sense to me.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Page 514 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

Thanks, Rosy. I'm sure I've seen here several times that they were. Just more misinformation?

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
All I know is it usually takes me about three days to digest my Christmas dinner. Wouldn't the amount of food eaten affect the rate of digestion? The "pineapple" may have had to wait in a long line. :shrug:


Go Andy!

hi MissOtisRegrets,

if you have the inclination, you can read up on the digestive tract here:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/stomach/index.html

certainly, it may take longer...but at the time of autopsy, her stomach had liquified the contents: 'stomach contains a small amount of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified."

best regards,
Pru

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


hi MissOtisRegrets,

if you have the inclination, you can read up on the digestive tract here:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/stomach/index.html

certainly, it may take longer...but at the time of autopsy, her stomach had liquified the contents: 'stomach contains a small amount of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified."

best regards,
Pru


Thanks, Pru!

:seeya:

MissOtis

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
All I know is it usually takes me about three days to digest my Christmas dinner. Wouldn't the amount of food eaten affect the rate of digestion? The "pineapple" may have had to wait in a long line. :shrug:


Go Andy!

Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


hi victims feel,

I agree with you. It was important to establish 'when' and the autopsy simiply stated observations. I am astonished about that fact, considering this was a homicide.

Its odd to me that 'fragments' were found in the small intestine, because the stomach usually starts the process of liquifying food before it reaches the small intestine. The large intestine did in fact have 'small green fecal matter'.

Its odd to me the contents of her intestines were not delved into.

best regards,
Pru

I can't find the link, sorry, but I also read an expert's opinion that even if it had been pineapple it could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm. Also at the White's Christmas Dinner it was not said they did not serve pineapple but that they could not recall if they did or not. I can't find a link - if I do will post.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Athena


I can't find the link, sorry, but I also read an expert's opinion that even if it had been pineapple it could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm. Also at the White's Christmas Dinner it was not said they did not serve pineapple but that they could not recall if they did or not. I can't find a link - if I do will post.

Plaintiff also theorizes, based on the presence of the unidentified matter in JonBenet's stomach that, contrary to Mrs. Ramsey's testimony, she was up during the night and fed JonBenet the pineapple. (PSDMF 45.) There is no evidence in the record that indicates when JonBenet ate the pineapple. Defendants state they did not feed JonBenet pineapple upon returning home from the White's party that evening. (SMF 13.) Mr. White does not recall if pineapple was served at his dinner party on December 25, 1996. (F. White Dep. at 202.)


http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Athena


Hiya MissO,

Actually pineapple aids in digestion of food so would be digested faster than say a starch or fish or meat. It is acidic. jmo

Thanks, Athena!

[Athena]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Plaintiff also theorizes, based on the presence of the unidentified matter in JonBenet's stomach that, contrary to Mrs. Ramsey's testimony, she was up during the night and fed JonBenet the pineapple. (PSDMF 45.) There is no evidence in the record that indicates when JonBenet ate the pineapple. Defendants state they did not feed JonBenet pineapple upon returning home from the White's party that evening. (SMF 13.) Mr. White does not recall if pineapple was served at his dinner party on December 25, 1996. (F. White Dep. at 202.)


http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

Thanks breezy. :) I knew I read it somewhere!!!

[Devotion]

Originally posted by LindaA
Thanks, DeputyDI for the welcome. I am new here but have been lurking on an off for quite some time. And I have been following this crime since it occurred.

To be fair, I suppose that we must add the fiber evidence to the list of CE. I'm referring to the fibers from PR's sweater jacket being found on the duct tape and from JR's shirt being found in JBR's panties.

I figured the PR fibers were transferred from PR to JBR when she was put to bed. I don't see an easy answer to JR's shirt fibers being in her panties unless those were the same panties she was wearing when he carried her in from the car. But I'm thinking they were the over-sized ones that had the fibers from his shirt. Possibly they could have gone from JR's shirt to JBR when she was carried in the have been transferred to the over-sized panties later.
:read: IMO:
I read that JonB was wearing a large, size 12 panties that was new, and taken directly from the package.
Someone said her normal size panty was a 5-6?. Who put the large panties on her and when?
How could a panty double her regular size stay up when she walked..do a test..try it some time..jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by Devotion

:read: IMO:
I read that JonB was wearing a large, size 12 panties that was new, and taken directly from the package.
Someone said her normal size panty was a 5-6?. Who put the large panties on her and when?
How could a panty double her regular size stay up when she walked..do a test..try it some time..jmo

The elastic on the waist. They just droop. The panties were a gift that Patsy had bought for a niece and never gave them to her and wound up putting them in JBR's drawer and she liked them. Patsy also in an interview said she bought JBR panties 6-8 and the larger ones were 10-12.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
Linda, I am one who thinks this is a staged scene after an accident...it make plenty sense to me as it happens so many times...what motive wouls there be to just out and kill their daughter that day that time.... but for a cover up due to an accident?

I have never ever believed that they DELIBERATELY killed their daughter...that makes no sense to me..

It does not make sense though. Why not just put her at the bottom of the stairs and let someone else find her in the morning and call 911. Or even tuck her back into bed and say you tried to wake her and do not know what is wrong. It is more like a movie set up than a cover up.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
Good to see you too L. well your observations are very reasonable..dang...LOL..cut it out.....I think that perfectionist people are always on automatic pilot and hyper functional so while they should be in a distress mode they are in hyperfunctional mode.

Some get more hyper functional as they are unable to get emotional. We see that alot with people with repressed emotionality...they keep busy to avoid the pain etc...

so I think that they thought they killed her then John took over leaving PR to do the note which is why it took so many try sheets as she was still beside herself at the accident. Then out of sight out of mind John takes JB to the basement.......to 'clean up'...and PR can TRUTHFULLY say she did not know how that happend to JB-she never seen all that John did to her.

I really do think the scene is over done but why? like the note to create the version that a craze maniac did this.....it is so stereotypically craze maniac scene but then how does a craze maniac then turn around and write a letter that is not so crazed as it is linear and cohernet though tragic.........two people did this that is why....or one with two personalities but I highly doubt that.

Yes NO MOTIVE for deliberate homocide....nada

what IS also absent besides prints is the evidence that exonerates the Ramseys completely...

:shrug: nada

Unless John was so in love with his wife that he could not live without her ... there is no motive for him to cover for her. He had nothing to lose.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
Odd how you should say that M as once upon a time I thought Burke and JB got into a sibling late night kerfuffle..it got out of hand woke parents up.....then the rest is the same........but for some reason I am leaning on JOhn........and Patsy and not Burke.....but all else is the same..and I do believe a kerfuffle did break out with fam members....with P and J cleaning it up...that never changes....Lets say I will not be shocked if Burke accidently harmed JB then the rest is the same but for now I am leaning on both adults and NO CLEAN AND POLITE AND QUIET INTRUDER.....

they are protecting Burker either: because he witnessed what they did or they know what he did and he knows what they did after...a family affair....common

This is the only way I could believe the parents would cover it up, not for each other but for their son. Still, the scene is too much. It seems staged but, not for a cover up. More for dramatic effect.

[trt]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


It does not make sense though. Why not just put her at the bottom of the stairs and let someone else find her in the morning and call 911. Or even tuck her back into bed and say you tried to wake her and do not know what is wrong. It is more like a movie set up than a cover up.

I think that with the injuries that she sustained, the killer(I'm leaning towards one or both of the parents) could not just leave the body in the house without some sort of evidence that there was some else there(a note, the window, etc.) otherwise it would have been very easy to suggest and probably arrest the Ramseys on suspicion of murder, IMO.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by trt
I'm not convinced of the bedwetting theory either, but I just wanted to state that no stains is not an indication that a bed has not been wet the night before. My son is two and drinks ALOT(he asks for water throughout the night-OT if anyone has any tips on helping me potty train him and wean him from drinking so much, please tell, lol). He also sleeps at the foot of our bed. I usually wake up at night to change him(sometime during the time our 5 month old wakes up for a feeding), but if I'm too late, there will be a huge wet spot at the end of our bed. Most nights, I am too lazy and don't feel like dealing with moving everyone out of the bed(including hubby, an impossible feat, lol), so I just put a towel or two in the spot and lay him and me back down. When we wake up(and this is 3 or 4 hours later), the wet spot is gone and there is no stain, probably because he drinks so much and the urine is filled with mostly water. Possibly because of the print on our sheets(even our spare pairs have prints). Just wanted to jump in and say that its not at all impossible to have a wet bed the night before with no stains or indications of bed wetting the next day.

My daughter wet her bed every night until she was 10-years-old. The doctor even gave her pills to help her bladder contractions. It did not help. She would wet her bed, get up, lay on top of me and go back to sleep. I woke up every morning for years smelling like pee, even on Christmas day when I had a house full of out of town guests. It was annoying but, I never once even yelled at her. I knew she had a bladder control problem ... sometimes she would go even when she was playing outside before the medicine. My brother had the same problem when he was a kid. I am no saint ... I actually have a pretty bad temper. I cannot believe that bed wetting could have all the sudden brought on this kind of rage from someone who never had rage problems before (And no one even said she peed on her mother). JMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by trt


I think that with the injuries that she sustained, the killer(I'm leaning towards one or both of the parents) could not just leave the body in the house without some sort of evidence that there was some else there(a note, the window, etc.) otherwise it would have been very easy to suggest and probably arrest the Ramseys on suspicion of murder, IMO.

Why? A bump on the head and no witnesses would make it difficult to prosecute someone with enough money to hire good lawyers.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
I think he was more in love with his public image and public freedom....they covered for each other..and yes he could lose his freedom...

If his wife killed his daughter? I do not think that would hurt his public imagine and definitely would not take away his freedom. The entire nation would have felt for him.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
I think they have more to cover up for son for sure BB but each other is just as good. For without each other what quality of life would son really have with one or both in prison?

If it was an accident than a good lawyer could have gotten them off. As for your other post. The scene is too staged to distract. It begs to be looked at. Like a scene from a movie. Why would someone try to cover up that way when there are much easier ways that might have actually made the police look elsewhere.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by harz
JonBenet was 6 yrs old, Bruke was 9-10, they wetted their bed at these ages? Its does makes me think something wrong was going on, especially during Xmas as if something fright them by going bathroom or something. I dont blame Thomas (the detective?) My daughter is age 7 now, and she hadnt wet her bed for years or I don't recall she ever does after she stopped wearing diappers around age 2. I remember my friend's son was molested at age 5 or 6, he wetted his pants. When he was temporary sent to foster home by CFS for a week then his real mother picked him up to bring him back home, she noticed his pants got wet. He was confused and frighten of everything happened to him. So I dont buy Ramsey's kids at their ages wetted their beds is a normal thing.

How Common Is Bedwetting?
Primary enuresis, the medical name for bedwetting, typically starts when kids are toddlers. It is very common among kids who are 6 years old or younger. About 15% of 6-year-olds wet the bed. And about 5% of 10-year-olds wet the bed.

Bedwetting often runs in families: Most kids who wet the bed have a relative that did it, too. If both parents wet the bed when they were young, it's very likely that their child will as well


http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/sleep/enuresis.html

Let us not jump to unfounded conclusions about a very common problem.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If it was an accident than a good lawyer could have gotten them off. As for your other post. The scene is too staged to distract. It begs to be looked at. Like a scene from a movie. Why would someone try to cover up that way when there are much easier ways that might have actually made the police look elsewhere.

REPLY: I cannot figure that out either. It seems the obvious thing was to pretend she fell. The tempting theory to go for here is that the murder/accidental killing of JBR was not the only thing they were covering up. But then again it appears that a lot of reputable MEs who have looked at the case reject the possibility of long term sexual abuse.

JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If it was an accident than a good lawyer could have gotten them off. As for your other post. The scene is too staged to distract. It begs to be looked at. Like a scene from a movie. Why would someone try to cover up that way when there are much easier ways that might have actually made the police look elsewhere.

That's what I've been saying. They could have just said she fell in the bathroom, where it's common knowledge people can get severly injured or killed striking their heads on porcelain.

Even if she'd had injuries not consistant with that, they could have said they woke up and she wasn't in her bed, called 911, and taken it from there. There was no need for either of the Ramseys to write that rediculous ransom note. That was written by someone with a very twisted mind, trying to hurt the Ramseys.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rosebud


REPLY: I cannot figure that out either. It seems the obvious thing was to pretend she fell. The tempting theory to go for here is that the murder/accidental killing of JBR was not the only thing they were covering up. But then again it appears that a lot of reputable MEs who have looked at the case reject the possibility of long term sexual abuse.

JMO

Rosebud, she was regularly taken to her pediatrician. She'd had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in the 3 years prior to her death, and he saw no signs of sexual abuse. And, what parent gets their child as much medical care as the Ramseys did if there's sexual abuse going on in the home?

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by rosebud


REPLY: I cannot figure that out either. It seems the obvious thing was to pretend she fell. The tempting theory to go for here is that the murder/accidental killing of JBR was not the only thing they were covering up. But then again it appears that a lot of reputable MEs who have looked at the case reject the possibility of long term sexual abuse.

JMO

Yes, that is true. I have never read anything convincing about long term sexual abuse.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


There was no need for either of the Ramseys to write that rediculous ransom note. That was written by someone with a very twisted mind, trying to hurt the Ramseys.

And hurt them twice.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


And hurt them twice.

Another thing that's been mentioned several times is an intruder wouldn't want to leave his handwriting as evidence.

Well, the same holds true for the Ramseys. And, theirs would be the first handwriting to be analyzed.

And intruder might have felt quite secure in thinking that he'd never be suspected and his handwriting never compared. The Ramseys wouldn't know that wasn't true for themselves.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Another thing that's been mentioned several times is an intruder wouldn't want to leave his handwriting as evidence.

Well, the same holds true for the Ramseys. And, theirs would be the first handwriting to be analyzed.

And intruder might have felt quite secure in thinking that he'd never be suspected and his handwriting never compared. The Ramseys wouldn't know that wasn't true for themselves.

And where are the pages that were torn out with the ransom note? The note must have been written before the pages were torn out, because the "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" page was left in by mistake. The pages are gone. Yet, the pad and pen were replaced. Someone was not concerned about incriminating the Ramseys.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


And where are the pages that were torn out with the ransom note? The note must have been written before the pages were torn out, because the "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" page was left in by mistake. The pages are gone. Yet, the pad and pen were replaced. Someone was not concerned about incriminating the Ramseys.

Down the toilet? This explanation works for both RDI and IDI.

Why would an intruder take the torn pages with him? Was he embarrassed at having started the note, then thought of another way of saying what he wanted ?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If it was an accident than a good lawyer could have gotten them off. As for your other post. The scene is too staged to distract. It begs to be looked at. Like a scene from a movie. Why would someone try to cover up that way when there are much easier ways that might have actually made the police look elsewhere.

Maybe because they panicked? No one said it was a well thought out plan. Just because some of you think it's ridiculous that the Ramseys wrote that note, does not mean that it couldn't have happened. Some of you are acting like us "anti-Ramsey" people think that they are premeditated murders when most of us don't think that at all.
The very clues pointing to an intruder are minimal at best. I keep asking you all why would an intruder have the need to point the finger away from themselves by making up that ransom note? If an intruder was there, wouldn't that be fairly obvious without the note? Would we be more likely to discover their identity without it? I highly doubt that.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Maybe because they panicked? No one said it was a well thought out plan. Just because some of you think it's ridiculous that the Ramseys wrote that note, does not mean that it couldn't have happened. Some of you are acting like us "anti-Ramsey" people think that they are premeditated murders when most of us don't think that at all.
The very clues pointing to an intruder are minimal at best. I keep asking you all why would an intruder have the need to point the finger away from themselves by making up that ransom note? If an intruder was there, wouldn't that be fairly obvious without the note? Would we be more likely to discover their identity without it? I highly doubt that.

I have never acted like anyone thought the Ramsey's committed premeditated murder. I do not understand why the Ramsey's would write a note that pointed to them. The scene does not look like a coverup ... it looks like a movie scene begging to be looked at. Why would someone cover up that way? The ransom note is more of the same ... movie quotes and nonsense. They are related in some unknown way that makes me lean away from the parents.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
Not necessarily. A good DA would have convicted them. An outraged public would have demanded it. Again I think it is their inexperience that did the over kill and staging.

Why would there be outrage over an accident in a popular family? It never would have made the media like it did. Their friends would have been on their side. I do not believe a good DA existed in Boulder. The scene was more than overkill and makes me think that everyone is missing some important piece of the puzzle that the killer purposely left behind.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by victims feel
I think it would as the image is a family one not an individual one. It would not take his physical freedom but what about his spiritual and conscientious freedom. A wife who is a murderer would not hurt a hubby's image? Are you serious?

No, a wife who snapped and murdered his daughter not long after the death of another daughter would have brought him nothing but sympathy.

[bullmoose]

If John or Patsy killed Jonbenet I would say it was coldblooded murder; to strangle your own child like happened to her cannot be called anything else. But as anyone reading my posts can see, I do not believe that they had anything to do with it. But I am with you victims feel, I am pro- Jonbenet; that is why I read all the posts with interest. I want to see justice done although I think it will be a miracle if the case is truly solved,except by chance. And I don't know for sure any more than anybodyelse on the site. :shrug: bullmoose

[bullmoose]

Good point, victim feels. We may see much of this totally different,but you are absolutely right when you say nobody would have believed it an accident. Certainly nobody, myself included, believes it was a real attempt at abduction. bullmoose

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I have never acted like anyone thought the Ramsey's committed premeditated murder. I do not understand why the Ramsey's would write a note that pointed to them. The scene does not look like a coverup ... it looks like a movie scene begging to be looked at. Why would someone cover up that way? The ransom note is more of the same ... movie quotes and nonsense. They are related in some unknown way that makes me lean away from the parents.

The note only points to them in the sense that we have a dead body and a RN, and therefore suspicion of the people in the house. A real kidnapper would have taken the body - otherwise no ransom. A kinky killer wouldn't have bothered staging a kidnapping - what's to be gained by that?

The note was inteded to suggest a small foreign faction, and someone who knew the amount of JR's bonus. On the surface, it points away. Deeper, it points at the people in the house.

[bullmoose]

I think the note stinks to high heaven, but from whom and what? The notes points to A the Ramseys; B Someone relatively close to the Ramseys; C Some twisted nut trying to ruin the Ramseys; D None of the above. The one thing about it I believe is whoever wrote it wasevil and devious. bullmoose

[bullmoose]

I pick C or D; I'm not sure . bullmoose

[bullmoose]

D would cover a scenario that none of us has really thought of yet. I cannot exclude the possiblity that some stranger than life explanation may actually be the correct one. Nothing adds up neatly to me in this case, every explanation leaves me uneasy.:shrug: Bullmoose -see ya tomorrow:seeya:

[rosebud]

Originally posted by bullmoose
D would cover a scenario that none of us has really thought of yet. I cannot exclude the possiblity that some stranger than life explanation may actually be the correct one. Nothing adds up neatly to me in this case, every explanation leaves me uneasy.:shrug: Bullmoose -see ya tomorrow:seeya:



REPLY: The "stranger than life" explanation probably fits here anyway and I suspect that it was only by some incredibly good luck combined with a staged crime scene that was so bizarre and illogical that no one can figure out exactly what happened that kept the parents from prison.

Like we used to say in the oil field, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bullsh_t!" And the Ramsey crime scene is baffling.

I think a parent or both parents made such an amateurish attempt at staging a crime, doing things that only he/she/they have any idea what the reason was for each item in that plan, with seemingly no rational explanation for each "prop." Then, in a space age era of crime fighting, they had the great fortune that the scientific evidence, incredibly enough, worked in THEIR favor to at least create enough doubt so that no one is absolutely sure who did it.

The parents got an incredible stroke of luck when probably whoever sewed JBR's panties sneezed on them and left unknown DNA impossible to ever ID--again it was their good luck that it was a white male. And someone, somehow, left an unknown pubic hair on the blanket they threw over her. The luckiest thing Patsy probably ever did was picking out JBR's panties. And she probably thought beating cancer once was lucky and winning Miss W. Va.

I would think that defense attorneys would be studying this case in great detail. It is a horror story that in a time when many of us consider no murder unsolvable, this one turned out to be just that.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Down the toilet? This explanation works for both RDI and IDI.

Why would an intruder take the torn pages with him? Was he embarrassed at having started the note, then thought of another way of saying what he wanted ?

Hi Wally. I don't think it would be a good idea for an intruder in someone's home to flush the toilet in the middle of the night.

I think the fact that the pages are missing suggests that they were written on and that the approach was rethought. It sounds imo that the note may have been written on impulse, rather than as part of a plan.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by victims feel
Bull, if you think it is maybe D then what other scenerio are you suggesting?

What or who could be left.....

Texas cheerleader moms.

[MaryD]

Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...unless of course... it was someone who was very used to staging JonBenet in various exotic, costumed, scripted, and choreographed settings. :rolleyes:

[MaryD]

Originally posted by victims feel
not if the accident is the result of a rage or being caught molestation....we know staged crime scenes happen all the time.

did you read my full post? between the lines?

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by victims feel
Truedat, they can be very dangerous.....so you think that maybe this could be staged by an overzealous mom who wants her daughter to win the pagents JB is winning?


But for the fact of the inside job evidence that could be plausible. Anything is.

Seriously, vf, I am completely lost. Who would have imagined the scenario of the Texas cheerleading mom? Or Elizabeth Smart? I can't bear to think that either of the Ramseys strangled their daughter with a cord. But, I have to admit it is possible.

Thank you for not flaming my post for being in poor taste. I went to delete it but lost my internet connection. I wasn't entirely kidding, though. We have seen similar motive before and there is no clear sign (no semen) that it was a man. From PMPT I got the impression that Patsy was alienating some on the pageant circuit.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by victims feel
For all the gab we do MOR, I think we are all at a loss...we all have things we will compromise and negotiate as possibilities but we do tend to hang on to those things that are non-negotiable....I really will never be convinced that it is other then inside the home. Others will never be convinced that it is inside the home.........whoever set up this crime scene real or staged did a great job at creating reasonable doubt on ALL persons of interest. A brilliant crime scene for sure...Since you probably know by now I think both are in on it and I do think even they could not have planned for or predicted it to go so successfully, meaning that there is a stalemate if you will.....who can plan that?

It relies on too many known and unknown varibles to fall the way it did. This is not like a lone random crime in the dense woods where evidence would be carried off by animals or lost in decompositions..There is so much here and yet ..... nada.

I agree..who can imagine such horror inflicted on anyone especially a little child......but we know even if you and I cannot fathom such evil..we know evil lurks....I am doing the Trenton Duckett case too and heer we go again.....I believe mom did it and it seems with every year that goes by, more and more moms are being suspected.


MOR I do not usually flame things...well on the barby I do.... but I do appreciate that such cases get everyone upset and I tend to either monitor myself and scroll and read ONLY or try to meet folks in the middle


The box of chocolates in the mail REALLY helped though;)


I didnot think you were joking and although I do not agree that it was staged by a jealous mom in this case, we know moms can hire for murder for beauty.....so not unrelated at all.....

It is beyond my comprehension to take anyone that seriously for something that is supposed to be fun..

Glad you enjoyed the chocolates, vf! :D

I believe Melinda Duckett killed her child, though I'm praying she just hid him with friends.

[MaryD]

Originally posted by victims feel
No I use a decoder ring and skip every third word but only on Tuesdays..on Wednesday I shut one eye and read backwards. :D

Oh now that expains why you disagree and agree with me at the same time.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by victims feel
Sadly I think it is a revenge kill. I hope I am very wrong.

I agree. Sadly. I just spent 3 years on another board which involved imo the murder of a mother in a child custody battle.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by MaryD
Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...unless of course... it was someone who was very used to staging JonBenet in various exotic, costumed, scripted, and choreographed settings. :rolleyes:

Of course, that must be it. JonBenet's instructer at Dance West. :rolleyes:

[Devotion]

Originally posted by MaryD
Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...unless of course... it was someone who was very used to staging JonBenet in various exotic, costumed, scripted, and choreographed settings. :rolleyes:
:read: IMO: A very intelligent point...taken from the facts in the case.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MaryD
Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...
<snip>



Well, there was the case of Lisa Steinberg - but then there was also a history of physical abuse to both her and her mother.

To answer your question - in this case - it didn't happen. JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Devotion

:read: IMO: A very intelligent point...taken from the facts in the case.

Unfortunately you don't KNOW the "facts of this case".

[cantaloupe]

JOR hitting her head accidentially adn then the family having a panic doesn't compute. The Ramseys would call the ambulance, not spend hours staging a scene. It would be very easy for the police/paramedics to piece together what happened, IF IT WERE A SIMPLE ACCIDENT unrelated to any criminal activity.

No, she was deliberately killed. That blow to the head was deliberate, as was the strangulation.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Texas cheerleader moms.

MissOtis, don't you think that was different? In that case, the mom just paid someone to kill another mom. (Not even the girl and thank goodness the killing never happened and the person went to the police.)

With the Ramsey murder, someone had to have an intimate knowledge of both the Ramseys and their home.

JMO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Rosebud, she was regularly taken to her pediatrician. She'd had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in the 3 years prior to her death, and he saw no signs of sexual abuse. And, what parent gets their child as much medical care as the Ramseys did if there's sexual abuse going on in the home?

REPLY: Yes, that is a good point. I read all the replies to my post here and you all make good sense. It would appear that Patsy had no fear of sexual abuse being detected by JBR's pediatrician.

Since this also contradicts what Cyril Wecht screams every time he is on TV discussing JBR's murder, and since I have already stated my long-standing contempt for him, it is also something I am rather willing to accept. ;)

[rosebud]

Originally posted by MaryD
Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...unless of course... it was someone who was very used to staging JonBenet in various exotic, costumed, scripted, and choreographed settings. :rolleyes:


MaryD, you may have asked the most relevent question of all. That is: what would motivate someone to stage a crime scene like this one? We can imagine the scene: a mother in the middle of Christmas night looks down on her seemingly dead six year old daughter, a daughter she has centered a great deal of her own life around. She loves her very much.

She knows that it was a momentary burst of violent anger that killed her and it is "not really her fault." Maybe a good Christian woman like Patsy reasoned that God would understand and not blame her. After all, it was an accident. Maybe she had a hurried conversation with that God and she knows she has made her "peace" with him and with JB.

But no one else is going to understand. All the things in life she values will be gone. She could spend the rest of her life in prison and she knows what prisoners and the public will think of a mother who kills her own daughter.

Even more important perhaps is what family members, blood and in-laws, will think. All of her friends and the social circle she runs with will all abandon a child murdering mother. I would think that the loss of her social stature, and the loss of respect she will get from all of these people might have been more disturbing to her than the thought of going to prison.

Was there one particular person she could not stand losing the respect of and having that respect replaced with contempt? Was it the reaction of someone she already did not like who now would be gloating over her fall from grace? A combination of the two?

Anyway that is just free thinking. But the stress Patsy might have been under that night may explain a crime scene staged hurriedly and irrationally.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by MaryD
Seriously folks who in God's name would ever imagine staging such a scene after their daughter is accidentally killed?...unless of course... it was someone who was very used to staging JonBenet in various exotic, costumed, scripted, and choreographed settings. :rolleyes:

And yet this someone doesn't bother with an entry/exit? Seems to me that would be number 1 on the staging list.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


And yet this someone doesn't bother with an entry/exit? Seems to me that would be number 1 on the staging list.

REPLY: Yes, why the intruder did not flee from a 1st floor door or window is inexplicable. The problem for the intruder theory is that any supposed "intruder" would have had to have acted much more strangely than a supposed parent who staged the scene did. The intruder theory is much more problemmatic than the "insider theory."

[bullmoose]

I've always been ambivalent about the basement window theory; even if it was used to gain entry, what proof is there that it was used to get out of the house? Why couldn't the perp/s just go let themselves out, if indeed they didn't come in through a door? bullmoose

[bullmoose]

Good point, victims feel. If they didn't know if it was on or off they wouldn't use a door; if they came in through a door they would only know if it was after the Ramseys came home. If they were there earlier they wouldn't know for sure. If it was an outside intruder, well, one thing is for sure, they knew something of the Ramseys. For whatever reason, there is that 800 pound gorilla, the ransom? note. I really believe it was done to confound and confuse the cops; whoever wrote it certainly accomplished that. bullmoose

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by victims feel
how would they know the alarm was off?:shrug:

If the kidnapper was there to take JonBenet, then why would they even be worried about an alarm? there was a door that lead directly outside just before you enter the basement.

The parents were supposedly asleep on the third floor. If the kidnapper went out that door, even WITH an alarm they would have been gone before the parents reached the main floor.

IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Well, there was the case of Lisa Steinberg - but then there was also a history of physical abuse to both her and her mother.

To answer your question - in this case - it didn't happen. JMO

Gosh this case was so sad and the biological mom, Michele lived in LI. She gave Lisa up for adoption for $500.00 believing Joel Steinberg had found adoptive parents not realizing he was going to adopt her. I saw a couple of recent articles on Michele where she sued the city agencies and won -- I forget how much she got but it won't bring Lisa back. She also said she did not like her daughter being referred to as Lisa. :rose:

[Athena]

Originally posted by victims feel
how would they know the alarm was off?:shrug:

Because the killer knew the Ramseys and their habits. jmo

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by victims feel
True Hope and I agree with your points. It just does not matter how I try to think about the intruder theory, it is not convincing.

I am sure if he was a guest it would have been said by now that some could not figure out or account for so and so.......if everyone is accounted for in certain hours and so and so left in the car with so and so at so and so time.......I would think LE already had this very basic exclusion secured.

I agree with you and Hope. An intruder makes no sense.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosebud


REPLY: Yes, why the intruder did not flee from a 1st floor door or window is inexplicable. The problem for the intruder theory is that any supposed "intruder" would have had to have acted much more strangely than a supposed parent who staged the scene did. The intruder theory is much more problemmatic than the "insider theory."

I agree that an intruder would have fled from a first floor door and left it unlocked.

I don't believe there was an intruder.

But, why would one (or both) of the Ramseys, in staging, not have unlocked/opened a door?

:shrug:

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I agree that an intruder would have fled from a first floor door and left it unlocked.

I don't believe there was an intruder.

But, why would one (or both) of the Ramseys, in staging, not have unlocked/opened a door?

:shrug:

JMO

So many questions Sun; that's why I don't believe it to be the Ramseys. Too many vivid details left wide open that pointed to them rather than from them.

John finding JB, admitting he was in the basement earlier, closing the window (which indicates to me that he did not give it a second thought - other than he went in the basement , did not notice anything maybe thought it was cold), the flashlight in plain sight, the bowl of pineapple, the practice note, the brutal strangling, Patsy's art supplies, the white blanket, admitting there were no open doors or windows, their pad, their pen, the $118K, no duct tape and cord found and lack of motive (ok I ran out for now) - just does not make sense. :shrug: