Who Killed JonBenet ? [Archive] - Page 3 - Crime Library Message Boards

LadyFisher

09-18-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Although I am among the ranks who believe the Ramseys killed their daughter...I believe wholeheartedly that it was an accident. I believe they staged the crime scene to cover themselves, yes...but I also believe that they did truely grieve for her. I do believe that they loved her and never meant for whatever happened to happen. Maybe because of the very fact that it was an accident and that they did love her is the very reason they can justify covering up the way that they did.
I would very much like to be wrong about them but I can't get the incriminating evidence against them out of my mind. I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that there was no intruder and in absence of that...there are only the Ramseys. Good evening, white...I don't agree with you..but I am curious as to which Ramsey you believe accidentally killed JB....do you think it was John, Patsy, or Burke? :seeya:

rosebud

09-19-2006, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

It seems to me that the head wound may have been an accident, and anything afterwards was staging designed to cover up the original accident.

np, where does the apparent molestation, which apparently occurred that night, factor into an "accidental" death?

rosebud

09-19-2006, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
I can understand Patsy, she did seem a little more upset, although, not as much as I would be if it were my baby. JMO.

I am reading PM/PT right now and Patsy's reaction to the death of JonBenet was inconsolable mourning. She seems to have almost come completely unglued. The book says that her reaction was days of uncontrollable sobbing and what appeared to have been tremendous grief. She apparently had to be heavily sedated also. For that matter, John also reacted at times with uncontrollable sobbing.

As for how she "appeared" at the funeral and in public, I think many people try and put on a good face for that. I don't buy the "Patsy was some unfeeling monster" theory, even if it turns out she did accidently kill JB. By everything that we measure it by, she took JB's death very hard.

lucky13

09-19-2006, 08:06 AM

I do not see how anyone can still believe in the intruder theory. Everything points directly to someone in the house that night. It's so obvious IMO. I have gone back & forth on whether Patsy was involved or not. (her handwriting is really close to the r. note IMO.) I am 100% convinced that John was involved though. I agree with most of docg's theory. I think that John was molesting JB. Not for a long time before her death, but had just recently began doing it. I think that JB was about to tell on him & he knew it. I feel that John really did love his daughter, but was very lonely & cocky. He thought he could get away with a little hanky panky with his beauty queen baby. No real 'harm' intended. The maid stated that there was never any affection between John & Patsy. After all, she did have ovarian cancer & probably never felt like fooling around. (I can't blame her) I think he told JB that Santa was in the basement with a special surprise for her. There were still lots of presents in the basement area. That's why she was strangled from behind-he couldn't bare to see her face. I picture him bawling like a baby while he's doing it- probably also praying for forgiveness too. It was justified in his mind though- to protect himself & his all important million $ bussiness. MOO.

Eagle1

09-19-2006, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Athena: I agree with you; I also do not believe the Ramseys were involved in any way beyond being victimized by whoever killed their daughter. It also is reasonable for them to believe it was someone fairly close to them. I'm not so sure of that, in the Smart case in Utah, it was somebody nobody expected that came into the house; I don't think he left any visible clues either. JMO bullmoose

Good thought, and speaking of Utah, I read in a link from one of the CTV posts that Pasta Jay Elowski used to have a restaurant in Moab, Utah and some other places, he's closed down now that he's married and has two little girls.

FW retired early, he'd been so successful, so, was he friends with Pasta Jay as JR was, and did he maybe finance the Utah venture for Elowski? Otherwise, how could people in predominantly Morman state know FW? I'm sure he's not Mormon. They maybe worked for Pasta Jay when FW visited there, or heard of him from Elowski? Guess?

diplomat

09-19-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Too late to edit.

Fleet White was not concerned about JBR - he was out for self. Hunter never wrote him off as a suspect and he hated Hunter for that. His pleas for a Special Prosecutor also were denied -- some were able to see right through him. He and Thomas were up each other's a**. White knew Thomas was looking at noone else but Patsy and he just fit right in. As long as Thomas wasn't looking elsewhere -- he was fine. And just before Thomas resigned he was told to investigate White further (PMPT) and White knew it and he himself withdrew as a key witness. jmo

No surprise that Fleet White was upset with Hunter, Fleet seemed to be angry a lot. I wonder why?

thewhitewitch1

09-19-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, white...I don't agree with you..but I am curious as to which Ramsey you believe accidentally killed JB....do you think it was John, Patsy, or Burke? :seeya:

Good evening to you, LF. I am not sure which Ramsey did the actual killing. I am leaning towards Patsy striking the blow to JBs head and still think it was caused in the bathroom by a fall. I think Patsy wrote the ransom note with coaching from John and I think John did the rest. I don't think Burke was involved but I think he definately heard something and knows something.
IMO, there was no intruder and it wasn't a friend or someone jealous of John. Of that I feel sure.

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by harz

So he doesn't live there anymore? Curious, how long does it take to travel between Fleet and Ramsey houses in car? Ramseys came from Fleet house back to their home on 25th after dinner party right?

I don't know how long it took to travel from Fleet White's house to the Ramseys, harz. I'm sorry.

I do know he lived outside of Boulder a little.

Yes, the Ramseys came from Fleet's house on Christmas night, stopped and delivered some presents, then went home.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hi sun,

Speaking from the Ramsey's point of view -- they hoped noone they knew killed JBR but everyone became a suspect and they trusted noone and rightfully so. Since I am one who believes the Ramseys did not kill their daughter, I believe both John and Patsy came to believe that it was someone that knew them and was familiar with their house. jmo

Hi Athena

While I've come to believe the Ramseys were involved, I don't know that, and if they weren't then I agree, it had to be someone who was intimately familiar with their life and their habits/plans and their house.

JMO

nuisanceposter

09-19-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

Where is the link that says the White's were cleared? Aren't posters to provide links or is that a thing of the past?

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

Fleet White, Jr. was cleared as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/25arams.html

Police cleared White as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26aram1.html

Police cleared Fleet White Jr. as a suspect in April 1997.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

BOULDER -- Police have ruled out two Ramsey family friends as suspects in the Dec. 26 death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Police chief Tom Koby said Wednesday that he took the rare public move because Fleet White Jr. -- who was with John Ramsey when he found the body of his 6-year-old daughter -- and his wife, Priscilla White, have been cast as culprits by some publications.
"They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''
Boulder police have formally cleared only two people, John Andrew Ramsey and Melissa Ramsey, John Ramsey's older son and daughter.
Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.

diplomat

09-19-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

Fleet White, Jr. was cleared as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/25arams.html

Police cleared White as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26aram1.html

Police cleared Fleet White Jr. as a suspect in April 1997.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

BOULDER -- Police have ruled out two Ramsey family friends as suspects in the Dec. 26 death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Police chief Tom Koby said Wednesday that he took the rare public move because Fleet White Jr. -- who was with John Ramsey when he found the body of his 6-year-old daughter -- and his wife, Priscilla White, have been cast as culprits by some publications.
"They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''
Boulder police have formally cleared only two people, John Andrew Ramsey and Melissa Ramsey, John Ramsey's older son and daughter.
Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.

This statement is rather contradictory in that it states that the BPD have only formally cleared John Andrew and Melissa Ramsey. Then says the department felt compelled to clear the Whites. But did they? Nothing about this case is clear, always shrouded in mystery.

nuisanceposter

09-19-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

This statement is rather contradictory in that it states that the BPD have only formally cleared John Andrew and Melissa Ramsey. Then says the department felt compelled to clear the Whites. But did they? Nothing about this case is clear, always shrouded in mystery.

But it does say in the last sentence that police cleared the Whites.

That particular article was published April 17, 1997. If you look at the quotes from the other three links, they say FW was cleared in April of 1997.

Bottom line: Fleet White was cleared by police.

sweetcharlotte

09-19-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

But it does say in the last sentence that police cleared the Whites.

That particular article was published April 17, 1997. If you look at the quotes from the other three links, they say FW was cleared in April of 1997.

Bottom line: Fleet White was cleared by police.

The Boulder PD press release indicated that they were "not suspects." At Alex Hunter's request the Boulder PD did not say the Whites were cleared.

diplomat

09-19-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

The Boulder PD press release indicated that they were "not suspects." At Alex Hunter's request the Boulder PD did not say the Whites were cleared.

So then it's official, the White's were not cleared, right?

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 05:37 PM

In April of 97 the Whites were cooperating and were clearly not viewed as suspects by the BPD; however they were not cleared as only the older two Ramsey children were said to be cleared. Once the Whites stopped their close collaboration with Steve Thomas, perhaps they came back under the umbrella of suspician. I would say they were not cleared any more than the Ramseys were. IMO bullmoose

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

So then it's official, the White's were not cleared, right?

What it boils down to is Tom Koby announced publicly that the police ruled out the Whites as suspects. "They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''

Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

Then, the DA's office very pointedly refused to say the White's were cleared.

http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989057,00.html

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 05:57 PM

One thing I think everyone on this board can agree to is that the BPD and the DA's office did not cooperate early on in the investigation. bullmoose:lol:

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
One thing I think everyone on this board can agree to is that the BPD and the DA's office did not cooperate early on in the investigation. bullmoose:lol:

Boy, I'll sure second that!

I also think most of us agree the police did a lousy job during the initial investigation...letting people roam all over the house, etc.

diplomat

09-19-2006, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

What it boils down to is Tom Koby announced publicly that the police ruled out the Whites as suspects. "They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''

Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

Then, the DA's office very pointedly refused to say the White's were cleared.

http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989057,00.html

LOL, more confusion.

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 07:07 PM

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

So then it's official, the White's were not cleared, right?

People who aren't suspects don't need cleared.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

Fleet White, Jr. was cleared as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1999/25arams.html

Police cleared White as a suspect in April 1997.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26aram1.html

Police cleared Fleet White Jr. as a suspect in April 1997.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0417jon.htm

BOULDER -- Police have ruled out two Ramsey family friends as suspects in the Dec. 26 death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Police chief Tom Koby said Wednesday that he took the rare public move because Fleet White Jr. -- who was with John Ramsey when he found the body of his 6-year-old daughter -- and his wife, Priscilla White, have been cast as culprits by some publications.
"They are clearly not in the picture in terms of being suspects,'' Koby said. "They are key witnesses who have cooperated with us fully from day one of this investigation.''
Boulder police have formally cleared only two people, John Andrew Ramsey and Melissa Ramsey, John Ramsey's older son and daughter.
Koby said his department felt compelled to publicly clear the Whites because they have been "distraught and upset'' by constant pressure from some supermarket weeklies.

I think you mean Melinda Ramsey, right? I don't think there is a Melissa Ramsey involved in this case.

nuisanceposter

09-19-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I think you mean Melinda Ramsey, right? I don't think there is a Melissa Ramsey involved in this case.

LOl, I didn't write that article. It's not the first time I've seen someone write Melissa instead of Melinda in reference to this case, either.

I still think it's safe to say the Whites are not suspects and have been cleared. Koby himself used the word cleared - if Hunter didn't, please remember we're talking about Hunter, whose lenghths to shield the Ramseys are not only legendary but bordering on illegal.

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

LOl, I didn't write that article. It's not the first time I've seen someone write Melissa instead of Melinda in reference to this case, either.

I still think it's safe to say the Whites are not suspects and have been cleared. Koby himself used the word cleared - if Hunter didn't, please remember we're talking about Hunter, whose lenghths to shield the Ramseys are not only legendary but bordering on illegal.

Yes, I agree about Hunter. And Mary Lacy is Hunter's protegee.

JMO

diplomat

09-19-2006, 09:29 PM

It seems the White's are still on that very long list of possible suspects.

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 09:35 PM

The BPD said the Whites were cleared; the DA's office said they are not suspects.

So, I guess that lets the Whites off the list.

JMO

nuisanceposter

09-19-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by diplomat
It seems the White's are still on that very long list of possible suspects.

Ah, yes, the list that starts with John and Patsy Ramsey.

I liked this last paragraph:

White, however, finds it mystifying that members of the D.A.'s staff--unlike the police--have done little in terms of questioning him and his wife, yet refuse to say he is fully cleared of involvement in the murder. "If we're important witnesses, it's just common sense that the prosecutor would want to keep in touch with you. But we have no relationship with them." He adds, "We only want to see justice done for JonBenet. Nobody is really working for her."

http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989057,00.html

The DA's office hasn't fully cleared them, but is making very little effort to question them. They must not suspect the Whites very strongly if they can't even be bothered to interview them.

I remain satisfied the Whites have been cleared.

sweetcharlotte

09-19-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by diplomat
It seems the White's are still on that very long list of possible suspects.

Yes. JMO

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Yes. JMO

What makes you think that since the PD cleared them and the DA's office said they are not suspects (links given by another poster).

I can understand if you think they are suspects in your own opinion, but in LE's opinion they aren't.

MyrDawn

09-20-2006, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

What makes you think that since the PD cleared them and the DA's office said they are not suspects (links given by another poster).

I can understand if you think they are suspects in your own opinion, but in LE's opinion they aren't.

I think it's the same for the White's as it is for Burke and John Andrew. The LE cleared them, too, but I constantly see posters that still suspect them.

IMO, it's because most of us believe the LE did such a sloppy job investigating, (including letting people wander all over the house that first day, etc.), so we don't all trust their investigation, including clearing suspects.

If they'd done a bang up job from the start, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what they said!

sweetcharlotte

09-20-2006, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I think it's the same for the White's as it is for Burke and John Andrew. The LE cleared them, too, but I constantly see posters that still suspect them.

IMO, it's because most of us believe the LE did such a sloppy job investigating, (including letting people wander all over the house that first day, etc.), so we don't all trust their investigation, including clearing suspects.

If they'd done a bang up job from the start, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what they said!

I don't have the statement issued by the Boulder PD in front of me, but prior to the release of the statement Alex Hunter asked that the police change the wording re: Fleet & Priscilla White from "cleared" to "not under suspicion" because he said at that time no one had been "cleared." (That was from the official PD statement. What people have been posting here is from the Camera.) Comments were that White never forgot that Hunter insisted on the change in wording , i.e., from "cleared
to "not under suspicion" so maybe that explains part of his (White's) continued interest in the case. JMO

diplomat

09-20-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't have the statement issued by the Boulder PD in front of me, but prior to the release of the statement Alex Hunter asked that the police change the wording re: Fleet & Priscilla White from "cleared" to "not under suspicion" because he said at that time no one had been "cleared." (That was from the official PD statement. What people have been posting here is from the Camera.) Comments were that White never forgot that Hunter insisted on the change in wording , i.e., from "cleared
to "not under suspicion" so maybe that explains part of his (White's) continued interest in the case. JMO

If the DAs office/BPD has not "cleared" the White's then that is the official word on the White's and their current status.

diplomat

09-20-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I think it's the same for the White's as it is for Burke and John Andrew. The LE cleared them, too, but I constantly see posters that still suspect them.

Could it be that some posters just aren't clear on the facts of who has been cleared and who hasn't. The actual facts of this case seem to be few and far between and it's very easy to find anything by googling to support most theories. It would be nice to have just one thread that is totally based on facts.

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by diplomat

Could it be that some posters just aren't clear on the facts of who has been cleared and who hasn't. The actual facts of this case seem to be few and far between and it's very easy to find anything by googling to support most theories. It would be nice to have just one thread that is totally based on facts.

Try this thread at WS. It's based on establishing the facts in this case because so many were unclear on what was and what wasn't fact.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35649

diplomat

09-20-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Try this thread at WS. It's based on establishing the facts in this case because so many were unclear on what was and what wasn't fact.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35649

Thanks for that link. I am familiar with that website as well as the webbsleuths site and all the others re the case as well as having read all the books. What I would like to see is just one thread devoted to nothing but facts re the case so as to keep opinions and innuendo separate from the facts. That would be helpful for posters here at CTV. It's time consuming to have to keep referring to other sites.

Athena

09-20-2006, 06:18 PM

sweetcharlotte

09-20-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

There are MANY errors in those too! jmo

It's just a compliation of other peoples' opinions, isn't it?
:shrug: JMO

sunsplashed

09-20-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Athena

There are MANY errors in those too! jmo

There are, Athena.

I don't think a compilation of facts can be made when even the ME had questions about his own autopsy.

JMO

Athena

09-20-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

Thanks for that link. I am familiar with that website as well as the webbsleuths site and all the others re the case as well as having read all the books. What I would like to see is just one thread devoted to nothing but facts re the case so as to keep opinions and innuendo separate from the facts. That would be helpful for posters here at CTV. It's time consuming to have to keep referring to other sites.

Honestly diplomat if you find a site like that let me know. LOL
Unfortunately every forum is filled with opinions, speculations and innuendos. The most you can do is read with an open mind and do your own research. This case is 10 years old and there is alot of misinformation out there. Even misinformation that has since been cleared up keeps turning up because people see/hear/read what they want to or how they interpret the information.

Just the analysis of the ransom note alone turns up all different theories and/or people's opinions.

In the old thread on this board somewhere I started a thread called Evidence -- and asked that only facts be posted -- no speculation, theories, innuendos, opinions, etc because I wanted also to be able just to refer to the facts and known evidence in this case. Don't have to tell you -- it did not last long. :shrug:

diplomat

09-21-2006, 09:21 PM

harz

09-22-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Honestly diplomat if you find a site like that let me know. LOL
Unfortunately every forum is filled with opinions, speculations and innuendos. The most you can do is read with an open mind and do your own research. This case is 10 years old and there is alot of misinformation out there. Even misinformation that has since been cleared up keeps turning up because people see/hear/read what they want to or how they interpret the information.

Just the analysis of the ransom note alone turns up all different theories and/or people's opinions.

In the old thread on this board somewhere I started a thread called Evidence -- and asked that only facts be posted -- no speculation, theories, innuendos, opinions, etc because I wanted also to be able just to refer to the facts and known evidence in this case. Don't have to tell you -- it did not last long. :shrug:

Indeed, this case is certainly a opened can of worms. Too many mysteries to this case which is why its popular with speculations & theories. I would rather people to change theories to fit the facts than changing the facts to fit the theories. I learned that fron Sunsplash :) Maybe one of these days, all of us will agree on just one theory, then this case will be solved. I think its good for everyone to keep our mind open & flexibility about each other theories to this case, otherwise it would be like throwing a wrench to this open discussion if they are to be intolerable. JMO

MyrDawn

09-22-2006, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by harz

Indeed, this case is certainly a opened can of worms. Too many mysteries to this case which is why its popular with speculations & theories. I would rather people to change theories to fit the facts than changing the facts to fit the theories. I learned that fron Sunsplash :) Maybe one of these days, all of us will agree on just one theory, then this case will be solved. I think its good for everyone to keep our mind open & flexibility about each other theories to this case, otherwise it would be like throwing a wrench to this open discussion if they are to be intolerable. JMO

It would be great if everyone could agree on one theory, but I can't see that happening. People have are far to much difference in their theories. Some are dead set that they are right and Patsy or John did it, or an inturder did it. But, even they can't agree whether or not if both Pasty and John did it, which one wrote the ransom note, and if it was an intruder, whether it was done out of hatred for one of the Ramseys or it was a pedophile.

Let's face it, the facts don't fit any one of the theories entirely. And, people unconciously draw on their personal experiences when considering the events and evidence.

IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOOOO

diplomat

09-22-2006, 11:42 AM

harz

09-22-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

It would be great if everyone could agree on one theory, but I can't see that happening. People have are far to much difference in their theories. Some are dead set that they are right and Patsy or John did it, or an inturder did it. But, even they can't agree whether or not if both Pasty and John did it, which one wrote the ransom note, and if it was an intruder, whether it was done out of hatred for one of the Ramseys or it was a pedophile.

Let's face it, the facts don't fit any one of the theories entirely. And, people unconciously draw on their personal experiences when considering the events and evidence.

IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOOOO

True, its probably just my wishful thinking like diplomat stated :) There are some people who still believe Scott Peterson is innocent for example, or have different theories on what happened to Laci & Connor regardless SP was already indicted & convinced of murder. Although, I already knew SP was gulity before the verdict. :biggrin:

MOO

diplomat

09-23-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by harz

True, its probably just my wishful thinking like diplomat stated :) There are some people who still believe Scott Peterson is innocent for example, or have different theories on what happened to Laci & Connor regardless SP was already indicted & convinced of murder. Although, I already knew SP was gulity before the verdict. :biggrin:

MOO

While everyone might not agree if the killer of JB is ever charged, at least we can continue to hope that it might happen.

Athena

09-23-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

While everyone might not agree if the killer of JB is ever charged, at least we can continue to hope that it might happen.

I agree diplomat. I remember when I first heard about John Karr I did have some hope that the killer was finally caught but as the days passed and information was released I just thought he was a sick, perverted, twisted individual. But I will never say never!!! :)

diplomat

09-23-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I agree diplomat. I remember when I first heard about John Karr I did have some hope that the killer was finally caught but as the days passed and information was released I just thought he was a sick, perverted, twisted individual. But I will never say never!!! :)

I know. First there was hope this was the killer. Then one got that sinking feeling that it was all a hoax. But the handwriting was so similar and the S.B.T.C. from the yearbook such a coincidence, it's hard to believe he wasn't involved. I wonder, after the Karr fiasco, if the Boulder DAs office will shy away from the case, fearful of making another huge mistake. Sad if this happens because this case needs to be solved.

sunsplashed

09-24-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by diplomat

I know. First there was hope this was the killer. Then one got that sinking feeling that it was all a hoax. But the handwriting was so similar and the S.B.T.C. from the yearbook such a coincidence, it's hard to believe he wasn't involved. I wonder, after the Karr fiasco, if the Boulder DAs office will shy away from the case, fearful of making another huge mistake. Sad if this happens because this case needs to be solved.

That's just like the fallacy of the "movie quotes." Just as there were no direct movie quotes in the so-called ransom note, JMK did not sign his yearbook with S.B.T.C.

It said: "...and then I shall be the conqueror and live in multiple peace."

That's not S.B.T.C., just a vivid imagination interpreting it as such.

JMO

edna mode

09-24-2006, 02:05 AM

9/13/2002

Man wants records for Ramsey case open

By Travis Henry
The Daily Times-Call

BOULDER — Former Ramsey family friend Fleet White Jr. asked a judge Thursday to order Boulder police to give him investigative records from the JonBenet Ramsey murder case detailing accusations that he was involved in a child-sex ring and may have had a part in JonBenet’s death.

White — representing himself and his wife, Priscilla, during the hearing — said the records should be turned over because police deemed the accusations as not credible and issued a press release in May 2000 stating that the department had “concluded” an investigation into claims made by a 37-year-old California woman.

Releasing the records would allow White and his family to “revisit” criminal libel accusations against news agencies who reported the woman’s claims, White said.

According to White, the Boulder Police Department was bullied by then-District Attorney Alex Hunter and the Boulder Daily Camera to investigate the woman’s “ridiculous claims.” White said the records may shed some light on how the case was handled.

“There is a big rug, and this has been swept under that big rug,” White said.

He argued that the investigation into the woman’s claims is separate from the Ramsey case because investigators believe it was untrue.

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner testified that the Ramsey case is still an open investigation and that releasing any records could jeopardize finding JonBenet’s killer.

“This investigation has not been concluded,” Beckner said. “This is a small piece of an ongoing investigation that has several hundred pieces.”

Beckner said he issued a press release all but exonerating White and his family because he had “empathy” for them, but he never meant to mean that the case was closed.

He said the woman’s claims could be revisited if corroborating evidence came along.

“One could argue we could have done more,” Beckner said. “There are others who believe a similar theory in this case. This is not the only time this has come up.”

In February 2000, the California woman traveled to Colorado and told police she was sexually assaulted as a child by a California-based child-abuse ring that included members of White’s family.

She also claimed that one of her alleged childhood assailants traveled to Boulder with a small female child and attended the same Christmas party as 6-year-old JonBenet the night she died. It was speculated that the party was held at the Boulder home of Fleet White Jr., the former best friend of JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey.

JonBenet’s body was found in the basement the next day by John Ramsey and White after the Ramseys reported finding a ransom note in their home.

According to Colorado law, police chiefs have the discretion of holding back records during an open criminal investigation unless a judge ordered the chief to release them.

sunsplashed

09-24-2006, 11:34 AM

You don't clear an innocent person who isn't a suspect.

I've not been officially "cleared." I assume none of the posters here have.

The reason: We're innocent, like Fleet White, and have no need to be "cleared."

JMO

MyrDawn

09-24-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
You don't clear an innocent person who isn't a suspect.

I've not been officially "cleared." I assume none of the posters here have.

The reason: We're innocent, like Fleet White, and have no need to be "cleared."

JMO

True, we're all innocent and don't need to be cleared, (or at least I hope so), but, none of us were in the area, had a key to the house, or knew the Ramsey's personally. IMO, that makes a huge difference between any of us and people like Fleet White, or any of the others that were in the area and knew the Ramseys.

sunsplashed

09-24-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

True, we're all innocent and don't need to be cleared, (or at least I hope so), but, none of us were in the area, had a key to the house, or knew the Ramsey's personally. IMO, that makes a huge difference between any of us and people like Fleet White, or any of the others that were in the area and knew the Ramseys.

Well, JMK didn't live in Boulder, either and he didn't have a key to the Ramseys house or know them at all, yet he became a suspect.

Innocent people, like Fleet White, do not need cleared.

End of story.

JMO

MyrDawn

09-24-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Well, JMK didn't live in Boulder, either and he didn't have a key to the Ramseys house or know them at all, yet he became a suspect.

Innocent people, like Fleet White, do not need cleared.

End of story.

JMO

Aren't you aware of why Karr became a suspect? It's for entirely different reasons than several other people should have been suspected and cleared. The police didn't know who was innocent and who was guilty. It's their DUTY to investigate and clear possible suspects.

diplomat

09-24-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

True, we're all innocent and don't need to be cleared, (or at least I hope so), but, none of us were in the area, had a key to the house, or knew the Ramsey's personally. IMO, that makes a huge difference between any of us and people like Fleet White, or any of the others that were in the area and knew the Ramseys.

Exactly and the only people who can clear the White's or other suspects are the DA or BPD, not posters here. JMO

MyrDawn

09-24-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

Exactly and the only people who can clear the White's or other suspects are the DA or BPD, not posters here. JMO

Exactly...and, that goes for the Ramsey's too, which probably seems strange coming from me. :)

edna mode

09-24-2006, 09:26 PM

In any murder case anyone with access to the victim is suspect. Fleet White is no different.

He is and always will be a suspect. Beckner never cleared him or his wife Priscilla. If there was evidence he could be fully cleared...Beckner would have done so.

He didn't.

diplomat

09-24-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by edna mode
In any murder case anyone with access to the victim is suspect. Fleet White is no different.

He is and always will be a suspect. Beckner never cleared him or his wife Priscilla. If there was evidence he could be fully cleared...Beckner would have done so.

He didn't.

So either the White's did not have clear alibis or there is other evidence that could support their guilt?

Athena

09-24-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Exactly...and, that goes for the Ramsey's too, which probably seems strange coming from me. :)

No I do not find it strange that you would not clear the Ramseys. There are so many unanswered questions.

As much as I lean toward them to have not been involved with this horrific murder, if there was evidence that was presented to clearly implicate them I personally would not have a problem back-pedalling to see justice served for Jonbenet.

As it stands right now there is no evidence that convinces me that they had anything to do with this murder. jmo

Athena

09-24-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

So either the White's did not have clear alibis or there is other evidence that could support their guilt?

The only alibi they have is each other. They both claim to have stayed up until 1AM talking and then went to bed.

sunsplashed

09-24-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Athena

No I do not find it strange that you would not clear the Ramseys. There are so many unanswered questions.

As much as I lean toward them to have not been involved with this horrific murder, if there was evidence that was presented to clearly implicate them I personally would not have a problem back-pedalling to see justice served for Jonbenet.

As it stands right now there is no evidence that convinces me that they had anything to do with this murder. jmo

I feel the same way, only in reverse. If there is every evidence that convinces me of an intruder, I won't have any problem changing my conclusions. However, right now, everything for me points to the Ramseys.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know any more than we do now, which is a shame, not for us, but for JB.

JMO

Athena

09-25-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I feel the same way, only in reverse. If there is every evidence that convinces me of an intruder, I won't have any problem changing my conclusions. However, right now, everything for me points to the Ramseys.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know any more than we do now, which is a shame, not for us, but for JB.

JMO

Sun - I hope we do find out more in the interest of justice. :)

I do believe most that are concerned with justice for JBR would have no problem changing their opinions either way based on hard evidence. It is the way we all interpret the CE that leads us to believe either that the Ramseys did it or it was an intruder - and we are just amateurs. Even the "experts" disagree.

Goodnight all.

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The only alibi they have is each other. They both claim to have stayed up until 1AM talking and then went to bed.

And the Ramsey's--Patsy claims to have gone right to bed and John after helping Burke with a toy, claims to have gone to bed even earlier than the White's.

Da Wench

09-25-2006, 12:56 PM

JMK did not sign his yearbook with S.B.T.C.

It said: "...and then I shall be the conqueror and live in multiple peace."

That's not S.B.T.C., just a vivid imagination interpreting it as such.

I completely agree. If you picked any one of us and went through his or her full lifetime's worth of writing, I'm fairly sure you could find a phrase where the words began with 'SBTC'.

I wish it had been him...but it wasn't.

rosebud

09-26-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The only alibi they have is each other. They both claim to have stayed up until 1AM talking and then went to bed.

Again, people who seem outraged that the Ramseys are even under suspicion have no problem casting suspicion on anyone else, even though there is no real reason to suspect them. :rolleyes:

Athena

09-26-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Again, people who seem outraged that the Ramseys are even under suspicion have no problem casting suspicion on anyone else, even though there is no real reason to suspect them. :rolleyes:

I was responding to a post re: an alibi. :rolleyes: backatcha

Again you crack me up rose. It is also obvious you are not familiar with this case as again you offer no information -- just your little one-liners. Takes a long time for me to put someone on ignore -- but I've just reached by threshold.

rosebud

09-26-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I was responding to a post re: an alibi. :rolleyes: backatcha

Again you crack me up rose. It is also obvious you are not familiar with this case as again you offer no information -- just your little one-liners. Takes a long time for me to put someone on ignore -- but I've just reached by threshold.

I have tried to engage you and others on your side with facts. Apparently facts are not what you respond to.

Eagle1

09-26-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

I know. First there was hope this was the killer. Then one got that sinking feeling that it was all a hoax. But the handwriting was so similar and the S.B.T.C. from the yearbook such a coincidence, it's hard to believe he wasn't involved. I wonder, after the Karr fiasco, if the Boulder DAs office will shy away from the case, fearful of making another huge mistake. Sad if this happens because this case needs to be solved.

I've asked at another forum didn't Karr use the acronym when signing a classmate's yearbook, wasn't completely sure. Thanks for the confirmation. I think he also wrote something about maybe I shall be the victor?

And now they say the evidence against him has been lost, a computer and some video's I think. Could it be he does know the killer, because this is more police "bungling" and because of the acronym?

Athena

09-26-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Eagle1

I've asked at another forum didn't Karr use the acronym when signing a classmate's yearbook, wasn't completely sure. Thanks for the confirmation. I think he also wrote something about maybe I shall be the victor?

And now they say the evidence against him has been lost, a computer and some video's I think. Could it be he does know the killer, because this is more police "bungling" and because of the acronym?

Here ya go. Scroll down for the year book page.

http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php

jerzyscott10

09-26-2006, 09:11 PM

the police did a really bad investigation, I really doubt that Patsy and Jon did it, it was proably a break in, maybe JonBenet heard something and went to the basement to find something, and thought that JonBenet would be a tool to get some real cash

jerzyscott10

09-26-2006, 09:12 PM

it's not that far fetched

MissOtisRegrets

09-26-2006, 11:58 PM

A kidnapping gone wrong:

1. Dec. 21st article in the Daily Camera is read by the wrong person. He may have worked for the Ramseys in the house at one time and has gone through their things, when alone in the house. He is a petty criminal. He knows or knows of JonBenet. He starts to watch the house and make plans. Makes general outline of ransom note in his head. Starts to dream about this. Christmas night will be a good time. Everyone will be worn out and sound asleep. And their defenses will be down. Particularly JonBenet's.

2. He may have entered the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites and written the first version of the ransom note at that time. He uses a pen and paper from the house, so as not to leave anything that can be traced to him. He hides in the basement. In the wine cellar.

3. After everyone is asleep, he goes upstairs. He wakes JonBenet, gives her some kind of Christmas story, and she eagerly accompanies him downstairs, bringing her blanket (Barbie attached), because it is cold. She is given a small snack. They go to the basement. He has entered by the basement window and is planning to leave with JonBenet by same. She is walking in front of him.

4. Something goes wrong. JonBenet panics and lets out a scream. He hits her with his flashlight. Too hard. He realizes he will now not be taking an unconscious girl, but a dying one, from the house. He doesn't know what to do and panics. He carries JB into the wine cellar. With the cord he had planned to tie her, he now strangles her. He fashions a garrotte out of a paintbrush he finds, in order to punish her for ruining everything. While she is dying, he molests her in some way. He ties a design that means something to him on her wrist.

5. He will never get his five million dollars now. The body will be found within hours. But, he remembers that John has $118K in his account. He wonders if there's a chance he can get that before they find the body. He will rewrite the note and this time address it specifically to John, rather than to "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". He will ask for $118K. He goes to the kitchen to rewrite the note. He needs the pen. He uses his flashlight to write it. He copies the second note from the first, changing the amount. He replaces the pen and pad. He leaves the note on the stairs that go to JonBenet's room and, forgetting the flashlight, returns to the basement and leaves by the window. He watches the house.

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
A kidnapping gone wrong:

1. Dec. 21st article in the Daily Camera is read by the wrong person. He may have worked for the Ramseys in the house at one time and has gone through their things, when alone in the house. He is a petty criminal. He knows or knows of JonBenet. He starts to watch the house and make plans. Makes general outline of ransom note in his head. Starts to dream about this. Christmas night will be a good time. Everyone will be worn out and sound asleep. And their defenses will be down. Particularly JonBenet's.

2. He may have entered the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites and written the first version of the ransom note at that time. He uses a pen and paper from the house, so as not to leave anything that can be traced to him. He hides in the basement. In the wine cellar.

3. After everyone is asleep, he goes upstairs. He wakes JonBenet, gives her some kind of Christmas story, and she eagerly accompanies him downstairs, bringing her blanket (Barbie attached), because it is cold. She is given a small snack. They go to the basement. He has entered by the basement window and is planning to leave with JonBenet by same. She is walking in front of him.

4. Something goes wrong. JonBenet panics and lets out a scream. He hits her with his flashlight. Too hard. He realizes he will now not be taking an unconscious girl, but a dying one, from the house. He doesn't know what to do and panics. He carries JB into the wine cellar. With the cord he had planned to tie her, he now strangles her. He fashions a garrotte out of a paintbrush he finds, in order to punish her for ruining everything. While she is dying, he molests her in some way. He ties a design that means something to him on her wrist.

5. He will never get his five million dollars now. The body will be found within hours. But, he remembers that John has $118K in his account. He wonders if there's a chance he can get that before they find the body. He will rewrite the note and this time address it specifically to John, rather than to "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". He will ask for $118K. He goes to the kitchen to rewrite the note. He needs the pen. He uses his flashlight to write it. He copies the second note from the first, changing the amount. He replaces the pen and pad. He leaves the note on the stairs that go to JonBenet's room and, forgetting the flashlight, returns to the basement and leaves by the window. He watches the house. Excellent post, MissO! He was possibly a teen or young adult....maybe a friend of one of the babysitters...or constructon worker...He knew info that was on one of John's pay stubs...a $118,000 is a lot of money to him..he was unsophisticated..he did not realize how difficult it would be to pull of a kidnapping even of a 6 y/o..he either entered by a key or the window well...while the Ramseys were at the Whites during which time he wrote the ransom note he forgot to bring...both the stun gun and garotte may have been instruments of control rather than torture to him.....he has never been confronted about JB's death or he would have spilled the beans...a young person will get scared and tell all....he is an avid movie watch obviously by the ransom note......just my thoughts on a possible kidnapping gone wrong...but that isn't my first choice of scenarios....but the kidnapping gone wrong is a good one, MissO! Have a great day folks! :seeya:

rosebud

09-27-2006, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
A kidnapping gone wrong:

1. Dec. 21st article in the Daily Camera is read by the wrong person. He may have worked for the Ramseys in the house at one time and has gone through their things, when alone in the house. He is a petty criminal. He knows or knows of JonBenet. He starts to watch the house and make plans. Makes general outline of ransom note in his head. Starts to dream about this. Christmas night will be a good time. Everyone will be worn out and sound asleep. And their defenses will be down. Particularly JonBenet's.

2. He may have entered the house while the Ramseys were at the Whites and written the first version of the ransom note at that time. He uses a pen and paper from the house, so as not to leave anything that can be traced to him. He hides in the basement. In the wine cellar.

3. After everyone is asleep, he goes upstairs. He wakes JonBenet, gives her some kind of Christmas story, and she eagerly accompanies him downstairs, bringing her blanket (Barbie attached), because it is cold. She is given a small snack. They go to the basement. He has entered by the basement window and is planning to leave with JonBenet by same. She is walking in front of him.

4. Something goes wrong. JonBenet panics and lets out a scream. He hits her with his flashlight. Too hard. He realizes he will now not be taking an unconscious girl, but a dying one, from the house. He doesn't know what to do and panics. He carries JB into the wine cellar. With the cord he had planned to tie her, he now strangles her. He fashions a garrotte out of a paintbrush he finds, in order to punish her for ruining everything. While she is dying, he molests her in some way. He ties a design that means something to him on her wrist.

5. He will never get his five million dollars now. The body will be found within hours. But, he remembers that John has $118K in his account. He wonders if there's a chance he can get that before they find the body. He will rewrite the note and this time address it specifically to John, rather than to "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". He will ask for $118K. He goes to the kitchen to rewrite the note. He needs the pen. He uses his flashlight to write it. He copies the second note from the first, changing the amount. He replaces the pen and pad. He leaves the note on the stairs that go to JonBenet's room and, forgetting the flashlight, returns to the basement and leaves by the window. He watches the house.

How does he know about the $118,000 Christmas bonus? How does he linger in the house for that long and leave no trace of himself? How does he intend to get JB back through the basement window? He could have left through a door or first floor window. Why would the intruder go into a room in the basement he could have been trapped in? The room JB's body was found in had one door and no windows.

Since this scenario is the polar opposite of the way any known intruder would act, why wouldn't he just leave the moment he has her?

JMO

rosebud

09-27-2006, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Good evening to you, LF. I am not sure which Ramsey did the actual killing. I am leaning towards Patsy striking the blow to JBs head and still think it was caused in the bathroom by a fall. I think Patsy wrote the ransom note with coaching from John and I think John did the rest. I don't think Burke was involved but I think he definately heard something and knows something.
IMO, there was no intruder and it wasn't a friend or someone jealous of John. Of that I feel sure.

I agree with you that both of them did the writing of the ransom note. It has elements in it that strike me as a collaborative effort between them. If Patsy did kill JB it explains why she never turned on John. It would probably also explain his standing by her, even if he had nothing to hide.

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

How does he know about the $118,000 Christmas bonus? How does he linger in the house for that long and leave no trace of himself? How does he intend to get JB back through the basement window? He could have left through a door or first floor window. Why would the intruder go into a room in the basement he could have been trapped in? The room JB's body was found in had one door and no windows.

Since this scenario is the polar opposite of the way any known intruder would act, why wouldn't he just leave the moment he has her?

JMO

How does he know about the $118,000 Christmas bonus?

He has been in the home before. He may have worked there at some time. Maybe quite recently. He is a petty criminal. Prowler. Burglar. Maybe he had never been in the house before he read the article in the Daily Camera. But he has been there before the night of the 25th. He has memorized the house. He has gone through their things. The third drawer on the right in John Ramsey's desk was unlocked and contained his bank book. The figure $118K was written in it. He was under the impression that all John had to do was drive to the bank and he could on the spot withdraw $118K in cash. He may have written the ransom note ahead of time and brought a copy. He may have written the note with Patsy's pen and paper, when he arrived. Or he may have not intended to leave a note at all but contact the Ramseys later (most likely imo). But he did have the general idea of the note worked out in his head. It began "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey." Something went wrong somewhere. He didn't want to take a body from the house and she was dying, if not already dead. Or he couldn't get her out the way he had planned. He had to abandon the project. But, maybe there was a chance he could get the money John had in his account. Not the millions he was planning on asking for. But a note had to be left NOW. He only had hours (no longer days) to get the money. He may have already torn pages for the first draft, but it is more likely imo he had trouble with this one and kept starting over. He was rewriting, as he wrote it, something he had basically memorized. It was hard. Time was vitally important. He had to get the money before they found the body. Emphasis was important. They might not look in the house or call the police. John could get the money by 10am. He starts out "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". No. This one is just for Mr. Ramsey. It's his account. "Mr. Ramsey, .... You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." He leaves the note on the stairs leading to JonBenet's room. They will find it, when they go to wake her, if not before. As it was, with the police there and the house searched, they don't find the body until 1pm. But he doesn't call. Because he has been watching the house.

2. How does he linger in the house for that long and leave no trace of himself?

He may not have entered until everyone was asleep. But, he had burgled homes before while their owners were there. He knows what he is doing on that level. This is his first kidnapping.

It's even possible that he found JonBenet downstairs. Getting a snack and playing with her gifts under the tree.

3. How does he intend to get JB back through the basement window? He could have left through a door or first floor window.

He can get himself through the window and she is smaller than he is. He is not sure about the alarm. He knows the window is not on it, because it was already open.

He would have probably taken her out a door, if that was the problem. I think the problem was that she was either dying or already dead and that was not something he wanted to deal with. Something went wrong.

4. Why would the intruder go into a room in the basement he could have been trapped in? The room JB's body was found in had one door and no windows.

He was taking a chance every step of the way. But, he is a burglar. There was actually less chance of him being detected here than when he is upstairs. John and Patsy were three floors away. JonBenet was unconscious. He had to hide her in the best place he knew in the house.

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excellent post, MissO! He was possibly a teen or young adult....maybe a friend of one of the babysitters...or constructon worker...He knew info that was on one of John's pay stubs...a $118,000 is a lot of money to him..he was unsophisticated..he did not realize how difficult it would be to pull of a kidnapping even of a 6 y/o..he either entered by a key or the window well...while the Ramseys were at the Whites during which time he wrote the ransom note he forgot to bring...both the stun gun and garotte may have been instruments of control rather than torture to him.....he has never been confronted about JB's death or he would have spilled the beans...a young person will get scared and tell all....he is an avid movie watch obviously by the ransom note......just my thoughts on a possible kidnapping gone wrong...but that isn't my first choice of scenarios....but the kidnapping gone wrong is a good one, MissO! Have a great day folks! :seeya:

I've had a lot of trouble finding a place to feel comfortable with this case. There was always something wrong. But, I like this. Why was the ransom note left, when the body was in the basement? Because it really was a kidnapping. Why was the amount so small? It wasn't intended to be, but the kidnapper was reluctant to abandon his project altogether and thought JR could get his hands on $118K by 10am and would be more than willing to hand it over, if he could only convince him to. How did the kidnapper know about the $118K? He had probably worked at the house. He was not only aware of the $118K, he was aware of JonBenet. Why didn't the kidnapper call? He was watching the house. Why did he kill JonBenet in the house? He wasn't supposed to. Why the garrotte? He got angry, when things went wrong. JonBenet had to be punished. IMO if the motive was sex, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was murder, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was kidnapping, he would have left the note. Why is the note so nuts? It was his first kidnapping. He was a burglar, not a kidnapper. And it was rethought and rewritten on the spot. He had to get everything in and emphasize that he wanted the money NOW. He had to let John know that he knew specifically what he wanted, that he knew where it was, and that he wanted it NOW.

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I've had a lot of trouble finding a place to feel comfortable with this case. There was always something wrong. But, I like this. Why was the ransom note left, when the body was in the basement? Because it really was a kidnapping. Why was the amount so small? It wasn't intended to be, but the kidnapper was reluctant to abandon his project altogether and thought JR could get his hands on $118K by 10am and would be more than willing to hand it over, if he could only convince him to. How did the kidnapper know about the $118K? He had probably worked at the house. He was not only aware of the $118K, he was aware of JonBenet. Why didn't the kidnapper call? He was watching the house. Why did he kill JonBenet in the house? He wasn't supposed to. Why the garrotte? He got angry, when things went wrong. JonBenet had to be punished. IMO if the motive was sex, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was murder, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was kidnapping, he would have left the note. Why is the note so nuts? It was his first kidnapping. He was a burglar, not a kidnapper. And it was rethought and rewritten on the spot. He had to get everything in and emphasize that he wanted the money NOW. He had to let John know that he knew specifically what he wanted, that he knew where it was, and that he wanted it NOW. I just picked up a used copy of The Death of Innocence....and of course I had to peek at the back first....it appears that John seems to think this was a kidnapping gone wrong, too! It will take me some time to read it....things are very chaotic here..having some plumbing work and other home repairs done...but will let you know what exactly John and Patsy thinks happened.....I would like to see the killer brought to justice on this case...I can understand why LE initially looked at he parents so closely...but they made so many mistakes by not securing the crime scene..and then keeping their focus on the Ramseys..imho Oh, yeah, John does believe a stun gun was used on JB! :seeya:

rosebud

09-27-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

How does he know about the $118,000 Christmas bonus?

He has been in the home before. He may have worked there at some time. Maybe quite recently. He is a petty criminal. Prowler. Burglar. Maybe he had never been in the house before he read the article in the Daily Camera. But he has been there before the night of the 25th. He has memorized the house. He has gone through their things. The third drawer on the right in John Ramsey's desk was unlocked and contained his bank book. The figure $118K was written in it. He was under the impression that all John had to do was drive to the bank and he could on the spot withdraw $118K in cash. He may have written the ransom note ahead of time and brought a copy. He may have written the note with Patsy's pen and paper, when he arrived. Or he may have not intended to leave a note at all but contact the Ramseys later (most likely imo). But he did have the general idea of the note worked out in his head. It began "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey." Something went wrong somewhere. He didn't want to take a body from the house and she was dying, if not already dead. Or he couldn't get her out the way he had planned. He had to abandon the project. But, maybe there was a chance he could get the money John had in his account. Not the millions he was planning on asking for. But a note had to be left NOW. He only had hours (no longer days) to get the money. He may have already torn pages for the first draft, but it is more likely imo he had trouble with this one and kept starting over. He was rewriting, as he wrote it, something he had basically memorized. It was hard. Time was vitally important. He had to get the money before they found the body. Emphasis was important. They might not look in the house or call the police. John could get the money by 10am. He starts out "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey". No. This one is just for Mr. Ramsey. It's his account. "Mr. Ramsey, .... You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." He leaves the note on the stairs leading to JonBenet's room. They will find it, when they go to wake her, if not before. As it was, with the police there and the house searched, they don't find the body until 1pm. But he doesn't call. Because he has been watching the house.

2. How does he linger in the house for that long and leave no trace of himself?

He may not have entered until everyone was asleep. But, he had burgled homes before while their owners were there. He knows what he is doing on that level. This is his first kidnapping.

It's even possible that he found JonBenet downstairs. Getting a snack and playing with her gifts under the tree.

3. How does he intend to get JB back through the basement window? He could have left through a door or first floor window.

He can get himself through the window and she is smaller than he is. He is not sure about the alarm. He knows the window is not on it, because it was already open.

He would have probably taken her out a door, if that was the problem. I think the problem was that she was either dying or already dead and that was not something he wanted to deal with. Something went wrong.

4. Why would the intruder go into a room in the basement he could have been trapped in? The room JB's body was found in had one door and no windows.

He was taking a chance every step of the way. But, he is a burglar. There was actually less chance of him being detected here than when he is upstairs. John and Patsy were three floors away. JonBenet was unconscious. He had to hide her in the best place he knew in the house.

Thank you for answering Miss Otis. I think a petty burglar would have burglarized the house. Nothing was reported missing. If he had been in the house before, why didn't he take something then? To my knowledge the house had not been burglarized in the past. If he wanted the money that bad, I think he would have taken the body.

I find it hard to believe that a burglar who had searched the house thoroughly enough to find a bank book, would not have taken things from it. He could have taken the personalized checks if he found the bankbook for one example. He would have had a hard time getting a small girl through that window.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just picked up a used copy of The Death of Innocence....and of course I had to peek at the back first....it appears that John seems to think this was a kidnapping gone wrong, too! It will take me some time to read it....things are very chaotic here..having some plumbing work and other home repairs done...but will let you know what exactly John and Patsy thinks happened.....I would like to see the killer brought to justice on this case...I can understand why LE initially looked at he parents so closely...but they made so many mistakes by not securing the crime scene..and then keeping their focus on the Ramseys..imho Oh, yeah, John does believe a stun gun was used on JB! :seeya:

Thanks. I would be interested to know. I have only read PMPT. Don't worry about the timing. I understand. The contractor has been here since the end of July. :(

I have had a terrible time even getting started on this case. So many crimes but no link between them. I think the link is the crime that didn't take place. The one planned. I don't imagine the perp has received much satisfactiion from this. Considers it a botched job. So cold-blooded that, even after killing a 6 year old girl (presumably his first), his immediate thought is how much of this kidnapping can he salvage, if any. Then he didn't even get $10. Maybe he cleaned her off and covered her to keep the smell down and give him more time before discovery of the body. No feelings of compassion here.

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

Thank you for answering Miss Otis. I think a petty burglar would have burglarized the house. Nothing was reported missing. If he had been in the house before, why didn't he take something then? To my knowledge the house had not been burglarized in the past. If he wanted the money that bad, I think he would have taken the body.

I find it hard to believe that a burglar who had searched the house thoroughly enough to find a bank book, would not have taken things from it. He could have taken the personalized checks if he found the bankbook for one example. He would have had a hard time getting a small girl through that window.

JMO

IMO he wouldn't be stupid enough to burglarize the house, while he was working there. He may only have been aware of the Ramseys and not actually entered the house until after he saw the article on the 21st. That house was anything but a fortress. I think the article is what set this off. It was about the overwhelming success of John's business. "Billions". And includes John's photograph. The ransom note begins "We respect your business, but ......." He would, after the 21st, only be entering the house to familiarize himself with it. Not to burglarize it. He was in the house between the 21st and the night of the 25th.

MOO

MyrDawn

09-27-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I've had a lot of trouble finding a place to feel comfortable with this case. There was always something wrong. But, I like this. Why was the ransom note left, when the body was in the basement? Because it really was a kidnapping. Why was the amount so small? It wasn't intended to be, but the kidnapper was reluctant to abandon his project altogether and thought JR could get his hands on $118K by 10am and would be more than willing to hand it over, if he could only convince him to. How did the kidnapper know about the $118K? He had probably worked at the house. He was not only aware of the $118K, he was aware of JonBenet. Why didn't the kidnapper call? He was watching the house. Why did he kill JonBenet in the house? He wasn't supposed to. Why the garrotte? He got angry, when things went wrong. JonBenet had to be punished. IMO if the motive was sex, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was murder, he wouldn't have left the note. If the motive was kidnapping, he would have left the note. Why is the note so nuts? It was his first kidnapping. He was a burglar, not a kidnapper. And it was rethought and rewritten on the spot. He had to get everything in and emphasize that he wanted the money NOW. He had to let John know that he knew specifically what he wanted, that he knew where it was, and that he wanted it NOW.

Miss O, I read your "A kidnapping gone wrong:" post and am amazed at the insight in your theory! Now I know why you wanted to know if anyone had a link to that newspaper article. You certainly are making better use of your brain cells than I am today. I had a nap after we ran errands. LOL

Bravo!
:beer:

WallyCleaver

09-27-2006, 08:36 PM

I've had a lot of trouble finding a place to feel comfortable with this case. There was always something wrong. But, I like this. Why was the ransom note left, when the body was in the basement? Because it really was a kidnapping.

Ok.

Why was the amount so small? It wasn't intended to be, but the kidnapper was reluctant to abandon his project altogether and thought JR could get his hands on $118K by 10am and would be more than willing to hand it over, if he could only convince him to.

Why did the kidnapper become reluctant? If it was because he'd killed JB then why not take the body ?

How did the kidnapper know about the $118K? He had probably worked at the house. He was not only aware of the $118K, he was aware of JonBenet.

Worked at the house in what capacity? It's not like every workman who ever entered the house saw JR's check stubs and bankbook.

Why didn't the kidnapper call? He was watching the house.

He could have been watching the house, or he could have logically assumed that finding the dead body would only take a few minutes and that most parents would search the house even while waiting for the cops, so no use calling, as people tend not to pay ransom when they've already found the victim's body. But OK, he was watching, and knew the cops were involved, so he now abaondons the plan.

Why did he kill JonBenet in the house? He wasn't supposed to.

Ok, he wasn't suppossed to. But he did - so why? Saying he wasn't suppossed to doesn't really answer the question.

Why the garrotte? He got angry, when things went wrong. JonBenet had to be punished.

So you think the garrotte came before the head blow. Ok. (Not much of a punishment to garrotte a child who would probably be unconscious from the head blow)

IMO if the motive was sex, he wouldn't have left the note.

Agreed.

If the motive was murder, he wouldn't have left the note.

Agreed. But some IDIs believe the note was a revenge message.

If the motive was kidnapping, he would have left the note.

Yes, but not the body.

Why is the note so nuts? It was his first kidnapping. He was a burglar, not a kidnapper. And it was rethought and rewritten on the spot. He had to get everything in and emphasize that he wanted the money NOW. He had to let John know that he knew specifically what he wanted, that he knew where it was, and that he wanted it NOW.

OK, but again, why leave the body. That makes the chances of collecting ransom about 1% or less.

Additionally, if you are proposing a kidnapping gone bad theory, I think you have to explain why JB was taken down the basement A kidnapper would have gone out a door. No doors in the basement. Why'd he have her down there at all?

If the plan was to kidnap her and hold her for ransom, surely the most logicall series of events -if it hadn't gone wrong- is to get her out asap. That would not include a detour though the basement.

If something went wrong, it went wrong between JB's bedroom and a first floor door. You figure he took her in the basement to finish her off? If so, doesn't that suggest the head wound came before the garrotting? If not, what was it that went wrong that required him to abandon his plan?

Another thing that also needs to be explained in the context of a kidnapping gone bad is the injuries to her vagina. He did something to her, with some object, or his fingers. Why, if it was a kidnapping? He also wiped her down, and in some very private places? Why? If it's a kidnapping then why was he touching her in private places? I mean, even if he's a paedo, why not wait unit he had her wherever he was going to keep her, then he could do as he liked, at his liesure.

It's not adding up I don't think.

WallyCleaver

09-27-2006, 08:49 PM

Correcting part of my previous post.

Why was the amount so small? It wasn't intended to be, but the kidnapper was reluctant to abandon his project altogether and thought JR could get his hands on $118K by 10am and would be more than willing to hand it over, if he could only convince him to.

Why was the kidnapper considering abandoning the plan? If it's because he'd killed her, why not take the body? Leaving it there reduced his chances of collecting to practically nill.

If he was really reluctant to give up the plan, he'd have taken the body.

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 09:01 PM

MissO, John thinks possibly the killer of JB is not a one time felon.....he thinks it was a man & he thinks he was a pedophile...the murderer is a psychopath ( antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in aggressive, perverted, or criminal behavior...his conscience does not operate well! He believes he's probably a younger man...25 to 35...He goes to movies.....he is either an ex-con or has been around people who are hardened criminals...he thinks like a criminal...he knew not to bring much with him into the house..he brought the cord..duct tape, stun gun..as far as they know he wore gloves....after the murder, the killers strange mannerisms would have been noticeable to those around him...he would have seemed agitated and emotionally upset...he would have taken extreme interest in the case..he watched all tv reports on the murder and read all the newspaper accounts he could find...he talked about the case and espoused his own theories about what happened....In addition, he may have beome very religious and reached out for spiritual counsel or assistance in some way...the number 118 and SBTC has some significance to him....neither of these were randomly or casually selected by the killer..he may have been jealous of, or angry at me as well...maybe I unknowingly crossed himin the busines world. Perhaps he hated me because I ran a successful division of Lockheed Martin...Whatever it was this man decided I was a targetthat could be hit by hurting my child....he had access to a stun gun........that's only a little of what John wrote in the book, MissO....will try to get more to you soon....but, I am kind of amazed that a lot of his reasoning is the same as some of ours.....interesting! And I kind of got the chills when I read what Chris Wolf's girlfriend told the police about his demeanor...I'm not saying he is the killer...because I really don't think he is after reading up on him here and elsewhere...but one thing ....the demeanor sure was on target......that's just a little in the book...sorry I don't have time to write more! :seeya: imho

WallyCleaver

09-27-2006, 09:07 PM

If CW's demeanor was "on target" but he's not the killer, doesn't that cast doubt on the whole idea of the killer having a particular demeanor?

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
If CW's demeanor was "on target" but he's not the killer, doesn't that cast doubt on the whole idea of the killer having a particular demeanor? Wally, Have you read up on him? Have you read the statements his girlfriend gave the police? Where was he the night of the murder? Why wouldn't he give the police a sample of his writing? I'm not saying it was him..I don't know who it was! jmho :seeya:

WallyCleaver

09-27-2006, 09:18 PM

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Why did the kidnapper become reluctant? If it was because he'd killed JB then why not take the body ?

I have no idea. It could have been anything, but I believe something changed the plans. I believe JB was expected to be taken from the house, possibly willingly or even under threat, but more likely bound and gagged (stun gun used to accomplish this). I don't believe there was ever a chance of her being returned alive, but she was expected to leave alive.

Worked at the house in what capacity? It's not like every workman who ever entered the house saw JR's check stubs and bankbook.

I have no idea. It could have been anybody. It could have somebody whose brother worked in a neighbor's yard for 3 days 6 months ago. But, I think whoever it was was aware of where John Ramsey lived and of the existence of JonBenet before he saw that article. And I think he was an accomplished burglar. But, he did not go into that house cold on Dec. 25th. He got to know the place first. For him, it was fairly routine.

Why did he kill JonBenet in the house? He wasn't supposed to.

Ok, he wasn't suppossed to. But he did - so why? Saying he wasn't suppossed to doesn't really answer the question.

By accident. If JonBenet were walking in front of him and suddenly panicked and began to scream, he might have reacted by hitting her in the head with the flashlight. We know from the garrotte that he was right-handed.

So you think the garrotte came before the head blow. Ok. (Not much of a punishment to garrotte a child who would probably be unconscious from the head blow)

In his mind he was punishing her. He was taking out his anger on her. Blaming her.

If the motive was kidnapping, he would have left the note.

Yes, but not the body.

He may not have wanted to carry a dead body from the house. Or he may not have been able to remove her from the house the way he had planned. If he really had tried to put her in the suitcase and failed, that would mean he was walking the streets of suburbia with a dead body in his arms.

OK, but again, why leave the body. That makes the chances of collecting ransom about 1% or less.

He was willing to abandon his plan rather than take the risk.

Additionally, if you are proposing a kidnapping gone bad theory, I think you have to explain why JB was taken down the basement A kidnapper would have gone out a door. No doors in the basement. Why'd he have her down there at all?

He planned to take her out the window. The same way he came in.

Another thing that also needs to be explained in the context of a kidnapping gone bad is the injuries to her vagina. He did something to her, with some object, or his fingers. Why, if it was a kidnapping? He also wiped her down, and in some very private places? Why? If it's a kidnapping then why was he touching her in private places? I mean, even if he's a paedo, why not wait unit he had her wherever he was going to keep her, then he could do as he liked, at his liesure.

She probably would have been abused as well as killed after he took her away. But, it was money driving this, not sex or murder. He would have abused her, because the opportunity presented itself and killed her purely for practical reasons. He didn't take her with him, because she was already dead.

MOO

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You said in a prior post you didn't think he was the killer. If you don't think he's the killer, what's the use of holding on the idea that the killer would have a particular demeanor?

Lot's of people took an interest in the case. Does that all of us suspects? Wally, most of us have an alibi for that night...and most of us didn't become agitated and scream at the tv the minute JB's murder was aired.....geeze, Wally...I was just making a comment to MissO!!! imho

WallyCleaver

09-27-2006, 09:28 PM

{QUOTE]
He may not have wanted to carry a dead body from the house. Or he may not have been able to remove her from the house the way he had planned. If he really had tried to put her in the suitcase and failed, that would mean he was walking the streets of suburbia with a dead body in his arms.
[/QUOTE]

Isin't it more likely he had a car nearby? Pretty unlikley he'd planned to walk her or carry her (alive) around suburbia. If he had a car nearby, he'd only have had to carry her as if she were sleeping.

He planned to take her out the window.

You're joking.

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
Correcting part of my previous post.

Why was the kidnapper considering abandoning the plan? If it's because he'd killed her, why not take the body? Leaving it there reduced his chances of collecting to practically nill.

If he was really reluctant to give up the plan, he'd have taken the body.

He may not have been able to take the body. In the end, he did give up the plan. He didn't call.

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
MissO, John thinks possibly the killer of JB is not a one time felon.....he thinks it was a man & he thinks he was a pedophile...the murderer is a psychopath ( antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in aggressive, perverted, or criminal behavior...his conscience does not operate well! He believes he's probably a younger man...25 to 35...He goes to movies.....he is either an ex-con or has been around people who are hardened criminals...he thinks like a criminal...he knew not to bring much with him into the house..he brought the cord..duct tape, stun gun..as far as they know he wore gloves....after the murder, the killers strange mannerisms would have been noticeable to those around him...he would have seemed agitated and emotionally upset...he would have taken extreme interest in the case..he watched all tv reports on the murder and read all the newspaper accounts he could find...he talked about the case and espoused his own theories about what happened....In addition, he may have beome very religious and reached out for spiritual counsel or assistance in some way...the number 118 and SBTC has some significance to him....neither of these were randomly or casually selected by the killer..he may have been jealous of, or angry at me as well...maybe I unknowingly crossed himin the busines world. Perhaps he hated me because I ran a successful division of Lockheed Martin...Whatever it was this man decided I was a targetthat could be hit by hurting my child....he had access to a stun gun........that's only a little of what John wrote in the book, MissO....will try to get more to you soon....but, I am kind of amazed that a lot of his reasoning is the same as some of ours.....interesting! And I kind of got the chills when I read what Chris Wolf's girlfriend told the police about his demeanor...I'm not saying he is the killer...because I really don't think he is after reading up on him here and elsewhere...but one thing ....the demeanor sure was on target......that's just a little in the book...sorry I don't have time to write more! :seeya: imho

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. It's fascinating. I know I am going from one extreme to the other, but I am thinking at this point that it wasn't personal at all. Purely for financial gain. Sociopath.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 09:38 PM

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Miss O, I read your "A kidnapping gone wrong:" post and am amazed at the insight in your theory! Now I know why you wanted to know if anyone had a link to that newspaper article. You certainly are making better use of your brain cells than I am today. I had a nap after we ran errands. LOL

Bravo!
:beer:

Thanks, Myr!

:seeya:

MissO

LadyFisher

09-27-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. It's fascinating. I know I am going from one extreme to the other, but I am thinking at this point that it wasn't personal at all. Purely for financial gain. Sociopath.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO You could very well be right....he did obviously have resentment for John imo somehow he knew about the $118,000...he had been in that home before the night of the murder imho....yes, he was a sociopath! imo

MissOtisRegrets

09-27-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
{QUOTE]
He may not have wanted to carry a dead body from the house. Or he may not have been able to remove her from the house the way he had planned. If he really had tried to put her in the suitcase and failed, that would mean he was walking the streets of suburbia with a dead body in his arms.

Isin't it more likely he had a car nearby? Pretty unlikley he'd planned to walk her or carry her (alive) around suburbia. If he had a car nearby, he'd only have had to carry her as if she were sleeping.

You're joking. [/QUOTE]

I'm actually not, Wally. To me it makes more sense than Patsy strangling her daughter on Christmas night with a garrotte made from her own paintbrush, so that the police won't know she actually threw her across the bathroom breaking out a huge chunk of her skull, because she had wet the bed one too many times. And then someone hitting JonBenet with a child's potholder loom, sexually abusing her, and writing a fake ransom note filled with movie lines and ideas of foreign factions and beheadings in order to cover up this accidental bathroom killing. This is only my opinion of what MIGHT have happened.

Time for Project Runway!!!

:seeya:

MissO

Athena

09-28-2006, 12:36 AM

I just read in PMPT that Barnhill could not be tentatively excluded from the DNA results but further testing was required but then there is no more mention of it -- but I thought that was odd. jmo

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher

Isin't it more likely he had a car nearby? Pretty unlikley he'd planned to walk her or carry her (alive) around suburbia. If he had a car nearby, he'd only have had to carry her as if she were sleeping.

You're joking. He might not need a car if he lived in a home or was housesitting a home close to the Ramseys! [/B][/QUOTE]

Which makes it all the more likely he'd have carried her to the nearby home -if his real motive was ransom.

Very unlikely this started as a real kidnapping.

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Isin't it more likely he had a car nearby? Pretty unlikley he'd planned to walk her or carry her (alive) around suburbia. If he had a car nearby, he'd only have had to carry her as if she were sleeping.

You're joking.

I'm actually not, Wally. To me it makes more sense than Patsy strangling her daughter on Christmas night with a garrotte made from her own paintbrush, so that the police won't know she actually threw her across the bathroom breaking out a huge chunk of her skull, because she had wet the bed one too many times. And then someone hitting JonBenet with a child's potholder loom, sexually abusing her, and writing a fake ransom note filled with movie lines and ideas of foreign factions and beheadings in order to cover up this accidental bathroom killing. This is only my opinion of what MIGHT have happened.

Time for Project Runway!!!

:seeya:

MissO [/B][/QUOTE]

It would be quite difficult to get her through the window - either alive, or dead/unconscious. Very unlikely that was the plan.

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Athena
I just read in PMPT that Barnhill could not be tentatively excluded from the DNA results but further testing was required but then there is no more mention of it -- but I thought that was odd. jmo

It also says in PM/PT that Barnhill could not have written the ransom note--he has a shaking condition that would have prevented it. Just thought I would fill in your "extensive research."

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

It would be quite difficult to get her through the window - either alive, or dead/unconscious. Very unlikely that was the plan.

I don't know, Wally. Maybe the car wouldn't start, and he couldn't get a cab. Maybe he had a partner, and he was supposed to deliver JonBenet alive and got scared. But, I do think this was a plan that was changed mid-operation and that JB was not meant to be left in the house.

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 01:44 PM

One thing I believe points away from anyone with a legitimate business link to John Ramsey is the ransom note. The author, having scrapped the note that begins "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" and addressing himself solely to John, does not say "I want $118K by 10am." Rather, he says, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." The author not only believes that John has $118K but that he has it in his account at the moment. I don't believe that anyone in the legitimate chain of access to this information (AG/bank employees, IRS man, etc.) would want to reveal it in a ransom note. IMO the author of the ransom note is letting John know that he knows that John has it and, so, he won't accept any excuses or delays. That is why I believe the author of the ransom note was an outsider who went through John's desk in the house. He is the only one who could risk revealing that he had this information. John's bankbook was in the unlocked third drawer on the right in his desk and the figure $118K appeared on every paystub in that book. (A photo of John in the military with the letters STBC at the bottom hung across from the desk.)

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
One thing I believe points away from anyone with a legitimate business link to John Ramsey is the ransom note. The author, having scrapped the note that begins "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" and addressing himself solely to John, does not say "I want $118K by 10am." Rather, he says, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." The author not only believes that John has $118K but that he has it in his account at the moment. I don't believe that anyone in the legitimate chain of access to this information (AG/bank employees, IRS man, etc.) would want to reveal it in a ransom note. IMO the author of the ransom note is letting John know that he knows that John has it and, so, he won't accept any excuses or delays. That is why I believe the author of the ransom note was an outsider who went through John's desk in the house. He is the only one who could risk revealing that he had this information. John's bankbook was in the unlocked third drawer on the right in his desk and the figure $118K appeared on every paystub in that book. (A photo of John in the military with the letters STBC at the bottom hung across from the desk.)

I think you're half right - it wasn't anyone from the bank or Access Graphics for the reasons you've stated. It wasn't the housekeeper for the same reason.

I think it's unlikely a kidnapper would have decided to rumage through drawers in an effort to determine the size of JR's bank account before deciding on the ransom amount. He must already have known JR had that kind of money. He could have read somewhere, or been in the house before.

Or, it could have started as a burglary, then when he saw the size of the bank account, he figured he'd do a kidnapping.

Either way though, you still have to explain why someone with financial motives did all that sexual stuff. To me that casts doubt on the kidnapping angle - makes it nothing but staging.

You also have to explain why he killed her, and why he didn't take the body.

The FBI said it was staging within staging. That's not a concept we RDIs came up with.

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I think you're half right - it wasn't anyone from the bank or Access Graphics for the reasons you've stated. It wasn't the housekeeper for the same reason.

I think it's unlikely a kidnapper would have decided to rumage through drawers in an effort to determine the size of JR's bank account before deciding on the ransom amount. He must already have known JR had that kind of money. He could have read somewhere, or been in the house before.

Or, it could have started as a burglary, then when he saw the size of the bank account, he figured he'd do a kidnapping.

Either way though, you still have to explain why someone with financial motives did all that sexual stuff. To me that casts doubt on the kidnapping angle - makes it nothing but staging.

You also have to explain why he killed her, and why he didn't take the body.

The FBI said it was staging within staging. That's not a concept we RDIs came up with.

Wally, I am thinking in very broad terms. I can't possibly tell you what happened in that house. There are things about the Ramseys' behavior that I find suspicious, but, when I get to the garrotte, I hit a wall and can't go further. At that point, it just no longer feels right. For me, it appears significant that this crime followed by 4 days an article in the paper about the overwhelming success of John Ramsey's company and that the ransom note begins with "we respect your company, but ..." . I believe this was a kidnapping attempt by someone, who read that article. The original idea may have been a burglary, as you suggest. I believe the kidnapper went through John Ramsey's desk before the night of the 25th. It may only be at that point, combined with his awareness of JonBenet (and how easy the house was to access) that a kidnapping plan, rather than a burglary, formed.

Why the "sexual stuff"? Because, in addition to being a professional burglar and a sociopath, the guy is a jerk. Why did he kill her? I don't know. I don't think he intended to kill her in the house. I think, possibly, she was walking in front of him and began to run. He struck her with the flashlight from behind. He appears from the garrotte to be right-handed. She was struck on the right half of the top/back of the head. Why didn't he take the body from the house? He either couldn't or he didn't want to.

MOO

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 09:55 PM

The Ramseys believe the killer came into their home while they were at the Whites for dinner....the perp could have entered any number of ways...on Dec. 26 the butler pantry door that lead outside was found open as well as the basement window.....He could have watched their home....or maybe had been there when they were at they were vacationing at their summer home in Michigan....somehow he knew they would be gone that night for a number of hours....Experts say ransom notes are usually what they seem to be, very seldom a ploy...so the Ramseys believe that kidnapping was the killers intention......he was shrewd enough not to have brought the note in with him....he probably had previous experience in this type of break-in...the movie the Ransom was playing in Boulder around the time of JB's death.....John mentions the recent articles about his company's billion dollar sales in the Boulder Daily Camera.....The ransom note was written before JB was killed..even a hardened serial killer probably wouldn't have had the composure to do it after he had just killed her....they do believe there was a stun gun used against her skin while she slept...then he probably tied her wrists together and moved her quietly to the basement...the arrote was not hurriedly put together...masochistic sadists often use this sort of neck device....His original intent to kidnap her turned into a murder...could his own lusts have pushed him into unexpected actions that left him feeling he had no alternative but to kill her? Did she regain consciousness and rcognize her attacker? Did she become so agitated that the man could no longer carry out the kidnapping and ended up killing her? More to come, MissO! :seeya:

rosebud

09-28-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wally, I am thinking in very broad terms. I can't possibly tell you what happened in that house. There are things about the Ramseys' behavior that I find suspicious, but, when I get to the garrotte, I hit a wall and can't go further. At that point, it just no longer feels right. For me, it appears significant that this crime followed by 4 days an article in the paper about the overwhelming success of John Ramsey's company and that the ransom note begins with "we respect your company, but ..." . I believe this was a kidnapping attempt by someone, who read that article. The original idea may have been a burglary, as you suggest. I believe the kidnapper went through John Ramsey's desk before the night of the 25th. It may only be at that point, combined with his awareness of JonBenet (and how easy the house was to access) that a kidnapping plan, rather than a burglary, formed.

Why the "sexual stuff"? Because, in addition to being a professional burglar and a sociopath, the guy is a jerk. Why did he kill her? I don't know. I don't think he intended to kill her in the house. I think, possibly, she was walking in front of him and began to run. He struck her with the flashlight from behind. He appears from the garrotte to be right-handed. She was struck on the right half of the top/back of the head. Why didn't he take the body from the house? He either couldn't or he didn't want to.

MOO

MissOtis, just this week where I live a young father, a lieutenant in the National Guard who had been to Iraq, was arrested for kicking his one year old son and killing him. He also had a two year old daughter and a neighbor was on the news saying he did not believe he could have done it because he seemed devoted to his two children. The news also had a film clip of the tall young man accused of it in police custody and he looked totally whipped and beaten mentally. Things like this happen. Being a parent is stressful.

Patsy had recovered from cancer when apparently told she was terminal. She was approaching her fortieth birthday. What kind of a marriage she had is open to question. It would appear she was living her past through her daughter. Christmas Day is extremely depressing for a lot of people.

JMO

Athena

09-28-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

MissOtis, just this week where I live a young father, a lieutenant in the National Guard who had been to Iraq, was arrested for kicking his one year old son and killing him. He also had a two year old daughter and a neighbor was on the news saying he did not believe he could have done it because he seemed devoted to his two children. The news also had a film clip of the tall young man accused of it in police custody and he looked totally whipped and beaten mentally. Things like this happen. Being a parent is stressful.

Patsy had recovered from cancer when apparently told she was terminal. She was approaching her fortieth birthday. What kind of a marriage she had is open to question. It would appear she was living her past through her daughter. Christmas Day is extremely depressing for a lot of people.

JMO

I have no doubt that some parents lose it and kill their children but the scene you describe above about a father kicking his son could be perceived as a fatal accident -- not garroting your child. I do not believe these two scenarios can be compared in the above situation.

PS: I have to wonder what frame of mind that young man had returning from Iraq. War certainly affects your mentality. jmo

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

MissOtis, just this week where I live a young father, a lieutenant in the National Guard who had been to Iraq, was arrested for kicking his one year old son and killing him. He also had a two year old daughter and a neighbor was on the news saying he did not believe he could have done it because he seemed devoted to his two children. The news also had a film clip of the tall young man accused of it in police custody and he looked totally whipped and beaten mentally. Things like this happen. Being a parent is stressful.

Patsy had recovered from cancer when apparently told she was terminal. She was approaching her fortieth birthday. What kind of a marriage she had is open to question. It would appear she was living her past through her daughter. Christmas Day is extremely depressing for a lot of people.

JMO

rosebud, sadly, I have no trouble accepting that a parent would kill their own child. It is the garrotte I have trouble with. A person who would do this to a six year old is imo a true psychopath, not merely a mean person or a parent covering an accident in which their child had suffered a severe head injury. I could accept a staging after an accident. Or even a murder, if they thought she would "tell". It is the garrotte I can't accept. Not even if they had mistakenly thought she was already dead when they made and used it.

MOO

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
The Ramseys believe the killer came into their home while they were at the Whites for dinner....the perp could have entered any number of ways...on Dec. 26 the butler pantry door that lead outside was found open as well as the basement window.....He could have watched their home....or maybe had been there when they were at they were vacationing at their summer home in Michigan....somehow he knew they would be gone that night for a number of hours....Experts say ransom notes are usually what they seem to be, very seldom a ploy...so the Ramseys believe that kidnapping was the killers intention......he was shrewd enough not to have brought the note in with him....he probably had previous experience in this type of break-in...the movie the Ransom was playing in Boulder around the time of JB's death.....John mentions the recent articles about his company's billion dollar sales in the Boulder Daily Camera.....The ransom note was written before JB was killed..even a hardened serial killer probably wouldn't have had the composure to do it after he had just killed her....they do believe there was a stun gun used against her skin while she slept...then he probably tied her wrists together and moved her quietly to the basement...the arrote was not hurriedly put together...masochistic sadists often use this sort of neck device....His original intent to kidnap her turned into a murder...could his own lusts have pushed him into unexpected actions that left him feeling he had no alternative but to kill her? Did she regain consciousness and rcognize her attacker? Did she become so agitated that the man could no longer carry out the kidnapping and ended up killing her? More to come, MissO! :seeya:

Thanks. This is so interesting.

Perhaps I am naive, but it is because the ransom note is so absurd that I believe it to be written by someone other than the Ramseys. No one with the slightest intelligence would write a fake note like that. Not when their life was on the line. If the Ramseys had written the note, it would sound real IMO.

Athena

09-28-2006, 10:38 PM

Athena

09-28-2006, 10:42 PM

rosebud

09-28-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

rosebud, sadly, I have no trouble accepting that a parent would kill their own child. It is the garrotte I have trouble with. A person who would do this to a six year old is imo a true psychopath, not merely a mean person or a parent covering an accident in which their child had suffered a severe head injury. I could accept a staging after an accident. Or even a murder, if they thought she would "tell". It is the garrotte I can't accept. Not even if they had mistakenly thought she was already dead when they made and used it.

MOO

I think when Patsy made the garrote that she thought JB was already dead. Some reports I have read suggest that JB may have appeared dead after the head injury. The head injury was a mortal wound and she was dying.

It would have taken a while to make the garrote and put it around JB's neck and I think we are dealing here with a woman frantic out of her mind who in her mental state, thought it would make it look like an intruder did it. I had also read that JB's body may have suddenly appeared to come to life in spasms before she would have died, but I agree with some here that the garrote was probably not a response to that. It would have taken too long to make.

To understand why Patsy thought a garrote would deflect attention from her was known only to her and probably it only made sense to her in the early morning hours while she was trying to stage the scene so she would not go to prison for it. As one can imagine she must have been in a panic.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Thanks. This is so interesting.

Perhaps I am naive, but it is because the ransom note is so absurd that I believe it to be written by someone other than the Ramseys. No one with the slightest intelligence would write a fake note like that. Not when their life was on the line. If the Ramseys had written the note, it would sound real IMO. I don't believe you are being naive concerning this case....it doesn't make sense to me either that the parents did this...first off, I realize that parents kill their children..but Patsy and John were older parents and have experienced so much in life not to realize how important their children were....there is no evidence that John was a child molestor or ever had been...he would not have been able to hide the fact that he was imho....if it were an accident...these two were mature enough to take JB to the hospital immediately....the garotte...who could think of such a thing? The ransom note rambles on and on...no, I don't believe this is evidence of parents killing their child!

LadyFisher

09-28-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Athena

MsOtis - Went and bought John Douglas' book because of earlier posts by Lady - fascinating reading and makes more sense than anything else I have read. Contrary to many's beliefs (including mine) he did not agree with everything Smit said and talks about Thomas' and Smit's theories and what he agreed and disagreed with. Worth the read. I posted to you on another thread that I was glad you got the book! It is a good one imho! Have a great night folks! :seeya:

Athena

09-28-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, Have you read up on him? Have you read the statements his girlfriend gave the police? Where was he the night of the murder? Why wouldn't he give the police a sample of his writing? I'm not saying it was him..I don't know who it was! jmho :seeya:

I'll tell you one thing Janet Dilson (his live-in girlfriend) really believed he had something to do with that murder. She even went as far to contact the Ramseys to give them information because she felt the BPD were not taking her seriously enough. If you read Thomas deposition they would not even "test" the possible evidence she brought directly to them and their reason was because it was illegal without a searh warrant??? So why didn't they obtain a search warrant.

They wrote her off like they did so many others because they had already made up their minds. I even read last night (which somehow I missed before) that the Barnhill guy's DNA could not be ruled out and said it needed further testing but found nothing more on it. The more I read the more I believe the BPD although they superficially investigated people brought to their attention - they did not do indepth investigations. Totally mind-boggling. jmo :shrug:

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

I think when Patsy made the garrote that she thought JB was already dead. Some reports I have read suggest that JB may have appeared dead after the head injury. The head injury was a mortal wound and she was dying.

It would have taken a while to make the garrote and put it around JB's neck and I think we are dealing here with a woman frantic out of her mind who in her mental state, thought it would make it look like an intruder did it. I had also read that JB's body may have suddenly appeared to come to life in spasms before she would have died, but I agree with some here that the garrote was probably not a response to that. It would have taken too long to make.

To understand why Patsy thought a garrote would deflect attention from her was known only to her and probably it only made sense to her in the early morning hours while she was trying to stage the scene so she would not go to prison for it. As one can imagine she must have been in a panic.

JMO

rosebud, I would bet my dog that Patsy Ramsey had to be told what a garrotte was. Do you really believe she would not only think of doing that to her child (who she thought was already dead, so there was no need for a cover-up of her death) and, then, know how to make a garrotte? People do not become perverts, because they are panicked. These are two different animals.

MOO

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Athena

MsOtis - Went and bought John Douglas' book because of earlier posts by Lady - fascinating reading and makes more sense than anything else I have read. Contrary to many's beliefs (including mine) he did not agree with everything Smit said and talks about Thomas' and Smit's theories and what he agreed and disagreed with. Worth the read.

Is this it?

Cases That Haunt Us: From Jack the Ripper to Jonbenet Ramsey, the Fbi's Legendary Mindhunter Unravels the Mysteries (School & Library Binding)

Athena

09-28-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Is this it?

Cases That Haunt Us: From Jack the Ripper to Jonbenet Ramsey, the Fbi's Legendary Mindhunter Unravels the Mysteries (School & Library Binding)

I believe that is the same one. I have this paperback edition:

http://tinyurl.com/qfjor

MissOtisRegrets

09-28-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I believe that is the same one. I have this paperback edition:

http://tinyurl.com/qfjor

Done! I have been having a terrible time with my eyes (PMPT almost finished me off) and was going to opt for the hardback version, until I saw this: Usually ships in 1 to 2 months !!!

Many thanks to both you and Lady Fisher.

:seeya:

MissO

diplomat

09-28-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I'll tell you one thing Janet Dilson (his live-in girlfriend) really believed he had something to do with that murder. She even went as far to contact the Ramseys to give them information because she felt the BPD were not taking her seriously enough. If you read Thomas deposition they would not even "test" the possible evidence she brought directly to them and their reason was because it was illegal without a searh warrant??? So why didn't they obtain a search warrant.

They wrote her off like they did so many others because they had already made up their minds. I even read last night (which somehow I missed before) that the Barnhill guy's DNA could not be ruled out and said it needed further testing but found nothing more on it. The more I read the more I believe the BPD although they superficially investigated people brought to their attention - they did not do indepth investigations. Totally mind-boggling. jmo :shrug:

I don't know how the Ramsey's lived through, first the horror of the murder, and then the frustrating lack of investigation. All in all I think they handled it better than most would. They did not turn out to be bitter people which surely could have happened.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wally, I am thinking in very broad terms. I can't possibly tell you what happened in that house. There are things about the Ramseys' behavior that I find suspicious, but, when I get to the garrotte, I hit a wall and can't go further. At that point, it just no longer feels right. For me, it appears significant that this crime followed by 4 days an article in the paper about the overwhelming success of John Ramsey's company and that the ransom note begins with "we respect your company, but ..." . I believe this was a kidnapping attempt by someone, who read that article. The original idea may have been a burglary, as you suggest. I believe the kidnapper went through John Ramsey's desk before the night of the 25th. It may only be at that point, combined with his awareness of JonBenet (and how easy the house was to access) that a kidnapping plan, rather than a burglary, formed.

Why the "sexual stuff"? Because, in addition to being a professional burglar and a sociopath, the guy is a jerk. Why did he kill her? I don't know. I don't think he intended to kill her in the house. I think, possibly, she was walking in front of him and began to run. He struck her with the flashlight from behind. He appears from the garrotte to be right-handed. She was struck on the right half of the top/back of the head. Why didn't he take the body from the house? He either couldn't or he didn't want to.

MOO

Missotis...why would/how would he feed her pineapple? Some kidnapper is not going to sit down and have a snack with the victim when another family member could wake up and find them at any moment. That's just too bizarre to even consider. IMO
If a stun gun was used, as some believe, wouldn't the intruder have used it on her while she was sleeping to ensure that she wouldn't wake up or scream? How was he going to give her a snack if she was "stunned"? Where else and why would this stun gun take place?
I know the garroting throws you off from the Ramseys but you just can't take a thing like that and isolate it from all of the damning evidence against them. IMO

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by diplomat

I don't know how the Ramsey's lived through, first the horror of the murder, and then the frustrating lack of investigation. All in all I think they handled it better than most would. They did not turn out to be bitter people which surely could have happened. I think it genuinely was their faith that kept them from getting bitter, diplomat! I've seen tragedies make or break a person's faith.....thankfully they held on to theirs......I've endured a lot in my own life, and probably most of us have on this board...but nothing to the extent this family has suffered...imho

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Missotis...why would/how would he feed her pineapple? Some kidnapper is not going to sit down and have a snack with the victim when another family member could wake up and find them at any moment. That's just too bizarre to even consider. IMO
If a stun gun was used, as some believe, wouldn't the intruder have used it on her while she was sleeping to ensure that she wouldn't wake up or scream? How was he going to give her a snack if she was "stunned"? Where else and why would this stun gun take place?
I know the garroting throws you off from the Ramseys but you just can't take a thing like that and isolate it from all of the damning evidence against them. IMO

If it were someone JBR knew and if a stun gun was used wouldn't have to be until she recognized him/her. Patsy and John's bedroom was on the 3rd floor. It was also 70' back which is why they could not hear the alleged scream. By the time they woke up and attempted to descend the stairs, the perpetrator would have been long gone. jmo

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think it genuinely was their faith that kept them from getting bitter, diplomat! I've seen tragedies make or break a person's faith.....thankfully they held on to theirs......I've endured a lot in my own life, and probably most of us have on this board...but nothing to the extent this family has suffered...imho

I so agree. They had a very strong faith and understood John's to be renewed after the death of his oldest daughter. If it weren't for that faith, I don't know how they could have kept from going nuts. I am so sure we do not even know the extent to which they suffered from all of this. To think that Patsy had also endured terminal cancer and she couldn't even live the short life she had in peace. :rose:

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Athena

If it were someone JBR knew and if a stun gun was used wouldn't have to be until she recognized him/her. Patsy and John's bedroom was on the 3rd floor. It was also 70' back which is why they could not hear the alleged scream. By the time they woke up and attempted to descend the stairs, the perpetrator would have been able to escape. jmo

Athena, no offense but that is just grasping at straws. IMO How was this intruder supposed to know what they could or couldn't hear? If he was going to kidnap her, why would he take the chance of being busted in the act?
Fit the pineapple in with the stun gun. I can't figure out how that would work!

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 12:17 AM

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Athena, no offense but that is just grasping at straws. IMO How was this intruder supposed to know what they could or couldn't hear? If he was going to kidnap her, why would he take the chance of being busted in the act?
Fit the pineapple in with the stun gun. I can't figure out how that would work!

TWW: No offense taken. I do not take differences of opinions personally. :)

Because he/she was familiar with the layout of the house already. It has not been proven that JBR ate that pineapple. When an autopsy report is written the coroner has also already reviewed evidence as well and knows basic facts. He said it was possibly pineapple but was not a definitive conclusion. The coroner also probably knew pineapple was found on that counter so that would be logical. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Missotis...why would/how would he feed her pineapple? Some kidnapper is not going to sit down and have a snack with the victim when another family member could wake up and find them at any moment. That's just too bizarre to even consider. IMO
If a stun gun was used, as some believe, wouldn't the intruder have used it on her while she was sleeping to ensure that she wouldn't wake up or scream? How was he going to give her a snack if she was "stunned"? Where else and why would this stun gun take place?
I know the garroting throws you off from the Ramseys but you just can't take a thing like that and isolate it from all of the damning evidence against them. IMO

TWW1, I think two things are possible. One is that JonBenet had come downstairs on her own to look again at her toys and had gotten herself a snack. The other is that she came downstairs willingly with her killer and he may have given her a snack to gain her confidence. I believe the stun gun theory includes the stun gun being used on her in her bed, but the stun guns I see on "Cops" make a noise. I would think it was more likely used in the basement.

harz

09-29-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

TWW1, I think two things are possible. One is that JonBenet had come downstairs on her own to look again at her toys and had gotten herself a snack. The other is that she came downstairs willingly with her killer and he may have given her a snack to gain her confidence. I believe the stun gun theory includes the stun gun being used on her in her bed, but the stun guns I see on "Cops" make a noise. I would think it was more likely used in the basement.

You would need to consider if JB was willing to walk downstairs to basement, was there some basement dirt left on JB's feet or socks? It would help us to see if she was either carried down or walked downstairs willing. Also dont forget about garland tangled in her hair. Which head side got a piece of garland on? I couldn't find that kind of information anywhere yet. Every little things helps alot to support a solid theory. The most of solid evidence in this case was JB's body, including the clothes she wore that night. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by harz

You would need to consider if JB was willing to walk downstairs to basement, was there some basement dirt left on JB's feet or socks? It would help us to see if she was either carried down or walked downstairs willing. Also dont forget about garland tangled in her hair. Which head side got a piece of garland on? I couldn't find that kind of information anywhere yet. Every little things helps alot to support a solid theory. The most of solid evidence in this case was JB's body, including the clothes she wore that night. IMO

She could have gotten the garland in her hair, when she was carried up to bed, though I would think her parents would have removed it. Where was that garland stored during the year? The artificial Christmas trees were stored in the room JonBenet's body was in. Could the garland have been stored in there, too?

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

She could have gotten the garland in her hair, when she was carried up to bed, though I would think her parents would have removed it. Where was that garland stored during the year? The artificial Christmas trees were stored in the room JonBenet's body was in. Could the garland have been stored in there, too?

I would think the garland could very well have been stored in there, MissOtis.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 01:27 AM

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

rosebud, I would bet my dog that Patsy Ramsey had to be told what a garrotte was. Do you really believe she would not only think of doing that to her child (who she thought was already dead, so there was no need for a cover-up of her death) and, then, know how to make a garrotte? People do not become perverts, because they are panicked. These are two different animals.

MOO

I think most of us had to be told what a garrotte was.

At first I thought the garrotte was for errotic asphyxiation, but the more I learn of this particular one, the more it seems it was simply a device to strangle. I don't know who first used the term garrotte, but the media ran with the term, and it took on pervy implications, which threw a lot of us off track when trying to piece together an explanation of the events of that night.

It may just have been a rope around her neck. The killer may have been very suprised to learn that he had fashioned a "garrotte".

There is nothing complex about the knot. The strange thing though is that it seems to have been built "around her" so to speak, rather than built first and slipped over her head.

It's a garrotte because it fits the definition of a garrotte. But the killer may just have thought of it as a rope around her neck.

Athena

09-29-2006, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I think most of us had to be told what a garrotte was.

<snip>

It's a garrotte because it fits the definition of a garrotte. But the killer may just have thought of it as a rope around her neck.

With a stick?

Eagle1

09-29-2006, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Athena Here ya go. Scroll down for the year book page.

http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php [/B]

Thanks for that handwriting comparison link. Which raises another question, in his signature, maybe I shall...and "live in multiple peace" mean he may have "multiple personality" disorder, due to his mentally ill mother trying to kill him at age 2 and probably equal atrocities, like Sybil's mom, ( Until she was committed and he and his brother went to live with grandparents when he was 12)? And he maybe already knew it by h.s. graduation? Was very defensive with Tracey about being thought mentally ill himself, maybe afraid of being committed like his mom?

And another question for possible discussion, does the "bungling" in Ca., losing Karr's computer, mean the killer mastermind is still alive and was using Karr, promised to get him off and maybe that he could even win a lawsuit, etc.? Police bungling figured a lot in Boulder too.

Someone correct me if my memory's wrong, but didn't Bin Laden "train" at some camp in Ga., where Lucas and Toole also "trained", one of whom claimed to have beheaded a 6-yr old, shy little Adam Walsh?

Like Bin Laden, this killer mastermind is still taunting us? Karr may even have lived near that camp? I don't know where in Ga. it was or is, or why Ga.

lucky13

09-29-2006, 10:28 AM

I'm surprised that no one commented on my theory posted previously. I figured I'd get slammed for it by IDI theorists... anyway,
The garrotte....to all who just CANNOT BELIEVE that a parent could possibly have done that to their child- that is the GENIOUS of it!! THAT is exactly why it was done, no other reason IMO. (With a lot of you people- it worked.) I think the garrotting was done after the head blow. I think (for reasons I stated earlier) that John hit her with the baseball bat once he got her in the basement.(under the ruse that Santa had a special present for her down there- remember that comment made by JB?) It was only done so that he could do his intruder staging. He did the garrotting for that one reason. He wanted her to be knocked out/dead while he did this so she wouldn't fight back or see him as he did it. He had to do it from behind because he couldn't bare to see her face. ( the head blow was quick- the garrotting was not) He probably thought that the head blow had killed her so the overkill of the garrott wasn't as hard for him to do. Don't get me wrong, I believe that he felt horrible about what he was having to do. I picture him crying his eyes out as he did everything & praying for forgiveness. He didn't WANT to kill her, he HAD to. He had gone too far with her, possibly surprising even himself, while wiping, cleaning, or 'examining' her.(I won't get too graphic on here) His slight, but wrong, recent sexual abuse had to be covered up. JB was acting like she might reveal the dirty secret to someone soon, she didn't like what Daddy was doing, & he knew it...His bussiness had just hit their $billion dollar mark, wife had cancer..he couldn't risk getting into all that trouble. He was needed -in his mind. MOO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I would think the garland could very well have been stored in there, MissOtis.

JMO

Yes. So do I, sun.

In the photo of the spiral stairs with the garland on the railing, the garland really looks too low for it to have gotten caught in her hair, while she being carried by a grown man. Surely, her head would have been above his waist. Also, imo it appears from the way the garrotte worked, that the killer was right-handed. I am right-handed, and I would carry a child with her head on the left side, feet on the right. Going downstairs, JonBenet's head would have been on the side opposite to the side the garland was hung on.

MOO

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
I'm surprised that no one commented on my theory posted previously. I figured I'd get slammed for it by IDI theorists... anyway,
The garrotte....to all who just CANNOT BELIEVE that a parent could possibly have done that to their child- that is the GENIOUS of it!! THAT is exactly why it was done, no other reason IMO. (With a lot of you people- it worked.) I think the garrotting was done after the head blow. I think (for reasons I stated earlier) that John hit her with the baseball bat once he got her in the basement.(under the ruse that Santa had a special present for her down there- remember that comment made by JB?) It was only done so that he could do his intruder staging. He did the garrotting for that one reason. He wanted her to be knocked out/dead while he did this so she wouldn't fight back or see him as he did it. He had to do it from behind because he couldn't bare to see her face. ( the head blow was quick- the garrotting was not) He probably thought that the head blow had killed her so the overkill of the garrott wasn't as hard for him to do. Don't get me wrong, I believe that he felt horrible about what he was having to do. I picture him crying his eyes out as he did everything & praying for forgiveness. He didn't WANT to kill her, he HAD to. He had gone too far with her, possibly surprising even himself, while wiping, cleaning, or 'examining' her.(I won't get too graphic on here) His slight, but wrong, recent sexual abuse had to be covered up. JB was acting like she might reveal the dirty secret to someone soon, she didn't like what Daddy was doing, & he knew it...His bussiness had just hit their $billion dollar mark, wife had cancer..he couldn't risk getting into all that trouble. He was needed -in his mind. MOO

Sorry but I'm having a problem following logic here. Why did JR want to get her in the basement in the first place and then hit her in the head?? :confused:

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
I'm surprised that no one commented on my theory posted previously. I figured I'd get slammed for it by IDI theorists... anyway,
The garrotte....to all who just CANNOT BELIEVE that a parent could possibly have done that to their child- that is the GENIOUS of it!! THAT is exactly why it was done, no other reason IMO. (With a lot of you people- it worked.) I think the garrotting was done after the head blow. I think (for reasons I stated earlier) that John hit her with the baseball bat once he got her in the basement.(under the ruse that Santa had a special present for her down there- remember that comment made by JB?) It was only done so that he could do his intruder staging. He did the garrotting for that one reason. He wanted her to be knocked out/dead while he did this so she wouldn't fight back or see him as he did it. He had to do it from behind because he couldn't bare to see her face. ( the head blow was quick- the garrotting was not) He probably thought that the head blow had killed her so the overkill of the garrott wasn't as hard for him to do. Don't get me wrong, I believe that he felt horrible about what he was having to do. I picture him crying his eyes out as he did everything & praying for forgiveness. He didn't WANT to kill her, he HAD to. He had gone too far with her, possibly surprising even himself, while wiping, cleaning, or 'examining' her.(I won't get too graphic on here) His slight, but wrong, recent sexual abuse had to be covered up. JB was acting like she might reveal the dirty secret to someone soon, she didn't like what Daddy was doing, & he knew it...His bussiness had just hit their $billion dollar mark, wife had cancer..he couldn't risk getting into all that trouble. He was needed -in his mind. MOO :eek: Lucky, I noticed you spelled business (bussiness)...just thought I would bring this to the attention of those who think the spelling errors on the ransom note indicated John!.......So, why in your opinon did John just happen to select Christmas night to murder his daughter?

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I think most of us had to be told what a garrotte was.

At first I thought the garrotte was for errotic asphyxiation, but the more I learn of this particular one, the more it seems it was simply a device to strangle. I don't know who first used the term garrotte, but the media ran with the term, and it took on pervy implications, which threw a lot of us off track when trying to piece together an explanation of the events of that night.

It may just have been a rope around her neck. The killer may have been very suprised to learn that he had fashioned a "garrotte".

There is nothing complex about the knot. The strange thing though is that it seems to have been built "around her" so to speak, rather than built first and slipped over her head.

It's a garrotte because it fits the definition of a garrotte. But the killer may just have thought of it as a rope around her neck.

Wally, imo strangling another person with a rope/cord is "normal". But taking the time to fashion a fancy apparat with a stick like this that only pulls from one side is not "normal". It was unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel. It wouldn't occur to most people. Most people imo would take the most direct route, if they were killing someone. I think the garrotte gave pleasure to the killer.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

TWW1, I think two things are possible. One is that JonBenet had come downstairs on her own to look again at her toys and had gotten herself a snack. The other is that she came downstairs willingly with her killer and he may have given her a snack to gain her confidence. I believe the stun gun theory includes the stun gun being used on her in her bed, but the stun guns I see on "Cops" make a noise. I would think it was more likely used in the basement.

I still don't believe a stun gun was used. There is an allegation that there was a bowl of tuppeware with pineapple in it in her room. Maybe she did get up to get a snack and mom put some in a bowl for her to get her back to her room. Or maybe she wasn't asleep when they came home and was hungry. So then we have to wonder....what happened next?
It does help to read the interviews with the Ramseys and take notes. I think the pieces of the puzzle lie in the Ramseys words...or as close to the pieces fitting as we are going to get.

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 11:08 AM

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:eek: Lucky, I noticed you spelled business (bussiness)...just thought I would bring this to the attention of those who think the spelling errors on the ransom note indicated John <snip>

Now that's funny. :lol:

No offense intended just some humor here: Ames used the words 'and hence' in one of her posts last night and now Lucky has spelled "bussiness" incorrectly -- you both should be arrested for "probable cause" or at least I should warn you that you are now "under the umbrella of suspicion".

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 11:29 AM

A neighbor reported she heard a blood curdling scream around 2 AM the morning of Dec. 26......the scream would not have been heard upstairs..but since the ventilation pipe ran through the wall out the front of the house, aimed roughly in the direction of the neighbors home..it could have produced a megaphone effect.......either from the pain of the attack or waking up while being assaulted JB must have screamed outof sheer terror....After the neighbor heard the scream...she awakened her husband, who said that a short time later he heard the sound of metal scraping against concrete. Could this have been the grate over the basement window? The suitcase was found standing up against the wall under the window! Maybe the killer discovered that he couldn'tforce JB through the window opening..and she could have seen his face during the attack....Possibly the fear of her later identifying him or his inability to shove JB through the window precipitated her death....the massive blow to the head...was the killer's final act against their daughter...They did observe blood on their daughter...the fracture that ran the entire length of the right skull, measuring approx. 8 & 1/2 in. from front to ear....shoudhave resulted in a large hemorrhage...they believe she was strangled first..... must have been garroted, assaulted screamed, and finally strangled to death, the head blow was to make sure she was dead..they mention the petechiae......Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing he was about to be discovered....so he pulled the garrote too tight. so she wouldn't scream again,...........more to come, MissO! :seeya:

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Now that's funny. :lol:

No offense intended just some humor here: Ames used the words 'and hence' in one of her posts last night and now Lucky has spelled "bussiness" incorrectly -- you both should be arrested for "probable cause" or at least I should warn you that you are now "under the umbrella of suspicion". :lol: I thought it was funny, too! But, the scary thing is...the murderer could be monitoring everything concerning this case...how do we know he doesn't read message boards? :eek:

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Eagle1

Thanks for that handwriting comparison link. Which raises another question, in his signature, maybe I shall...and "live in multiple peace" mean he may have "multiple personality" disorder, due to his mentally ill mother trying to kill him at age 2 and probably equal atrocities, like Sybil's mom, ( Until she was committed and he and his brother went to live with grandparents when he was 12)? And he maybe already knew it by h.s. graduation? Was very defensive with Tracey about being thought mentally ill himself, maybe afraid of being committed like his mom?

And another question for possible discussion, does the "bungling" in Ca., losing Karr's computer, mean the killer mastermind is still alive and was using Karr, promised to get him off and maybe that he could even win a lawsuit, etc.? Police bungling figured a lot in Boulder too.

Someone correct me if my memory's wrong, but didn't Bin Laden "train" at some camp in Ga., where Lucas and Toole also "trained", one of whom claimed to have beheaded a 6-yr old, shy little Adam Walsh?

Like Bin Laden, this killer mastermind is still taunting us? Karr may even have lived near that camp? I don't know where in Ga. it was or is, or why Ga.

What killer mastermind? JMK is a loser pedophile. He's certainly no killer mastermind!

And no "killer mastermind" killed JBR or the case wouldn't have been so sloppy.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
A neighbor reported she heard a blood curdling scream around 2 AM the morning of Dec. 26......the scream would not have been heard upstairs..but since the ventilation pipe ran through the wall out the front of the house, aimed roughly in the direction of the neighbors home..it could have produced a megaphone effect.......either from the pain of the attack or waking up while being assaulted JB must have screamed outof sheer terror....After the neighbor heard the scream...she awakened her husband, who said that a short time later he heard the sound of metal scraping against concrete. Could this have been the grate over the basement window? The suitcase was found standing up against the wall under the window! Maybe the killer discovered that he couldn'tforce JB through the window opening..and she could have seen his face during the attack....Possibly the fear of her later identifying him or his inability to shove JB through the window precipitated her death....the massive blow to the head...was the killer's final act against their daughter...They did observe blood on their daughter...the fracture that ran the entire length of the right skull, measuring approx. 8 & 1/2 in. from front to ear....shoudhave resulted in a large hemorrhage...they believe she was strangled first..... must have been garroted, assaulted screamed, and finally strangled to death, the head blow was to make sure she was dead..they mention the petechiae......Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing he was about to be discovered....so he pulled the garrote too tight. so she wouldn't scream again,...........more to come, MissO! :seeya:

Thank you so much, LadyFisher! I appreciate that you took the time to post this. I find the mix of clues in this case to be fascinating, and hence, I find your posts constructing a workable theory from them to be fascinating. After all, posting is our bussiness!

:seeya:

MissO

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Thank you so much, LadyFisher! I appreciate that you took the time to post this. I find the mix of clues in this case to be fascinating, and hence, I find your posts constructing a workable theory from them to be fascinating. After all, posting is our bussiness!

:seeya:

MissO :lol: You are welcome! Now you're under that "parasol of persecution", too.....that's what John and Patsy described it as!

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 12:09 PM

Perhaps JB's scream is what changed the sexual assault/kidnapping into murder. Conceivably this pedophile's bizarre lusts and masochistic tendencies prompted him to attempt one last brutal act. In the RN, the killer betrayed a personal preoccupation with death and referred in a number of places to fiendish acts that would mutilate and destroy JB. He may have slammed JB's head against the floor after he strangled her, to make sure she was dead........Arndt stated her suspicion that John was the kiler by describing the moment after John found JB and rushed upstairs cary her body....she detailed the few seconds that John hysterically laid their child on the living room floor as a time of "silent communication"...According to Rndt, at that moment she looked in Johns eyes and FELT that he had killed JB...John says he wonders if that was the first time Arndt had looked into a distraught father's eyes andtold him his daughter was dead....TDOI pg. 370......I agree with John here...what do our eyes indicate when our daughter is pronounced dead? Patsy and John both felt that Arndt had shown them so much consideration during that time..many times Patsy would only talk with her...which did not sit well with the other detectives on the case...I might read her book when it's released...but I probably will have to remember it is just her own perspective as all these other books are! jmho

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Perhaps JB's scream is what changed the sexual assault/kidnapping into murder. Conceivably this pedophile's bizarre lusts and masochistic tendencies prompted him to attempt one last brutal act. In the RN, the killer betrayed a personal preoccupation with death and referred in a number of places to fiendish acts that would mutilate and destroy JB. He may have slammed JB's head against the floor after he strangled her, to make sure she was dead........Arndt stated her suspicion that John was the kiler by describing the moment after John found JB and rushed upstairs cary her body....she detailed the few seconds that John hysterically laid their child on the living room floor as a time of "silent communication"...According to Rndt, at that moment she looked in Johns eyes and FELT that he had killed JB...John says he wonders if that was the first time Arndt had looked into a distraught father's eyes andtold him his daughter was dead....TDOI pg. 370......I agree with John here...what do our eyes indicate when our daughter is pronounced dead? Patsy and John both felt that Arndt had shown them so much consideration during that time..many times Patsy would only talk with her...which did not sit well with the other detectives on the case...I might read her book when it's released...but I probably will have to remember it is just her own perspective as all these other books are! jmho

There's no way of knowing what caused the head injury, but I think it is possible that both JonBenet and the killer were standing and that she was a short distance in front of him, when it occurred. She was struck on the right/top/back of the head. I believe from the way the garrotte worked, that the perp was right-handed. He may have been carrying a flashlight in his right hand at the time. Presumably, he was quite a bit taller than JonBenet. If she suddenly lunged forward and he struck out in reaction, the blow would have fallen on the right/top/back of the head, I think. JB may have screamed and then began to run. She certainly didn't scream afterwards.

I agree with you about the eyes. The desire to go after whoever did this may be what Linda saw. Mixed in with shock and just terrible pain and defeat.

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:37 PM

I do not know whether a neighbor actually heard a scream or not. The first time the police questioned this neighbor she said she heard nothing and later changed that to say she heard a child scream, believed it was JonBenet and that it came from the Ramsey house.

However I have thought about a scenario where that might have happened. If Patsy got up to feed JB, and then JB wet herself, Patsy may have lost her temper and forced her into the dark basement to scare and punish her. Linda Hoffman Pugh said JB was scared to go down in the basement.

There was a toilet down there so the head injury and everything else may have occurred there all along. It might explain why Burke did not hear anything that night, assuming he did tell the truth. The police also found that people on the upper floors of the house might not hear a scream from the basement.

JMO

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I agree with you about the eyes. The desire to go after whoever did this may be what Linda saw. Mixed in with shock and just terrible pain and defeat.

Then again what Linda Arndt saw in John's eyes may have been the thought of his extreme distaste for group showers with tatooed men for the rest of his life.

JMO

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

rosebud, I would bet my dog that Patsy Ramsey had to be told what a garrotte was. Do you really believe she would not only think of doing that to her child (who she thought was already dead, so there was no need for a cover-up of her death) and, then, know how to make a garrotte? People do not become perverts, because they are panicked. These are two different animals.

MOO

MissOtis, I don't think she had to know what to call it to use it. Anyone could have made it. What it indicates to me is that the person who strangled her could not bear the thought of placing her/his own hands on her neck, so the person used a surrogate to touch the neck--the nylon cord/rope. That, and the fact that the body was covered, indicates the killer had an emotional attachment to JB. It was not a stranger. That may be Dr Phil level psychology, but on the other hand, it does not take a genius to figure out that if Patsy did not think of something real quick that night, she had a real good chance of going to prison. Funny what desperation will do to motivate someone.

JMO

rosebud

09-29-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Do you really believe she would not only think of doing that to her child (who she thought was already dead, so there was no need for a cover-up of her death) MOO

MissOtis, come now. "no need for a cover-up of her death?" What is that? If JB's death had occurred in New York City, Patsy Ramsey would probably have died in prison.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

MissOtis, I don't think she had to know what to call it to use it. Anyone could have made it. What it indicates to me is that the person who strangled her could not bear the thought of placing her/his own hands on her neck, so the person used a surrogate to touch the neck--the nylon cord/rope. That, and the fact that the body was covered, indicates the killer had an emotional attachment to JB. It was not a stranger. That may be Dr Phil level psychology, but on the other hand, it does not take a genius to figure out that if Patsy did not think of something real quick that night, she had a real good chance of going to prison. Funny what desperation will do to motivate someone.

JMO

I meant the concept of it, rosebud. Not the actual name.

If the torso was the only thing covered, the killer may have done that to protect himself from her urine soaked long johns. And (apologies for the thought) to help stifle the smell. It was important to him that as much time as possible pass before the body was discovered.

MOO

rosebud

09-29-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I meant the concept of it, rosebud. Not the actual name.

If the torso was the only thing covered, the killer may have done that to protect himself from her urine soaked long johns. And (apologies for the thought) to help stifle the smell. It was important to him that as much time as possible pass before the body was discovered.

MOO

I will reiterate here that I also think the garrote was left by Patsy to be found because she wanted people to think an intruder did it. And guess what? From the discussion here she was right.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

MissOtis, come now. "no need for a cover-up of her death?" What is that? If JB's death had occurred in New York City, Patsy Ramsey would probably have died in prison.

JMO

If Patsy thought she had already killed JonBenet by accident and wanted to cover it up, why kill her a second time? And in such a gruesome way. And with her own paintbrush. It's not necessary. Better to suggest that JonBenet surprised a burglar, when she snuck downstairs to play with her new doll under the tree. Less is more imo.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

There's no way of knowing what caused the head injury, but I think it is possible that both JonBenet and the killer were standing and that she was a short distance in front of him, when it occurred. She was struck on the right/top/back of the head. I believe from the way the garrotte worked, that the perp was right-handed. He may have been carrying a flashlight in his right hand at the time. Presumably, he was quite a bit taller than JonBenet. If she suddenly lunged forward and he struck out in reaction, the blow would have fallen on the right/top/back of the head, I think. JB may have screamed and then began to run. She certainly didn't scream afterwards.

I agree with you about the eyes. The desire to go after whoever did this may be what Linda saw. Mixed in with shock and just terrible pain and defeat. I agree with your opinon of Arndt...I believe she was there alone when John found the body....................................I am only speculating here, but.....my opinion...and I admit my opinon changes often.....is ...this was an adult son of one of John's business colleagues....he possibly was in college....he had his own apartment.....his parents help support him...he had been in the Ramsey home on more than one occasion with his parents....his dad could have been demoted or fired from the business...he was angry...loner type...watched a lot of movies...played a lot of games...he was a dark individual on the inside....the idea of the kidnapping was planned for revenge and financial purposes.....he couldn't help but express more about himself than he expected to in the ransom note....he knew that the Ramseys were going to the party and would be gone for quite some time....after he was assured everyone was settled in or the night...he ventured up the stairs to JB's bedroom...she was sound asleep...he carried her to the basement...he didn't have girlfriends...so he wanted to experiment on JB...he poked his finger in her vaginal while wearing gloves..he had already prepared the garrote while the Ramseys were away....he had read about this stuff on the internet...and wanted to experiment....only...JB woke up and screamed....he tightened the garrote...then he realized she was probably dying...what was he gonna do...he panicked...hit her with the flashlight he had brought with him....still thought he could get the body out he window...that why he wrapped the blanket only around the torso...he was using it to help lift her lifeless body....he thought he heard something...was he discovered? He pushed the suitcase under the window and fled! .............

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I agree with your opinon of Arndt...I believe she was there alone when John found the body....................................I am only speculating here, but.....my opinion...and I admit my opinon changes often.....is ...this was an adult son of one of John's business colleagues....he possibly was in college....he had his own apartment.....his parents help support him...he had been in the Ramsey home on more than one occasion with his parents....his dad could have been demoted or fired from the business...he was angry...loner type...watched a lot of movies...played a lot of games...he was a dark individual on the inside....the idea of the kidnapping was planned for revenge and financial purposes.....he couldn't help but express more about himself than he expected to in the ransom note....he knew that the Ramseys were going to the party and would be gone for quite some time....after he was assured everyone was settled in or the night...he ventured up the stairs to JB's bedroom...she was sound asleep...he carried her to the basement...he didn't have girlfriends...so he wanted to experiment on JB...he poked his finger in her vaginal while wearing gloves..he had already prepared the garrote while the Ramseys were away....he had read about this stuff on the internet...and wanted to experiment....only...JB woke up and screamed....he tightened the garrote...then he realized she was probably dying...what was he gonna do...he panicked...hit her with the flashlight he had brought with him....still thought he could get the body out he window...that why he wrapped the blanket only around the torso...he was using it to help lift her lifeless body....he thought he heard something...was he discovered? He pushed the suitcase under the window and fled! .............

This all sounds very plausible to me. Someone who knew there was a party but wasn't going. Someone who wouldn't be missed by anyone, if he spent Christmas Day alone in somebody else's basement. Young. Possibly a little charming on the outside. A Ted Bundy type. College kid without the funds to go home for Christmas.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

This all sounds very plausible to me. Someone who knew there was a party but wasn't going. Someone who wouldn't be missed by anyone, if he spent Christmas Day alone in somebody else's basement. Young. Possibly a little charming on the outside. A Ted Bundy type. College kid without the funds to go home for Christmas. Honestly my thoughts are all over the place about this perp...but there are some things we can't ignore....he KNEW that they would be out of the home that evening imho....he was young..he was young...by the wording in the ransom note...whew.....I think their neighbor had someone staying with them..a young man that was even invited over to a party before Christmas...I did read that in TDOI..I will have to go back and find it! oops sorry for repeating myself above...I'm not going to rewrite this lol! Have a great evening, folks!

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Athena

With a stick?

Yes. Even with a stick, it's still just a rope around her neck.

I'll go into more detail about what I'm trying to say here. I've done some resarch on garrottes and I find they are used by the military, or others with a professional interest in killing (executioners for example) and they are used by pervs who think it's arrousing to have one's air supply cut off.

The military garrottes are typically made of a cord or wire with a handle on each end. The garrotte is wrapped around the neck and the killer pulls on the handles. The main feature here is that there is no knot. It's meant to be able to be removed easily, for future use.

The errotic asphyxiation garrottes have, as a feature, the ability to be loosened up. The idea is not to kill one's sex partner, but only to temporarily cut off the air - or just partially cut off the air. It's hard for me to comprehend that people enjoy choking or being choked as part of sex - but, different strokes for different folks. The point here is that an EA garrotte needs a type of knot (if it has a knot) that allows the thing to be loosened up. Again, the point is sexual arrousal from oxygen deprivation, not strangulation.

So, when I say this was just a rope around her neck, I mean it isn't a military type garrotte, and it isn't an EA garrotte. The knot didn't allow it to loosen up, so it wasn't for "breath play". It wasn't something that could be used again because it was too hard to remove from the body (the ME had to cut it off)

The term garrotte is unfortunate -though technically accurate- because it conjurs images of special forces training, or pervy-kinky sex practices.
In reality, neither applies to this case - at least as far as the garrotte goes.

Many people have commented that it must have taken some kind of special knowledge to make this device - some special military training such as special forces or Naval training. Some have suggested JR could have made it because he'd served in the Navy. But this didn't require any special knowledge of knots. This wasn't hard to make and it didn't require one to be a sailor, or a boy scout or special forces or any other sort of expert on ropes and knots. This is just a rope knotted around her neck.

It's also been commented that this is an errotic asphyxiation device. I believe Lou Schmidt is the primary proponent of this theory. As an aside, the more I read of LS's involvment in this case, the less respect I have for him. Even a vanilla person like me can research EA and find that this garrotte simply doesn't fit the bill. This thing would only get tighter and tighter. It couldn't be loosened, except by cutting it off. So it was not some special kinky pervy sexual device that nice people wouldn't know about. It was just a rope knotted around her neck.

Yes, it had a handle. Why? We can only speculate. If it was stagging, the killer may have thought the handle made it look "professional" - like something made by an experienced perv, or something made by a paramilitary "foreign faction". Or perhaps the hadle is only there to be pulled on. Or possibly the hadle is inserted under the loop and twisted like a tournaquet.

One thing is clear. It was very effective for strangulation. That it did quite well. The other thing that is clear is that it required no special knot tying skills. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Jane could have made this.

That's why I say it was just a rope around her neck. Very simple. Nothing exotic. No specail knowledge - neither military training nor experience in the kinky practices of EA -was necessary.

Poster

09-29-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I still don't believe a stun gun was used.

Do you (or anyone else) have a theory of what made those marks? Just curious b/c I've never seen an explanation that makes any sense other than a stun gun.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Poster

Do you (or anyone else) have a theory of what made those marks? Just curious b/c I've never seen an explanation that makes any sense other than a stun gun. I agree, Poster....I didn't intergrate the stun gun in my own theory..my thoughts are all over the place...but I, too, do believe there was a stun gun used!

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Wally, imo strangling another person with a rope/cord is "normal". But taking the time to fashion a fancy apparat with a stick like this that only pulls from one side is not "normal". It was unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel. It wouldn't occur to most people. Most people imo would take the most direct route, if they were killing someone. I think the garrotte gave pleasure to the killer.

But it wasn't a fancy apparatus. It was just a rope around her neck. The most time consuming part of making it would have been the multiple and unnecessary knots at the handle. But this didn't take any special skill, just some time.

Team R has done a good job making us all believe it is some exotic device that only a Captain in the Special Pervs could have constructed - but it's just a rope tied around her neck. Yeah, it has a handle, but it's not difficult to build.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

But it wasn't a fancy apparatus. It was just a rope around her neck. The most time consuming part of making it would have been the multiple and unnecessary knots at the handle. But this didn't take any special skill, just some time.

Team R has done a good job making us all believe it is some exotic device that only a Captain in the Special Pervs could have constructed - but it's just a rope tied around her neck. Yeah, it has a handle, but it's not difficult to build. IMHO he was inexperienced with this whole device....but he had read about it on the internet..and somehow he was aroused by the idea....he imo couldn't help but experiment with it on JB!

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 04:06 PM

rosebud

09-29-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I so agree. They had a very strong faith and understood John's to be renewed after the death of his oldest daughter. If it weren't for that faith, I don't know how they could have kept from going nuts. I am so sure we do not even know the extent to which they suffered from all of this. To think that Patsy had also endured terminal cancer and she couldn't even live the short life she had in peace. :rose:

I am cynical on this subject, but I say "religion" and the so called "personal relationship with God" can also be used by someone to justify or excuse just about anything in their mind. I think that is what happened here. Patsy went into prayer and probably "confessed" to her God and "made her peace with him/her" and figured she was above punishment in this world.

If that offends some people I am sorry, but that is the way I feel about it.

JMO

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Athena

TWW: No offense taken. I do not take differences of opinions personally. :)

Because he/she was familiar with the layout of the house already. It has not been proven that JBR ate that pineapple. When an autopsy report is written the coroner has also already reviewed evidence as well and knows basic facts. He said it was possibly pineapple but was not a definitive conclusion. The coroner also probably knew pineapple was found on that counter so that would be logical. JMO

Yes...BUT...there is a time frame when she would have had to have eaten whatever it may have been and that time frame was between the time she was "put to bed" and when she was found....leaning more towards a couple of hours after she went to bed. I have heard that it was definately identified as pineapple.
Also, why would Patsy deny that any of them had eaten pineapple that night and go so far as to deny she even put the bowl there? This intruder is not going to go looking around for a snack for JB in the dark then either chop the pineapple from fresh or open a can. Really, what is the probability of that happening?
(I am glad you weren't offended!)

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
A neighbor reported she heard a blood curdling scream around 2 AM the morning of Dec. 26......the scream would not have been heard upstairs..but since the ventilation pipe ran through the wall out the front of the house, aimed roughly in the direction of the neighbors home..it could have produced a megaphone effect.......either from the pain of the attack or waking up while being assaulted JB must have screamed outof sheer terror....After the neighbor heard the scream...she awakened her husband, who said that a short time later he heard the sound of metal scraping against concrete. Could this have been the grate over the basement window? The suitcase was found standing up against the wall under the window! Maybe the killer discovered that he couldn'tforce JB through the window opening..and she could have seen his face during the attack....Possibly the fear of her later identifying him or his inability to shove JB through the window precipitated her death....the massive blow to the head...was the killer's final act against their daughter...They did observe blood on their daughter...the fracture that ran the entire length of the right skull, measuring approx. 8 & 1/2 in. from front to ear....shoudhave resulted in a large hemorrhage...they believe she was strangled first..... must have been garroted, assaulted screamed, and finally strangled to death, the head blow was to make sure she was dead..they mention the petechiae......Her scream must have frightened the killer into believing he was about to be discovered....so he pulled the garrote too tight. so she wouldn't scream again,...........more to come, MissO! :seeya:

Some think the scraping noise was the sound of the freezer being moved.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes. Even with a stick, it's still just a rope around her neck.

I'll go into more detail about what I'm trying to say here. I've done some resarch on garrottes and I find they are used by the military, or others with a professional interest in killing (executioners for example) and they are used by pervs who think it's arrousing to have one's air supply cut off.

The military garrottes are typically made of a cord or wire with a handle on each end. The garrotte is wrapped around the neck and the killer pulls on the handles. The main feature here is that there is no knot. It's meant to be able to be removed easily, for future use.

The errotic asphyxiation garrottes have, as a feature, the ability to be loosened up. The idea is not to kill one's sex partner, but only to temporarily cut off the air - or just partially cut off the air. It's hard for me to comprehend that people enjoy choking or being choked as part of sex - but, different strokes for different folks. The point here is that an EA garrotte needs a type of knot (if it has a knot) that allows the thing to be loosened up. Again, the point is sexual arrousal from oxygen deprivation, not strangulation.

So, when I say this was just a rope around her neck, I mean it isn't a military type garrotte, and it isn't an EA garrotte. The knot didn't allow it to loosen up, so it wasn't for "breath play". It wasn't something that could be used again because it was too hard to remove from the body (the ME had to cut it off)

The term garrotte is unfortunate -though technically accurate- because it conjurs images of special forces training, or pervy-kinky sex practices.
In reality, neither applies to this case - at least as far as the garrotte goes.

Many people have commented that it must have taken some kind of special knowledge to make this device - some special military training such as special forces or Naval training. Some have suggested JR could have made it because he'd served in the Navy. But this didn't require any special knowledge of knots. This wasn't hard to make and it didn't require one to be a sailor, or a boy scout or special forces or any other sort of expert on ropes and knots. This is just a rope knotted around her neck.

It's also been commented that this is an errotic asphyxiation device. I believe Lou Schmidt is the primary proponent of this theory. As an aside, the more I read of LS's involvment in this case, the less respect I have for him. Even a vanilla person like me can research EA and find that this garrotte simply doesn't fit the bill. This thing would only get tighter and tighter. It couldn't be loosened, except by cutting it off. So it was not some special kinky pervy sexual device that nice people wouldn't know about. It was just a rope knotted around her neck.

Yes, it had a handle. Why? We can only speculate. If it was stagging, the killer may have thought the handle made it look "professional" - like something made by an experienced perv, or something made by a paramilitary "foreign faction". Or perhaps the hadle is only there to be pulled on. Or possibly the hadle is inserted under the loop and twisted like a tournaquet.

One thing is clear. It was very effective for strangulation. That it did quite well. The other thing that is clear is that it required no special knot tying skills. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Jane could have made this.

That's why I say it was just a rope around her neck. Very simple. Nothing exotic. No specail knowledge - neither military training nor experience in the kinky practices of EA -was necessary.

I agree with you 100%, Wally. It was very amateurish. It certainly had nothing to do with EA. It seems we're the only two people who think that way, though.

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I agree with your opinon of Arndt...I believe she was there alone when John found the body....................................I am only speculating here, but.....my opinion...and I admit my opinon changes often.....is ...this was an adult son of one of John's business colleagues....he possibly was in college....he had his own apartment.....his parents help support him...he had been in the Ramsey home on more than one occasion with his parents....his dad could have been demoted or fired from the business...he was angry...loner type...watched a lot of movies...played a lot of games...he was a dark individual on the inside....the idea of the kidnapping was planned for revenge and financial purposes.....he couldn't help but express more about himself than he expected to in the ransom note....he knew that the Ramseys were going to the party and would be gone for quite some time....after he was assured everyone was settled in or the night...he ventured up the stairs to JB's bedroom...she was sound asleep...he carried her to the basement...he didn't have girlfriends...so he wanted to experiment on JB...he poked his finger in her vaginal while wearing gloves..he had already prepared the garrote while the Ramseys were away....he had read about this stuff on the internet...and wanted to experiment....only...JB woke up and screamed....he tightened the garrote...then he realized she was probably dying...what was he gonna do...he panicked...hit her with the flashlight he had brought with him....still thought he could get the body out he window...that why he wrapped the blanket only around the torso...he was using it to help lift her lifeless body....he thought he heard something...was he discovered? He pushed the suitcase under the window and fled! .............

After stopping to put the grate back in place. And bring the spider out of hibernation.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
IMHO he was inexperienced with this whole device....but he had read about it on the internet..and somehow he was aroused by the idea....he imo couldn't help but experiment with it on JB!

True. And I have to ask myself why anyone would choose a form of murder they were unfamiliar with. To me, it points to staging by the Ramseys yet again.

JMO

bullmoose

09-29-2006, 06:02 PM

To me the staging looks like the work of somebody who wanted the suspicion to fall on the Ramseys.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To me the staging looks like the work of somebody who wanted the suspicion to fall on the Ramseys.

Well, at least you can see it's STAGED.

So you would have us believe a person just waltzed right in the front door, looked around for John's pay stubs and the stuff he'd need to murder a person, took JB from her bed, opened a can of pineapple for her and sat with her while she ate it (in the dark, I might add), took her to the basement and killed her, then staged the crime to look like the Ramseys did it and made it look like they were both physically and sexually abusive, then wrote a note to taunt John because he was insanely jealous of him (and a note that contains NO hint of insane jealousy), then simply left.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't believe it. Not for a second. Never will.

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Well, at least you can see it's STAGED.

So you would have us believe a person just waltzed right in the front door, looked around for John's pay stubs and the stuff he'd need to murder a person, took JB from her bed, opened a can of pineapple for her and sat with her while she ate it (in the dark, I might add), took her to the basement and killed her, then staged the crime to look like the Ramseys did it and made it look like they were both physically and sexually abusive, then wrote a note to taunt John because he was insanely jealous of him (and a note that contains NO hint of insane jealousy), then simply left.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I don't believe it. Not for a second. Never will.

JMO

You forgot to work in the stun gun - that's probably what's keeping you from "buying" this theory. :-)

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You forgot to work in the stun gun - that's probably what's keeping you from "buying" this theory. :-)

LOL I don't buy a stun gun for one second, either. :)

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 07:22 PM

Sorry folks....I will never believe that a mother that never even swats her children...would suddenly go into a rage and whack her a deadly blow to the head....I don't believe a 40 y/o mother would write a ransom note that would implicate herself and her husband to cover an accident...I don't believe a father who has no history of abusing his children sexually would kill his 6 y/o and then stage such a scene as what was found in that basement...it didn't happen.............the ransom note is exactly what it is....the murder is exactly what it is....the missing duct tape, cord, etc....where are they...why would the Ramseys have hidden them..but left half of the paint brush....it doesn't add up folks! Have a great night and weekend!

rosebud

09-29-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

After stopping to put the grate back in place. And bring the spider out of hibernation.

I suspect the intruder brought the spider and the web with him to plant at the crime scene. Maybe we should be looking for a spider expert with pedaphilia tendencies.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Do like the Ramseys - just forget about it. It's just a basement. Cold air? No big deal, just crank up the furnace. Security? Nothing to worry about.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Hope you can get it fixed quickly.

Thanks, Wally. Just promise me you'll put a thread up. :D

Athena

09-29-2006, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Yes...BUT...there is a time frame when she would have had to have eaten whatever it may have been and that time frame was between the time she was "put to bed" and when she was found....leaning more towards a couple of hours after she went to bed. I have heard that it was definately identified as pineapple.
Also, why would Patsy deny that any of them had eaten pineapple that night and go so far as to deny she even put the bowl there? This intruder is not going to go looking around for a snack for JB in the dark then either chop the pineapple from fresh or open a can. Really, what is the probability of that happening?
(I am glad you weren't offended!)

Yes - why would Patsy deny putting a bowl of pineapple out. I found her answers quite credible. She said she recognized that bowl but would not have used it to serve pineapple and would not have stuck a spoon in it like that. She could have easily just said she left the pineapple out but did not feed Jonbenet any. Re: what you heard that it was "definitely" pineapple has to be erroneous as the coroner did not identify it as defintely being pineapple and he was the ONLY one who could have done that. :shrug:

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

I suspect the intruder brought the spider and the web with him to plant at the crime scene. Maybe we should be looking for a spider expert with pedaphilia tendencies.

JMO

They never found the rest of the spider web, so that must mean it was brought by the intruder. :-)

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Sorry folks....I will never believe that a mother that never even swats her children...would suddenly go into a rage and whack her a deadly blow to the head....I don't believe a 40 y/o mother would write a ransom note that would implicate herself and her husband to cover an accident...I don't believe a father who has no history of abusing his children sexually would kill his 6 y/o and then stage such a scene as what was found in that basement...it didn't happen.............the ransom note is exactly what it is....the murder is exactly what it is....the missing duct tape, cord, etc....where are they...why would the Ramseys have hidden them..but left half of the paint brush....it doesn't add up folks! Have a great night and weekend!

Missing duct tape? How many times do we have to go around and around with this silliness? It was one small piece of tape. It could have been stuck to something else and removed to be placed on JB's mouth. The "missing" role probably went in the trash weeks before the murder.

Missing cord? You think the Rs buy cord on big spools and just cut off a few feet when they need some? Cord is sold in lengths cut from spools at the hardware. Or it is sold in bags, in predetermined lengths. There is no "missing" cord.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Missing duct tape? How many times do we have to go around and around with this silliness? It was one small piece of tape. It could have been stuck to something else and removed to be placed on JB's mouth. The "missing" role probably went in the trash weeks before the murder.

Missing cord? You think the Rs buy cord on big spools and just cut off a few feet when they need some? Cord is sold in lengths cut from spools at the hardware. Or it is sold in bags, in predetermined lengths. There is no "missing" cord. Wally, to you it is silliness perhaps...but I don't think it is......why did LE look everywhere to connect the duct tape to the Ramseys? Where is the the other half of the paint brush, Wally.....why would the Ramseys dispose of these things?

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:15 PM

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You forgot to work in the stun gun - that's probably what's keeping you from "buying" this theory. :-) Wally, I know you are an expert on this case :rolleyes:, so could you please explain those marks on JonBenet's body? Smit contacted John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner with a single ? Could these marks be from a stun gun? He agreed that they could have......He also spoke to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation asking them the same ? They concluded it was probably a stun gun...soooooo unless your credentials are better than theirs...I will believe them! So why would parents have to use a stun gun on their own child? :seeya:

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I know you are an expert on this case :rolleyes:, so could you please explain those marks on JonBenet's body? Smit contacted John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner with a single ? Could these marks be from a stun gun? He agreed that they could have......He also spoke to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation asking them the same ? They concluded it was probably a stun gun...soooooo unless your credentials are better than theirs...I will believe them! So why would parents have to use a stun gun on their own child? :seeya:

Another coroner, Michael Doberson also said they were consistent with stun gun marks and in PMPT there was yet another coroner who had just worked on a case with a young child (forgot his name) who said they looked so much like stun gun marks there was no need to exhume JBR's body because it would not be of further benefit. The only two people who actually disagreed were Air Taser and their representative on their payroll, Robert Stratucker. Even John Douglas thought the marks were consistent with stun gun marks and he said he had investigated several cases involving stun guns.

And there is no credible alternative suggestions. :shrug:

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:26 PM

I'm sorry. I just can't picture Patsy Ramsey with a stun gun. :(

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
On topic: :chicken:

I have had a contractor here since the end of July doing badly needed repairs. Today was his last day. He had other people helping him today. Hauling stuff away. I had left one of the basement doors unlocked, so he could get in to get wood he had stored in the basement. He just left and I went down to the basement to lock that door. Someone has broken the other basement door. The metal frame is bent, so it can't be closed, the glass is pulled to one side with air coming in, and the lock is off. Anyone can get in from the outside.

:chicken: :chicken:

OK MsO -- now you should have this post deleted!!!! and get that door fixed.

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, to you it is silliness perhaps...but I don't think it is......why did LE look everywhere to connect the duct tape to the Ramseys? Where is the the other half of the paint brush, Wally.....why would the Ramseys dispose of these things?

How do you know the other part of the brush was broken off the night of the murder? Maybe the broken part was discarded weeks/months prior.

LE tried to connect the tape to the Rs because that's their job. Just because they didn't find a roll of duct tape from which that piece was cut doesn't mean it had to have been brought in by an intruder.

With respect to you, it is silly. Lou Schmidt and Team Ramsey have lots of people thinking silly things and drawing illogical conclusions.

Just because the tape/cord may already have been in the house doesn't automatically mean the Rs did it. But it is simply not a valid conclusion to say that because no other length of cord was found, from which the garrotte piece was cut it must have been brought by the intruder. It is not a valid conclusion to say that a piece of tape on JB's mouth absolutely had to come from a roll that currently existed in the house or else it was brought in by an intruder.

Please note that I'm not denying the possibility of those things being brought in by an intruder - I'm just saying there is no logical necessity. The items could well have been in the house already.

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I'm sorry. I just can't picture Patsy Ramsey with a stun gun. :( And they think our theories are silly, MissO! I can't picture Patsy or John having one before the murder much less using one on their daughter! I believe in TDOI they discussed having to get guns for their home, cameras, etc...they were getting so many threats and hate mail! I realize the media played a big part in this...but are folks so dumb and cruel that they would actually threaten this family? I don't get it! This family went through he((! imho

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
And they think our theories are silly, MissO! I can't picture Patsy or John having one before the murder much less using one on their daughter! I believe in TDOI they discussed having to get guns for their home, cameras, etc...they were getting so many threats and hate mail! I realize the media played a big part in this...but are folks so dumb and cruel that they would actually threaten this family? I don't get it! This family went through he((! imho

I found this interesting also from a forensic science site - read the last sentence of this paragraph re: duct tape and rope and this site has nothing to do with JBR:

Deductive Profiling
Deductive profiling involves a process that avoids generalisations and averages. This method involves intently studying suspects in extreme detail and adapting findings in which new evidence surfaces. A deductive profile is set up based on the offender's actions before, during and after committing the crime. For example, if the murderer used a makeshift weapon, investigators are then able to deduce that the crime was probably spontaneous. Another example involves serial murderers. Investigators are able to find out whether the murder was organized, which means that the killer carried out a planned, premeditated attack on a victim, or if the attack was disorganized, meaning that the murder was unplanned and the killer behaved in an uncertain way. Organised and planned killers often carry a tool kit containing duct tape and rope to bind their victims and gloves and a mask to hide their identity.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/nts_psychological_profiling.htm

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I know you are an expert on this case :rolleyes:, so could you please explain those marks on JonBenet's body? Smit contacted John Meyer, the Boulder county coroner with a single ? Could these marks be from a stun gun? He agreed that they could have......He also spoke to Peter Mang and Sue Kitchen of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation asking them the same ? They concluded it was probably a stun gun...soooooo unless your credentials are better than theirs...I will believe them! So why would parents have to use a stun gun on their own child? :seeya:

I've never claimed to be an expert on the case. I don't know what made the marks. You'll notice few if any posts from me about the marks.

I only have one thought on the stun gun; if it really started out as a kidnapping, then I don't see how it could have "gone wrong" if a stun gun was used. That should have knocked out a 6 year old girl long enough to get her out of the house - and getting her out of the house would have been the plan if it were really a kidnapping.

If a stun gun was used, this was never a kidnapping to begin with.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Sorry folks....I will never believe that a mother that never even swats her children...would suddenly go into a rage and whack her a deadly blow to the head....I don't believe a 40 y/o mother would write a ransom note that would implicate herself and her husband to cover an accident...I don't believe a father who has no history of abusing his children sexually would kill his 6 y/o and then stage such a scene as what was found in that basement...it didn't happen.............the ransom note is exactly what it is....the murder is exactly what it is....the missing duct tape, cord, etc....where are they...why would the Ramseys have hidden them..but left half of the paint brush....it doesn't add up folks! Have a great night and weekend!

LadyFisher, I'm not trying to change your mind about the intruder, but parents with no history of abuse DO kill their children at times, people do unwittingly implicate themselves in crimes, and people with no history of abuse are, at times, found to be abusers.

Again, I have to cite the MacDonald case. He is serving three consecutive life sentences for killing his wife and his two young daughters and he had no history of trouble in his marriage, no history of a bad temper, and certainly no history of abuse. (Some people say he did, but he DIDN'T. If I am an expert at anything, it's the MacDonald case.) He was loved and respected at the hospital where he worked and he was an excellent Green Beret. The worst thing he'd ever done was spend one night with a woman not his wife...and John Ramsey did that during his marriage to Lucinda.

It's just impossible to know what people are doing behind closed doors.

JMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:41 PM

What ever happened, if anything, re: the new evidence in the MacDonald case? I have to admit I always questioned if he was really guilty in that case as well. I was just not convinced but never really got too involved in that one so may have missed some things.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/28.html

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 10:42 PM

rosebud

09-29-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

LadyFisher, I'm not trying to change your mind about the intruder, but parents with no history of abuse DO kill their children at times, people do unwittingly implicate themselves in crimes, and people with no history of abuse are, at times, found to be abusers.

Again, I have to cite the MacDonald case. He is serving three consecutive life sentences for killing his wife and his two young daughters and he had no history of trouble in his marriage, no history of a bad temper, and certainly no history of abuse. (Some people say he did, but he DIDN'T. If I am an expert at anything, it's the MacDonald case.) He was loved and respected at the hospital where he worked and he was an excellent Green Beret. The worst thing he'd ever done was spend one night with a woman not his wife...and John Ramsey did that during his marriage to Lucinda.

It's just impossible to know what people are doing behind closed doors.

JMO

And we don't know for a fact that Patsy was NOT abusing JB. Some experts believe someone was abusing her sexually and it has been speculated that it could have been a woman using objects to "molest" her for punishment. I think most people would find it odd that a six year old girl was asking for any adult, including men, to wipe her after she went to the bathroom. JB was doing that. There was a discussion on this board that said that Fleet White's wife confronted Patsy about this behavior and told her it needed to be attended to and it seemed that Patsy did not consider it very serious. There was something out of the ordinary about the whole situation.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 10:45 PM

Thanks, Athena. I have pm'ed Freshwater and asked him/her to delete that post and the three that quote it. I didn't think.

:seeya:

MissO

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I found this interesting also from a forensic science site - read the last sentence of this paragraph re: duct tape and rope and this site has nothing to do with JBR:

Deductive Profiling
Deductive profiling involves a process that avoids generalisations and averages. This method involves intently studying suspects in extreme detail and adapting findings in which new evidence surfaces. A deductive profile is set up based on the offender's actions before, during and after committing the crime. For example, if the murderer used a makeshift weapon, investigators are then able to deduce that the crime was probably spontaneous. Another example involves serial murderers. Investigators are able to find out whether the murder was organized, which means that the killer carried out a planned, premeditated attack on a victim, or if the attack was disorganized, meaning that the murder was unplanned and the killer behaved in an uncertain way. Organised and planned killers often carry a tool kit containing duct tape and rope to bind their victims and gloves and a mask to hide their identity.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/nts_psychological_profiling.htm I have read something very similar when researching this case, Althena.....I had forgotten where it was....thank you so much,,,you are a wealth of information! :seeya:

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Athena
What ever happened, if anything, re: the new evidence in the MacDonald case? I have to admit I always questioned if he was really guilty in that case as well. I was just not convinced.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/28.html

If you look at the MacDonald thread here, people who follow the case are outraged that CL would have an article so slanted toward MacDonald's innocence on its site rather than one that is objective or presents both points of view.

I know Jim Blackburn, the lawyer who prosecuted MacDonald, Jim's best friend, George, a detective who worked on the case, Brian Murtagh, the Federal attorney who writes for the government, Joe McGuiness, the author of Fatal Vision and a man who lived with MacDonald for months while he wrote his book, and I knew the now deceased judge who presided over the trial that sent MacDonald to prison.

There is NOTHING NEW out there. There is no evidence exculpatory to MacDonald no matter how his supporters try to spin things.

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:47 PM

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 10:50 PM

rosebud

09-29-2006, 10:50 PM

Athena

09-29-2006, 10:52 PM

Thanks, that's why I asked Sun. I knew you were very familiar. Just curious -- like I said I really did not follow the MacDonald case that closely.

rosebud

09-29-2006, 10:54 PM

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Athena
What ever happened, if anything, re: the new evidence in the MacDonald case? I have to admit I always questioned if he was really guilty in that case as well. I was just not convinced but never really got too involved in that one so may have missed some things.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/28.html

That is not new evidence, Athena. It's been around for twenty-five years or more.

Do you know how many drugs the late Helena Stoeckley had taken in her lifetime? The woman couldn't remember what she did from day to day let alone know if she'd been involved in a murder. She couldn't even answer basic questions about the teeny tiny MacDonald house or the crime scene. Same for Greg Mitchell.

Helena Stoeckley admitted to being involved in the murders only because MacDonald supporters offered to help her take care of her baby "if anything happened to her" if she'd "tell the truth," i.e., admit to killing MacDonald's family. Stoeckley knew she was in very poor health due to all her drug abuse and she accepted. No one but MacDonald supporters took her seriously.

Judge Dupree told her of all the people he'd seen in the world, she was the sorriest, and he wasn't being sarcastic, he meant he was sorry for her ruined physical, emotional, and mental health.

There are credible people, who were NOT taking drugs, who placed Helena far away from the MacDonald home on the night of the murders. Again, same with Greg Mitchell.

Because of his rather recent marriage, MacDonald applied for parole, without admitting his guilt, and was continued until the year 2025, by which he'll no doubt be dead.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

You think MacDonald was innocent? Well, I guess I am not surprised. I have an aunt who swears to this day that OJ was innocent also. And yes, she is a white woman. It is just too bad MacDonald did not fry for what he did. Would that have been "MacDonald's fries?" Yuk, yuk.

I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the death penalty had it been available at the time, rosebud.

I cannot understand how he attracts all the supporters he does. Granted, the case is very interesting, but I don't see how anyone can believe the wild stories about intruders.

JMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

That is not new evidence, Athena. It's been around for twenty-five years or more.

Do you know how many drugs the late Helena Stoeckley had taken in her lifetime? The woman couldn't remember what she did from day to day let alone know if she'd been involved in a murder. She couldn't even answer basic questions about the teeny tiny MacDonald house or the crime scene. Same for Greg Mitchell.

Helena Stoeckley admitted to being involved in the murders only because MacDonald supporters offered to help her take care of her baby "if anything happened to her" if she'd "tell the truth," i.e., admit to killing MacDonald's family. Stoeckley knew she was in very poor health due to all her drug abuse and she accepted. No one but MacDonald supporters took her seriously.

Judge Dupree told her of all the people he'd seen in the world, she was the sorriest, and he wasn't being sarcastic, he meant he was sorry for her ruined physical, emotional, and mental health.

There are credible people, who were NOT taking drugs, who placed Helena far away from the MacDonald home on the night of the murders. Again, same with Greg Mitchell.

Because of his rather recent marriage, MacDonald applied for parole, without admitting his guilt, and was continued until the year 2025, by which he'll no doubt be dead.

JMO

Thanks for taking the time out to explain. I actually had forgotten alot. :)

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Thanks, that's why I asked Sun. I knew you were very familiar. Just curious -- like I said I really did not follow the MacDonald case that closely.

You're welcome, Athena.

I see some parallels in the JBR case: parents as suspects, no prior history of abuse, overkill, a very, very bungled crime scene investigation, etc., but there are major differences, too.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-29-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

How do you know the other part of the brush was broken off the night of the murder? Maybe the broken part was discarded weeks/months prior.

LE tried to connect the tape to the Rs because that's their job. Just because they didn't find a roll of duct tape from which that piece was cut doesn't mean it had to have been brought in by an intruder.

With respect to you, it is silly. Lou Schmidt and Team Ramsey have lots of people thinking silly things and drawing illogical conclusions.

Just because the tape/cord may already have been in the house doesn't automatically mean the Rs did it. But it is simply not a valid conclusion to say that because no other length of cord was found, from which the garrotte piece was cut it must have been brought by the intruder. It is not a valid conclusion to say that a piece of tape on JB's mouth absolutely had to come from a roll that currently existed in the house or else it was brought in by an intruder.

Please note that I'm not denying the possibility of those things being brought in by an intruder - I'm just saying there is no logical necessity. The items could well have been in the house already. Wally, imho Lou Smit has never had an agenda.....he wants this case solved as badly as we do...this man is imho a man of integrity and 30 years of experience...have you read the book "Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas? A portion of it details some of his conclusions on the JB case....yes, he was hired early on by the Ramseys attorney, but he warned them if he believed the Ramseys to be guilty he wouldn't fail to reveal it...he was the one who profiled the unibomber....these aren't stupid men...I have read others online while researching this case..and I admit there is still a lot I have to learn...but every one I have read believes it was an intruder with pedophile tendencies...why does that sound so farfetched to you folks? Is it because many have listened to false reports leaked from BPD early in the case? I take these other folks opinions much more seriously than those of BPD....imho BPD blew this case themselves....! :seeya:

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, imho Lou Smit has never had an agenda.....he wants this case solved as badly as we do...this man is imho a man of integrity and 30 years of experience...have you read the book "Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas? A portion of it details some of his conclusions on the JB case....yes, he was hired early on by the Ramseys attorney, but he warned them if he believed the Ramseys to be guilty he wouldn't fail to reveal it...he was the one who profiled the unibomber....these aren't stupid men...I have read others online while researching this case..and I admit there is still a lot I have to learn...but every one I have read believes it was an intruder with pedophile tendencies...why does that sound so farfetched to you folks? Is it because many have listened to false reports leaked from BPD early in the case? I take these other folks opinions much more seriously than those of BPD....imho BPD blew this case themselves....! :seeya:

LadyFisher -- I truly, truly believe the early investigators who leaked bad info, Thomas' book and the tabloids have had an incredibly major impact on alot of people believing the Ramseys did this horrific crime. Some of the same misinformation that has even been disproven has been repeated over and over again throughout the years. In the beginning I thought that too until I started researching on my own after Smit came out with his intruder theory. You don't have to even agree with everything that Smit says - and he doesn't have all of the answers but he certainly made alot more sense than Thomas did and John Douglas has my utmost respect. jmo

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, imho Lou Smit has never had an agenda.....he wants this case solved as badly as we do...this man is imho a man of integrity and 30 years of experience...have you read the book "Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas? A portion of it details some of his conclusions on the JB case....yes, he was hired early on by the Ramseys attorney, but he warned them if he believed the Ramseys to be guilty he wouldn't fail to reveal it...he was the one who profiled the unibomber....these aren't stupid men...I have read others online while researching this case..and I admit there is still a lot I have to learn...but every one I have read believes it was an intruder with pedophile tendencies...why does that sound so farfetched to you folks? Is it because many have listened to false reports leaked from BPD early in the case? I take these other folks opinions much more seriously than those of BPD....imho BPD blew this case themselves....! :seeya:

To me an intruder paedophile doesn't sound farfetched, on the face of it. It's just that it's hard to make it square with everything we know.

An intruder-paedo wouldn't have had kidnapping as a motive, so why would he leave a RN? And why would he have mentioned respecting JR's business but not this country? It just doesn't sound right for an intruder-paedo.

No one came in or out that window, so why was the suitcase under the window?

Why would an intruder put boxes and chairs in front of the door - better yet, how could he have done so? Or was JR not telling us the truth about that?

IMO the intruder theories don't add up, though there is nothing farfetched about it, in general. It becomes farfetched when the particulars are considered.

Athena

09-29-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

To me an intruder paedophile doesn't sound farfetched, on the face of it. It's just that it's hard to make it square with everything we know.

An intruder-paedo wouldn't have had kidnapping as a motive, so why would he leave a RN? And why would he have mentioned respecting JR's business but not this country? It just doesn't sound right for an intruder-paedo.

No one came in or out that window, so why was the suitcase under the window?

Why would an intruder put boxes and chairs in front of the door - better yet, how could he have done so? Or was JR not telling us the truth about that?

IMO the intruder theories don't add up, though there is nothing farfetched about it, in general. It becomes farfetched when the particulars are considered.

You know the suitcase and the chair bother me. Fleet White had gone into the basement shortly after 6 in the morning after his arrival. He admits moving the suitcase and picking up glass. He also says he opened the wine cellar door and did not see anything. Could Fleet have put that chair in front of the door? That chair makes absolutely no sense to me.

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Athena

You know the suitcase and the chair bother me. Fleet White had gone into the basement shortly after 6 in the morning after his arrival. He admits moving the suitcase and picking up glass. He also says he opened the wine cellar door and did not see anything. Could Fleet have put that chair in front of the door? That chair makes absolutely no sense to me.

I don't know who put it there, or even if it really was there. It does seem inconsistant with an intruder leaving that way. It's a good trick, pulling a chair up against a door when you're on the other side of the door.

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

To me an intruder paedophile doesn't sound farfetched, on the face of it. It's just that it's hard to make it square with everything we know.

An intruder-paedo wouldn't have had kidnapping as a motive, so why would he leave a RN? And why would he have mentioned respecting JR's business but not this country? It just doesn't sound right for an intruder-paedo.

No one came in or out that window, so why was the suitcase under the window?

Why would an intruder put boxes and chairs in front of the door - better yet, how could he have done so? Or was JR not telling us the truth about that?

IMO the intruder theories don't add up, though there is nothing farfetched about it, in general. It becomes farfetched when the particulars are considered.

Where were the boxes and chair, Wally, in front of the wine cellar door in actually IN the wine cellar in front of the door?

I could accept an intruder/pedophile if not for the evidence contradicting such a person.

Pedophiles just don't leave ransom notes. A kidnapper, especially one with a stun gun, would have been in and out in a heartbeat. I think someone jealous of John would have taken another route. JB wouldn't have sat at the table and eaten pineapple with any intruder.

Nothing really adds up completely in any one scenario. Yet if 90% of the facts have been reported inaccurately, as Linda Arndt says, then no wonder they don't.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-29-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I don't know who put it there, or even if it really was there. It does seem inconsistant with an intruder leaving that way. It's a good trick, pulling a chair up against a door when you're on the other side of the door.

So it was on the outside of the door. :)

WallyCleaver

09-29-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Where were the boxes and chair, Wally, in front of the wine cellar door in actually IN the wine cellar in front of the door?

I could accept an intruder/pedophile if not for the evidence contradicting such a person.

Pedophiles just don't leave ransom notes. A kidnapper, especially one with a stun gun, would have been in and out in a heartbeat. I think someone jealous of John would have taken another route. JB wouldn't have sat at the table and eaten pineapple with any intruder.

Nothing really adds up completely in any one scenario. Yet if 90% of the facts have been reported inaccurately, as Linda Arndt says, then no wonder they don't.

JMO

I'll let someone else answer about where the chairs/boxes were. I've never been real clear on it. As far as I know we only have JR's statement that boxes/chairs were piled in front of a door. I don't know it that's been verified by anyone else. I've always considered it something unproveable. I had thought JR made this claim to the police, in part to explain that it was difficult to get into that room.

Yes, a kidnapper with a stun gun would have been out of the house in 90 seconds. He'd have had a car. He most likely would have brought a short prepared RN, rather than writting a novella on the R's pad of paper. IMO there is nothing about this case that adds up to a genuine kidnapping for ransom.

Mimi428

09-29-2006, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Athena

This is what I find silly. The theory that JBR wet the bed for the upteenth time and all of a sudden Patsy says "I've had enough" and hit her baby so hard - hard enough to kill a 300 lb man and then strangle her to death to cover it up. This IS silly!

DOJ statistics for 2004 reveal that 311 children aged 5 & under were killed by a parent. I can't imagine that we would think ANY of the reasons were acceptable. I've read of parents that killed their child for doing something like getting in the refrigerator when they were told not to. Or parents who killed their child because they were crying or fussy.

There aren't any sane reasons, imo. But they still happen, at a rate of nearly one child per day.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsreltab.htm

Mimi428

09-30-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

IMO there is nothing about this case that adds up to a genuine kidnapping for ransom.

<snipped>

ITA, Wally - & we forget to mention one other glaring point - NO PHONE CALL.

I see so many posts from the IDI side of the fence claiming the theory that the reason the amount was so low was because the intruder just wanted an amount that John could get his hands on quickly, before the body was discovered.

Yet the phone never rang...

Athena

09-30-2006, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

ITA, Wally - & we forget to mention one other glaring point - NO PHONE CALL.

I see so many posts from the IDI side of the fence claiming the theory that the reason the amount was so low was because the intruder just wanted an amount that John could get his hands on quickly, before the body was discovered.

Yet the phone never rang...

There are also many of us that don't believe this was a ransom note. It was a message -- had nothing to do with the money or intent to kidnap. Some of us think "outside of the box".

As far as who thinks what you said above about getting their hands on the money quickly -- maybe you should re-read the posts -- it is the theory of the RDI.

Athena

09-30-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

DOJ statistics for 2004 reveal that 311 children aged 5 & under were killed by a parent. I can't imagine that we would think ANY of the reasons were acceptable. I've read of parents that killed their child for doing something like getting in the refrigerator when they were told not to. Or parents who killed their child because they were crying or fussy.

There aren't any sane reasons, imo. But they still happen, at a rate of nearly one child per day.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidsreltab.htm

I have no problem understanding that parents kill. Your post cites numbers -- where are the reasons. I have a problem with anyone's belief that a parent can kill a child without some evidence of psychopathology. Noone just ups and kills a child out of the blue without having demonstrated some kind of precursive behavior. There are many parents you've read of recently listed in these articles - and John and Patsy are NOT among them:

"Korbin says there are usually clues that are obvious to those around parents who end up killing their children. "Prior to a homicide, lots of lay people know these men and women are having difficulty parenting. The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention," she said in an AAA press release.

http://crime.about.com/od/female_offenders/a/mother_killers.htm

Parenting in the U.S. is extremely difficult, Korbin says. Prevention is the key. Prior to a homicide, lots of lay people know these men and women are having difficulty parenting. "The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention. We must start treating children more seriously," she says.

http://www.aaanet.org/press/motherskillingchildren.htm

Several recent cases of filicide, child murder by parents, have drawn national attention to this archetypal tragedy. Specific motives for filicide were initially described by Resnick,1 classified as (1) altruistic, (2) acutely psychotic, (3) accidental filicide (fatal maltreatment), (4) unwanted child, and (5) spouse revenge filicide.1 Altruistic filicide is murder committed out of love to relieve the real or imagined suffering of the child. Altruistic filicide may be associated with suicide. For example, a mother who is suicidal may not be willing to leave her child motherless in a "cruel world." Distinct from this, acutely psychotic filicide occurs when a parent in the throes of acute psychosis (e.g., experiencing command hallucinations) kills his or her child with no comprehensible motive. Fatal maltreatment filicide may occur as a result of child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Parents committing spouse revenge filicides kill children in a specific attempt to make the spouse suffer. Furthermore, filicide may occur within the context of familicide, the extermination of the entire family.

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/496

One of the most disturbing aspects of these deaths, experts say, is that they are preventable. After the Zile murder was revealed, Palm Beach County assistant state attorney Scott Cupp, who heads the Crimes Against Children Unit, exploded: "We're burying too many kids who died at the hands of their parent. We need to be taking more of them out of these homes before this happens. I'm tired of it, sick of it. A lot of these kids could have been saved. Yet so often society doesn't pay attention to the signs." Murder "is usually not the first assault on the child," explains Jill Korbin, an anthropology professor at Case Western Reserve University and author of a study of women incarcerated for deadly child abuse. "These women often let others know about incidents of abuse prior to the fatal incident. But many times, the seriousness of the incidents isn't recognized.

http://www.fathers.ca/parents_who_kill.htm

The study divides the mothers into five demographic grouping: young mothers who deny their pregnancy and committed “neonaticide”(killing within 24 hours of the birth), mothers who attempt to kill themselves and their children (purposeful altruistic killing), neglectful mothers who actively or passively let their children die, abusive mothers who inadvertently kill their children while disciplining them, and abused women who kill their children due to coercion or their own domestic victimization. Each of these groupings has its own chapter replete with copious case studies. What I found to be particularly noteworthy were the suggestions for working with the community at-large and the “at-risk”

http://www.lifewatch-eap.com/poc/view_doc.php?

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

snip...
Where were the boxes and chair, Wally, in front of the wine cellar door in actually IN the wine cellar in front of the door?

John said the boxes and chair were in front of the train room door, not the wine cellar door, and he had to move the chair to get into that room. I can't tell if he meant the inside of the door or the outside (hallway side). Here's his 1995 interview where he talks about it:

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

Strange how they appeared there, whichever door it was, after Fleet White had been in the basement.

Eagle1

09-30-2006, 06:59 AM

My first paragraph was poorly worded, I know. Probably can't still edit. But I didn't say Karr himself was a mastermind.

The question is coming up at some forums "Is the killer still alive?" And I'm just speculating that he may have gotten Karr to go through all this, letting us know, as Bin Laden does once in a while, that he's still out there. Could be someone with corrupt connections enough that he could promise Karr some big bribe, as well as getting him off. I heard that Karr's computer was "lost", police bungling just like in Boulder.

Or maybe not. I have no favorite theory, interested in them all.

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

John said the boxes and chair were in front of the train room door, not the wine cellar door, and he had to move the chair to get into that room. I can't tell if he meant the inside of the door or the outside (hallway side). Here's his 1995 interview where he talks about it:

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

Strange how they appeared there, whichever door it was, after Fleet White had been in the basement.

Do we really know that they appeared there? Did anyone other than JR see them?

Why would FW place them in front of the train room ?

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Athena

There are also many of us that don't believe this was a ransom note. It was a message -- had nothing to do with the money or intent to kidnap. Some of us think "outside of the box".

As far as who thinks what you said above about getting their hands on the money quickly -- maybe you should re-read the posts -- it is the theory of the RDI.

If it was a message, why did so much of the note deal with specifics of a phoney kidnapping?

I can see that 118K could be a message, but I can't really see "adequate size attache" or "get plenty of rest" or the way it was to be divided int $100 bills and $20 bills as being part of a message. That sound like specific instructions for delivering the ransom.

SBTC could have been a message, I suppose, but all the threats of killing her, and beheading her when the writter must have known she was already dead don't seem like a message. They seem like an attempt to disuade the Rs from calling the police.

rosebud

09-30-2006, 07:35 AM

rosebud

09-30-2006, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Athena

This is what I find silly. The theory that JBR wet the bed for the upteenth time and all of a sudden Patsy says "I've had enough" and hit her baby so hard - hard enough to kill a 300 lb man and then strangle her to death to cover it up. This IS silly!

But it is perfectly all right for you to speculate about Bill Reynolds and his wife creeping into the Ramsey house with murderous intent to slaughter a six year old girl. It is perfectly all right for you to speculate that Fleet White and his wife did the same. It is perfectly all right to speculate that Linda Hoffman Pugh intentionally murdered JB. It is perfectly all right for you to cast suspicion on Joe Barnhill and his wife or any of the Ramsey's other neighbors or co-workers.

I think I am beginning to understand: you just don't want PATSY accused of it. I wonder why?

JMO

lucky13

09-30-2006, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I'm sorry. I just can't picture Patsy Ramsey with a stun gun. :(
Me either, MissOtisR. But I CAN see John using one. I just can't imagine what those marks could be, if not stun gun marks. Doesn't ANYone have any ideas of what else could have caused these marks? I don't think that Patsy was involved in JB's murder. (I wouldn't be shocked at all if it was ever proven that she was though.) Do you all think that Patsy could've broken that paintbrush with her bare hands? It looked pretty thick...
I was called out for misspelling 'business' earlier...I think it's from studying that darn ransom note so much. I also find myself using the phrase' and hence' a lot too now.(even though I know the word AND is not necessary) Yikes! maybe I should take a break from this!
Athena, you asked me why I thought that John wanted to get JB in the basement....to kill her. It would be quietest down there. Plus he could do his dirty deed of staging there also. I think he took the baseball bat outside & put it where it was later found. Remember the nosey neighbor who said that the outside light light went off for a short time that night?...
Ladyfisher, you asked, why on Christmas?? Good question. My opinion is this- John wanted JB's last day of her life to be one of the greatest days of her life. (how sweet of him) She got everything that she wanted for Christmas, & was happy. Or maybe JB & Melinda were really close & John was affraid that JB would mention something to her about the inappropriate things that had been happening....
If it was an intruder, who had been inside the Ramseys home for endless hours, on Christmas, wouldn't one of their family members have notived this & found it strange that they be gone on the special day? Most families are together on Christmas aren't they?

rosebud

09-30-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the death penalty had it been available at the time, rosebud.

I cannot understand how he attracts all the supporters he does. Granted, the case is very interesting, but I don't see how anyone can believe the wild stories about intruders.

JMO

You got it. With all the pointless and unearned suffering in the world and all the worthy causes there are out there, how people attach themselves to someone like MacDonald and insist he is innocent is a wonder to me.

JMO

rosebud

09-30-2006, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, imho Lou Smit has never had an agenda.....he wants this case solved as badly as we do...this man is imho a man of integrity and 30 years of experience...have you read the book "Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas? A portion of it details some of his conclusions on the JB case....yes, he was hired early on by the Ramseys attorney, but he warned them if he believed the Ramseys to be guilty he wouldn't fail to reveal it...he was the one who profiled the unibomber....these aren't stupid men...I have read others online while researching this case..and I admit there is still a lot I have to learn...but every one I have read believes it was an intruder with pedophile tendencies...why does that sound so farfetched to you folks? Is it because many have listened to false reports leaked from BPD early in the case? I take these other folks opinions much more seriously than those of BPD....imho BPD blew this case themselves....! :seeya:

From he description of his behavior in PM/PT I disagree about Smit. The other detectives clearly thought he had made up his mind very early that it could not be the Ramseys and he stuck to it no matter what was presented to him. He apparently is a fundamentalist Christian who thinks all Christians are perfect and are not capable of murdering their child.

I would also suggest that he got a lot of "acclaim" back then among police circles for nailing a serial killer who was then imprisoned in a Colorado prison and who has recently confessed to apparently dozens of murders. While that can imply competence it can also give someone the insatiable desire to always "one-up" everyone else and be smarter than them. His behavior on the JB case was unprofessional.

Smit's opinion is not supported by any facts, and that is the important thing to remember. You IDI people can fantasize all you want about all sorts of theories about this intruder scenario and that one, but in the end, you have no evidence of any of them and neither does Smit.

JMO

rosebud

09-30-2006, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Athena

There are also many of us that don't believe this was a ransom note. It was a message -- had nothing to do with the money or intent to kidnap. Some of us think "outside of the box".

As far as who thinks what you said above about getting their hands on the money quickly -- maybe you should re-read the posts -- it is the theory of the RDI.

I don't think it was a ransom note either. The Ramseys behavior that morning tells me that they knew it was not a real ransom note and that there was no threat to JB or to Burke because they knew JB was already dead and lying in their basement.

What is that? Thinking outside the box or thinking around it? Above it? Under it? Through it?

JMO

rosebud

09-30-2006, 08:26 AM

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Do we really know that they appeared there? Did anyone other than JR see them?

Why would FW place them in front of the train room ?

We do only have John's word for it as far as I can tell, and there's no proof FW placed them there. I can't think of a reason why John would like about it, though. Any thoughts on that?

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

We do only have John's word for it as far as I can tell, and there's no proof FW placed them there. I can't think of a reason why John would like about it, though. Any thoughts on that?

No, I really havn't given it much thought. As far as I can tell it's just something JR said and no one else has verified. Might be true. Might not.

I take it the implication is that an intruder couldn't have come in gone out through that door because of things piled in front of it. I suppose that's more consistant with the idea the intruder had a key.

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I have no problem understanding that parents kill. Your post cites numbers -- where are the reasons. I have a problem with anyone's belief that a parent can kill a child without some evidence of psychopathology. Noone just ups and kills a child out of the blue without having demonstrated some kind of precursive behavior. There are many parents you've read of recently listed in these articles - and John and Patsy are NOT among them:

"Korbin says there are usually clues that are obvious to those around parents who end up killing their children. "Prior to a homicide, lots of lay people know these men and women are having difficulty parenting. The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention," she said in an AAA press release.

http://crime.about.com/od/female_offenders/a/mother_killers.htm

Parenting in the U.S. is extremely difficult, Korbin says. Prevention is the key. Prior to a homicide, lots of lay people know these men and women are having difficulty parenting. "The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention. We must start treating children more seriously," she says.

http://www.aaanet.org/press/motherskillingchildren.htm

Several recent cases of filicide, child murder by parents, have drawn national attention to this archetypal tragedy. Specific motives for filicide were initially described by Resnick,1 classified as (1) altruistic, (2) acutely psychotic, (3) accidental filicide (fatal maltreatment), (4) unwanted child, and (5) spouse revenge filicide.1 Altruistic filicide is murder committed out of love to relieve the real or imagined suffering of the child. Altruistic filicide may be associated with suicide. For example, a mother who is suicidal may not be willing to leave her child motherless in a "cruel world." Distinct from this, acutely psychotic filicide occurs when a parent in the throes of acute psychosis (e.g., experiencing command hallucinations) kills his or her child with no comprehensible motive. Fatal maltreatment filicide may occur as a result of child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Parents committing spouse revenge filicides kill children in a specific attempt to make the spouse suffer. Furthermore, filicide may occur within the context of familicide, the extermination of the entire family.

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/496

One of the most disturbing aspects of these deaths, experts say, is that they are preventable. After the Zile murder was revealed, Palm Beach County assistant state attorney Scott Cupp, who heads the Crimes Against Children Unit, exploded: "We're burying too many kids who died at the hands of their parent. We need to be taking more of them out of these homes before this happens. I'm tired of it, sick of it. A lot of these kids could have been saved. Yet so often society doesn't pay attention to the signs." Murder "is usually not the first assault on the child," explains Jill Korbin, an anthropology professor at Case Western Reserve University and author of a study of women incarcerated for deadly child abuse. "These women often let others know about incidents of abuse prior to the fatal incident. But many times, the seriousness of the incidents isn't recognized.

http://www.fathers.ca/parents_who_kill.htm

The study divides the mothers into five demographic grouping: young mothers who deny their pregnancy and committed “neonaticide”(killing within 24 hours of the birth), mothers who attempt to kill themselves and their children (purposeful altruistic killing), neglectful mothers who actively or passively let their children die, abusive mothers who inadvertently kill their children while disciplining them, and abused women who kill their children due to coercion or their own domestic victimization. Each of these groupings has its own chapter replete with copious case studies. What I found to be particularly noteworthy were the suggestions for working with the community at-large and the “at-risk”

http://www.lifewatch-eap.com/poc/view_doc.php? Thank you for your info..there was no precursive behavior from John & Patsy...if there had been the world would know it by now.....even JD states this case is noteworthy...virtually unique..he knows of no other case in which the majority of people have decided the solution based on statistics...and he knows of no other case in which the public substantially believe what has been reported in the tabloids!............I see that very thing on this and other boards! :seeya:

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

From he description of his behavior in PM/PT I disagree about Smit. The other detectives clearly thought he had made up his mind very early that it could not be the Ramseys and he stuck to it no matter what was presented to him. He apparently is a fundamentalist Christian who thinks all Christians are perfect and are not capable of murdering their child.

I would also suggest that he got a lot of "acclaim" back then among police circles for nailing a serial killer who was then imprisoned in a Colorado prison and who has recently confessed to apparently dozens of murders. While that can imply competence it can also give someone the insatiable desire to always "one-up" everyone else and be smarter than them. His behavior on the JB case was unprofessional.

Smit's opinion is not supported by any facts, and that is the important thing to remember. You IDI people can fantasize all you want about all sorts of theories about this intruder scenario and that one, but in the end, you have no evidence of any of them and neither does Smit.

JMO I would suspect, Thomas possibly believed Smit had his mind already made up concerning the Ramseys....didn't Thomas have his mind made up concerning their guilty? :rolleyes: I don't buy the bedwetting theory, and I'm certain Smit didn't either....being a christian doesn't peg you as a person with an agenda....geeze, Rose, surely you can come up with something better than that! Smit imo has no reason to lie...I'm certain he looked closely at the Ramseys, but the facts in this case in his opinion led to an intruder. I agree with him!

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

And if Patsy was sexually abusing her daughter, as several experts think at least SOMEONE WAS, this would not qualify as, what Ellen Degeneres says such "psychopathologies" were called when she was growing up, "just plain crazy?"

The little girl WAS acting strange before she died. Her bathroom habits was not right. Fleet White's wife told Patsy so. A six year old girl should not have been acting that way. Why was she?

Something wasn't normal.

JMO :lol: Who would quote anything seriously that Ellen Degeneres has to say? What wasn't normal, Rose? The bact she wet the bed, my stepgranddaughter still wets the bed! How many children do? I do understand JB asking others to wipe her...my grandson wanted us to after her pottied....what is really so strange about it? :shrug: Nowadays we understand there are sick pedophiles in our world...we understand that there are crazies that will enter our homes and steal our childen or grandchildren...it wasn't as prevalent then as it is now!

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by lucky13

Me either, MissOtisR. But I CAN see John using one. I just can't imagine what those marks could be, if not stun gun marks. Doesn't ANYone have any ideas of what else could have caused these marks? I don't think that Patsy was involved in JB's murder. (I wouldn't be shocked at all if it was ever proven that she was though.) Do you all think that Patsy could've broken that paintbrush with her bare hands? It looked pretty thick...
I was called out for misspelling 'business' earlier...I think it's from studying that darn ransom note so much. I also find myself using the phrase' and hence' a lot too now.(even though I know the word AND is not necessary) Yikes! maybe I should take a break from this!
Athena, you asked me why I thought that John wanted to get JB in the basement....to kill her. It would be quietest down there. Plus he could do his dirty deed of staging there also. I think he took the baseball bat outside & put it where it was later found. Remember the nosey neighbor who said that the outside light light went off for a short time that night?...
Ladyfisher, you asked, why on Christmas?? Good question. My opinion is this- John wanted JB's last day of her life to be one of the greatest days of her life. (how sweet of him) She got everything that she wanted for Christmas, & was happy. Or maybe JB & Melinda were really close & John was affraid that JB would mention something to her about the inappropriate things that had been happening....
If it was an intruder, who had been inside the Ramseys home for endless hours, on Christmas, wouldn't one of their family members have notived this & found it strange that they be gone on the special day? Most families are together on Christmas aren't they? I agree that a stun gun was used, too many experts agree with that...but, why would John have to use one on his own daughter, lucky? It doesn't make sense to me! I don't believe it was John who killed JB....I think it was an intruder...possibly a college student with his own apartment...he might have spent part of Christmas day with his parents...we don't know...but he was not a happy camper that day, I would bet...his demeanor would be on of agitation...etc......he somehow knew the Ramseys would be gone out for the evening and he somehow knew they would be leaving early the next morning.....how could he have known this? He had to be closeby...a family member of one of their employees...possibly someone connected to John? imho

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

To me an intruder paedophile doesn't sound farfetched, on the face of it. It's just that it's hard to make it square with everything we know.

An intruder-paedo wouldn't have had kidnapping as a motive, so why would he leave a RN? And why would he have mentioned respecting JR's business but not this country? It just doesn't sound right for an intruder-paedo.

No one came in or out that window, so why was the suitcase under the window?

Why would an intruder put boxes and chairs in front of the door - better yet, how could he have done so? Or was JR not telling us the truth about that?

IMO the intruder theories don't add up, though there is nothing farfetched about it, in general. It becomes farfetched when the particulars are considered. Why wouldn't a pedo/kidnapper leave a ransom note? Don't most kidnappers leave notes? Why would he mention John's business....he somehow knew about John's business imho...he knew the Ramseys were wealthy! What do the chairs have to do with anything?

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

No, I really havn't given it much thought. As far as I can tell it's just something JR said and no one else has verified. Might be true. Might not.

I take it the implication is that an intruder couldn't have come in gone out through that door because of things piled in front of it. I suppose that's more consistant with the idea the intruder had a key.

That would depend on which side of the door they were on. John said "in front" of the door, and he'd have been approaching it from the basement hallway.

When I try to open a door that's blocked by something from the side oposite the one I'm at, I'd say that item was in "back" of the door. Like the time my DD pushed a chair in her room up against the door and I had to push hard to open her door.

If the item was between me and the door, I'd say it was in "front" of the door.

Going by that, I assumed John meant they were on the hallway side of the door, not the room side. And, someone could have come in that window, gone through the door, then closed the door and piled the things in front of it.

MOO

rosebud

09-30-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:lol: Who would quote anything seriously that Ellen Degeneres has to say? What wasn't normal, Rose? The bact she wet the bed, my stepgranddaughter still wets the bed! How many children do? I do understand JB asking others to wipe her...my grandson wanted us to after her pottied....what is really so strange about it? :shrug: Nowadays we understand there are sick pedophiles in our world...we understand that there are crazies that will enter our homes and steal our childen or grandchildren...it wasn't as prevalent then as it is now!

What was not "normal" is obvious, well, obvious to anyone who looks at the situation objectively. I can see that someone who does not have any objectivity about JB's death would think that a six year old girl allowing grown men not related to her to wipe her privates is normal.

The Ellen Degeneres line was humor. I always like it when people who disagree with me cannot see humor in humor. :beer:

JMO

rosebud

09-30-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I would suspect, Thomas possibly believed Smit had his mind already made up concerning the Ramseys....didn't Thomas have his mind made up concerning their guilty? :rolleyes: I don't buy the bedwetting theory, and I'm certain Smit didn't either....being a christian doesn't peg you as a person with an agenda....geeze, Rose, surely you can come up with something better than that! Smit imo has no reason to lie...I'm certain he looked closely at the Ramseys, but the facts in this case in his opinion led to an intruder. I agree with him!

Did I say, "Thomas?" No, I did not. I said the "detectives" investigating the JB case thought that Smit was not investigating the case, but simply trying to prove the Ramseys did not do it. You need to read more carefully next time, LadyFisher. :no:

JMO

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

That would depend on which side of the door they were on. John said "in front" of the door, and he'd have been approaching it from the basement hallway.

When I try to open a door that's blocked by something from the side oposite the one I'm at, I'd say that item was in "back" of the door. Like the time my DD pushed a chair in her room up against the door and I had to push hard to open her door.

If the item was between me and the door, I'd say it was in "front" of the door.

Going by that, I assumed John meant they were on the hallway side of the door, not the room side. And, someone could have come in that window, gone through the door, then closed the door and piled the things in front of it.

MOO

OK, that's reasonable. Can we agree that he didn't exit the same way? It would be impossible to pile things in front of the door after one had closed it and was on the opposite side.

lucky13

09-30-2006, 12:08 PM

Ladyfisher, I think if a stun gun was used by John, it was because it was an easy way to immobilize JB. The same could be said for the IDI theory too. It would be a quick, cowardly way to stop a child in her tracks- leaving him to do his other unspeakable acts.
I find it hard to believe that a young college kid could have pulled off the crime of the century! Why would he do what he did? To take such a gigantic risk, & for what? What did he get out of it? Why hasn't he done it again since he's so good at it? What was his purpose for the note? How did he know his way around that maze of a house in the dark? How did he know he'd be able to find everything that he needed to pull off his crime? Just thinking out loud......

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

OK, that's reasonable. Can we agree that he didn't exit the same way? It would be impossible to pile things in front of the door after one had closed it and was on the opposite side.

I definitely agree, if those things were piled by that door blocking it from opening, (either side of the door), I don't see how it would have been possible for an intruder to exit that way.

MOO

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

I definitely agree, if those things were piled by that door blocking it from opening, (either side of the door), I don't see how it would have been possible for an intruder to exit that way.

MOO

OK, so now were are at the point where we can say the window in the train room was a possilbe entry point, but not a possible exit point.

Since it can't be an exit point (if we assume there really was a chair and boxes blocking the door) then we must wonder why the suitcase was under the window. It wouldn't have been there on entry, unless the Rs are lying about where the suitcase was normally kept.

It's possible an intruder came in through the window, and put the suitcase there to aid escape. Once inside, he'd have had little choice but to move the blockage in front of the door if he wanted access to the rest of the house. But why would he put the blockage back in place in front of the train room door?

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:lol: Who would quote anything seriously that Ellen Degeneres has to say? What wasn't normal, Rose? The bact she wet the bed, my stepgranddaughter still wets the bed! How many children do? I do understand JB asking others to wipe her...my grandson wanted us to after her pottied....what is really so strange about it? :shrug: Nowadays we understand there are sick pedophiles in our world...we understand that there are crazies that will enter our homes and steal our childen or grandchildren...it wasn't as prevalent then as it is now!

I don't think it's normal for a six-year-old to scream for an adult, ANY adult, even a stranger of the opposite sex, to come help her in the bathroom, LadyFisher. There is something wrong with that. I, myself, have never known a six-year-old who wet the bed.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Eagle1
My first paragraph was poorly worded, I know. Probably can't still edit. But I didn't say Karr himself was a mastermind.

The question is coming up at some forums "Is the killer still alive?" And I'm just speculating that he may have gotten Karr to go through all this, letting us know, as Bin Laden does once in a while, that he's still out there. Could be someone with corrupt connections enough that he could promise Karr some big bribe, as well as getting him off. I heard that Karr's computer was "lost", police bungling just like in Boulder.

Or maybe not. I have no favorite theory, interested in them all.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. The five minute editing thing is maddening at time. LOL

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

OK, so now were are at the point where we can say the window in the train room was a possilbe entry point, but not a possible exit point.

Since it can't be an exit point (if we assume there really was a chair and boxes blocking the door) then we must wonder why the suitcase was under the window. It wouldn't have been there on entry, unless the Rs are lying about where the suitcase was normally kept.

It's possible an intruder came in through the window, and put the suitcase there to aid escape. Once inside, he'd have had little choice but to move the blockage in front of the door if he wanted access to the rest of the house. But why would he put the blockage back in place in front of the train room door?

Hmmm...let's see now. He might have used it for an entry point, put the suitcase there intending on using it as an exit point and changed his mind.

What if, after deciding to use another exit point, he put te things back in front of that train room door, so at first glance people wouldn't be suspicious he was ever in there? Maybe buy him some more time to get further away.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because he'd know they'd find out eventually, but it's all I can come up with right now.