Who Killed JonBenet ? [Archive] - Page 4 - Crime Library Message Boards

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
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...... Hi, Lucky! :) There's nothing wrong in thinking out loud...that's really what we're all doing. I don't know if it was a college kid or not...I was just guessing....I do think the note points to someone under forty with a lot of time on their hands...ex. the movie references in the note...I think the note was exactly what it was...a ransom note...he did intend to kidnap her...I think the only way he could have known his way around the home, is....either he had been a guest there in the home before (which is what John Douglas thinks is possible) or he familiarized himself with the home during the time the family was at the Whites....why would he do it? Money...and a contempt for John Ramsey ( perhaps John did cross him in a business deal)...why would he take the risk....only he knows that, lucky....imo this man is a sociopath....I agree with John Douglas on this one..parents do kill and stage, but not in this manner! I think he did have pedophile tendencies...he obviously did use a stun gun, there are no other logical explanations for those marks on JB's body....I don't necessarily think he is a serial killer, so he might not kill again....he might be (in his mind) satisfied that he was the victor over John Ramsey....I don't know if he intended on killing JB that night or not, something went wrong? :shrug:

sweetcharlotte

09-30-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Hi, Lucky! :)
<snip>

I agree with John Douglas on this one..parents do kill and stage, but not in this manner! I think he did have pedophile tendencies...he obviously did use a stun gun, there are no other logical explanations for those marks on JB's body....I don't necessarily think he is a serial killer, so he might not kill again....he might be (in his mind) satisfied that he was the victor over John Ramsey....
<snip>

I agree.

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

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 Good evening, Sun....hope you had a sunny day....we went pumpkin shopping today...you should have seen the grandson on top of this huge stack of pumpkins trying to reach just the one that caught his eye...lol....he got it without any mishaps,,,thank goodness.......in response to your post...I think Patsy and John were very naive...I don't think it even occurred to them to scold JonBenet for her behavior....we didn't know as much as we do today about child molestors...but, my neice wet the bed until she was 9 and my step-granddaughter until she was 8...neither of these were ever sexually molested...it isn't as uncommon as you might think! :seeya:

WallyCleaver

09-30-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Hi, Lucky! :) There's nothing wrong in thinking out loud...that's really what we're all doing. I don't know if it was a college kid or not...I was just guessing....I do think the note points to someone under forty with a lot of time on their hands...ex. the movie references in the note...I think the note was exactly what it was...a ransom note...he did intend to kidnap her...I think the only way he could have known his way around the home, is....either he had been a guest there in the home before (which is what John Douglas thinks is possible) or he familiarized himself with the home during the time the family was at the Whites....why would he do it? Money...and a contempt for John Ramsey ( perhaps John did cross him in a business deal)...why would he take the risk....only he knows that, lucky....imo this man is a sociopath....I agree with John Douglas on this one..parents do kill and stage, but not in this manner! I think he did have pedophile tendencies...he obviously did use a stun gun, there are no other logical explanations for those marks on JB's body....I don't necessarily think he is a serial killer, so he might not kill again....he might be (in his mind) satisfied that he was the victor over John Ramsey....I don't know if he intended on killing JB that night or not, something went wrong? :shrug:

IMO use of a stun gun is inconsistant with a genuine kidnapping plan. If it started as a kidnapping, the plan would have been to get the girl, and get out, ASAP. If she were stunned, she wouldn't have been resisting him at all. He'd only have to carry her out. If it was a genuine kidnapping plan, he'd have had a car nearby. He'd have a plan as to where to take her.

What could have gone wrong, carrying a stunned 6 year old from her bedroom on the 2nd floor to a first floor door? It just doesn't make much sense.

Even if he was also a peadophile, he could have taken her to his place (or wherever he'd planned on taking her) and could have assaulted her over and over again.

IMO, there is no way use of a stungun is consistant with a kidnapping gone bad scenario. Nothing could have gone bad carrying a stunned child one floor.

Athena

09-30-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

Interesting. I'd like to read those articles, too.

Honestly, I don't think "at this time" proves Fleet wrote the note anymore than the improper use of "and, hence" proves John Ramsey did it. :shrug:

I agree Sun. But I still would have liked to have been able to read the whole article especially since most of the analyses have been done on the Ramseys. But I've exhausted my search. :shrug:

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

IMO use of a stun gun is inconsistant with a genuine kidnapping plan. If it started as a kidnapping, the plan would have been to get the girl, and get out, ASAP. If she were stunned, she wouldn't have been resisting him at all. He'd only have to carry her out. If it was a genuine kidnapping plan, he'd have had a car nearby. He'd have a plan as to where to take her.

What could have gone wrong, carrying a stunned 6 year old from her bedroom on the 2nd floor to a first floor door? It just doesn't make much sense.

Even if he was also a peadophile, he could have taken her to his place (or wherever he'd planned on taking her) and could have assaulted her over and over again.

IMO, there is no way use of a stungun is consistant with a kidnapping gone bad scenario. Nothing could have gone bad carrying a stunned child one floor. We could argue until the cows come home, Wally and still not agree...but I do believe it was an intruder...the murder makes no sense to me either....kidnappers do use stun guns...the one who kidnapped a girl (was it in NC) had one, too...why he didn't immediately remove her from the home...I have no idea..he rambled around the house for hours imo before the Ramseys got home...maybe he was confortable there...I can't really relate to this guy...he is a psychopath...he is full of rage..he took his own anger out on JB..this murder was overkill....I do not see the parents doing this...there is no doubt in my mind that note was written way before the murder...I don't know nor have I figured out the particulars in this case, just as the RDIs haven't figured out exactly why, etc....some things I have become convinced of are...he is young, nuts, watches a lot of movies, plays sick twisted board games...I believe he appears to others to be a quiet person, he's a loner, he had either been a guest in that home and had access to a key or as MissO said was a small time thief and knew how to get in and out of homes! I understand why you're confused...it's not just a kidnapping, but a sexual assault as well as a murder! :shrug:

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I agree. Good to see you again, SweetCharlotte...welcome back! :)

thewhitewitch1

09-30-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Allow me to save you the trouble of looking up what Dr. Meyer said in his autopsy report:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

"The yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."

Don't you think that it was analyzed afterwards to determine what it actually was? PR was told by one of the detectives that it was definately pineapple. I will go find some links when I have more time.

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Sun....hope you had a sunny day....we went pumpkin shopping today...you should have seen the grandson on top of this huge stack of pumpkins trying to reach just the one that caught his eye...lol....he got it without any mishaps,,,thank goodness.......in response to your post...I think Patsy and John were very naive...I don't think it even occurred to them to scold JonBenet for her behavior....we didn't know as much as we do today about child molestors...but, my neice wet the bed until she was 9 and my step-granddaughter until she was 8...neither of these were ever sexually molested...it isn't as uncommon as you might think! :seeya:

It's not so much the bedwetting that would have bothered me, LadyFisher, it's the fact that JB wanted any adult to wipe her after using the bathroom. I've never known any child over the age of three who would allow a stranger to do that.

We had some rain here today, tomorrow and the coming week are supposed to be very sunny and warm. That's nice! It's always fun to go looking for pumpkins. I love the autumn! Have a terrific Sunday! :)

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I agree Sun. But I still would have liked to have been able to read the whole article especially since most of the analyses have been done on the Ramseys. But I've exhausted my search. :shrug:

I can't find anything, either, Athena. :(

sunsplashed

09-30-2006, 11:49 PM

http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

Author and psychologist, Laurence Smith, whose book, The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey is due to be released on December 1, 2006 (thanks for the link Athena :)) is convinced that Patsy Ramsey either killed JB or was at least involved in the cover-up (I can't tell for sure from the FAQ on his Web site, I think he thinks another person was also involved).

It does raise some issues about the ransom note that I'd never considered or seen presented on this board.

Smith seems to believe that Patsy did not involve John in the cover-up so he could act "totally natural" when the police arrived, but that she did want John to know she was involved, so she gave John "clues" in the ransom note, such as the ransom figure of $118,000 and S.B.T.C.

Although I can't see Patsy writing certain things in the ransom note, I will reserve judgment until I read Smith's book.

Some of it does make sense to me. It would explain why Patsy "found" the note, why the 911 call had to be made, why Patsy didn't wake up her children before going downstairs, why Patsy went downstairs so late that morning, considering the family had a plane to board at 6.30 (I know it was a private jet, but flight plans have to be filed and adhered to), why the strange figure of $118,000 was used, and more.

I was just wondering if anyone else had thoughts about this.

JMO

harz

10-01-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

Author and psychologist, Laurence Smith, whose book, The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey is due to be released on December 1, 2006 (thanks for the link Athena :)) is convinced that Patsy Ramsey either killed JB or was at least involved in the cover-up (I can't tell for sure from the FAQ on his Web site, I think he thinks another person was also involved).

It does raise some issues about the ransom note that I'd never considered or seen presented on this board.

Smith seems to believe that Patsy did not involve John in the cover-up so he could act "totally natural" when the police arrived, but that she did want John to know she was involved, so she gave John "clues" in the ransom note, such as the ransom figure of $118,000 and S.B.T.C.

Although I can't see Patsy writing certain things in the ransom note, I will reserve judgment until I read Smith's book.

Some of it does make sense to me. It would explain why Patsy "found" the note, why the 911 call had to be made, why Patsy didn't wake up her children before going downstairs, why Patsy went downstairs so late that morning, considering the family had a plane to board at 6.30 (I know it was a private jet, but flight plans have to be filed and adhered to), why the strange figure of $118,000 was used, and more.

I was just wondering if anyone else had thoughts about this.

JMO

I like the FAQ, and I want more :) Yes I have thought about this. If Patsy wasn't involved, then John must had turned off the alarm clock or postpone the alarm time while Patsy was sleeping, hence being late for 6 30am plane. Then how come Patsy hadn't say anything about why wake up late or the reasons behind it? Otherwise, she could have been on John's side over the staging since JB's final hour. Why Patsy didn't wake up her children before she dialed 911, I agree that was odd. If she wasn't involved, she would want to wake up Burke in attempt to get information by asking him if he knew where JB was, did he heard anything last night, or if he saw anyone. Patsy wore the same clothes from yesterday of 26th; it would mean she must have been up all night. The other clues in the notes also pointed at John, so it means both of them shared the same agreements on how the note to be written and what to say in it. I have to admit many things seem to me that Patsy had been a busy bee during that night, and John was too calm & careful. Two minds are better than one which did helped them out of prison over how their staging was designed into positions of compromise for the Ramseys. JMO

Athena

10-01-2006, 04:54 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!

I'm also sure that Smit during his 30+ year tenure had no problem locking up Christians.

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 05:37 AM

rosebud

10-01-2006, 05:37 AM

Lady Fisher since you asked for something "better than that" to indicate Lou Smit is either senile, bought and paid for by the Ramseys (actually, my favorite), or biased to protect the Ramseys because they are Christians, of course I can.

There is no evidence whatsoever that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey, and yet we have a "detective" named Lou Smit, who at one time went ON THE PAYROLL of the Ramseys (I am sure that is not unethical or unprofessional to you, of course.) and despite the complete lack of evidence of an intruder, still insists there was an intruder.

It would be like claiming the Chinese fired the first shot at Concord Bridge to start the American Revolution. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they did, but can you prove they did NOT fire the first shot?

JMO

rosebud

10-01-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I'm also sure that Smit during his 30+ year tenure had no problem locking up Christians.

But did Smit have any problems locking up MILLIONAIRE Christians, who were willing to pay him to defend them in an open investigation? That is the question. Smit may be the type of Christian who judges "piety" and "purity" by the size of their bank account. He is a paid defender of the Ramseys, nothing more.

JMO

rosebud

10-01-2006, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
http://www.laurencelsmith.com/faq.html

Author and psychologist, Laurence Smith, whose book, The Last Christmas of JonBenet Ramsey is due to be released on December 1, 2006 (thanks for the link Athena :)) is convinced that Patsy Ramsey either killed JB or was at least involved in the cover-up (I can't tell for sure from the FAQ on his Web site, I think he thinks another person was also involved).

It does raise some issues about the ransom note that I'd never considered or seen presented on this board.

Smith seems to believe that Patsy did not involve John in the cover-up so he could act "totally natural" when the police arrived, but that she did want John to know she was involved, so she gave John "clues" in the ransom note, such as the ransom figure of $118,000 and S.B.T.C.

Although I can't see Patsy writing certain things in the ransom note, I will reserve judgment until I read Smith's book.

Some of it does make sense to me. It would explain why Patsy "found" the note, why the 911 call had to be made, why Patsy didn't wake up her children before going downstairs, why Patsy went downstairs so late that morning, considering the family had a plane to board at 6.30 (I know it was a private jet, but flight plans have to be filed and adhered to), why the strange figure of $118,000 was used, and more.

I was just wondering if anyone else had thoughts about this.

JMO

I have always wondered why it was Patsy who called the police. It just seems like in that situation with an alpha male standing right there, that John would have called them. But there could be other reasons. Some said John seemed almost shy at times and at work some said he blended into the background sometimes. Maybe he hated using the phone. But it still seems odd to me. Then again maybe John thought Patsy would be more convincing.

I have listened to the 911 call several times, and I have to say that Patsy was convincing to me. But the stress in her voice could just as easily be from the ordeal she knew awaited her. I think they called the police because they debated what to do that morning and decided the police would question why they DID NOT call when they were due to get up that morning. You have to try and put themselves in their positions that day.

They are thinking, "will the police think this is more suspicious or will they think that is more suspicious? If I do this, does it help me, or should I do that?"

JMO

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

I have always wondered why it was Patsy who called the police. It just seems like in that situation with an alpha male standing right there, that John would have called them. But there could be other reasons. Some said John seemed almost shy at times and at work some said he blended into the background sometimes. Maybe he hated using the phone. But it still seems odd to me. Then again maybe John thought Patsy would be more convincing.

I have listened to the 911 call several times, and I have to say that Patsy was convincing to me. But the stress in her voice could just as easily be from the ordeal she knew awaited her. I think they called the police because they debated what to do that morning and decided the police would question why they DID NOT call when they were due to get up that morning. You have to try and put themselves in their positions that day.

They are thinking, "will the police think this is more suspicious or will they think that is more suspicious? If I do this, does it help me, or should I do that?"

JMO

I would think the note provides the perfect excuse not to call police - at least not until after the appointed time for the ransom call.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think Patsy and John were very naive...I don't think it even occurred to them to scold JonBenet for her behavior....we didn't know as much as we do today about child molestors...but, my neice wet the bed until she was 9 and my step-granddaughter until she was 8...neither of these were ever sexually molested...it isn't as uncommon as you might think! :seeya:

Another possible explanation for why the Ramseys saw nothing wrong with their six year old daughter asking any grown man not related to her to come in to the bathroom with her nude and wipe her privates after using the toilet is because they knew why she was doing that. They knew they were molesting her so it was a hard habit to break.

JMO

rosebud

10-01-2006, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I would think the note provides the perfect excuse not to call police - at least not until after the appointed time for the ransom call.

I think it was a close call, and they just decided to call the police, after all. I don't see a big deal about it either way. One of them, or both of them, killed her, and they successfully avoided going to prison over it. If they called at 10:30, they were guilty and if they called at 5:45 they were guilty.

JMO

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

I think it was a close call, and they just decided to call the police, after all. I don't see a big deal about it either way. One of them, or both of them, killed her, and they successfully avoided going to prison over it. If they called at 10:30, they were guilty and if they called at 5:45 they were guilty.

JMO

That's true, but calling at 10:45 would give the appearance of taking the note seriously.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I would think the note provides the perfect excuse not to call police - at least not until after the appointed time for the ransom call.

Wally, what they were probably debating that morning was if the body was found inside the house at 1 PM or some time after the police were called at 10:30, how would it make them look? I think Patsy or both of them had decided not to take the body outside the house, so they were stuck. The police might think, "hey these people sat around for five hours after finding the ransom note with the body in the house, and they never searched the house?" So, you see they were in a real bind. Sympathy for the devil.

JMO

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

Wally, what they were probably debating that morning was if the body was found inside the house at 1 PM or some time after the police were called at 10:30, how would it make them look? I think Patsy or both of them had decided not to take the body outside the house, so they were stuck. The police might think, "hey these people sat around for five hours after finding the ransom note with the body in the house, and they never searched the house?" So, you see they were in a real bind. Sympathy for the devil.

JMO

Yeah, that's a possibility. I think it also fits well with calling friends over - I thnk they wanted enough peole in the house so that someone besides themselves would find the body. It must have been nerve wracking to wait for incompetent police and incomotent friends to find her.

The plan might have been that the body would be found fairly soon after police arrived - thus no need for them to explain not searching the house. It would also relieve them of having to dump the body, which is not only emotionally upsetting, but dangerous as well, should they be seen doing it.

All in all, I don't know about this reluctance to dispose of the body. Right now, in my town there is a case at trial where the parents killed their child and dumped the body in the woods - so parents can and do dispose of bodies.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's true, but calling at 10:45 would give the appearance of taking the note seriously.

And another consideration may have been the condition of the body. As it was at 1PM the body had a noticeable "odor." They were "Christians" after all, and it was their daughter. I have no doubt that whatever happened, they cared about her very much. They were civilized killers, so they elected to call the police early so the body could be discovered by the police "early" and the body could be properly dealt with.

JMO

rosebud

10-01-2006, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yeah, that's a possibility. I think it also fits well with calling friends over - I thnk they wanted enough peole in the house so that someone besides themselves would find the body. It must have been nerve wracking to wait for incompetent police and incomotent friends to find her.

The plan might have been that the body would be found fairly soon after police arrived - thus no need for them to explain not searching the house. It would also relieve them of having to dump the body, which is not only emotionally upsetting, but dangerous as well, should they be seen doing it.

All in all, I don't know about this reluctance to dispose of the body. Right now, in my town there is a case at trial where the parents killed their child and dumped the body in the woods - so parents can and do dispose of bodies.

If it is the same case that was discussed earlier here on some thread, there was also evidence of long term physical abuse. JB may have been sexually abused, but I don't think she was beaten and tormented in "that" way. I have no doubt the parents were proud of her and loved her. I am positive there was a real bond between mother and daughter with JB. I find it possible to see Patsy "accidently" killing her, but not being willing to dispose of the body.

JMO

Athena

10-01-2006, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Don't you think that it was analyzed afterwards to determine what it actually was? PR was told by one of the detectives that it was definately pineapple. I will go find some links when I have more time.

You don't have to find a link. I am well aware of what the police said.

Well TWW guess you are one of those that think police don't lie during interrogations?

No different from the coroner saying "dark fibers" were found and the DA/BPD represented they were "black fibers" found in JBR's crotch area.

They do that to coerce confessions and is perfectly legal. :shrug:

The coroner knows about basic details surrounding a death. I am sure that he was told there was pineapple found out but could not be sure that it in fact was which is why he says "may represent fragments of pineapple". If the coroner was positive that that's what it was he would have said "contained fragments of pineapple" not "may".

And when do you think it would have been "analyzed afterwards". That is what an autopsy is for - and he could not be positive of the contents and if anything is changed an amended report would have been issued. jmo

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena

You don't have to find a link. I am well aware of what the police said.

Well TWW guess you are one of those that think police don't lie during interrogations?

No different from the coroner saying "dark fibers" were found and the DA/BPD represented they were "black fibers" found in JBR's crotch area.

They do that to coerce confessions and is perfectly legal. :shrug:

The coroner knows about basic details surrounding a death. I am sure that he was told there was pineapple found out but could not be sure that it in fact was which is why he says "may represent fragments of pineapple". If the coroner was positive that that's what it was he would have said "contained fragments of pineapple" not "may".

And when do you think it would have been "analyzed afterwards". That is what an autopsy is for - and he could not be positive of the contents and if anything is changed an amended report would have been issued. jmo

That may be but it doesn't change the fact that JB ate something "like pineapple" between the time she came home and the time she died. That is a fact. And since that bowl of pineapple was there (with Patsy and Burkes prints on it), it's reasonable to assume that that is what she ate. Too much of a coincidence to believe otherwise. So the fact remains that she did get up at some point and ate something. So now explain the fingerprints on the bowl and spoon and tell me how that doesn't look like Patsy fed her pineapple. What about the tupperware bowl of pineapple in JBs room?

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>

What about the tupperware bowl of pineapple in JBs room?

I have never read anything about a tupperware bowl of pineapple in JonBenet's room. Do you have a link? TIA

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

And another consideration may have been the condition of the body. As it was at 1PM the body had a noticeable "odor." They were "Christians" after all, and it was their daughter. I have no doubt that whatever happened, they cared about her very much. They were civilized killers, so they elected to call the police early so the body could be discovered by the police "early" and the body could be properly dealt with.

JMO I'm sorry folks...but posts like this just burns my biscuits..you're always hitting on John and Patsy for being Christians....arrgh...how the heck do you think Patsy survived 10 years after stage 4 ovarian cancer...it was her faith.....what the heck is a "civilized killer"..that doesn't make a lick of sense.....this was a brutal murder, overkill....there was nothing civilized about it! :confused:

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'm sorry folks...but posts like this just burns my biscuits..you're always hitting on John and Patsy for being Christians....arrgh...how the heck do you think Patsy survived 10 years after stage 4 ovarian cancer...it was her faith.....what the heck is a "civilized killer"..that doesn't make a lick of sense.....this was a brutal murder, overkill....there was nothing civilized about it! :confused:

Hi LadyFinger!

The post says a lot more about the poster than it does about John and Patsy or Christians in general. JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 04:14 PM

I think it's possible the ransom amount never was intended to be more than $118K. Or JonBenet's body (or JonBenet, herself) removed from the house. I think the killer was a practiced burglar, who entered the house after seeing the article in the paper. His intention was to burglarize it. After going through the house, he decided that he could do better with the kidnapping of John Ramsey's young daughter. John had $118K in his account and might be able to be scared into giving it to him. This was his first kidnapping and he was rather tentative with it. Reduce the risk wherever possible. He entered the house again the afternoon/night of Dec. 25th. He had chosen ahead of time to write a ransom note with the Ramseys' paper and with their pen. This lowered the risk of his being caught. He had the basic outline worked out in his head but reworked and rethought it, as he wrote. He copied chunks that he liked onto later versions (leaving out and, then, having to insert words). The $118K may have been low for a kidnapping, but the fact that John Ramsey should be able to get his hands on it more quickly (by 10am tomorrow at latest) than he would a larger amount lowered the risk of his being caught or the Ramseys calling the police before getting the money. Leaving the body in the house also lowered the risk. He didn't want to be caught with JonBenet dead or alive. He would hide the body in the wine cellar, scare the Ramseys into not calling the police, and send John to the bank to immediately withdraw the $118K from his account. JonBenet would probably have to be killed. The killer was a sociopath. And fairly well-educated.

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 04:33 PM

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 04:48 PM

It has been said that the killer left the ransom note on the stairs that Patsy regularly took downstairs in the morning and the question is then asked "How would he know?". I think the killer left the note on the spiral staircase, not because he knew Patsy would take those stairs down, but that she (or John) would take those stairs up, when they went to wake JonBenet. Those are the stairs the killer brought JonBenet down from her room. Patsy said she stepped over the note and, then, read it without touching it. That means it was placed to be read by somebody already downstairs.

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excellent post! I wish there was just one thread that we IDIs could discuss elements of this case....I agree he was a sociopath and had some education....How did he know the Ramseys would be gone as long as they were on Christmas evening?

Thank you, LadyFisher. You ask a very good question.

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I think it's possible the ransom amount never was intended to be more than $118K. Or JonBenet's body (or JonBenet, herself) removed from the house. I think the killer was a practiced burglar, who entered the house after seeing the article in the paper. His intention was to burglarize it. After going through the house, he decided that he could do better with the kidnapping of John Ramsey's young daughter. John had $118K in his account and might be able to be scared into giving it to him. This was his first kidnapping and he was rather tentative with it. Reduce the risk wherever possible. He entered the house again the afternoon/night of Dec. 25th. He had chosen ahead of time to write a ransom note with the Ramseys' paper and with their pen. This lowered the risk of his being caught. He had the basic outline worked out in his head but reworked and rethought it, as he wrote. He copied chunks that he liked onto later versions (leaving out and, then, having to insert words). The $118K may have been low for a kidnapping, but the fact that John Ramsey should be able to get his hands on it more quickly (by 10am tomorrow at latest) than he would a larger amount lowered the risk of his being caught or the Ramseys calling the police before getting the money. Leaving the body in the house also lowered the risk. He didn't want to be caught with JonBenet dead or alive. He would hide the body in the wine cellar, scare the Ramseys into not calling the police, and send John to the bank to immediately withdraw the $118K from his account. JonBenet would probably have to be killed. The killer was a sociopath. And fairly well-educated.

Were banks open on the 26th? That was a Thursday, so maybe they were. The reason this is important is that if the banks were closed, it would have been difficult to obtain the money, no matter the amount. If the banks were open, then you have a plausible theory of why the ransom was that amount.

Leaving the body might have lowered the kidnapper's risk, but it also lowered his chance of collecting ransom to almost nil. The only reason the body wasn't found for 7 hours is that the first officer to go into the basement the morning of the 26th didn't open the door to the wine room. (Was it officer French?) No kidnapper could reasonably have thought that putting the body in that room would give him time to make his call and have JR collect. Most people would search the home - even if you want to say the Rs don't have to behave like others, there was no reason for the kidnapper to think they wouldn't search. At the moment he decided to leave the body he abandoned all hope of collecting ransom. If you want to say he abandoned his kidnapping plan that's fine - maybe he did. But the idea he was hiding JBR and really expected to collect before she was found isn't plausible.

Once again you've failed to account for a major aspect of the crime - the molestation. Even if he wanted to kill her and leave her in the house, why the molestation. How'd that reduce his risk?

And, why the garrotte? He was apparently wearing gloves as he left no prints at all. Why not just strangle her with his hands?

And, why did he not take his flashlight with him? Or was it the R's flashlight? And if it was the R's flashlight, why'd he take out the batteries and wipe the prints - which he wouldn't have gotten on them because he didn't install the batteries.

Last but not least, you have now formulated a straight kidnapping plan -albeit abandoned. Why a 2.5 page note? If it's a real RN it just says "We have the girl. Don't call the cops or she dies. We'll contact you". Or something to that effect.

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excellent post! I wish there was just one thread that we IDIs could discuss elements of this case....I agree he was a sociopath and had some education....How did he know the Ramseys would be gone as long as they were on Christmas evening?

You can, and do, discuss IDI on every thread. Did you mean a thread where RDIs don't ask difficult questions?

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You can, and do, discuss IDI on every thread. Did you mean a thread where RDIs don't ask difficult questions? I don't believe it hurts to discuss theories on every thread....they could be posted on two, for discussion from both sides and then ?s from likeminded posters....I sure both sides feel like it's tiptoeing through the BS to read a response from the poster you asked a ? I really wasn't trying to be rude, Wally..I do think you are an intelligent poster and ask some valid ?s!

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't believe it hurts to discuss theories on every thread....they could be posted on two, for discussion from both sides and then ?s from likeminded posters....I sure both sides feel like it's tiptoeing through the BS to read a response from the poster you asked a ? I really wasn't trying to be rude, Wally..I do think you are an intelligent poster and ask some valid ?s!

I was just teasing. I think it's good to discuss all points of view. I'm a bit more receptive to IDI theory after reading your posts, and those of other IDI'ers.

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Were banks open on the 26th? That was a Thursday, so maybe they were. The reason this is important is that if the banks were closed, it would have been difficult to obtain the money, no matter the amount. If the banks were open, then you have a plausible theory of why the ransom was that amount.

<snip>

And, why did he not take his flashlight with him? Or was it the R's flashlight? And if it was the R's flashlight, why'd he take out the batteries and wipe the prints - which he wouldn't have gotten on them because he didn't install the batteries.

<snip>

I believe the banks were open on the 26th and I think it was Fernie who went to the bank to complete arrangements for a $118K line of credit that Rod Westmoreland, John Ramsey's Merrell Lynch account manager, made provisions for that morning. Something that I've always wondered about - did the Ramseys' have a bank account locally and if yes, how did the writer of the ransom note know that?

With regard to the flashlight wasn't it determined that it was a Christmas present from John Andrew?

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Leaving the body might have lowered the kidnapper's risk, but it also lowered his chance of collecting ransom to almost nil. The only reason the body wasn't found for 7 hours is that the first officer to go into the basement the morning of the 26th didn't open the door to the wine room. (Was it officer French?) No kidnapper could reasonably have thought that putting the body in that room would give him time to make his call and have JR collect. Most people would search the home - even if you want to say the Rs don't have to behave like others, there was no reason for the kidnapper to think they wouldn't search. At the moment he decided to leave the body he abandoned all hope of collecting ransom. If you want to say he abandoned his kidnapping plan that's fine - maybe he did. But the idea he was hiding JBR and really expected to collect before she was found isn't plausible.

Fleet White looked in that room and didn't see her. But, I am willing to go with an abandoned kidnapping. That JonBenet suddenly lunged away from the killer. Possibly screaming. That he struck her with the flashlight he held in his right hand. From behind and above. And that she was fatally injured, though not dead, at this point and he abandoned his plan to take her from the house.

Once again you've failed to account for a major aspect of the crime - the molestation. Even if he wanted to kill her and leave her in the house, why the molestation. How'd that reduce his risk?

He molested her because he had the opportunity to.

And, why the garrotte? He was apparently wearing gloves as he left no prints at all. Why not just strangle her with his hands?

The garrotte gave him pleasure. He wasn't pretending to be a sick man, he WAS a sick man.

Last but not least, you have now formulated a straight kidnapping plan -albeit abandoned. Why a 2.5 page note? If it's a real RN it just says "We have the girl. Don't call the cops or she dies. We'll contact you". Or something to that effect.

He enjoyed writing it. The man lives in a movie.

WallyCleaver

10-01-2006, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Leaving the body might have lowered the kidnapper's risk, but it also lowered his chance of collecting ransom to almost nil. The only reason the body wasn't found for 7 hours is that the first officer to go into the basement the morning of the 26th didn't open the door to the wine room. (Was it officer French?) No kidnapper could reasonably have thought that putting the body in that room would give him time to make his call and have JR collect. Most people would search the home - even if you want to say the Rs don't have to behave like others, there was no reason for the kidnapper to think they wouldn't search. At the moment he decided to leave the body he abandoned all hope of collecting ransom. If you want to say he abandoned his kidnapping plan that's fine - maybe he did. But the idea he was hiding JBR and really expected to collect before she was found isn't plausible.

Fleet White looked in that room and didn't see her. But, I am willing to go with an abandoned kidnapping. That JonBenet suddenly lunged away from the killer. Possibly screaming. That he struck her with the flashlight he held in his right hand. From behind and above. And that she was fatally injured, though not dead, at this point and he abandoned his plan to take her from the house.

Once again you've failed to account for a major aspect of the crime - the molestation. Even if he wanted to kill her and leave her in the house, why the molestation. How'd that reduce his risk?

He molested her because he had the opportunity to.

And, why the garrotte? He was apparently wearing gloves as he left no prints at all. Why not just strangle her with his hands?

The garrotte gave him pleasure. He wasn't pretending to be a sick man, he WAS a sick man.

Last but not least, you have now formulated a straight kidnapping plan -albeit abandoned. Why a 2.5 page note? If it's a real RN it just says "We have the girl. Don't call the cops or she dies. We'll contact you". Or something to that effect.

He enjoyed writing it. The man lives in a movie.

OK, a man with multiple motives. But you have to work on the order of events. He didn't take her down the basement and molest and garrotte her after she screamed.

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

OK, a man with multiple motives. But you have to work on the order of events. He didn't take her down the basement and molest and garrotte her after she screamed.

I don't know, Wally. If he took her to the basement and she broke loose at the bottom of the stairs and ran into the boiler room to get away from him and screamed at that point, that could be the scream that travelled through the duct to the neighbor's. Then, either she ran into the wine cellar to get away from him and he followed and clubbed her there, or he clubbed her in the boiler room and, then, dragged her into the wine cellar. The garrotte would follow this and, then, the molestation. If there was a stun gun, it would have been intended to keep her still, while gagged and bound. The hit on the head with the flashlight would not have been intended. Maybe he was willing to take her unconscious but not dying or dead from the house. Unless he was wearing a mask during all this, she had to die at some point.

LadyFisher

10-01-2006, 09:46 PM

I think MissO is beginning to nail this perp....I can picture this guy in a darkened room, watching his movies, drinking heavily or doing his drugs....he has so much hate and anger...he isn't popular with women...doesn't know much about the female anatomy except what he's learned in magazine or online...he's fascinated with the occult...ewwwwwwwww this is one creepy dude! imho

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 09:52 PM

A little about me since this is my first post on this subject, Im a high honors psych graduate who loves to study people and who is fascinated with true crime. I watch courttv almost everyday when I have the time, Not trying to toot my own horn, just trying to show you that I do have some education and knowledge about human behavior. Ive studied this case since it first came out, all of the evidence, watched the interviews, and read Steve Thomas's book, he was a major detective on the case. This man put everything he had into this case and was turned down so many investigative opportunities because of "Team Ramsey" (incase yawl dont know that is all of the Rasmey attorneys) opportunities that would have easily proved his theory correct. He ended up quiting the BCPD because justice was not being served.

Im with Steve and Im thoroughly convinced that Patsy accidently harmed JonBenet, either out of anger or something she did to her, and I believe that John finished her off because she was so much in pain or maybe because she was going to die anyway, or maybe because he himself was trying to cover something up.

But their is just too much evidence that points to the inside job. Even FBI investigators commented to PD that it was a cover up.
Here is why I believe it was the parents;

1) Extremely obscure 3 page ransome note that the professionals have said they had never ever seen a kidnapper write one like it before. Complete with practice notes, the pen that wrote it, everything found inside the home!

2) Also even the person that Patsy hired herself to rule out their handwritting for the randsom not, ruled out everyone but said that the only person he could not rule out was patsy herself.

Speaking of the randsome note; part of it said "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies and something pertaining to her being beheaded" and the Ramseys immediately call everyone from 911 to their best friends, and then the lawyers. No one in their right mind would do that if they thought their baby was abducted, they would patiently wait for the kidnapper s to call and try as quickly as possibly to get the randsom money together.

3)When the first detective arrived on the scene, Det Arnt (s?) had told John to search the house for any clues. After she said this, Fleet White noticed that John went straight down to the basement, straight to the body, straight down into the wine celler without looking anywhere else first, which is VERY peculiar since the house was huge and he could have started looking anywhere when the det told him to start looking in the house, coincidence? i think not. (come on now people, if you daughter was missing wouldnt you naturally search your entire house probably bedroom first, for evidence anyway right after you noticed her missing???) how weird that he didnt search and find her there earlier. Needless to say Fleet and Priscilla who were once very close friends with the Ramseys are now in opposition to them and are fighting for a new prosecutor to reopen the case! They should now better than anyone what happened.

4)The fact that the detective noticed that when the body was brought up by John that Patsy stayed in the other room and didnt come to see her daughter and let out a strange wail...and then sat in there by herself (John and Patsy stayed apart most of the time this was going on instead of holding one another comforting one another) which is very odd behavior.

5)The Ramseys have refused to cooperate with police...and refused to take lie detectors, and refused to be interviewed, and called attorney s right after the police got there, and hid under a veil of attorneys the entire time to make sure they didnt have to go to a police interview alone.

6)The fact that John R. called a hardware store a few days?weeks? later and asked the clerk specific questions, the clerk remembered him and said that he was asking about receipts, especially if items showed up itemized (meaning the duct tape he bought that he bought there would have showed up on the receipt and could possibly be linked with the same one that was on JB's mouth!) Det. Steve Thomas tried to get the phone logs and specifically this info about he hardware store into evidence but was not allowed because of something the Ramseys lawyers said that kept the judge from granting a subpoena.(cant spell it)

7)JB was dressed in size 12 underwear that were huggge on her, Patsy claims she was put to bed in the same clothes they found her in, why would patsy put a size 12 underwear on her daughter with the "wednesday" logo on it when she was extremely maticulous about dressing her (anyone who wants to see what they would look like on a girl JB;s size should go to the forumsforjustice.org and look at the post that discusses this and you would know that she wouldnt have dressed JB in this way. The truth is she didnt dress her, John did, because while Patsy was busy writting the rediculous randsom note JR was preparing the staging of the body, that would explain the garrott that he tied (being that he was in the Navy he knew how to tie knots like that.

8) Burke Ramsey is heard in the 911 tape (this is proven to be true) although Patsy and John claim that he was asleep the entire time (they prob said this to keep him from being questioned about this) I read the interview with Burke and everything he said sounded like he was trying to cover for his parents, especially the last statement which was something like "we all have secrets, that s why we cant tell anybody, then they would not be a secret anymore".

Speaking of the 911 tape, Patsy did not hang up the phone when she thought she did, and she is heard saying "help me jesus, please help me" but i know that could have been interpreted differently, but Im sure she meant get her out of the mess she was in!

9)The very trustworthy neighbor who said they heard a scream around midnight coming from the area of the Ramsey's home. Now the neighbor could hear her scream but the parents couldnt??

10)The fact that Patsy and John swore up and down they would never give up looking for the killer of their daughter,, yet they have taken down her website, and with all their money have organized no huge funding to help search for the killer,have refrained from media attention in the last five or so years, have not done anything to show that they are still "searching" for the suposed killer.

11)The Coronor found undigested pinapple in Jon Benets stomach which meant she ate it less than 2 hours before she died, (TOD was somewhere between midnight and 2am) but according to JR he took her straight up to bed, after changing his original story that he read to her first...that is what he told the investigator then later changed it for the police...so are we to believe that the killer ate pinapple with JB right before he killed her??? The police found a half eaten bowl of pinapple on the Ramseys kitchen counter that contained Burkes and Patsys finger prints, not a seperate males dna or fingerprints! And keep in mind that there was NO PINAPPLE served at the Christmas Party they were at. And we know JB didnt get up and get it herself because her finger prints were not on the bowl!!!

Cont in next post sorry...

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 09:53 PM

Now to rebut the rebutals before you people even post them to me, I can hear the rebutals now about the DNA! AT first I was like wow unknown male dna was found, then I did some research on it, First off, DNA can be picked up Anywhere Any time and Anyway. Ask any geneticist and he will tell you that the DNA does not make this case, because it could have come from anywhere. You can touch someone and get one of their skin cells on you, that has DNA in it, You can pick up DNA off of anything! You can pick up DNA from 25 years ago on yourself and not even know it, that is why I believe that DNA is not always an accurate method of determing who did what. Look it up, Im totally right about that. That DNA could have been picked up from a little boy maybe JB was playing with at the party and maybe she went to scratch herself down there and it ended up in her underwear, (which i find it hard to believe mama would dress her in size 12's to begin with) Maybe the size 12 undies she had on were not hers and had someone else's male dna on it, get the point? Im not saying that DNA flies through the air or anything, Im just making a point that it doesn t just arrive when someone is being raped killed or molested like some people think.

Hitech boots are often worn by police officers and that print could have come from anyone of them. That is why it wasnt looked at as seriously as the other evidence.

If the intruder theory was correct, why was not some other little children molested in killed in the same manor since the "killer" was never caught. I know your all thinking that there was the little girl in jb's recital but that attack had completely different elements then this case.

Im sorry this post is so long, I felt like I had to get my point across, Read Thomas's book, just do it!!! and youll see what Im talking about.

Poly~

God Bless you Jon Benet!

rosebud

10-01-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'm sorry folks...but posts like this just burns my biscuits..you're always hitting on John and Patsy for being Christians....arrgh...how the heck do you think Patsy survived 10 years after stage 4 ovarian cancer...it was her faith.....what the heck is a "civilized killer"..that doesn't make a lick of sense.....this was a brutal murder, overkill....there was nothing civilized about it! :confused:

Oh, so only Christians can survive cancer? Get real.

What burns my biscuits is reading you supposedly "Christians" having no trouble whatsoever in casting suspicion on anyone you want to if it is not the Ramseys.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
Now to rebut the rebutals before you people even post them to me, I can hear the rebutals now about the DNA! AT first I was like wow unknown male dna was found, then I did some research on it, First off, DNA can be picked up Anywhere Any time and Anyway. Ask any geneticist and he will tell you that the DNA does not make this case, because it could have come from anywhere. You can touch someone and get one of their skin cells on you, that has DNA in it, You can pick up DNA off of anything! You can pick up DNA from 25 years ago on yourself and not even know it, that is why I believe that DNA is not always an accurate method of determing who did what. Look it up, Im totally right about that. That DNA could have been picked up from a little boy maybe JB was playing with at the party and maybe she went to scratch herself down there and it ended up in her underwear, (which i find it hard to believe mama would dress her in size 12's to begin with) Maybe the size 12 undies she had on were not hers and had someone else's male dna on it, get the point? Im not saying that DNA flies through the air or anything, Im just making a point that it doesn t just arrive when someone is being raped killed or molested like some people think.

Hitech boots are often worn by police officers and that print could have come from anyone of them. That is why it wasnt looked at as seriously as the other evidence.

If the intruder theory was correct, why was not some other little children molested in killed in the same manor since the "killer" was never caught. I know your all thinking that there was the little girl in jb's recital but that attack had completely different elements then this case.

Im sorry this post is so long, I felt like I had to get my point across, Read Thomas's book, just do it!!! and youll see what Im talking about.

Poly~

God Bless you Jon Benet!

Humanpolygraph, your post is logical, truthful, and correct. And don't expect any of the Intruder Did It people to pay any attention to it whatsoever.

rosebud

10-01-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think MissO is beginning to nail this perp....I can picture this guy in a darkened room, watching his movies, drinking heavily or doing his drugs....he has so much hate and anger...he isn't popular with women...doesn't know much about the female anatomy except what he's learned in magazine or online...he's fascinated with the occult...ewwwwwwwww this is one creepy dude! imho

You see this in your crystal ball?

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 10:13 PM

Rosebud,

You just made my day, and your absolutely right, no one will ever listen when they have their mind made up the other way, even though they havent read books on the subject, i dont understand how anyone in their right mind thinks an intruder did in when their would be an overwhelming amount of evidence that the parents did it. Listen, as God as my witness, and I do love God, I believe that Patsy, god rest her soul, loved her daughter, but I believe she did something horrible that night and tried to cover it up, either JB wet her bed and Patsy freaked and maybe pushed her agaisnt something very hard, like the edge of a counter, or hit her in the head with the flashlight, not expecting her to crack her skull with a triangular shaped wedge of it cracked, and causing much brain damage, decided at one fatal moment that she didnt want to go to jail for inflicting child abuse, maybe jon benet passed out and they thought she was already dead, and maybe John decided to finish her off because she was technically brutalized so badly, or barely breathing , that she would have been brain dead if she came to...so they made at a crucial moment the decision to end her life. It was either that or face the redicule of the public, go to jail, loose all their business and their money. The reason I think this happened because of an accident because from what Ive read about Patsy she was not an evil woman, she used to hold charities, help others, was always giving gifts to people etc, but I do believe that she lost it that night, after all they were under alot of stress, packing fora flight he next early morning, getting everything together and perhaps JonBenets bed wetting(police found her soiled clothes from the night before) set her off. I am waiting to hear the opposition to this post...hehe Thanks Rose Bud...

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 10:31 PM

Poly, according to Lou Smit, neither the FBI nor Interpol have even one case on file in which a parent garrotted their own child.

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Fleet White is my #1 suspect (WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD fLEET WANT TO HARM JONBENET, AND WHAT WOULD THE MOTIVE BE???

and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits,(COULDNT THAT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THE RAMSEYS TRUSTED HIM)

the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, (MAYBE SO NO ONE WOULD STEP ON IT?)

the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, (DONT KNOW LOL)

the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business,(HE WAS HIS BEST FRIEND AND JOHN TRUSTED HIM ENOUGH TO WIPE HIS DAUGHTER IM SURE HE TOLD HIM LOTS OF THINGS ABOUT HIS BUSINESS)

the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews 18 times,
(BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT, AND AT LEAST HE AGREED TO BE INTERVIEWED UNLIKE THE RAMSEYS LOL)

the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas,(HE DIDNT SIDE WITH THOMAS UNTIL HE SAW ALL THE FACTS COME OUT)

the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why);

(PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU GOT THIS INFO I DIDNT READ THAT)

the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on. (MAYBE FLEET WAS TIRED OF THE FACT THAT JOHN AND PATSY WERE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER, AND NO ONE WAS LISTENING AND IT WAS NOT FAIR THAT THE RAMSEYS DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO TRIAL, THEY EVEN TURNED DOWN LAW SUITS WHEN THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE QUESTIONED IN COURT) THAT LIST GOES ON AND ON,

(I really dont understand your reasoning but I know everyone has their oppinion, please explain to me the motive that John would have to do all that covering up and to harm that precious little angel. )

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

(HE STARTED ACTING PECULIAR BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT JOHN AND PATSY WERE GUILTY AND DIDNT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM AFTER AWHILE. )

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

MOO (WHAT DOES MOO MEAN? ROTHF) NO OFFENSE ITS JUST FUNNY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 10:40 PM

Poly, MOO means "My Opinion Only".

Welcome to the board!

:seeya:

MissOtis

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Poly, according to Lou Smit, neither the FBI nor Interpol have even one case on file in which a parent garrotted their own child.

JOHN WAS IN THE NAVY AND WAS STAGING A COVER UP. WHAT OTHER WAY BUT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE AN OUTSIDER DID IT, HE IS NOT DUMB, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HE WOULD CALL A HARDWARE STORE RIGHT AFTER THIS HAPPENED AND ASK A CLERK ABOUT WHAT SHOWED UP ON THE RECEIPT, THAT IS WHAT REALLY GOT ME....

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

JOHN WAS IN THE NAVY AND WAS STAGING A COVER UP. WHAT OTHER WAY BUT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE AN OUTSIDER DID IT, HE IS NOT DUMB, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HE WOULD CALL A HARDWARE STORE RIGHT AFTER THIS HAPPENED AND ASK A CLERK ABOUT WHAT SHOWED UP ON THE RECEIPT, THAT IS WHAT REALLY GOT ME....

I am under the impression that was thought to have been someone from one of the tabloids pretending to be John.

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Poly, MOO means "My Opinion Only".

Welcome to the board!

:seeya:

MissOtis
Thanks so much, sorry about that, I was wondering why you were mooing, hehehahhahaha thats too funny.

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

JOHN WAS IN THE NAVY AND WAS STAGING A COVER UP. WHAT OTHER WAY BUT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE AN OUTSIDER DID IT, HE IS NOT DUMB, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY HE WOULD CALL A HARDWARE STORE RIGHT AFTER THIS HAPPENED AND ASK A CLERK ABOUT WHAT SHOWED UP ON THE RECEIPT, THAT IS WHAT REALLY GOT ME....

If John had garrotted JonBenet to stage a cover-up, why would he then call a hardware store to see if Patsy had bought cord/duct tape there?

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Interesting. Couldn't this work just as well with JR as author/killer sending clues to PR ?

Basically the theory here is that PR killed and staged, and she hoped JR wouldn't turn on her. Under this theory, JR knew nothing and gradually became aware as the clues in the note sunk in.

I have to wonder why JR would stick by PR knowing she'd killed his daughter.

I don't know. I have not yet read the book. LOL I think the "clues" in the notes point more to Patsy giving signals to John than John giving signals to Patsy.

John's favorite child was Burke, which doesn't mean to say he didn't love JB. I'm sure he did, but I think he loved Patsy more. And who knows what she may have "had" on him? It's all supposed to be explained in Laurence Smith's book.

JMO

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 11:11 PM

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

If John had garrotted JonBenet to stage a cover-up, why would he then call a hardware store to see if Patsy had bought cord/duct tape there?

To see if the police would be able to trace it back to their home. To be prepared.

JMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I am under the impression that was thought to have been someone from one of the tabloids pretending to be John.

No one really knows who it was, MissOtis.

JMO

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Poly, according to Lou Smit, neither the FBI nor Interpol have even one case on file in which a parent garrotted their own child.

But that does not mean it could not have happened, MissOtis. One has to consider all the possibilites, then begin to rule out the ones that do not fit the known and established facts.

JMO

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

If John had garrotted JonBenet to stage a cover-up, why would he then call a hardware store to see if Patsy had bought cord/duct tape there?

No he called the hardware store to find out if the receipts they had showed an itemized list of what was bought on his credit card! Because now days forensics can tell if the same type of duct tape was used in the killing and if the grade on it was made in the same factory etc..it would have easily pinned the crime on him if they found that out, but because thomas couldnt subpoena phone records he couldnt prove that the call was made at all.

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

No he called the hardware store to find out if the receipts they had showed an itemized list of what was bought on his credit card! Because now days forensics can tell if the same type of duct tape was used in the killing and if the grade on it was made in the same factory etc..it would have easily pinned the crime on him if they found that out, but because thomas couldnt subpoena phone records he couldnt prove that the call was made at all.

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/discuss/379.html

Authorities who raided his Aurora office in the late 1990s found a
client list of more than 1,200 private detective agencies who were
buying private information about people ranging from Hollywood
stars to debtors.

Some information had been used by supermarket weeklies such as The
National Enquirer and The Globe, and there were indirect
connections to more mainstream press.

But Rapp insisted he seldom knew who the exact client was because he
was hired by private investigators.

Things came to a head locally when Rapp and others at his company
impersonated John Ramsey, the father of murdered 6-year-old beauty
queen JonBenet, to find out information about his finances, airline
tickets and such.

Rapp's attempt to impersonate Ramsey to find out what he had bought
at a Boulder hardware store set off a chain reaction that led to
police casing the store and tracking down Rapp. They got a search
warrant and raided Rapp's offices.

Some say Rapp distracted Boulder prosecutors from the JonBenet case
because they spent so much time trying to track down how
information was leaking. But Rapp said he had no regrets about his
work, which found its way into supermarket weeklies.

Said Rapp of the day Boulder authorities raided his office: "These
guys were good - they had me convinced that I killed JonBenet."

And although he gained access to financial records, including John
Ramsey's, Rapp said, "I never committed fraud in taking a penny
from anybody."

sunsplashed

10-01-2006, 11:25 PM

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 11:37 PM

good work finding that one. Even if he did impersonate ramsey, apparently something was found, because i read somewhere that the clerk remembered John coming in and buying some duct tape. But that was smart finding that article. I like the fact that the guy Rapp is busting people everywhere for fraud! We need more hardcore investigators like this guy!

docg

10-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I think it's possible the ransom amount never was intended to be more than $118K. Or JonBenet's body (or JonBenet, herself) removed from the house. I think the killer was a practiced burglar, who entered the house after seeing the article in the paper. His intention was to burglarize it. After going through the house, he decided that he could do better with the kidnapping of John Ramsey's young daughter. John had $118K in his account and might be able to be scared into giving it to him. This was his first kidnapping and he was rather tentative with it. Reduce the risk wherever possible. He entered the house again the afternoon/night of Dec. 25th. He had chosen ahead of time to write a ransom note with the Ramseys' paper and with their pen. This lowered the risk of his being caught. He had the basic outline worked out in his head but reworked and rethought it, as he wrote. He copied chunks that he liked onto later versions (leaving out and, then, having to insert words). The $118K may have been low for a kidnapping, but the fact that John Ramsey should be able to get his hands on it more quickly (by 10am tomorrow at latest) than he would a larger amount lowered the risk of his being caught or the Ramseys calling the police before getting the money. Leaving the body in the house also lowered the risk. He didn't want to be caught with JonBenet dead or alive. He would hide the body in the wine cellar, scare the Ramseys into not calling the police, and send John to the bank to immediately withdraw the $118K from his account. JonBenet would probably have to be killed. The killer was a sociopath. And fairly well-educated.

1. How did he get in? How did he get out? There were no signs of forced entry, a locksmith checked to see if any locks were picked, they weren't. No signs of anyone passing through the basement window.

2. How would writing a note in his own hand "lower the risk of his getting caught"?

3. The note said the call would come "tomorrow." So how would he be "sending John to the bank to immediately withdraw" the money? And by the way, there is NO WAY the call could have come that same morning at 8 AM, PRIOR to the opening of the banks, and how could John be rested by then? Also the note says that if they monitor John getting the ransom early they will arrange an earlier pickup of his daughter. How could he possibly have gotten the ransom any earlier than before the banks opened?

4. If he was expectintg a quick payoff before anyone found the body in the basement, he'd have definitely arranged for the call to come THAT morning, not "tomorrow" -- that's way too long to expect the parents to sit around waiting without telling anyone -- and withing smelling anything in their basement.

humanpolygraph

10-01-2006, 11:42 PM

How many more posts before we get to page 14? lol,

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

How many more lies the Ramseys can try to make people believe before they are FLAT BUSTED!!!! ROTHF!!!

thewhitewitch1

10-01-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I have never read anything about a tupperware bowl of pineapple in JonBenet's room. Do you have a link? TIA

Here is the conversation:

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't, I don't remember,

13 but I was thinking backpacking for Charleboy,

14 like the Christmas presents for Melinda and John

15 Stuart.

16 TOM HANEY: So that's not?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Shopping bags for gifts for

18 them.

19 TOM HANEY: Okay.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know, JonBenet may

21 have picked that up to take it with her, of

22 course, I just don't remember.

23 TOM HANEY: Had you packed any perishables

24 in that pack? We don't know what it is --

25 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't know, I don't

0538

1 know, I, I don't remember that bag and I can't

2 tell what's in that picture.

3 TOM HANEY: Okay.

4 PATSY RAMSEY: So.

5 TOM HANEY: Well, I just wanted to check --

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

7 TOM HANEY: -- and make sure that's not

8 part of what you were taking to Charleboy.

9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't recall that it was.

10 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. Something that

11 occurred to me is that you might have packed

12 snacks for --

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, right.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: And what I hear you saying is

15 that that's not what this is.

16 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't know, it doesn't

17 look like it. If I packed snacks, I would have

18 been downstairs in the kitchen somewhere --

19 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: -- or, you know, but --

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Would perishable items be in

22 a Tupperware container up in JonBenet's room,

23 perishable food items?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Not likely.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0539

1 PATSY RAMSEY: That's what makes me think

2 it would be more likely to be the beads or

3 something.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. So do you think that

5 that's pineapple in there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. It could be.

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would you think that that

8 would be likely, or unlikely up in her room?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: I think that would be very

10 unlikely.

11 TRIP DeMUTH: Very unlikely?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: To be pineapple.

13 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. You don't recall

14 putting pineapple in a Tupperware container and

15 putting it up in her room?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: And you would be the person

18 to do that if it were done, right?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Most likely, yes.

I also notice, in the same interview, Patsy is told that fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple belong to either her or John. Right away she goes into full denial about setting the bowl there with the spoon in it. She doesn't ponder on why Johns prints might be on it...she assumes (because she knows) that they are hers. Furthermore, she refuses to acknowledge that they even had pineapple in their home at the time....so...what? The intruder brought his own pineapple with him too?

I suppose the LE could have been trying to trick her by just implying that they found pineapple in tupperware in her room but that seems a little much. Guess I should check to see if the tupperware bowl was in the search warrant inventory, huh?

Anybody got any thoughts on the box of kleenex on the table that Patsy thought was strange to be there and didn't think it belonged to the family?
I suggest everyone read the 1997 and '98 interviews with both the Ramseys...found on acandyrose.com. Take notes and you will see the stories changing ever so slightly to point the guilt away from themselves. Once they knew what the LE found suspicious, they tweaked their stories. Lou Smit should have noticed. He was one of the ones interviewing and they contradicted themselves right in front of him.

MissOtisRegrets

10-02-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by docg

1. How did he get in? How did he get out? There were no signs of forced entry, a locksmith checked to see if any locks were picked, they weren't. No signs of anyone passing through the basement window.

A professional can get in any house. If he came in during the day, the house was probably "looser" than it would have been at night.

2. How would writing a note in his own hand "lower the risk of his getting caught"?

Write with the off hand. Print. Use a felt tip pen. Disguise your style. He may have practiced at home.

3. The note said the call would come "tomorrow." So how would he be "sending John to the bank to immediately withdraw" the money? And by the way, there is NO WAY the call could have come that same morning at 8 AM, PRIOR to the opening of the banks, and how could John be rested by then? Also the note says that if they monitor John getting the ransom early they will arrange an earlier pickup of his daughter. How could he possibly have gotten the ransom any earlier than before the banks opened?

4. If he was expectintg a quick payoff before anyone found the body in the basement, he'd have definitely arranged for the call to come THAT morning, not "tomorrow" -- that's way too long to expect the parents to sit around waiting without telling anyone -- and withing smelling anything in their basement.

Doc, I think it's possible he originally intended to take JonBenet from the house and changed his mind after hitting her with the flashlight. That wasn't planned imo.

MOO

harz

10-02-2006, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

To see if the police would be able to trace it back to their home. To be prepared.

JMO

That makes a perfect sense. Irony, JR doesn't want to cooperate with the police, but worry more over what & which things would trace back to him. To John Ramsey, JB was like a road killed creature after being run over by a car, as how pathetic of JR that all JB was just a nuisance to him since. IMO

MyrDawn

10-02-2006, 05:57 AM

IMO, the killer intended the Ramseys to find the note on the morning of the 26th, not on the 25th. In the note, he said he'd call "tomorrow". That would be the 27th. The banks were opened on the 27th.

MyrDawn

10-02-2006, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by harz

That makes a perfect sense. Irony, JR doesn't want to cooperate with the police, but worry more over what & which things would trace back to him. To John Ramsey, JB was like a road killed creature after being run over by a car, as how pathetic of JR that all JB was just a nuisance to him since. IMO

It doesn't make any sense at all, IMO. It's been proven that it was NOT John Ramsey that called the hardware store. It was James Rapp.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4645578,00.html

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Here is the conversation:
<snip>

21 TRIP DeMUTH: Would perishable items be in

22 a Tupperware container up in JonBenet's room,

23 perishable food items?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Not likely.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

0539

1 PATSY RAMSEY: That's what makes me think

2 it would be more likely to be the beads or

3 something.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. So do you think that

5 that's pineapple in there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. It could be.

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Would you think that that

8 would be likely, or unlikely up in her room?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: I think that would be very

10 unlikely.

11 TRIP DeMUTH: Very unlikely?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: To be pineapple.

13 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. You don't recall

14 putting pineapple in a Tupperware container and

15 putting it up in her room?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: And you would be the person

18 to do that if it were done, right?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Most likely, yes.

<snip>

Once they knew what the LE found suspicious, they tweaked their stories.
<snip>

So - IMO - there was no tupperware container of pineapple in JonBenet's room.

They tweaked their stories? How far apart were the interviews and how many different ways did the PD ask the questions? JMO

Mimi428

10-02-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'mhow the heck do you think Patsy survived 10 years after stage 4 ovarian cancer...it was her faith.....

<snipped>

You must be kidding. A personal friend of mine survived for 30 years after treatment for stage 4 ovarian cancer - & she had no particular religious faith whatsoever.

My stepdaughter has survived 2 years after her cancer diagnosis & she has no particular religious faith either.

I have been taking my mother for over 2 years of cancer treatments & have seen every manner of cancer patient during that time - some with religious faith, others without. Doesn't affect their survival rates at all, imo.

What branch of the Christian faith do you think Patsy subscribed to that allowed her to justify dressing her 6 year old up as a tiny adult & teaching her to dance in a deliberately seductive fashion? Of all the good & faithful folks I know who subscribe to any sort of religious belief, that sort of stuff would never be condoned. One short minute of contemplating WWJD would quash every notion of parading a child around like the videos we have all seen of JonBenet.

MOO

Mishell1383

10-02-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by watson
Why was this done dis-passionately?.....Again this just comes from the evidence and not from what the media and Boulder PD said right after the crime. What does the evidence we all know actually say about how this murder was done. The killer took a lot of time in tying and carefully wrapping a loop noose with stick handle. There's 6 looped wrapped knots on the handle alone, 3 on each side of the long leader that goes to the loop. This took time and lots of contemplation while carefully looping and wrapping. What was the killer thinking while doing this? There is only one use for what the killer is making. From the knot at the middle of the back of the victims neck, we know the killer chose to be directly behind the victim, where he does not have to look at her and she doesn't have to look at the killer. Placing the loop over the victims head, then holding what can only be a slip knot against the back of the neck with one hand the killer pulls the handle with the other, tighteng the loop all around the victims neck equally (the ME reported the line equal all around the neck). By the time the crime is finished the handle is 17" (ME report) from the victim, meaning the killer was no closer than 1 1/2 feet behind the victim and touching her with only one hand during the strangulation. Given the facts there is no other way the strangulation could have been done. From the back, at a distance, with hardly any physical contact after lots of preperation and contemplation........... is not a crime of passion, anger, lust etc. It's almost clinical. In addition on the other side, there is no dis-order to the victims clothes, no defensive wounds, no hands on strangulation of the victim to indicate passion, lust, anger etc.

If there was no defense wounds how do you explain the DNA under her fingernails, probably from scratching at the assailant, also she was sexually assaulted which I believe defines pedophile.. Also what about the blow to her head?

Athena

10-02-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

You must be kidding. A personal friend of mine survived for 30 years after treatment for stage 4 ovarian cancer - & she had no particular religious faith whatsoever.

My stepdaughter has survived 2 years after her cancer diagnosis & she has no particular religious faith either.

I have been taking my mother for over 2 years of cancer treatments & have seen every manner of cancer patient during that time - some with religious faith, others without. Doesn't affect their survival rates at all, imo.

What branch of the Christian faith do you think Patsy subscribed to that allowed her to justify dressing her 6 year old up as a tiny adult & teaching her to dance in a deliberately seductive fashion? Of all the good & faithful folks I know who subscribe to any sort of religious belief, that sort of stuff would never be condoned. One short minute of contemplating WWJD would quash every notion of parading a child around like the videos we have all seen of JonBenet.

MOO

Religion is a personal choice you either believe or you don't. It is my understand that during Patsy's first recovery she truly believed God helped her through it. Just because your friend or mother got through it without religion doesn't mean others could have. That is what faith is all about imo.

You do realize that Jonbenet's pageant dance instructor was a teenager?

humanpolygraph

10-02-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

The items the caller was inquiring about were actually purchased with Patsy's credit card, not John's. The caller gave John's AmEx number and the store told him he would have to call back with Patsy's AmEx number. He did. The items were not listed as "cord" and "duct tape" per se, however, the amounts were exactly the price of cord and duct tape used in the murder, to the penny, and they were purchased from a section in the store that sold cord and duct tape.

The manufacturer of the duct tape sold in the hardware store Patsy Ramsey frequented in Boulder was the same manufacturer of the duct tape used in the murder of JB.

So, the caller may or may not have been JR, I don't know, but it is an established fact that Patsy Ramsey bought two items from McGuckin's Hardware Store in Boulder for the exact amounts of cord and duct tape and in the exact aisles where cord and duct tape were sold.

(From PM/PT)

PROPS MY FRIEND MAJOR PROPS!!! AND HERE I THOUGHT I WAS THE EXPERT IN THE JB MURDER MYSTERY..

MAY THAT DEAR LITTLE ANGEL REST IN PEACE:rose:

Athena

10-02-2006, 09:27 PM

Seems like alot of new nics or multiple ones are present :shrug:

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Seems like alot of new nics or multiple ones are present :shrug:

That's so they can pat one another on the back......or their own back - as the case may be. JMO

Athena

10-02-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
A little about me since this is my first post on this subject, Im a high honors psych graduate who loves to study people and who is fascinated with true crime. I watch courttv almost everyday when I have the time, Not trying to toot my own horn, just trying to show you that I do have some education and knowledge about human behavior. Ive studied this case since it first came out, all of the evidence, watched the interviews, and read Steve Thomas's book, he was a major detective on the case. This man put everything he had into this case and was turned down so many investigative opportunities because of "Team Ramsey" (incase yawl dont know that is all of the Rasmey attorneys) opportunities that would have easily proved his theory correct. He ended up quiting the BCPD because justice was not being served.
<snip>
Cont in next post sorry...

Sorry once you said you believed Steve Thomas you totally lost my attention. Read his depo and then come back and start over.

TIA

Athena

10-02-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

But did Smit have any problems locking up MILLIONAIRE Christians, who were willing to pay him to defend them in an open investigation? That is the question. Smit may be the type of Christian who judges "piety" and "purity" by the size of their bank account. He is a paid defender of the Ramseys, nothing more.

JMO

Just once, once - I wish you would at least post accurate comments. Smit was hired by the DA to work with the BPD. You offer nothing of value to this discussion and are going back on ignore. Thanks for reminding me why I put you there in the first place. :rolleyes:

Athena

10-02-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

That may be but it doesn't change the fact that JB ate something "like pineapple" between the time she came home and the time she died. That is a fact. And since that bowl of pineapple was there (with Patsy and Burkes prints on it), it's reasonable to assume that that is what she ate. Too much of a coincidence to believe otherwise. So the fact remains that she did get up at some point and ate something. So now explain the fingerprints on the bowl and spoon and tell me how that doesn't look like Patsy fed her pineapple. What about the tupperware bowl of pineapple in JBs room?

They don't know when she ate it TWW. Experts also disagree on this even if it were pineapple. It could have been eaten as early as 4:30pm. I'll try to find a link. There was no tupperware. Someone posted that part of the interrogation and it was a picture that Trip DeMuth was showing her. It was his suggestion it may have been pineapple in that tupperware. Patsy says it was beads in the container and Trip moves on.

LadyFisher

10-02-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

You must be kidding. A personal friend of mine survived for 30 years after treatment for stage 4 ovarian cancer - & she had no particular religious faith whatsoever.

My stepdaughter has survived 2 years after her cancer diagnosis & she has no particular religious faith either.

I have been taking my mother for over 2 years of cancer treatments & have seen every manner of cancer patient during that time - some with religious faith, others without. Doesn't affect their survival rates at all, imo.

What branch of the Christian faith do you think Patsy subscribed to that allowed her to justify dressing her 6 year old up as a tiny adult & teaching her to dance in a deliberately seductive fashion? Of all the good & faithful folks I know who subscribe to any sort of religious belief, that sort of stuff would never be condoned. One short minute of contemplating WWJD would quash every notion of parading a child around like the videos we have all seen of JonBenet.

MOO No, Mimi, why would I kid or Patsy for that matter...she attributed it to her faith.....it is a proven fact that those who have faith in something/anything other than themselves can and often do heal quicker than others!

Athena

10-02-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
No, Mimi, why would I kid or Patsy for that matter...she attributed it to her faith.....it is a proven fact that those who have faith in something/anything other than themselves can and often do heal quicker than others!

Even the Medical Profession is embracing it:

More than half of the med schools in the country now offer such courses—up from just three a decade ago—largely because patients are demanding more spiritual care. According to a NEWSWEEK Poll, 72 percent of Americans say they would welcome a conversation with their physician about faith; the same number say they believe that praying to God can cure someone—even if science says the person doesn’t stand a chance. On Beliefnet, a popular interfaith Web site, fully three quarters of more than 35,000 online prayer circles are health related: patients’ loved ones—as well as total strangers—can log on and send prayers into the electronic ether, hoping to heal cancers, disabilities, chronic illness and addiction. Popular practices like these, as well as the growing belief in the medical community that what happens in a person’s mind (and, possibly, soul) can be as important to health as what happens on the cellular level, are leading many doctors to embrace the God they banished from the clinic long ago in favor of technological and pharmaceutical progress.

All over the medical establishment, legitimate scientists are seeking the most ethical, effective ways to combine patients’ spiritual and religious beliefs with high-tech treatment. Former mutual-fund tycoon Sir John Templeton spends as much as $30 million a year funding scientific projects that explore the nature of God. “The Anatomy of Hope,” a meditation on the effects of optimism and faith on health, by New Yorker medical writer Jerome Groopman, M.D., is coming out early next year. The National Institutes of Health plans to spend $3.5 million over the next several years on “mind/body” medicine. And this weekend Harvard Medical School will hold a conference on spirituality and health, focusing on the healing effects of forgiveness. “There’s been a tremendous shift in the medical profession’s openness to this topic,” says Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania who is studying the biological effects of meditation and prayer on the brain. “People like me are very intrigued by what we’re seeing.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339654/

Athena

10-02-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
Rosebud,

You just made my day, and your absolutely right, no one will ever listen when they have their mind made up the other way, even though they havent read books on the subject, i dont understand how anyone in their right mind thinks an intruder did in when their would be an overwhelming amount of evidence that the parents did it. Listen, as God as my witness, and I do love God, I believe that Patsy, god rest her soul, loved her daughter, but I believe she did something horrible that night and tried to cover it up, either JB wet her bed and Patsy freaked and maybe pushed her agaisnt something very hard, like the edge of a counter, or hit her in the head with the flashlight, not expecting her to crack her skull with a triangular shaped wedge of it cracked, and causing much brain damage, decided at one fatal moment that she didnt want to go to jail for inflicting child abuse, maybe jon benet passed out and they thought she was already dead, and maybe John decided to finish her off because she was technically brutalized so badly, or barely breathing , that she would have been brain dead if she came to...so they made at a crucial moment the decision to end her life. It was either that or face the redicule of the public, go to jail, loose all their business and their money. The reason I think this happened because of an accident because from what Ive read about Patsy she was not an evil woman, she used to hold charities, help others, was always giving gifts to people etc, but I do believe that she lost it that night, after all they were under alot of stress, packing fora flight he next early morning, getting everything together and perhaps JonBenets bed wetting(police found her soiled clothes from the night before) set her off. I am waiting to hear the opposition to this post...hehe Thanks Rose Bud...

And it is very obvious you have read the WRONG book to get your info. There are so many erroneous so-called facts you have in your lengthy post it would take too much time to respond to them all. I am sure if you go through these threads you will find factual rebuttals to what you state as fact. There is NO overwhelming evidence that the parents did it. You are a Psych major then maybe you are aware of the fact that most parents if not all who kill their children show some psychopathology and/or precursive behavior prior to. You also make a statement that noone has read books on this case. There are many posting on this case who have read ALL of the books, the interrogations. has done extensive research and who are educated.

Athena

10-02-2006, 10:41 PM

Meant to add - too late to edit -- maybe you could start with reading Thomas' depo where he contradicts himself and what he wrote in that book beginning with Patsy was NOT the only one that could not be excluded as the author of that note. In fact it was a general consensus of the experts that it was 90% that she DID NOT write that note. The handwriting expert, Don Foster who Thomas praises was discredited and was even later sued for plagarizing other people's work and taking credit for it. He was discredited prior to the book going to publication.

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Athena

<snip>

The handwriting expert, Don Foster who Thomas praises was discredited and was even later sued for plagarizing other people's work and taking credit for it. He was discredited prior to the book going to publication.

Re: Foster - From John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" large print edition page 709:

In 1998, Foster announced he had determined that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note, which sounded pretty compelling coming from such an established expert, and Steve Thomas has written that he placed great weight on Foster's analysis. But then it came out that in the spring of 1997, he had written to Patsy Ramsey at the Charlevoix, Michigan, house to offer his condolences, encouragement, and the statement, "I know you are innocent - know it, absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it."

There's more for anyone interested in reading about Foster.

JMO

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Re: Foster - From John Douglas' "The Cases That Haunt Us" large print edition page 709:

In 1998, Foster announced he had determined that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note, which sounded pretty compelling coming from such an established expert, and Steve Thomas has written that he placed great weight on Foster's analysis. But then it came out that in the spring of 1997, he had written to Patsy Ramsey at the Charlevoix, Michigan, house to offer his condolences, encouragement, and the statement, "I know you are innocent - know it, absolutely and unequivocally. I will stake my professional reputation on it."

There's more for anyone interested in reading about Foster.

JMO I posted about him on another thread, sweet! He has credientials UNTIL you read....he thought an internet poster named "jameson" was actually John Andrew...he supposedly used his expertise in determining jameson's writing style....and he thought he was the true killer...until he found out that jameson was a 45 y/o woman from NC that had just become fascinated with this case! :lol: imho Don't you just love it! :)

Mishell1383

10-03-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Sorry once you said you believed Steve Thomas you totally lost my attention. Read his depo and then come back and start over.

TIA

Athena,

I have to say I love your posts. You are always on facts and evidence. You are knowledgeable with what and when you post!! Keep up the GREAT work!:beer:

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I posted about him on another thread, sweet! He has credientials UNTIL you read....he thought an internet poster named "jameson" was actually John Andrew...he supposedly used his expertise in determining jameson's writing style....and he thought he was the true killer...until he found out that jameson was a 45 y/o woman from NC that had just become fascinated with this case! :lol: imho Don't you just love it! :)

LOL - So many "ex-perts." JMO

bullmoose

10-03-2006, 02:18 PM

To the humanpolygraph: I've been catching up on the posts; you should know that Steve Thomas is known to some of us who come here as Twsting Thomas for his truthfulness in his writings. Of all the books written, IMO his comes in dead last for believability. His willingness to constantly leak lies and half-truths to the press during the initial investigation so as to convict the Ramseys in the public eye was IMO a factor in the total lack of trust for the BPD by both the Ramseys and the DA's office. His actions, IMO, probably hindered the investigation instead of aiding it.

Mishell1383

10-03-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To the humanpolygraph: I've been catching up on the posts; you should know that Steve Thomas is known to some of us who come here as Twsting Thomas for his truthfulness in his writings. Of all the books written, IMO his comes in dead last for believability. His willingness to constantly leak lies and half-truths to the press during the initial investigation so as to convict the Ramseys in the public eye was IMO a factor in the total lack of trust for the BPD by both the Ramseys and the DA's office. His actions, IMO, probably hindered the investigation instead of aiding it.

My thoughts exactly!

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 08:58 AM

MyrDawn

10-04-2006, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by treehouse
poly, I think you failed the test.

:beer:

MyrDawn

10-04-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by treehouse
Could someone offer me definitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice killed the little girl?

:::pulling out the lawnchairs and getting comfy:::

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

:::pulling out the lawnchairs and getting comfy:::

Scoot over, please. I'm bringing my extra large lawnchair. I think we're in for a long wait.

LadyFisher

10-04-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Scoot over, please. I'm bringing my extra large lawnchair. I think we're in for a long wait. ......in my chaise lounge..drinking my hot toddy(tottie) however yo spell it.....can't get too close to you ladies, have a horrible cold......still waiting for a reply to treehouse! :seeya:

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
......in my chaise lounge..drinking my hot toddy(tottie) however yo spell it.....can't get too close to you ladies, have a horrible cold......still waiting for a reply to treehouse! :seeya:

:seeya: Got my pitcher of lemonade on the table. We may be here a while! lol

Ames

10-04-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by treehouse
Could someone offer me definitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice killed the little girl?

OH geez....John Ramsey himself, could confess to the crime, and you IDI people would STILL think that an intruder did it. All of the circumstancial evidence points in the Ramsey's direction. Go back and read the Posts of the RDI's...we do NOT have to rehash it over and OVER and OVER again. You have your minds made up, for some reason...and SO do we. We apparently are not going to change yours...and you are definately not going to change ours, unless, you come up with some earth shattering revelation or evidence...that has not yet been brought forth. Come on now...we are waiting!!! The clock is ticking.....anyone? Is there anyone out there with earth shattering evidence that has not been brought forth, yet? HMMMM....I am STILL waiting....in the group of RDI's with OUR lemondaide and Lawn chairs, right beside of you. Didn't you SEE us here? What are you? Blind? Well, you MUST be, if you cannot see for yourselves that a Ramsey or Ramsey's did it. Gosh, it sure is getting hot out here. I need another drink. IMO

Mishell1383

10-04-2006, 02:58 PM

I have a question that I'm sure you crime sleuths have already been over, and I tried looking in the posts but there are just so many.. Why on earth are JB's autopsy pictures so available to the public? I was looking at a site about her murder and I came across the most horrifying graphic pictures.. Is this normal? Do alot of victims have there autopsy or their postmortem pictures available and just haven't come across it? I find it very disturbing, probably because she is just a little girl... But I don't find the need. Do any of you know the answer to this? Does this serve a purpose that I must have missed?:shrug:

thewhitewitch1

10-04-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by treehouse
Could someone offer me definitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice killed the little girl?

Can any of you give me difinitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice did NOT kill their little girl? :punch:

Ames

10-04-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Can any of you give me difinitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice did NOT kill their little girl? :punch:

Thats exactly what my question was...but, I did it in a more rambling kind of way....LOL....I am good at that!

Ames

10-04-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
I have a question that I'm sure you crime sleuths have already been over, and I tried looking in the posts but there are just so many.. Why on earth are JB's autopsy pictures so available to the public? I was looking at a site about her murder and I came across the most horrifying graphic pictures.. Is this normal? Do alot of victims have there autopsy or their postmortem pictures available and just haven't come across it? I find it very disturbing, probably because she is just a little girl... But I don't find the need. Do any of you know the answer to this? Does this serve a purpose that I must have missed?:shrug:

Very good question....I got sick when I first looked at them...now, I try to avoid them at all cost. IMO

LadyFisher

10-04-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
I have a question that I'm sure you crime sleuths have already been over, and I tried looking in the posts but there are just so many.. Why on earth are JB's autopsy pictures so available to the public? I was looking at a site about her murder and I came across the most horrifying graphic pictures.. Is this normal? Do alot of victims have there autopsy or their postmortem pictures available and just haven't come across it? I find it very disturbing, probably because she is just a little girl... But I don't find the need. Do any of you know the answer to this? Does this serve a purpose that I must have missed?:shrug: I just read about that a couple of days ago, but I forgot where...I was thinking a tabloid got a hold of it...but I'll have to look it up later...maybe someone else remembers.................and to Ames, LOL, welcome to our group...but don't get too close or you'll catch my cold! :seeya:

WallyCleaver

10-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by treehouse
Could someone offer me definitive proof, incontrovertible evidence that any Ramsey of your choice killed the little girl?

Of course not. Nor can you give definitive proof and incontrovertible evidence that an intruder (any intruder of you choice, or any set of intruders - mix and match) killed JBR.

This case isn't about proof beyond a reasonable doubt - if it were, it would have gone to trial.

This case is about probability. And probability isn't going to put anyone in prison.

So we look at what's been written in books, whats been said in depositions, what the FBI said, what profilers said, and so on. Then we draw conclusions.

The interesting thing here is not that someone might solve the case - that isn't going to happen. The interesting thing is seeing how other minds work, and maybe, occassionally, seeing things from a different perspective ourselves.

The only negative thing I have to say about IDI people - and it isn't all of them- is that some start from the premise that they just can't immagine the parents doing this. That makes them discount anything that might point at the Ramseys, and embrace almost any IDI theory, no matter how unlikely. It's hard to immagine anyone doing this. But someone did. It was either an intruder (or inturders) or a Ramsey. Those are the only choices - and none of us know with certainty which is correct.

MyrDawn

10-04-2006, 05:28 PM

I've seen posters that believe it's impossible an intruder killed JonBenet, and others that believe it's impossible a Ramsey did it. I've also seen posters that believe in one or the other theory, but think there's a chance that they might be wrong.

I think it would be interesting to see in one place just exactly where everyone posting here stands, especially how firmly they stand there.

Thanks for your responses!

WallyCleaver

10-04-2006, 06:01 PM

I think one or both of the Rs did it, but I leave a little room for intruder theories.

What I'd really like to see from the IDIs is a comprehensive explanation of the case, accounting for all of the events/evidence, and how that leads to an IDI conclusion.

harz

10-04-2006, 06:19 PM

Who & what caused JB's death may be more complicate. Maybe add something to your poll like this for example;
Either of the parents didn't accident or on purpose killed JB, but one or both of them did the staging.
JMO

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:29 PM

I voted for an intruder killed JBR but wouldn't have a stroke if a Ramsey did it.

Whoever killed JBR gets whatever they deserve - doesn't matter if it's an intruder or a Ramsey. The ultimate goal is justice. jmo

Note to Harz: IMO it is too late if it were really an accident -- the time to fess up to an accident would have been before a coverup no matter who did it.

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I think one or both of the Rs did it, but I leave a little room for intruder theories.

What I'd really like to see from the IDIs is a comprehensive explanation of the case, accounting for all of the events/evidence, and how that leads to an IDI conclusion.

I believe some of us have done that. There are too many unanswered questions in any theory I've read/seen whether RDI or IDI. jmo

What I'd really love to see is the true evidence separating fact from fiction.

Hey -- there's 5 votes here but only 4 accounted for???

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
I have a question that I'm sure you crime sleuths have already been over, and I tried looking in the posts but there are just so many.. Why on earth are JB's autopsy pictures so available to the public? I was looking at a site about her murder and I came across the most horrifying graphic pictures.. Is this normal? Do alot of victims have there autopsy or their postmortem pictures available and just haven't come across it? I find it very disturbing, probably because she is just a little girl... But I don't find the need. Do any of you know the answer to this? Does this serve a purpose that I must have missed?:shrug:

Mishell1383 -- Unfortunately an employee at a local photo lab stole the pictures and sold them to the Globe Tabloid and the rest is history. I was totally shocked to find that these pictures were so readily available to the public not to mention why they weren't developed at a crime lab.

This is what greed does. Mind-boggling isn't it? :(

Athena

10-04-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by treehouse

You are kidding, aren't you. Hey, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I didn't do it.

No one has to prove innocence. Guilt must be proved. Prove it.

Hey you stole my answer. No fair!!! :beer:

Mishell1383

10-04-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Mishell1383 -- Unfortunately an employee at a photo lab stole the pictures and sold them to the Globe Tabloid and the rest is history. I was totally shocked to find that these pictures were so readily available to the public.

This is what greed does. Mind-boggling isn't it? :(

YOUR F'ING:cuss: KIDDING ME RIGHT !?! OH! Please tell me you are...

You know there is so much in this case (along with most of the other ones) that really make you ask yourself... Who out there can you really trust? Even a 6 year old girl who sees good in everything (only because she hasn't been conditioned to society yet) can't trust who she should depend on most.. (I won't name names.. but you all get the point.) Its mind-boggling.. Oh this poor child! 10 years almost and this case still never fails to shock me..

Mishell1383

10-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383

YOUR F'ING:cuss: KIDDING ME RIGHT !?! OH! Please tell me you are...

You know there is so much in this case (along with most of the other ones) that really make you ask yourself... Who out there can you really trust? Even a 6 year old girl who sees good in everything (only because she hasn't been conditioned to society yet) can't trust who she should depend on most.. (I won't name names.. but you all get the point.) Its mind-boggling.. Oh this poor child! 10 years almost and this case still never fails to shock me..

IMO! SORRY! never remember it!

Ames

10-04-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I just read about that a couple of days ago, but I forgot where...I was thinking a tabloid got a hold of it...but I'll have to look it up later...maybe someone else remembers.................and to Ames, LOL, welcome to our group...but don't get too close or you'll catch my cold! :seeya:

:lol: LOL...thanks! ACHOO....too late. ;)

Mishell1383

10-04-2006, 08:00 PM

Hey guys.. Listen I know this has nothing to do with JonBenet but I feel like you are passionate enough about murder victims that you could possibly help. Let me explain.. My Best Friends mother whom I have known since I was nine years old was murdered. This family is like my own. She was murdered early Sunday morning they think about 12:30am. She wasn't found until Monday. Please read the link I have provided.

The Story (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/atlantic_city/story/6806539p-6674073c.html)

The facts:

1. She knew her attacker, there was no forced entry

2 She had fought her attacker, there are defense wounds.

3. The woman across the street that was murdered in the same manner

4. I believe (IMO) that he knew what he was doing (premeditated?) he placed her in the tub...

5. Is cutting a throat usually a passionate rageful murder? What I mean is other than straight stabbing?

Thats about all we know. Someone luckily "saw" him and a sketch artist drew his face. I think we are dealing with someone who has done this before. And the police aren't telling us anything! Not that they would any way because its to early on. But my friend and her family are devasted. I want to find the land lords name who ran her apt. building so we can atleast have her things sent back home where they belong. Anyone know how I can go about this? Or any ideas PLEASE! I posted this on another thread but its been up since monday and no one has even replied. With 30 something views! I feel like you guys know your stuff, not that I think I can catch this guy.. But maybe I can get clues? And possibly lead to his capture. Thankyou for all your time and thank you for reading this. If you don't want to give any input please don't reply with an attacking message, just ignore this.

I need answers.. And her family does as well..

The Prosecuter told us not to contact the landlord at this time. WE JUST WANT HER BELONGINGS! They can give them to us after they have collected all evidence. Is this a law that we have to follow? Or can I play dumb and call the landlord????

R.I.P Karen Luongo :rose:

LadyFisher

10-04-2006, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
Hey guys.. Listen I know this has nothing to do with JonBenet but I feel like you are passionate enough about murder victims that you could possibly help. Let me explain.. My Best Friends mother whom I have known since I was nine years old was murdered. This family is like my own. She was murdered early Sunday morning they think about 12:30am. She wasn't found until Monday. Please read the link I have provided.

The Story (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/atlantic_city/story/6806539p-6674073c.html)

The facts:

1. She knew her attacker, there was no forced entry

2 She had fought her attacker, there are defense wounds.

3. The woman across the street that was murdered in the same manner

4. I believe (IMO) that he knew what he was doing (premeditated?) he placed her in the tub...

5. Is cutting a throat usually a passionate rageful murder? What I mean is other than straight stabbing?

Thats about all we know. Someone luckily "saw" him and a sketch artist drew his face. I think we are dealing with someone who has done this before. And the police aren't telling us anything! Not that they would any way because its to early on. But my friend and her family are devasted. I want to find the land lords name who ran her apt. building so we can atleast have her things sent back home where they belong. Anyone know how I can go about this? Or any ideas PLEASE! I posted this on another thread but its been up since monday and no one has even replied. With 30 something views! I feel like you guys know your stuff, not that I think I can catch this guy.. But maybe I can get clues? And possibly lead to his capture. Thankyou for all your time and thank you for reading this. If you don't want to give any input please don't reply with an attacking message, just ignore this.

I need answers.. And her family does as well..

The Prosecuter told us not to contact the landlord at this time. WE JUST WANT HER BELONGINGS! They can give them to us after they have collected all evidence. Is this a law that we have to follow? Or can I play dumb and call the landlord????

R.I.P Karen Luongo :rose: I am so sorry to hear that, Mishell......It sounds as if there is a serial killer on the loose there! I would just call the landlord and tell him I wanted her things! For all of you...:rose:

Athena

10-04-2006, 09:22 PM

Oh Mishell - So sorry to hear about you and your friend's loss :rose:

Wish I could say I had some suggestions for you but unfortunately I do not. I doubt that anyone would be permitted to take any of her belongings until the investigation is completed. Her apartment is probably also "closed" to the public as it is deemed a crime scene.

Guess it certainly would not hurt to call the landlord -- chances are though that his/her keys have probably been confiscated - but still call.

Athena

10-04-2006, 09:57 PM

bump

humanpolygraph

10-04-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Athena

And it is very obvious you have read the WRONG book to get your info. There are so many erroneous so-called facts you have in your lengthy post it would take too much time to respond to them all. I am sure if you go through these threads you will find factual rebuttals to what you state as fact. There is NO overwhelming evidence that the parents did it. You are a Psych major then maybe you are aware of the fact that most parents if not all who kill their children show some psychopathology and/or precursive behavior prior to. You also make a statement that noone has read books on this case. There are many posting on this case who have read ALL of the books, the interrogations. has done extensive research and who are educated.

Obviously youve taken this way out of proportion. I never once said these were all facts, and I never once said that they killed her on purpose, I said it s my belief that she was accidently harmed then the finished her off, I am entitled to my oppinion as you are yours, You are assuming that I am being critical of the other posters when all I did was state my OPPINION, Just because YOU DONT LIKE MY OPPINION does not mean THAT IT IS WRONG LMAO! I have been reading what other posters say and Ive also noticed you have a bad habit of picking on people. You are critisizing the other posters and making accusations about them when were not on here to "argue" agaisnt one another, we are all simply stating our oppionions. I will no longer respond to your rediculous antics unless you actually have something intellegent to say. Stop picking on the other posters and talk about what you think happened, We will listen to your oppinion. Can you do that and be mature without having to pick fights an start crap with people?

humanpolygraph

10-04-2006, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Athena

And it is very obvious you have read the WRONG book to get your info. There are so many erroneous so-called facts you have in your lengthy post it would take too much time to respond to them all. I am sure if you go through these threads you will find factual rebuttals to what you state as fact. There is NO overwhelming evidence that the parents did it. You are a Psych major then maybe you are aware of the fact that most parents if not all who kill their children show some psychopathology and/or precursive behavior prior to. You also make a statement that noone has read books on this case. There are many posting on this case who have read ALL of the books, the interrogations. has done extensive research and who are educated.

Obviously youve taken this way out of proportion. I never once said these were all facts, and I never once said that they killed her on purpose, I said it s my belief that she was accidently harmed then the finished her off, I am entitled to my oppinion as you are yours, And who are you to say its the WRONG BOOK. You are assuming that I am being critical of the other posters when all I did was state my OPPINION, Just because YOU DONT LIKE MY OPPINION does not mean THAT IT IS WRONG LMAO! I have been reading what other posters say and Ive also noticed you have a bad habit of picking on people. You are critisizing the other posters and making accusations about them when were not on here to "argue" agaisnt one another, we are all simply stating our oppionions. I will no longer respond to your rediculous antics unless you actually have something intellegent to say. Stop picking on the other posters and talk about what you think happened, We will listen to your oppinion. Can you do that and be mature without having to pick fights an start crap with people?Now lets wait and seewhat smart ellic remark she replys with next.....

lmao

humanpolygraph

10-04-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by treehouse
Humanpolygraph....your name is rather presumptuous.

heh

honestly i couldnt think of anything at the time...but a friend of mine always calls me that because I could tell when her ex was lying....

humanpolygraph

10-04-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by treehouse
poly, I think you failed the test.

Now Im being tested, that was pretty funny though!

Athena

10-04-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

Obviously youve taken this way out of proportion. I never once said these were all facts, and I never once said that they killed her on purpose, I said it s my belief that she was accidently harmed then the finished her off, I am entitled to my oppinion as you are yours, And who are you to say its the WRONG BOOK. You are assuming that I am being critical of the other posters when all I did was state my OPPINION, Just because YOU DONT LIKE MY OPPINION does not mean THAT IT IS WRONG LMAO! I have been reading what other posters say and Ive also noticed you have a bad habit of picking on people. You are critisizing the other posters and making accusations about them when were not on here to "argue" agaisnt one another, we are all simply stating our oppionions. I will no longer respond to your rediculous antics unless you actually have something intellegent to say. Stop picking on the other posters and talk about what you think happened, We will listen to your oppinion. Can you do that and be mature without having to pick fights an start crap with people?Now lets wait and seewhat smart ellic remark she replys with next.....

lmao

Your first mistake is "assuming" anything about my statement as I did not say nor did I imply you were being critical of other posters. Nor did I say you said JBR was killed on purpose. Next you accuse of me of "picking" on people. LOL -- You'll have to show me those! At least make responses to actual comments I did make.

My original response to you was that you totally lost me as soon as you said you believed Thomas and his book. I referred you to his OWN deposition which contradicts his very OWN book.

And you last two sentences show just how mature you are. Is that smark ellick enough for you?

humanpolygraph

10-04-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Ames

OH geez....John Ramsey himself, could confess to the crime, and you IDI people would STILL think that an intruder did it. All of the circumstancial evidence points in the Ramsey's direction. Go back and read the Posts of the RDI's...we do NOT have to rehash it over and OVER and OVER again. You have your minds made up, for some reason...and SO do we. We apparently are not going to change yours...and you are definately not going to change ours, unless, you come up with some earth shattering revelation or evidence...that has not yet been brought forth. Come on now...we are waiting!!! The clock is ticking.....anyone? Is there anyone out there with earth shattering evidence that has not been brought forth, yet? HMMMM....I am STILL waiting....in the group of RDI's with OUR lemondaide and Lawn chairs, right beside of you. Didn't you SEE us here? What are you? Blind? Well, you MUST be, if you cannot see for yourselves that a Ramsey or Ramsey's did it. Gosh, it sure is getting hot out here. I need another drink. IMO

I agree with you but....this is getting really ridiculous, I didnt come on here to argue with people or have people gang up on me or you or anyone else....this is a message board about our oppinions about what happened to that dear little girl, Im sure she wouldnt be too happy listening to us arguing back and forth over her life, who ever did it, we are here to look at the facts and post about what we think happened. Im not totally 100percent sure the parents did it, that is only my oppinion that they are involved. I am not chastising anyone else for thinking the parents are innocent, this is the one thing I hate about message boards, people starting to argue. If detectives argued like this no cases would ever get solved.

thewhitewitch1

10-04-2006, 11:16 PM

I would like to say that it's possible that an intruder killed her but I feel 99.9% certain that both of the Ramseys are involved in some way. I think they both played parts in the actual death and the cover up.
The more I read of the case (especially their own words), the more convinced I become.
I have considered the intruder theory and have had to dismiss it because it is just way too out there with the circumstances and the evidence. There is just too little intruder evidence and too much Ramsey.
I will also have to admit that there is a gut feeling here too. It was there from the start, as it was with Susan Smith and I trust my gut feeling as it has never let me down.
Wish we would find out one way or another but I don't think we ever will.

Athena

10-04-2006, 11:38 PM

Just some responses (in blue to humanpolygraph's overwhelming evidence:

But their is just too much evidence that points to the inside job. Even FBI investigators commented to PD that it was a cover up.
Here is why I believe it was the parents;

1) Extremely obscure 3 page ransome note that the professionals have said they had never ever seen a kidnapper write one like it before. Complete with practice notes, the pen that wrote it, everything found inside the home!

This statement is true, however, doesn’t prove the Ramseys wrote the note.

2) Also even the person that Patsy hired herself to rule out their handwritting for the randsom not, ruled out everyone but said that the only person he could not rule out was patsy herself.

Not true. Six experts were hired, four by the BPD and two by the Ramseys. There was a general consensus that on a scale of 1-5, Patsy’s score was 4.5 that she did NOT write the note. There were also others that could not be excluded. That was a Thomas lie. (see his depo)

Speaking of the randsome note; part of it said "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies and something pertaining to her being beheaded" and the Ramseys immediately call everyone from 911 to their best friends, and then the lawyers. No one in their right mind would do that if they thought their baby was abducted, they would patiently wait for the kidnapper s to call and try as quickly as possibly to get the randsom money together.

Not uncommon. The first thing most people would do is call 911.

3)When the first detective arrived on the scene, Det Arnt (s?) had told John to search the house for any clues. After she said this, Fleet White noticed that John went straight down to the basement, straight to the body, straight down into the wine celler without looking anywhere else first, which is VERY peculiar since the house was huge and he could have started looking anywhere when the det told him to start looking in the house, coincidence? i think not. (come on now people, if you daughter was missing wouldnt you naturally search your entire house probably bedroom first, for evidence anyway right after you noticed her missing???) how weird that he didnt search and find her there earlier. Needless to say Fleet and Priscilla who were once very close friends with the Ramseys are now in opposition to them and are fighting for a new prosecutor to reopen the case! They should now better than anyone what happened.

Did you know that Fleet White went into the basement by himself within 15 minutes of his arrival at the house and tampered with possible evidence? Why? Did you also know he went back into that room AFTER JR carried JBR upstairs and even picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket. Why?
It is also NOT true that the wine cellar was the first room he went to. He did NOT go straight to that room. It is also extremely rare that a killer would lead you to a body. They will do everything in their power NOT to be the one to discover a body.

Why would he search the bedrooms? His bedroom is on the entire third floor. He knew nothing was there. They went to JBRs room and she was not there and to Burke’s room where he was in bed. Everyone else is on the first floor. Why not search the basement?

Athena

10-04-2006, 11:39 PM

Continued:

4)The fact that the detective noticed that when the body was brought up by John that Patsy stayed in the other room and didnt come to see her daughter and let out a strange wail...and then sat in there by herself (John and Patsy stayed apart most of the time this was going on instead of holding one another comforting one another) which is very odd behavior.

Odd behavior by whose standards? I have no idea what I would do under the circumstances. This is conjecture.

5)The Ramseys have refused to cooperate with police...and refused to take lie detectors, and refused to be interviewed, and called attorney s right after the police got there, and hid under a veil of attorneys the entire time to make sure they didnt have to go to a police interview alone.

The Ramseys did take lie detector tests and passed. The very first one that was taken was inconclusive. They were advised by attorneys and were within their legal rights.

6)The fact that John R. called a hardware store a few days?weeks? later and asked the clerk specific questions, the clerk remembered him and said that he was asking about receipts, especially if items showed up itemized (meaning the duct tape he bought that he bought there would have showed up on the receipt and could possibly be linked with the same one that was on JB's mouth!) Det. Steve Thomas tried to get the phone logs and specifically this info about he hardware store into evidence but was not allowed because of something the Ramseys lawyers said that kept the judge from granting a subpoena.(cant spell it)

Not true. Some guy by the name of James Rapp impersonated John Ramsey. He was arrested and served jail time for making that call to the hardware store. The receipts were not itemized and many items can cost $2.29 and $1.99 in a hardware store.

7)JB was dressed in size 12 underwear that were huggge on her, Patsy claims she was put to bed in the same clothes they found her in, why would patsy put a size 12 underwear on her daughter with the "wednesday" logo on it when she was extremely maticulous about dressing her (anyone who wants to see what they would look like on a girl JB;s size should go to the forumsforjustice.org and look at the post that discusses this and you would know that she wouldnt have dressed JB in this way. The truth is she didnt dress her, John did, because while Patsy was busy writting the rediculous randsom note JR was preparing the staging of the body, that would explain the garrott that he tied (being that he was in the Navy he knew how to tie knots like that.

JBR was very capable of dressing herself as most six year olds are. There was no reason why Patsy or John had to know what underwear she had on.

8) Burke Ramsey is heard in the 911 tape (this is proven to be true) although Patsy and John claim that he was asleep the entire time (they prob said this to keep him from being questioned about this) I read the interview with Burke and everything he said sounded like he was trying to cover for his parents, especially the last statement which was something like "we all have secrets, that s why we cant tell anybody, then they would not be a secret anymore".

False. Don’t even know how to respond to this. You are a Psych major do you really believe a boy questioned for two hours without speaking to his parents first and without their knowledge could really keep a secret about the death of his sister? He had a total of 3-4 interviews for several hours each – I don’t know a 9 year old that is not tough or street-smart that would not slip and say something to authorities. His response about a “secret” was an answer to a question asking him if he knew what a secret was.

Speaking of the 911 tape, Patsy did not hang up the phone when she thought she did, and she is heard saying "help me jesus, please help me" but i know that could have been interpreted differently, but Im sure she meant get her out of the mess she was in!

Again speculation. There is no proof that those are facts. Again repeated stories – without confirmation.

9)The very trustworthy neighbor who said they heard a scream around midnight coming from the area of the Ramsey's home. Now the neighbor could hear her scream but the parents couldnt??

The neighbor recanted and said she thought it was negative energy whatever that’s supposed to mean. Doesn’t sound too bright does she?

10)The fact that Patsy and John swore up and down they would never give up looking for the killer of their daughter,, yet they have taken down her website, and with all their money have organized no huge funding to help search for the killer,have refrained from media attention in the last five or so years, have not done anything to show that they are still "searching" for the suposed killer.

Before Patsy’s death she was very aware that they had a potential suspect and they chose to keep quiet about that so as not to alert the public. Turned out Karr was released – but Patsy doesn’t know that. She died before it was made public.

11)The Coronor found undigested pinapple in Jon Benets stomach which meant she ate it less than 2 hours before she died, (TOD was somewhere between midnight and 2am) but according to JR he took her straight up to bed, after changing his original story that he read to her first...that is what he told the investigator then later changed it for the police...so are we to believe that the killer ate pinapple with JB right before he killed her??? The police found a half eaten bowl of pinapple on the Ramseys kitchen counter that contained Burkes and Patsys finger prints, not a seperate males dna or fingerprints! And keep in mind that there was NO PINAPPLE served at the Christmas Party they were at. And we know JB didnt get up and get it herself because her finger prints were not on the bowl!!!

The coroner found fragments of a fruit or vegetable that may have been pineapple. Conclusion based on pineapple being found in that bowl. Here experts disagree as well. Some have said if she did eat pineapple it could have been as early as 4:30 pm and the Whites did not remember if they served pineapple. Fingerprints on bowl – no big deal. It’s their home. I’m sure my fingerprints are on every piece of glassware in the house since I put away the dishes.

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Just some responses (in blue to humanpolygraph's overwhelming evidence:

But their is just too much evidence that points to the inside job. Even FBI investigators commented to PD that it was a cover up.
Here is why I believe it was the parents;

1) Extremely obscure 3 page ransome note that the professionals have said they had never ever seen a kidnapper write one like it before. Complete with practice notes, the pen that wrote it, everything found inside the home!

This statement is true, however, doesn’t prove the Ramseys wrote the note.
YES BUT IT CERTAINLY IS STRANGE THAT AN INTRUDER WOULD WRITE ALL THAT WHEN THEY ARE THERE JUST TO KIDNAP OR MOLEST A CHILD...JUST THE WAY THE NOTE SOUNDS IMO...SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A WOMAN...

2) Also even the person that Patsy hired herself to rule out their handwritting for the randsom not, ruled out everyone but said that the only person he could not rule out was patsy herself.

Not true. Six experts were hired, four by the BPD and two by the Ramseys. There was a general consensus that on a scale of 1-5, Patsy’s score was 4.5 that she did NOT write the note. There were also others that could not be excluded. That was a Thomas lie. (see his depo)
WELL I MUST BE READING LIES THEN BECAUSE I READ SEVERAL PLACES THAT HER OWN POLYGRAPHING EXPERT DI DNOT RULE HER OUT.

Speaking of the randsome note; part of it said "if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies and something pertaining to her being beheaded" and the Ramseys immediately call everyone from 911 to their best friends, and then the lawyers. No one in their right mind would do that if they thought their baby was abducted, they would patiently wait for the kidnapper s to call and try as quickly as possibly to get the randsom money together.

Not uncommon. The first thing most people would do is call 911.
FIND ME PROOF OF THIS, I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE, IF SOMEONE WROTE YOU A NOTE LIKE THAT , WOULD YOU CALL 911??? ID BE CRAPPING MY PANTS AND TRYING LIKE HECK TO COME UP WITH MONEY BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CALL 911, ALL OF MY FRIENDS TO COME OVER, AND MY ATTORNEY....

3)When the first detective arrived on the scene, Det Arnt (s?) had told John to search the house for any clues. After she said this, Fleet White noticed that John went straight down to the basement, straight to the body, straight down into the wine celler without looking anywhere else first, which is VERY peculiar since the house was huge and he could have started looking anywhere when the det told him to start looking in the house, coincidence? i think not. (come on now people, if you daughter was missing wouldnt you naturally search your entire house probably bedroom first, for evidence anyway right after you noticed her missing???) how weird that he didnt search and find her there earlier. Needless to say Fleet and Priscilla who were once very close friends with the Ramseys are now in opposition to them and are fighting for a new prosecutor to reopen the case! They should now better than anyone what happened.

Did you know that Fleet White went into the basement by himself within 15 minutes of his arrival at the house and tampered with possible evidence?

THAT IS RATIONAL, YOUR KIDS MISSING, YOUR FRIENDS KID IS MISSING DUH YOU GO LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE CLUES...DOESNT MEAN HE KILLED HER...AND ONE POINT YOUR FORGETTING, IF FLEET WHITE KILLED JON BENET, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE WANT THIS WHOLE CASE REOPENED? WHY WOULD HE BE WRITTING LETTERS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO REOPEN A CASE AND GET A NEW DA ON IT???? NO ONE WHO IS GUILTY WOULD WANT A CASE REOPENED UNLESS THEY WANTED TO GET CAUGHT! THATS INSANE.

Why?

Did you also know he went back into that room AFTER JR carried JBR upstairs and even picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket. Why?

MAYBE HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE POLICE SAW IT AND BY PLACING IT ON THE BLANKET WOUD MAKE SURE THEY PICKED IT UP. BUT IT IS WEIRD. I WOULDNT TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE THATS FOR SURE....

It is also NOT true that the wine cellar was the first room he went to. He did NOT go straight to that room. It is also extremely rare that a killer would lead you to a body. They will do everything in their power NOT to be the one to discover a body.
IT ISNT? IF IT WASNT THE FIRST IT WAS THE SECOND BECAUSE EVEN DT. ARNT MENTIONED HOW QUICKLY HE CAME BACK WITH THE BODY! AND WHY DIDNT HE START IN THE CHILDS BEDROOM WHER SHE WAS LAST SEEN, INSTEAD OF MAKING A BLINE FOR THE BASEMENT?

Why would he search the bedrooms? His bedroom is on the entire third floor. He knew nothing was there. They went to JBRs room and she was not there and to Burke’s room where he was in bed. Everyone else is on the first floor. Why not search the basement?

LindaA

10-05-2006, 12:44 AM

I feel there is more on the IDI side than the RDI, but I can't say for sure.

Give me a motive and I might be more inclined to believe that a RDI.

At first I was sure Steve Thomas' theory was correct, but now that I've read more, I certainly don't think so any more.

Some of the intruder stories here are so outlandish it make people lean more towards the RDI.

I agree with Athena (I think it was) who says there are too many unanswered questions no matter which side you take.

harz

10-05-2006, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Mishell1383
Hey guys.. Listen I know this has nothing to do with JonBenet but I feel like you are passionate enough about murder victims that you could possibly help. Let me explain.. My Best Friends mother whom I have known since I was nine years old was murdered. This family is like my own. She was murdered early Sunday morning they think about 12:30am. She wasn't found until Monday. Please read the link I have provided.

The Story (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/atlantic_city/story/6806539p-6674073c.html)

The facts:

1. She knew her attacker, there was no forced entry

2 She had fought her attacker, there are defense wounds.

3. The woman across the street that was murdered in the same manner

4. I believe (IMO) that he knew what he was doing (premeditated?) he placed her in the tub...

5. Is cutting a throat usually a passionate rageful murder? What I mean is other than straight stabbing?

Thats about all we know. Someone luckily "saw" him and a sketch artist drew his face. I think we are dealing with someone who has done this before. And the police aren't telling us anything! Not that they would any way because its to early on. But my friend and her family are devasted. I want to find the land lords name who ran her apt. building so we can atleast have her things sent back home where they belong. Anyone know how I can go about this? Or any ideas PLEASE! I posted this on another thread but its been up since monday and no one has even replied. With 30 something views! I feel like you guys know your stuff, not that I think I can catch this guy.. But maybe I can get clues? And possibly lead to his capture. Thankyou for all your time and thank you for reading this. If you don't want to give any input please don't reply with an attacking message, just ignore this.

I need answers.. And her family does as well..

The Prosecuter told us not to contact the landlord at this time. WE JUST WANT HER BELONGINGS! They can give them to us after they have collected all evidence. Is this a law that we have to follow? Or can I play dumb and call the landlord????

R.I.P Karen Luongo :rose:

Sorry about that. Hope they find this killer soon. I agree it was probably act out of passion or rage. It reminds me of Ted Bundy or Green River Killer. I believe the killer cut the throat to prevent the screaming sound. If other lady was killed in the same manner as this victim, I believe the police would need to investigate the connections between these 2 women, like if they went to same bar, same class, or anything of similar connecting to a place. Since both victims was murdered on the same street, I am assuming a local stalker living in same neighbor or the killer who worked in these neighbors like delivery, maintence, handyman, etc. If I were you, I would research more about the other victim across street first for comparison. IMO

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 12:48 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]Continued:

4)The fact that the detective noticed that when the body was brought up by John that Patsy stayed in the other room and didnt come to see her daughter and let out a strange wail...and then sat in there by herself (John and Patsy stayed apart most of the time this was going on instead of holding one another comforting one another) which is very odd behavior.

Odd behavior by whose standards? I have no idea what I would do under the circumstances. This is conjecture.

YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT YOUR DEAD DAUGHTER HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT UP THE STAIRS AND YOU WOULD SIT IN THE OTHER ROOM INSTEAD OF COMING OVER TO SEE IF SHE IS ACTUALLY DEAD AND TO BE WITH HER IN HER FINAL HOURS? VERY STRANGE....

5)The Ramseys have refused to cooperate with police...and refused to take lie detectors, and refused to be interviewed, and called attorney s right after the police got there, and hid under a veil of attorneys the entire time to make sure they didnt have to go to a police interview alone.

The Ramseys did take lie detector tests and passed. The very first one that was taken was inconclusive. They were advised by attorneys and were within their legal rights.
ID LIKE TO SEE THAT EVIDENCE, I KNOW THEY HIRED A POLYGRAPHER WHO SAID THEY PASSED, BUT THAT WAS SOMEONE THEY PAID ALOT OF MONEY TOO, WHY DIDNT THEY LET THE FBI POLYGRAPH THEN WHEN ASKED? THE FBI WASNT OUT TO GET THEM SO THEY CLAIMED...ALSO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THEY WERE IN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS SOUNDS LIKE BS TO ME, LEGAL SMEAGLE, WHEN YOU ARE INNOCENT YOU RUN TO GET A POLYGRAPH TO PROOVE IT!

6)The fact that John R. called a hardware store a few days?weeks? later and asked the clerk specific questions, the clerk remembered him and said that he was asking about receipts, especially if items showed up itemized (meaning the duct tape he bought that he bought there would have showed up on the receipt and could possibly be linked with the same one that was on JB's mouth!) Det. Steve Thomas tried to get the phone logs and specifically this info about he hardware store into evidence but was not allowed because of something the Ramseys lawyers said that kept the judge from granting a subpoena.(cant spell it)

Not true. Some guy by the name of James Rapp impersonated John Ramsey. He was arrested and served jail time for making that call to the hardware store. The receipts were not itemized and many items can cost $2.29 and $1.99 in a hardware store.

TRUE BUT HE WAS TRYING TO PROVE THE RAMSEYS DID IT TO LOL, YOU ARE FORGETTING TO MENTION THAT THOSE ITEMS LISTED ON PATSYS CREDIT CARD, OR JOHNS, WERE ITEMS IN THE SAME SECTION AS THE DUCT TAPE AND CORD, AND THE SAME PRICE, A LITTLE TOO COINCIDENTAL IF YOU ASK ME!

7)JB was dressed in size 12 underwear that were huggge on her, Patsy claims she was put to bed in the same clothes they found her in, why would patsy put a size 12 underwear on her daughter with the "wednesday" logo on it when she was extremely maticulous about dressing her (anyone who wants to see what they would look like on a girl JB;s size should go to the forumsforjustice.org and look at the post that discusses this and you would know that she wouldnt have dressed JB in this way. The truth is she didnt dress her, John did, because while Patsy was busy writting the rediculous randsom note JR was preparing the staging of the body, that would explain the garrott that he tied (being that he was in the Navy he knew how to tie knots like that.

JBR was very capable of dressing herself as most six year olds are. There was no reason why Patsy or John had to know what underwear she had on.

THAT REPLY MAKES NO SENSE, YOUR SAYING THAT JBR DRESSED HERSELF THAT NIGHT IN SIZE 12 UNDIES (KEEPIGN IN MIND THAT SHE WAS ASLEEP THE ENTIRE TIME AFTER THEY GOT HOME ACCORDING TO PATSY) (OH AND PLEASE GO TO TEH SITE CALLED FORUMSFORJUSTICE.ORG AND LOOK AT WHAT THOSE PANTIES WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THAT LITTLE BODY, IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!) AFTER SHE CAME HOME? BECAUSE DETECTIVES ALREADY FOUND THE SOILED CLOTHES THAT HAD URINE ON THEM AND KNEW THAT THOSE UNDIES SHE HAD ON WERE NEW...FROM AN OPPENED PACKAGE HANGING OUT THE DRAWER, WITHTHE WEDNESDAY UNDIES MISSING....KEEP IN MIND THE WHITE S SAW HER UNDIES AND KNEW THOSE WERE NOT THE UNDIES SHE HAD ON WHEN SHE DIED!!! (BUT OH YEAH YOU THINK THE WHITES DID IT ROTFFF!) SO YOUR ARE BASICALLY SAYING HERE THAT PATSY LIED AND JONBENET DRESSED HERSELF IN SIZE 12 UNDIES WHEN THEY ARRIVED HOME????? EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME?

8) Burke Ramsey is heard in the 911 tape (this is proven to be true) although Patsy and John claim that he was asleep the entire time (they prob said this to keep him from being questioned about this) I read the interview with Burke and everything he said sounded like he was trying to cover for his parents, especially the last statement which was something like "we all have secrets, that s why we cant tell anybody, then they would not be a secret anymore".

False. Don’t even know how to respond to this. You are a Psych major (YES I AM WITH HIGH HONORS THANK YOU VERY MUCH DEAREST) do you really believe a boy questioned for two hours without speaking to his parents first (HE DID SPEAK TO HIS PARENTS FIRST) and without their knowledge could really keep a secret about the death of his sister? He had a total of 3-4 interviews for several hours each – I don’t know a 9 year old that is not tough or street-smart that would not slip and say something to authorities. His response about a “secret” was an answer to a question asking him if he knew what a secret was.
DONT KNWO WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION FROM BUT I READ THAT HE WAS NOT EVEN INTERVIEWED TILL WEEKS LATER, AFTER HIS PARENTS HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE UP STORIES TO TELL HIM..AND ALSO MAYBE HE DIDNT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, MAYBE HE ONLY KNEW WHEN HE WOKE UP THAT THERE WAS COMMOTION AND RUNNING AROUND AND THUS HIS STATEMENT ON THE 911 TAPE "WHATS GOING ON?" IS REALLY ACCURATE BECAUSE HE REALLY DIDNT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. EASY. AND YOUR TELLIGN ME THAT HE WAS NOT AWAKE AND THAT WAS NOT BURKE ON THE 911 TAPE, THEY HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THAT HE WAS, WHILE YOUR INNOCENT PATSY SAYS THAT HE WAS SLEEPING.

Speaking of the 911 tape, Patsy did not hang up the phone when she thought she did, and she is heard saying "help me jesus, please help me" but i know that could have been interpreted differently, but Im sure she meant get her out of the mess she was in!

Again speculation. There is no proof that those are facts. Again repeated stories – without confirmation.
THEY ARE FACTS, THEY ARE ON THE ENHANCED 911 TAPE....

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 12:49 AM

[
9)The very trustworthy neighbor who said they heard a scream around midnight coming from the area of the Ramsey's home. Now the neighbor could hear her scream but the parents couldnt??

The neighbor recanted and said she thought it was negative energy whatever that’s supposed to mean. Doesn’t sound too bright does she?

REALLY I DDINT READ THAT, CARE TO SHOW THE LINK?

10)The fact that Patsy and John swore up and down they would never give up looking for the killer of their daughter,, yet they have taken down her website, and with all their money have organized no huge funding to help search for the killer,have refrained from media attention in the last five or so years, have not done anything to show that they are still "searching" for the suposed killer.

Before Patsy’s death she was very aware that they had a potential suspect and they chose to keep quiet about that so as not to alert the public. Turned out Karr was released – but Patsy doesn’t know that. She died before it was made public.
AND LET ME GUESS YOU ACTUALLY THOUGHT KARR WAS GUILTY? PLEASE TELL ME YOU DIDNT. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE RAMSEYS TOOK DOWN THE WEBSITE YEARS AGO, WAY BEFORE THE LIKES OF KARR WAS EVER MENTIONED, AND EVEN SO, IF THEY WERE REALLY TRYING TO FIND THE KILLER, SOMEONE JUST DOES NOT TAKE DOWN A WEBSITE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE SUSPECT. WOULD YOU TAKE DOWN YOUR WEBSITE FOR YOUR DAUGHTER IF NO KILLER WAS FOUND JUST BECAUSE YOU HAD ONE POTENTIAL SUSPECT? WHY WOUDL YOU TAKE IT DOWN PERIOD IN ONLY A FEW YEARS? AND WHY WOULD YOU MAKE NO EFFORT FOR SEARCHES, OR HAVE ANOTHER INVESTIGATION DONE? OR DO ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER? LOOK AT OTHERS WHO HAVE LOST CHILDREN TO MURDERERS OR SUCH? WHY HAS JR ONLY GONE ON TV A FEW TIMES AND ONLY TO REBUT THE FACT THAT EVERYONE THINKS THE RAMSEYS ARE GUILTY, NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SEARCHING FOR A KILLER, WHY DID HE DISAPEAR INTO THE WOODWORK? BEHAVIORS, HUMAN BEHAVIORS SHOW A GREAT DEAL, ESPECIALLY GUILT. AND YOUR REPLY TO THAT STATEMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH REBUTING THE STATEMENT.

11)The Coronor found undigested pinapple in Jon Benets stomach which meant she ate it less than 2 hours before she died, (TOD was somewhere between midnight and 2am) but according to JR he took her straight up to bed, after changing his original story that he read to her first...that is what he told the investigator then later changed it for the police...so are we to believe that the killer ate pinapple with JB right before he killed her??? The police found a half eaten bowl of pinapple on the Ramseys kitchen counter that contained Burkes and Patsys finger prints, not a seperate males dna or fingerprints! And keep in mind that there was NO PINAPPLE served at the Christmas Party they were at. And we know JB didnt get up and get it herself because her finger prints were not on the bowl!!!

The coroner found fragments of a fruit or vegetable that may have been pineapple. Conclusion based on pineapple being found in that bowl. Here experts disagree as well. Some have said if she did eat pineapple it could have been as early as 4:30 pm and the Whites did not remember if they served pineapple. Fingerprints on bowl – no big deal. It’s their home. I’m sure my fingerprints are on every piece of glassware in the house since I put away the dishes. [/B][/QUOTE]

WELL GUESS WERE GETTING ALL THE FACTS MIXED UP. CAUSE I READ THAT THE WHITES STATED THAT THEY DEFINATELY DID NOT SERVE ANYTHING LIKE PINAPPLE AT THEIR HOUSE, AND EVEN IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF FRUIT OR VEGETABLE DIDNT MATTER, IT WAS NTO TOTALLY DIGESTED MEANING THAT SHE DIED SHORTLY AFTER SHE ATE IT...SHE HAD ALREADY BEEN HOME FROM THE PARTY FOR HOW MANY HOURS??? WHERE DID YOU GET THE 4:30 FIGURE??? IM CURIOUS BECAUSE THAT SEEMS SO EARLY TO ME BECAUSE THAT SUBSTANCE (FRUIT OR VEGI) WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL DIGESTED BY THE TIME SHE DIED.

OH YEAH, AND EVEN THOUGH WE DISAGREE, I RESPECT YOUR OPPINIONS! ALTHOUGH I MAY TEASE A BIT, I THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ MY POST AND REPLY TO IT.

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 01:12 AM

This is boggling my mind, why is it so inconceivable to you to believe that the Ramseys did this? I mean lets say they did do it and it was proven, why is it so hard for you to believe?

It is not too hard for me to believe the other way around but its a little hard because of the behaviors of the parents, if they did not do this, it would be easier to deal with that thought because I find it hard to believe that someone would so brutally murder a child that way, I couldnt picture it because I have children and I love them so much I could never imagine a parent doing this. And I guess I can see if you thought the same way. I read your comments about them having to have some psychosis prior to these acts which in psychology is true, normal parents do not just go out and kill their children, however, maybe no one saw the psychosis or problems before hand, maybe they conceiled what was going on under their roof. Many acts of violence are commited against children and women where the abusers have no prior record of abuse or any mental problems at all, point in case, look at scott peterson, he had nothing at all going on, and look what he did to his wife and unborn child. Many of the child abuse cases I read about in college were mostly where a parent kills a child accidently through violent abuse, but on the outside these parents appeared totally normal. My point being you can t always tell when someone is not normal. I am still trying to figure out why you think they did not do it. Maybe I should read their book although I swore I would not spend a penny on that. Maybe Illtry borrowing it from the librairy, I hope it doesnt give me nightmares....I hate thinking about this case at night as I often do, its haunting. Kept me up alot. Hope JonBenet is in heaven sleeping soundly.....

:rose: sleep peacefully my little angel.

harz

10-05-2006, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
This is boggling my mind, why is it so inconceivable to you to believe that the Ramseys did this? I mean lets say they did do it and it was proven, why is it so hard for you to believe?
Snipped

When I first learned the details of this case two months ago, I believed RDI, and then later believed IDI, now I am back firmly on RDI. I did change my mind the more I learn on this case. It was only two months worth of information available from the websites. I thought it possible IDI people may know more than I do, but their points have not satisfy me yet, perhaps they didn’t explain enough to meet their reasons. Perhaps, because of their beliefs to no matter what evidences were pointing at Ramsey base on their kind of agenda or connection with Ramsey. There’s should be no shame about changing opinions or beliefs on either RDI or IDI, but it might be to some people. There are all kinds of people with different life experiences, knowledge, and influences given them different perspectives on this case from others. JMO

WallyCleaver

10-05-2006, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Just some responses (in blue to humanpolygraph's overwhelming evidence:

This statement is true, however, doesn’t prove the Ramseys wrote the note.

No, it doesn't prove it. Nothing is proven in this case (if it were, we'd have had a trial). It does make it seem more likely that the Rs wrote it - to many of us.

Not true. Six experts were hired, four by the BPD and two by the Ramseys. There was a general consensus that on a scale of 1-5, Patsy’s score was 4.5 that she did NOT write the note. There were also others that could not be excluded. That was a Thomas lie. (see his depo)

I thought there was at least one "expert" (if you can use that term with handwritting analysts) that said it definitely was PR.

Not uncommon. The first thing most people would do is call 911.

I agree, I think most people would call 911 - but maybe not the way they did it. First, PR made no mention at all of the house being watched or the threat of beheading if the police were called. That seems like very important info, if the note is being taken seriously. Though she didn't think to tell the operator of the danger to her little girl, she did manage to mention the note said SBTC. That might be thought important, but probably not as important as safeguarding one's daughter against rerisal for calling the police.

Calling the neighbors shows the Rs didn't beleive the threats in the note - why then would they beleive any of it?

Did you know that Fleet White went into the basement by himself within 15 minutes of his arrival at the house and tampered with possible evidence? Why? Did you also know he went back into that room AFTER JR carried JBR upstairs and even picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket. Why?

It is also NOT true that the wine cellar was the first room he went to. He did NOT go straight to that room. It is also extremely rare that a killer would lead you to a body. They will do everything in their power NOT to be the one to discover a body.

Why would he search the bedrooms? His bedroom is on the entire third floor. He knew nothing was there. They went to JBRs room and she was not there and to Burke’s room where he was in bed. Everyone else is on the first floor. Why not search the basement?

FW picked up the duct tape because it seemed like a piece of evidence.

Why not search everywhere? They weren't looking for a body (supposedly) they were looking for clues. Why not start on the floor they were on?

WallyCleaver

10-05-2006, 04:08 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]Continued:

Odd behavior by whose standards? I have no idea what I would do under the circumstances. This is conjecture.

You can't just claim conjecture when you don't like something. This behavior is noticed by police - they notice Husband and Wife usually stay together in a situation like this. It's much the same as the behavior you cited previously about killers not finding the body if they can possibly avoid it. It's just the normal behavior. Not everyone will behave according to the "norm". But you can't cherry-pick the normal behavior to fit your theory of the case, and call other normal behavior "conjecture".

The Ramseys did take lie detector tests and passed. The very first one that was taken was inconclusive. They were advised by attorneys and were within their legal rights.

They took highly unusual lie detector tests, administered by people of their own choosing. They were within thier rights, but you have to admit they weren't treated like the avearge suspect.

Not true. Some guy by the name of James Rapp impersonated John Ramsey. He was arrested and served jail time for making that call to the hardware store. The receipts were not itemized and many items can cost $2.29 and $1.99 in a hardware store.

It's true other items cost the same. It's also true cord and tape were used in the crime, and everything else used came from the house. Again, just a question of probability. Not conclusive.

JBR was very capable of dressing herself as most six year olds are. There was no reason why Patsy or John had to know what underwear she had on.

Fair point, I think.

False. Don’t even know how to respond to this. You are a Psych major do you really believe a boy questioned for two hours without speaking to his parents first and without their knowledge could really keep a secret about the death of his sister? He had a total of 3-4 interviews for several hours each – I don’t know a 9 year old that is not tough or street-smart that would not slip and say something to authorities. His response about a “secret” was an answer to a question asking him if he knew what a secret was.

Isn't this the same sort of conjecture you were complaining of previously? You don't know whether Burke had a secret to keep or not. Nor do you know if he kept it or not.

Speaking of the 911 tape, Patsy did not hang up Again speculation. There is no proof that those are facts. Again repeated stories – without confirmation.

I agree, no reason to speculate on what PR meant by "help me Jesus".

The neighbor recanted and said she thought it was negative energy whatever that’s supposed to mean. Doesn’t sound too bright does she?

I agree, the neighbor isn't trustworthy. That works against many IDI theories, too. If she never screamed then nothing every "went wrong" and the killer didn't have to make a hasty retreat.

sweetcharlotte

10-05-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Hey -- there's 5 votes here but only 4 accounted for???

At the time that would have been me. :D

(Intruder/no stroke)

elroh6

10-05-2006, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

At the time that would have been me. :D

(Intruder/no stroke) Now it's me. Sometimes I just vote without comment. I voted for intruder. I just don't think a Ramsey is responsible.

MyrDawn

10-05-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by harz
Who & what caused JB's death may be more complicate. Maybe add something to your poll like this for example;
Either of the parents didn't accident or on purpose killed JB, but one or both of them did the staging.
JMO

I agree it's very compilcated. My purpose in the poll wasn't to discuss the reasons we think an intruder or one of the Ramseys are the killer, it's to see how many are 100% positive in what they believe, and how many are willing to concede that there's a chance they might be wrong.

Personally, I believe it was an intruder, but I wouldn't drop over dead if I find out one day it was a Ramsey. I'd guess I'm about 80% sure it was an intruder.

BTW, we're limited to 5 questions in a poll, so I couldn't add ones like "was it a pedophile", or "was it an accident caused by rage", or "was it a stranger to the Ramseys", or "was it done to hide abuse", etc.

Maybe that would be a good poll for someone to start!

Mishell1383

10-05-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by harz

Sorry about that. Hope they find this killer soon. I agree it was probably act out of passion or rage. It reminds me of Ted Bundy or Green River Killer. I believe the killer cut the throat to prevent the screaming sound. If other lady was killed in the same manner as this victim, I believe the police would need to investigate the connections between these 2 women, like if they went to same bar, same class, or anything of similar connecting to a place. Since both victims was murdered on the same street, I am assuming a local stalker living in same neighbor or the killer who worked in these neighbors like delivery, maintence, handyman, etc. If I were you, I would research more about the other victim across street first for comparison. IMO

Thankyou harz! This is just the type of response I was looking for.. I tried looking on information about the other woman but I can't even find a damn newspaper clipping of her murder?? But I'm going to keep looking!! I need to help my friend find answers to this.

And thankyou to everyone else who responded to my post. Like I said I know its not any relation to JBR and I don't want to take away from her forum.. But I KNEW you guys would come back with some responses for me!! :D

rashomon

10-05-2006, 10:01 AM

Every single bit of evidence points to the Ramseys and miles away from any intruder.

Ames

10-05-2006, 10:37 AM

Surprise...Surprise....I voted that one or both Ramsey's killed her, and no other theory is possible.

Mimi428

10-05-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Ames
Surprise...Surprise....I voted that one or both Ramsey's killed her, and no other theory is possible.

Looks like you have 5 people who agree with you on that vote.

O/T - have you cleaned out your mailbox? You have to delete inbox, sent items AND message tracking (in case you didn't know this already).

:seeya:

Ames

10-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Looks like you have 5 people who agree with you on that vote.

O/T - have you cleaned out your mailbox? You have to delete inbox, sent items AND message tracking (in case you didn't know this already).

:seeya:

LOL..no I haven't....thanks for reminding me. :D

BigDeal

10-05-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by rashomon
Every single bit of evidence points to the Ramseys and miles away from any intruder.
I see it as being completely opposite as you see it. However, I do leave open the possibly it could be a Ramsey. Det. Smit did too. I'm curious as to what explanation one has for disagreeing with a very experienced detective that has solved dozens, if not hundreds of murder cases(is it because he is old, or that he "prayed" with the Ramseys?). I just don't get why we are all experts with the wild "theories" and completely ignore the opinion of some one that really knows what he is talking about.

irishlady

10-05-2006, 02:12 PM

From the time i first read about this case ten years ago i immediately felt that the Ramseys were involved.If you were to ask me to pinpoint a paticular reason for this i could'nt say except to say that i've always had a gut feeling about it.Since joining this message board and reading all the details about it i have no reason to change my mind.On the contrary i feel even stronger now that the rdi.jmo

Ames

10-05-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by irishlady
From the time i first read about this case ten years ago i immediately felt that the Ramseys were involved.If you were to ask me to pinpoint a paticular reason for this i could'nt say except to say that i've always had a gut feeling about it.Since joining this message board and reading all the details about it i have no reason to change my mind.On the contrary i feel even stronger now that the rdi.jmo

That's exactly how I feel. I had a gut feeling ten years ago that one of the Ramsey's were involved...at the time I thought Patsy, maybe snapped over a bed wetting incident. But, as I read these post...I am convinced of their involvement. I waffle back and forth on who caused the first injury, though...and WHY. I don't know the reasoning...all I know is that one did it, and the other helped to stage and cover. IMO

rashomon

10-05-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by BigDeal

I see it as being completely opposite as you see it. However, I do leave open the possibly it could be a Ramsey. Det. Smit did too. I'm curious as to what explanation one has for disagreeing with a very experienced detective that has solved dozens, if not hundreds of murder cases(is it because he is old, or that he "prayed" with the Ramseys?). I just don't get why we are all experts with the wild "theories" and completely ignore the opinion of some one that really knows what he is talking about.
It would be interesting to know how many of these murder cases Smit had investigated had to do with a staged scene. According to info from a poster on another forum, none. Most of these murder cases probably had been easy to solve, with a perp who confessed very soon.
It is not about 'us' being experts on anything - it is about cream of the crop experts who totally disagreed with Lou Smit's theory: the guys from the FBI's CASKU unit (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit). The CASKU experts said everything points away from an intruder, and that the scene in the wine cellar was staged.
Did you know that Lou Smit was present during the meeting with the experts from CASKU? Now if he was present, don't you think that Smit, if he was such a great detective, would have presented his intruder theory to these top people?
But no, Smit sat here during the whole meeting and did not once open his mouth. Some great detective. Compared to the people from CASKU someone like Smit is small-fry, nothing more.
Smit eagerly swallowed the Ramseys' staged scene hook, line and sinker. Simply incredible. "I can see the intruder violently pulling at the cord" he said. But that was exactly what the stagers of the scene wanted others to see! That's why they staged it like that.
In is assessment of the case, Smit hardly ever commented on the ransom note, for it did of course not fit into his 'lone sexual predator' theory. For even Lou Smit with his crazy imagination could not offer an explanation why a sexual predator would leave a long faked ransom note with which he would only leave behind incriminating handwriting evidence. Totally absurd. Which is why Louie chose not to build the RN into his theory - a big mistake, for once you offer a theory, you have to take all circumstantial evidence into consideration.
Imo the Heather Dawn Church case he had investigated clouded Smit's judgement, and from that time on he believed that all parents must be innocent.

Everything in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the death of their daughter.
Lou Smit is the one with the wild theories, not those who think the Ramseys did it.

bullmoose

10-05-2006, 03:05 PM

To Ames and irishlady: I am quite sure that we will never agree on the identity of who committed Jonbenet's murder; in my case I thought from the start in 1996 that the Ramseys were involved simply because of the oft-repeated statistic that in about 95% of similar crimes a family member is responsible. I cannot say whether that is accurate and true, but it was what I based my suspicians on her family upon. In 1997, in July, by coincidence my family and I drove right by the Ramey home in Charlevoix, Michigan; I didn't know it was their house, but I made a joke to my family that it must be, because there were easily half a dozen cars parked in front of it with Colorado plates. Later that year I found out that the house we had driven by was indeed the Ramseys' home. At that point, I took an interest in the case and started researching it for myself; as I learned more and more about the case, my opinion of who was responsible changed. Having been myself the victim of a malicious person that set me up to be blamed for a crime I did not commit; the fact that I was innocent meant nothing to the cops involved, all they saw was an easy conviction; these factors made me sensitive to the idea that the Ramseys might be the victims of some malignent, malicious person or persons seeking to destroy the Ramsey's name and lives. Like you with your gut feelings, I have a deep gut feeling that that is what happened. However, gut feelings are not proof, so I come here to read all the posts- pro and con to try to understand better the whole case. Nothing I have seen so far has made me suspicious of the Ramseys' involvment in the murder, but nothing I've seen has pointed the finger definitively at any one in particular; to me the case was so badly botched early on by the BPD that I doubt we will ever know for sure who did it.

bullmoose

10-05-2006, 03:27 PM

Rashoman: Didn't the BPD originally call Smit in on the case; he was retired but worked individual cases from time to time. He had more experiance in murder investigations than the entire BPD ten times over; his method is to go where the evidence leads; to him it led away from the Ramseys,which upset the BPD, which didn't want him to go before the Grand Jury, because his findings contradicted the BPD's theories. I do not think his theories were wild, I think they were the honest conclusions of an honest investigator. I do not think that solving the Dawn Church murder in any way made him suddenly be full of wild theories, I think that it was just one of many difficult murder cases he was able to solve. As for the FBI CASKU unit, wasn't it them or a similar FBI unit that pronouced Richard Jewell as the prime suspect in the Atlanta Olympic bombing, putting Jewell and his family through months of hell, when Jewell was a hero that saved dozens of lives. It turned out to be a nutcase name Rudolf that committed the bombing. The FBI is no more infallible than the gut feelings of an uninformed person off the street, IMO

bullmoose

10-05-2006, 04:19 PM

To the humanpolygraph: Please read other, more truthful books on the Jonbenet case, it'll give you a much more balaced view. Take any side you want, but to quote Twisting Thomas' book as your main source of information robs you of any credibility to many of us on this board,IMO. IMO Thomas' book is a self- justifying diatribe, maybe he believes what he wrote, but not me.

WallyCleaver

10-05-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
Rashoman: Didn't the BPD originally call Smit in on the case; he was retired but worked individual cases from time to time. He had more experiance in murder investigations than the entire BPD ten times over; ...

Sure. Any cop with considerable experience with murder cases has 10 times the experience of the BPD. It's actually quite fortunate for Boulder that their dept has so little murder case experience.

... his method is to go where the evidence leads; ...

Isn't that every detective's method?

... to him it led away from the Ramseys,which upset the BPD, which didn't want him to go before the Grand Jury, because his findings contradicted the BPD's theories. I do not think his theories were wild, I think they were the honest conclusions of an honest investigator. I do not think that solving the Dawn Church murder in any way made him suddenly be full of wild theories, I think that it was just one of many difficult murder cases he was able to solve. ...

He started out RDI, then switched. Perhaps one of his fans could detail the reasons for the switch, if in fact LS has ever explicitly said what the reasons are. Nothing wrong with changing one's mind. It shows he has one.

... As for the FBI CASKU unit, wasn't it them or a similar FBI unit that pronouced Richard Jewell as the prime suspect in the Atlanta Olympic bombing, putting Jewell and his family through months of hell, when Jewell was a hero that saved dozens of lives. It turned out to be a nutcase name Rudolf that committed the bombing. The FBI is no more infallible than the gut feelings of an uninformed person off the street, IMO

The CASKU unit can make a mistake, just like any other organization. Equally LS can make a mistake. I understand your last sentence to mean you don't think much of the FBI. I don't see why you hold this view. I would take the FBI's opinion for the experienced and reasoned opinion that it is - allowing that it's possible for the FBI to be wrong on occassion. I would do the same with Lou Smit. But if I had to favor one opinion over the other, it would be the FBI I'd believe as they collectively have much greater experience than Lou Smit.

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by harz

When I first learned the details of this case two months ago, I believed RDI, and then later believed IDI, now I am back firmly on RDI. I did change my mind the more I learn on this case. It was only two months worth of information available from the websites. I thought it possible IDI people may know more than I do, but their points have not satisfy me yet, perhaps they didn’t explain enough to meet their reasons. Perhaps, because of their beliefs to no matter what evidences were pointing at Ramsey base on their kind of agenda or connection with Ramsey. There’s should be no shame about changing opinions or beliefs on either RDI or IDI, but it might be to some people. There are all kinds of people with different life experiences, knowledge, and influences given them different perspectives on this case from others. JMO

Tis true....that must be one of the factors, what their life experiences are.....that contributes to their beliefs...good point!

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To the humanpolygraph: Please read other, more truthful books on the Jonbenet case, it'll give you a much more balaced view. Take any side you want, but to quote Twisting Thomas' book as your main source of information robs you of any credibility to many of us on this board,IMO. IMO Thomas' book is a self- justifying diatribe, maybe he believes what he wrote, but not me.

How do you know Thomas is lieing? how much is he lieing about? do you recommend another good book to read? Im curious because now I dont know what to believe, but it still will take alot to convince me the parents did not do it, because of their behavior , that is what makes me think they did it. there are so many things Ive read about in articles not only by Thomas, but others to convince me of this its not even funny. But I digress...whats another good book to read?

humanpolygraph

10-05-2006, 06:12 PM

I believe your replies were better than mine lol. I do not know which facts to believe anymore and it disturbs me that so many people think that the parents couldnt possibly have done this, I just dont understand why. What are you beliefs, Im beginning to think that your more for the RDI theory, but not sure...just curious...oh yeah want to get a good laugh...it took me three days of posting on here to figure out what RDI meant and IDI didnt put the two together till just the post above yours. ROTHF!!!!!

irishlady

10-05-2006, 07:27 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bullmoose
Bullmoose i see where you're coming from and i agree.While still believing that the RDI i will always keep an open mind which is why altho i always read these posts i don't often post myself.I know what you mean about being accused for something you did'nt do cos the same thing happened to me (very minor ...fraud actually) and it was awful knowing i had nothing to do with it.I was shown a signature that was so like my own that it could have been mine but because i knew it was'nt i fought them(cops)all the way.Having said that if i had been offered a lie detector test or any test i would've jumped at the chance to clear my name and not thought of saying that i would only take it if i could choose who was to do it.From what i've read the idi's seem to have a problem with the idea that a parent could do such a thing to their child but it happens and as i've posted before even good parents snap.I will continue to read everyones posts with an open mind and pray that someday JB will have justice.After all this is why 10yrs later we still talk about it.jmo

irishlady

10-05-2006, 07:28 PM

Sorry that quote was not by bullmoose but i obviously did something wrong and did'nt get the quote in....sorry bull

docg

10-05-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

Obviously youve taken this way out of proportion. I never once said these were all facts, and I never once said that they killed her on purpose, I said it s my belief that she was accidently harmed then the finished her off, I am entitled to my oppinion as you are yours, And who are you to say its the WRONG BOOK. You are assuming that I am being critical of the other posters when all I did was state my OPPINION, Just because YOU DONT LIKE MY OPPINION does not mean THAT IT IS WRONG LMAO! I have been reading what other posters say and Ive also noticed you have a bad habit of picking on people. You are critisizing the other posters and making accusations about them when were not on here to "argue" agaisnt one another, we are all simply stating our oppionions. I will no longer respond to your rediculous antics unless you actually have something intellegent to say. Stop picking on the other posters and talk about what you think happened, We will listen to your oppinion. Can you do that and be mature without having to pick fights an start crap with people?Now lets wait and seewhat smart ellic remark she replys with next.....
lmao

Excuse me? I thought I was the one taking everything out of proportion. And I certainly have a badder habit of picking on people than Athena! When it comes to just picking, as in pick pick pick, well then maybe she's better than me. But when it comes to the full monte picking on PEOPLE stuff, NO ONE beats docG, ask anyone. Especially Jameson and her pals. But also the BORG folks too. I am an equal opportunity people picker. As in: not suffering FOOLS gladly. (In case you were wondering whether I was talking to YOU personally.) (No, not YOU humanpolygraph, I'd never put down anyone with a cool name like that.)

:tongue:

And no she was NOT accidently harmed, whatever gave you THAT idea?:rolleyes:

If it was an accident it wouldn't have been covered up by a staged murder, what nonsense.

And if she was being molested, then why think in terms of an accident at all?

I'll tell you why. You've been reading Steve Thomas. Stop it, waste of time.

Just my opinion, folks. Right!
:seeya:

Athena

10-05-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Ames and irishlady: I am quite sure that we will never agree on the identity of who committed Jonbenet's murder; in my case I thought from the start in 1996 that the Ramseys were involved simply because of the oft-repeated statistic that in about 95% of similar crimes a family member is responsible. I cannot say whether that is accurate and true, but it was what I based my suspicians on her family upon. In 1997, in July, by coincidence my family and I drove right by the Ramey home in Charlevoix, Michigan; I didn't know it was their house, but I made a joke to my family that it must be, because there were easily half a dozen cars parked in front of it with Colorado plates. Later that year I found out that the house we had driven by was indeed the Ramseys' home. At that point, I took an interest in the case and started researching it for myself; as I learned more and more about the case, my opinion of who was responsible changed. Having been myself the victim of a malicious person that set me up to be blamed for a crime I did not commit; the fact that I was innocent meant nothing to the cops involved, all they saw was an easy conviction; these factors made me sensitive to the idea that the Ramseys might be the victims of some malignent, malicious person or persons seeking to destroy the Ramsey's name and lives. Like you with your gut feelings, I have a deep gut feeling that that is what happened. However, gut feelings are not proof, so I come here to read all the posts- pro and con to try to understand better the whole case. Nothing I have seen so far has made me suspicious of the Ramseys' involvment in the murder, but nothing I've seen has pointed the finger definitively at any one in particular; to me the case was so badly botched early on by the BPD that I doubt we will ever know for sure who did it.

I agree with you bullmoose and can empathize with where you are coming from. Without going into detail my son who was 10 at the time was questioned about an incident he had NOTHING to do with. He wasn't even home but by the time the police finished questioning him about it he had damned near confessed (not literally) nevermind the couple of thousand dollars we had to spend on an attorney. He was scared to death and the police were totally convinced he was involved.

Thank goodness we knew the lacrosse store owner where he was at the time (certainly spent enough money there) and he spoke to the same police officer and was able to provide a confirmed and verified alibi along with receipts that showed the date and time of transactions made at the store. A 15 year old boy who was the culprit was eventually caught along with his other little thug friends. We all come to these kinds of crimes with life experiences and they do influence how we think especially about some police. jmo

DoubleALady

10-05-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Ames

That's exactly how I feel. I had a gut feeling ten years ago that one of the Ramsey's were involved...at the time I thought Patsy, maybe snapped over a bed wetting incident. But, as I read these post...I am convinced of their involvement. I waffle back and forth on who caused the first injury, though...and WHY. I don't know the reasoning...all I know is that one did it, and the other helped to stage and cover. IMO

When this first happened, my gut feeling was that JonBenet was killed by a group of people who were either child porno types or into something satanic. I also felt the parents were very much a part of her murder.

I recently checked out the Ramseys' book "Death of Innocence" at the library. It has totally changed my mind about the Ramseys being involved in their daughter's death. I am not going to be able to read the book because I can't see through my tears. Never have I had a book touch me like this one.

In my present opinion, it is completely impossible for a parent who was involved in the death of their child could write this book. It is so authentic, so totally believable, and could not have been written by murderers.

It had to be an intruder.

I read now where they have turned Karr loose in California. I believe it is highly probable that the murderer is deceased.

Athena

10-05-2006, 07:56 PM

docg

10-05-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hey docg :seeya: Actually missed ya around. Although we don't agree, I've said before I found your posts to be interesting. But am I really perceived as a "picker" just cause I don't agree with someone's opinion? Oh well..... not going to stop now. :biggrin:

BTW: I'm almost sure you won't agree but would like your thoughts about SBTC representing Small Business Coalition??

(Also had to remove your icons cause it was interfering in the count)

Hi Athena, nice seeing you too.

I don't care for that Small Business stuff because I like to think BIG!

How about: Some Big Time CEO?

:patriot:

LadyFisher

10-05-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Sure. Any cop with considerable experience with murder cases has 10 times the experience of the BPD. It's actually quite fortunate for Boulder that their dept has so little murder case experience.

Isn't that every detective's method?

He started out RDI, then switched. Perhaps one of his fans could detail the reasons for the switch, if in fact LS has ever explicitly said what the reasons are. Nothing wrong with changing one's mind. It shows he has one.

The CASKU unit can make a mistake, just like any other organization. Equally LS can make a mistake. I understand your last sentence to mean you don't think much of the FBI. I don't see why you hold this view. I would take the FBI's opinion for the experienced and reasoned opinion that it is - allowing that it's possible for the FBI to be wrong on occassion. I would do the same with Lou Smit. But if I had to favor one opinion over the other, it would be the FBI I'd believe as they collectively have much greater experience than Lou Smit. Wally, you really should read the book by John Douglas, if you would respect the FBI opinion.....He even mentions in his book about Ron Walker of the Bureau's Denver Field Office...as a matter of fact, he is a friend of JD's and was trained by him...he suggested that BPD look closely at the parents, which is the normal thing to do.....He did pledge them whatever assistance they needed from the FBI the police would need...Similar offers would come from Denver PD and CO Bureau of Investigation, unfortunately they didn't take them up on their offers according to Douglas....You asked why Smit changed his mind? I can only assume he did so because he felt the evidence or lack thereof led him to believe there was an intruder! :seeya:

LadyFisher

10-05-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by DoubleALady

When this first happened, my gut feeling was that JonBenet was killed by a group of people who were either child porno types or into something satanic. I also felt the parents were very much a part of her murder.

I recently checked out the Ramseys' book "Death of Innocence" at the library. It has totally changed my mind about the Ramseys being involved in their daughter's death. I am not going to be able to read the book because I can't see through my tears. Never have I had a book touch me like this one.

In my present opinion, it is completely impossible for a parent who was involved in the death of their child could write this book. It is so authentic, so totally believable, and could not have been written by murderers.

It had to be an intruder.

I read now where they have turned Karr loose in California. I believe it is highly probable that the murderer is deceased. I've read the book, and I thought they were very honest in it.....I don't know if everyone would/could understand many of their reactions and demeanor unless they had been through a tragedy of a child themselves! :seeya:

thewhitewitch1

10-05-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by DoubleALady

When this first happened, my gut feeling was that JonBenet was killed by a group of people who were either child porno types or into something satanic. I also felt the parents were very much a part of her murder.

I recently checked out the Ramseys' book "Death of Innocence" at the library. It has totally changed my mind about the Ramseys being involved in their daughter's death. I am not going to be able to read the book because I can't see through my tears. Never have I had a book touch me like this one.

In my present opinion, it is completely impossible for a parent who was involved in the death of their child could write this book. It is so authentic, so totally believable, and could not have been written by murderers.

It had to be an intruder.

I read their book too and had the opposit reaction to it. I found it devoid of any real emotion and seemed focused more on themselves and their "woe is me" drama about the media and being accused. There really wasn't much of Jonbenet in it, IMO.
Wondering exactly

I read now where they have turned Karr loose in California. I believe it is highly probable that the murderer is deceased. whos "Death of Innocence" they were refering to...theirs or JBs. :(

harz

10-05-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
whos "Death of Innocence" they were refering to...theirs or JBs. :(

That's what I thought, that why I am curious about this book. :)

Athena

10-05-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by docg

Hi Athena, nice seeing you too.

I don't care for that Small Business stuff because I like to think BIG!

How about: Some Big Time CEO?

:patriot:

OK-have to admit- I did laugh as I read this! :lol:

thewhitewitch1

10-05-2006, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by harz

That's what I thought, that why I am curious about this book. :)

Geeze..half of my post got lost somehow! I was saying how I thought that their book was devoid of emotion and it did not move me in the least. I had a hard time getting through it. The book wasn't even about JB...it was more of a "woe is me" drama for the Ramseys for being accused and hounded by the media.

WallyCleaver

10-06-2006, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Geeze..half of my post got lost somehow! I was saying how I thought that their book was devoid of emotion and it did not move me in the least. I had a hard time getting through it. The book wasn't even about JB...it was more of a "woe is me" drama for the Ramseys for being accused and hounded by the media.

Sounds like the "honesty" of the book will only impress those already in the IDI camp - those starting from the premise that the parents couldn't possibly do this.

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 06:43 AM

lucky13

10-06-2006, 07:47 AM

I voted that I'm a RDI believer, but I know there is a chance that I'm wrong.
I also just bought Death of Innocence & have started reading it. I'm finding it hard to get through it. Of course they are portraying themselves as the PERFECT family(before JB's murder). It's so sugary sweet, I find it to be very unrealistic. No one has such perfect kids who never misbehave. And no one has such a blissful, perfect marraige with no problems at all. That's why I'm finding the rest of it to be unbelievable. It's like a 'story' that they've written, based on wishful thinking IMO.

rashomon

10-06-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by DoubleALady

When this first happened, my gut feeling was that JonBenet was killed by a group of people who were either child porno types or into something satanic. I also felt the parents were very much a part of her murder.

I recently checked out the Ramseys' book "Death of Innocence" at the library. It has totally changed my mind about the Ramseys being involved in their daughter's death. I am not going to be able to read the book because I can't see through my tears. Never have I had a book touch me like this one.

In my present opinion, it is completely impossible for a parent who was involved in the death of their child could write this book. It is so authentic, so totally believable, and could not have been written by murderers.

It had to be an intruder.

I read now where they have turned Karr loose in California. I believe it is highly probable that the murderer is deceased.
Don't forget that Patsy was a journalism major, and therefore writing a book destined to jerk tears because this would serve the Ramseys' purpose should have been fairly easy for her. But imo it is a non-sequitur to conclude that the parents must be innocent because of a book they obviously wrote to serve their own interests.
The Ramseys have always been masters at manipulating people - a typical characteristic of many sociopaths.

rashomon

10-06-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
his method is to go where the evidence leads
Lou Smit completely disregarded the forensic evidence. Has he ever commented on the fibers from Patsy's jacket on the duct tape in the wrappings of the garrote and in the paint tray? Or on the fibers from John's shirt in the crotch area of JB's panties? What did he say about the ransom note with its small foreign faction? Next to nothing.
Why was duct tape placed on a dead child's mouth? Has smit ever ansered that? No. Why were the ligatures so loose and the (per Smit) 'sophisticated' garrote turned out to be a simple knot tied at the back of JB's neck, and the remaining cord clumsily wrapped around a broken stick.
Instead Lou Smit fantasized about the garrote being an 'erotic asphyxiation' device. But one can't pull a cord to do any 'breath control' when there is already a fixed knot.
Delmar England, who did a fantastic analysis of the staged scene, said that Lou Smit knew no more about garrotes that the person who clumsily fashioned it.
Lou Smit saw what the stager of the scene wanted him to see.

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Don't forget that Patsy was a journalism major, and therefore writing a book destined to jerk tears because this would serve the Ramseys' purpose should have been fairly easy for her. But imo it is a non-sequitur to conclude that the parents must be innocent because of a book they obviously wrote to serve their own interests.
The Ramseys have always been masters at manipulating people - a typical characteristic of many sociopaths. So, are you trying to say that you believe BOTH John and Patsy are sociopaths? :confused: I read their book...My impression..it was a straighforward account of their experience...I didn't seen them trying to manipulate the reader into tears for them...I saw it as two people who endured some horrible tragedies and became stronger for them!

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

It would be interesting to know how many of these murder cases Smit had investigated had to do with a staged scene. According to info from a poster on another forum, none. Most of these murder cases probably had been easy to solve, with a perp who confessed very soon.
It is not about 'us' being experts on anything - it is about cream of the crop experts who totally disagreed with Lou Smit's theory: the guys from the FBI's CASKU unit (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit). The CASKU experts said everything points away from an intruder, and that the scene in the wine cellar was staged.
Did you know that Lou Smit was present during the meeting with the experts from CASKU? Now if he was present, don't you think that Smit, if he was such a great detective, would have presented his intruder theory to these top people?
But no, Smit sat here during the whole meeting and did not once open his mouth. Some great detective. Compared to the people from CASKU someone like Smit is small-fry, nothing more.
Smit eagerly swallowed the Ramseys' staged scene hook, line and sinker. Simply incredible. "I can see the intruder violently pulling at the cord" he said. But that was exactly what the stagers of the scene wanted others to see! That's why they staged it like that.
In is assessment of the case, Smit hardly ever commented on the ransom note, for it did of course not fit into his 'lone sexual predator' theory. For even Lou Smit with his crazy imagination could not offer an explanation why a sexual predator would leave a long faked ransom note with which he would only leave behind incriminating handwriting evidence. Totally absurd. Which is why Louie chose not to build the RN into his theory - a big mistake, for once you offer a theory, you have to take all circumstantial evidence into consideration.
Imo the Heather Dawn Church case he had investigated clouded Smit's judgement, and from that time on he believed that all parents must be innocent.

Everything in this case points to the Ramseys' involvement in the death of their daughter.
Lou Smit is the one with the wild theories, not those who think the Ramseys did it. If you were guilty of murdering your daughter and covering it up...would you really allow your attorney to hire a man with the credientals of John Douglas (who was a major player in getting the FBI program off the ground)? Guilty people do not hire the best experts in the country to help find their daughter's murderer! imho

Mimi428

10-06-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Sounds like the "honesty" of the book will only impress those already in the IDI camp - those starting from the premise that the parents couldn't possibly do this.

Have you read the reviews - professional & amateur on Amazon.com? There are a little under 200 of them - & time after time after time you see the book & the Ramsey parents described as "self-serving" or "whiny" or "indulgent" or "holier than thou".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451409736/ref=olp_product_details/104-5842911-5730354?ie=UTF8

Ames

10-06-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
I voted that I'm a RDI believer, but I know there is a chance that I'm wrong.
I also just bought Death of Innocence & have started reading it. I'm finding it hard to get through it. Of course they are portraying themselves as the PERFECT family(before JB's murder). It's so sugary sweet, I find it to be very unrealistic. No one has such perfect kids who never misbehave. And no one has such a blissful, perfect marraige with no problems at all. That's why I'm finding the rest of it to be unbelievable. It's like a 'story' that they've written, based on wishful thinking IMO.

Yeah, they are really good at writing stories, but they had plenty of practice when one of them wrote the ransom letter. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

Why were the ligatures so loose and the (per Smit) 'sophisticated' garrote turned out to be a simple knot tied at the back of JB's neck, and the remaining cord clumsily wrapped around a broken stick.
Instead Lou Smit fantasized about the garrote being an 'erotic asphyxiation' device. But one can't pull a cord to do any 'breath control' when there is already a fixed knot.
Delmar England, who did a fantastic analysis of the staged scene, said that Lou Smit knew no more about garrotes that the person who clumsily fashioned it.
Lou Smit saw what the stager of the scene wanted him to see.

A look at the sixth photo down (if you can stomach it) will show the bottom of the two layers of cord that were wrapped around JonBenet's throat in that clumsily-fashioned piece of stagecraft. You have to look carefully, as the bottom layer of cord (with the knotted top layer having been cut off and removed) remains embedded in her neck. A garrotte is the weapon of an assassin. There is nothing sexual about it. The knot was tied and JonBenet was left to die from a lack of blood to the brain. She was six years old. It was not loose, clumsily-fashioned, or sexual. It was murder.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

Ames

10-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Hey docg :seeya: Actually missed ya around. Although we don't agree, I've said before I found your posts to be interesting. But am I really perceived as a "picker" just cause I don't agree with someone's opinion? Oh well..... not going to stop now. :biggrin:

BTW: I'm almost sure you won't agree but would like your thoughts about SBTC representing Small Business Coalition??

(Also had to remove your icons cause it was interfering in the count)

Athena..I just wanted to say that you are the nicest IDI out there. I have never read a mean or sarcastic post from you. Just wanted to let you know that we RDI's appreciate it.

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Athena..I just wanted to say that you are the nicest IDI out there. I have never read a mean or sarcastic post from you. Just wanted to let you know that we RDI's appreciate it.

I would like to second that, Athena. Actually LadyFisher is very nice too.

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 11:40 AM

I checked "probably an intruder". There are things that bother me about the Ramseys' reaction to the kidnapping. The question of possible chronic sexual abuse, also, bothers me. I just can't see the garrotting as a Ramsey crime or as staging by a parent. It is too cruel. The "staging" is overdone and points directly to the Ramseys. Why would they do that?

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Ames

<snip>

Just wanted to let you know that we RDI's appreciate it.

"We RDI's?" ROFL......

In addition to Athena & LadyFisher, I think MissO, bullmoose, and myrdawn fall into that category as well.

Mimi428

10-06-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
The "staging" is overdone and points directly to the Ramseys. Why would they do that?

<snipped>

If you consider other things the Ramseys did in their lives that could realistically be considered "overdone" - it isn't hard to grasp why the staging was ALSO overdone.

Patsy, in particular, had a very long history of overdoing so MANY things. If one was enough for regular folks - she had several. Like Christmas trees.

To me, the overdoing of the note & the crime scene are an example of how leopards cannot change their spots. Patsy was "conspicuous consumption" through & through - she seemed to be one of those folks who overdoes EVERYTHING.

JMO

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I checked "probably an intruder". There are things that bother me about the Ramseys' reaction to the kidnapping. The question of possible chronic sexual abuse, also, bothers me. I just can't see the garrotting as a Ramsey crime or as staging by a parent. It is too cruel. The "staging" is overdone and points directly to the Ramseys. Why would they do that? What bothers you about their reaction to a kidnapping....imho any parent would have immediately contacted the police! I truly do not think there was signs of chronic sexual molestation.....I've read thoroughly what her own pediatrican has had to say and what others have had to say on this board...imho there is no way this was staging by a parent...this was a mission oriented murder...the perps mission was to violate and kill John Ramseys daughter...he was full of anger and resentment (and I don't know why) at JR....the killer is a sick sociopath in the truest sense imho

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

"We RDI's?" ROFL......

In addition to Athena & LadyFisher, I think MissO, bullmoose, and myrdawn fall into that category as well.

As modesty prevents sweetcharlotte from naming herself, I will. Sweetcharlotte.

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

If you consider other things the Ramseys did in their lives that could realistically be considered "overdone" - it isn't hard to grasp why the staging was ALSO overdone.

Patsy, in particular, had a very long history of overdoing so MANY things. If one was enough for regular folks - she had several. Like Christmas trees.

To me, the overdoing of the note & the crime scene are an example of how leopards cannot change their spots. Patsy was "conspicuous consumption" through & through - she seemed to be one of those folks who overdoes EVERYTHING.

JMO

This has occurred to me, Mimi.

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 12:02 PM

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
What bothers you about their reaction to a kidnapping....imho any parent would have immediately contacted the police! I truly do not think there was signs of chronic sexual molestation.....I've read thoroughly what her own pediatrican has had to say and what others have had to say on this board...imho there is no way this was staging by a parent...this was a mission oriented murder...the perps mission was to violate and kill John Ramseys daughter...he was full of anger and resentment (and I don't know why) at JR....the killer is a sick sociopath in the truest sense imho

I am still having trouble with the fact that Burke wasn't woken up and questioned. And that he was left alone, asleep, upstairs. Their daughter had just disappeared under the same conditions. I would think that instinct would have made them want to keep Burke where they could see and touch him at all times at that point, in case he, too, disappeared. I, also, have trouble with the fact that friends were called over.

The chronic inflammation was not necessarily caused by sexual abuse. And sexual abuse would not necessarily have been done by a parent. I am just allowing for the possibility of it.

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

I am still having trouble with the fact that Burke wasn't woken up and questioned. And that he was left alone, asleep, upstairs. Their daughter had just disappeared under the same conditions. I would think that instinct would have made them want to keep Burke where they could see and touch him at all times at that point, in case he, too, disappeared. I, also, have trouble with the fact that friends were called over.

The chronic inflammation was not necessarily caused by sexual abuse. And sexual abuse would not necessarily have been done by a parent. I am just allowing for the possibility of it. They had just gotten out of bed...I can't imagine what would be running through their minds...I haven't been in their shoes in a situation like that...but the murder and the ransom note doesn't point me to the Ramseys at all.....this perp was a movie fanatic..can't you just see a movie character saying ..we are a small foreign faction..how bizarre is that..:confused: the Ramseys didn't have the time to watch all of these movies...and I'm certain they wouldn't have found them entertaining...they were older people imho the perp is a younger man...something triggered him that day..he had been in the home before...I do believe he was either an employee or the son of one of them...perhaps John had fired his dad..I am beginning to believe the ransom note was an afterthough once he entered the home...I don't think he ever had any intention of getting any money...he is one sick puppy imho

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher

<snp>

this perp was a movie fanatic..can't you just see a movie character saying ..we are a small foreign faction..how bizarre is that..:confused: the Ramseys didn't have the time to watch all of these movies...and I'm certain they wouldn't have found them entertaining...they were older people imho the perp is a younger man...something triggered him that day..he had been in the home before...I do believe he was either an employee or the son of one of them...perhaps John had fired his dad..I am beginning to believe the ransom note was an afterthough once he entered the home...I don't think he ever had any intention of getting any money...he is one sick puppy imho

FWIW - this link provides info about movies, i.e., the ones "used" in the ransom note, and the ones mentioned by the Ramseys.

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

JMO

Mimi428

10-06-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Mimi, with all due respect...have several Christmas trees is not a sign of anything...

Context! Consider the context. Multiple Christmas trees alone do not make or break the "overdone" aspect of Patsy's nature - they simply provide one example.

Patsy & her sisters were raised to be perfectionists - re: competition in pageant stuff, etc. I seriously doubt any of the most avid Patsy supporters would deny that she was meticulous. I do not think she subscribed to the theory that 'good is good enough' - she demonstrated over & over again that her personal beliefs were more along the lines of you must be BEST. You cannot obtain being 'best' by overlooking details - you obtain 'best' status by covering every possible base, repeatedly.

And, to me, that RN screams 'Patsy, Patsy, Patsy' - covering ALL the bases. Just like she did with JonBenet's pageant stuff - she wasn't content with a "good" costume - she made sure it was the "best" costume.

Overdone. Through & through. In Patsy's life & in the crime scene & in the ransom note.

A leopard cannot change its spots.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 01:14 PM

A problem with Patsy having written the ransom note is that that would mean she either killed JonBenet, herself, or she was covering for either John or Burke. Who constructed that garrotte? Patsy? With her own paintbrush and, then, left a piece for police to find? I doubt she would even have had the strength to break the paintbrush into three pieces. If it were Patsy, wouldn't the paintbrush have been used whole? It could have been. The same would apply to Burke. Not strong enough. And, if she was covering for Burke, he never would have been allowed to return to school right away imo. He would have been privately tutored with the excuse that they were in fear something would happen to him. Was Patsy covering for John? IMO Patsy would have called 911 on John and he would have been lucky to have still been alive, when police arrived. That is why I don't think Patsy wrote the note.

MOO

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I would like to second that, Athena. Actually LadyFisher is very nice too. Thank you, White...I just read this....I have my "moody" days, too..but Althena is one of the kindest posters here imo....I wish both sides of the fence would realize that we're not enemies at war here...we're just people posting our opinions! Have a great day, folks! :seeya:

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Context! Consider the context. Multiple Christmas trees alone do not make or break the "overdone" aspect of Patsy's nature - they simply provide one example.

Patsy & her sisters were raised to be perfectionists - re: competition in pageant stuff, etc. I seriously doubt any of the most avid Patsy supporters would deny that she was meticulous. I do not think she subscribed to the theory that 'good is good enough' - she demonstrated over & over again that her personal beliefs were more along the lines of you must be BEST. You cannot obtain being 'best' by overlooking details - you obtain 'best' status by covering every possible base, repeatedly.

And, to me, that RN screams 'Patsy, Patsy, Patsy' - covering ALL the bases. Just like she did with JonBenet's pageant stuff - she wasn't content with a "good" costume - she made sure it was the "best" costume.

Overdone. Through & through. In Patsy's life & in the crime scene & in the ransom note.

A leopard cannot change its spots.

JMO

Overdone? Perhaps by some people's standards, but probably not by Patsy. A Christmas tree in every room? I have a friend who has a Christmas tree in a lot of different rooms every year - each with a different theme. I also have a friend who floats a Christmas tree on her lake - lighted day and night for the entire month of December. She also decorates her barn which is absolutely gorgeous. I have another friend who has a party each year called "Cider in the Barn." This barn houses her thoroughbred horses. We have to watch our P&Qs so as not to spook them horses. People do these things because they enjoy doing them and because they have the money. Just like Patsy.

With regard to JonBenet's costumes - isn't that a part of what they are judged on? She wanted JonBenet to win, it was something they enjoyed, and she had the money for the costumes. Not a problem for me.

Meticulous - I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but from what I've read she wasn't meticulous in everything - her basement was a mess, the housekeeper complained because Burke left shavings everywhere and indicated that didn't seem to bother Patsy, JonBenet wet the bed and by all accounts Patsy took that in stride, and much to Steve Thomas' chagrin she wore the same clothes two days in a row. They drove a Jeep Cherokee and a Jaguar. Where was the Mercedes and Rolls if everything had to be "the best?"

While she was demonstrating being the best she and John donated $10K to their church and helped get a program started for children. They were also instrumental in establishing the school that JonBenet and Burke attended. Patsy continued to work as a fundraiser for the school.

When you subscribe to being a winner - which is exactly what Patsy was - you try to be the best. She succeeded in becoming Miss Virginia, married a successful business man, and had two beautiful children. And for several years, she succeeded in holding at bay the cancer that ultimately took her life.

Everyone just can't be measured by the same standards.

You're right about one thing - a leopard cannot change it's spots and Patsy didn't change from a loving mother to a child killer in one evening.

JMO

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Overdone? Perhaps by some people's standards, but probably not by Patsy. A Christmas tree in every room? I have a friend who has a Christmas tree in a lot of different rooms every year - each with a different theme. I also have a friend who floats a Christmas tree on her lake - lighted day and night for the entire month of December. She also decorates her barn which is absolutely gorgeous. I have another friend who has a party each year called "Cider in the Barn." This barn houses her thoroughbred horses. We have to watch our P&Qs so as not to spook them horses. People do these things because they enjoy doing them and because they have the money. Just like Patsy.

With regard to JonBenet's costumes - isn't that a part of what they are judged on? She wanted JonBenet to win, it was something they enjoyed, and she had the money for the costumes. Not a problem for me.

Meticulous - I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but from what I've read she wasn't meticulous in everything - her basement was a mess, the housekeeper complained because Burke left shavings everywhere and indicated that didn't seem to bother Patsy, JonBenet wet the bed and by all accounts Patsy took that in stride, and much to Steve Thomas' chagrin she wore the same clothes two days in a row. They drove a Jeep Cherokee and a Jaguar. Where was the Mercedes and Rolls if everything had to be "the best?"

While she was demonstrating being the best she and John donated $10K to their church and helped get a program started for children. They were also instrumental in establishing the school that JonBenet and Burke attended. Patsy continued to work as a fundraiser for the school.

When you subscribe to being a winner - which is exactly what Patsy was - you try to be the best. She succeeded in becoming Miss Virginia, married a successful business man, and had two beautiful children. And for several years, she succeeded in holding at bay the cancer that ultimately took her life.

Everyone just can't be measured by the same standards.

You're right about one thing - a leopard cannot change it's spots and Patsy didn't change from a loving mother to a child killer in one evening.

JMO :beer: Thank you for your insight!

Poster

10-06-2006, 03:59 PM

so far over half of the votes include "no other theory is possible" Thats pretty sad and indicates extremely low levels of mental capacity IMO

rashomon

10-06-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

A look at the sixth photo down (if you can stomach it) will show the bottom of the two layers of cord that were wrapped around JonBenet's throat in that clumsily-fashioned piece of stagecraft. You have to look carefully, as the bottom layer of cord (with the knotted top layer having been cut off and removed) remains embedded in her neck. A garrotte is the weapon of an assassin. There is nothing sexual about it. The knot was tied and JonBenet was left to die from a lack of blood to the brain. She was six years old. It was not loose, clumsily-fashioned, or sexual. It was murder.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm
Imo everyone posting on true crime forums should be able to stomach autopsy pictures, for you will come across them, no matter what. If you can't stand the heat, stay away from the fire.
Autopsy pictures help to clarify things, painful as they are to look at.
I know all the pictures in the link you have posted.

But what I meant by 'loose' ligatures were the ligatures around JB's wrists, not the ligature around her neck.
They were so loosely tied that one came off during the autopsy. And there was a seventeen-inch-space of cord between the wrist ligatures, which is why even a child would have been able to get her hands free. If the child had been alive, that is. The ligatures around JB's wrists just scream staging.

In terms of the ligature around her neck: where does it say that a 'knotted top layer had been cut off'? Coroner Dr. Meyer does not say anything about a double layer of cord in his autopsy report.
Meyer speaks of a 'double knot', which is something else: he means the knot tied at the back of JB's neck. This knot btw contradicts any garroting fantasy on the part of Lou Smit: a fixed knot excludes any garroting activity, simple as that.
And if you look at he picture of the back of JB's neck, you don't see a second furrow in JB's neck. This too precludes that there were two layers of ligature. And the official autopsy text next to the photos in your link doesn't say one word about a second ligature around JB's neck either.
You said that there is nothing sexual about the garrote and that it was the weapon of an assassin.
You should tell that to Ramsey advocate to Lou Smit who was firmly convinced that this was an 'erotic asphyxiation device', lol.
I don't think the ligature was sexual either. I think it was done for staging purposes by parents who thought their child was already dead from the head bash. Imo no one 'assassined' JB: neither the Ramseys nor a mythical 'intruder'.

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

In terms of the ligature around her neck: where does it say that a 'knotted top layer had been cut off'? Coroner Dr. Meyer does not say anything about a double layer of cord in his autopsy report.
Meyer speaks of a 'double knot', which is something else: he means the knot tied at the back of JB's neck. This knot btw contradicts any garroting fantasy on the part of Lou Smit: a fixed knot excludes any garroting activity, simple as that.
And if you look at he picture of the back of JB's neck, you don't see a second furrow in JB's neck. This too precludes that there were two layers of ligature. And the official autopsy text next to the photos in your link doesn't say one word about a second ligature around JB's neck either.

Rashomon, in PMPT, Schiller says that some things were redacted from the autopsy report, when it was released to the public. They wanted to hold back some information that only the real killer would know. I believe the fact that the cord was wrapped around twice might have been one of those things. The only reference to it that I can find is Linda Arndt's interview on GMA. Linda was present at the autopsy and may not have known that this wasn't mentioned in the autopsy report that was released to the public. I believe the sixth photo down in that link shows the bottom layer of cord embedded in JonBenet's neck and that the photo was released by mistake because it is so difficult to detect. The cord was pulled so tight that the top layer of cord lay directly on top of the bottom layer. There was only one furrow.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/31.html

CHARLES GIBSON This morning, one of the most controversial chapters of the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation, the autopsy. Former Boulder, Colorado, detective Linda Arndt was there for the autopsy, and today in the third part of an exclusive interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, she describes what she saw.
In her career as a detective, Arndt says she worked a number of murder cases, which included sitting in on autopsies. But she says nothing prepared her for this one.
LINDA ARNDT I hadn’t seen savagery done to a child or even an adult until the doctor peeled back her scalp, and saw that horrific - God! - fracture to her head. It was the length of her head.
ELIZABETH VARGAS, ABCNEWS (VO) It was eight and a half inches long.
LINDA ARNDT The doctor hadn’t seen an injury like that. I just couldn’t believe what was done to her body. Her head, the depth of that ligature around her neck. It was so deep that twice that cord had been wrapped around her neck and the - it looked like it was only one loose time around. And she had trauma to her vagina.

Ames

10-06-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

"We RDI's?" ROFL......

In addition to Athena & LadyFisher, I think MissO, bullmoose, and myrdawn fall into that category as well.

Yep...you are right...those you mentioned ARE really nice too!!! Didn't mean to leave you guys out, I was in a hurry when I wrote that post. Now I feel BAD!!! WE RDI's (LOL) take notice of the polite IDI's. IMO

bookratt

10-06-2006, 07:58 PM

..whether in a beauty pageant or in real life.

Patsy knew that, and played that angle to the hilt. And it eventually played a hand in her own undoing.

Ugly girls don't get to be the wife of a CEO. If they do, or if they start out pretty and begin to be dumpy, they don't stay married very long. Their husbands leave or stay married out of a sense of loyalty and propriety, but end up turning elsewhere.

Ugly children aren't paraded around like show-horses at pageants. If they are, they don't win the prizes that matter. Miss Congeniality? Nice to win it once or twice, but all pageant mamas and their babies REALLY want the pretty crowns, to be number one and to have people look at them, notice them and be envious of them.

I would have been much more impressed by Patsy and her money if she had achieved something on her own with her own talents and or had earned the money herself.

Being born beautiful means you were born lucky. Just like being born seriously brain damaged means you were born unlucky. You did nothing to achieve it, have nothing to do with its effect on others and have no control over it and its creation.

Being beautiful isn't a profession or a lifestyle, unless you're Cindy Crawford. It's nothing to be proud of, like becoming a doctor is or volunteering in the peace corps is.

I admire teachers and lawyers more than ex- beauty queens.

But that's just me.

Opulence, overindulgence, overdoing it? NOT a virtue. EXCESS IS ALWAYS VULGAR, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE.

The Ramsey's weren't rich, they were noveau riche. And there's a HUGE difference.

Money doesn't buy class.

As evidenced by their shameful book, DOI, in which JB is discussed little, if at all. But PR and JRs needs, desires, wants and disappointments are discussed, and their achievements and successes are trumpeted---over and over---as if they were three-year- olds saying "look at us, we're special" and their good time was spoiled when JB had the nerve to be "found" dead in their home. That book was one giant "please feel sorry for us" plea, along with some serious pouting that masqueraded as "we are so devastated by her death".

Unfortunately, appearances do matter. After seeing the Ramseys on Larry King Live and then reading DOI years ago, both charades left such a bad taste in my mouth that I eventually went over to the RDI camp.

If Patsy thought she was a writer, someone should have told her that a BS in journalism does not a writer make. It takes effort and talent, neither of which is apparent in this book. And if the ghostwriter who "helped" them put this thing together was paid well, the family deserves a refund. You might as well say they helped the Ramseys hang themselves in the court of public opinion.

Good PR and legal counsel would have halted that LKL performance before it ever happened. A good PR or legal person would have said "no book, not now or ever ---especialy not this self serving piece of crap".

Again, money desn't buy class.

sweetcharlotte

10-06-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by bookratt
[B

<snip>

Again, money desn't buy class. [/B]

Lucky for the Ramseys - they didn't need to buy it - they had it from the start and have maintained it through ten years of speculation and innuendo.

JMO

Athena

10-06-2006, 08:32 PM

harz

10-06-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Poster
so far over half of the votes include "no other theory is possible" Thats pretty sad and indicates extremely low levels of mental capacity IMO

What about ones believe intruder with no other theory possible? basically its 50% on both RDI & IDI, some are too sure while others aren't. I believe RDI, but wouldnt get stroke if it was intruder. If it was intruder, I would want to ask Ramsey why the cover up to protect this killer. This case is grey matter, not black or white to me. JMO

Athena

10-06-2006, 08:57 PM

Hi all :seeya:

Thanks for the "nice" comments but In general I believe most of the posters here are good people; we just have differences in our opinions. It is human nature to "bond" more with people that share your views in a particular case.

Just looking at the thread where John Karr was released whether we are IDI, RDI or on the fence, it appears not one of us wanted to see the pervert released.

I have made quite a few "faceless" friends at this CTV site, even those I vehemently disagreed with on certain cases. Eventually it is more than possible we will run into a case where all of us just might agree. Until then just be civil and try not to get banned and forced to change your nic so at least we'll know who you are ...... :biggrin:

Devotion

10-06-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Geeze..half of my post got lost somehow! I was saying how I thought that their book was devoid of emotion and it did not move me in the least. I had a hard time getting through it. The book wasn't even about JB...it was more of a "woe is me" drama for the Ramseys for being accused and hounded by the media.
:read: imo: I felt the same way when I read it...jmo

Athena

10-06-2006, 09:08 PM

Just wanted to add one thing: I think if everyone that makes statements as facts would supply links to those statements it would cut down on much of the animosity between the groups. I believe when you read a statement that is not supported by a credible link or reference, it does cause another poster to 'challenge' you which could account for some of the adverse comments I've seen.

Just a thought ........ and JMHO

humanpolygraph

10-06-2006, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by docg

Excuse me? I thought I was the one taking everything out of proportion. And I certainly have a badder habit of picking on people than Athena! When it comes to just picking, as in pick pick pick, well then maybe she's better than me. But when it comes to the full monte picking on PEOPLE stuff, NO ONE beats docG, ask anyone. Especially Jameson and her pals. But also the BORG folks too. I am an equal opportunity people picker. As in: not suffering FOOLS gladly. (In case you were wondering whether I was talking to YOU personally.) (No, not YOU humanpolygraph, I'd never put down anyone with a cool name like that.)

:tongue:

And no she was NOT accidently harmed, whatever gave you THAT idea?:rolleyes:

If it was an accident it wouldn't have been covered up by a staged murder, what nonsense.

And if she was being molested, then why think in terms of an accident at all?

I'll tell you why. You've been reading Steve Thomas. Stop it, waste of time.

Just my opinion, folks. Right!
:seeya:

You can pick on whoever you want to I wasnt even referring to you, I guess Im just not used to talking on message boards because Ive never done it before this, true crime interests me and I just thought Id see what other information is out there...I guess im not used to being confronted that way and I set myself up for it by stating my oppinion. No harm done. And I was not trying to be kewl by calling myself humanpolygraph, it was a joke that my friend used to call me...thats all.

I have a few questions since yall seem to be more informed than I am, or at least I thought I was,

Who is this Jameson that everyone is talking about???

Where is the link where Steve thomas contraindicts himself, Ive gotta read this!!!

Why on earth would you think that if JonBenet was killed by accident that it would NOT have been covered up by a staged murder? Just imagine if Patsy really did accidently hurt her and she was almost dead before she was strangled, how else they going to cover that up? They may have feared they would be in serious trouble if department of youth and family sevices got involved, who knows what they were thinking.

Why do you think that no accident occured that night?

Why do you think an intruder would sit around in their house writing an obscure 3 page randsom note? And further more with all the things found right in the house...

And just one more question, how do IDI people explain the fact that Patsy was wearing the same clothes the next day as if she never went to bed or put on pajamas, not to mention they were not the most comfortable clothes to wear to bed and the fact that we all know Patsy was a stickler for grooming and keeping clean, and also she had on left over makeup, this behavior makes no since, no one said she was drunk at the night of the party and passed out, in fact, in John Ramseys interview he said his wife was upstairs getting ready for bed (which one would assume she was getting her pajamas on and washing up) at least thats what I do when I go to bed, get jammies on and brush teeth, pull hair back, according to police officers they menitoned that patsy looked frazzled and unkept, and had same clothes on. Just not like her personality.

The only way possible I could think that an intruder did it, is if it was someone very close to JR who was extremely jealous or trying to frame the parents for something, and possibly knew that it would make the ramseys look guilty as hell to do it the way it was done, but I still cant get passed the staging "which the FBI , not Thomas, even said that is what it was.." of the crime, why they would even have to stage it if they killed her to make the Ramseys look guilty, as the IDI people have said...I cant find any reason to believe, any facts to prove, that an intruder did it, what is your theory?

Athena

10-06-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Poster
so far over half of the votes include "no other theory is possible" Thats pretty sad and indicates extremely low levels of mental capacity IMO

I'm quite surprised myself at that. I can't believe either side would not allow room for error. This is a complex and intricate case -- and too many questions for either side IMO to be so positive about either theory. :shrug:

Devotion

10-06-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
A problem with Patsy having written the ransom note is that that would mean she either killed JonBenet, herself, or she was covering for either John or Burke. Who constructed that garrotte? Patsy? With her own paintbrush and, then, left a piece for police to find? I doubt she would even have had the strength to break the paintbrush into three pieces. If it were Patsy, wouldn't the paintbrush have been used whole? It could have been. The same would apply to Burke. Not strong enough. And, if she was covering for Burke, he never would have been allowed to return to school right away imo. He would have been privately tutored with the excuse that they were in fear something would happen to him. Was Patsy covering for John? IMO Patsy would have called 911 on John and he would have been lucky to have still been alive, when police arrived. That is why I don't think Patsy wrote the note.

MOO
:shrug: imo: A six year old can break a paint brush or a pencil. My children do it all the time..
They just stick the pencil in a drawer, close the drawer, while holding the top of the pencil, and then bend the pencil or brush until it snaps..Try it, it's very easy to do...jmo

Athena

10-06-2006, 09:24 PM

humanpolygraph

Just simply to try to describe Jameson and Thomas; both are at extremes of their theories. Jameson is IDI and Thomas is RDI but there are several holes in both of their theories for them to be so sure that their views are 100% and leave no room for error or at least be willing to admit that they possibly could have made a mistake.

I tend to lean towards IDI because I have read nothing to convince me that the Ramseys committed this horrific crime. However as stated many times previously on this board -- I would be willing to shout out loud "well, I'll be damned" if it were proven they did.

Unfortunately Jameson's site is no longer available to the general public for me to direct you there so you can see how adamant she is that the killing was IDI.

Here is a link to Thomas' depo. It does contradict many of his so-called facts in his book:

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

Devotion

10-06-2006, 09:26 PM

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: Imo: It could be possible that whom ever murdered JonB was NOT the one who had been sexually molesting the child...any thoughts on this??jmo

I agree, Devotion.

Athena

10-06-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: Imo: It could be possible that whom ever murdered JonB was NOT the one who had been sexually molesting the child...any thoughts on this??jmo

IF JonBenet were molested, I agree with this statement. I also believe that if JonBenet were molested by someone outside of the family, the Ramseys did not necessarily have knowledge of this either as I have no reason to believe that JR was abusing his baby. jmo

Devotion

10-06-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
A problem with Patsy having written the ransom note is that that would mean she either killed JonBenet, herself, or she was covering for either John or Burke. Who constructed that garrotte? Patsy? With her own paintbrush and, then, left a piece for police to find? I doubt she would even have had the strength to break the paintbrush into three pieces. If it were Patsy, wouldn't the paintbrush have been used whole? It could have been. The same would apply to Burke. Not strong enough. And, if she was covering for Burke, he never would have been allowed to return to school right away imo. He would have been privately tutored with the excuse that they were in fear something would happen to him. Was Patsy covering for John? IMO Patsy would have called 911 on John and he would have been lucky to have still been alive, when police arrived. That is why I don't think Patsy wrote the note.

MOO
:shrug: imo: Did anyone ever say if the R's were busy trying to get the $118,000.00 cash from a bank, friends or checking acc or ATM, that morning as the ransome note demanded so JB wouldn't be killed??..jmo

docg

10-06-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

Why on earth would you think that if JonBenet was killed by accident that it would NOT have been covered up by a staged murder? Just imagine if Patsy really did accidently hurt her and she was almost dead before she was strangled, how else they going to cover that up? They may have feared they would be in serious trouble if department of youth and family sevices got involved, who knows what they were thinking.

Why do you think that no accident occured that night?

Why do you think an intruder would sit around in their house writing an obscure 3 page randsom note? And further more with all the things found right in the house...

And just one more question, how do IDI people explain the fact that Patsy was wearing the same clothes the next day as if she never went to bed or put on pajamas, not to mention they were not the most comfortable clothes to wear to bed and the fact that we all know Patsy was a stickler for grooming and keeping clean, and also she had on left over makeup, this behavior makes no since, no one said she was drunk at the night of the party and passed out, in fact, in John Ramseys interview he said his wife was upstairs getting ready for bed (which one would assume she was getting her pajamas on and washing up) at least thats what I do when I go to bed, get jammies on and brush teeth, pull hair back, according to police officers they menitoned that patsy looked frazzled and unkept, and had same clothes on. Just not like her personality.

I cant find any reason to believe, any facts to prove, that an intruder did it, what is your theory?

OK, first of all I was having fun, I wasn't picking on you. It's nice to see some fresh faces "on the case," so welcome.

As for, who is Jameson? You don't want to know. (heh) She tends to hang out here though, if you must know: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID61&conf=DCConfID5

Careful, though, this is a "tough" crowd. Challenged, but also rude. Also monumentally naive. Waiting for the Great Pumpkin naive, IYKWIM.

If JonBent had been killed accidently there would have been no need for a coverup. It could have just been reported as an accident, silly. Even if it wasn't, it could have. "She fell down and broke her crown officer." No history of child abuse, so they'd have been believed.

And if they "had to" cover it up because there was evidence of sexual abuse, then . . . well, hey wait a minute. Evidence of SEXual ABUSE? And Keystone cop Steve is seeing PATSY as the perp? C'mon. If there is EVIDENCE of abuse and NO EVIDENCE of an accident, then how do we arrive at an accident and not incest-related murder?

And no I don't think an intruder would have hung around because there was no intruder. No way no how.

Patsy was wearing the same clothes because she was innocent and not worried about anyone caring. If she were guilty I guarantee she'd have worried a lot about that sort of thing -- and changed. It was John who changed, NOT Patsy. But that bit was too subtle for inspector Thomas. And no she didn't have left over makeup on, she put on fresh makeup.

My theory is that John killed her and John wrote the note and John staged the window breakin and John kept it from his wife and everyone else and John is getting away with murder.

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: imo: Did anyone ever say if the R's were busy trying to get the $118,000.00 cash from a bank, friends or checking acc or ATM, that morning as the ransome note demanded so JB wouldn't be killed??..jmo

The answer to this is "yes", Devotion, but another poster will have to give you the details. I don't know them. A cash credit was being authorized at a local bank from an out of town account. I think it might have been a Merrill Lynch account.

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
If you were guilty of murdering your daughter and covering it up...would you really allow your attorney to hire a man with the credientals of John Douglas (who was a major player in getting the FBI program off the ground)? Guilty people do not hire the best experts in the country to help find their daughter's murderer! imho

Why wouldn't they? He wasn't looking at them as suspects and what a nice way to throw someone off your trail. He was on their payroll....paid to find this illusive intruder. Very clever move, if you ask me. IMO

humanpolygraph

10-06-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena
humanpolygraph

Just simply to try to describe Jameson and Thomas; both are at extremes of their theories. Jameson is IDI and Thomas is RDI but there are several holes in both of their theories for them to be so sure that their views are 100% and leave no room for error or at least be willing to admit that they possibly could have made a mistake.

I tend to lean towards IDI because I have read nothing to convince me that the Ramseys committed this horrific crime. However as stated many times previously on this board -- I would be willing to shout out loud "well, I'll be damned" if it were proven they did.

Unfortunately Jameson's site is no longer available to the general public for me to direct you there so you can see how adamant she is that the killing was IDI.

Here is a link to Thomas' depo. It does contradict many of his so-called facts in his book:

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

Athena,

Sometimes in emails and "posts" its hard to tell where someone is coming from and I apologize for coming back so hard on you. I reread the post that you originally sent me and then what I sent and I sounded like a jerk. I took what you said the wrong way and got all defensive and I apologize, you are right in your statement that we should all get along and although we dont all agree we should listen to one another. I am pmsing if that makes you feel anybetter lol and I guess im so convinced that the Ramseys did it that it frustrates me to know that other people cant see what I see in this case. Ok now on to business, Thank you so much for the link and Ill jump right on reading that. Still more questions; Who is Jameson to this case? Is this one of the Ramseys investigators??? I dont remember reading about this person.

And you are correct in your assumption that we are all equally displeased about Karr's release. From what Ive read about Karr, its MOO that he is Paranoid Schizophrenic, with delustions of grandieur (S?) This man obviously believes in his own mind that he is the murderer of JonBenet whether its a good thing to him or not, he is trying to take the rap to be famous, to be idolized as someone who actually means something in the public eye, whether it be negative or not. While watching television I noticed the way his eyes were darting around the room in no apparent order and he looked as if he were completely absorbed in his own head. this is typical behavior of a paranoid person. He also states in his own words that he was with her when she died and tries to take credit for the one who ended her life, a D.O.G in psychology, and tries to paint a picture of himself as someone who is important in her world. I just wonder if the BCPD had enough on him to begin with as its hard to believe that they would loose a laptop, or maybe what really happened is they never had it in the first place or maybe someone stole it to make money of it in the future, who knows...just weird. ok sorry so long, off to read that depo you were talking about.

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 10:15 PM

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

The answer to this is "yes", Devotion, but another poster will have to give you the details. I don't know them. JR called Rod Westmoreland, his friend, and an attorney & VP of Merrill Lynch's Atlanta office, Westmoreland was tracked down at his parents home in Tupelo, Mississippi,...he called back and told JR he had arranged for a $118,000 credit line on his Visa card, which would translate to cash advance at any local bank......

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Possibly because they are not mastermind criminals and were not thinking clearly. They had to work with what they had without leaving their house. I'm sure they didn't think any of it pointed towards them at all. IMO

But that garrotte was fashioned and used by a sociopath imo, WW1, and, while panic may turn one into an idiot, it does not turn one into a sociopath. That garrotte was constructed with a cool head imo.

MissOtisRegrets

10-06-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
JR called Rod Westmoreland, his friend, and an attorney & VP of Merrill Lynch's Atlanta office, Westmoreland was tracked down at his parents home in Tupelo, Mississippi,...he called back and told JR he had arranged for a $118,000 credit line on his Visa card, which would translate to cash advance at any local bank......

Thank you, LadyFisher.

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why wouldn't they? He wasn't looking at them as suspects and what a nice way to throw someone off your trail. He was on their payroll....paid to find this illusive intruder. Very clever move, if you ask me. IMO White, he was called in, if my memory is correct, within 3 or 4 days of the murder to meet with the Ramseys attorney....he believe that there was a good possibility of them being guilty,,and warned the attorney he would tell him exactly what he believed..he met with the Ramseys and scruntinized every thing they said and did...he looked at the evidence in the case...he concluded they truly were not guilty of this crime! He had nothing to gain by this! imho

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by docg

OK, first of all I was having fun, I wasn't picking on you. It's nice to see some fresh faces "on the case," so welcome.

As for, who is Jameson? You don't want to know. (heh) She tends to hang out here though, if you must know: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID61&conf=DCConfID5

Careful, though, this is a "tough" crowd. Challenged, but also rude. Also monumentally naive. Waiting for the Great Pumpkin naive, IYKWIM.

If JonBent had been killed accidently there would have been no need for a coverup. It could have just been reported as an accident, silly. Even if it wasn't, it could have. "She fell down and broke her crown officer." No history of child abuse, so they'd have been believed.

And if they "had to" cover it up because there was evidence of sexual abuse, then . . . well, hey wait a minute. Evidence of SEXual ABUSE? And Keystone cop Steve is seeing PATSY as the perp? C'mon. If there is EVIDENCE of abuse and NO EVIDENCE of an accident, then how do we arrive at an accident and not incest-related murder?

And no I don't think an intruder would have hung around because there was no intruder. No way no how.

Patsy was wearing the same clothes because she was innocent and not worried about anyone caring. If she were guilty I guarantee she'd have worried a lot about that sort of thing -- and changed. It was John who changed, NOT Patsy. But that bit was too subtle for inspector Thomas. And no she didn't have left over makeup on, she put on fresh makeup.

My theory is that John killed her and John wrote the note and John staged the window breakin and John kept it from his wife and everyone else and John is getting away with murder. Good evening, Doc...I didn't know jameson hung out here..I would love to discuss this case with her..In the book DOI it stated she did meet with the Ramseys, and told them she believed they were innocent, but if she ever felt that new evidence pointed to them, she would be just as tenacious against them as she was for them now...............Doc, I want to ask you...do you think John is that cold blooded he could kill JB and keep this murder secret all these years....if so, he would be a true sociopath...why hasn't he displayed these characteristics (sp?) in some other way? :confused:

LadyFisher

10-06-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But that garrotte was fashioned and used by a sociopath imo, WW1, and, while panic may turn one into an idiot, it does not turn one into a sociopath. That garrotte was constructed with a cool head imo. I totally agree with you.....the perp possibly could have constructed the garrotte while the Ramseys were at the party....he was a sociopath...not a parent in a panic to cover up an accident! imho

thewhitewitch1

10-06-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

"We RDI's?" ROFL......

In addition to Athena & LadyFisher, I think MissO, bullmoose, and myrdawn fall into that category as well.

I should have mentioned Missotis too. I haven't seen you around that much Sweet but you seem pretty nice.
:D

docg

10-06-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Doc...I didn't know jameson hung out here..I would love to discuss this case with her..In the book DOI it stated she did meet with the Ramseys, and told them she believed they were innocent, but if she ever felt that new evidence pointed to them, she would be just as tenacious against them as she was for them now...............Doc, I want to ask you...do you think John is that cold blooded he could kill JB and keep this murder secret all these years....if so, he would be a true sociopath...why hasn't he displayed these characteristics (sp?) in some other way? :confused:

Jameson doesn't hang out HERE. She hangs out at her own website, which was what I was pointing to. Everyone who sees things her way loves to discuss the case with her and vice versa. Oh yes, the Great Pumpkin will definitely appear before us with a signed confession and the Ramseys will be absolved. Gee, that actually happened didn't it. Only his DNA didn't match so too bad, had to throw him back. Let him molest some other kid. Sheesh, when will they ever get it?

The fact is Jameson has refused to look at evidence that might point to a Ramsey, just flat refused. So don't buy her story about being tenacious against them, that's a bluff.

Yes, I do think John is cold blooded. And yes I think he is capable of keeping secrets for a long time. He cheated on his wife for two years, remember? It doesn't take a sociopath to keep secrets. It takes a sociopath to molest and then kill his own daughter. So, yes, he is a sociopath, for sure. How do you know what he's displayed and hasn't displayed? Have you met him? Linda Arndt did -- and she counted the bullets in her gun.

harz

10-07-2006, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I totally agree with you.....the perp possibly could have constructed the garrotte while the Ramseys were at the party....he was a sociopath...not a parent in a panic to cover up an accident! imho

If the killer was coolhead constructing the garrote, more reasons why I am suspecting JR, while Patsy was panicking. I have seen how JR being coolhead on television and read several (if not all) of his interviews. IMO, JR is a practical lair and I am just a practical observer. It doesn't matter to me if it was an accident or on purpose murder, because I do not think we would ever find out the truth behind JB's death that the evidences and crime scene already had been compromised.
MOO

edna mode

10-07-2006, 03:05 AM

Athena, you suggested Andrews still has a site on the Internet...minus the Ramsey theory.

Can you post a link to his site?

Athena

10-07-2006, 08:30 AM

Athena

10-07-2006, 08:48 AM

Hi Wally,

Reviewed your rebuttal to my rebuttal and you do make some valid points.

Re: the "handwriting experts" -- Actually there were two that said Patsy wrote the note. The first one early on in the case that Thomas quotes in his book - Don Foster who was totally discredited prior to the publication of Thomas' book and the second one in the Wolf v Ramsey civil trial (sorry forget his name) who also said he believed 100% that she wrote it but then had to concede not only did he do the analysis from a copy he had no idea what generation copy he was analyzing and the fact that the note was written with a Sharpie adds to the difficulty.

A true handwriting expert will tell you that the original notes and documents must be analyzed in order to do a credible analyis. Out of the six who said she did not write the note -- four were hired by the BPD and two were hired by the Ramseys and all had access to the original note and sample writings to do the analysis.

Athena

10-07-2006, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by edna mode
Athena, you suggested Andrews still has a site on the Internet...minus the Ramsey theory.

Can you post a link to his site?

Hi edna ...

Here ya go:

http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
They had just gotten out of bed...I can't imagine what would be running through their minds...I haven't been in their shoes in a situation like that...but the murder and the ransom note doesn't point me to the Ramseys at all.....this perp was a movie fanatic..can't you just see a movie character saying ..we are a small foreign faction..how bizarre is that..:confused: the Ramseys didn't have the time to watch all of these movies...and I'm certain they wouldn't have found them entertaining...they were older people imho the perp is a younger man...something triggered him that day..he had been in the home before...I do believe he was either an employee or the son of one of them...perhaps John had fired his dad..I am beginning to believe the ransom note was an afterthough once he entered the home...I don't think he ever had any intention of getting any money...he is one sick puppy imho

Respectfully, I must disagree with your analysis.

I see no evidence of a movie fanatic. I see some often quoted (more often misquoted) movie lines that most people would have heard, even w/o seeing the movies.

I don't see why the Rs wouldn't have time to watch movies. Many people watch movies at home. We're talking about a handful of movies, made over a period of years. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have watched them.

Your conclusion that the Rs wouldn't have found such movies entertaining baffles me too. Are the Rs on record as to the types of movies they enjoy? Did they specifically state they didn't like certain types of movies? My mom is in her mid 70s. She's a Gene Hackman fan. Gene Hackman often does films in which there is a military/paramilitary/police/FBI/secret agent theme. She wouldn't watch if Gene Hackman wasn't in it, but you just never know what someone finds entertaining.

I fail to see how you've determined that the perp is a young man.

How did you conclude he's an employee or the son of an employee?

You don't beleive there was any intention of getting any money - please explain then why the author of the RN spent so much time on details of the ransom. That doesn't make sense to me.

You say the murder and RN doesn't point you towards the Rs at all. But the body in the basement points away from a genuine kidnapping, and the note seems fake to everyone except perhaps lou smit, who hasn't bothered to explain why a peadophile would leave a RN.

Athena

10-07-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

How do you know Thomas is lieing? how much is he lieing about? do you recommend another good book to read? Im curious because now I dont know what to believe, but it still will take alot to convince me the parents did not do it, because of their behavior , that is what makes me think they did it. there are so many things Ive read about in articles not only by Thomas, but others to convince me of this its not even funny. But I digress...whats another good book to read?

Perfect Murder / Perfect Town - Lawrence Schiller

His book pretty much just states the facts -- he doesn't offer his opinion just actually what happened and leaves the reader to form their own conclusions and most whether RDI or IDI recognize this book as one that is least biased in either direction.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

A look at the sixth photo down (if you can stomach it) will show the bottom of the two layers of cord that were wrapped around JonBenet's throat in that clumsily-fashioned piece of stagecraft. You have to look carefully, as the bottom layer of cord (with the knotted top layer having been cut off and removed) remains embedded in her neck. A garrotte is the weapon of an assassin. There is nothing sexual about it. The knot was tied and JonBenet was left to die from a lack of blood to the brain. She was six years old. It was not loose, clumsily-fashioned, or sexual. It was murder.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

The furrow was deep enough for two layers of cord, but that doesn't mean there were two layers. If the garrotte was used by pulling straight back, using the handle, then a second layer would have been useless. It wouldn't have made it possible to make the garrotte any tighter.

If the garrote was used more in a tournaquet fashion, then two layers could go around the neck and be twisted with the brush handle. The handle end would be inserted under the wraps and then twisted. Although this tournaquet explanation might account for the broken handle (too much force exerted on a slim paint brush handle) and might also account for the hair twisted in the knot and handle, it doesn't account for the knot itself. The knot held the loop in place, and did not allow the loop to loosen up. The knot was so tight the loop had to be cut just to the side of the knot. For that reason I don't think the tournaquet explanation works. There was, imo, just one wrap around the neck, then it was pulled taught and the knot kept the tightness - the more the handle was pulled, the tighter the loop became.

You do realize of course that Lou Smit is the principal proponent of the garrotte as errotic asphyxiation device. He is of course also a leading proponent of IDI. I agree with you that it wasn't used for sexual purposes. Isn't it interesting that both you and I disagree with LS?

MissOtisRegrets

10-07-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The furrow was deep enough for two layers of cord, but that doesn't mean there were two layers. If the garrotte was used by pulling straight back, using the handle, then a second layer would have been useless. It wouldn't have made it possible to make the garrotte any tighter.

If the garrote was used more in a tournaquet fashion, then two layers could go around the neck and be twisted with the brush handle. The handle end would be inserted under the wraps and then twisted. Although this tournaquet explanation might account for the broken handle (too much force exerted on a slim paint brush handle) and might also account for the hair twisted in the knot and handle, it doesn't account for the knot itself. The knot held the loop in place, and did not allow the loop to loosen up. The knot was so tight the loop had to be cut just to the side of the knot. For that reason I don't think the tournaquet explanation works. There was, imo, just one wrap around the neck, then it was pulled taught and the knot kept the tightness - the more the handle was pulled, the tighter the loop became.

You do realize of course that Lou Smit is the principal proponent of the garrotte as errotic asphyxiation device. He is of course also a leading proponent of IDI. I agree with you that it wasn't used for sexual purposes. Isn't it interesting that both you and I disagree with LS?

1. Wally, Linda Arndt, who was present at the autopsy, says the cord had been wrapped around twice.

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/31.html

Her head, the depth of that ligature around her neck. It was so deep that twice that cord had been wrapped around her neck and the - it looked like it was only one loose time around.

2. Photos supporting Linda Arndt's statement on GMA:

(a) photo 5 shows the outer layer of cord at autopsy

(b) photo 6 shows the inner layer of cord at autopsy

3. Photo 5 shows chafing at the right side of the neck that does not appear on the left side. The same photo shows a red triangular mark on left front of the throat.

4. The autopsy report says that the cord had been tied with a double knot at the posterior of the neck, leaving two tails of cord. One of 4" and the other of 17". At the end of the 17" tail was tied a wooden stick.

5. I believe that JonBenet was lying face down during the garrotting. The cord was wrapped twice around her throat from behind, leaving two tails, one of 4" on the left and the other of 17" on the right. The 17" tail has the handle attached at its end. At this point, because the cord has been wrapped around twice, the 4" tail on the left becomes irrelevant and can be dropped until it is time for the final knotting. The bottom layer "seats" the cord. The perp stands at right angles to JonBenet and by her neck. He braces against her left front throat with the toe of his boot (leaving a mark) to add strength to his pull, as well as to prevent her from turning with the cord (she weighs only 45 lbs.). He pulls the handle to tighten the cord. As the cord tightens, it naturally rises on her neck. We can follow its path by the chafing on the right side of the neck, which takes the brunt of the tightening. When he is satisfied that the cord is as tight as he can make it, the perp picks up the 4" tail and knots the cord with a double knot at the back of the neck. While passing the stick under the 4" tail during the knotting process, he tangles JonBenet's hair in it.

6. Wally, I don't see anything sexual in this, unless it is that the sheer cruelty of it satisfied the perp in some way. I think this was a device made and used for strangling a child.

MOO

Mimi428

10-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Respectfully, I must disagree with your analysis.

I see no evidence of a movie fanatic. I see some often quoted (more often misquoted) movie lines that most people would have heard, even w/o seeing the movies.

I don't see why the Rs wouldn't have time to watch movies. Many people watch movies at home. We're talking about a handful of movies, made over a period of years. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have watched them.

Your conclusion that the Rs wouldn't have found such movies entertaining baffles me too. Are the Rs on record as to the types of movies they enjoy? Did they specifically state they didn't like certain types of movies? My mom is in her mid 70s. She's a Gene Hackman fan. Gene Hackman often does films in which there is a military/paramilitary/police/FBI/secret agent theme. She wouldn't watch if Gene Hackman wasn't in it, but you just never know what someone finds entertaining.

I fail to see how you've determined that the perp is a young man.

<snipped>

I don't understand the movie fanatic theory either. To me, the jumble of vague references speaks more to a person who is not a FAN of those particular movies, but one who has been exposed to them in a more secondary way. Examples of this kind of exposure are parents who have a vague notion of anime' cartoons because their kids watch them a lot. The person who doesn't follow the specific storyline of a soap, but who is around while their spouse views several soaps, every day.

True buffs don't throw in everything & the kitchen sink - they are selective. They "know" their genre. Just as I know every little detail of a specific line of porcelain that I collect - I can spot a fake, recognize on sight if the piece is from an earlier era or a later one. Other people in my family - who have been exposed to this line through my collecting can't do that. They are sort of familiar, but they would never be able to discern a piece from the 1920s from a repro done in the 1960s.

The movie references don't speak to me as being written by someone who really knows the genre' - but more as from someone who is around or associated with a person who watches that genre'.

JMO