View Full Version : Who Killed JonBenet ?
LadyFisher
10-13-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I'm not saying they bought 21 inches. It was Myrdawn's idea that cord/rope had to be bought in 1' foot increments. That's not so. You can buy any length you like.
They could, for example, have bought a foot and a half. If the store threw in a few extra inches, it would be 21"
No, I don't think they knew how much they'd need. I think they used a piece of cord already in the home that had been used for some other purpose before. - just like everything else used in the murder it was already in the house. No, Wally......not everything used in this murder originated in the home, theres duct tape missing, the rest of the cord, theres a stun gun missing and latex gloves...that's a heck of a lot of stuff imo......and, Wally...you can do better than the Ming vase! :) Still awaiting your theory!
Athena
10-13-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by rashomon
Half-digested pineapple in JB's body sets the time of death at about one hour after eating the pineapple.
Wow now you can establish the time of death within an hour of eating the pineapple. really?
Note from Dr. John Meyer August13, 1997
Contrary to several media reports over the past few days, the autopsy report on JonBenet Ramsey does not and has never contained information on the estimated time of death. I have not been able to determine the original source of the statement that the report contained the estimated time of death, but it certainly did not come from this office.
The time of an "unwitnessed" death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court.
John E. Meyer, M.D.
Boulder County Coroner
_________________
WallyCleaver
10-13-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
No, Wally......not everything used in this murder originated in the home, theres duct tape missing, the rest of the cord, theres a stun gun missing and latex gloves...that's a heck of a lot of stuff imo......and, Wally...you can do better than the Ming vase! :) Still awaiting your theory!
You don't know any duct tape is missing. You don't know there is any more cord. You don't know a stun gun was used. You don't know there are any missing gloves. That's not a heck of a lot of stuff, given that you can't prove any of this stuff has gone missing.
As for my theory, you'll have a long wait. I've decided I can't learn enough by reading message boards. I've bought some books and will be reading up on the case.
WallyCleaver
10-13-2006, 08:17 PM
I think I've figured out the basic difference between IDIs and RDIs.
IDI HAVE to have a motive. They always want to know why the Rs would do this, and they often impute motives to the intruder. In fact, often IDIs will conjecture about what the killer was thinking, how he was feeling, caliming he enjoyed himself, etc. IDIs have to understand the mind of the killer.
RDIs don't really care what the motive was, or even think it can be known. RDIs don't have to understand the mind of the killer. RDIs are content simply to look at the evidence.
Athena
10-13-2006, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I think I've figured out the basic difference between IDIs and RDIs.
IDI HAVE to have a motive. They always want to know why the Rs would do this, and they often impute motives to the intruder. In fact, often IDIs will conjecture about what the killer was thinking, how he was feeling, caliming he enjoyed himself, etc. IDIs have to understand the mind of the killer.
RDIs don't really care what the motive was, or even think it can be known. RDIs don't have to understand the mind of the killer. RDIs are content simply to look at the evidence.
I agree partially. But what evidence??? For every piece of so-called evidence there is; alot of it has been contradicted big-time not to mention the misinformation. The unexplained "evidence" is what possibly points to an intruder IMO.
There's another thread. Let's list what we know the evidence really is.
WallyCleaver
10-13-2006, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Athena
I agree partially. But what evidence??? For every piece of so-called evidence there is; alot of it has been contradicted big-time not to mention the misinformation. The unexplained "evidence" is what possibly points to an intruder IMO.
There's another thread. Let's list what we know the evidence really is.
The approach to evidence is the same, simply with different interpretations. But IDIs seem - to me- to really need to have a motive before they can believe evidence.
It's funny that IDI's don't have any real idea who the killer is, but they are willing to impute motive to the hypothetical killer.
A thread about evidence that has been proven is a good idea, but I predict it won't work, as much of what we think we know is just opinion.
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I think I've figured out the basic difference between IDIs and RDIs.
IDI HAVE to have a motive. They always want to know why the Rs would do this, and they often impute motives to the intruder. In fact, often IDIs will conjecture about what the killer was thinking, how he was feeling, caliming he enjoyed himself, etc. IDIs have to understand the mind of the killer.
RDIs don't really care what the motive was, or even think it can be known. RDIs don't have to understand the mind of the killer. RDIs are content simply to look at the evidence.
That true, I felt the way you described about IDI when I believed on IDI. I realized the more after I learned more evidences including their afterward behaviors. Now the motives could be anything, from accident, rage, snapped, gone insane in mentally illness, protect Burke, to on purpose murder for insurance, an excuse to leave job or Boulder behind, cover up the sex abuses. I bet a computer would show the higher chance for RDI over IDI after it collects all of the evidences to compute between statically. IMO
Eagle1
10-14-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by diplomat
Thanks for that link. I am familiar with that website as well as the webbsleuths site and all the others re the case as well as having read all the books. What I would like to see is just one thread devoted to nothing but facts re the case so as to keep opinions and innuendo separate from the facts. That would be helpful for posters here at CTV. It's time consuming to have to keep referring to other sites.
I think the administrator has a sticky of facts here, at the top of the first page.
Eagle1
10-14-2006, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by edna mode
If you read White's letters closely it's easy to notice his words are rarely about Jonbenet...but, they are about himself.
One of the most telling choices White made in my opinion was not taking legal action against Nancy Krebs. He whined and complained he was wronged yet he never even attempted to meet her in a courtroom to clear his name. Instead he chose to use intimidation and sneaky legal tactics by using criminal libel as his route to "truth". He knew damn well criminal libel would not clear his name. It's been ruled unconstitutional in many states and is NO WAY to clear your name of such dark charges.
You gotta ask yourself why? Sure, his apologists love to give all kinds of excuses. But, put yourself in his shoes...if someone made false sexual abuse charges about you and your family that were NOT true wouldn't you go directly after that person to clear your name?
White is hiding his past and the dark past of his family...
Exactly. Wasn't he always threatening to sue someone, and didn't he follow through? I haven't studied him because at some forums, at least one, he's supposed to be a pal of the owner and one could so easily get banned for frankness about him.
But would any totally innocent person go to all that much trouble to railroad someone else? His "temper" in Atlanta may have been guilty desperation, for all I know. Yes, Shakespear's saying would imo apply, "Methinks they protest too much." All those rambling letters, bluffing, I'd think. I wouldn't think he acted alone if he was involved, but that some of the other "friends" probably were involved too, just guessing.
Editing to add that FW's lawsuit threats are probably why the English detective's threads are no longer available.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Or maybe they bought a package of the cord, used most of it elsewhere, and the lengths used to make the garotte and tie her wrists were all that was left over, sitting around the house.
Where is 21 inches coming from? The cord around her neck was 17 inches, and the cord on her wrists was 15 inches.
Looks like we were both wrong. According to the autopsy, the cord around her wrist measured 5.5 inches from the know on one end, and 15.5 inches at the other ending in a double looped know. That's 21 inches. But, there's no mention of how much was used in the knots.
And, the cord around her neck had two tails, one was 4 inches in length and the other was 17 inches with the end tied in multiple loops around the stick.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
snip...
It follows logic quite well to think that if a child has fresh pineapple (not canned) in her intestine, and there is a bowl of fresh pineapple (not canned) on the table of her house, then the pineapple she ate came from that bowl - especially when her parents originally said she was awake when they got home that night, only to change their story some four months later.
Nowhere is it proven it was fresh pineapple and not canned, in JonBenet's stomach. The autopysy doesn't even identify it as pinapple, let alone what type. Fleet White did not recall if pineapple was served at their dinner party or not.
As for the bowl, Patsy never denied it was theirs. She even told the police what cupboard that bowl was normally stored in, when they asked her about it. Of course her fingerprints would be on the bowl. She put it in the cupboard. It would be VERY strange if her fingerprints were not on the utensils and dishes in their kitchen!
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
snip...
And if she ate the pineapple off a cake or something, where is the cake in her intestine? Did she just sit and dig the pineapple off and eat it without the cake? Come on!
The substance in JonBenet's stomach was "apparent vegetable or fruit material". Vegetables and fruits are much more fibrous than cake. Fiber is the part of plant food your body cannot digest. Cake (not counting additives like fruit) is much less fibrous than vegetables or fruits, and our bodies digest it much faster.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
This IDI thinks the intruder brought what he thought he needed with him in a backpack and took what he didn't use with him. Can't speak for the other IDIs.
This IDI agrees. And, I'll go one step further and say it's very possible he brought some things he intended to use, but didn't because he found things in the house he could use instead, like paper, pen, and garrotte stick. The less of his own equipment he used, the less chance of tracing it back to him.
MOO
LindaA
10-14-2006, 07:59 AM
He could also not have brought anything he felt certain would be in the house -- like paper and pen for the same reason.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I think I've figured out the basic difference between IDIs and RDIs.
IDI HAVE to have a motive. They always want to know why the Rs would do this, and they often impute motives to the intruder. In fact, often IDIs will conjecture about what the killer was thinking, how he was feeling, caliming he enjoyed himself, etc. IDIs have to understand the mind of the killer.
RDIs don't really care what the motive was, or even think it can be known. RDIs don't have to understand the mind of the killer. RDIs are content simply to look at the evidence.
You may think you've figured out IDI's, but you haven't. Whoever killed JonBenet, whether it was a Ramsey or an intruder, had a motive. Nobody knows what the motive was.
RDI's specutulate just as much as IDI's about a motive. They specualte about different motives the Ramsey's might have had, such as Patsy flying into a rage over JonBenet wetting her bed, or John killing her to cover up sexual abuse, and several other possible motives one or both of them might have had.
How is that being content to "simply look at the evidence"?
The IDI's specualte about motives an intruder might have had, such as hatred for John, revenge for something John did, jealousy of the Ramseys, a kidnapping gone wrong, etc.
I am one IDI that hasn't a clue why JonBenet wasn't murdered. I only know that it isn't proven a Ramsey did it, and it's possible that it was an intruder. Going by the staging and strange wording and length of the ransom note, I think it's more likely it was not a Ramsey.
But, to say I HAVE to have a motive for the intruder is just plain not true.
Do I need to prove to you that RDI's have "motives" for the Ramseys just as much as IDI's do for intruders? I can easily go back and search out RDI's posts about Patsy flying to a rage, or John abusing JonBenet, or one of the Ramsey's killing JonBenet because they found out Burke was abusing her, or several other motives that have been attributed to them by RDI's, including one VERY silly one posted a while back in which an RDI said Patsy probably flew into a rage when she caught Burke and JonBenet eating pineapple in the kitchen in the middle of the night, so she sent Burke to bed, and decided to make an "example" of JonBenet, and ended up killing her. Believe me, it certainly won't be hard for me to do if you want me to!
MOO
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
No. No fingerprints on the RN, even though both John and Patsy claim to have handled it. Even more strange to me is how John Fernie saw it lying on the floor and read it backwards through the door. Notice that he says the door is locked.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm
2001 June 13 - Transcript Testimony of John Fernie - Colorado vs Miller trial
John Fernie: "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."
John Fernie: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."
Now look at this. The police arrived before John Fernie.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-panic911.htm
December 26, 1996
Approximate Sequence Events
Approximate Arrival/Departure
Patsy Ramsey dialed 911 (5:52am)
Patsy Ramsey phoned Whites
Patsy Ramsey phoned Fernies
John Ramsey (reading note)
Burke Ramsey (sleeping??)
JonBenet Ramsey (missing)
Officer Rick French arrived (5:59am)
Officer Karl Veitch arrived
Sgt. Paul Reichenbach arrived
Fleet White arrived (6:30am)
Priscilla White arrived (6:30am)
John Fernie arrived
Barbara Fernie arrived
So why was the RN still on the floor? I have to doubt police would have left such an important piece of evidence just lying on the floor.
The first police on the scene of a suspected crime normally leave the evidence untouched until crime scene specialists can get there to photograph and note all the possible evidence. I haven't heard of any case where the first responding officers carry a camera with them to photograph the evidence, or evidence collection bags, etc. Although, with that Boulder group, I'm kind of suprised they followed any "normal" police procedure that day!
It's not like it was a long time after the first police got there when Fernie arrived. Fleet White got there about half an hour after the first police, and he said Fernie was already there when he arrived. Fernie said Fleet was already there when he arrived. It sounds like they must have got there close to the same time.
MOO
WallyCleaver
10-14-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
You may think you've figured out IDI's, but you haven't. Whoever killed JonBenet, whether it was a Ramsey or an intruder, had a motive. Nobody knows what the motive was.
RDI's specutulate just as much as IDI's about a motive. They specualte about different motives the Ramsey's might have had, such as Patsy flying into a rage over JonBenet wetting her bed, or John killing her to cover up sexual abuse, and several other possible motives one or both of them might have had.
How is that being content to "simply look at the evidence"?
The IDI's specualte about motives an intruder might have had, such as hatred for John, revenge for something John did, jealousy of the Ramseys, a kidnapping gone wrong, etc.
I am one IDI that hasn't a clue why JonBenet wasn't murdered. I only know that it isn't proven a Ramsey did it, and it's possible that it was an intruder. Going by the staging and strange wording and length of the ransom note, I think it's more likely it was not a Ramsey.
But, to say I HAVE to have a motive for the intruder is just plain not true.
Do I need to prove to you that RDI's have "motives" for the Ramseys just as much as IDI's do for intruders? I can easily go back and search out RDI's posts about Patsy flying to a rage, or John abusing JonBenet, or one of the Ramsey's killing JonBenet because they found out Burke was abusing her, or several other motives that have been attributed to them by RDI's, including one VERY silly one posted a while back in which an RDI said Patsy probably flew into a rage when she caught Burke and JonBenet eating pineapple in the kitchen in the middle of the night, so she sent Burke to bed, and decided to make an "example" of JonBenet, and ended up killing her. Believe me, it certainly won't be hard for me to do if you want me to!
MOO
I'm generalizing. On the whole, I think RDIs are more content to follow the evidence and not worry about the motive.
I was trying to figure out why people come to such startlingly different conclusions based on the same evidence. I think it's because IDIs really need to understand the killer's mind. RDIs don't. There are of course exceptions on an individual basis.
BTW, The rage thing isn't a motive. It's a cause of the head injury. The covering up would be a motive.
The conjecture that JR may have been covering up prior abuse is at least based on some evidence (which can be interpreted in different ways -admittedly) whereas a theory such as a revenge killer is based on nothing at all.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I hear you and won't argue the point. All I know is I'd look pretty guilty if ever accused, because I honestly forget MANY minute details of what goes on day to day...and I know many people like me. Try as I might, I can easily imagine I'd be saying I don't know to a lot of questions asked of me. People are all different, though and so for you it would look like guilt, while to me it looks like forgetfulness.
Let me ask, is it the not knowing that bugs you about them or the fact that you believe they really didn't try very hard? Maybe both?
I couldn't agree more, cantstandnuts. I haven't been through anything nearly as stressful as having a child kidnapped murdered, but the day a drunken drive came barreling across our front yard and smashed into our car, which was parked in the driveway, VERY narrowly missing me and our little girl, as his car pushed ours several yards, spinning it around, and smashing it into a tree beside the drive, was about as much stress as I've had lately. There's a LOT about that afternoon I can't remember, both before and after that event! I don't know if it's post traumatic stress disorder, or what, but I just know a lot of that afternoon is a blur. I was focused on one thing, and one thing only, protecting my daughter and making sure she wasn't hurt by any of the flying debris from the automobiles.
But, my not remembering a lot of that afternoon doesn't mean I contributed in any way to that "accident". I was merely walking down the walkway from our front porch to our driveway with my little girl when it happened.
MyrDawn
10-14-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I'm generalizing. On the whole, I think RDIs are more content to follow the evidence and not worry about the motive.
I was trying to figure out why people come to such startlingly different conclusions based on the same evidence. I think it's because IDIs really need to understand the killer's mind. RDIs don't. There are of course exceptions on an individual basis.
BTW, The rage thing isn't a motive. It's a cause of the head injury. The covering up would be a motive.
The conjecture that JR may have been covering up prior abuse is at least based on some evidence (which can be interpreted in different ways -admittedly) whereas a theory such as a revenge killer is based on nothing at all.
Generalizing isn't a very good thing when you're applying it to a group with widly ranging ideas. I have never said I need to understand the killers mind or motive. Maybe you could change your train of thought to "some" IDI's instead of attributing the necessity to have a motive to all us IDI's.
It just kinda gets me when either group, IDI or RDI, is lumped all together as having only one train of thought or theory.
I know "rage" isn't a motive, but I figured most posters would know the rage would have been caused by something, and followed by a cover up. I was listing "motives" that the RDI's have attributed without going into great detail. Apparantly you thought I meant "rage" iself is a motive.
But, covering up a head injury caused in rage isn't a motive either, since you want to be technical. The reason for the cover up would be the motive. To avoid arrest or prison.
Mimi428
10-14-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Eagle1
Exactly. Wasn't he always threatening to sue someone, and didn't he follow through? I haven't studied him because at some forums, at least one, he's supposed to be a pal of the owner and one could so easily get banned for frankness about him.
But would any totally innocent person go to all that much trouble to railroad someone else? His "temper" in Atlanta may have been guilty desperation, for all I know. Yes, Shakespear's saying would imo apply, "Methinks they protest too much." All those rambling letters, bluffing, I'd think. I wouldn't think he acted alone if he was involved, but that some of the other "friends" probably were involved too, just guessing.
Editing to add that FW's lawsuit threats are probably why the English detective's threads are no longer available.
Who is the "English detective"? Where did this person post?
TIA
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 10:23 AM
I'm an IDI (or, more accurately a fence sitter with my weight on the IDI side of the fence at the moment), who is unashamedly looking for a motive in an attempt to understand what was happening that night. The ransom note that mocks, that uses personal references, that says much more than it has to, that was written on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen. The fact that JonBenet's body was, however, found in the house. The head injury from blunt force trauma. The strangulation by garrotte, using cord that may not have come from the house, but a paintbrush that definitely did. The cord on her wrists. Three loops. Loose. A sexual assault that did not involve rape. Cellulose fibers found inside her and a piece of the paintbrush missing. The blanket from her bed and the Barbie nightgown with her in the basement. The duct tape that may not have come from the house. The possibility of a stun gun that can't be accounted for. The "pineapple". I think motive or purpose will tell you who did it. JonBenet was killed for a reason. IMO the killer was "mission-oriented", organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey. The garrotting was not necessary. It is hard to put these pieces together imo. In many ways they appear to contradict each other. To have been committed by different people for different reasons. But, they weren't. They all come together somewhere into one crime with one character that is consistent within itself. I have no idea what that is, but I have started with the ransom note, because I think that might hold the key to it all.
MOO
LadyFisher
10-14-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I'm an IDI (or, more accurately a fence sitter with my weight on the IDI side of the fence at the moment), who is unashamedly looking for a motive in an attempt to understand what was happening that night. The ransom note that mocks, that uses personal references, that says much more than it has to, that was written on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen. The fact that JonBenet's body was, however, found in the house. The head injury from blunt force trauma. The strangulation by garrotte, using cord that may not have come from the house, but a paintbrush that definitely did. The cord on her wrists. Three loops. Loose. A sexual assault that did not involve rape. Cellulose fibers found inside her and a piece of the paintbrush missing. The blanket from her bed and the Barbie nightgown with her in the basement. The duct tape that may not have come from the house. The possibility of a stun gun that can't be accounted for. The "pineapple". I think motive or purpose will tell you who did it. JonBenet was killed for a reason. IMO the killer was "mission-oriented", organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey. The garrotting was not necessary. It is hard to put these pieces together imo. In many ways they appear to contradict each other. To have been committed by different people for different reasons. But, they weren't. They all come together somewhere into one crime with one character that is consistent within itself. I have no idea what that is, but I have started with the ransom note, because I think that might hold the key to it all.
MOO Excellent post, MissO! Gotta run, but hey...how about that Cards game last night! YIPPEE & WOOHOO!!!
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Excellent post, MissO! Gotta run, but hey...how about that Cards game last night! YIPPEE & WOOHOO!!!
That was pretty nice, LadyFisher. :D Yes, that was pretty nice.
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 11:37 AM
In "The Cases That Haunt Us" (pgs. 457-9), John Douglas talks about a kidnapping case he worked on in the late '80's in which a rather bizarre ransom note was left. The author of the note was losing virtually everything he had in a business deal and lawsuit with School Pictures. He listed in the note the names of 12 people and demanded Robert Hearrin to "Put these people back in the shape they was in before they got mixed up with School Pictures." One of the people on the list was the kidnapper, himself.
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Is it possible that the sexual abuse that JonBenet experienced that night was a crime of control, rather than one of pedophilia?
Athena
10-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Is it possible that the sexual abuse that JonBenet experienced that night was a crime of control, rather than one of pedophilia?
Yes I believe it was a crime of control and note a pedophilia. For lack of a better way to articulate this -- I believe the digital penetration of JBR was more of a "and take that!" too.
And BTW speaking of being articulate - the posts above by you and MyrDawn were well stated and I agree with them. jmo
LadyFisher
10-14-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Is it possible that the sexual abuse that JonBenet experienced that night was a crime of control, rather than one of pedophilia? Yes, I think you're right, this was a control thing, not a sexual thing.....JD says in his book, this was a personal-cause crime rather than a criminal enterprise...this also to me makes Chris Wolf look guilty....he hated big business and had a fascination with world political disputes and political violence......he had a sweatshirt with the initials SBTC....I can understand why the Ramseys considered him a suspect imho.....there are so many strange characters in this case! IMHO
edna mode
10-14-2006, 01:15 PM
English detective? Threads deleted?
When did that happen? And, where are the threads? Who deleted them?
Athena
10-14-2006, 01:26 PM
Keith Andrews, a British Criminologist wrote an article about a theory that he believed Fleet White killed JBR. But search after search I could only find this one paragraph and each site I found it - it leads to dead links. Even on his own site he has removed everything he wrote about the JBR case. There is also mention of a person that sent Wood a package about Fleet White's handwriting in one of the interviews. I've posted links to these before so have to find them including Andrews' site.
KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase: 'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note: 'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."
http://www.geocities.com/sleuthandrews/americana.html
sweetcharlotte
10-14-2006, 01:28 PM
If you look at this top of this thread you will see "links" that shows over 1800 entries, but there are actually less than 100 "links" on that thread. I asked Freshwater about the missing "links." She said she would refer to Coldwater to see if they could be found.
edna mode
10-14-2006, 01:38 PM
Athena,
Oh, that detective...
Thanks, I think you shared that before and gave me the link to his present site.
But, why were his threads deleted here? When did that happen?
Originally posted by Athena
Keith Andrews, a British Criminologist wrote an article about a theory that he believed Fleet White killed JBR. But search after search I could only find this one paragraph and each site I found it - it leads to dead links. Even on his own site he has removed everything he wrote about the JBR case. There is also mention of a person that sent Wood a package about Fleet White's handwriting in one of the interviews. I've posted links to these before so have to find them including Andrews' site.
KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase: 'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note: 'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."
http://www.geocities.com/sleuthandrews/americana.html
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 01:46 PM
Here is a link to the letter:
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/16-ed.html
Athena
10-14-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by edna mode
English detective? Threads deleted?
When did that happen? And, where are the threads? Who deleted them?
Suppose Eagle could clarify this better? But I believe Eagle is referring to Keith Andrews' website where his analysis of the case has been deleted.
nuisanceposter
10-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Nowhere is it proven it was fresh pineapple and not canned, in JonBenet's stomach. The autopysy doesn't even identify it as pinapple, let alone what type. Fleet White did not recall if pineapple was served at their dinner party or not.
G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white
mucosa. The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscous
to green to tan colored thick mucous material without
particulate matter identified. The gastic mucosa is autolyzed
but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The yellow to
light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may
represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified.
The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large
intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix is
present.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
From page 558 of PM/PT:
"The pineapple in JB's small intestine was in near-perfect condition - it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and pooly chewed."
And I wouldn't be surprised if Fleet White didn't know if pineapple was served or not. What did Priscilla White say? She's the one who planned the dinner for the party guests.
This wasn't some potluck dinner or impromptu barbeque. This was a dinner party for invited guests for Christmas evening. There was a menu planned in advance, and Priscilla would know if pineapple was on the menu or not.
The coroner found something in her stomach “which may represent fragment of pineapple.” The party she attended that night had served no pineapple.
http://www.stewwebb.com/jonbenet_ramsey_murder_investigator_speaks_out.htm
Athena
10-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white
mucosa. The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscous
to green to tan colored thick mucous material without
particulate matter identified. The gastic mucosa is autolyzed
but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The yellow to
light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may
represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified.
The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large
intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix is
present.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
From page 558 of PM/PT:
"The pineapple in JB's small intestine was in near-perfect condition - it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and pooly chewed."
And I wouldn't be surprised if Fleet White didn't know if pineapple was served or not. What did Priscilla White say? She's the one who planned the dinner for the party guests.
This wasn't some potluck dinner or impromptu barbeque. This was a dinner party for invited guests for Christmas evening. There was a menu planned in advance, and Priscilla would know if pineapple was on the menu or not.
The coroner found something in her stomach “which may represent fragment of pineapple.” The party she attended that night had served no pineapple.
http://www.stewwebb.com/jonbenet_ramsey_murder_investigator_speaks_out.htm
What you failed to say above is supposedly that was in Meyers report (p554) and we all know that it WAS NOT. you also failed to state from the same p554 that the experts disagreed -- they didn't know when she ate the pineapple; some said it could have been 1-2 hours prior to death and yet others said she could have eaten it as early as 4:30pm. The WhiteS do not recall if they served pineapple at their dinner.
As far as that stewweb site is concerned - perhaps you should look at the entire site -- it is full of non-credible information -- it is someone's opinions and by no means an expert of anything.
Athena
10-14-2006, 03:06 PM
Note from Dr. John Meyer August 13, 1997
Contrary to several media reports over the past few days, the autopsy report on JonBenet Ramsey does not and has never contained information on the estimated time of death. I have not been able to determine the original source of the statement that the report contained the estimated time of death, but it certainly did not come from this office.
The time of an "unwitnessed" death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court.
John E. Meyer, M.D.
Boulder County Coroner
edna mode
10-14-2006, 03:13 PM
I thought Eagle was referring to threads here at the Court TV forum.
Maybe not.
Athena
10-14-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by edna mode
I thought Eagle was referring to threads here at the Court TV forum.
Maybe not.
Hi edna --
And you could be 100% correct -- so guess Eagle will have to respond. I probably should have just stayed out of it. :)
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Yes, I think you're right, this was a control thing, not a sexual thing.....JD says in his book, this was a personal-cause crime rather than a criminal enterprise...this also to me makes Chris Wolf look guilty....he hated big business and had a fascination with world political disputes and political violence......he had a sweatshirt with the initials SBTC....I can understand why the Ramseys considered him a suspect imho.....there are so many strange characters in this case! IMHO
Who is Chris Wolf? What SBTC on his shirt stands for? Did he had alibi? Did BPD investigated him completely? The way you describe him about hating big business, world political disputes and violences, make it look like he is a supporter of world peace and stability plus eliminate the greed away of this world. I don't blame him, but SBTC on his shirt interests me, so do you have details about it?
edna mode
10-14-2006, 03:39 PM
Athena, glad you did. You always seem to add good info to the discussions here. Hopefully, Eagle will speak up and clarify...
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Well, at least you offered an explanation, although I don't believe that one....were there latex gloves found in the Ramsey home, they shouldn't have been too hard to find......just like the stun gun, duct tape, and leftover cord.....those things were not found in the home.....you RDIs have to include the latex gloves and stun gun imo in your theories since these were not ruled out by the ME that did the autopsy! :seeya:
I don't believe that the examiner said that the residue actually came from a latex glove...but, it was consistant with.....remember you IDI's say CONSISTANT WITH does NOT equal the SAME AS, (when referring to the Ramsey's fibers that were found.) I have not read anywhere that said that it was conclusive that the material found WAS the same as what is found on a latex glove, so I don't know for sure if a latex glove was used or not. Do you have a link that actually says that one WAS used? IMO
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I know that whenever my friends call me and say their daughter has been kidnapped, I always bring pineapple.
:lol: Really? I take brownies...
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol, good one.
Seriously, though...where is it a tradition to serve fresh pineapple at Christmas? I have never heard of that.
Me either...unless its some sort of Hawaiian tradition. IMO
Originally posted by rashomon
Lol all you want, and like him or not, but every IDI should read SteveThomas' book, for it contains crucial and irrefutable info on case FACTS. If the IDIs had read his book, they could have spared themselves the heated discussion about the cord:
Rope expert Van Tassell, one of the world's foremost experts on knots and cords, examined the cord which was around JB's neck and wrists, and came to the conclusion that it was the same type of cord which Thomas had bought at the McGuckin's sporting goods section for $2.29: a fifty-foot-length of white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16 inch woven soft nylon cord. (ST, p. 234)
The IDI folks are treating Steve Thomas the same way that Mark Furhman got treated during the OJ trial...and EVERYONE knows that OJ did it, he just happned to have the jurors and being famous on his side. IMO
rashomon
10-14-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Athena
What you failed to say above is supposedly that was in Meyers report (p554) and we all know that it WAS NOT.
JFYI: In perfect 'Murder Perfect Town', on page 558, it says verbatim:
"Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JB's small intestine was in near-perfect condition - it has sharp edges and looked as if it had been barely chewed."
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
No, Wally......not everything used in this murder originated in the home, theres duct tape missing, the rest of the cord, theres a stun gun missing and latex gloves...that's a heck of a lot of stuff imo......and, Wally...you can do better than the Ming vase! :) Still awaiting your theory!
Since it has never been proven for a FACT that a stun gun was used, I don't think it should be listed as something that is missing.
You can't use a speculation as evidence.
cantstandnuts
10-14-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Nothing wrong at all, and you've made some good points. I might be a bit jaded about the Rs at this point - I've spent the past nine and a half years trying to figure out what happened to JonBenet and it seems to me that all of the evidence just keeps coming back and pointing right at John and Patsy. I've seen enough by this point to be 100% sure they're guilty.
There's nothing wrong with examining every possibility, and as you said, if it were me, I would want people to do the same.
That's decent of you.
I don't think you sound jaded, I think you sound sure. I wish I was, but after all this time, sadly I'm not and even sadder, I don't think there will be justice in this case.
Curious, is there any piece of evidence that clinches it for you? Or is it (and I think this is more likely) everything added up?
cantstandnuts
10-14-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
I couldn't agree more, cantstandnuts. I haven't been through anything nearly as stressful as having a child kidnapped murdered, but the day a drunken drive came barreling across our front yard and smashed into our car, which was parked in the driveway, VERY narrowly missing me and our little girl, as his car pushed ours several yards, spinning it around, and smashing it into a tree beside the drive, was about as much stress as I've had lately. There's a LOT about that afternoon I can't remember, both before and after that event! I don't know if it's post traumatic stress disorder, or what, but I just know a lot of that afternoon is a blur. I was focused on one thing, and one thing only, protecting my daughter and making sure she wasn't hurt by any of the flying debris from the automobiles.
But, my not remembering a lot of that afternoon doesn't mean I contributed in any way to that "accident". I was merely walking down the walkway from our front porch to our driveway with my little girl when it happened.
Oh my goodness, I'm so glad you got out of that safely! Sure hope that person who nearly hit you was convicted.
I know that people think the Ramseys should remember more, but some of the things they "should" remember are simply mundane things that people would not hold onto...how the pineapple got there, for instance. Here it is Christmas, the Ramseys are headed for a trip and I'm willing to bet they had a lot of things they were trying to remember to ready themselves...pineapple being placed on the table probably wasn't one of the things important to them in preparing for Christmas and that trip and I'm not at all surprised how it got there was unknown to them. If it were money or airline tickets, then yeah, but it was a bowl of pineapple, not something they needed to pack to take with them. Then, add the horror of a murder and I'm not sure I would be able to remember much, especially if I'd been sedated recently as Patsy was.
rashomon
10-14-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
"I'm an IDI (or, more accurately a fence sitter with my weight on the IDI side of the fence at the moment), who is unashamedly looking for a motive in an attempt to understand what was happening that night. The ransom note that mocks, that uses personal references, that says much more than it has to, that was written on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen. The fact that JonBenet's body was, however, found in the house. The head injury from blunt force trauma. The strangulation by garrotte, using cord that may not have come from the house, but a paintbrush that definitely did. The cord on her
wrists. Three loops. Loose. A sexual assault that did not involve rape. assault her sexually Cellulose fibers found inside her and a to the RN piece of the paintbrush missing. The blanket from her bed and the Barbie nightgown with her in the basement. The duct tape that may not have come from the house. The possibility of a stun gun that can't be accounted for. The "pineapple". I think motive or purpose will tell you who did it. JonBenet was killed for a reason. IMO the killer was "mission-oriented", organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey. The garrotting was not necessary. It is hard to put these pieces together imo. In many ways they appear to contradict each other. To have been committed by different people for different reasons. But, they weren't. They all come together somewhere into one crime with one character that is consistent within itself. I have no idea what that is, but I have started with the ransom note, because I think that might hold the key to it all.
MOO"
Miss Otis, I think you have come so near the truth - there is just a thin veil left which when lifted, will show you the whole picture. You have already figured out so many crucial points in your post that I'm convinced it is only a matter of time (if you keep your open mind), and you will come to realize that it was the Ramseys who did the staging of the scene, because a Ramsey had killed JB.
You said that the ransom note holds the key: you are dead on the money with that, Miss O. For Patsy most likely wrote it. She was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the author of the note.
There also exist Patsy's handwriting comparisons which show an eery similarity to the RN.
And who else than the Ramseys could have written a ransom note on pen and paper coming from their own home?
Sexual predators don't write ransom notes, and kidnappers write their notes beforehand.
So again this leaves no one else than the Ramseys.
And like you said (another good point): the ransom note obviously was a FAKED note - now which sexual predator would have an interest in writing a faked kidnapping note? It doesn't make sense, does it.
Nor would it make sense for kidnapper to stay for hours with JB in the Ramsey home and then assault her sexually. For kidnappers are in and out of the house inseconds - they grab their victim and are gone.
You said hat it is hard to put the pieces together because they contradict each other.
So true if one believes in the intruder theory.
But in an RDI theory, every single element can be explained because RDIs take into account that the scene was staged.
I agree with you that JonBenet was killed for a reason. You said the killer was
"mission-oriented, organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey."
Brilliant point. Again you have come so near the truth that it is simply incredible, Miss O:
Imo Patsy felt that she was in fact losing control over JB, and Patsy's "mission" had always been to present her child as a perfect extension of herself.
JB was killed for a reason - the reason was Patsy's rage when realizing she had in fact lost control over JB, for whatever reasons.
And no doubt Patsy had issues with her husband John Ramsey - it shines through in her ransom note to every attentive reader.
Originally posted by rashomon
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
"I'm an IDI (or, more accurately a fence sitter with my weight on the IDI side of the fence at the moment), who is unashamedly looking for a motive in an attempt to understand what was happening that night. The ransom note that mocks, that uses personal references, that says much more than it has to, that was written on Ramsey paper with a Ramsey pen. The fact that JonBenet's body was, however, found in the house. The head injury from blunt force trauma. The strangulation by garrotte, using cord that may not have come from the house, but a paintbrush that definitely did. The cord on her
wrists. Three loops. Loose. A sexual assault that did not involve rape. assault her sexually Cellulose fibers found inside her and a to the RN piece of the paintbrush missing. The blanket from her bed and the Barbie nightgown with her in the basement. The duct tape that may not have come from the house. The possibility of a stun gun that can't be accounted for. The "pineapple". I think motive or purpose will tell you who did it. JonBenet was killed for a reason. IMO the killer was "mission-oriented", organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey. The garrotting was not necessary. It is hard to put these pieces together imo. In many ways they appear to contradict each other. To have been committed by different people for different reasons. But, they weren't. They all come together somewhere into one crime with one character that is consistent within itself. I have no idea what that is, but I have started with the ransom note, because I think that might hold the key to it all.
MOO"
Miss Otis, I think you have come so near the truth - there is just a thin veil left which when lifted, will show you the whole picture. You have already figured out so many crucial points in your post that I'm convinced it is only a matter of time (if you keep your open mind), and you will come to realize that it was the Ramseys who did the staging of the scene, because a Ramsey had killed JB in a rage.
You said that the ransom note holds the key: you are dead on the money with that, Miss O. For Patsy most likely wrote it. She was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the author of the note.
There also exist Patsy's handwriting comparisons which show an eery similarity to the RN.
And who else than the Ramseys could have written a ransom note on pen and paper coming from their own home?
Sexual predators don't write ransom notes, and kidnappers write their notes beforehand.
So again this leaves no one else than the Ramseys.
And like you said (another good point): the ransom note obviously was a FAKED note - now which sexual predator would have an interest in writing a faked kidnapping note? It doesn't make sense, does it.
Nor would it make sense for kidnapper to stay for hours with JB in the Ramsey home and assault her sexually. For kidnappers are in and out of the house inseconds - they grab their victim and are gone.
You said hat it is hard to put the pieces together because they contradict each other.
So true if one believes in the intruder theory.
But in an RDI theory, every single element can be explained because RDIs take into account that the scene was staged.
I agree with you that JonBenet was killed for a reason. You said the killer was
"mission-oriented, organized, highly intelligent, and enjoyed feeling control he did not experience in his day to day life or in his (or another's on whose behalf he thinks he is acting) dealings with John Ramsey."
Brilliant point. Again you have come so near the truth that it is simply incredible, Miss O:
Imo Patsy felt that she was in fact losing control over JB, and Patsy's "mission" had always been to present her child as a perfect extension of herself.
JB was killed for a reason - the reason was Patsy's rage when reaizing she had in fact lost control over JB, for whatever reasons.
And no doubt Patsy had issues with her husband John Ramsey - it shines through in her ransom note to every attentive reader.
You left out the fact of WHY would an intruder stage a crime scene? Examples: loosely tied rope, inserting a paintbrush (what was the purpose of THAT?), etc. IMO
LadyFisher
10-14-2006, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by harz
Who is Chris Wolf? What SBTC on his shirt stands for? Did he had alibi? Did BPD investigated him completely? The way you describe him about hating big business, world political disputes and violences, make it look like he is a supporter of world peace and stability plus eliminate the greed away of this world. I don't blame him, but SBTC on his shirt interests me, so do you have details about it? Harz, Chris Wolf is the reporter for the Colorado Daily and the Boulder County Business Report with a master's degree in journalism that his girl friend, Jacqueline Dilson reported to the police...she stated his strange behavior before Christmas and early on in the morning after Christmas raised her concern about what Wolf had done all night.....he spent Christmas day with her, but he would not stay to have supper....around 5:30 AM sounds from the bathroom woke Jackie up...it was Wolf in the shower....he left dirty clothes all over the floor, he had no explanation of where he'd been......Later the next day...they watched the tv news reports of JB's murder..to her surprise, she observed him becoming quite agitated, Wolf cursed and said he believed JB had been sexually abused by her father, he brooded over the case for the rest of the evening....according to his GF he hated big business....it was also learned on Jan. 30 he was stopped by officers and his liscense had been suspended..he went to the police station for questioning and abruptly told the officer they needed to find JB's killer...He was interrogated and when asked to write some words from the ransom note refused...Wolf later stated Thomas and Eller told him they had no interest in him....His sweatshirt with SBTC which stood for Santa Barbara Tennis Club.......I think he's the one who filed the civil suit against the Ramseys for naming him in their book! I don't necessarily think he is the killer, I just find him suspicious as so many other characters involved in this case! imho :seeya:
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by rashomon
And who else than the Ramseys could have written a ransom note on pen and paper coming from their own home?
Sexual predators don't write ransom notes, and kidnappers write their notes beforehand.
So again this leaves no one else than the Ramseys.
And like you said (another good point): the ransom note obviously was a FAKED note - now which sexual predator would have an interest in writing a faked kidnapping note? It doesn't make sense, does it.
Thank you, rashomon. I am trying to stay open-minded.
I agree with you that a sexual predator is not going to write a note. And this note says a lot more than is necessary for a simple kidnapping. I find it interesting that John Ramsey is not addressed as a rich man in this note, but as a businessman. More than kidnapping was on this perp's mind imo. The author of the ransom note is very much in his comfort zone when writing imo. I do think there is someone other than the Ramseys, who would have gone to this trouble. And that is someone with an axe to grind with the Ramseys, particularly with John. This note is mocking, the pleasure that the author is experiencing in the control he has over John as he reads a note directing him to go to the bank and then get a brown bag, etc, and telling him that, if his daughter is beheaded it is his fault, jumps out at you. I believe that this crime may have been committed by someone who felt powerless to confront John Ramsey face to face and that JonBenet was a "stand in". I believe the purpose of this crime may have been it was the only way the killer felt he could strike back.
MOO
:seeya:
MissO
P.S. Cards lead 2-0 bottom of 1st. :D
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
JD says in his book, this was a personal-cause crime rather than a criminal enterprise
:beer:
It sure looks like it. Body left in the house. Sexual assault minimal. Murder. But, body not disfigured or mutilated or posed. Just killed. What was the point? It was personal. But, not directed against JonBenet. Anguish for anguish. A life for a life.
P.S. Cards 3-0 bottom of 2nd. :D
WallyCleaver
10-14-2006, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Thank you, rashomon. I am trying to stay open-minded.
I agree with you that a sexual predator is not going to write a note. And this note says a lot more than is necessary for a simple kidnapping. I find it interesting that John Ramsey is not addressed as a rich man in this note, but as a businessman. More than kidnapping was on this perp's mind imo. The author of the ransom note is very much in his comfort zone when writing imo. I do think there is someone other than the Ramseys, who would have gone to this trouble. And that is someone with an axe to grind with the Ramseys, particularly with John. This note is mocking, the pleasure that the author is experiencing in the control he has over John as he reads a note directing him to go to the bank and then get a brown bag, etc, and telling him that, if his daughter is beheaded it is his fault, jumps out at you. I believe that this crime may have been committed by someone who felt powerless to confront John Ramsey face to face and that JonBenet was a "stand in". I believe the purpose of this crime may have been it was the only way the killer felt he could strike back.
MOO
:seeya:
MissO
P.S. Cards lead 2-0 bottom of 1st. :D
In an earlier thread you said you were looking for a motive to understand who killed JB. I think it's possible that you have to figure out who did it first, before you can understand the motive (and maybe not even then)
Consider how many different IDI theories have been formulated - a kidnapping gone bad, a sex maniac (LS' theory) a revenge killer (and revenge can take a few different forms depending on whether the killer is an AG employee, a competitive mom on the pagent circuit, someone who simply hates business and/or wealthy people) Each theory requires a different motive, or even a combination of motives.
My suggestion is that looking for motive can only lead to unsupported speculation.
For example, you've conjectured that the author of the RN enjoyed a sense of power in telling JR to do this and that - but really they are just instructions for delivering ransom. Verbose, overdone instructions, but just instructions. I think you are just projecting a sense of pleasure in having some temporary power. I see at as just instructions.
P.S. Tigers are the AL Champions.
Mimi428
10-14-2006, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by rashomon
And no doubt Patsy had issues with her husband John Ramsey - it shines through in her ransom note to every attentive reader.
<bandwidth snip>
ITA Rash - only Patsy wrote in such an idiosyncratic style as to put the same wording BEFORE AND AFTER the words "and hence".
It is NOT the misuse of "and hence" that makes it unique - it is the repeated words - using them before the words "and hence" - and using them again right afterwords.
Any reasonable person would attempt to disguise their handwriting - or simply write with their opposite hand. Comparing slants or loops or such gives a limited picture. But when you combine it with the personal idiosyncrasies - you see Patsy in that note. It is glaringly apparent, imo.
Then you see the personal digs against male figures - like her husband & her father (who WAS from the south) - & it all becomes a great deal clearer.
One thing that gets lost in the confusion of reporting on the article about Access Graphics is the VERY notable detail that although their overall earnings were impressive, their NET figures were NOT GOOD. And, there were rumors that John was about to be gone - which he indeed was, just months later.
I believe the financial situation of the Ramsey household was not nearly as bright as Patsy wished it to be - & believe John knew it. We have read articles whether others in their circle have indicated that Patsy's free-spending ways had been, in the past, a bone of contention for John.
What would that woman have without her 'rich', 'fat cat' husband? Who financed her own pageant days other than her 'fat cat' father? How would she finance her goals to put JonBenet on track to be at the top of the heap & keep winning pageants without John's money? For all we know, John may have told her that he disagreed with the pageant stuff, disapproved of the sexualization that was so apparent in the dance routines we have all seen - & he certainly would have seen, too. It is possible he told her he would no longer tolerate money being spent in pursuit of the goals that were so important to Patsy, her mother & her sister.
And if JonBenet no longer was interested in the competitions or if she agreed with her father that the pageant stuff wasn't important - I do believe one hell of a power struggle would have ensued.
MOO
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
In an earlier thread you said you were looking for a motive to understand who killed JB. I think it's possible that you have to figure out who did it first, before you can understand the motive (and maybe not even then)
Consider how many different IDI theories have been formulated - a kidnapping gone bad, a sex maniac (LS' theory) a revenge killer (and revenge can take a few different forms depending on whether the killer is an AG employee, a competitive mom on the pagent circuit, someone who simply hates business and/or wealthy people) Each theory requires a different motive, or even a combination of motives.
My suggestion is that looking for motive can only lead to unsupported speculation.
For example, you've conjectured that the author of the RN enjoyed a sense of power in telling JR to do this and that - but really they are just instructions for delivering ransom. Verbose, overdone instructions, but just instructions. I think you are just projecting a sense of pleasure in having some temporary power. I see at as just instructions.
P.S. Tigers are the AL Champions.
Wally, there just isn't enough physical evidence in this case to take it to trial. Against anybody. I know it isn't necessary to present motive when presenting a case, but it can be a good investigatory tool. John's DNA was not found under JB's fingernails. Patsy's blood was not found on the piece of paintbrush replaced. If the DNA in JonBenet's panties was from her killer and if he is found one day and it cannot be proved that he did work in a factory in China or Korea or wherever the panties are from, then we will be getting somewhere. But, until then, what have we got?
P.S. Big congratulations to the Tigers!
WallyCleaver
10-14-2006, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Wally, there just isn't enough physical evidence in this case to take it to trial. Against anybody. I know it isn't necessary to present motive when presenting a case, but it can be a good investigatory tool. John's DNA was not found under JB's fingernails. Patsy's blood was not found on the piece of paintbrush replaced. If the DNA in JonBenet's panties was from her killer and if he is found one day and it cannot be proved that he did work in a factory in China or Korea or wherever the panties are from, then we will be getting somewhere. But, until then, what have we got?
P.S. Big congratulations to the Tigers!
That's true, there isn't enough evidence to go to trial. (though I'd say others have been indicted with less evidence) It can be a good tool for investigation, but in this case, I don't think it helps. Consider this - any sensible person, IDI or RDI, would admit they could be wrong. Therefore, this crime could have been comitted by a Ramsey, or by an intruder. The motives for a Ramsey would be very different than the motive of an intruder. So, starting with motive means you have to decide whether it's an IDI or RDI case before considering where the evidence leads.
I'm not sure if I'd rather see the Tigers play the Cards or Mets. We've played the Cards before, so maybe I'd rather go against the Mets.
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
That's true, there isn't enough evidence to go to trial. (though I'd say others have been indicted with less evidence) It can be a good tool for investigation, but in this case, I don't think it helps. Consider this - any sensible person, IDI or RDI, would admit they could be wrong. Therefore, this crime could have been comitted by a Ramsey, or by an intruder. The motives for a Ramsey would be very different than the motive of an intruder. So, starting with motive means you have to decide whether it's an IDI or RDI case before considering where the evidence leads.
That's why I tried starting with the garrotte. To see if this was a sexual crime. I don't think it was. The problem with this crime for me is making it one crime to try to figure out motive. Do you ever watch "Body of Evidence", Wally?
I'm not sure if I'd rather see the Tigers play the Cards or Mets. We've played the Cards before, so maybe I'd rather go against the Mets.
:mad: Have I mentioned that I live in St. Louis?
WallyCleaver
10-14-2006, 09:42 PM
No, I've never seen "Body of Evidence".
I know you're a Cards fan. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me if we play the Cards or Mets, it's just that we've never faced off against the Mets before. It looks like the Cards are well on the way to winning game 3.
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
No, I've never seen "Body of Evidence".
I know you're a Cards fan. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me if we play the Cards or Mets, it's just that we've never faced off against the Mets before. It looks like the Cards are well on the way to winning game 3.
Not really a baseball fan, but isn't Tony Larussa the manager for the Cardinals? When we lived in Tampa Fl, his parents lived directly below us, in our apartment complex. We have met him, and seen him at his parents on many occasions...he was with the Oakland A's then...he is a really nice guy. Nothing to do with the JB case..but, I thought that I would just throw that in....
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 10:02 PM
I would like to understand something.
Fleet White was the father of two young children about the same age as the Ramseys children. The family were all friends with each other and Fleet even took care of the Ramseys kids on occasion. How does a man with no prior history of violence suddenly decide to murder a little girl that he was probably very fond of just to "get revenge" on John...or whatever reason you have accused him of killing her for. He has no prior history of violence to anyone, let alone his own kids...so how does he all of a sudden become a crazed child killer? If you have a hard time believing that the Ramseys could have done it, I just don't understand how you could think Fleet could have done such a thing. That's just freaking nuts. IMO
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Not really a baseball fan, but isn't Tony Larussa the manager for the Cardinals? When we lived in Tampa Fl, his parents lived directly below us, in our apartment complex. We have met him, and seen him at his parents on many occasions...he was with the Oakland A's then...he is a really nice guy. Nothing to do with the JB case..but, I thought that I would just throw that in....
Yes, he is, Ames. :seeya:
edna mode
10-14-2006, 10:15 PM
We don't know for sure what his history is. Do you? If so, please share it.
I would pose the same about John and Patsy Ramsey. They had NO history of abuse or crime. None. Nada. We can account for every year of their lives.
Not so with ol' Fleet.
MissOtisRegrets
10-14-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
No, I've never seen "Body of Evidence".
It's pretty good. It's a 1/2 hour show on CTV. Former FBI profiler Dayle Hinman talks about some of the cases she worked on.
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 10:19 PM
How many of you think that Burke could have been the one that started this tragedy?
I have a hard time believing that Patsy or John murdered their daughter for whatever reason. I do know that they have tried to protect Burke from the start.
I think he accidentally hit her on the head. I think he was messing around with her sexually (kid thing). I think all of the Ramseys were up for a time that night and ate a snack of pineapple. Something happened between the kids possibly shortly after the parents went to bed or even before and that P and J staged the rest of the scene to protect Burke.
I think they either believed JB was already dead or severely brain damaged and they had no choice but to cover up for Burke. Even though he couldn't be tried as an adult, people would KNOW that he caused her death. Imagine what life would have been like for him.
Of course they couldn't know that they would become the main suspects. Their intent all along was to cover for Burke so I'm sure they made some mistakes as far as covering for themselves.
Yes...they have covered for him right from the start, including "not remembering" the clothing he was wearing at any time during that time period. Burke DID own a pair of Hi-Tech boots and if I can find the link I will show you where an expert said it didn't matter what size the boot was; the logo would still be the same size.
The Ramseys have said that he has never asked them questions and that they don't discuss JBs death with him. Why would they? It's a case of "let's pretend it didn't happen" so as not to traumatize the kid. I strongly believe that Burke set this series of events into motion. He has probably repressed the memory by now and who knows what story his parents told him to absolve him of the guilt.
Does anyone else think this could be possible?
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Yes, he is, Ames. :seeya:
Thanks...I thought that he was...but wasn't sure.
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Harz, Chris Wolf is the reporter for the Colorado Daily and the Boulder County Business Report with a master's degree in journalism that his girl friend, Jacqueline Dilson reported to the police...she stated his strange behavior before Christmas and early on in the morning after Christmas raised her concern about what Wolf had done all night.....he spent Christmas day with her, but he would not stay to have supper....around 5:30 AM sounds from the bathroom woke Jackie up...it was Wolf in the shower....he left dirty clothes all over the floor, he had no explanation of where he'd been......Later the next day...they watched the tv news reports of JB's murder..to her surprise, she observed him becoming quite agitated, Wolf cursed and said he believed JB had been sexually abused by her father, he brooded over the case for the rest of the evening....according to his GF he hated big business....it was also learned on Jan. 30 he was stopped by officers and his liscense had been suspended..he went to the police station for questioning and abruptly told the officer they needed to find JB's killer...He was interrogated and when asked to write some words from the ransom note refused...Wolf later stated Thomas and Eller told him they had no interest in him....His sweatshirt with SBTC which stood for Santa Barbara Tennis Club.......I think he's the one who filed the civil suit against the Ramseys for naming him in their book! I don't necessarily think he is the killer, I just find him suspicious as so many other characters involved in this case! imho :seeya:
Interesting, did he had any connection to Ramsey? Like good friends, had key to his house? Did police got warrant to search his house for evidences? Had he give BPD his dna, fingerprints, hair? If he hate business, why in ransom note said he respect JR's business? Indeed, he's a strange character, still like to know where he was that night, what up with dirty clothes, or his girlfriend might like to be in spotlight for media or on this case. JMO
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by edna mode
We don't know for sure what his history is. Do you? If so, please share it.
I would pose the same about John and Patsy Ramsey. They had NO history of abuse or crime. None. Nada. We can account for every year of their lives.
Not so with ol' Fleet.
No, we don't know what his history was but we can be relatively sure that he doesn't have a history of murdering children.
You can account for every year of the Ramseys lives? Is that so?
Do tell how that can be.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
No, we don't know what his history was but we can be relatively sure that he doesn't have a history of murdering children.
You can account for every year of the Ramseys lives? Is that so?
Do tell how that can be.
Maybe she knows the Ramsey's personally, and has lived with them. What do you think?
Originally posted by Ames
Maybe she knows the Ramsey's personally, and has lived with them. What do you think?
Well if you read her location, it says Pleasantville. I have seen that movie, perhaps she just needs some colors. :) IMO
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Maybe she knows the Ramsey's personally, and has lived with them. What do you think?
Maybe. Guess she'd have had to live with them every day of every year then, huh?
thewhitewitch1
10-14-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by harz
Well if you read her location, it says Pleasantville. I have seen that movie, perhaps she just needs some colors. :) IMO
:lol:
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Maybe. Guess she'd have had to live with them every day of every year then, huh?
:lol: Yep...thats the only way that I can figure that she can account for every year of their life. Who in the world would say such a thing anyway?? Unless they actually know a person...they cannot say that. IMO
Originally posted by harz
Well if you read her location, it says Pleasantville. I have seen that movie, perhaps she just needs some colors. :) IMO
:lol: Yeah, perhaps...I have seen that movie too.
I did think he was involved somehow or witnessed what happened. Patsy was so nervous when BPD or Grand Jury questioned him. I forgot which link I got that from, but Patsy was like freak out as was worry about Burke would say something or the truth. Strange if Burke still acting and thinking like his dad, bottled up the truth or no signs of sorrow for JB. Big if stun gun was used on JB, I would bet it was Burke over Ramseys after he found it if he was involved. JMO
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
How many of you think that Burke could have been the one that started this tragedy?
I have a hard time believing that Patsy or John murdered their daughter for whatever reason. I do know that they have tried to protect Burke from the start.
I think he accidentally hit her on the head. I think he was messing around with her sexually (kid thing). I think all of the Ramseys were up for a time that night and ate a snack of pineapple. Something happened between the kids possibly shortly after the parents went to bed or even before and that P and J staged the rest of the scene to protect Burke.
I think they either believed JB was already dead or severely brain damaged and they had no choice but to cover up for Burke. Even though he couldn't be tried as an adult, people would KNOW that he caused her death. Imagine what life would have been like for him.
Of course they couldn't know that they would become the main suspects. Their intent all along was to cover for Burke so I'm sure they made some mistakes as far as covering for themselves.
Yes...they have covered for him right from the start, including "not remembering" the clothing he was wearing at any time during that time period. Burke DID own a pair of Hi-Tech boots and if I can find the link I will show you where an expert said it didn't matter what size the boot was; the logo would still be the same size.
The Ramseys have said that he has never asked them questions and that they don't discuss JBs death with him. Why would they? It's a case of "let's pretend it didn't happen" so as not to traumatize the kid. I strongly believe that Burke set this series of events into motion. He has probably repressed the memory by now and who knows what story his parents told him to absolve him of the guilt.
Does anyone else think this could be possible?
Could be possible, I guess. I don't know if I think he was messing around with her sexually or not, though. It could have been something as simple as him wanting to see a toy that she got for Christmas, or vice versa....it could have been anything...and he could have ended up pushing her or something. IMO....I am still leaning toward one or both parents though. IMO
MissOtisRegrets
10-15-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Ames
You left out the fact of WHY would an intruder stage a crime scene? Examples: loosely tied rope, inserting a paintbrush (what was the purpose of THAT?), etc. IMO
Ames, I don't believe that the crimes were staged. I believe they were what they were. Murder. I do believe that no kidnapping was planned. (Probably. lol) I believe the note was probably staging and written for two reasons. One: to put John Ramsey through hell, while he danced to his (the perp's) tune. Possibly the perp was in a position to observe this. And, two: catharthis for the author. In this guise and under these circumstances, he was able to confront John Ramsey directly.
MOO
I have posted this on a thread before, but the thread mysteriously disappeared. Here is a link to some recent photos of Burke, if you are interested. Just click and scroll down....there is one of him with his blonde girlfriend.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7774
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Ames, I don't believe that the crimes were staged. I believe they were what they were. Murder. I do believe that no kidnapping was planned. (Probably. lol) I believe the note was probably staging and written for two reasons. One: to put John Ramsey through hell, while he danced to his (the perp's) tune. Possibly the perp was in a position to observe this. And, two: catharthis for the author. In this guise and under these circumstances, he was able to confront John Ramsey directly.
MOO
What do you think the reason is behind her loosely bound wrists? And why was the paintbrush inserted into her? I just don't get it....and from what I have read, it probaby happened AFTER she died, because of the lack of blood. WHY? IMO
Originally posted by Ames
I have posted this on a thread before, but the thread mysteriously disappeared. Here is a link to some recent photos of Burke, if you are interested. Just click and scroll down....there is one of him with his blonde girlfriend.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7774
who's this?
http://myspace-434.vo.llnwd.net/00095/43/48/95578434_l.jpg
Burke's girlfriend? That picture looks like scary girl in movie "Grudge", maybe at least Patsy's doppelganger. IMO
Originally posted by harz
who's this?
http://myspace-434.vo.llnwd.net/00095/43/48/95578434_l.jpg
Burke's girlfriend? That picture looks like scary girl in movie "Grudge", maybe at least Patsy's doppelganger. IMO
Did you see ALL of the pictures...LOL
The blonde is his girlfriend....I have no clue who the scary girl is, or WHY she looks that way. She looks dead, doesn't she? Now THAT is weird. IMO
barbsthoughts
10-15-2006, 01:36 AM
From the moment I learned of the murder and the family I suspected Burke. Motive was JonBenet was the sweetheart and received beaucoup attention. Secondly, as a 9 y.o. male the boy was on the cusp of adolescence, probably discovering his sexuality and the human responses that go along with it. Additionally, there was his sister being "displayed" as a fetching child in pageants. To believe the "product" of JonBenet could be turned on and off at will is a stretch IMO. Somewhere along the line I recall that a background conversation or conversation(s) were audible on the 911 call that indicated Burke was awake and interactions/conversations were taking place, contrary to the claim that he remained asleep. Also, any basic sociology course will enlighten a student that statistically the frequency of incest (as a taboo) occurs most frquently in the "lowest" socio-economic sector and the "highest" sector in our society. It was a tragedy.
Also. a curious factor ( probably discussed before) is the date inscribed on JonBenet's gravestone (12/25). Who and how was that determined?
Originally posted by Ames
Did you see ALL of the pictures...LOL
The blonde is his girlfriend....I have no clue who the scary girl is, or WHY she looks that way. She looks dead, doesn't she? Now THAT is weird. IMO
I found it in next link posted under your link lol,
http://www.theplaceholder.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26679
I think maybe she was playing around with make up, maybe put wig on for some halloween party. I wasn't sure who she is, thought she was Burke's girlfriend since that picture was included with other pictures of Burke & his girlfriend. I have no clue who she is if she is not the same girlfriend of Burke's in other pictures. That picture is under someone's myspace account, I don't know how to access to its home page. IMO
Originally posted by harz
I found it in next link posted under your link lol,
http://www.theplaceholder.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26679
I think maybe she was playing around with make up, maybe put wig on for some halloween party. I wasn't sure who she is, thought she was Burke's girlfriend since that picture was included with other pictures of Burke & his girlfriend. I have no clue who she is if she is not the same girlfriend of Burke's in other pictures. That picture is under someone's myspace account, I don't know how to access to its home page. IMO
It may be his girlfriend...I don't know...if it is, she sure looks different. Looking like a zombie can do that to people...LOL
Originally posted by barbsthoughts
From the moment I learned of the murder and the family I suspected Burke. Motive was JonBenet was the sweetheart and received beaucoup attention. Secondly, as a 9 y.o. male the boy was on the cusp of adolescence, probably discovering his sexuality and the human responses that go along with it. Additionally, there was his sister being "displayed" as a fetching child in pageants. To believe the "product" of JonBenet could be turned on and off at will is a stretch IMO. Somewhere along the line I recall that a background conversation or conversation(s) were audible on the 911 call that indicated Burke was awake and interactions/conversations were taking place, contrary to the claim that he remained asleep. Also, any basic sociology course will enlighten a student that statistically the frequency of incest (as a taboo) occurs most frquently in the "lowest" socio-economic sector and the "highest" sector in our society. It was a tragedy.
Also. a curious factor ( probably discussed before) is the date inscribed on JonBenet's gravestone (12/25). Who and how was that determined?
You made a good point about 12/25 on gravestone. If a neighbor heard scream at 2am, then the scream might be Patsy or Burke's. Or the scream came from other place but Ramsey's house. Or the neighbor was just dreaming. Remember Patsy didn't took shower or bath before bedtime, most logic time for her age to get in bed around 11 to midnight since she had to get up at 5:30am for Michigan trip. Since she didn't get into shower or bath after the pineapple dining, then JB's death must had occurred between those times. Or Ramseys were just hallucinating over JB to Christ while engraving the date on tombstone, even if JB actually died after midnight. JMO
WallyCleaver
10-15-2006, 07:18 AM
I've always had trouble with the BDI theory.
If Burke caused the head wound why wouldn't the reaction of PR/JR be to call an ambulance? She might have appeared to be dead, but I'd think parents would want to do everything possible to save their child. ÊRemember that there was no bleeding from the scalp, so the most likely interpretation would be she's unconscious. That calls for an ambulance, not a staged murder.
Burke wouldn't have been going to jail, so why go to such elaborate lenghts to cover for him?
The only BDI theory I could buy would be Burke killed her with the blow to the head, and JR had been molesting her and knew that would be obvious if she went to the hospital. JR did the cover up to protect himself while convincing PR that they had to do it to protect Burke.
But even that theory runs into trouble. Why all the wiping down? Burke couldn't have left any "evidence" on her (if you know what I'm getting at), not at age nine. Not very likely anyway. Why the change of underwear? And why bother to garrotte her if they thought she was already dead? Just place a baseball bat somewhere in the basement and say the intruder whacked her on the head.
MyrDawn
10-15-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Is it possible that the sexual abuse that JonBenet experienced that night was a crime of control, rather than one of pedophilia?
That's what I believe. Ever since I swung more to the IDI side, I never believed the intruder was a pedophilac, although the first announcements I heard about Karr gave me pause, until more details came out...especially his own lunatic word.
I think JonBenet was killed to get back at John for some reason, and I think the intruder may have thought the ransom note would give clues telling John it was done because of him, to "twist the knife" by attempting to make him feel like it was his fault someone killed JonBenet.
MOO
MyrDawn
10-15-2006, 10:36 AM
I used the durn "quote" button instead of the "edit" button. :rolleyes:
LadyFisher
10-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
That's what I believe. Ever since I swung more to the IDI side, I never believed the intruder was a pedophilac, although the first announcements I heard about Karr gave me pause, until more details came out...especially his own lunatic word.
I think JonBenet was killed to get back at John for some reason, and I think the intruder may have thought the ransom note would give clues telling John it was done because of him, to "twist the knife" by attempting to make him feel like it was his fault someone killed JonBenet.
MOO When I first came to this case, I did think it was a pedophile....the more I studied it..I've changed my mind.....and it's ok to change one's mind...I am convinced Patsy didn't do this, nor did she participate in a cover up.....I am on the fence with John, but lean heavily to his innocence, too! Trying to type with wet fingermails :) Yippee, our cards won last night! Have a great Sunday, everyone! :)
MissOtisRegrets
10-15-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Ames
What do you think the reason is behind her loosely bound wrists? And why was the paintbrush inserted into her? I just don't get it....and from what I have read, it probaby happened AFTER she died, because of the lack of blood. WHY? IMO
Ames, I believe he molested JonBenet, because the opportunity was there, because he was a horrible person, and because, as Athena said, it was another "gotcha" to John.
I have absolutely no idea about the three loops on the wrists. She was, at different times, on her stomach and on her back. Maybe her arms were raised to keep them out of the way and the third loop slid over something. Maybe her wrists were tied before she was carried downstairs to keep her arms from flopping and knocking something over in the dark. Was she suspended at one point? I don't think there was any bruising on the wrists. Or, as the perp waited for her to die, did he decide to use the remaining cord to design a bondage "picture" that gave the illusion that she was or had been? I have no idea, Ames.
MissOtisRegrets
10-15-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
When I first came to this case, I did think it was a pedophile....the more I studied it..I've changed my mind.....and it's ok to change one's mind...I am convinced Patsy didn't do this, nor did she participate in a cover up.....I am on the fence with John, but lean heavily to his innocence, too! Trying to type with wet fingermails :) Yippee, our cards won last night! Have a great Sunday, everyone! :)
The most I think Patsy would be capable of would be denial. And I do think she is capable of that.
MOO
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
<snipped>
But even that theory runs into trouble. Why all the wiping down? Burke couldn't have left any "evidence" on her (if you know what I'm getting at), not at age nine. Not very likely anyway. Why the change of underwear? And why bother to garrotte her if they thought she was already dead? Just place a baseball bat somewhere in the basement and say the intruder whacked her on the head.
I don't think that Burke did it, either. But, as far as him leaving "evidence" on her, at age nine. I don't know if he was on the upper end, or lower end of nine..because I don't know when his birthday is, BUT...my just turned 11 year old cousin, got a 15 year old girl pregnant (this was YEARS ago), so I would think that it COULD be possible for Burke to have left evidence. Still don't think he did it, though. IMO
Athena
10-15-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Ames, I believe he molested JonBenet, because the opportunity was there, because he was a horrible person, and because, as Athena said, it was another "gotcha" to John.
I have absolutely no idea about the three loops on the wrists. She was, at different times, on her stomach and on her back. Maybe her arms were raised to keep them out of the way and the third loop slid over something. Maybe her wrists were tied before she was carried downstairs to keep her arms from flopping and knocking something over in the dark. Was she suspended at one point? I don't think there was any bruising on the wrists. Or, as the perp waited for her to die, did he decide to use the remaining cord to design a bondage "picture" that gave the illusion that she was or had been? I have no idea, Ames.
This may sound horrible, but I thought the killer may have even 'posed' her body for photographs. jmo
sweetcharlotte
10-15-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
<snip>
If the DNA in JonBenet's panties was from her killer and if he is found one day and it cannot be proved that he did work in a factory in China or Korea or wherever the panties are from, then we will be getting somewhere. But, until then, what have we got?
<snip>
Not much - and that, MissO, just about sums it up for me.
thewhitewitch1
10-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I've always had trouble with the BDI theory.
If Burke caused the head wound why wouldn't the reaction of PR/JR be to call an ambulance? She might have appeared to be dead, but I'd think parents would want to do everything possible to save their child. ÊRemember that there was no bleeding from the scalp, so the most likely interpretation would be she's unconscious. That calls for an ambulance, not a staged murder.
Burke wouldn't have been going to jail, so why go to such elaborate lenghts to cover for him?
The only BDI theory I could buy would be Burke killed her with the blow to the head, and JR had been molesting her and knew that would be obvious if she went to the hospital. JR did the cover up to protect himself while convincing PR that they had to do it to protect Burke.
But even that theory runs into trouble. Why all the wiping down? Burke couldn't have left any "evidence" on her (if you know what I'm getting at), not at age nine. Not very likely anyway. Why the change of underwear? And why bother to garrotte her if they thought she was already dead? Just place a baseball bat somewhere in the basement and say the intruder whacked her on the head.
Good points, Wally. I imagine that he accidentally inflicted the head wound. I think that J and P thought she either was already dead or knew she would not survive (perhaps she was convulsing). I add the Burke sexual aspect into it because if that were the case, it would need to be covered up. If an ambulence was called, there would still be questions about how it happened. Maybe Burke hurt her while he was fooling around with her (as in inserting something into her vagina). This would be discovered upon arriving at the hospital and how could that be explained? The fact that the sexual staging took place implies that this is the case or else there would be no need for that type of staging. Maybe the Ramseys feared JB would be brain damaged and that Burke would have to live with the knowledge that he caused it. I'm sure they would not want anyone to know that he was messing with her sexually and that he inflicted the blow to her head that either killed her or rendered her brain damaged. I really do think that they thought she was dead. This is the only way I can envision them strangling her like that. A mercy kill isn't too much to believe but it's a bit harder for me.
Basically, the reason I believe it was Burke is because I just can see no reason for the Ramseys to cold bloodedly murder their daughter....not even "in a rage". The protection of Burke at all costs can seem innocent enough but I believe it goes much deeper than that. As far as wiping her down....why not? Perhaps there was a lot of blood or maybe just a precautionary measure. I'm sure they wouldn't know for sure if Burke could ejaculate or not. (sorry so graphic)
Change of underwear? Maybe she wasn't wearing any when they found her after the accident with Burke and in their haste, grabbed that pair in an attempt to dress her as she had been before it happened.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Good points, Wally. I imagine that he accidentally inflicted the head wound. I think that J and P thought she either was already dead or knew she would not survive (perhaps she was convulsing). I add the Burke sexual aspect into it because if that were the case, it would need to be covered up. If an ambulence was called, there would still be questions about how it happened. Maybe Burke hurt her while he was fooling around with her (as in inserting something into her vagina). This would be discovered upon arriving at the hospital and how could that be explained? The fact that the sexual staging took place implies that this is the case or else there would be no need for that type of staging. Maybe the Ramseys feared JB would be brain damaged and that Burke would have to live with the knowledge that he caused it. I'm sure they would not want anyone to know that he was messing with her sexually and that he inflicted the blow to her head that either killed her or rendered her brain damaged. I really do think that they thought she was dead. This is the only way I can envision them strangling her like that. A mercy kill isn't too much to believe but it's a bit harder for me.
Basically, the reason I believe it was Burke is because I just can see no reason for the Ramseys to cold bloodedly murder their daughter....not even "in a rage". The protection of Burke at all costs can seem innocent enough but I believe it goes much deeper than that. As far as wiping her down....why not? Perhaps there was a lot of blood or maybe just a precautionary measure. I'm sure they wouldn't know for sure if Burke could ejaculate or not. (sorry so graphic)
Change of underwear? Maybe she wasn't wearing any when they found her after the accident with Burke and in their haste, grabbed that pair in an attempt to dress her as she had been before it happened.
I too, think that after the head wound, that she was convulsing, and that is the reason that they finished her off. IMO...
edna mode
10-15-2006, 12:22 PM
Must be some FFJ posters have invaded here. They are easy to identify as there is a halt in intelligent conversation replaced by personal attacks.
Far below CTV standards.
Originally posted by edna mode
Must be some FFJ posters have invaded here. They are easy to identify as there is a halt in intelligent conversation replaced by personal attacks.
Far below CTV standards.
I didn’t intend to attack you as I haven’t replied your post. I was replying to a specific post made by Ames, at the same time I thought it was funny IMO when I noticed what was under your location. If it wasn’t funny for you, then I apologize.
Athena
10-15-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
No, we don't know what his history was but we can be relatively sure that he doesn't have a history of murdering children.
You can account for every year of the Ramseys lives? Is that so?
Do tell how that can be.
One thing we do know is that the Ramsey's lives have been investigated for years and they have come up with nothing.
Maybe that Krebs' woman was mentally ill but maybe some of what she says can be true as well. We don't know. We also don't know much about Fleet. Even the records are sealed are on him.
I do know that the Krebs story really got to Fleet and he allegedly wanted to sue for filing false allegations but let the appeal lapse? Doesn't sound like he had too much interest in clearing his name or perhaps more would have come out than he wanted to. Can you explain that? jmo
LadyFisher
10-15-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Athena
This may sound horrible, but I thought the killer may have even 'posed' her body for photographs. jmo The thought crossed my mind before, too.....I hope he didn't! And I really don't think he did.....he did what he intended to do...hurt the Ramseys! I wonder where he is today? :eek:
thewhitewitch1
10-15-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Athena
One thing we do know is that the Ramsey's lives have been investigated for years and they have come up with nothing.
Maybe that Krebs' woman was mentally ill but maybe some of what she says can be true as well. We don't know. We also don't know much about Fleet. Even the records are sealed are on him.
I do know that the Krebs story really got to Fleet and he allegedly wanted to sue for filing false allegations but let the appeal lapse? Doesn't sound like he had too much interest in clearing his name or perhaps more would have come out than he wanted to. Can you explain that? jmo
I don't need to explain it. It is just your opinion and not fact that "he let it lapse because something more might have come out."
If Fleet had some kind of "history", I'm sure it would have come out. He WAS a suspect, was he not?
Why is it so easy for you to believe that another family man could kill his best friends daughter? Because the Ramseys pointed the finger at him? That's just sad.
edna mode
10-15-2006, 05:02 PM
I would say White continues to be a very strong suspect in this murder.
sweetcharlotte
10-15-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by edna mode
I would say White continues to be a very strong suspect in this murder.
Wouldn't you like to know what Mary Lacy thinks?
Originally posted by LadyFisher
The thought crossed my mind before, too.....I hope he didn't! And I really don't think he did.....he did what he intended to do...hurt the Ramseys! I wonder where he is today? :eek:
Well if he did took pictures, it would help for DA's side to convince him and lock him away as we can hope someone will find it or he post it on internet that would trace back to his location. Even taking pictures of JB in horrible manner is still an important evidences for us to be so sure that he did it. JMO
MaryD
10-15-2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I too, think that after the head wound, that she was convulsing, and that is the reason that they finished her off. IMO...
Who in God's name would decide to strangle their daughter because she is seriously injured by their son, rather than call for an ambulance?
I have read that the strangulation had to occurr between 10 and 45 minutes after the head wound. Sooo, Patsy would have had to wake up John tell him what happened, send Burke to bed, discuss the situation, come up with some wacko plan, decide to make a garrote, decide to strangle their daughter, clean her, dress her and put her in the basement. Rather than to just get help for her injury. They aren't doctors, they don't know if she could be saved, all this to protect a nine year old from a psychological stigma? If that's what happened they are really nuts. Even if Burke was molesting JB, why wouldn't you call for help to possibly save her life?
Originally posted by MaryD
Who in God's name would decide to strangle their daughter because she is seriously injured by their son, rather than call for an ambulance?
I have read that the strangulation had to occurr between 10 and 45 minutes after the head wound. Sooo, Patsy would have had to wake up John tell him what happened, send Burke to bed, discuss the situation, come up with some wacko plan, decide to make a garrote, decide to strangle their daughter, clean her, dress her and put her in the basement. Rather than to just get help for her injury. They aren't doctors, they don't know if she could be saved, all this to protect a nine year old from a psychological stigma? If that's what happened they are really nuts. Even if Burke was molesting JB, why wouldn't you call for help to possibly save her life?
It might be too late to get help. Remember JR was famous for his business, Patsy was famous for pageants. Both of them were famous in Boulder, a small town, would be very shame or embarassing to call for help explaining what Burke did. JMO
thewhitewitch1
10-15-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by MaryD
Who in God's name would decide to strangle their daughter because she is seriously injured by their son, rather than call for an ambulance?
I have read that the strangulation had to occurr between 10 and 45 minutes after the head wound. Sooo, Patsy would have had to wake up John tell him what happened, send Burke to bed, discuss the situation, come up with some wacko plan, decide to make a garrote, decide to strangle their daughter, clean her, dress her and put her in the basement. Rather than to just get help for her injury. They aren't doctors, they don't know if she could be saved, all this to protect a nine year old from a psychological stigma? If that's what happened they are really nuts. Even if Burke was molesting JB, why wouldn't you call for help to possibly save her life?
Well, I doubt that the Ramseys would want anyone to know that their son was "molesting" their daughter. I don't even want to call it molesting cuz kids do experiment.
As I've said, maybe they thought she was already dead.
Many experts have different opinions on the head wound. Some say that they have seen head trauma such as JBs that bled very little so we don't actually know that the strangulation had to occur within that time frame. There is also evidence that JBs brain had been "slammed around" as if she'd also been shaken.
What if Burke was caught in the act of messing with JB in the bathroom and in his panic to cover what he was doing, he pushed JB away and she struck her head on the sink or tub?
I do not know that this happened, or if any of it happened. I am just theorizing.
And yes, I do think that the Ramseys would go to such lengths to protect Burke from a psychological stigma. I also think that if JB was hit that hard and was convulsing, they would have had to have known that she was near death. I'm sure they know how to take a pulse. Given that if they had called 911 at that time and she could be saved, do you really think the Ramseys wanted their trophy child to be brain damaged for the rest of her life? That would just ruin everything Patsy had ever planned for her. IMO
Originally posted by edna mode
I would say White continues to be a very strong suspect in this murder.
White? what about black?
Sorry I couldn't resist to say it lol. But I do respect your opinion for Fleet being a strong suspect. Can you explain base on? IMO
thewhitewitch1
10-15-2006, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Eagle1
Exactly. Wasn't he always threatening to sue someone, and didn't he follow through? I haven't studied him because at some forums, at least one, he's supposed to be a pal of the owner and one could so easily get banned for frankness about him.
But would any totally innocent person go to all that much trouble to railroad someone else? His "temper" in Atlanta may have been guilty desperation, for all I know. Yes, Shakespear's saying would imo apply, "Methinks they protest too much." All those rambling letters, bluffing, I'd think. I wouldn't think he acted alone if he was involved, but that some of the other "friends" probably were involved too, just guessing.
Editing to add that FW's lawsuit threats are probably why the English detective's threads are no longer available.
So he was threatening to sue someone. The Ramseys sued many people. Methinks the Ramseys protest too much.
sweetcharlotte
10-15-2006, 07:56 PM
Burke was questioned on the 26th by BPD without the Ramseys' knowledge or consent. He was questioned again on January 8th, and four more times before June 1997. He also testified at the Grand Jury. Smart 9/11 year old boy to be able to withhold pertinent info from both the BPD, child psychologists, and the Grand Jury.
JMO
WallyCleaver
10-15-2006, 08:11 PM
The molestation would have been characterized as "playing doctor". No great shame in that. A little perhaps, but not enough for all that trouble.
The blow to the head would have been an accident. No need to cover an accident caused by a 9 year old.
I think the normal reaction, no matter her condition, would be to call an ambulance.
IMO if BDI, J and P are covering for something else.
I don't really see a 8 inch scull fracture happening from playing doctor anyway. Unless one thinks Burke hit her in a rage or something.
The appeal of BDI is that it supplies a motive for the coverup. And it is hard to see why the Rs would kill JB. But, imo, it's a mistake to try to find a motive first, then see how to fit the evidence around the motive. Just go where the evidence points. Once the killer is found, the motive can be ascertained.
thewhitewitch1
10-15-2006, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
The molestation would have been characterized as "playing doctor". No great shame in that. A little perhaps, but not enough for all that trouble.
The blow to the head would have been an accident. No need to cover an accident caused by a 9 year old.
I think the normal reaction, no matter her condition, would be to call an ambulance.
IMO if BDI, J and P are covering for something else.
I don't really see a 8 inch scull fracture happening from playing doctor anyway. Unless one thinks Burke hit her in a rage or something.
The appeal of BDI is that it supplies a motive for the coverup. And it is hard to see why the Rs would kill JB. But, imo, it's a mistake to try to find a motive first, then see how to fit the evidence around the motive. Just go where the evidence points. Once the killer is found, the motive can be ascertained.
I am trying to go on evidence, Wally...or in this case, the lack thereof. There were fibers found that are unknown. Neither of the Ramseys "remember" what Burke wore either to bed on the 24th or to the Whites party on the 25th. I find that odd since they remember what everyone else in the family was wearing.
If Burke was playing doctor and inserted an object into JBs vagina and physically hurt her, that would go beyond playing doctor and would not be looked upon kindly from authorities. A forceful push against something could certainly have caused the head injury.
I respect that you don't believe Burke was involved, though.
I am still looking for evidence that he was involved, though I suspect I won't find any. The Ramseys have kept him out of most discussions pretty well.
Just because he had a therapist does not mean that he isn't hiding something. Therapists are not mind readers. If the kid doesn't want to talk, he won't.
We don't know what was said in those sessions and we don't know what was said during the grand jury. We aren't privy to that info, though I am certain he admitted nothing.
I still do believe that it is a good possibility that he was involved but you are right...it fits the motive.
Also, I can see JR protecting Patsy but I can't see Patsy protecting JR. I can't see Patsy killing JB. I can see both of them protecting Burke. IMO
Originally posted by MaryD
Who in God's name would decide to strangle their daughter because she is seriously injured by their son, rather than call for an ambulance?
I have read that the strangulation had to occurr between 10 and 45 minutes after the head wound. Sooo, Patsy would have had to wake up John tell him what happened, send Burke to bed, discuss the situation, come up with some wacko plan, decide to make a garrote, decide to strangle their daughter, clean her, dress her and put her in the basement. Rather than to just get help for her injury. They aren't doctors, they don't know if she could be saved, all this to protect a nine year old from a psychological stigma? If that's what happened they are really nuts. Even if Burke was molesting JB, why wouldn't you call for help to possibly save her life?
No, I do not think that Burke did it...IMO
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am trying to go on evidence, Wally...or in this case, the lack thereof. There were fibers found that are unknown. Neither of the Ramseys "remember" what Burke wore either to bed on the 24th or to the Whites party on the 25th. I find that odd since they remember what everyone else in the family was wearing.
If Burke was playing doctor and inserted an object into JBs vagina and physically hurt her, that would go beyond playing doctor and would not be looked upon kindly from authorities. A forceful push against something could certainly have caused the head injury.
I respect that you don't believe Burke was involved, though.
I am still looking for evidence that he was involved, though I suspect I won't find any. The Ramseys have kept him out of most discussions pretty well.
Just because he had a therapist does not mean that he isn't hiding something. Therapists are not mind readers. If the kid doesn't want to talk, he won't.
We don't know what was said in those sessions and we don't know what was said during the grand jury. We aren't privy to that info, though I am certain he admitted nothing.
I still do believe that it is a good possibility that he was involved but you are right...it fits the motive.
Also, I can see JR protecting Patsy but I can't see Patsy protecting JR. I can't see Patsy killing JB. I can see both of them protecting Burke. IMO
Me too seeing both Ramseys protecting Burke. I found it interesting they let Burke over to his friends at Fleet on that dreadful day as their kidnapped, assaulted, murdered daughter without worry or attachment for Burke. They let Burke stayed at friends, encouraged him play, kept his mind off this matter to benefit both Ramseys and Burke by avoiding Burke to be exposed into public or psychological stigma. Seems they sorted of brainwashed him. I don’t think Burke witnessed their staging. Ramseys sent Burke to bed after Burke did something terrible to JB, and then probably later that night, one of Ramsey went up into Burke’s room and told him JB is ok before he went to sleep. They could have lectured him not to discuss to anyone about what he did to JB that night. Next day, both Patsy & John didn’t cling to each other as most parents usually do when their child was kidnapped. JMO
rashomon
10-16-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Ames
What do you think the reason is behind her loosely bound wrists? And why was the paintbrush inserted into her? I just don't get it....and from what I have read, it probaby happened AFTER she died, because of the lack of blood. WHY? IMO
It all screams staging: wrist loops which didnt bind, a seventeen inch space between the hands which would have allowed even a two-year-old to free herself from the ligatures, an alleged 'garrote', which was nothing but a knot tied around JBs neck with remaining cord wrapped clumsily around a broken paintbrush handle (no breath control or whatever could have been done with that contraption), and duct tape placed on a dead child's mouth.
nuisanceposter
10-16-2006, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by cantstandnuts
That's decent of you.
I don't think you sound jaded, I think you sound sure. I wish I was, but after all this time, sadly I'm not and even sadder, I don't think there will be justice in this case.
Curious, is there any piece of evidence that clinches it for you? Or is it (and I think this is more likely) everything added up?
It's the culmination of all of the evidence and the only way I can see that it all fits together cohesively is if a Ramsey was the person who killed JonBenet.
There are just too many weird things going on for it have been the work of an intruder that can be explained by RDI succinctly.
It had to have been someone who knew JonBenet, someone who knew John and Patsy, and someone who knew the layout of the house - and was completely unafraid of being caught in the house doing what they did - what they did took a long time, especially when you consider JB had to have eaten the pineapple at least an hour before she died.
There is no solid forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night, and I think the Rs are clearly lying and covering up for the killer - and the only person they would cover for this long and this hard is one of their own.
nuisanceposter
10-16-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
The thought crossed my mind before, too.....I hope he didn't! And I really don't think he did.....he did what he intended to do...hurt the Ramseys! I wonder where he is today? :eek:
This is part of what makes experts believe this was a case of parental staging and not a real crime scene - a vicious killer who attacked JonBenet for lewd purposes would not have bothered to wipe down and redress her afterwards. He would have left her sprawled naked and perhaps even posed for greater shock value and to cause more pain and grief to her parents. Wiping down the dead child, redressing her, wrapping her in her favorite blanket with her favorite Barbie nightgown beside her is all indicative of a parent or someone who cares about the child staging the scene. Perps who come attack kids and take pictures of them during or afterwards simply do not take the time and effort to show caring for the child after - they leave the child lying there like a broken and discarded toy.
No pictures of JonBenet taken the night she died have ever been published and no one has ever seen any. Jameson actually went trolling through kiddie porn looking for pictures of JonBenet, and she said she never found any.
MissOtisRegrets
10-16-2006, 12:37 PM
What top was JonBenet wearing in the photos taken at the Whites' Christmas party?
TIA
:seeya:
MissO
Louisadelmar
10-16-2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
What top was JonBenet wearing in the photos taken at the Whites' Christmas party?
TIA
:seeya:
MissO
The white top she was found in.
MissOtisRegrets
10-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
The white top she was found in.
Thanks, Louisa!
:seeya:
MissO
MyrDawn
10-16-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Athena
This may sound horrible, but I thought the killer may have even 'posed' her body for photographs. jmo
Athena, horrible as it is, i think it's possible, too.
Maybe he took pictures of her with the intention of sending them to the Ramseys later on, in order to hurt them even more, but decided not to when he realized the Ramseys were the only ones suspected by the BPD. He may have figured having the police, media and public thinking the Ramseys killed their own little girl would hurt them more than sending the pictures and taking the heat off them.
Maybe that's why he jabbed her with the paintbrush, tied her wrists, and used the duct tape...for the pictures.
MOO
thewhitewitch1
10-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
The white top she was found in.
Where are pictures of her at the Whites Christmas party? I have never seen one anywhere.
Louisadelmar
10-16-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Where are pictures of her at the Whites Christmas party? I have never seen one anywhere.
For some reason they are one of the few things that have never been released.
thewhitewitch1
10-16-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
For some reason they are one of the few things that have never been released.
So it's safe to say that we do not know for a fact that she was wearing the same shirt to the party that she was found in.
I did previously find an exerpt from an interview where Patsy slipped and said she was wearing a dress that day. It may have been just a confused mistake but she also said "the dress with the little snaps" or something to that effect, which made me sit back for a moment remembering that one of the forensic guys thinks the mark on her face was made by a snap.
Louisadelmar
10-16-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
So it's safe to say that we do not know for a fact that she was wearing the same shirt to the party that she was found in.
I did previously find an exerpt from an interview where Patsy slipped and said she was wearing a dress that day. It may have been just a confused mistake but she also said "the dress with the little snaps" or something to that effect, which made me sit back for a moment remembering that one of the forensic guys thinks the mark on her face was made by a snap.
Steve Thomas has stated she was wearing the white shirt. I posted the quote from him here recently. I don't have much respect for Thomas but I can't see him telling a lie about something that is clearly shown in a photograph. (Even if the public hasn't seen the photo)
Athena
10-16-2006, 03:56 PM
Hi all :seeya:
Just sneakin' in at work - and figured the top she had on was an easy one -- it is in the autopsy report:
EXTERNAL EXAM: The decedent is clothed in a long sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
thewhitewitch1
10-16-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Steve Thomas has stated she was wearing the white shirt. I posted the quote from him here recently. I don't have much respect for Thomas but I can't see him telling a lie about something that is clearly shown in a photograph. (Even if the public hasn't seen the photo)
Good enough for me. Thanks. I do wonder why those photos haven't been released, though.
Louisadelmar
10-16-2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Good enough for me. Thanks. I do wonder why those photos haven't been released, though.
Maybe to protect the privacy of the other guests? Can't remember... were the Christmas morning pictures on the same roll?
Originally posted by rashomon
It all screams staging: wrist loops which didnt bind, a seventeen inch space between the hands which would have allowed even a two-year-old to free herself from the ligatures, an alleged 'garrote', which was nothing but a knot tied around JBs neck with remaining cord wrapped clumsily around a broken paintbrush handle (no breath control or whatever could have been done with that contraption), and duct tape placed on a dead child's mouth.
I think that it screams staging too. I would like to know what the IDI folks think about the facts that you listed?
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
This is part of what makes experts believe this was a case of parental staging and not a real crime scene - a vicious killer who attacked JonBenet for lewd purposes would not have bothered to wipe down and redress her afterwards. He would have left her sprawled naked and perhaps even posed for greater shock value and to cause more pain and grief to her parents. Wiping down the dead child, redressing her, wrapping her in her favorite blanket with her favorite Barbie nightgown beside her is all indicative of a parent or someone who cares about the child staging the scene. Perps who come attack kids and take pictures of them during or afterwards simply do not take the time and effort to show caring for the child after - they leave the child lying there like a broken and discarded toy.
No pictures of JonBenet taken the night she died have ever been published and no one has ever seen any. Jameson actually went trolling through kiddie porn looking for pictures of JonBenet, and she said she never found any.
I have been saying that all along...but the IDI folks just don't want to listen to reason. One of my MAIN reasons for thinking that a RDI is because of the way that she was wiped down, and her clothes were pulled back up. She was wearing long johns, too. Its not an easy task to put long johns onto a SLEEPING child, because they are so tight...much less a dead or unconscious one! And WHY the heck would an intruder take the time to pull those tight things back up anyway?? I agree with you, if an IDI, then he/she/they would have left her nude from the waist down....just like every other rape or molested victim that is KILLED. I have NEVER heard of a killer/rapist/molester that molested/raped and killed his victim and then pulled up her underwear and pants, have you ever heard of such a thing?? IMO
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Maybe to protect the privacy of the other guests? Can't remember... were the Christmas morning pictures on the same roll?
Fleet White is the one that took the pictures...from what I have read they are his. He provided a picture of Patsy Ramsey to the police, of her wearing the Red Sweater, at his party. I don't know WHY he was asked to provide it, unless it was to show to Patsy, and ask her if that was what she was wearing...maybe for evidence. IMO
Athena
10-16-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I have been saying that all along...but the IDI folks just don't want to listen to reason. One of my MAIN reasons for thinking that a RDI is because of the way that she was wiped down, and her clothes were pulled back up. She was wearing long johns, too. Its not an easy task to put long johns onto a SLEEPING child, because they are so tight...much less a dead or unconscious one! And WHY the heck would an intruder take the time to pull those tight things back up anyway?? I agree with you, if an IDI, then he/she/they would have left her nude from the waist down....just like every other rape or molested victim that is KILLED. I have NEVER heard of a killer/rapist/molester that molested/raped and killed his victim and then pulled up her underwear and pants, have you ever heard of such a thing?? IMO
Yep - and I'm sure you can find more by just doing a search:
All four victims were said to have been well-cared-for, and when found it was apparent their bodies had been cleaned either before or after death.
They were all found re-dressed in their clothing, but there was evidence that the boys were sexually assaulted. Other than Robinson, cause of death was asphyxiation.
http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=73
The five murdered victims were aged between 14 and 25 and all were found to have died from similar injuries and had been sexually mutilated. Several of them had been washed and redressed after being killed before being dumped.
http://www.crimenet.com.au/show_unsolved.phtml?id=55&sid=e7e26862be9ef5652d2bdb0ad172180e
Athena
10-16-2006, 11:53 PM
At first, police were not convinced that the killings were related, since the victim selection and manners of death were so different. However, when comparisons started being made, the similarities were glaring. All victims were snatched off the street, seemingly into thin air, in safe areas. They were all held captive for a matter of days after the abduction. They showed signs of being well cared for and bathed. One victim even had a favorite dinner after the parent made a plea for the return and promised to serve a favorite meal. All the victims were re-dressed in their own clothing with most of their belongings intact.
http://thelisalog.blogs.com/the_lisa_log/latest_crime_opinions/index.html
Originally posted by Athena
Yep - and I'm sure you can find more by just doing a search:
All four victims were said to have been well-cared-for, and when found it was apparent their bodies had been cleaned either before or after death.
They were all found re-dressed in their clothing, but there was evidence that the boys were sexually assaulted. Other than Robinson, cause of death was asphyxiation.
http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=73
The five murdered victims were aged between 14 and 25 and all were found to have died from similar injuries and had been sexually mutilated. Several of them had been washed and redressed after being killed before being dumped.
http://www.crimenet.com.au/show_unsolved.phtml?id=55&sid=e7e26862be9ef5652d2bdb0ad172180e
But how many of these victims were raped/molested, killed and redressed in their OWN home with their parents and a brother upstairs?...It just seems like too big of a risk for an intruder to take...IMO
Originally posted by Ames
But how many of these victims were raped/molested, killed and redressed in their OWN home with their parents and a brother upstairs?...It just seems like too big of a risk for an intruder to take...IMO
I left out...the words AND CLEANED...
Athena
10-17-2006, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Ames
But how many of these victims were raped/molested, killed and redressed in their OWN home with their parents and a brother upstairs...it just seems like to big of a risk for an intruder to take...IMO
Hey -- this is your statement - didn't know there were conditions I had to meet but now you can't say "you've never heard" :D
(My bed is calling me -- goodnight)
Originally posted by Ames (<snip>)
"I have NEVER heard of a killer/rapist/molester that molested/raped and killed his victim and then pulled up her underwear and pants, have you ever heard of such a thing?? IMO
Originally posted by Athena
Hey -- this is your statement - didn't know there were conditions I had to meet but now you can't say "you've never heard" :D
(My bed is calling me -- goodnight)
Originally posted by Ames (<snip>)
"I have NEVER heard of a killer/rapist/molester that molested/raped and killed his victim and then pulled up her underwear and pants, have you ever heard of such a thing?? IMO
You are right...I can't say that now...because I have NOW heard of it before...Thanks for the info...and goodnite...
Athena
10-17-2006, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
Maybe to protect the privacy of the other guests? Can't remember... were the Christmas morning pictures on the same roll?
I was thinking that as long as the case remains open, the pictures are evidence???
sweetcharlotte
10-17-2006, 08:59 AM
One of the "experts" Lawrence Kobilinsky, prof of forensics, who was on Anderson Cooper to comment on John Mark Karr's LKL interview last night said - in his opinion - solving this case will boil down to DNA.
I think he's probably right. JMO
LindaA
10-17-2006, 10:14 AM
Okay, JMK was ruled about because his DNA does not match. RDIs and most IDIs accept that . THE DNA also does not match the Ramseys. Shouldn't that rule them out as well? Apparently Judge Carnes and DA Lacy believe that, but it doesn't seem to be generally accepted by the RDIs. What am I leaving out about the DNA that indicates the Rs are guilty in spite of this?
LadyFisher
10-17-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
One of the "experts" Lawrence Kobilinsky, prof of forensics, who was on Anderson Cooper to comment on John Mark Karr's LKL interview last night said - in his opinion - solving this case will boil down to DNA.
I think he's probably right. JMO Does anyone know if Jeff Merrick or any of the other Access Graphics employees give DNA samples? jmho
nuisanceposter
10-17-2006, 11:35 AM
The foreign DNA appears to be antiquated and may have nothing at all to do with this case, as Mary Lacy said.
JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete whereas the foreign DNA was not. She had never worn those underwear before - they were pulled brand new out of the package. When other packages of the exact same kind of underwear were tested, 80% of them also had DNA on them. It's logical Occam's razor thinking to conclude that the foreign fragmented degraded DNA came from manufacture.
It doesn't exclude the Rs because it has nothing to do with JB's murder, and there's other evidence of their involvement in the murder (fibers, handwriting, inconsistent stories, for example). It excludes Karr because it proves he was not the one who left it, therefore he wasn't there when she was killed. I don't think just the DNA excludes Karr, considering the fact that there is no evidence he was ever in Colorado during Christmas of 1996 and there's no evidence of him having ever been in the Ramsey house. Not to mention his "confession" was full of errors.
LindaA
10-17-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The foreign DNA appears to be antiquated and may have nothing at all to do with this case, as Mary Lacy said.
JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete whereas the foreign DNA was not. She had never worn those underwear before - they were pulled brand new out of the package. When other packages of the exact same kind of underwear were tested, 80% of them also had DNA on them. It's logical Occam's razor thinking to conclude that the foreign fragmented degraded DNA came from manufacture.
It doesn't exclude the Rs because it has nothing to do with JB's murder, and there's other evidence of their involvement in the murder (fibers, handwriting, inconsistent stories, for example). It excludes Karr because it proves he was not the one who left it, therefore he wasn't there when she was killed. I don't think just the DNA excludes Karr, considering the fact that there is no evidence he was ever in Colorado during Christmas of 1996 and there's no evidence of him having ever been in the Ramsey house. Not to mention his "confession" was full of errors.
If it has nothing to do with the murder, how was it the reason JMK was ruled out as the perpetrator? Doesn't the DNA in the panties match the DNA under her fingernails? I understand that that DNA was compromised by the method used to take it, but if it matches the DNA in her panties that indicates to me that it was the murderer's DNA. But if I'm to understand you, this degraded DNA was good enough to clear JMK, but not good enough to clear the Ramseys because we know they were there that night.
Errors in JMK's confession? I thought he never actually confessed apart from the cryptic remarks he made on TV when he was in the custody of the Thai police. What errors are you speaking of specifically?
I believe: there is more evidence we know nothing about and there is more to the JMK story than we currently know.
nuisanceposter
10-17-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by LindaA
If it has nothing to do with the murder, how was it the reason JMK was ruled out as the perpetrator? Doesn't the DNA in the panties match the DNA under her fingernails? I understand that that DNA was compromised by the method used to take it, but if it matches the DNA in her panties that indicates to me that it was the murderer's DNA. But if I'm to understand you, this degraded DNA was good enough to clear JMK, but not good enough to clear the Ramseys because we know they were there that night.
Errors in JMK's confession? I thought he never actually confessed apart from the cryptic remarks he made on TV when he was in the custody of the Thai police. What errors are you speaking of specifically?
I believe: there is more evidence we know nothing about and there is more to the JMK story than we currently know.
No, the fingernail DNA and underwear DNA is not a match. If it was, Lin Wood would be shouting it repeatedly from every talk show. The fingernail DNA was tainted by unsterile implements used to get it, and it's so fragmented that it doesn't have enough markers to match it to anything conclusively.
That's right. And there's no proof other than Karr's word that he ever set foot in Colorado, much less the Ramsey house.
He said he picked her up from school, and there was no school that day. He said he took her to her parents house to the basement, but they were home that day, and no, he didn't. Et cetera.
Yes, there's some stuff we don't know, but if Karr knew any of it, it's quite likely he learned it from Tracey in the years they emailed each other (while Tracey was pointing the finger at other suspects who weren't the killer.)
Yes, there's probably more to Karr and his involvement going on than we know about - I believe he's meant to be a patsy (lol) and it didn't turn out that way.
I cannot believe that Karr had anything to do with JonBenet's murder. There's not enough to support that idea at all.
thewhitewitch1
10-17-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by LindaA
If it has nothing to do with the murder, how was it the reason JMK was ruled out as the perpetrator? Doesn't the DNA in the panties match the DNA under her fingernails? I understand that that DNA was compromised by the method used to take it, but if it matches the DNA in her panties that indicates to me that it was the murderer's DNA. But if I'm to understand you, this degraded DNA was good enough to clear JMK, but not good enough to clear the Ramseys because we know they were there that night.
Errors in JMK's confession? I thought he never actually confessed apart from the cryptic remarks he made on TV when he was in the custody of the Thai police. What errors are you speaking of specifically?
I believe: there is more evidence we know nothing about and there is more to the JMK story than we currently know.
LindaA...Karr "confessed" to Michael Tracey during phone calls with him. He described her death in great detail so if that is not confessing, I don't know what is.
I don't think he was dismissed just because of the DNA not matching either. If there was no other evidence that he was involved, for instance, you'd have to assume that he didn't do it.
There IS, however, other evidence suggesting that the Ramseys were involved. At this point, unless they find someone matching the DNA exactly, it is useless. IMO
sweetcharlotte
10-17-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
Does anyone know if Jeff Merrick or any of the other Access Graphics employees give DNA samples? jmho
I know he was asked to provide a sample - do not know if he complied. I have read when asked to take a polygraph his response was thta he would as soon as the Ramseys did. Another one that stays on the list. JMO
LadyFisher
10-17-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I know he was asked to provide a sample - do not know if he complied. I have read when asked to take a polygraph his response was thta he would as soon as the Ramseys did. Another one that stays on the list. JMO TY, Sweet.....I don't have the book PMPT...does it say how old Merrick is? Was he old enough to have a grown son at the time of JB's murder? imho
sweetcharlotte
10-17-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
TY, Sweet.....I don't have the book PMPT...does it say how old Merrick is? Was he old enough to have a grown son at the time of JB's murder? imho
I can't find anything relative to Merrick's age.
cantstandnuts
10-17-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I think that it screams staging too. I would like to know what the IDI folks think about the facts that you listed?
A-That the parents wouldn't engage in all this staging to cover up their crime...if they did kill her, I'm convinced it was accidental and I cannot see them engaging in all that stuff, particularly the paintbrush, which BTW points right back at Patsy!
B-That the killer wanted to make it appear that this was a sex crime for some reason...maybe to make the parents suffer more. Not only is their daughter dead, but she was molested and strangled also. Sure adds some punch to a run of the mill murder.
WallyCleaver
10-17-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by cantstandnuts
A-That the parents wouldn't engage in all this staging to cover up their crime...if they did kill her, I'm convinced it was accidental and I cannot see them engaging in all that stuff, particularly the paintbrush, which BTW points right back at Patsy!
B-That the killer wanted to make it appear that this was a sex crime for some reason...maybe to make the parents suffer more. Not only is their daughter dead, but she was molested and strangled also. Sure adds some punch to a run of the mill murder.
A- Everything used from the house points back at the Ramseys - that's just the nature of using tings from the house. Could have been a clever intruder trying to point the finger of blame at the Rs. Or, it could have been a desparate couple using the only items available to them - things from the house.
B- It wasn't a revenge killing. No reason at all for a revenge killer to leave a ransom note. It was a fake ransom note of course, but a ransom note none the less. It speaks of ransom. It does not speak of revenge. No "gotcha back" language. No "who's laughing now" language. No "you know what you did to deserve this" language. Not one word even hints at revenge.
The revenge killer theory is just a clutching at straws theory. Congnitive dissonance requires IDIs come up with some theory, rather than admit that it is overwhelmingly likely the Rs (one of them anyway) wrote the note.
WallyCleaver
10-17-2006, 06:36 PM
error.
I sure wish they'd give us a delete option
sweetcharlotte
10-17-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
error.
I sure wish they'd give us a delete option
You know you can delete as a part of edit? It just has to be within the five minutes.
WallyCleaver
10-17-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
You know you can delete as a part of edit? It just has to be within the five minutes.
No, I didn't know that. Thanks.
Originally posted by Athena
I was thinking that as long as the case remains open, the pictures are evidence???
Yep..I bet that you are right on that one. I really...REALLY would love to see those pictures...wouldn't you? You know that they weren't develped right away...because it was Christmas, and back then, as far as I remember..there wasn't any digital cameras...(someone..please correct me if I am wrong). I am thinking out loud here...just wondering if the photo lab technician that developed the pictures, knew who they were of....surely they did. I am surprised that they have not surfaced over the internet somewhere...just for that reason. IMO
cantstandnuts
10-18-2006, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
A- Everything used from the house points back at the Ramseys - that's just the nature of using tings from the house. Could have been a clever intruder trying to point the finger of blame at the Rs. Or, it could have been a desparate couple using the only items available to them - things from the house.
B- It wasn't a revenge killing. No reason at all for a revenge killer to leave a ransom note. It was a fake ransom note of course, but a ransom note none the less. It speaks of ransom. It does not speak of revenge. No "gotcha back" language. No "who's laughing now" language. No "you know what you did to deserve this" language. Not one word even hints at revenge.
The revenge killer theory is just a clutching at straws theory. Congnitive dissonance requires IDIs come up with some theory, rather than admit that it is overwhelmingly likely the Rs (one of them anyway) wrote the note.
B-It could have been. So the note doesn't speak of revenge, true, but it does speak of anger toward John. And it could have started out a kidnapping and gone awry. Taking John's daughter and getting some money from him in the process could certainly add up to someone hating John enough to want to do this. I don't know how many enemies he had, but he sure was rich and pretty powerful and with that can come enemies. I don't know why this is grasping at straws from your point of view and to let you know, I'm not an IDI, I'm a fence sitter who's leaning IDI and trying to give the Ramsey's the benefit of the doubt. I don't need motive, either, I just need to make sense of things and I have not been able to do this regardless of what side I look from.
FurthurBB
10-21-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by harz
Me too seeing both Ramseys protecting Burke. I found it interesting they let Burke over to his friends at Fleet on that dreadful day as their kidnapped, assaulted, murdered daughter without worry or attachment for Burke. They let Burke stayed at friends, encouraged him play, kept his mind off this matter to benefit both Ramseys and Burke by avoiding Burke to be exposed into public or psychological stigma. Seems they sorted of brainwashed him. I don’t think Burke witnessed their staging. Ramseys sent Burke to bed after Burke did something terrible to JB, and then probably later that night, one of Ramsey went up into Burke’s room and told him JB is ok before he went to sleep. They could have lectured him not to discuss to anyone about what he did to JB that night. Next day, both Patsy & John didn’t cling to each other as most parents usually do when their child was kidnapped. JMO
This is the only way I could see the parents covering up but, why would Burke have strangled his sister and then hit her in the head? I would not cover up for my son I would freaken kill him if I found him doing these things to my daughter. MOO
Originally posted by FurthurBB
This is the only way I could see the parents covering up but, why would Burke have strangled his sister and then hit her in the head? I would not cover up for my son I would freaken kill him if I found him doing these things to my daughter. MOO
There are many scenarios possibilities, if Ramseys did the staging, then their staging had successfully threw me off to the point on chances to figure out what had occurred, as in keeping their situations in mystery. I don’t think the murder was pre-meditated if by the Ramseys or Burke. The note gave us clue, if it was written before JB’s murder, then it was pre-meditated likely by intruder, if it was written after JB’s death, then it more likely Ramsey’s cover up. Only if we could figure out or the LE to discover when the note was exactly written. If Burke was involved, it would be more likely an accident or experiment before the reactions were made by one of Ramseys and I have no idea if JB died before, during, or after Ramsey’s reactions. JMO
Athena
10-21-2006, 08:07 PM
Missing suspect: Kevin Raburn
PMPT p321-322
Smit and Ainsworth began examining a list of suspects the police have not investigated fully. One name caught their eyes, Kevin Raburn.
A Colorado Dept of Corrections investigator, Steve McLaury had called the BPD on 2/19 about a former inmate, Kevin Raburn who was discharged from a CO prison just 200 miles from Boulder a week before the murder of JBR. Joan Wise the counselor who had handled Raburn's discharge interview, noticed the ransom amount in newspaper stories and remembered saying that he had sufficient funds to live on.
The amount mentioned was $118,000
Ainsworth soon discovered that just the previous month Raburn had been jailed for stealing batteries.
Ainsworth also discovered that a friend of Raburn's lived on 17th Street, only a few blocks from the Ramsey house.
Raburn was suspect not only because of the $118,000 coincidence but because from the night of the murder through the first week in January his whereabouts could not be confirmed. And now he seemed to have vanished.
By p664 of PMPT he was dropped without ever being found or tested. :eek:
thewhitewitch1
10-21-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Athena
Missing suspect: Kevin Raburn
PMPT p321-322
Smit and Ainsworth began examining a list of suspects the police have not investigated fully. One name caught their eyes, Kevin Raburn.
A Colorado Dept of Corrections investigator, Steve McLaury had called the BPD on 2/19 about a former inmate, Kevin Raburn who was discharged from a CO prison just 200 miles from Boulder a week before the murder of JBR. Joan Wise the counselor who had handled Raburn's discharge interview, noticed the ransom amount in newspaper stories and remembered saying that he had sufficient funds to live on.
The amount mentioned was $118,000
Ainsworth soon discovered that just the previous month Raburn had been jailed for stealing batteries.
Ainsworth also discovered that a friend of Raburn's lived on 17th Street, only a few blocks from the Ramsey house.
Raburn was suspect not only because of the $118,000 coincidence but because from the night of the murder through the first week in January his whereabouts could not be confirmed. And now he seemed to have vanished.
By p664 of PMPT he was dropped without ever being found or tested. :eek:
I am a bit confused. By saying that this guy had a sufficient amount to live on, was the person quoted saying that this person had $118,000.00? If so, how can he be a suspect when the ransom was never collected? Or was she implying that he was going to have that amount?
How does a person jump from stealing batteries to becoming a child murderer? :confused:
humanpolygraph
10-21-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
How many of you think that Burke could have been the one that started this tragedy?
I have a hard time believing that Patsy or John murdered their daughter for whatever reason. I do know that they have tried to protect Burke from the start.
I think he accidentally hit her on the head. I think he was messing around with her sexually (kid thing). I think all of the Ramseys were up for a time that night and ate a snack of pineapple. Something happened between the kids possibly shortly after the parents went to bed or even before and that P and J staged the rest of the scene to protect Burke.
I think they either believed JB was already dead or severely brain damaged and they had no choice but to cover up for Burke. Even though he couldn't be tried as an adult, people would KNOW that he caused her death. Imagine what life would have been like for him.
Of course they couldn't know that they would become the main suspects. Their intent all along was to cover for Burke so I'm sure they made some mistakes as far as covering for themselves.
Yes...they have covered for him right from the start, including "not remembering" the clothing he was wearing at any time during that time period. Burke DID own a pair of Hi-Tech boots and if I can find the link I will show you where an expert said it didn't matter what size the boot was; the logo would still be the same size.
The Ramseys have said that he has never asked them questions and that they don't discuss JBs death with him. Why would they? It's a case of "let's pretend it didn't happen" so as not to traumatize the kid. I strongly believe that Burke set this series of events into motion. He has probably repressed the memory by now and who knows what story his parents told him to absolve him of the guilt.
Does anyone else think this could be possible?
I wouldnt think a 9 year old boy could keep a secret like that for very long...think about it, when you were a kid and people ask you to keep a secret you always told someone like another best friend or such and the word would have gotten around and burke would have been under scrutiny, plus I dont think a boy that size as thin as he was could inflict a head injury of that magnatude, it took some pressure and strength to crack a skull like that. Im shuddering just thinking of it and my heart bleeds for that poor baby. But seriously I dont thiink burke could hold in a secret like that he ultimately would have slipped.
Originally posted by humanpolygraph
I wouldnt think a 9 year old boy could keep a secret like that for very long...think about it, when you were a kid and people ask you to keep a secret you always told someone like another best friend or such and the word would have gotten around and burke would have been under scrutiny, plus I dont think a boy that size as thin as he was could inflict a head injury of that magnatude, it took some pressure and strength to crack a skull like that. Im shuddering just thinking of it and my heart bleeds for that poor baby. But seriously I dont thiink burke could hold in a secret like that he ultimately would have slipped.
You would be surprise how many people can keep their secrets for so long time, even rest of their life. Burke was protected since he was child by Ramseys making sure no one is disturbing Burke for some answers. If he cares about his sister, he probably wouldn't be bottled up for so long. How he tolerates is in questioning, how many times would it takes on reminding, hassling, questioning, or interrogating Burke about JB until he say something. The Ramseys family is peculiar one, how many times would normal families can tolerate at someone who; assault on their child? Zero. Rape their child? Zero. Murder their child? Zero. Kidnap their child? Zero. After all, the Ramseys seem can tolerate these, oh well we can expect if there was an intruder, then he would be naturally forgiven by the Ramseys. JMO
MyrDawn
10-22-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by harz
You would be surprise how many people can keep their secrets for so long time, even rest of their life. Burke was protected since he was child by Ramseys making sure no one is disturbing Burke for some answers. If he cares about his sister, he probably wouldn't be bottled up for so long. How he tolerates is in questioning, how many times would it takes on reminding, hassling, questioning, or interrogating Burke about JB until he say something. The Ramseys family is peculiar one, how many times would normal families can tolerate at someone who; assault on their child? Zero. Rape their child? Zero. Murder their child? Zero. Kidnap their child? Zero. After all, the Ramseys seem can tolerate these, oh well we can expect if there was an intruder, then he would be naturally forgiven by the Ramseys. JMO
You're saying the Ramsey's tolerated someone assaulting, raping, kidnapping and murdering their child? And, the intruder would be narutally forgiven by them?
How did you come up with THAT?
MOO
LindaA
10-22-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
You're saying the Ramsey's tolerated someone assaulting, raping, kidnapping and murdering their child? And, the intruder would be narutally forgiven by them?
How did you come up with THAT?
MOO
Excellent question! I'd like to know what Harz meant as well. Perhaps she actually meant to use another verb. IMO
LindaA
10-22-2006, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am a bit confused. By saying that this guy had a sufficient amount to live on, was the person quoted saying that this person had $118,000.00? If so, how can he be a suspect when the ransom was never collected? Or was she implying that he was going to have that amount?
How does a person jump from stealing batteries to becoming a child murderer? :confused:
I was confused about the $118K as well. Stealing batteries is a long way from murder, but I wonder what he was incarcerated for in the first place.
Athena
10-22-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am a bit confused. By saying that this guy had a sufficient amount to live on, was the person quoted saying that this person had $118,000.00? If so, how can he be a suspect when the ransom was never collected? Or was she implying that he was going to have that amount?
How does a person jump from stealing batteries to becoming a child murderer? :confused:
When someone is discharged from prison it appears that they have to identify a means of income. Raburn apparently told the interviewer he had $118,000 which flew up a red flag when the interviewer read that same amount re: the ransom note in newspaper articles and it was just a week before JBR was killed.
So the question would be did he really have $118,000 or was he planning something where he would obtain $118,000 not that "she implied" he was going to have that amount it was Raburn who implied that. We do know that it never happened but it cannot be disputed that it is a strange coincidence.
I agree with your statement re: stealing batteries v murder and it does not say in PMPT what Kevin Raburn was incarcerated for originally.
I do wonder, however, what caused Smit and Ainsworth to say that his name "stuck out" in the first place on the list they were reviewing?
jmo
Athena
10-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Those who have read PMPT know that Fleet admitted to moving the suitcase; now Steve Thomas is saying that Fleet White may have opened the window. He uses the word "may" re: the moving the suitcase as well.
Recent video clip Thomas on Greta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz_DBZYkPuo
nuisanceposter
10-22-2006, 11:58 AM
I don't believe for a second that Burke had anything to with JonBenet's murder, and I don't believe that he has any inside information on what happened.
I don't think the Rs would have allowed him to go over to the White's on 12/26 or would have sent him back to school as soon as they did if Burke knew anything he might tell. I don't think he could have kept any secrets to himself all these years, and certainly he would not have held up under police and GJ questioning.
I have nothing but sympathy for Burke Ramsey. I think he is almost as much of a victim as his baby sister JonBenet was, and I wish him all the best in life.
Louisadelmar
10-22-2006, 12:29 PM
So let me get this right…
Fleet White arrives and is taking notes while everyone else is more or less in shock. He makes a beeline for the cellar and twice (glass, suitcase) alters something in the crime scene but doesn’t mention it to anyone. He looks in the wine cellar but later claims he saw nothing. He is on John's heels when John finds the body. He runs upstairs dials 911 and immediately hangs up. Then, after being told to guard the cellar he goes down and again alters the crime scene where the body was found. His post-crime behavior is bad enough that John Fernie won’t let him on the plane to GA for the funeral. In GA he is sufficiently beyond the norm that he is asked to leave one (or is it two?) homes. The Ramseys claim Fleet urged them to go on CNN. He says the opposite. He cuts off his friendship with the Ramseys for reasons unknown. He befriends Steve Thomas who then does not feel the need to treat him as one would expect a police officer to treat a suspect or even a witness. When in 1999 he blows off a subpoena in the Miller/Lewis case he writes a letter (reminiscent of the ransom note) saying “"I have respect for this court," "I did not have so much respect for this case in which I'd been subpoenaed." Now we are being told he may have also opened the window down cellar?
I’ve never been a FWDI fan even though he is self-alibied because of the lack of DNA and handwriting matches. But now I am wondering if this could have been a kidnapping for hire that went bad. Could Fleet have been jealous of the Ramseys and set this up as a lesson in the downside of having money. Then it all went horribly wrong?
(http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LWKk0R0Q3D4J:www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php%3Ft6148.html+fleet+white+%22respect+for+ this+court%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2)
sweetcharlotte
10-22-2006, 01:55 PM
I couldn't get the link to open.
Louisadelmar
10-22-2006, 01:59 PM
It's not important. It just verifies that FW actually said the "respect for this court" bit in his letter. I think its from the Crime and Justice forum. If you do a google search on Fleet White "respect for this court" you will find a variety of matches.
Added: Here is another one
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/841487/detail.html
sweetcharlotte
10-22-2006, 02:05 PM
It's not that important. Your post about Fleet - IMO - is on the money. Something just not right about him. JMO
thewhitewitch1
10-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Here we go again. Usually when Steve Thomas says something, you all disregard it as garbage...UNLESS it points to someone other than the Ramseys.
JR admitted that HE closed the window and that both of them found glass and picked it up. JR also did not mention the window or the suitcase to the police until MUCH later.
I believe (and I will look it up to confirm) that JR stated that Fleet did not want them to do the CNN interview and I believe he also changed that story around to Fleet later urging them to do it.
Nobody puts fault in JR for disturbing the crime scene (more than once) but suddenly Fleet is sinister because he disturbed it. Fleet was "on JRs heels to the basement" because he was ASKED to accompany him.
His "odd" behavior later can easily be explained if he suspected his friends in killing their daughter. Obviously the man was very upset by the murder. He was very close to the family and even took care of their kids on occasion.
Cutting himself off from the Ramseys would be pretty understandable if he thinks they are responsible, don't you think? The Ramseys tried pretty hard to implicate both Fleet and Priscilla, which would be another good reason to cut all ties with them. IMO
Originally posted by MyrDawn
You're saying the Ramsey's tolerated someone assaulting, raping, kidnapping and murdering their child? And, the intruder would be narutally forgiven by them?
How did you come up with THAT?
MOO
I remember reading JR statement something about him forgiving whoever had done to his daughter. I would have to find the link where I read it before. You didn't know JR said about the forgiving? If not, I will try search for it again. Thats one of things how I came with that, IMO
thewhitewitch1
10-22-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by harz
I remember reading JR statement something about him forgiving whoever had done to his daughter. I would have to find the link where I read it before. You didn't know JR said about the forgiving? If not, I will try search for it again. Thats one of things how I came with that, IMO
John Andrew said it.
Athena
10-22-2006, 02:58 PM
Where did the Ramseys try hard to implicate Fleet and Priscilla? If anything they had a difficult time believing ANYONE they knew could be responsible for this horrific crime. That was a game the BPD created. Nothing new for the BPD to turn people against each other in the hopes they will get information. Commonly done anywhere - not just in Boulder.
As far as "suddenly" suspecting Fleet personally he's always been a suspect for me - can't speak for everyone. JR disturbed the crime scene when he found HIS daughter's body.
Who was Fleet to go down into that basement within 15 minutes of arriving at the Ramseys and then back down AFTER JR comes up with JBRs body and tampers with the duct tape? That's not just accompanying JR to the basement.
Re: Steve Thomas and I've also said this many times before -- I have a problem with anything in his book re: speculation and anything that directly contradicts his statements in that book from his depo that proved he told lies.
jmo
Then why Fleet and others were called by Ramseys to come over then? :shrug: JMO
LadyFisher
10-22-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I don't believe for a second that Burke had anything to with JonBenet's murder, and I don't believe that he has any inside information on what happened.
I don't think the Rs would have allowed him to go over to the White's on 12/26 or would have sent him back to school as soon as they did if Burke knew anything he might tell. I don't think he could have kept any secrets to himself all these years, and certainly he would not have held up under police and GJ questioning.
I have nothing but sympathy for Burke Ramsey. I think he is almost as much of a victim as his baby sister JonBenet was, and I wish him all the best in life. I agree with you about Burke for all the reasons you just mentioned! :seeya:
LadyFisher
10-22-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Athena
Where did the Ramseys try hard to implicate Fleet and Priscilla? If anything they had a difficult time believing ANYONE they knew could be responsible for this horrific crime. That was a game the BPD created. Nothing new for the BPD to turn people against each other in the hopes they will get information. Commonly done anywhere - not just in Boulder.
As far as "suddenly" suspecting Fleet personally he's always been a suspect for me - can't speak for everyone. JR disturbed the crime scene when he found HIS daughter's body.
Who was Fleet to go down into that basement within 15 minutes of arriving at the Ramseys and then back down AFTER JR comes up with JBRs body and tampers with the duct tape? That's not just accompanying JR to the basement.
Re: Steve Thomas and I've also said this many times before -- I have a problem with anything in his book re: speculation and anything that directly contradicts his statements in that book from his depo that proved he told lies.
jmo I still have them on MY suspect list, too, Althena! I think this was someone close to the Ramseys...I think the perp wouldn't have even entered the Ramseys mind...I think he is a very personable person on the outside....but a psychopath on the inside! imho I would love to know who all was in attendance at the party the Whites had Christmas night! Did the Whites have any older children? imho
Athena
10-22-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I don't believe for a second that Burke had anything to with JonBenet's murder, and I don't believe that he has any inside information on what happened.
I don't think the Rs would have allowed him to go over to the White's on 12/26 or would have sent him back to school as soon as they did if Burke knew anything he might tell. I don't think he could have kept any secrets to himself all these years, and certainly he would not have held up under police and GJ questioning.
I have nothing but sympathy for Burke Ramsey. I think he is almost as much of a victim as his baby sister JonBenet was, and I wish him all the best in life.
I agree totally with this post! jmo
Athena
10-22-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
John Andrew said it.
Do you have a link to JAR making this statement other than the Vanity Fair article? That is the only article I can find and it is not in any of the books I've read.
TIA
Louisadelmar
10-22-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Here we go again. Usually when Steve Thomas says something, you all disregard it as garbage...UNLESS it points to someone other than the Ramseys.
JR admitted that HE closed the window and that both of them found glass and picked it up. JR also did not mention the window or the suitcase to the police until MUCH later.
I believe (and I will look it up to confirm) that JR stated that Fleet did not want them to do the CNN interview and I believe he also changed that story around to Fleet later urging them to do it.
Nobody puts fault in JR for disturbing the crime scene (more than once) but suddenly Fleet is sinister because he disturbed it. Fleet was "on JRs heels to the basement" because he was ASKED to accompany him.
His "odd" behavior later can easily be explained if he suspected his friends in killing their daughter. Obviously the man was very upset by the murder. He was very close to the family and even took care of their kids on occasion.
Cutting himself off from the Ramseys would be pretty understandable if he thinks they are responsible, don't you think? The Ramseys tried pretty hard to implicate both Fleet and Priscilla, which would be another good reason to cut all ties with them. IMO
No. Actually I posted fairly recently that when I wanted info on Fleet White I go to ST first because I know they were breakfast buds.
This is what JOhn said in the 1998 interview re going on television:
17 JOHN RAMSEY: His biggest issue was that we
18 retained attorneys. And he hated that. I don't
19 know why.
20 LOU SMIT: What was his big beef with that?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know. I remember
22 Priscilla saying, (You don't need attorneys. We're
23 next (INAUDIBLE), we're not going to get
24 attorneys.Þ I think he wanted to speak up. Because
25 by that time the media circus was rolling full
0198
1 speed ahead. He wanted us to speak out. He wanted
2 us to -- and he was the one that advocated a
3 (INAUDIBLE) our interview (INAUDIBLE).
4 LOU SMIT: Tell me how that kind of came
5 about. Because that's been something that's been
6 brought up a few times.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, I don't remember
8 exactly. But I remember he was just rabid about
9 what the media was saying about us and we needed
10 to defend ourselves. And we needed to go on
11 television and --
12 LOU SMIT: Who actually made the arrangements
13 for that?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I think I decided to
15 do it. And Bob Westmoreland, who is a friend of
16 the president of CNN, he was around us all that
17 time too, Bob was. And he said well I can call
18 whoever it was, and that was a logical place for
19 us to do it.
And in DOI p 44:
[Fleet's] solution was for Patsy and me to go on national television and tell our story...
John Ramsey gets regularly raked over the coals for closing the window, carrying his daughter upstairs etc.
Fleet was asked to go with John to check the house. Other than the request itself it isn't odd that he would go with him. But why would Fleet go down there earlier and open the window? It's easier to understand that John would automatically close it since it was often opened when the kids were down there playing and I would bet the kids didn't regularly remember to close it. I frequently automatically pick stuff up after my kids without thinking about it.
I just went through John's interviews and he didn't try hard to implicate the Whites. As near as I can tell he didn't suggest anything negative about Fleet in the 1997 interview. If Fleet thought the Ramseys were accusing him in the months after the murder 1)He was wrong and 2) Someone must have leaked that misinformation to him.
Fleet's odd behavior started before they left Boulder for the funeral in GA.
thewhitewitch1
10-23-2006, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
No. Actually I posted fairly recently that when I wanted info on Fleet White I go to ST first because I know they were breakfast buds.
This is what JOhn said in the 1998 interview re going on television:
17 JOHN RAMSEY: His biggest issue was that we
18 retained attorneys. And he hated that. I don't
19 know why.
20 LOU SMIT: What was his big beef with that?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know. I remember
22 Priscilla saying, (You don't need attorneys. We're
23 next (INAUDIBLE), we're not going to get
24 attorneys.Þ I think he wanted to speak up. Because
25 by that time the media circus was rolling full
0198
1 speed ahead. He wanted us to speak out. He wanted
2 us to -- and he was the one that advocated a
3 (INAUDIBLE) our interview (INAUDIBLE).
4 LOU SMIT: Tell me how that kind of came
5 about. Because that's been something that's been
6 brought up a few times.
7 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, I don't remember
8 exactly. But I remember he was just rabid about
9 what the media was saying about us and we needed
10 to defend ourselves. And we needed to go on
11 television and --
12 LOU SMIT: Who actually made the arrangements
13 for that?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, I think I decided to
15 do it. And Bob Westmoreland, who is a friend of
16 the president of CNN, he was around us all that
17 time too, Bob was. And he said well I can call
18 whoever it was, and that was a logical place for
19 us to do it.
And in DOI p 44:
[Fleet's] solution was for Patsy and me to go on national television and tell our story...
John Ramsey gets regularly raked over the coals for closing the window, carrying his daughter upstairs etc.
Fleet was asked to go with John to check the house. Other than the request itself it isn't odd that he would go with him. But why would Fleet go down there earlier and open the window? It's easier to understand that John would automatically close it since it was often opened when the kids were down there playing and I would bet the kids didn't regularly remember to close it. I frequently automatically pick stuff up after my kids without thinking about it.
I just went through John's interviews and he didn't try hard to implicate the Whites. As near as I can tell he didn't suggest anything negative about Fleet in the 1997 interview. If Fleet thought the Ramseys were accusing him in the months after the murder 1)He was wrong and 2) Someone must have leaked that misinformation to him.
Fleet's odd behavior started before they left Boulder for the funeral in GA.
Okay...first of all, where did you read that Fleet opened the window? How do you know that Fleet went into the basement before John?
Second, Fleet was upset over the CNN interview. He did not want them to do it and he was upset over the lawyers because he thought it made them look guilty. I believe he was also upset over their lack of co-operation with the LE and not allowing themselves to be interviewed in the days following JBs death.
In the '97 interview, he indicated to the police that he thought Fleets behavior directly after he found JB was "odd" and both said in another interview that it was "odd" for Priscilla to fix the plate of food for JB. Using the word "odd" is as good as using the word "suspicious".
There is virtually NO physical evidence that Fleet had anything to do with it. What on earth would his motive be?
Maybe he acted weirdly and emotionally afterwards but I think that by then he began to believe that the Ramseys had everything to do with her murder. Or maybe he was frusterated and upset because they wouldn't co-operate and let the police do their job so they could exclude them and move on to focusing on finding the killer. After all, he was good friends with the family and had young children of his own. I wouldn't doubt that he was afraid for their safety. We only have the Ramseys version of his erratic behavior and what caused it. If his version is out there somewhere, I'd like to see it.
Also, I don't think it is so horrible if he and Steve Thomas were "breakfast buddies". They both believe the same thing and just want the real murderer(s) brought to justice. I'm sure JR and Lou Smit were breakfast buddies too.
bullmoose
10-23-2006, 05:44 AM
I think Fleet White maybe started acting funny because the cops were playing him for a fool, maybe telling him lies about the Ramseys' accusing him; sparking a stronger streak of paranoia in him that an average person would have. Anybody close to the Ramseys were going to be closely scrutinized, especially somebody that was there. I think that as time went on he maybe thought that it just had to be someone very close to the Ramseys; inasmuch as the cops were telling him that. If he really thought the Ramseys didn't need an attorney when the BPD tried to hold Jonbenet's corpse as a ransom, before they went to Atlanta to bury her, then I think he was showing delusional tendencies in Boulder.
MyrDawn
10-23-2006, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
snip...
Okay...first of all, where did you read that Fleet opened the window? How do you know that Fleet went into the basement before John?
Listen for yourself to Steve Thomas saying Fleet White "who WAS in the basement during the course of that MORNING" may have opened that window:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz_DBZYkPuo
thewhitewitch1
10-23-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
Listen for yourself to Steve Thomas saying Fleet White "who WAS in the basement during the course of that MORNING" may have opened that window:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz_DBZYkPuo
MAY have and did are two different things. It is only a speculation. JR said he went around and checked doors etc before the police arrived. We also know HE was in the basement at some point, as vague as he was about the time ("sometime before 10:00" is all we get). Why would Fleet open the window?
Why would John close it and not tell the police? Why would he lie later and say that he told Det. Arndt about it immediately? Why can't he get his story straight?
nuisanceposter
10-23-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
MAY have and did are two different things. It is only a speculation. JR said he went around and checked doors etc before the police arrived. We also know HE was in the basement at some point, as vague as he was about the time ("sometime before 10:00" is all we get). Why would Fleet open the window?
Why would John close it and not tell the police? Why would he lie later and say that he told Det. Arndt about it immediately? Why can't he get his story straight?
And that's not the only story he can't keep straight! Both he and Patsy contradict themselves repeatedly, on more than one issue. IMO, with this much contradiction, that's not confusion or lack of recall...it's outright lying.
Louisadelmar
10-23-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
MAY have and did are two different things. It is only a speculation. JR said he went around and checked doors etc before the police arrived. We also know HE was in the basement at some point, as vague as he was about the time ("sometime before 10:00" is all we get). Why would Fleet open the window?
Why would John close it and not tell the police? Why would he lie later and say that he told Det. Arndt about it immediately? Why can't he get his story straight?
I think we have talked about this before but I can't remember where he said he told Arndt immediately.
MyrDawn
10-23-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
MAY have and did are two different things. It is only a speculation. JR said he went around and checked doors etc before the police arrived. We also know HE was in the basement at some point, as vague as he was about the time ("sometime before 10:00" is all we get). Why would Fleet open the window?
Why would John close it and not tell the police? Why would he lie later and say that he told Det. Arndt about it immediately? Why can't he get his story straight?
He said Fleet White WAS in the basement that morning, not MAY have been there. Morning...not afternoon when the body was found.
I don't know why he or John wouldn't mentioned the window. Why ask me. But, neither of them did.
thewhitewitch1
10-23-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by MyrDawn
He said Fleet White WAS in the basement that morning, not MAY have been there. Morning...not afternoon when the body was found.
I don't know why he or John wouldn't mentioned the window. Why ask me. But, neither of them did.
I was not disputing the fact that FW WAS in the basement. I was disputing that it was a fact that he opened the window. And still, nobody knows who was in the basement first...JR or FW.
thewhitewitch1
10-23-2006, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Louisadelmar
I think we have talked about this before but I can't remember where he said he told Arndt immediately.
In the earlier interviews, he says nothing about mentioning the window to Arndt. It is not mentioned that he did so in the search warrants. He does not mention that he said anything to her until MUCH later, which I believe is an outright lie. IMO
Athena
10-23-2006, 10:10 PM
Presumed Guilty pps 175-181
A fourth person, Fleet White, had been eliminated as a suspect as well, but conditionally: Hunter had only been willing to scratch him off the list based upon the current state of the evidence. If that state changed, the oil man's position could change as well. White was infuriated at being put in this kind of limbo and unleashed very hard feelings toward the district attorney. The oil man, determined to do something about his legal status, would eventually try to get Hunter removed from the case.
As part of the strategy, White befriended some of the cops who were working the homicide. He bitterly complained bout Hunter's tactics to them, and to Detective Steve Thomas in particular. Thomas was in the original group of investigators assigned to the case by the Boulder Police Department. In his mid-thirties and with more than a decade on the force, Thomas was considered a polite, meticulous, and very professional officer. He was known for strongly identifying with crime victims. He was also known for taking cases, large or small, and pursuing them tirelessly, but his response to the murder of JonBenét Ramsey was beyond any tenaciousness he had displayed before. He was absolutely dedicated to seeing HIS version of justice rendered and made little attempt around reporters to hide his believe that the Ramseys were culpable. Early in the investigation, he identified Alex Hunter as an impediment to their arrest.
<snip>
Steve Thomas and Fleet White found common ground in their view of Hunter. Thomas and other detectives viewed White as a friendly and important witness for the prosecution, if the case ever came to trial, since White had been with the Ramseys the night before the crime and the morning of December 26 and had accompanied John Ramsey to the basement when they found the body. Although the cops felt that White's testimony could be crucial in getting a conviction against the Ramseys, they also worried that his treatment by Alex Hunter could turn the oil man against the prosecutors and into a hostile witness. Some of the detectives enjoyed sitting around the station and lambasting Hunter, so White's criticisms of the D.A. were quite welcome.
However, since the detectives were powerless to remove Hunter as an obstacle in their path, White began developing other options. One would involve Roy Romer, the governor of Colorado, another Democrat whom White would ask for assistance in getting rid of the D.A. and bringing in a special prosecutor.
While the oil man was building this strategy, Hunter ws looking for unorthodox ways to investigate someone of whom he had been suspicious for months - in fact, ever since he had met him - a person whom at least some of the police officers did not want to investigate but believed should be fully cleared: Fleet White. Hunter's behavior only further infuriated White and Steve Thomas and cemented their bond.
Devotion
10-25-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Athena
Note from Dr. John Meyer August 13, 1997
Contrary to several media reports over the past few days, the autopsy report on JonBenet Ramsey does not and has never contained information on the estimated time of death. I have not been able to determine the original source of the statement that the report contained the estimated time of death, but it certainly did not come from this office.
The time of an "unwitnessed" death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court.
John E. Meyer, M.D.
Boulder County Coroner
:shrug: imo: Has anyone heard how many" murder victim" autopsys this coroner had preformed
before JonB's???
or total autopsys preformed in his medical career?
Devotion
10-25-2006, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I've always had trouble with the BDI theory.
If Burke caused the head wound why wouldn't the reaction of PR/JR be to call an ambulance? She might have appeared to be dead, but I'd think parents would want to do everything possible to save their child. ÊRemember that there was no bleeding from the scalp, so the most likely interpretation would be she's unconscious. That calls for an ambulance, not a staged murder.
Burke wouldn't have been going to jail, so why go to such elaborate lenghts to cover for him?
The only BDI theory I could buy would be Burke killed her with the blow to the head, and JR had been molesting her and knew that would be obvious if she went to the hospital. JR did the cover up to protect himself while convincing PR that they had to do it to protect Burke.
But even that theory runs into trouble. Why all the wiping down? Burke couldn't have left any "evidence" on her (if you know what I'm getting at), not at age nine. Not very likely anyway. Why the change of underwear? And why bother to garrotte her if they thought she was already dead? Just place a baseball bat somewhere in the basement and say the intruder whacked her on the head.
:shrug: IMO: My husband disagree's with your statement that "B. couldn't have left any evidence on JonB."...
My Husband said he knows from personal experience that at age 9 or 10 it IS possible.... does any one agree??....jmo
WallyCleaver
10-25-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Devotion
:shrug: IMO: My husband disagree's with your statement that "B. couldn't have left any evidence on JonB."...
My Husband said he knows from personal experience that at age 9 or 10 it IS possible.... does any one agree??....jmo
It's possible if he was sexually developed at age 9. I'm sure someone can find a case where a 9 year old boy got a woman pregnant. Let's just say that most 9 year olds aren't going to be able to leave evidence. It's extremely unlikely, though theoretically possible.
Originally posted by Devotion
:shrug: IMO: My husband disagree's with your statement that "B. couldn't have left any evidence on JonB."...
My Husband said he knows from personal experience that at age 9 or 10 it IS possible.... does any one agree??....jmo
I don't think that Burke did it...but, I agree with your husband. My just turned 11 year old cousin got a 15 year old girl pregnant. And thats the youngest age of a boy that I have ever heard of, that can do that. Wonder how close Burke was to being 10? IMO
Athena
10-26-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
MAY have and did are two different things. It is only a speculation. JR said he went around and checked doors etc before the police arrived. We also know HE was in the basement at some point, as vague as he was about the time ("sometime before 10:00" is all we get). Why would Fleet open the window?
Why would John close it and not tell the police? Why would he lie later and say that he told Det. Arndt about it immediately? Why can't he get his story straight?
If you really pay attention to that video Thomas wanted to say more than "may" but I suspect he's had his share of lawsuits so is very careful about what he says. Don't think he would've said it all if it had not been more than a "may". We know Fleet was in the basement and he did admit moving the suitcase, picking up glass and the duct tape later. He probably mentioned the window in his conversations with Thomas that weren't entered into the police record. Many questions IMO re: the relationship between Thomas and White. JMO
Athena
10-26-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I don't think that Burke did it...but, I agree with your husband. My just turned 11 year old cousin got a 15 year old girl pregnant. And thats the youngest age of a boy that I have ever heard of, that can do that. Wonder how close Burke was to being 10? IMO
Puberty is the period during which sexual organs mature and reproduction becomes possible. Boys usually begin to show signs of puberty at about 11 or 12 years of age, although puberty can start as early as age 10 or as late as age 16.
http://yourhealth.calgaryhealthregion.ca/Topic.jsp?GUID=%7B61270E52-F1DC-4FB0-A588-FF141F215D47%7D
Coloradokares
10-26-2006, 04:52 PM
Athena I have never heard anything regarding anyone that alone Fleet White as to anything to do with the duct tape. Do you happen to have a link or a page number or anything to that information. I thought the duct tape was just plain missing.
Originally posted by Athena
If you really pay attention to that video Thomas wanted to say more than "may" but I suspect he's had his share of lawsuits so is very careful about what he says. Don't think he would've said it all if it had not been more than a "may". We know Fleet was in the basement and he did admit moving the suitcase, picking up glass and the duct tape later. He probably mentioned the window in his conversations with Thomas that weren't entered into the police record. Many questions IMO re: the relationship between Thomas and White. JMO
Athena
10-26-2006, 06:11 PM
Coloradokares..
re: the duct tape -- hope you realize I was referring to the piece JR pulled off of JBR's mouth (not the roll). Don't want to mislead.
PMPT - paperback edition: pp 20-21
Fleet White decided to go back downstairs to the wine cellar where JBR's body had been found. He had looked into the same room early that morning when he made a quick search of the house. Now that there was a light on, he saw clearly for the first time a white blanket in the center of the cement floor. A piece of black duct tape was lying on it. He picked up the tape, which felt sticky, and then placed it on the blanket for the police. He looked around the room cluttered with paint cans, lumber and window screens before he went back upstairs to guard the door.
shill
10-27-2006, 09:27 PM
It's to bad both Fleet and JR contaminated the piece of duct tape since they both probably had contact with Patsy's sweater, directly or indirectly.
thewhitewitch1
10-27-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Athena
Coloradokares..
re: the duct tape -- hope you realize I was referring to the piece JR pulled off of JBR's mouth (not the roll). Don't want to mislead.
PMPT - paperback edition: pp 20-21
Fleet White decided to go back downstairs to the wine cellar where JBR's body had been found. He had looked into the same room early that morning when he made a quick search of the house. Now that there was a light on, he saw clearly for the first time a white blanket in the center of the cement floor. A piece of black duct tape was lying on it. He picked up the tape, which felt sticky, and then placed it on the blanket for the police. He looked around the room cluttered with paint cans, lumber and window screens before he went back upstairs to guard the door.
Is it just me or is the duct tape in the lone picture of it silver?? Whether a flash was used with the camera or not, black tape would not photograph like that, don't you think? Weird.
Coloradokares
10-28-2006, 02:42 AM
Ok now that we are on the same page regarding the duct tape and I realize its the piece not the roll ... dismiss what I had posted earlier about the duct tape missing. Now we can move on to the color. I think the picture maybe be showing the backside of the tape. A greyish white color maybe? The front side was black.
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Is it just me or is the duct tape in the lone picture of it silver?? Whether a flash was used with the camera or not, black tape would not photograph like that, don't you think? Weird.
antares
10-28-2006, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by shill
It's to bad both Fleet and JR contaminated the piece of duct tape since they both probably had contact with Patsy's sweater, directly or indirectly.
Did Jon Benet have contact with Patsy's sweater?
Speaking of fibres and sweaters...My black sweater has hundreds of cat and dog...well not fibres, they're hairs. And it's got fibres, too. I think every sample of hair and fibre is stuck to my poor sweater.
So, Fleet and JR were in contact with Patsy's sweater, but JonBenet was not? Hmmmm.
You know, theory is based on evidence, not evidence fits the theory.
MyrDawn
10-28-2006, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Is it just me or is the duct tape in the lone picture of it silver?? Whether a flash was used with the camera or not, black tape would not photograph like that, don't you think? Weird.
It's always looked silver to me, too. I'm not much of a photographer, so I don't know if the flash or lightbar used could make black tape look that silver or not. But, it looks evenly silver not with any bright glaring spot like I'd think a flash would make if it was angled such that it could make black tape look silver.
MOO
http://www.acandyrose.com/149blanket.jpg
Originally posted by MyrDawn
It's always looked silver to me, too. I'm not much of a photographer, so I don't know if the flash or lightbar used could make black tape look that silver or not. But, it looks evenly silver not with any bright glaring spot like I'd think a flash would make if it was angled such that it could make black tape look silver.
MOO
http://www.acandyrose.com/149blanket.jpg
Looks silver to me too...I don't believe a flash would have changed the color like that. IMO
Originally posted by Ames
Looks silver to me too...I don't believe a flash would have changed the color like that. IMO
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm
In this interview JR says the tape was not really duct tape, and that it was a white, black color...which would make it silver??
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It wasn't really duct
15 tape, it was -- well I'm sure you've seen it. But
16 it was like black. It wasn't electrical tape. It
17 was kind of white, black, unusual tape, I thought.
shill
10-29-2006, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Is it just me or is the duct tape in the lone picture of it silver?? Whether a flash was used with the camera or not, black tape would not photograph like that, don't you think? Weird. It's just you and your clique!
Maybe if you close your eyes it will look black. Oh wait, I forgot you see what you want to see with your eyes closed.
This is what black duct tape looks like. Judge for your selves. The evidence photo shows the sticky side.
http://scorpionsupport.com///DSC00142.JPE
MyrDawn
10-29-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by shill
It's just you and your clique!
Maybe if you close your eyes it will look black. Oh wait, I forgot you see what you want to see with your eyes closed.
This is what black duct tape looks like. Judge for your selves. The evidence photo shows the sticky side.
http://scorpionsupport.com///DSC00142.JPE
:lol:
Her clique? Did you see that, TWW? We're in the same clique now! :beer:
The tape is one of the few things I've agreed with TWW on shill, so don't be talking about "cliques", and stop with the insults if you want anyone to take anything you say here seriously.
I hadn't thought about the sticky side being up in that photo, but that might explain the color we see.
Athena
10-29-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by shill
It's to bad both Fleet and JR contaminated the piece of duct tape since they both probably had contact with Patsy's sweater, directly or indirectly.
I do agree that the fibers could have been secondary transfer. I could imagine FW hugging Patsy when he came over that morning. Patsy put JBR to bed after returning from the Whites wearing the same sweater.
To me the fibers are no big deal other than: 1) I'd like to know how they went from brown to red and 2) why when her sweater was red, black and gray checked, only red fibers were found?
JMO
Athena
10-29-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
Ok now that we are on the same page regarding the duct tape and I realize its the piece not the roll ... dismiss what I had posted earlier about the duct tape missing. Now we can move on to the color. I think the picture maybe be showing the backside of the tape. A greyish white color maybe? The front side was black.
I agree.
shill
10-29-2006, 07:57 PM
MyrDawn,
So if I stop insulting them, they'll take what I say seriously?
I doubt it.
Originally posted by Athena
I do agree that the fibers could have been secondary transfer. I could imagine FW hugging Patsy when he came over that morning. Patsy put JBR to bed after returning from the Whites wearing the same sweater.
To me the fibers are no big deal other than: 1) I'd like to know how they went from brown to red and 2) why when her sweater was red, black and gray checked, only red fibers were found?
JMO
Very good question...if her sweater was different colors, shouldn't there be black fibers and gray fibers and red fibers? Seems like more BS by the BPD to me.
MyrDawn
10-30-2006, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by shill
MyrDawn,
So if I stop insulting them, they'll take what I say seriously?
I doubt it.
Do you really think insulting people makes them, or anyone else, take you seriously? :o
lucky13
10-30-2006, 07:22 AM
Does anyone have a link to photos that were taken AT the Whites Christmas party? (with Patsy & JonBenet in the pics)
I'd like to see Patsy's sweater for myself & also what type of 'hairdo' JB had that night. Did she have the 2 ponytails like she did when she was found? I've never seen her with her hair styled that way before.....
Athena
10-30-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by lucky13
Does anyone have a link to photos that were taken AT the Whites Christmas party? (with Patsy & JonBenet in the pics)
I'd like to see Patsy's sweater for myself & also what type of 'hairdo' JB had that night. Did she have the 2 ponytails like she did when she was found? I've never seen her with her hair styled that way before.....
Hi Lucky...
The pictures are evidence and have never been released to the public to my knowledge. jmo
lucky13
10-30-2006, 07:49 AM
Athena, thanks for responding. I figured if ANYBODY did have a link, it would be you!! I wonder why we are allowed to view all of the other evidence out there but not those pics?:shrug:
Originally posted by Athena
Hi Lucky...
The pictures are evidence and have never been released to the public to my knowledge. jmo
Hi Guys...I am shocked that the person that developed the pictures, didn't make a second set to sell to the Enquirer or something. You know that by the time they were developed, the murder had already taken place...and her name and picture was splashed all over the news, so the person developing them would have recognized her....IMO
Originally posted by lucky13
Does anyone have a link to photos that were taken AT the Whites Christmas party? (with Patsy & JonBenet in the pics)
I'd like to see Patsy's sweater for myself & also what type of 'hairdo' JB had that night. Did she have the 2 ponytails like she did when she was found? I've never seen her with her hair styled that way before.....
I have OFTEN wondered about her hairdo too. Patsy said in one of her interviews (I will find and post the link if needed) that she always wore her hair in a ponytail, when she slept. If thats the case though... unless she wore her hair in two ponytails to the party, which I could not imagine her doing, then she HAD to be awake at least for some period of time that night, for Patsy to have put the ponytails in for her to wear at bedtime. I wished that those photos would be released to the public...it may explain alot! IMO
shill
10-30-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Hi Guys...I am shocked that the person that developed the pictures, didn't make a second set to sell to the Enquirer or something. You know that by the time they were developed, the murder had already taken place...and her name and picture was splashed all over the news, so the person developing them would have recognized her....IMO Didn't the police seize the film from the Ramseys camera for processing at the same lab that sold the autopsy photos? And didn't those employees serve jail time?
That would deter them from selling any more copies.
Originally posted by shill
Didn't the police seize the film from the Ramseys camera for processing at the same lab that sold the autopsy photos? And didn't those employees serve jail time?
That would deter them from selling any more copies.
I don't know. It was Fleet White's camera....I don't know where he would have taken the pictures to be developed. I know that Boulder is a small town, but I am guessing that they had more than one photo lab. Maybe not, though. I would have thought that the Christmas pictures would have been developed first...but, it depends on how long it took Fleet to get to the lab. That was probably the last thing on his mind. I know that he had them developed not too long afterward, though...because he had the picture of Patsy in the red sweater that was taken at the party, and he gave it to police to use as evidence...and I guess for the police to use, to show to Patsy, and ask her if that was the sweater that she was wearing that night.
Athena
10-30-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by lucky13
Athena, thanks for responding. I figured if ANYBODY did have a link, it would be you!! I wonder why we are allowed to view all of the other evidence out there but not those pics?:shrug:
Hi Lucky,
Yes - I'd like to see those pictures as well. It would be a good comparison as to what was testified to in the transcripts. Alot of photographs were shown to the Ramseys it seems and questions about them.
I would also like to see the depositions/interviews of the Whites, the McDonalds, the Fernies, the Barnhills and the guests of the Whites and Barnhills. It is my understanding that Lin Wood requested that the Ramseys interviews be released so that may explain why the others weren't.
I am especially interested in the Whites priarily because according to Thomas' deposition he did not document all of their conversations but I'd like to see what was documented. :shrug:
BTW: in another thread -- you had asked what me change my mind RDI v IDI but since the threads have been merged can't find it but did not want you to think I was ignoring you. :)
I believe what happened was that in the early part of the investigation the media seemed to report only inculpatory evidence. As the years went by alot of what was reported was debunked and it turned out there was exculpatory evidence such as the brown fibers, the knife not really being attributed to Burke, the flashlight may or may not be theirs (not proven) the duct tape, the cord (I know Wally says there was none leftover); FW moving and tampering with evidence, the fact that Thomas lied and said out of 73 handwriting samples Patsy was the only who could not be excluded which turned out to be false; the fact that Don Foster was discredited as the handwriting analyst that Thomas relied on; and I initially believed Thomas' theory about the bedwetting incident and in earlier reports they were said to be tested for creantine (sp?) which turned out to be false. The list goes on and on. (Someone - maybe you?) posted a link as an appendix to a court document re: Patsy's handwriting and I kid you not alot of the way the letters are written in the samples that were presented look like mine!!! If I didn't know what I was looking at I could say it was my handwriting. Really freaked me out for a sec.
The primary reason I don't believe that the Ramseys killed JBR is because I firmly believe the garroting came first - not the head injury. Although I believe parents capable of killing their children -- not in this horrific way. I also don't believe the Ramseys in an effort to deter the police away from them would be stupid enough to put that $118K in the ransom note which directly points to them.
Having said all of that were I to be presented with firm evidence that the Ramseys did in fact kill JBR -- I would be the first to say hope Patsy rots in hell and JR gets the death penalty. I am about 75-80% that it was an intruder but we all know how fast scales can be tipped. If John Andrew's whereabouts were not accounted for and confirmed, he would also be a strong suspect. JMHO
Athena
10-30-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Ames
I don't know. It was Fleet White's camera....I don't know where he would have taken the pictures to be developed. I know that Boulder is a small town, but I am guessing that they had more than one photo lab. Maybe not, though. I would have thought that the Christmas pictures would have been developed first...but, it depends on how long it took Fleet to get to the lab. That was probably the last thing on his mind. I know that he had them developed not too long afterward, though...because he had the picture of Patsy in the red sweater that was taken at the party, and he gave it to police to use as evidence...and I guess for the police to use, to show to Patsy, and ask her if that was the sweater that she was wearing that night.
It could have been one of those "get your pictures back in an hour lab" where they are developed right in front of you and FW knew the BPD would want them as quickly as possible - just speculation. IMO
Originally posted by Athena
It could have been one of those "get your pictures back in an hour lab" where they are developed right in front of you and FW knew the BPD would want them as quickly as possible - just speculation. IMO
Yeah, a one hour photo lab...I thought about that too. Still, I wonder why...when the lab technician saw what they were...didn't make another set (to sell to the tabloids). Maybe it could be that he/she was just an HONEST photo lab tech.....now THERES a novel idea. LOL
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The entire cord was used. The duct tape came off of something and was reused so there was no roll of tape to be found. There is no conclusive proof that a stun gun was even used. The pubic hair could have some from anywhere or anyone. One hair does not an intruder make.
But again...this has been said over and over. You IDIs aren't listening and keep presenting the same "evidence" over and over. We have offered explainations for them but you chose to ignore it. Give us something we can't explain.
Well, excuese me, pubic hairs don't fly around in the air... it had to have come off of someone!
thewhitewitch1
11-07-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by andU
Well, excuese me, pubic hairs don't fly around in the air... it had to have come off of someone!
Obviously you've never been in my former brother in laws' bathroom. :eek:
LindaA
11-07-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Obviously you've never been in my former brother in laws' bathroom. :eek:
:lol:
shill
11-08-2006, 05:58 AM
Paint brush handle, (9) pages of note pad, clothe used to wipe her down, latex gloves?
And they new the date the Duct tape was manufactured, did the alleged painting sling tape match the same manufacture date and source?
And the cords look like shoelaces to me, so there wouldn't be more cord to be found, if it happens to be true.
LindaA
11-08-2006, 06:46 AM
It does look like shoe laces, but wasn't there too much of it to have been shoe laces?
LadyFisher
11-08-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by shill
Paint brush handle, (9) pages of note pad, clothe used to wipe her down, latex gloves?
And they new the date the Duct tape was manufactured, did the alleged painting sling tape match the same manufacture date and source?
And the cords look like shoelaces to me, so there wouldn't be more cord to be found, if it happens to be true. And let's add to that list...STUN GUN (powerful evidence of one used on this child imho)...unidentified animal hair (possibly beaver? off a coat or hat possibly?)....there's a lot of evidence of an intruder, ransom note (that doesn't match JR OR PR)......!
WallyCleaver
11-08-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
And let's add to that list...STUN GUN (powerful evidence of one used on this child imho)...unidentified animal hair (possibly beaver? off a coat or hat possibly?)....there's a lot of evidence of an intruder, ransom note (that doesn't match JR OR PR)......!
Well certainly not "powerful" evidence. Some marks that might be consistant. I've always wondered why it would be necessary to stun her twice.
Unidentified animal hair could have come from many sources, including paint brushes. Many good brushes are made from unusual animal hair. When I was a housepainter I had a very expensive ($45 -15 yers ago) badger hair varnishing brush.
You know better than to say the RN doesn't match PR. She was the one not eliminated as the author.
WallyCleaver
11-08-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by LindaA
It does look like shoe laces, but wasn't there too much of it to have been shoe laces?
It wasn't shoe laces, though it does look like it. I can't recall the name brand and type of cord, but it's been posted here on these boards several times.
lucky13
11-09-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by LadyFisher
And let's add to that list...STUN GUN (powerful evidence of one used on this child imho)...unidentified animal hair (possibly beaver? off a coat or hat possibly?)....there's a lot of evidence of an intruder, ransom note (that doesn't match JR OR PR)......!
Stun gun- Ramseys had stun gun info in their house at the time of the murder. Pretty fishy IMO
Unidentified animal hair- the poor child hadn't had a bath all day. Maybe not even the day before either?- it seems cleanliness wasn't a priority to Patsy. That hair could've come from anywhere. Her own dog could've transferred foreign hairs from rolling around outside previously.( Are you picturing this intruder as wearing a fur coat? a fur hat?? No offense, but that makes for a funny visual.)
Ransom note- it wasn't a note intended to obtain ransom at all-obviously. Did you look at the writing samples? No matter what is said- Patsy's writing IS very similar. It is.
There's a lot of evidence of an intruder????? Where??
Originally posted by lucky13
Stun gun- Ramseys had stun gun info in their house at the time of the murder. Pretty fishy IMO
Unidentified animal hair- the poor child hadn't had a bath all day. Maybe not even the day before either?- it seems cleanliness wasn't a priority to Patsy. That hair could've come from anywhere. Her own dog could've transferred foreign hairs from rolling around outside previously.( Are you picturing this intruder as wearing a fur coat? a fur hat?? No offense, but that makes for a funny visual.)
Ransom note- it wasn't a note intended to obtain ransom at all-obviously. Did you look at the writing samples? No matter what is said- Patsy's writing IS very similar. It is.
There's a lot of evidence of an intruder????? Where??
Hi Lucky....I was pretty shocked at the similarities between Patsy's handwriting and the ransom note. There were alot of very odd markings...such as the way that she curls her comma's (,) to the RIGHT..instead of the left, with a little hook at the end...the SAME way that the author of the ransom note did, and the way that certain letters are in cursive, and then some are printed...and the SAME letters that are connected in the ransom note, are the SAME ones that Patsy connected in her sample. I am sure that the letter was dictated to her...and she re-wrote it...because it would have defeated the purpose if she was given the note to copy from....she would have changed her handwriting style for sure, if that had of been the case. Anyway...the similarities between the two...her handwriting style, and the ransom note, is uncanny. To all of the IDI's.... Coincidence? I think NOT!! IMO
sweetcharlotte
11-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by lucky13
Stun gun- Ramseys had stun gun info in their house at the time of the murder. Pretty fishy IMO
Unidentified animal hair- the poor child hadn't had a bath all day. Maybe not even the day before either?- it seems cleanliness wasn't a priority to Patsy. That hair could've come from anywhere. Her own dog could've transferred foreign hairs from rolling around outside previously.( Are you picturing this intruder as wearing a fur coat? a fur hat?? No offense, but that makes for a funny visual.)
Ransom note- it wasn't a note intended to obtain ransom at all-obviously. Did you look at the writing samples? No matter what is said- Patsy's writing IS very similar. It is.
There's a lot of evidence of an intruder????? Where??
Stun gun information was from a trade show in Miami written in Spanish a language neither of the Ramseys spoke.
Poor child - no bath. First of all we don't know that. Patsy said she couldn't remember. Some people just don't place as much importance on daily bathing as others. If she had had a bath the day before maybe it was no big deal to Patsy. Jon Benet had been "sickly" that day. Rode her new bicycle outside for a while. No major physical activity that might be perceived as requiring a bath.
It was cold - would a fur lined coat or hat been so out of place?
Ransom note - ramblings of a very disturbed individual.
Handwriting - experts bascially ruled Patsy out 4.5/5.0 that she did not write the note.
JMO
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
<snipped>
Stun gun information was from a trade show in Miami written in Spanish a language neither of the Ramseys spoke.
JMO
Why would anyone keep anything that was in a language that they could not read? How do we KNOW that neither one of the Ramsey's spoke spanish? Just because thats what they said, it doesn't mean its true.
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
<snipped>
It was cold - would a fur lined coat or hat been so out of place?
JMO
It would make it rather difficult to come through a tiny basement window, with all of that garb on....don't cha think?
sweetcharlotte
11-09-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Ames
It would make it rather difficult to come through a tiny basement window, with all of that garb on....don't cha think?
Did I say anything about anyone coming through a basement window?
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Did I say anything about anyone coming through a basement window?
Nope...do you think that the intruder used a key? If not, how did he know that the alarm system wasn't on???
sweetcharlotte
11-09-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Ames
Why would anyone keep anything that was in a language that they could not read? How do we KNOW that neither one of the Ramsey's spoke spanish? Just because thats what they said, it doesn't mean its true.
Would you like to go through my files/drawers? You would probably be "shocked" at what you might find.
How do I know they don't speak Spanish? Oh well, let's see - because they said they don't and because no one has ever claimed that they do.
JMO
Coloradokares
11-09-2006, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Stun gun information was from a trade show in Miami written in Spanish a language neither of the Ramseys spoke.
Poor child - no bath. First of all we don't know that. Patsy said she couldn't remember. Some people just don't place as much importance on daily bathing as others. If she had had a bath the day before maybe it was no big deal to Patsy. Jon Benet had been "sickly" that day. Rode her new bicycle outside for a while. No major physical activity that might be perceived as requiring a bath.
It was cold - would a fur lined coat or hat been so out of place?
Ransom note - ramblings of a very disturbed individual.
Handwriting - experts bascially ruled Patsy out 4.5/5.0 that she did not write the note.
JMO
We have a saying in the midwest. I suppose it is considerable less genteel than down south. Or other areas of the country. Where some would say well bless their heart we say lets just shuck the corn on down to the cob. Handwriting analysis is considered more art than science but that does not mean it cannot be a very valid investigative tool. Every individual not only has their own handwriting. But their own style of writing. When you say experts basically ruled out Patsy. Please if you could disclose who those experts were and it'd be great to know who they were hired by and from who they drew their financial compensation for their professional opinion. That would also apply to random things such as lie detector tests....other matters as well. We all know the Ramseys formed and hired PR firms lawyers in multiplicity for each member of the family and an entire entourage of professional investigators and experts in any test they were informed were being conducted. Even to the point of requesting to be present at official testings. So at least to my mind. We are all entitled to our own litmus test of how we would tend to feel about the validity of random testing of the evidence. I suppose it might be picky of me but I tend to look at the results of the official investgation vs those who had financial ties back to the team Ramsey. I realize that is my humble opinion only but it just sets better with me. Its only a personal preference limited to me.
sweetcharlotte
11-09-2006, 12:41 PM
I am from the south and have to say that "Bless Your Heart" from a genteel southern lady of today may not mean what it did at one time.;)
And you are right - you are entitled to your opinion.
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Would you like to go through my files/drawers? You would probably be "shocked" at what you might find.
How do I know they don't speak Spanish? Oh well, let's see - because they said they don't and because no one has ever claimed that they do.
JMO
Why would they go around speaking spanish to their english speaking friends? I am not saying that they DO speak spanish...I am just saying how do we actually KNOW that they don't. All we have is their word...and the word of some of the people that they know...that probably don't know spanish, either....so why would the Ramsey's speak spanish to them? I know that I am rambling...I am trying to multi task....not an easy thing for me to do. What I am saying is....one of them, probably John...could have possibly been able to speak Spanish, at least a little...but, maybe his friends didn't know, because he had never told them, or had a reason to speak spanish around them. I know what you mean about cluttered drawers....mine are that way too...but, I don't ever keep things that I can't read....that would just cause even MORE clutter. IMO
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I am from the south and have to say that "Bless Your Heart" from a genteel southern lady of today may not mean what it did at one time.;)
And you are right - you are entitled to your opinion.
I am also from the south...you wouldn't happen to be from Charlotte, NC...would you??
Originally posted by Ames
It would make it rather difficult to come through a tiny basement window, with all of that garb on....don't cha think?
I also want to add...that I just couldn't imagine an intruder...even if he had of let himself in, though the front door....wearing all of that stuff. He would have had to have known that a fur lined coat and hat, would have left fibers. And if he was some perv from off the street....I would imagine him wearing some old ratted jacket and a baseball cap or something...not fur lined attire.
Coloradokares
11-09-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I am from the south and have to say that "Bless Your Heart" from a genteel southern lady of today may not mean what it did at one time.;)
And you are right - you are entitled to your opinion.
I couldn't help that. But I'd received an email forward to the definitions of Bless her Heart or their heart etc . Quite funny. Acually I have spent a good deal of time in the south. I feel deprived of not being born in Atlanta. But yes, I totally respect you and your opinions. For murders in christian homes. For the life of me sweetcharlotte the name is gone from my brain cells the face and details are freshly branded in my mind. Colorado again Christian mother drowned all of her children even the little baby laid them out in her bed covered them over.... then called to say she'd killed her children. Granted no attempt to coverup. But she was saving them from the sinful side and satan. Remember which one . Recently overturned where she will spend most likely the rest of her days in a mental institution vs jail. I felt jail was totally appropriate in this case. I don't believe she was crazy she was well aware what she did and it was wrong.
Originally posted by Coloradokares
I couldn't help that. But I'd received an email forward to the definitions of Bless her Heart or their heart etc . Quite funny. Acually I have spent a good deal of time in the south. I feel deprived of not being born in Atlanta. But yes, I totally respect you and your opinions. For murders in christian homes. For the life of me sweetcharlotte the name is gone from my brain cells the face and details are freshly branded in my mind. Colorado again Christian mother drowned all of her children even the little baby laid them out in her bed covered them over.... then called to say she'd killed her children. Granted no attempt to coverup. But she was saving them from the sinful side and satan. Remember which one . Recently overturned where she will spend most likely the rest of her days in a mental institution vs jail. I felt jail was totally appropriate in this case. I don't believe she was crazy she was well aware what she did and it was wrong.
That was Andrea Yates...in Texas...she is a good example of a "good, moral, Christian" person, that just "snapped".
LindaA
11-09-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Ames
That was Andrea Yates...in Texas...she is a good example of a "good, moral, Christian" person, that just "snapped".
No, Ames, she didn't just snap one day. She had a long history of mental illness and was suddenly taken off the anti-depressants she had been taking -- something you are never supposed to do. She was coerced by her husband into having and homeschooling her children, something she was just not equipped to do. I'm not trying to excuse her, but her situation was far different from the Ramsey murder and it is not fair to say she just snapped.
I'd say IMO, but I believe these facts are well documented.
sweetcharlotte
11-09-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Coloradokares
I couldn't help that. But I'd received an email forward to the definitions of Bless her Heart or their heart etc . Quite funny. Acually I have spent a good deal of time in the south. I feel deprived of not being born in Atlanta. But yes, I totally respect you and your opinions. For murders in christian homes. For the life of me sweetcharlotte the name is gone from my brain cells the face and details are freshly branded in my mind. Colorado again Christian mother drowned all of her children even the little baby laid them out in her bed covered them over.... then called to say she'd killed her children. Granted no attempt to coverup. But she was saving them from the sinful side and satan. Remember which one . Recently overturned where she will spend most likely the rest of her days in a mental institution vs jail. I felt jail was totally appropriate in this case. I don't believe she was crazy she was well aware what she did and it was wrong.
Andrea Yates - and I feel only sympathy for her. Look at pictures of her before she married dear sweet Rusty and compare them to pictures of her at the time she killed her children. He should be in jail for gross abuse of a spouse and neglect of his children - IMO. Christians? No, they were following the teaching of a cult. Again -JMO. Topic for another board. :)
Originally posted by LindaA
No, Ames, she didn't just snap one day. She had a long history of mental illness and was suddenly taken off the anti-depressants she had been taking -- something you are never supposed to do. She was coerced by her husband into having and homeschooling her children, something she was just not equipped to do. I'm not trying to excuse her, but her situation was far different from the Ramsey murder and it is not fair to say she just snapped.
I'd say IMO, but I believe these facts are well documented.
Still though...that is who CK was referring to. You are right ....I had forgotten about the bouts of depression that she had prior to the killings. Thanks for clarifying....
Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Andrea Yates - and I feel only sympathy for her. Look at pictures of her before she married dear sweet Rusty and compare them to pictures of her at the time she killed her children. He should be in jail for gross abuse of a spouse and neglect of his children - IMO. Christians? No, they were following the teaching of a cult. Again -JMO. Topic for another board. :)
You know...I never knew until I read your and Athena's posts that Rusty was such a jerk. I guess that I didn't follow that case as closely as I should have.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.