Foresenic Evidence Discussion [Archive] - Page 2

docg

09-17-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry

John NEVER molested JonBenet. What kind of sick mind do you have?:rolleyes:

No, you're right, sorry. She was killed by an "intruder." Who wrote a "ransom note" for no particular reason, in his own hand, for no particular reason. Who spent hours in the house never fearing that anyone might awaken. Who squeezed into that tiny basement window without leaving a trace or print anywhere, either on the lawn above or the grate or the well or the sill. And managed to dribble debris from that window onto the floor. And place a suitcase under it. For no particular reason. Since he could only have entered with a key. And was thoughtful enough to lock the door behind him when he left.

Quite a guy this intruder. Made entirely of pure DNA, no cells. Wearing boots with no heels and no soles, just a Hi-Tec logo he used as a souvenir stamp. He couldn't help it if his palm print was identicle to Melinda's. Or his "pubic hair" came from Patsy's armpit. Or his shirt came from the exact same factory -- in Israel -- as John's.

He had molested her earlier too. We know that because there were signs of chronic damage to the hymen. And John would never do a thing like that. So it must have been this guy, this pedophile, excuse me, kidnapper, excuse me, person out to get John, excuse me, foreign agent, excuse me, person who respected John's bussiness but not his country, excuse me, person out to frame John, excuse me, person out to confuse the cops, excuse me, Santa or maybe Fleet or maybe Wolf or maybe Pugh or maybe Helgoth or maybe Gigax or maybe Karr, etc.

But not John Ramsey, no, because what did John Ramsey ever do? Except lie to his wife for two years. A real family man, who was away from home more often than not, and spend Christmas day hanging out at the airport.

How sick to think that John might have molested his daughter. Smash her on the head? well maybe, yes. Strangle her? well why not, maybe she bugged him. Wrap her up like a papoose and store her like a Xmas tree in a basement room? well, you never konw.

But Molest her? Please. That would be insulting his relation with his daughter. :flamemad:

WallyCleaver

09-17-2006, 06:55 PM

docg

Be fair - You have completely ignored the team intruder theories :-)

sunsplashed

09-17-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Neither injury occurred postmortem, sun. Therefore neither could have been a cover-up for the accidental killing by the other. She was alive when both occurred.

I was just trying to work the duct tape in. There is no need for duct tape after the head injury was inflicted. I was wondering if the duct tape was put on in case she woke up during the crafting of the "garrotte".

MissOtis, I'm sorry! Thank you for correcting my. LOL I've been getting most everything backwards today.

I meant to say the vaginal injuries were inflicted at death or immediately before, not the head injury or the garrotting. However, I don't think anyone will ever determine which of those came first.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-17-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry

John NEVER molested JonBenet. What kind of sick mind do you have?:rolleyes:

How do you know that? I think only one person alive knows that - John Ramsey.

And, it's not sick to believe that he COULD have. Child molestation is much more common than thought to be by the general public.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-17-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by docg

Really? Who would have had such an opportunity? Who would she have trusted more than her father? Who would she have feared more than her father?

When a female child is sexually molested you look at the sexually mature males living in the same house. There was only one: her father.

And as far as we know, her father was the only mature male in the house the night of her death. Remember, there is very strong evidence pointing away from ANY intruder.

The type of molestation that occurred the night JB was killed was more typical imo of some "playing doctor" than of a sexually mature male.

A six year old child does not know what is and is not allowed, and can easily be intimidated by anyone into not telling "secrets".

LadyFisher

09-17-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Why not? One of the best ways to blend in is to act like you belong. The neighbor (Barnhill) said there was a young man going towards the house that afternoon. Not knowing JAR was in GA he thought it was him. I wonder if anyone else saw this guy? And I wonder if he had a key to their home? When the neighbor saw him..was it at the time the Ramseys were gone to the party? :seeya:

docg

09-17-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
docg

Be fair - You have completely ignored the team intruder theories :-)

Of course! Why didn't I think of that? One to make the footprints, the other to remove them. One to displace the spider web, the other to sew it back together. One to crawl through the window, the other to tidy up after him, replacing all the dirt and grime good as new. One to kidnap JonBenet, the other to put her back again.

Luckily, you put a smiley in there, Wally, or I'd have thought you lost your bupkiss. :beer:

sunsplashed

09-17-2006, 09:11 PM

How true, docg. The strongest evidence against the Ramseys is the fact that there is NO evidence of an intruder. To try to make the facts fit a two-intruder theory is "two much" for me. (Though I'm always open to credible, new ideas. :))

JMO

MyrDawn

09-18-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Although I believe John molested his daughter.... I agree with your post.

Generally speaking, for anyone to assume that ONLY sexually mature adult men molest is a dangerous fallacy....young boys who are abused, not necessarily sexually, do commit incest on their sisters even though neither are developmental sexually.

It it NOT about sex! It can be about jealousy, misguided and unhealthy concepts of love and perception, power and spite....

If Fleet had a key why smash the window?

Why was it not heard even by the neighbor whoe hears all?:shrug:

Not about sex...so true! Rape, sexual abuse, incest, etc. are not about sex. Many abuse victims end up becoming abusers. A person doesn't even have to be completely sexually mature to abuse someone. And, females abuse, too...not just males.

As far as Fleet, if it was him, I don't think he smashed a window. IMO, he'd have used his key. I think John broke that window when he locked himself out.

MyrDawn

09-18-2006, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Thanks for clarifying on key/window thing.....I do not believe John did break it as he said he did.....Fleet would have used a key if he was guilty...but why do it in the home, why not take JB for ride to get her a treat......?

Peds are great at going for a treat......

You do not have to answer these are just my own thoughts.....:)

You already know I don't think it was one of the Ramseys, and I think the person that did it, Fleet or someone else, wanted the Ramesy's to be accused, and that's why they did it in the home. And, wrote that "ransom" note.

When do you think the window was broken?

Devotion

09-18-2006, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.
:shrug: IMO: After reading the autopsy report, I have suspected that the scarf pictured hanging on JonB's bed, possibly was the first article to strangle her with..
I found the scarf as being very out of the ordinary for a 6yr. old...jmo

Devotion

09-18-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Great read Mimi thanks...and yes: what you have said represents my verision of staging...I actually find it facsinating that some posters thought that some of us were saying she was not really strangled .........the evidence says she was....

EXACTLY -staging of ligature is to make it look like a crazed killer for which one of us would believe parents were capable of doing such a thing?

;)

Obviously their staging worked for they were never charged....

YET!
:read: IMO: I read a book about how a movie star continually abused her child for years , in shocking ways, called, Mommy Dearest...
People that thinks abuse doesn't happen in the wealthiest and best families are very naive, in my opinion.

Devotion

09-18-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

The type of molestation that occurred the night JB was killed was more typical imo of some "playing doctor" than of a sexually mature male.

A six year old child does not know what is and is not allowed, and can easily be intimidated by anyone into not telling "secrets".

:shrug: IMO: EXCELLENT POINTS.

Devotion

09-18-2006, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Although I believe John molested his daughter.... I agree with your post.

Generally speaking, for anyone to assume that ONLY sexually mature adult men molest is a dangerous fallacy....young boys who are abused, not necessarily sexually, do commit incest on their sisters even though neither are developmental sexually.

It it NOT about sex! It can be about jealousy, misguided and unhealthy concepts of love and perception, power and spite....

If Fleet had a key why smash the window?

Why was it not heard even by the neighbor whoe hears all?:shrug:
:read: IMO: One point I haven't seen mentioned is: the person that murdered/staged the murder/ was aware of the prior sexual abuse, otherwise WHY insert the paint brush???...in my opinion

breezy1234

09-18-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Devotion

:read: IMO: One point I haven't seen mentioned is: the person that murdered/staged the murder/ was aware of the prior sexual abuse, otherwise WHY insert the paint brush???...in my opinion

IMO there was NO prior sexual abuse.

docg

09-18-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
The strongest evidence of the BLACK HOLE is the surrounding mass and matter.... that gives the Hole validation....and vice versa

the lack of an intruder evidence gives the Ramsey are GUILTY evidence validation....and vice versa

True. I totally agree. But the same thing could be said about Patsy, Burke and John. Burke could not have written the note -- or struck such a tremendous blow. Patsy would not have called 911 -- nor would she have been so foolish as to use her own pen, pad and paintbrush, or redress herself in the same outfit the next morning. Her fibers could easily have been transferred to the murder scene via JonBenet. While there are "experts" who are convinced she wrote the note, other "experts" are equally convinced Karr wrote it -- and the "experts" hired by the authoriies, who saw ALL her exemplars, agreed that, on a scale of 1 to 5, she ranked as a 4. No real evidence against Patsy. No reason for her to do what was done. No reason to stage an accident to look like murder. Black hole.

Leaving: John. Patsy's pen, Patsy's pad, Patsy's paintbrush, Burke's knife. NOTHING of John's was used. Yet another black hole, surrounding: John Ramsey. HE was seen showering when his wife awakened -- NO evidence he'd removed his clothes prior to that shower. HIS fibers were found in JonBenet's panties. Hard to see an innocent transfer there. Signs consistent with prior abuse were found. He would be the most likely source by far. HE was the one out of sight for at least 45 minutes the morning after the murder, a period when he could easily have disposed of evidence. HE was the one who closed the basement window, telling no one. HE was the one who spotted a strange vehicle, telling no one. HE was the one who came up with the ridiculous story about breaking the window earlier, conveniently forgetting just about every single detail or even when it happened. HE was the one calling the shots when "the Ramseys" stalled and stonewalled the police for months.

lucky13

09-18-2006, 10:43 AM

I've been researching this case for a while now. I am 100% convinced that it was not an intruder. Too many things point to someone inside of the house. I tend to agree with docg about John. After all, the maid stated that there was no affection between the Ramseys, Patsy had ovarian cancer(probably didn't feel like having 'relations' with hubby & spent most of her time & energy doting on & tending to the needs of JonBenet.) To me, the ransom note sounds like something that John either wrote himself, or dictated to Patsy. John was a very intelligent man, capable of such elaborate staging. It worked so far, right? The Ramseys actions & words right after the incident also speak volumes to me. Just my opinion.

nuisanceposter

09-18-2006, 10:52 AM

What about the fiber evidence linking Patsy to the crime? Her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the ligature knot. That's a lot more than just John's shirt fibers on Jb's underwear and pubic area. Was John wearing Patsy's jacket when he did all that, or did Patsy do it?

What was John's score on the handwriting analysis?

And I think Patsy would have been foolish enough to use her own pad, pen, paintbrush...those are her tools, and in her panic to make it look like some intruder did this, didn't think of that while she planned and schemed and wrote that note. She forgot about the pineapple that had her prints on the bowl as well. And who left the Maglite on the counter, completely wiped down, even the batteries?

That RN was written in standard American letter-writing format, using proper indentation, spelling, and punctuatuation - as a journalism student would be very familiar with. She even used a carat thingie to add in a forgotten word. It not only looks like her writing, it sounds like her style of speech. On top of that, she changed her writing after the murder, going as far as to type her comments in Burke's Friday folder school when she had previously written them out.

And then there's her telling Pam Griffin about writing the "practice note" with an innocent reason. She said it was the beginning of an invitation reading "Mr and Mrs. Ramsey invite you"...

Patsy told police that the paper looked like paper from their house and she told Thomas, "You know, maybe a woman wrote it".

It's all very weird, and it all says one thing - this doesn't appear to have been the work of anyone other than a Ramsey.

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
D, great observation D...I have thought about that for some time. To use a shard of wood would leave splinters and lots of damage and I have thought that was deliberate to hide previous damages.... thinking an inquiry would not know the difference of old injuries (scars) and new bruises,cuts, tearings etc.

Thanks for saying it out loud.....I have read posts that allude to it for sure... I think we really do not want to think of such horror...again I think this over staging is why it is not an intruder.....

if Jon Bonet can endure it we can too:rose:

I agree with you, VF, that the "staging within staging" in itself lends much credence to the theory that the Ramseys did it.

I haven't made up my mind about abuse by JR, though I do think both Ramseys were involved in the cover-up. Right now, I'm leaning toward a "Patsy did it, John helped stage the cover-up" theory.

The hardest thing for me to accept about a "John was abusing JB" theory is the fact that JB didn't tell Patsy. However, I don't know a lot about how victims of child sexual abuse act. On the surface, it seems to me that if JB was being abused by John, she would have told Patsy immediately or that John would not have risked Patsy finding out.

I know I'm disturbed by the Ramseys inconsistencies about whether JB was asleep or awake when she arrived home on Christmas night (page 378, paperback edition of PM/PT), as well as many other things.

Have a terrific week! :)

JMO

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
I've been researching this case for a while now. I am 100% convinced that it was not an intruder. Too many things point to someone inside of the house. I tend to agree with docg about John. After all, the maid stated that there was no affection between the Ramseys, Patsy had ovarian cancer(probably didn't feel like having 'relations' with hubby & spent most of her time & energy doting on & tending to the needs of JonBenet.) To me, the ransom note sounds like something that John either wrote himself, or dictated to Patsy. John was a very intelligent man, capable of such elaborate staging. It worked so far, right? The Ramseys actions & words right after the incident also speak volumes to me. Just my opinion.

I, too, believe the Ramseys are guilty.

However, someone who obtains sexual satisfaction from contact with little children doesn't do it because his wife is "not available." Pedophilia is a preference for children, not a substitute for an adult. I just don't see John as a pedophile, though I do think both he and Patsy were involved in JB's death.

I think a non-pedophiliac man would have sought an affair (or even a prostitute) if he couldn't do without sex rather than abuse his daughter. Just the idea of sexual relations with a six-year-old would be abhorrent to most fathers.

According to PM/PT, when Patsy was ill with cancer, she had to be isolated from the family lest she catch an infection (immune system compromised from the chemotherapy) and didn't spend time with either child. They had others, including Nedra, come in and care for the children. Also, according to PM/PT, when Patsy was in remission, she doted on Burke first, because JB was too small to do much with. Burke was her "project."

Though I, too, think the Ramseys are guilty of the murder of JB, I'm having a hard time seeing John as a pedophile.

JMO

docg

09-18-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
What about the fiber evidence linking Patsy to the crime? Her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the ligature knot. That's a lot more than just John's shirt fibers on Jb's underwear and pubic area. Was John wearing Patsy's jacket when he did all that, or did Patsy do it?

What was John's score on the handwriting analysis?

And I think Patsy would have been foolish enough to use her own pad, pen, paintbrush...those are her tools, and in her panic to make it look like some intruder did this, didn't think of that while she planned and schemed and wrote that note. She forgot about the pineapple that had her prints on the bowl as well. And who left the Maglite on the counter, completely wiped down, even the batteries?

That RN was written in standard American letter-writing format, using proper indentation, spelling, and punctuatuation - as a journalism student would be very familiar with. She even used a carat thingie to add in a forgotten word. It not only looks like her writing, it sounds like her style of speech. On top of that, she changed her writing after the murder, going as far as to type her comments in Burke's Friday folder school when she had previously written them out.

And then there's her telling Pam Griffin about writing the "practice note" with an innocent reason. She said it was the beginning of an invitation reading "Mr and Mrs. Ramsey invite you"...

Patsy told police that the paper looked like paper from their house and she told Thomas, "You know, maybe a woman wrote it".

It's all very weird, and it all says one thing - this doesn't appear to have been the work of anyone other than a Ramsey.

Patsy's fibers could easily have been transferred to the crime scene via JonBenet herself. And from JonBenet to her attacker. If the attacker was John, he could be another carrier of Patsy's fibers -- assuming he might have given his wife a hug sometime that day. Fiber evidence of that sort is meaningless. Fibers in the victim's crotch are another matter entirely.

John was ruled out by the handwriting "experts," but if you look at the document on Brugnatelli's website, which the "experts" never saw, then maybe you'll have second thoughts on their decision.

It's a natural instinct to avoid anything connected with you personally when you are doing something you know is wrong. You want to distance yourself from what you are doing, as though it isn't really you. I just can't imagine Patsy using her own things to stage this crime. She's have found some paper belonging to John, Burke or JonBenet and could certainly have found a stick of wood other than her own paintbrush handle.

Why wouldn't Patsy's fingerprints be on the pineapple bowl? She was the one who took it out of the washer and put it in the cupboard, no?

The ransom note was written in word processor format, in imitation of a computer font. That's John's department, not hers. I see no resemblance to either her writing, which is very neat and flowing, or her speech, which is very breezy and informal, as opposed to the note, which is very masculine, very businesslike, filled with references to movies only men watch and containing the sort of very formal, technical, language John uses, such as "and hence," and percentage figures.

You are misinformed regarding the practice note. Patsy made no such statement to anyone. That was someones idea of what might have been intended, not anything Patsy ever told anyone.

I do think a Ramsey wrote it, yes. But that Ramsey could only have been John. For more information go to the thread entitled "A Suspicious Document."

Mimi428

09-18-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Not at all Sun we know this is too common..What if John told JB she could not tell her mom as her mom is too sick and if she told her mom she may die...we do not know all that peds tell their victims but what we do know IT WORKS in keeping the secrecy.

EXACTLY RIGHT! Patsy's diagnosis & treatment for cancer is the PERFECT subject for a molestor to use to manipulate the child into NOT TELLING.

We don't need a Disney film showing Bambi's mother being killed by the hunter to recognize that to a child - the fear that their mother could die is an emotionally overwhelming thought. At a very young age, JonBenet had to endure all the frightening changes that her mother went through - and without the coping or comprehension skills of a mature adult.

You can't tell me that child did NOT have a greater number of times than average of worrying about how her mommy was, would she be able to take care of her, what if she went away & didn't come back kind of fears.

Spot on, VF.

:beer:

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
What about the fiber evidence linking Patsy to the crime? Her jacket fibers were found in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the ligature knot. That's a lot more than just John's shirt fibers on Jb's underwear and pubic area. Was John wearing Patsy's jacket when he did all that, or did Patsy do it?

What was John's score on the handwriting analysis?

And I think Patsy would have been foolish enough to use her own pad, pen, paintbrush...those are her tools, and in her panic to make it look like some intruder did this, didn't think of that while she planned and schemed and wrote that note. She forgot about the pineapple that had her prints on the bowl as well. And who left the Maglite on the counter, completely wiped down, even the batteries?

That RN was written in standard American letter-writing format, using proper indentation, spelling, and punctuatuation - as a journalism student would be very familiar with. She even used a carat thingie to add in a forgotten word. It not only looks like her writing, it sounds like her style of speech. On top of that, she changed her writing after the murder, going as far as to type her comments in Burke's Friday folder school when she had previously written them out.

And then there's her telling Pam Griffin about writing the "practice note" with an innocent reason. She said it was the beginning of an invitation reading "Mr and Mrs. Ramsey invite you"...

Patsy told police that the paper looked like paper from their house and she told Thomas, "You know, maybe a woman wrote it".

It's all very weird, and it all says one thing - this doesn't appear to have been the work of anyone other than a Ramsey.

I don't fiber evidence is very important in this case. The Ramsey house was so messy and the Ramseys just left their clothes wherever they dropped. (PM/PT) Fibers would have been everywhere and easily transferrable.

John was ruled out as the writer of the note. Personally, I put no stock in handwriting analysis, but that's just me.

If I were going to try to disguise my handwriting, I'd also change the fact that I DON'T indent (I would indent in any attempt to disguise, as it is, I just skip a line.). My handwriting is also very rounded (no sharp angles in my writing) and it slants to the left. I would make sure there WERE angles and that it slanted to the right.

I, too, believe the Ramseys are the guilty parties, but it's all very confusing.

The pineapple. Maybe they did forget the pineapple and then could not change their story? I don't know. They had said JB was asleep from the time they were in the car, so they couldn't very well say, "Oh, we forgot. She did have some pineapple."

It seems strange that Patsy would tell Steve Thomas that perhaps a woman wrote the note. You'd think, if they weren't guilty, given the overkill inflicted on JB that they would naturally suspect a man.

Everything to me points to their guilt, but it's all very puzzling.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by docg

Patsy's fibers could easily have been transferred to the crime scene via JonBenet herself. And from JonBenet to her attacker. If the attacker was John, he could be another carrier of Patsy's fibers -- assuming he might have given his wife a hug sometime that day. Fiber evidence of that sort is meaningless. Fibers in the victim's crotch are another matter entirely.

John was ruled out by the handwriting "experts," but if you look at the document on Brugnatelli's website, which the "experts" never saw, then maybe you'll have second thoughts on their decision.

It's a natural instinct to avoid anything connected with you personally when you are doing something you know is wrong. You want to distance yourself from what you are doing, as though it isn't really you. I just can't imagine Patsy using her own things to stage this crime. She's have found some paper belonging to John, Burke or JonBenet and could certainly have found a stick of wood other than her own paintbrush handle.

Why wouldn't Patsy's fingerprints be on the pineapple bowl? She was the one who took it out of the washer and put it in the cupboard, no?

The ransom note was written in word processor format, in imitation of a computer font. That's John's department, not hers. I see no resemblance to either her writing, which is very neat and flowing, or her speech, which is very breezy and informal, as opposed to the note, which is very masculine, very businesslike, filled with references to movies only men watch and containing the sort of very formal, technical, language John uses, such as "and hence," and percentage figures.

You are misinformed regarding the practice note. Patsy made no such statement to anyone. That was someones idea of what might have been intended, not anything Patsy ever told anyone.

I do think a Ramsey wrote it, yes. But that Ramsey could only have been John. For more information go to the thread entitled "A Suspicious Document."

Hi docg!

I, too, think the note sounds like it was written by a man. I don't put a lot of stock in the style because I know if I were trying not to be identified as the writer of something, I would darn well change my style, which can be done. (I've written several fiction books, all in different styles, from breezy and joking, to intense stream-of-consciousness, before I "found" my own voice. And, in one of my book, I have seven pov characters who all have to speak in a different style. It's not that hard to do if one is good with words and can "hear" the tone of his/her writing. I call it "verbal perfect pitch.") Still, the note sounds like the work of a man to me.

I think the practice note is confusing. On page 436 of the paperback edition of PM/PT, Pam Griffin told Frank Coffman that Patsy told her the sheet of paper in the notebook was an invitation she had started to write, but the police thought it was a "practice note." When Griffin told Coffman and Coffman told Shapiro and Shapiro told Thomas what Patsy had said, Steve Thomas said, "Jeff (Shapiro), that's no f*****' invitation."

Things get changed when so many speakers are involved and I certainly don't put much (if any) faith in anything Jeff Shapiro (reporter for the tabloid, The Globe) said or wrote, but it's in the book that Pam Griffin told Patsy.

Later, it was said that it was Alex Hunter (and most of us know where he stood) who "suggested" the words might be the beginning of an invitation.

Very ambiguous.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:40 AM

nuisanceposter

09-18-2006, 11:41 AM

But Patsy said she was neither in the basement nor near the paintray while wearing that jacket. The very same jacket she wore Christmas evening, the very same jacket she was wearing on the morning of the 26th. It was a seasonal Christmas outfit - not something she wore regularly that she would have left laying about here and there.

There is no innocent reason for why fibers from a jacket that she never wore in the basement would be found IN the paint tray, ON the back of the tape (she was never anywhere near the tape at all), and there is absolutely NO reason at all why the fibers from her jacket were found TIED INTO the knot strangling her daughter - unless she was the one tying that knot while wearing that jacket.

TIED INTO the knot. Less affluent and well-connected people have gone to prison on less evidence than that.

John was ruled out but Patsy wasn't, not even by experts hired by them. Hmmm. I just can't see John writing a letter that rambles on and on like that RN, but I don't have much trouble seeing drama queen Patsy needing to add more and more as she rambles. I think John would have known that an RN is, by standards, as brief and as succinct as possible.

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

EXACTLY RIGHT! Patsy's diagnosis & treatment for cancer is the PERFECT subject for a molestor to use to manipulate the child into NOT TELLING.

We don't need a Disney film showing Bambi's mother being killed by the hunter to recognize that to a child - the fear that their mother could die is an emotionally overwhelming thought. At a very young age, JonBenet had to endure all the frightening changes that her mother went through - and without the coping or comprehension skills of a mature adult.

You can't tell me that child did NOT have a greater number of times than average of worrying about how her mommy was, would she be able to take care of her, what if she went away & didn't come back kind of fears.

Spot on, VF.

:beer:

Yes, I see the point you and VF made, Mimi.

I have even had grown women tell me that that happened to them as children. That, or something similar.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:45 AM

rosebud

09-18-2006, 04:34 PM

Has anyone ever suggested that the writer of the ransom note was trying to copy Patsy's handwriting? Have any handwriting experts ever considered that possibility? If someone knew her handwriting very well is it a possibility that they could mimic it well enough to fool experts?

bullmoose

09-18-2006, 05:55 PM

If the 45 minutes that John was out of sign is just from Linda Arndt"s account, then its 45 minutes he was out of her sight. And remember, she also said he went outside to get the mail; when the Ramseys did not have an outside mailbox. And the line that fibers from him were found inside her panties and in her genital area is not from any actual proof, it simply came from the BPD questioning of John, when they were trying to confuse him and throw him off balance, to trip him up somehow. Of course his lawyer asked for proof of the police assertion before he would let John answer; they could not provide any evidence of their claim, so no answer was given to the assertion. Remember, however, that the cops routinely lie when dealing with the public, and when questioning suspects of crimes, so the claim that fibers from John were found is no more valid than the quatrains of Nostradamus supposedly predicting the future.I find bad evidence unconvincing. bullmoose

diplomat

09-18-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

IMO there was NO prior sexual abuse.

Experts said the same thing.

Athena

09-18-2006, 08:24 PM

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Bull I cannot express enough to you on how much I know the LE are as corrupt and unethical as the perps so hard to tell who are the good and bad guys....I agree.....however I do not need to focus on all of that. Even with dropping them off the table as inconsistent there is still enough CE on the table to feel confident about the Ramseys.

I think the DA's office is usually more corrupt than the PD, VF. The DA's office does not want to prosecute cases it feels it can't win, even if they think people are guilty.

I agree with you about the CE, though. There is more than enough of that for me to feel it had to be the Ramseys.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-18-2006, 09:35 PM

The ransom note is virtually nothing but paraphrased movie lines and ideas. Which of the Ramseys strike you as a person who would know that material well enough to write that ransom note off the top of their head? They couldn't use the computer. And any books in the house about movies would have been seized by LE.

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hmm... Chris Wolf wasn't ruled out either and he is also a journalist. I will say it 100 times on this board -- if we all wrote that note and had our handwriting and style tested at least some of us would match. The science in document examination are NOT the similarities but the differences. I wonder if Fleet's rambling letters were ever linguistically analyzed -- he could be the author too. The only person that said ONLY Patsy was not eliminated was Steve Thomas and he lied. All you need do is read his depo and he clearly did not have the necessary info he used to write that malicious book.

Also the GENERAL CONSENSUS of the handwriting experts was that it was 4.5 out of 5 chance she DID NOT write that note. Converted to 1-100; it means there was a 90% chance she DID NOT write the note. jmo

You have to remember, those same handwriting analysts gave Fleet White a 5 out of 5, NO chance of having written the note. And, his DNA did not match. I don't feel the DNA under JB's fingernails or on her panties was from the murderer, but some posters put great credence in it.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-18-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Hmm... Chris Wolf wasn't ruled out either and he is also a journalist. I will say it 100 times on this board -- if we all wrote that note and had our handwriting and style tested at least some of us would match. The science in document examination are NOT the similarities but the differences. I wonder if Fleet's rambling letters were ever linguistically analyzed -- he could be the author too. The only person that said ONLY Patsy was not eliminated was Steve Thomas and he lied. All you need do is read his depo and he clearly did not have the necessary info he used to write that malicious book.

Also the GENERAL CONSENSUS of the handwriting experts was that it was 4.5 out of 5 chance she DID NOT write that note. Converted to 1-100; it means there was a 90% chance she DID NOT write the note. jmo I agree....a handwriting expert stated on CC that he was certain that JMK's writing was a match to the RN.....I just don't believe that these experts actually know what they are doing!!!

sunsplashed

09-18-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I agree....a handwriting expert stated on CC that he was certain that JMK's writing was a match to the RN.....I just don't believe that these experts actually know what they are doing!!!

I don't think they know what they are doing, either, LadyFisher.

I discount the ones who ruled Patsy and JMK in and ruled everyone else out!

If the case is ever solved (I doubt it will be), I don't think handwriting analysis will play a part.

When I look at the facts, I just overlook handwriting comparisons.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-18-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I don't think they know what they are doing, either, LadyFisher.

I discount the ones who ruled Patsy and JMK in and ruled everyone else out!

If the case is ever solved (I doubt it will be), I don't think handwriting analysis will play a part.

When I look at the facts, I just overlook handwriting comparisons.

JMO Good evening, sun :).....I know that you are well read on this case...please answer something for me....I was reading ( and I forgot what link it was) that the ME thought that perhaps JB was penetrated by someone using a latex glove....is there any basis for that? And if so where is the glove...I've asked that a couple of times on here and nobody has responded! Thanks! :)

diplomat

09-19-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Nuisance....those marks sure look like burns to me...if not a stun gun, what are they?

They certainly seem to be more consistent with a stun gun than anything else people have offered up as an alternative to the gun.

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, sun :).....I know that you are well read on this case...please answer something for me....I was reading ( and I forgot what link it was) that the ME thought that perhaps JB was penetrated by someone using a latex glove....is there any basis for that? And if so where is the glove...I've asked that a couple of times on here and nobody has responded! Thanks! :)

LadyFisher, I've heard that, but I'm sorry, I can't give you a link right now. I just don't know of one.

I'll try to find something in PM/PT tomorrow, though.

I hope you're enjoying the week! :)

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
I so agree. I HATE that balance of probabilities of a conviction crap...that is what juries are for.....to me to say you cannot win means YOU are incompetent so get the heck of the case and give it to someone who can do the job........

I know, VF. The DA's office just has too much power, not just in the Ramsey case, but in ALL cases.

JMO

Have a terrific Tuesday! :)

docg

09-19-2006, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
If the 45 minutes that John was out of sign is just from Linda Arndt"s account, then its 45 minutes he was out of her sight. And remember, she also said he went outside to get the mail; when the Ramseys did not have an outside mailbox. And the line that fibers from him were found inside her panties and in her genital area is not from any actual proof, it simply came from the BPD questioning of John, when they were trying to confuse him and throw him off balance, to trip him up somehow. Of course his lawyer asked for proof of the police assertion before he would let John answer; they could not provide any evidence of their claim, so no answer was given to the assertion. Remember, however, that the cops routinely lie when dealing with the public, and when questioning suspects of crimes, so the claim that fibers from John were found is no more valid than the quatrains of Nostradamus supposedly predicting the future.I find bad evidence unconvincing. bullmoose

Linda Arndt assumed John had gone out to check his mail. Turns out the mail was delivered inside so he didn't have to do that. SO WHAT???? You are letting yourself be manipulated by masters of the art of the half truth and the outright lie. So the mail was already in the house, what does that tell you? That Arndt didn't lose track of John after all? That he couldn't have left the house to get rid of evidence? The fact remains that Arndt did lose track of him and that he could have gone to all sorts of places during that time and done all sorts of things no one knows about.

As far as the fibers are concerned, there is NO more reliable source than a statement from someone directly involved in the investigation. Usually these folks keep their lips sealed. The ONLY reason we've heard about John's fibers is that, thanks to Jameson, the police files were made public. That information wasn't leaked. So that makes it a lie?

While it may be true that the police sometimes lie when interrogating a suspect, there is nothing in the context of ANY of the Ramsey interviews that supports such an assertion. What do you suppose the quesioner expected, that John would break down and confess when confronted with that fiber evidence? The poor guy was treating him with kid gloves, every other thing he said was an apology. It was Wood who got aggressive and in fact obnoxious, not the guy who told John about the fibers and politely tried to ask whether or not they might have been transferred via the laundry. (They weren't -- JonBenet's panties were straight out of the plastic container.)

docg

09-19-2006, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
But Patsy said she was neither in the basement nor near the paintray while wearing that jacket. The very same jacket she wore Christmas evening, the very same jacket she was wearing on the morning of the 26th. It was a seasonal Christmas outfit - not something she wore regularly that she would have left laying about here and there.

There is no innocent reason for why fibers from a jacket that she never wore in the basement would be found IN the paint tray, ON the back of the tape (she was never anywhere near the tape at all), and there is absolutely NO reason at all why the fibers from her jacket were found TIED INTO the knot strangling her daughter - unless she was the one tying that knot while wearing that jacket.

TIED INTO the knot. Less affluent and well-connected people have gone to prison on less evidence than that.

John was ruled out but Patsy wasn't, not even by experts hired by them. Hmmm. I just can't see John writing a letter that rambles on and on like that RN, but I don't have much trouble seeing drama queen Patsy needing to add more and more as she rambles. I think John would have known that an RN is, by standards, as brief and as succinct as possible.

Patsy's fibers could have been transferred to the crime scene via JonBenet herself. Or via John, if he were the attacker. JonBenet's hair was entwined in the knots of the "garotte" so if any of Patsy's fibers got in her hair, they'd be in those knots too. There are simply too many innocent explanations for her fibers being on the scene, it's just not evidence, sorry.

I just can't see Patsy, whose style is light and breezy, writing that turgid, note, filled with quotes from the sort of movies women avoid like the plague. It certainly doesn't read like a drama queen, that's for sure. And John, NOT Patsy, is the one who uses "and hence" -- AND he just loves percentage figures.

Patsy didn't do this crime. No evidence of that, no motive, no reason to write a phoney ransom note and then call the police. He was ruled out, she wasn't, THE great error that plunged an open and shut case into chaos.

Mimi428

09-19-2006, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
...we do not know all that peds tell their victims but what we do know IT WORKS in keeping the secrecy.

Again another CPS story: we have had daughters believe their fathers when the daughter is told she is helping the marriage by performing_____________.

<snipped>

VF - and how easy do you think it would be to convince a small child - who was being raised to wear outfits that matched mommy - to participate in Beauty Pageants just like mommy - to take mommy's place in certain situations?

I had not thought about that aspect specifically until I read an article today where Patsy spoke of how she wanted JonBenet to wear an outfit on Christmas Day that matched HER outfit - but JB wanted to wear the top with the sequined star.

And before the rest of y'all bash me & VF & accuse us of having filthy minds....WORK IN THE FIELD where you have to deal with molested children and/or the people who abuse them. THEN tell us what you find out about what can & does happen, every freakin' hour of the day & night.

MOO

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

VF - and how easy do you think it would be to convince a small child - who was being raised to wear outfits that matched mommy - to participate in Beauty Pageants just like mommy - to take mommy's place in certain situations?

I had not thought about that aspect specifically until I read an article today where Patsy spoke of how she wanted JonBenet to wear an outfit on Christmas Day that matched HER outfit - but JB wanted to wear the top with the sequined star.

And before the rest of y'all bash me & VF & accuse us of having filthy minds....WORK IN THE FIELD where you have to deal with molested children and/or the people who abuse them. THEN tell us what you find out about what can & does happen, every freakin' hour of the day & night.

MOO

JonBenet wasn't all that easily convinced, though. She DID wear the top with the star she wanted to wear on Christmas...NOT the one Patsy wanted her to wear.

MyrDawn

09-19-2006, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: After reading the autopsy report, I have suspected that the scarf pictured hanging on JonB's bed, possibly was the first article to strangle her with..
I found the scarf as being very out of the ordinary for a 6yr. old...jmo

Devotion, what scarf are you referring to? If you mean that strip of pink fabric hanging on the corner of her headboard, that's a tieback from the curtains adorning the headboard of her bed. There's a second tieback on the other side of her bed, too. And, the twin bed in her bedroom had the same curtain and tiebacks.

Take a look at the pictures on this page and you'll see what I mean:
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html

Mimi428

09-19-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

JonBenet wasn't all that easily convinced, though. She DID wear the top with the star she wanted to wear on Christmas...NOT the one Patsy wanted her to wear.

I know what you are referring to - but that is an entirely too simplistic answer, imo.

Consider how compliant & cooperative JonBenet would have had to be to go through the process of getting ready for any of the pageant appearances. Not to mention the many hours that would need to be spent learning dancing, posing, her stage performances, etc.

So - bottom line - a child who may be cooperative at one moment may be uncooperative at another (just like us adults!)

Did you read VF's earlier post where she mentioned how often molestors use treats or favors or toys? Winning the child's favor is the point here - they do not just "cop a feel" or boldly assault the target - they go slowly. Kind of a wooing process. First we do something you like. Aren't we just the best? Aren't you pleased with how much we think of you? Then we introduce something new... because you are sooooo special...

Think about it...

VF I am sure can verify that a child so manipulated very often acts out at OTHER times. And we can appreciate that from an adult viewpoint - how many times have we had to suffer silently from conditions that we do not like at work, patiently waiting for our day to be over - then leave & behave badly once we are outside that environment? We berate store clerks, belittle waiters, fuss at our family members. Yet we are the vision of Casper Milquetoast in front of our boss.

Children often suffer other problem behaviors specifically related to their genitals - regression to being bladder or bowel incontinent, for example.

MOO

harz

09-19-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by victims feel SNIPPED
there was a bit of a debate challnging my position on psychosomatic trauma pain and illnesses...as I said her bladder problems and 28 visits were psychosomatic and could be indictative of psychological stress..

Other thing I was wondering when would be her next vagina exam by her doctor. Did she had schedule on it? Because someone here or in article said she had vagina exam 3 times total in her life by doctor. I am unsure about how many times excatly, but theory possible that John got triggered about JB's next vagina exam. JMO

samsong

09-19-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
M, children DO act out an often quite violently...but since the child normally is complaint it sometimes gets fluffed off and forgotten until the next time. Children are developing in all ways including emotional maturity. What violations are happening to them cannot be processed in their minds the way we do as adults but for some reason the pain is encoded as all pain, at the cellular level. Some children never feel the pain after awhile due to dissociation but as adults can be triggered with certain smells, tastes /conditions which can bring all the physical and emotional pain back.

Not all developing children can voice that something is wrong, amazingly children who do not even know what sex is KNOW that that something is very wrong....this frustration alone is enough to act out...another reason.. .BECAUSE IT HURTs.....they do not need to understand the act to also understand that it is an injury to them...
some children subconsiously act out to get someone's attention to intervene but they cannot tell you why and what for as it is subconscious...but their inner selves KNOW....

Children who act up with no one to listen are very harmed as they feel betrayed as well..no one responded to save them in time which cause further resentment.....
we know many women in prison have histories of sexual abuse that went undisclosed for years...their violence escalating as they get older...

the wooing or grooming that peds do is as slow as the ped wants it to be and depends on how receptive the child is. JB does get alot of attention but not the right kind so she would be easy prey for a ped who is a stranger...A little girl with a sick mom and neglected father.....well her story is not unique....

there was a bit of a debate challnging my position on psychosomatic trauma pain and illnesses...as I said her bladder problems and 28 visits were psychosomatic and could be indictative of psychological stress..

DD posted some opposing views then found supportive views on that issue....

This is so true.

People always think you should know if a child is being molested, but the signs are so subtle and often mistaken for other problems.

lucky13

09-19-2006, 06:11 PM

Watson, I was excited to hear your theory of the suitcase being used to transport the body. I have always considered this possibility myself, among other things. It makes sense in the ransom note mentioning for John to bring an adequate sized attache case. HHmmm. John could say that his attache case was not very big so maybe he better take the suitcase just to be sure.( Planned that way ?) Hence, a transport mode for the body. Anyone who saw him leave the house with the suitcase would later know it was for the purpose of holding the ransom money. He wouldn't even have to sneak it out.
;) MOO

sunsplashed

09-19-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
Watson, I was excited to hear your theory of the suitcase being used to transport the body. I have always considered this possibility myself, among other things. It makes sense in the ransom note mentioning for John to bring an adequate sized attache case. HHmmm. John could say that his attache case was not very big so maybe he better take the suitcase just to be sure.( Planned that way ?) Hence, a transport mode for the body. Anyone who saw him leave the house with the suitcase would later know it was for the purpose of holding the ransom money. He wouldn't even have to sneak it out.
;) MOO

That certainly makes sense to me! :)

JMO

bullmoose

09-19-2006, 08:00 PM

To lucky13: One problem with your suitcase premise is that 118,000 dollars, even with 100,000 in $100 bills and 18,000 in $20 bills is not a very big stack. Its only1900 separate bills, an amount that would very easily fit in an attache case, not a suitcase.Even the BPD wasn't that dumb; a suitcase just doesn't make sense, unless it[the ransom] was supposed to be in dollar bills. bullmoose

lucky13

09-19-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To lucky13: One problem with your suitcase premise is that 118,000 dollars, even with 100,000 in $100 bills and 18,000 in $20 bills is not a very big stack. Its only1900 separate bills, an amount that would very easily fit in an attache case, not a suitcase.Even the BPD wasn't that dumb; a suitcase just doesn't make sense, unless it[the ransom] was supposed to be in dollar bills. bullmoose
Fair enough, bullmoose. I expected a negative response from intruder believers anyway. BUT, someone in a panic, trying to come up with a quick solution, may have thought it a good enough idea at the time. It solved the problem of removing the body. MOO

docg

09-20-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by lucky13

Fair enough, bullmoose. I expected a negative response from intruder believers anyway. BUT, someone in a panic, trying to come up with a quick solution, may have thought it a good enough idea at the time. It solved the problem of removing the body. MOO

I can't imagine anyone being able to squeeze a 6 year old into a Samsonite suitcase. The approved way of getting a body out of a house is via the car trunk.

lucky13

09-20-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Same here. Some people want to believe the so badly it wasn't an intruder they don't even care which Ramsey they blame. They just say "one" of the Ramsey's did it.

No offense, but, some other people want to believe so badly that it wasn't the Ramseys, they don't even care which intruder they blame. They just say "an intruder" did it. And they cannot come up with even one. Actually, they also cannot even come up with a logical theory of how an intruder got in & out of the house. Or how no evidence can be traced to anyone outside of the house. I've yet to see a logical intruder theory posted from the time he entered the house, through the many hours in the house, till he left the house. There is no logical intruder theory-thats why. MOO

lucky13

09-20-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by docg

I can't imagine anyone being able to squeeze a 6 year old into a Samsonite suitcase. The approved way of getting a body out of a house is via the car trunk.
Okay, docg. I truly value your opinions. Then why, in your opinion, did John make such a big deal in the note about bringing a large enough(adequate size) attache case?? That's just weird & unnecessary otherwise IMO.
(I did a little 'experiment', & I am convinced that a 40 lb, 3'11" child could be stuffed into one of those old suitcases. Not a live child, or a child in rigor, but a dead, lifeless, limber child.) MOO

sunsplashed

09-20-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by docg

I can't imagine anyone being able to squeeze a 6 year old into a Samsonite suitcase. The approved way of getting a body out of a house is via the car trunk.

I can't imagine that, either, but unless he put her in a garbage bag first, her body would contain evidence consistent with the inside of his car trunk.

JMO

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by lucky13

No offense, but, some other people want to believe so badly that it wasn't the Ramseys, they don't even care which intruder they blame. They just say "an intruder" did it. And they cannot come up with even one. Actually, they also cannot even come up with a logical theory of how an intruder got in & out of the house. Or how no evidence can be traced to anyone outside of the house. I've yet to see a logical intruder theory posted from the time he entered the house, through the many hours in the house, till he left the house. There is no logical intruder theory-thats why. MOO There are still over a hundred suspects in this case....you are wondering how an intruder came into the home...it's quite easy if that intruder had a key....the Ramseys were very lax imo of who they gave them to...he got in imo while they were at the party...this perp knew the house and he knew something about the Ramseys.....heck even you folks who believe it was one of the Ramseys cannot agree as to which one and why they would create such a horrible scene in that basement on their deceased daughter's body......? The only RDI poster that really makes the most sense is DocG....but I do disagree with her! imho This was imo first degree murder...it was a pedophile....look at the things this person did to JB....there are no other explanations for that ritualistic murder! imho

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 12:37 PM

How did this pedophile intruder get the fibers from John's and Patsy's clothing in the crime scene and on the body?

Why didn't this pedophile do what every pedophile I've ever heard of does - take the child and get out of the house to a safe place where they can do whatever they want without fear of being found by the parents?

Why would a pedophile bother to write a ransom note, and how did he write one that matches Patsy's handwriting so closely she cannot be excluded as the author?

Why, if an intruder was responsible, have the Ramseys told contradicting stories and hindered investigation?

And WHERE is the forensic evidence of an intruder? The boot print, palm print, DNA, all of that has been explained away and none of it proves anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night.

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
How did this pedophile intruder get the fibers from John's and Patsy's clothing in the crime scene and on the body?

Why didn't this pedophile do what every pedophile I've ever heard of does - take the child and get out of the house to a safe place where they can do whatever they want without fear of being found by the parents?

Why would a pedophile bother to write a ransom note, and how did he write one that matches Patsy's handwriting so closely she cannot be excluded as the author?

Why, if an intruder was responsible, have the Ramseys told contradicting stories and hindered investigation?

And WHERE is the forensic evidence of an intruder? The boot print, palm print, DNA, all of that has been explained away and none of it proves anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night. Of course John and Patsy's fibers would have been found everywhere in that home...they lived there....there is no exact mold for a sick pedophile..this guy knew that family.....look at the crime scene...it had to be a pedophile...and don't think there aren't pedophiles in everyone's neighborhood today...because there are....why if the DNA is not viable was Karr released on the fact his DNA did not match? I think the DNA is viable dna and the right suspect has not been found yet to submit to dna testing....imho Have a great day everyone! :seeya:

nuisanceposter

09-20-2006, 01:23 PM

But those were dressy Christmas clothes that they not only didn't wear every day, and the Rs said they were never down in basement while wearing them. I would agree with you if those clothes were every day outfits, but they weren't - and it just so happens that those fibers are found on the dead child on the one day the parents happened to be wearing them...and no fibers from anyone else are on her at all.

Why isn't there any fiber evidence of an intruder? No hair, and no prints, either. Nothing that didn't come from a Ramsey.

The DNA is fragmented and degraded, and JonBenet's was fresh and complete. The two samples of DNA were not deposited at the same time. When Dr Lee tested underwear the same as the ones JonBenet was found in, he found those had the DNA on them also.

All the DNA did for Karr was prove he hadn't been the one to leave the DNA in her underwear. There was also no proof that he had ever been in Boulder, let alone inside the Ramsey house. It wasn't JUST the DNA that cleared Karr.

It didn't have to be a pedophile at all. Experts have said that that murder did not appear to be sexually motivated.

What about the other questions I asked - about the handwriting, and the contradicting stories?

You have to look at this murder as a whole, not piece by piece. It looks entirely different when all the pieces fit together than it does when you examine each piece separately. The overall body of evidence does not support the theory that this crime was committed by a pedophiliac intruder.

docg

09-20-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I can't imagine that, either, but unless he put her in a garbage bag first, her body would contain evidence consistent with the inside of his car trunk.

JMO

You're right. Sorry I left that part out. The method receiving the Good Housebreaking Seal of Approval definitely involves a garbage bag. No murderer should ever leave home without one.
:no:

docg

09-20-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by lucky13

Okay, docg. I truly value your opinions. Then why, in your opinion, did John make such a big deal in the note about bringing a large enough(adequate size) attache case?? That's just weird & unnecessary otherwise IMO.
(I did a little 'experiment', & I am convinced that a 40 lb, 3'11" child could be stuffed into one of those old suitcases. Not a live child, or a child in rigor, but a dead, lifeless, limber child.) MOO

That attache bit is kinda weird, I admit. But I don't think he was planning on entering the bank carrying a suitcase with his dead kid in it, do you?

And speaking of dead kids, or more specifically a "dead, lifeless, limber child," just WHAT sort of experiment did you perform, dear, and on whom?

:(

MissOtisRegrets

09-20-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by lucky13

Okay, docg. I truly value your opinions. Then why, in your opinion, did John make such a big deal in the note about bringing a large enough(adequate size) attache case?? That's just weird & unnecessary otherwise IMO.
(I did a little 'experiment', & I am convinced that a 40 lb, 3'11" child could be stuffed into one of those old suitcases. Not a live child, or a child in rigor, but a dead, lifeless, limber child.) MOO

It's from a movie, lucky. Everything in the instructions is.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Movie%20Comparisons

harz

09-20-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by docg

I can't imagine anyone being able to squeeze a 6 year old into a Samsonite suitcase. The approved way of getting a body out of a house is via the car trunk.

Well this is my another theory. Maybe John Ramsey had different plans about this suitcase for other reasons before. During his "45 minutes AWOL" (acutally more than 45 minutes, it was from 10:40am to noon) I learned that from timeline at
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/links.html
I am not finish reading the entire Ramsey's timeline to now lol.
Anyway, what was in suitcase was a blanket of Andrew's semen on it. So if JB was molested by Andrew prior that night she died. John or Patsy caught him or JB told her parents sometime that Christmas month. To protect their image and truth from public, JB had to be rid of after Andrew left the town. JB's doctor would had spot the proof of sexual abuse on JB's vagina if he were to exam it or JB would be telling other people about Andrew. So how clever of John to use paintbrush to damage that evidence.

John's plans was to get rid of suitcase with Andrew's semen on blanket along with other evidences he already got rid of. The problem was, the suitcase is too big, would be noticed by police and to everybody if he was to carry it with him. So he was trapped with suitcase, then he had to stage it by placing it under the window to make it look like intruder use it as step out through the window. How odd with Andrew's semen on blanket inside that suitcase where it was suppose to be in launday basket, washer/dryer, fold up and put away in closet.

If John plan to get rid of body using the suitcase, then he would probably thought he could take suitcase with JB's body packed inside with him to Michigan vacation home where he can dump the body into the lake. Who knows, however, I do believe 99% that John Ramsey does knew everything what excatly happened to JB between 25th and 26th of 1996 Christmas. I am still 50% about Patsy if did knew what actually happened. JMO

Athena

09-20-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
But those were dressy Christmas clothes that they not only didn't wear every day, and the Rs said they were never down in basement while wearing them. I would agree with you if those clothes were every day outfits, but they weren't - and it just so happens that those fibers are found on the dead child on the one day the parents happened to be wearing them...and no fibers from anyone else are on her at all.

Why isn't there any fiber evidence of an intruder? No hair, and no prints, either. Nothing that didn't come from a Ramsey.

The DNA is fragmented and degraded, and JonBenet's was fresh and complete. The two samples of DNA were not deposited at the same time. When Dr Lee tested underwear the same as the ones JonBenet was found in, he found those had the DNA on them also.

All the DNA did for Karr was prove he hadn't been the one to leave the DNA in her underwear. There was also no proof that he had ever been in Boulder, let alone inside the Ramsey house. It wasn't JUST the DNA that cleared Karr.

It didn't have to be a pedophile at all. Experts have said that that murder did not appear to be sexually motivated.

What about the other questions I asked - about the handwriting, and the contradicting stories?

You have to look at this murder as a whole, not piece by piece. It looks entirely different when all the pieces fit together than it does when you examine each piece separately. The overall body of evidence does not support the theory that this crime was committed by a pedophiliac intruder.

First of all the only mention of "black" fibers coming from John Ramsey's shirt was in the police interrogation. In all the evidence it collected it stated "dark" fibers not black fibers.

I do not believe the murder was done by your everyday pedophile but I do believe it was a sick, perverted, twisted person and not one of the Ramseys. The DNA also does not support the evidence that it was one of the Ramseys either. There IS hair that has not been identified -- and since the DNA has been isolated -- it wasn't a sneeze that put that DNA in JBRs underwear either. There were other fibers and hairs also that have not been identified and/or matched.

For all we know there could have been an intruder still in the basement when the Ramseys got up and was interrupted. We just don't know.

Personally I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had a key.

As far as the handwriting goes - if handwriting from posters on this board was analyzed, I believe some of us would not be excluded. jmo

Athena

09-20-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Exactly, trt, the fingernail DNA was compromised and contaminated due to the coroner's office failing to use a sterile implement for each fingernail. They were known to use the same implement on more than one body, as well.

Here's a link with a quote from Patsy's sister, Pam Paugh.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11111998Story-HistoryDaveLucasShow(Ramsey).htm

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable.

This preview of a video tape that was done shortly after the new DNA evidence on Catherine Crier/Erin Moriarity clearly state that the fingernail DNA although contaminated did match the DNA in the underwear. This was said AFTER the DNA was isolated years later. Technology had improved. It is also specifically said that the DNA in her underwear was NOT from a sneeze.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nllcQW9QzC0

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
But those were dressy Christmas clothes that they not only didn't wear every day, and the Rs said they were never down in basement while wearing them. I would agree with you if those clothes were every day outfits, but they weren't - and it just so happens that those fibers are found on the dead child on the one day the parents happened to be wearing them...and no fibers from anyone else are on her at all.

Why isn't there any fiber evidence of an intruder? No hair, and no prints, either. Nothing that didn't come from a Ramsey.

The DNA is fragmented and degraded, and JonBenet's was fresh and complete. The two samples of DNA were not deposited at the same time. When Dr Lee tested underwear the same as the ones JonBenet was found in, he found those had the DNA on them also.

All the DNA did for Karr was prove he hadn't been the one to leave the DNA in her underwear. There was also no proof that he had ever been in Boulder, let alone inside the Ramsey house. It wasn't JUST the DNA that cleared Karr.

It didn't have to be a pedophile at all. Experts have said that that murder did not appear to be sexually motivated.

What about the other questions I asked - about the handwriting, and the contradicting stories?

You have to look at this murder as a whole, not piece by piece. It looks entirely different when all the pieces fit together than it does when you examine each piece separately. The overall body of evidence does not support the theory that this crime was committed by a pedophiliac intruder. Good evening, nuisance :)....I really didn't see the need to address the handwriting comment....I don't believe the so-called handwriting experts know a heck of a lot...John was completely ruled out by them..and Patsy almost was...so I don't see that either of them wrote the note.....the inconsistent stories...if each one of us here on the board experience exactly the same day together....and were ?d just after each of us lost a child....all of us would have a different account of what happened...would it be we were all inconsistent...no....later we might think of something we did forget...and add that..what I'm trying to say is I see nothing damning in any of their stories.......I think Althena explains the dna quite well in the previous post...and I thank her for that!!! :seeya:

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Athena

First of all the only mention of "black" fibers coming from John Ramsey's shirt was in the police interrogation. In all the evidence it collected it stated "dark" fibers not black fibers.

I do not believe the murder was done by your everyday pedophile but I do believe it was a sick, perverted, twisted person and not one of the Ramseys. The DNA also does not support the evidence that it was one of the Ramseys either. There IS hair that has not been identified -- and since the DNA has been isolated -- it wasn't a sneeze that put that DNA in JBRs underwear either. There were other fibers and hairs also that have not been identified and/or matched.

For all we know there could have been an intruder still in the basement when the Ramseys got up and was interrupted. We just don't know.

Personally I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had a key.

As far as the handwriting goes - if handwriting from posters on this board was analyzed, I believe some of us would not be excluded. jmo Thank you for your post, Althena :) I agree the intruder had a key...and he was one SICK puppy....a parent would not do this to their child to cover up an accident...this does have all the signals of a sick person with pedophile tendencies....imho

harz

09-20-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you for your post, Althena :) I agree the intruder had a key...and he was one SICK puppy....a parent would not do this to their child to cover up an accident...this does have all the signals of a sick person with pedophile tendencies....imho

I understand how you feel or that you want to believe it was someone else. I felt the same way before. I came to realized that one of Ramseys might believe or thought in "two wrongs make a right" during that night. They might be a good people before or after that night. But it still does not justify to JB's death or the cover up. Even good people make mistakes, sometimes their mistakes are such disgrace that one cannot handle with. I am not trying to convince you to change your opinions, but I am speaking of mine perceive. JMO

LadyFisher

09-20-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by harz

I understand how you feel or that you want to believe it was someone else. I felt the same way before. I came to realized that one of Ramseys might believe or thought in "two wrongs make a right" during that night. They might be a good people before or after that night. But it still does not justify to JB's death or the cover up. Even good people make mistakes, sometimes their mistakes are such disgrace that one cannot handle with. I am not trying to convince you to change your opinions, but I am speaking of mine perceive. JMO I always appreciate your opinion as well as others....I do realize that good people can make mistakes.....if this was an accident..I can perhaps see a very young couple without much life experience...or a couple that wasn't too bright doing something like that....but the Ramseys really were not that young of parents...they were educated people....I just can't see either of them covering up something like that...and I don't think they were so vain that they had to keep up appearances..I truly don't think appearances really were all that important to Patsy or John...John had already lost one daughter...and Patsy was recovering from her bout with ovarian cancer...there would be imho no good reason for either of them to go to such lengths....if John had been molesting her..and wanted to kill her...all he had to do was kill her and claim an accident...it would have been believable...but the scene in that basement tells me there was a sicko intruder there...it really does to me anyway! imho

sunsplashed

09-20-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by harz

Well this is my another theory. Maybe John Ramsey had different plans about this suitcase for other reasons before. During his "45 minutes AWOL" (acutally more than 45 minutes, it was from 10:40am to noon) I learned that from timeline at
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/links.html
I am not finish reading the entire Ramsey's timeline to now lol.
Anyway, what was in suitcase was a blanket of Andrew's semen on it. So if JB was molested by Andrew prior that night she died. John or Patsy caught him or JB told her parents sometime that Christmas month. To protect their image and truth from public, JB had to be rid of after Andrew left the town. JB's doctor would had spot the proof of sexual abuse on JB's vagina if he were to exam it or JB would be telling other people about Andrew. So how clever of John to use paintbrush to damage that evidence.

John's plans was to get rid of suitcase with Andrew's semen on blanket along with other evidences he already got rid of. The problem was, the suitcase is too big, would be noticed by police and to everybody if he was to carry it with him. So he was trapped with suitcase, then he had to stage it by placing it under the window to make it look like intruder use it as step out through the window. How odd with Andrew's semen on blanket inside that suitcase where it was suppose to be in launday basket, washer/dryer, fold up and put away in closet.

If John plan to get rid of body using the suitcase, then he would probably thought he could take suitcase with JB's body packed inside with him to Michigan vacation home where he can dump the body into the lake. Who knows, however, I do believe 99% that John Ramsey does knew everything what excatly happened to JB between 25th and 26th of 1996 Christmas. I am still 50% about Patsy if did knew what actually happened. JMO

I highly doubt that JA was molesting JB, harz. He was a young kid, his seman would naturally be found on a blanket he had used for any length of time. I think it was just an old suitcase that was downstairs for storage and somehow, the other two items were places inside it.

The Ramseys didn't even own a laundry basket. They just let their clothes drop wherever they fell and waited for the housekeeper to pick them up. She told Patsy they needed a laundry basket or hamper but Patsy never got one. (From PM/PT)

And then, there was a Dr. Seuss book in the suitcase, too.

Surely, John wouldn't have been able to explain JB's absence satisfactorily if she weren't on the plane to Michigan.

I, too, believe JR knows everything about what happened to JB, and I'm not sure about Patsy, either.

JMO

docg

09-20-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by harz

Well this is my another theory. Maybe John Ramsey had different plans about this suitcase for other reasons before. During his "45 minutes AWOL" (acutally more than 45 minutes, it was from 10:40am to noon) I learned that from timeline at
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/links.html
I am not finish reading the entire Ramsey's timeline to now lol.
Anyway, what was in suitcase was a blanket of Andrew's semen on it. So if JB was molested by Andrew prior that night she died. John or Patsy caught him or JB told her parents sometime that Christmas month. To protect their image and truth from public, JB had to be rid of after Andrew left the town. JB's doctor would had spot the proof of sexual abuse on JB's vagina if he were to exam it or JB would be telling other people about Andrew. So how clever of John to use paintbrush to damage that evidence.

John's plans was to get rid of suitcase with Andrew's semen on blanket along with other evidences he already got rid of. The problem was, the suitcase is too big, would be noticed by police and to everybody if he was to carry it with him. So he was trapped with suitcase, then he had to stage it by placing it under the window to make it look like intruder use it as step out through the window. How odd with Andrew's semen on blanket inside that suitcase where it was suppose to be in launday basket, washer/dryer, fold up and put away in closet.

If John plan to get rid of body using the suitcase, then he would probably thought he could take suitcase with JB's body packed inside with him to Michigan vacation home where he can dump the body into the lake. Who knows, however, I do believe 99% that John Ramsey does knew everything what excatly happened to JB between 25th and 26th of 1996 Christmas. I am still 50% about Patsy if did knew what actually happened. JMO

This is an interesting idea that no one has thought of before as far as I know. Some people think Burke did it and John and Patsy were covering for him. But he was too young to be prosecuted so it's hard to see them taking such a huge risk for Burke. John Andrew WAS old enough to be prosecuted, so what you're suggesting makes some sense.

But John A. was not in Boulder the night of the crime so he couldn't have killed her. And it's impossible for me to imagine that John or Patsy would have killed JonBenet to protect him. They might possibly cover for him if he did it. But kill her for that reason? Hard to accept.

The most pressing question in any case is not really who killed JonBenet but who wrote the note. We have no evidence to help us determine who killed her. But we DO have the note, the printing on it, and its contents. Did someone write the note for their own benefit or to protect someone else. We don't know for sure. But once we figure out who wrote the note (hint: it was John) then we will be in a position, I think, to learn everything else.

Athena

09-20-2006, 11:17 PM

Inventory of Crime Scene and Search Warrants

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

harz

09-21-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I highly doubt that JA was molesting JB, harz. He was a young kid, his seman would naturally be found on a blanket he had used for any length of time. I think it was just an old suitcase that was downstairs for storage and somehow, the other two items were places inside it.

The Ramseys didn't even own a laundry basket. They just let their clothes drop wherever they fell and waited for the housekeeper to pick them up. She told Patsy they needed a laundry basket or hamper but Patsy never got one. (From PM/PT)

And then, there was a Dr. Seuss book in the suitcase, too.

Surely, John wouldn't have been able to explain JB's absence satisfactorily if she weren't on the plane to Michigan.

I, too, believe JR knows everything about what happened to JB, and I'm not sure about Patsy, either.

JMO

I looked up recently on what Dr.Seuss is and learned its a children book, I don't see how a male with developed testosterone and that book can be mixed. Was Andrew at age around 18 that time JB died? I imaged possible that he was reading that book to JB, then lead to molesting her, in result of his semen on blanket while they were on the blanket together. It might happened a night to a week before the 26th which one of Ramseys had found out about it somehow. Then John might had believed there would be JB's fluid or traces of her on the book and the blanket mixed with Andrew's semen, so he planned to get rid of them. Andrew had to leave the town giving John Ramsey the opportunity to cover that incident up to protect Andrew by killing JB and staged the scene. John could had made a blow to JB's head making it look like an accident to Patsy, while she could not have known about JB and Andrew sexual incident, if she was involved in the second cover up with John, otherwise she might just slept thru the whole night not knowing anything like that had happened. Who knows, I am just trying to think of some theory possible as I am trying to interpret between the evidences. JMO

harz

09-21-2006, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by docg
Snipped

But John A. was not in Boulder the night of the crime so he couldn't have killed her. And it's impossible for me to imagine that John or Patsy would have killed JonBenet to protect him. They might possibly cover for him if he did it. But kill her for that reason? Hard to accept.

The most pressing question in any case is not really who killed JonBenet but who wrote the note. We have no evidence to help us determine who killed her. But we DO have the note, the printing on it, and its contents. Did someone write the note for their own benefit or to protect someone else. We don't know for sure. But once we figure out who wrote the note (hint: it was John) then we will be in a position, I think, to learn everything else.

I thought it would be possible for John Ramsey to kill JB because JB can expose the Ramseys and she was a living proof. Andrew likely wouldn't tell anyone as he probably was so ashamed about it. It would make both parents look really bad if they were being exposed that a son of theirs is a pedophile, Patsy probably doesn't even know about it. So John killed JB, covered up for Andrew, and staged the scene, so he believed his family can move on, but everything went awry, yet they made it thru without anyone knowing what actually happened. JMO

diplomat

09-21-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by harz

Other thing I was wondering when would be her next vagina exam by her doctor. Did she had schedule on it? Because someone here or in article said she had vagina exam 3 times total in her life by doctor. I am unsure about how many times excatly, but theory possible that John got triggered about JB's next vagina exam. JMO

JB had a lot of allergy/sinus problems that accounted for many of the doctor visits. She was having trouble with "accidents" and had problems from wet pullups as well, rashes for instance. Thank goodness she didn't fall off of that new bicycle and break her arm, people would be saying John or Patsy had twisted her arm in anger and broke it.

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by harz

Other thing I was wondering when would be her next vagina exam by her doctor. Did she had schedule on it? Because someone here or in article said she had vagina exam 3 times total in her life by doctor. I am unsure about how many times excatly, but theory possible that John got triggered about JB's next vagina exam. JMO

Vaginal exams in a child that young are VERY unusual, harz. Most girls don't have one until they are eighteen or become sexually active, whichever comes first.

Bladder infections are usually diagnosed by taking a sample of urine and either looking under a microscope or doing a culture to see if it contains bacteria.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

I know what you are referring to - but that is an entirely too simplistic answer, imo.

Consider how compliant & cooperative JonBenet would have had to be to go through the process of getting ready for any of the pageant appearances. Not to mention the many hours that would need to be spent learning dancing, posing, her stage performances, etc.

So - bottom line - a child who may be cooperative at one moment may be uncooperative at another (just like us adults!)

Did you read VF's earlier post where she mentioned how often molestors use treats or favors or toys? Winning the child's favor is the point here - they do not just "cop a feel" or boldly assault the target - they go slowly. Kind of a wooing process. First we do something you like. Aren't we just the best? Aren't you pleased with how much we think of you? Then we introduce something new... because you are sooooo special...

Think about it...

VF I am sure can verify that a child so manipulated very often acts out at OTHER times. And we can appreciate that from an adult viewpoint - how many times have we had to suffer silently from conditions that we do not like at work, patiently waiting for our day to be over - then leave & behave badly once we are outside that environment? We berate store clerks, belittle waiters, fuss at our family members. Yet we are the vision of Casper Milquetoast in front of our boss.

Children often suffer other problem behaviors specifically related to their genitals - regression to being bladder or bowel incontinent, for example.

MOO

I agree with you and VF 100%. You are both exactly right.

I have to wonder now why Burke was a bedwetter for so long.

In PM/PT, it says ALL the Ramsey children were bedwetters at JB's and Burke's age. That's unusual.

JMO

nuisanceposter

09-21-2006, 01:13 PM

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Harz, JonBenet had had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in 3 years. This is VERY UNUSUAL in a child that young.

Not for those that suffered from vaginitis, which is fairly common in young girls, at least according to my pediatrician. I asked him a while back during my DD's checkup because I was curious after reading all the stuff about it on these threads. He also said bubble bath is a common cause of vaginitis.

Mimi428

09-21-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed

I agree with you and VF 100%. You are both exactly right.

I have to wonder now why Burke was a bedwetter for so long.

In PM/PT, it says ALL the Ramsey children were bedwetters at JB's and Burke's age. That's unusual.

JMO

The bedwetting while asleep does not particularly concern me. If that was the sole issue, I would hardly give it a thought. It is relatively common, it does have a familial tendency. But the bladder & bowel incontinence while awake issues combined with the bedwetting combined with the demands/requests for assistance with toileting needs does concern me a great deal.

JMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-21-2006, 01:52 PM

The asking others for assistance concerns me, too.

nuisanceposter

09-21-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Not for those that suffered from vaginitis, which is fairly common in young girls, at least according to my pediatrician. I asked him a while back during my DD's checkup because I was curious after reading all the stuff about it on these threads. He also said bubble bath is a common cause of vaginitis.

I not only have a daughter, but I know many people with daughters, and none of those little girls have had near the number of vaginal exams or recurring bouts of vaginitis that JonBenet went through.

Most girls under the age of seven are unaware they even have a vagina because they do not experience itching or irritation in it.

The first time my daughter got vaginitis from a bubble bath (not once yet in 11 years) would be the last time she took a bath with bubble stuff in it.

harz

09-21-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Harz, JonBenet had had 5 or 6 vaginal exams in 3 years. This is VERY UNUSUAL in a child that young.

Wow, indeed thats odd. What did doctor said about it and what details to the problems was? I wonder if the doctor was bribed or something by Ramseys not to reveal to others about any signs that JB was molested? Like Michael Jackson's doctor had written several excuse notes for the judge of his sexual molestion case to pardon Michael for being late or skipping some days due to his fake injuries or psychically illness. As his doctor did him favors for greed or bribed which probably similar to JB's doctor for Ramseys. IMO

MyrDawn

09-21-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I not only have a daughter, but I know many people with daughters, and none of those little girls have had near the number of vaginal exams or recurring bouts of vaginitis that JonBenet went through.

Most girls under the age of seven are unaware they even have a vagina because they do not experience itching or irritation in it.

The first time my daughter got vaginitis from a bubble bath (not once yet in 11 years) would be the last time she took a bath with bubble stuff in it.

Your daughter is lucky she's not prone to vaginitis. Neither of mine were, either, but my little sister was, and still is, and so are many others.

Just like some people are prone to colds. My neighbor kids have colds a lot, whereas my almost 4 year old girl has had one cold in her lifetime, and she plays with those neighbor kids a lot. I've had one cold in the last 10 years, and my DH has at least 2 colds a year.

Just because a little girl is prone to vaginitis, it's not necessarily because she's sexually abused.

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 07:09 PM

No, frequent vaginitis does not mean abuse, but it is a cause for concern:

http://www.drpaul.com/library/VAGINITIS.html

It can be caused by bubble baths and by poor hygiene, but bubble baths can be stopped and a kid who is old enough to go to school should be screaming for ANY adult to wipe her, as PM/PT says JB did.

I would be very concerned if it were my child.

JMO

harz

09-21-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
No, frequent vaginitis does not mean abuse, but it is a cause for concern:

http://www.drpaul.com/library/VAGINITIS.html

It can be caused by bubble baths and by poor hygiene, but bubble baths can be stopped and a kid who is old enough to go to school should be screaming for ANY adult to wipe her, as PM/PT says JB did.

I would be very concerned if it were my child.

JMO

Thanks for the link, that reminds me to ask about the way how to wipe with toilet paper. If JB was so disciplined being model-alike in pageant, how her model movement should be, showing facial expressionals, all stuff like that. All these seemed that she was well-trained on, but it makes me wonder if she couldn't be disciplined in such simplify on how to wipe from vagina to asus (or front to back) with toilet papers to prevent vaginitis? I thought Patsy would want to discipline her on that part herself since she seemed picky and had JB visited doctor for vagina exams 5-6 times in 3 yrs including JB's other frequently visits to doctor. It just strange to me, I guess IMO

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by harz

Thanks for the link, that reminds me to ask about the way how to wipe with toilet paper. If JB was so disciplined being model-alike in pageant, how her model movement should be, showing facial expressionals, all stuff like that. All these seemed that she was well-trained on, but it makes me wonder if she couldn't be disciplined in such simplify on how to wipe from vagina to asus (or front to back) with toilet papers to prevent vaginitis? I thought Patsy would want to discipline her on that part herself since she seemed picky and had JB visited doctor for vagina exams 5-6 times in 3 yrs including JB's other frequently visits to doctor. It just strange to me, I guess IMO

You're welcome, harz. It seems strange to me, too. She was so well-trained in the pageant stuff, one would think she'd have no trouble learning proper hygiene and that it would embarrass Patsy to have JB scream for help from any nearby adult.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 08:43 PM

What about the vaginal exams, VF? That's VERY unusual for a child as young as six, isn't it?

And if the vaginitis had been caused by bubble baths, it could have been cured by stopping the bubble baths.

If caused by poor hygiene, I would think JB's doctor would have probed the reasons WHY more deeply. I thought little girls were usually shy about having other people wipe them.

JMO

lucky13

09-21-2006, 10:05 PM

docg, No, I didn't think that John was going to carry JB in the suitcase to the bank. C'mon now. lol This was when plan A was going to go down. Before Patsy ruined it by calling 911. At the time, only Patsy would know that John was 'taking care' of everything while she & Burke were sent away. She had to keep quiet about it, hence the threats in the note. John would leave the house with the suitcase,(with JB in it) & he would go dispose of her.(Aww, that's awful to say) He would probably have wanted someone to see him leaving with the suitcase for the alibi. I can only imagine where he planned on 'dumping her'. (Didn't he own a boat? Was it close by?) It had to be some place that was close by but secluded. He put the Dr. Seuss book in because it was nearby? & it would fit. He wanted something in there with her that was hers, because he DID feal bad about what he had done. The blanket was a random blanket, probably near the washer/dryer area. He was going to leave JB wrapped in it where ever he dumped her. Just like he did in the wine cellar. THEN he would go to the bank & proceed with his plan. This is just my own interpretation (right now) of this very bizarre case. :shrug:

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
docg, No, I didn't think that John was going to carry JB in the suitcase to the bank. C'mon now. lol This was when plan A was going to go down. Before Patsy ruined it by calling 911. At the time, only Patsy would know that John was 'taking care' of everything while she & Burke were sent away. She had to keep quiet about it, hence the threats in the note. John would leave the house with the suitcase,(with JB in it) & he would go dispose of her.(Aww, that's awful to say) He would probably have wanted someone to see him leaving with the suitcase for the alibi. I can only imagine where he planned on 'dumping her'. (Didn't he own a boat? Was it close by?) It had to be some place that was close by but secluded. He put the Dr. Seuss book in because it was nearby? & it would fit. He wanted something in there with her that was hers, because he DID feal bad about what he had done. The blanket was a random blanket, probably near the washer/dryer area. He was going to leave JB wrapped in it where ever he dumped her. Just like he did in the wine cellar. THEN he would go to the bank & proceed with his plan. This is just my own interpretation (right now) of this very bizarre case. :shrug:

I think both boats were in Michigan. Not that I don't believe the Ramseys guilty. I do.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-21-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
Sun, there is really no stat/ information on this from a CPS POV, those who have had vaginal exam are usually moms who have thought their child is being molested....There is of course the usual bubble bath/ perfume allergies etc but as we have stated so many tiems STOP USING THE DANG PRODUCT!!!

There is a reason why PR kept using that product....it bother me so much she had so little care for her own daughter....she would have been burning in her vaginal/ labia this entire time...poor thing..

now lets say PR didnot know JB is being molested she should have been taken to child doctor.......with so many complaints on same issue or related ones... what about a bowel specialist ....

the ONLY reason why a doctro would examine a little girls' vagina would be on the suggestion of a parent for whatever reason, inflammatory cause by an allergy, sometimes toilet papers have perfumes/chemicals and they either irriate or are left behind and toilet training does cause inflammation but NOT at her age, she should be able to wipe properly and without issue she should not need assistance....

what bothers me is why did no one else say a word about this, surely at the pageants they knew...were they too afraid to confront this scary mom? no doubt... abuse can only happen when it is allowed to happen....I still cannot believe not one other mom took charge to see what was wrong with JB. Maybe too much competition?

GRAPHIC read with care
the lack of shyness is really bothersoem....a young girl was placed into foster care, mom had so many boyfriends in the home...it was not until the foster dad came out of the room with red face..she opened her legs and asked him to tickle her with his tongue...she was 4 years old......I happned to be there and it was agreed that he was never to be in her room again alone for legal reasons..we knew he was not the perp but you didnot want the mom to accuse him and not her boyfriends...this little girl had to come into permanent care.......

The girl was not shook about who could tickle her vagina......WHY?

JB was not shook about who could wipe her vagina.. ...WHY?

it is usually with inapprioate boundaries or too many sexual episodes.....

That is really eye-opening, VF. I know things like that go on, but the shocking thing is that so many people just overlook them. Like doctors and the pageant organizers, etc. People just don't want to get involved.

I've long thought that something had to be going on with JB's lack of shyness about letting anyone, male or female, stanger or family, wipe her. In fact, according to PM/PT, she demanded someone do it.

And this total faith in Dr. Beuf has bothered me, too. I know if my little girl was getting repeated infections/inflammations, I would DEMAND they find out the cause.

The Ramseys just keep getting guiltier and guiltier.

JMO

Mimi428

09-22-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by victims feel
From a CPS POV they were guilty from jump street.

It is appalling how people sit back and do nothing, I hold them as guilty as well be it a teacher, priest, librarian .. whoever!.

Her lack of shyness or modesty or discomfort if nothing else IS the redflag...

sadly doctors are the only line fof defense for abused children and more sad than that they miss the ball more times than not...

it is disgraceful....

if I was a parent truly about my child, my child would have a new doctor after the second visit of no results....

if they were poor would this have happened???

being NOT POOR has benefitted R2 greatly....it gave them their freedom....from prosecution....so far.....

<snipped>

Yep, it's the m-o-n-e-y that protects. A doctor, not seeing overt signs of sexual contact with bruising, scarring, tearing - is going to be reticent to report what could only be low-impact stuff. The rich can & do threaten legal action against anyone who makes claims & they surely will win when the proof is not overt & blatant (Sometimes they win even when the proof is overt & blatant). Next thing you know, parents of means refuse to go to this physician - because "just look at his/her outrageous accusations against this fine family". They hear it through the grapevine, they take their business elsewhere.

Never underestimate the power of money to buy silent complicity. It's a real fear factor motivation. Hell of a backlash risk.

Shame that Fleet White wasn't given the same advice as the poor guy who was told about the tongue tickle. Put yourself in any position to be alone with a child who lacks "body privacy" comprehension & you risk being accused of improper conduct.

sunsplashed

09-22-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Yep, it's the m-o-n-e-y that protects. A doctor, not seeing overt signs of sexual contact with bruising, scarring, tearing - is going to be reticent to report what could only be low-impact stuff. The rich can & do threaten legal action against anyone who makes claims & they surely will win when the proof is not overt & blatant (Sometimes they win even when the proof is overt & blatant). Next thing you know, parents of means refuse to go to this physician - because "just look at his/her outrageous accusations against this fine family". They hear it through the grapevine, they take their business elsewhere.

Never underestimate the power of money to buy silent complicity. It's a real fear factor motivation. Hell of a backlash risk.

Shame that Fleet White wasn't given the same advice as the poor guy who was told about the tongue tickle. Put yourself in any position to be alone with a child who lacks "body privacy" comprehension & you risk being accused of improper conduct.

People who don't know money buys silence are living in a fantasy world.

It would be nice if it didn't. It would be nice if everyone had principles they lived up to, but most people don't. And that's partly because a good life in this country is dependent on having a lot of money and having a lot of money isn't an easy thing for most people to obtain.

I feel very bad for Fleet White. He was only trying to be a good person, to live by his principles and he gets blamed by a lot of people (at least on this board) for doing so.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-22-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by victims feel

regardless JB reeked of signs of neglect and inappropriate development.... I just hope PR didnot put her in pageants to project her own sexual abuse seductions......

Snipped for bandwidth.

I know the "Ramseys-are-innocent" people will jump on me for this, but it's disturbing to me that Patsy (and other moms, she was not the only one, but she carried it to an extreme) would put their daughters in something like these pageants.

I found it embarrassing and difficult to watch the videos of JB in full makeup, in Ziegfeld folly clothes, wearing long, dangling adult earrings, and giving pageant directors coy and seductive glances.

What kind of mother DOES that to a SIX-YEAR-OLD?!?!?

Some posters say JB enjoyed the pageants. That's the WRONG THING for a child that young to enjoy.

And to those who want to attack me (I know you aren't one, VF), no I don't have a "sick mind." I do, however, have good eyesight and I can see JB was "trained" to act seductive. That is just plain WRONG.

JMO

sunsplashed

09-23-2006, 01:40 AM

To me, VF, the pageant training and the participation in the pageants were abuse.

I've heard so many people say John and Patsy were good parents, and I don't think they physically abused their children, but I think the pageants constituted emotional abuse even if JB enjoyed them. Teaching a six-year-old to be seductive is abuse. A six-year-old should NOT know how to BE seductive. That is using a child, IMO, not loving a child. And I don't care if it's a family tradition or not. There are some traditions that should definitely be broken. Pageant participation by children in kindergarten is one of them.

JMO

harz

09-23-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by sunsplashed
To me, VF, the pageant training and the participation in the pageants were abuse.

I've heard so many people say John and Patsy were good parents, and I don't think they physically abused their children, but I think the pageants constituted emotional abuse even if JB enjoyed them. Teaching a six-year-old to be seductive is abuse. A six-year-old should NOT know how to BE seductive. That is using a child, IMO, not loving a child. And I don't care if it's a family tradition or not. There are some traditions that should definitely be broken. Pageant participation by children in kindergarten is one of them.

JMO

I agree, there are many different kinds of sexual abuse. Even if autopsy report claimed there no signs of prior sex abuse does not mean JB never had been sex abused. Maybe someone had done all sexual kinds on her except for digitally penetration or whatever could given signs to autopsy before. Who knows. IMO

Athena

09-23-2006, 09:07 PM

I did not want to open up yet another thread - so I was wondering since this one is headed "Forensic Evidence" we could just put a list together of all the evidence that has been found with facts - no speculation, no conjecture, no innuendoes, no opinions maybe in the format of a simple list. We all know that actual facts are being misreported and some misinformation is still being posted. Hope this makes sense and we can at least try it??

For an example:

Bowl of Pineapple: Patsy and Burke's fingerprints
Flashlight/Batteries: Wiped clean of prints
Ransom Note: Patsy's paper/pen
Pubic Hair: Unidentified
Paint Tools: Patsy's
Knife: Burke's

diplomat

09-23-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Athena
I did not want to open up yet another thread - so I was wondering since this one is headed "Forensic Evidence" we could just put a list together of all the evidence that has been found with facts - no speculation, no conjecture, no innuendoes, no opinions maybe in the format of a simple list. We all know that actual facts are being misreported and some misinformation is still being posted. Hope this makes sense and we can at least try it??

For an example:

Bowl of Pineapple: Patsy and Burke's fingerprints
Flashlight/Batteries: Wiped clean of prints
Ransom Note: Patsy's paper/pen
Pubic Hair: Unidentified
Paint Tools: Patsy's
Knife: Burke's

Oh please do open one just for facts and evidence. And keep your fingers crossed that opinions can stay off of just one thread. It would be such a good resource rather than having to wade through so many threads containing opinions and theories.

diplomat

09-23-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
docg, No, I didn't think that John was going to carry JB in the suitcase to the bank. C'mon now. lol This was when plan A was going to go down. Before Patsy ruined it by calling 911. At the time, only Patsy would know that John was 'taking care' of everything while she & Burke were sent away. She had to keep quiet about it, hence the threats in the note. John would leave the house with the suitcase,(with JB in it) & he would go dispose of her.(Aww, that's awful to say) He would probably have wanted someone to see him leaving with the suitcase for the alibi. I can only imagine where he planned on 'dumping her'. (Didn't he own a boat? Was it close by?) It had to be some place that was close by but secluded. He put the Dr. Seuss book in because it was nearby? & it would fit. He wanted something in there with her that was hers, because he DID feal bad about what he had done. The blanket was a random blanket, probably near the washer/dryer area. He was going to leave JB wrapped in it where ever he dumped her. Just like he did in the wine cellar. THEN he would go to the bank & proceed with his plan. This is just my own interpretation (right now) of this very bizarre case. :shrug:

I think they could have traced the suitcase. Didn't it have one of the luggage tags with John Andrew's name on it?

MyrDawn

09-24-2006, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by victims feel
Do you think for once you could post without some passive aggressive backhanded crypotquoted message that attacks posters you do not agree with?...Almost everyone of your posts are inciting and attack other people...maybe you can stop doing that for even just one thread?

Facts ONLY thread would stop you from doing that I hope.

This is a perfect example of that kind of message, IMO.

Athena

09-24-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Nuisance....those marks sure look like burns to me...if not a stun gun, what are they?

Lady -- They do like burn marks to me as well. Use of the stun gun may be inconclusive but I have seen nothing to substantiate that it wasn't. Michael Doberson concurred he believed these to be stun gun marks. The only ones to dispute it were Air Taser and Robert Stratbucker. Given that Air Taser is the manufacturer and Robert Stratbucker was on their payroll and his testimony discredited they are not credible sources for the dispute. Nor is there an alternative explanation. jmo

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Lady -- They do like burn marks to me as well. Use of the stun gun may be inconclusive but I have seen nothing to substantiate that it wasn't. Michael Doberson concurred he believed these to be stun gun marks. The only ones to dispute it were Air Taser and Robert Stratbucker. Given that Air Taser is the manufacturer and Robert Stratbucker was on their payroll and his testimony discredited they are not credible sources for the dispute. Nor is there an alternative explanation. jmo

I have yet to read any viable alternative to the stun gun that could have caused those marks. It is a very strong piece of evidence. And really could eliminate quite a few on that list of suspects I would think. JMO

Athena

09-25-2006, 01:32 AM

I put some known facts together of the case - and do not see any evidence that clearly implicates the Ramseys. I just wanted to add that I did an exhaustive search of the so-called red fibers that were allegedly found on the paint brush and in the paint tray and also of the black fiber that allegedly was found in JBR's underwear and could find nothing except the interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey where it is questioned and then media reports obviously based on the interrogation. Even Henry Lee said if red fibers were found it could have been from secondary transfer from Patsy putting JBR to bed that night. When I went back to find the statement again I can't remember where I read it but will continue to look. I'm going to bed - some of us have to work. Please feel free to add but please no speculation -- just known facts that would have been presented to the Grand Jury. Just wanted to have a foundation. jmo :)

Eight Pages Missing between Ransom and Practice Notes – Where are they?

Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).

Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

Animal Hairs Found on Duct Tape. “Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) ”Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)”

Stun Gun – Inconclusive – however no alternative theory to burn marks.

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Athena
I put some known facts together of the case - and do not see any evidence that clearly implicates the Ramseys. I just wanted to add that I did an exhaustive search of the so-called red fibers that were allegedly found on the paint brush and in the paint tray and also of the black fiber that allegedly was found in JBR's underwear and could find nothing except the interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey where it is questioned and then media reports obviously based on the interrogation. Even Henry Lee said if red fibers were found it could have been from secondary transfer from Patsy putting JBR to bed that night. When I went back to find the statement again I can't remember where I read it but will continue to look. I'm going to bed - some of us have to work. Please feel free to add but please no speculation -- just known facts that would have been presented to the Grand Jury. Just wanted to have a foundation. jmo :)

Eight Pages Missing between Ransom and Practice Notes – Where are they?

Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).

Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

Animal Hairs Found on Duct Tape. “Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) ”Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)”

Stun Gun – Inconclusive – however no alternative theory to burn marks.

I believe I can solve the mystery of the animal hairs on the tape: it came from the paintbrush. Yes, beaver hair is used to make the bristles on some paint brushes, specifically ones made in the Orient. Now, what with all of the bumbling of the BPD, do you think anyone may have thought of that? Methinks the hairs on JBs hands may have also come from that. Can't prove it, of course but it seems to fit.
If the blanket was dragged along the floor, the pubic/auxilary hair could have come from any number of people who had been in the Ramsey home at any time.
The baseball bat....wasn't that Burkes? Seems the Ramseys didn't have much of a clue of what they owned or their kids owned. Perhaps they had too much to keep track of.
JB was wiped down after her assult...brown fibers probably came from the cloth used. Did anyone do a body search on the Ramseys? Nope. A washcloth could easily be hidden on ones person. Not saying that's what happened but it's plausable.
The missing paper....how easy is it to burn and flush paper? Pretty easy.
I'm sorry....I just read that I was not allowed to speculate. I am submitting this anyway because it took so much time to write!
And lastly to add...stun gun...burn marks? Who said they were burn marks?

Athena

09-25-2006, 09:14 AM

TWW: OK -- splitting hairs here. LOL

I haven't found brush bristles made of beaver. I wonder if the BPD did any testing of those "beaver" hairs to positively id them. Maybe they weren't beaver hairs? There are more links but just posted two:

http://www.madisonartshop.com/artist-brush.html
http://painting.about.com/od/artsupplies/a/BrushHairs.htm

Pubic hair -- was unidentified and did not match any of the Ramseys or their friends

Baseball Bat -- It was assumed to be Burke's bat -- but I have not seen anything to verify that in fact it was his. Not saying it wasn't so if you have a link -- would appreciate it.

Re: flushing of paper -- if they flushed the missing pages of the ransom note pad why wouldn't they have flushed the practice ones?

1st degree burns can definitely be abrasions. Abrasions imo is just a generic term for soft tissue injuries.

rosebud

09-25-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Athena
I put some known facts together of the case - and do not see any evidence that clearly implicates the Ramseys. I just wanted to add that I did an exhaustive search of the so-called red fibers that were allegedly found on the paint brush and in the paint tray and also of the black fiber that allegedly was found in JBR's underwear and could find nothing except the interviews with John and Patsy Ramsey where it is questioned and then media reports obviously based on the interrogation. Even Henry Lee said if red fibers were found it could have been from secondary transfer from Patsy putting JBR to bed that night. When I went back to find the statement again I can't remember where I read it but will continue to look. I'm going to bed - some of us have to work. Please feel free to add but please no speculation -- just known facts that would have been presented to the Grand Jury. Just wanted to have a foundation. jmo :)

Eight Pages Missing between Ransom and Practice Notes – Where are they?

Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Chet Ubowski of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation concluded that the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Leonard Speckin, a private forensic document examiner, concluded that differences between the writing of Mrs. Ramsey's handwriting and the author of the Ransom Note prevented him from identifying Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note, but he was unable to eliminate her. (SMF P 198; PSMF P 198.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Edwin Alford, a private forensic document examiner, states the evidence fell short of that needed to support a conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note. (SMF P 197; PSMF P 197.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Lloyd Cunningham, a private forensic document examiner hired by defendants, concluded that there were no significant similar individual characteristics shared by the handwriting of Mrs. Ramsey and the author of the Ransom Note, but there were many significant differences between the handwritings. (SMF P 201; PSMF P 201.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Howard Rile concluded that Mrs. Ramsey was between "probably not" and "elimination," on a scale of whether she wrote the Ransom Note. (SMF P 202; PSMF P 202.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20).

Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20).

Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

Animal Hairs Found on Duct Tape. “Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) ”Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)”

Stun Gun – Inconclusive – however no alternative theory to burn marks.

Several handwriting experts concluded that it either was Patsy who wrote the ransom note or that it was a highly likely that she did.

There is no conclusive evidence that ANY evidence found on JB's body or at the actual crime scene was foreign to the house. NOTHING found can be said with certainty that it came from outside the house. Nothing was reported missing from the house.

John Ramsey said he broke a window in the basement weeks before, but the broken glass was still under the window on 26 Dec.

The coroner concluded that they were NOT stun gun marks on JB.

rosebud

09-25-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Athena
I did not want to open up yet another thread - so I was wondering since this one is headed "Forensic Evidence" we could just put a list together of all the evidence that has been found with facts - no speculation, no conjecture, no innuendoes, no opinions maybe in the format of a simple list. We all know that actual facts are being misreported and some misinformation is still being posted. Hope this makes sense and we can at least try it??

For an example:

Bowl of Pineapple: Patsy and Burke's fingerprints
Flashlight/Batteries: Wiped clean of prints
Ransom Note: Patsy's paper/pen
Pubic Hair: Unidentified
Paint Tools: Patsy's
Knife: Burke's

There seems to be considerable doubt that a pubic hair was found. I am going by the many links in these threads.

Athena

09-25-2006, 11:36 AM

Athena

09-25-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

There seems to be considerable doubt that a pubic hair was found. I am going by the many links in these threads.

How about reading the search warrant and transcripts. I do not base my comments on other people's opinions. I research EVERYTHING I post. MOO

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Athena
TWW: OK -- splitting hairs here. LOL

I haven't found brush bristles made of beaver. I wonder if the BPD did any testing of those "beaver" hairs to positively id them. Maybe they weren't beaver hairs? There are more links but just posted two:

http://www.madisonartshop.com/artist-brush.html
http://painting.about.com/od/artsupplies/a/BrushHairs.htm

Pubic hair -- was unidentified and did not match any of the Ramseys or their friends

Baseball Bat -- It was assumed to be Burke's bat -- but I have not seen anything to verify that in fact it was his. Not saying it wasn't so if you have a link -- would appreciate it.

Re: flushing of paper -- if they flushed the missing pages of the ransom note pad why wouldn't they have flushed the practice ones?

1st degree burns can definitely be abrasions. Abrasions imo is just a generic term for soft tissue injuries.

Hi Athena. Do a search for beaver hair paint brushes. If it is not conclusive that it was beaver hair, many other animal hairs are used in paint brushes also.
Pubic hair: they had all kinds of workers in and out of their home and I am sure people who were not among their closest friends came through. It could have been anybody.
Flushed paper: Maybe they didn't see the indentation made from the practice note so did not know to get rid of it? Wasn't it just an impression from the pen on the sheet under the practice note and not actually written on the sheet?
No conclusion on the stun gun theory or "burns" yet!
Baseball bat: Wish I had a link. Anymore I can't tell if I read something in one of the books or on the internet or what! I will try to find it, though.

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:28 PM

diplomat

09-25-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The couple (not several) handwriting experts you are referring to also DID NOT examine the original note and/or samples. It is not credible nor possible to say that you can do an accurate handwriting analysis based on who knows what generation copy it is. That is a fact.

I've addressed your other two comments on another thread I just read. Re: Coroner - what coroner said they were not stun gun marks. Michael Doberson initially said they weren't but at the time he had never examined photos of the marks. When he did he admitted it was compelling evidence. John Meyers declined comment as he was the one who had to make presentation to the Grand Jury. jmo

For those who don't think a stun gun was used, there has been no evidence of what the marks could have come from. No one has produced anything remotely possible to have made the marks considering shape and color and size. And to have made two sets measuring the same distance apart is compelling evidence for the gun.

rosebud

09-25-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by diplomat

For those who don't think a stun gun was used, there has been no evidence of what the marks could have come from. No one has produced anything remotely possible to have made the marks considering shape and color and size. And to have made two sets measuring the same distance apart is compelling evidence for the gun.

BS. The coroner who did the autopsy thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks.

rosebud

09-25-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by diplomat
'

I don't remember any conclusions from handwriting experts that it was "highly likely" that Patsy wrote the note. On the richter scale of handwriting analysis so to speak she barely scored. The conclusion was in the realm of she might possibly have written the note not "highly likely" she wrote the note. A big difference.

I am sure you don't. When the links to such information has been posted on these threads that many times and the information is readily available to everyone here, I have to wonder if some posters here simply filter out anything that might indicate the Ramseys did it. (hint, hint)

Respected handwriting experts have said that it is highly likely that Patsy wrote the note.

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

I am sure you don't. When the links to such information has been posted on these threads that many times and the information is readily available to everyone here, I have to wonder if some posters here simply filter out anything that might indicate the Ramseys did it. (hint, hint)

Respected handwriting experts have said that it is highly likely that Patsy wrote the note.

I've said this before but I'll bring it up again: I believe the Sharpie pen used to write the note would be an excellent aid in disguising ones handwriting. It is not a very good instument for writing letters with. Seriously...how many of you write formal letters with a Sharpie pen? Sounds to me like it was grabbed in a moment of haste because it was just there.
That says to me that this note was not written beforehand because it stands to reason that a prewritten note would not be written with a freakin magic marker pen!
Also, the point is...if it had not been written with that type of pen, it might possibly push Patsy much closer to the probability that she wrote the note. IMO

Athena

09-25-2006, 04:04 PM

rosebud you really crack me up. I have now realized you don't have any information to back up your claims. You dispute everyone's posts but offer no supporting documentation and your posts have become less and less credible telling everyone else that doesn't agree with you are being accused of overlooking anything that may make the Ramseys look guilty.

It is so not worth even trying to discuss anything with you - because you don't even offer facts to dispute and it has nothing to do with what side anyone is on as I respect many if not most of the posters on this board who believe there was no intruder but who also offer supporting documentation or indicate it is their opinion. Proof is in the last 6 responses you have made. :rolleyes: MOO

Athena

09-25-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I've said this before but I'll bring it up again: I believe the Sharpie pen used to write the note would be an excellent aid in disguising ones handwriting. It is not a very good instument for writing letters with. Seriously...how many of you write formal letters with a Sharpie pen? Sounds to me like it was grabbed in a moment of haste because it was just there.
That says to me that this note was not written beforehand because it stands to reason that a prewritten note would not be written with a freakin magic marker pen!
Also, the point is...if it had not been written with that type of pen, it might possibly push Patsy much closer to the probability that she wrote the note. IMO

Writing with a sharpie pen can help to alter one's handwriting however I would not go as far as to say that a prewritten note would not be written with one for the same reason and not necessarily by Patsy. It is also possible that the samples collected from Patsy were written with a sharpie as well. I know she had to duplicate the note with both her left and right hands.(don't know how much of the note though) jmo

Athena

09-25-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Hi Athena. Do a search for beaver hair paint brushes. If it is not conclusive that it was beaver hair, many other animal hairs are used in paint brushes also.
Pubic hair: they had all kinds of workers in and out of their home and I am sure people who were not among their closest friends came through. It could have been anybody.
Flushed paper: Maybe they didn't see the indentation made from the practice note so did not know to get rid of it? Wasn't it just an impression from the pen on the sheet under the practice note and not actually written on the sheet?
No conclusion on the stun gun theory or "burns" yet!
Baseball bat: Wish I had a link. Anymore I can't tell if I read something in one of the books or on the internet or what! I will try to find it, though.

Yes I realize the paint bristles are from other animals so I agree with you there; just couldn't find beaver's hair which is why I asked if those hairs were actually tested and proven to be beaver hair. Maybe they were from another animal as I do support your theory that the animal hairs could have come from the bristles. :)

Pubic hair? from anyone walking through. I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The practice ransom notes (I believe two pages were found) and one of them bled through to the next blank page. But there are still eight pages missing. It just doesn't make sense to me that 8 pages were missing but the practice notes were not disposed of. :shrug:

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Yes I realize the paint bristles are from other animals so I agree with you there; just couldn't find beaver's hair which is why I asked if those hairs were actually tested and proven to be beaver hair. Maybe they were from another animal as I do support your theory that the animal hairs could have come from the bristles. :)

Pubic hair? from anyone walking through. I'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The practice ransom notes (I believe two pages were found) and one of them bled through to the next blank page. But there are still eight pages missing. It just doesn't make sense to me that 8 pages were missing but the practice notes were not disposed of. :shrug:

Pubic hair...couldn't that be chest hair, armpit hair etc? Is there a way to determine the difference?
I'm thinking about the 8 missing pages. Lets see...the ransom note was 2 1/2 pages long. Remove a sheet from under each page to dispose of the bleed through pages....that makes six sheets...remove the started practice note and the sheet under...would make 8. Possibly the pen bled through two sheets and they didn't see it? I thought the "practice" note was only a partial "greeting" of Mr. and Mrs. R...the rest being unfinished. The pen might have bled more if it was used to write slowly or pressed down harder.
Possibility? Is there a link that shows the practice note?

Athena

09-25-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Pubic hair...couldn't that be chest hair, armpit hair etc? Is there a way to determine the difference?
I'm thinking about the 8 missing pages. Lets see...the ransom note was 2 1/2 pages long. Remove a sheet from under each page to dispose of the bleed through pages....that makes six sheets...remove the started practice note and the sheet under...would make 8. Possibly the pen bled through two sheets and they didn't see it? I thought the "practice" note was only a partial "greeting" of Mr. and Mrs. R...the rest being unfinished. The pen might have bled more if it was used to write slowly or pressed down harder.
Possibility? Is there a link that shows the practice note?

There is a link that shows the pages. Have to try to remember where I saw it. LOL

Pubic hair -- is from a person's private area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubic_hair

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Athena

There is a link that shows the pages. Have to try to remember where I saw it. LOL

Pubic hair -- is from a person's private area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubic_hair

Ok...now I feel like a dummy. And geeze, girlfriend! Why didn't you warn me that there were pictures!!! :eek:

But hey...I have a rebuttal (don't I always)...if someone was wearing shorts in the house, they could still shed a pube....so I still say the hair could have come from anyone coming into their house.

Athena

09-25-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Ok...now I feel like a dummy. And geeze, girlfriend! Why didn't you warn me that there were pictures!!! :eek:

But hey...I have a rebuttal (don't I always)...if someone was wearing shorts in the house, they could still shed a pube....so I still say the hair could have come from anyone coming into their house.

LOL -- Oops! I did not even look at the article. When I did a search I just read the description. Sorry!!!!

We will have to agree to disagree on the pubic hair.

Link to pad where ransom note came from. There were actually 20 pages missing! Guess I can't count either. No actually I don't think I counted the first 8 pages in the beginning. :eek:

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

thewhitewitch1

09-25-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Athena

LOL -- Oops! I did not even look at the article. When I did a search I just read the description. Sorry!!!!

We will have to agree to disagree on the pubic hair.

Link to pad where ransom note came from. There were actually 20 pages missing! Guess I can't count either. No actually I don't think I counted the first 8 pages in the beginning. :eek:

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

Well, back to the drawing board on that one then! :shrug:
You keep posting after me and I have already been in here much longer than a mentally healthy person should be so I'll check in later and see if any new info has come up.
Have a good one!

Da Wench

09-25-2006, 08:04 PM

A couple of things:

Earlier in the thread, rigor and time of death were mentioned. A child's body goes into rigor faster than an adult's, and comes out of rigor sooner. Also, strenuous activity just before death (such as a struggle) can accelerate both the onset and the dissipation of rigor. I don't know if that's relevant, just thought I'd mention it.

Also, using a marker pen rather than a ballpoint would make handwriting analysis more difficult, since pressure patterns are one of the factors handwriting experts analyse, and marker pens show these less clearly than ballpoints.

Also, a question:

Is it known for sure which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation?

MyrDawn

09-26-2006, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Da Wench

snip...

Also, a question:

Is it known for sure which came first, the blow to the head or the strangulation?

Nope, even Meyer, the ME that did the autopsy, wasn't sure which came first.

LindaA

09-26-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
<snip>....why if the DNA is not viable was Karr released on the fact his DNA did not match? I think the DNA is viable dna and the right suspect has not been found yet to submit to dna testing....imho great

Exactly, Ladyfisher. I have been wondering this myself. It seems to me that if the DNA excluded Karr, and it also excluded the Ramseys, then logically the perp must be someone else.

Athena

09-26-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

There seems to be considerable doubt that a pubic hair was found. I am going by the many links in these threads.

From PMPT, P223

The CBI reported to the police that a PUBIC hair had been discovered on the white blanket found around JBR's body. When the hair was evaluated under a compound microscope, it showed a high degree of "buckling" or "twisting" and a greater degree of curl than chest or scalp hairs"

Athena

09-26-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

BS. The coroner who did the autopsy thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks.

Again link please. John Meyers did the autopsy -- where are you getting your info from? I've even put a link here so you can copy that info directly from the autopsy report where he says that.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

From PMPT P431 - Stun Gun - This also explains why the BPD did not get a court order to have JBR's body exhumed:

Ainsworth, Hofstrom, DeMuth and Wickman met with the coroner John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JBR's face and bck were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Larimer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a 13-month-old girl, Michaela Hughes, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. :rose:

Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters the pathologist on the case and showed him the autopsy photos of JBR. Deters also agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun-gun injury and he did NOT think the body needed to be exhumed and NOTHING else would be learned by examining the skin tissue.

thewhitewitch1

09-26-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

Exactly, Ladyfisher. I have been wondering this myself. It seems to me that if the DNA excluded Karr, and it also excluded the Ramseys, then logically the perp must be someone else.

I doubt that he was released and excluded just because the DNA didn't match. He was supposed to have known facts about the murder that wasn't released to the public. Obviously he didn't. It seems stupid to exclude anyone based soley on the DNA.
I personally believe that the DNA doesn't belong to the killer. I don't believe that JB struggled with her killer at all. IMO
The 14 year old that was assulted later in her home in the same neighborhood as JB should have had saliva from her attacker on her "privates" but no DNA was found from that on her. I find that pretty strange and questionable too.

LadyFisher

09-26-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

Several handwriting experts concluded that it either was Patsy who wrote the ransom note or that it was a highly likely that she did.

There is no conclusive evidence that ANY evidence found on JB's body or at the actual crime scene was foreign to the house. NOTHING found can be said with certainty that it came from outside the house. Nothing was reported missing from the house.

John Ramsey said he broke a window in the basement weeks before, but the broken glass was still under the window on 26 Dec.

The coroner concluded that they were NOT stun gun marks on JB. Here's the true facts about one of your handwriting experts...the Vassar literature professor Donald Foster, who made quite a reputation for himself as a literary sleuth....He stunned the academic world by proving thrgh textual analysis tha a 578-line poem he had found on microfilm in he archies o the UCLA libary had actually been written by William Shakespeare. ..he unmasked Newsweek columnist Joe Klein a he anonymous author of the best selling political novel Primary Colors....in 1998 he announced he had determined that Patsy Ramsy had written the ransom note...but then it came out that in the spring of 1997, he had written Pasy to offer his condolences...and stating " I know you are innocent..know it, absolutely and unequivocally, said he would stake his reputation on it....He also stated he believed John's son...John Andrew had been posting on th Internet under the code name "Jameson"...and that this jameson as the actual killer..when it turned outthat Jameson was in fact not a twenty year old male college student..but a forty five y/o housewife.from North Carolina..who had merely developed a fascination with this case...Foster's analysis with regard tothe Ramsey case were severely caled into question.....Pg 449 & 450 in the book The Cases that Haunt Us...............That reinforces my belief that many of these folks don't have a clue to who really wrote the ransom note! imho

Athena

09-26-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Nope, even Meyer, the ME that did the autopsy, wasn't sure which came first.

In PMPT P 156-157

Meyer does however state in his autopsy report that there was an extensive bruise of the skull but with minimal swelling.

Would seem to me that if the head injury was 20 to 60 minutes before the strangulation occurred as some have suggested here; the swelling would NOT have been MINIMAL but more pronounced. jmo

Meyer also said that he found scattered petechial hemorrhages on the surface of each lung and on the front surface of the heart indicating that her death was caused by suffocation.

LadyFisher

09-26-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Athena

In PMPT P 156-157

Meyer does however state in his autopsy report that there was an extensive bruise of the skull but with minimal swelling.

Would seem to me that if the head injury was 20 to 60 minutes before the strangulation occurred as some have suggested here; the swelling would NOT have been MINIMAL but more pronounced. jmo

Meyer also said that he found scattered petechial hemorrhages on the surface of each lung and on the front surface of the heart indicating that her death was caused by suffocation. You've got it exactly right, Althena...the petechial hemorrhages indicate to me she was strangled first....this was not an accident and then staging done to cover it up...there is no way! imho Please excuse any typos today...I had a 14 hour workday yesterday...and I'm a little tired today :)

Athena

09-26-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
You've got it exactly right, Althena...the petechial hemorrhages indicate to me she was strangled first....this was not an accident and then staging done to cover it up...there is no way! imho Please excuse any typos today...I had a 14 hour workday yesterday...and I'm a little tired today :)

Personally I do not judge anyone's spelling or typos unless required in the profession one has not on a message board -- I could care less - it is the content of a post that captures my attention. Now inaccurate info is entirely different. :)

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
~ JFK

rosebud

09-26-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

In PMPT P 156-157

Meyer does however state in his autopsy report that there was an extensive bruise of the skull but with minimal swelling.

Would seem to me that if the head injury was 20 to 60 minutes before the strangulation occurred as some have suggested here; the swelling would NOT have been MINIMAL but more pronounced. jmo

Meyer also said that he found scattered petechial hemorrhages on the surface of each lung and on the front surface of the heart indicating that her death was caused by suffocation.

And your medical expertise for personally questioning the opinion of a medical examiner and coroner would be?

Athena

09-26-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by rosebud

And your medical expertise for personally questioning the opinion of a medical examiner and coroner would be?

Ha ha! You have no idea who I am or what my qualifications may be.

How about you contributing something for a real discussion for a change instead of your little one-liners that mean absolutely nothing and obviously made just to stir the pot.

My opinion is based directly on what the coroner who performed the autopsy said. It's called an opinion based on common sense. So just what do you think minimal means? jmo

MyrDawn

09-26-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Athena

And how about you contributing something for a real discussion for a change instead of your little one-liners that mean nothing.

My opinion is based directly on what the coroner who performed the autopsy said. It's called an opinion based on common sense. So just what do you think minimal means? jmo

LOL...twisting our words again. Or....doesn't she know that Meyer was the coroner that did the autopsy on JonBenet???

I'm still waiting for the link to where she saw him say he thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks that some think might have come from a stun gun.

IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOOOO

Athena

09-26-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

LOL...twisting our words again. Or....doesn't she know that Meyer was the coroner that did the autopsy on JonBenet???

I'm still waiting for the link to where she saw him say he thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks that some think might have come from a stun gun.

IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOOOOO

Honestly Myr - takes a long time for me to do this -- but I have just put this poster on ignore. Offers no credible information and just retorts to posts with one-line comments and/or inaccurate nformation. Oh well...... :shrug:

MyrDawn

09-26-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Honestly Myr - takes a long time for me to do this -- but I have just put this poster on ignore. Offers no credible information and just retorts to posts with one-line comments and/or inaccurate nformation. Oh well...... :shrug:

I'm pretty darned close to it myself, Athena, and I've never put anyone on ignore...before.

Athena

09-26-2006, 01:57 PM

This is another article - I believe someone posted on the other thread that was subsequently closed but has always bothered me a bit. When I recently re-read it I guess I never noticed anything about the cigarette butts before but remember because we were discussing burn marks when I looked at the search warrant sure enough there were person's unidentified cigarette butts. Also this article says the boots were sized because it says that Helgoth's bootprint did not match the size??? Also if an intruder left no DNA evidence - the killer could have been apprehended but because no DNA match were released. Still so many questions.

"Two or three people we were looking at had associations with both neighborhoods," says Peterson, who went so far as to collect the sample of one man's handwriting. "We talked with him several times. ...We had him write something."

Peterson then had an expert compare that handwriting to the Ramsey ransom note. He claims he found distinct similarities were found, but "handwriting analysis is kind of an art. It's pretty subjective."

He also collected cigarette butts found outside Amy's house, and discovered that the "same brands were found in the Ramseys' alley."

skipped a few paragraphs:

There is one man, who investigators refer to as the "Candy Cane Man," who had one of the decorative candy canes that lined the Ramsey's front walk on the night of the murder. He says he removed the item a week after the murder "because it was there."

But it turns out that some of the canes were missing the next day, when JonBenet's body was discovered. Investigators fear they may have been taken by the killer or killers as a bizarre souvenir –- which led to this man, who admitted he once had an obsession with JonBenet, and built a shrine to her that he now keeps on his computer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

rosebud

09-26-2006, 01:59 PM

vaughancauthen

09-26-2006, 02:35 PM

The conversation has turned away from favoring people who believe the Ramseys did it.

Use of a stun gun indicates they are innocent. I hope that would be generally recognized, and any exhumation that proved a stun gun was used would also have been considered proof the Ramseys are innocent.

Without an exhumation, determining a stun gun was used comes close to exonerating the Ramseys.

And consider this:
Here's a true fact about one of your handwriting experts...the Vassar literature professor Donald Foster, who made quite a reputation for himself as a literary sleuth....He stunned the academic world by proving through textual analysis that a 578-line poem he had found on microfilm in the archives of the UCLA library had actually been written by William Shakespeare. ..he unmasked Newsweek columnist Joe Klein a he anonymous author of the best selling political novel Primary Colors....in 1998 he announced he had determined that Patsy Ramsey had written the ransom note...but then it came out that in the spring of 1997, he had written Patsy to offer his condolences...and stating " I know you are innocent…know it, absolutely and unequivocally, said he would stake his reputation on it.
Why are so many people with reputations reversing themselves, coming out with different opinions later, and saying things they already said they didn’t believe?

It seems these people are being pressured from higher up to reverse their opinions. Like Boulder DA Mary Lacy who brought John Karr back, then let him go because there was no DNA when she knew this: “The 14 year old that was assaulted later in her home in the same neighborhood as JB should have had saliva from her attacker on her "privates" but no DNA was found from that on her.”

John Karr never actually directly said her killed or harmed her, though he took responsibility for it. We are pretty sure John Karr didn’t commit the other crime. Maybe the other kidnapper, after being paid to do the crime by those same people that are trying to block all evidence that points to an intruder, especially a specific intruder… The other kidnapper may have settled down in Boulder and then tried to repeat the same crime. Once again, he or she managed to leave no DNA behind. Why was John Karr released on the fact that there was no DNA?

That’s suspicious, considering a copycat crime in the same neighborhood left no DNA. The DA ignored that? and let John Karr go when his handwriting is a 99% match?

MyrDawn

09-26-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Athena
This is another article - I believe someone posted on the other thread that was subsequently closed but has always bothered me a bit. When I recently re-read it I guess I never noticed anything about the cigarette butts before but remember because we were discussing burn marks when I looked at the search warrant sure enough there were person's unidentified cigarette butts. Also this article says the boots were sized because it says that Helgoth's bootprint did not match the size??? Also if an intruder left no DNA evidence - the killer could have been apprehended but because no DNA match were released. Still so many questions.

"Two or three people we were looking at had associations with both neighborhoods," says Peterson, who went so far as to collect the sample of one man's handwriting. "We talked with him several times. ...We had him write something."

Peterson then had an expert compare that handwriting to the Ramsey ransom note. He claims he found distinct similarities were found, but "handwriting analysis is kind of an art. It's pretty subjective."

He also collected cigarette butts found outside Amy's house, and discovered that the "same brands were found in the Ramseys' alley."

skipped a few paragraphs:

There is one man, who investigators refer to as the "Candy Cane Man," who had one of the decorative candy canes that lined the Ramsey's front walk on the night of the murder. He says he removed the item a week after the murder "because it was there."

But it turns out that some of the canes were missing the next day, when JonBenet's body was discovered. Investigators fear they may have been taken by the killer or killers as a bizarre souvenir –- which led to this man, who admitted he once had an obsession with JonBenet, and built a shrine to her that he now keeps on his computer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

I'd forgotten all about those cigarette butts when I mentioned unidentified evidence earlier. It had been so long since I'd heard about them. I wonder if DNA testing was ever done on the butts found in the Ramsey alley and outside Amy's house.

Since the Boulder PD claim that bootprint was the the wrong size for a match to Helgoth, they must know what size boot made the print!

IMO, JMO and MOOOOOOO

lucky13

09-26-2006, 04:25 PM

vaughn.., If proven that a stun gun was used, it would indicate that the Ramsey's are innocent? Really? Even though there was a stun gun video & booklet/instructional manuel in the Ramseys home? Interesting.... It seems that instead of hiring tons of people to 'protect' them, the Ramseys would have exhumed JB's body to PROVE this once & for all. If they were so hassled & treated so unfairly, & this would have been conclusive evidence that would exonerate them, why didn't they just do that? MOO
John Karr's handwriting was a 99% match? Wow, You're a wealth of information.

Athena

09-26-2006, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
vaughn.., If proven that a stun gun was used, it would indicate that the Ramsey's are innocent? Really? Even though there was a stun gun video & booklet/instructional manuel in the Ramseys home? Interesting.... It seems that instead of hiring tons of people to 'protect' them, the Ramseys would have exhumed JB's body to PROVE this once & for all. If they were so hassled & treated so unfairly, & this would have been conclusive evidence that would exonerate them, why didn't they just do that? MOO
John Karr's handwriting was a 99% match? Wow, You're a wealth of information.

First of all the book was not a book on just a stun gun -- it was a book on corporate security and there was a very small section re: a stun gun. From PMPT

vaughancauthen

09-26-2006, 06:16 PM

The Ramseys would have no reason to use a stun gun on their daughter to get her out of bed or for any other reason.

An intruder might, although John Karr insisted he didn't use a stun gun on her, but said a stun gun was used, though not by him. Then he recanted (he had said he wanted to protect the identity, even the mere existence of his accomplice) and he said a stun gun was never used.

As for a handwriting match, click here and decide for yourself. (http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php)

thewhitewitch1

09-26-2006, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Ha ha! You have no idea who I am or what my qualifications may be.

How about you contributing something for a real discussion for a change instead of your little one-liners that mean absolutely nothing and obviously made just to stir the pot.

My opinion is based directly on what the coroner who performed the autopsy said. It's called an opinion based on common sense. So just what do you think minimal means? jmo

I am just wondering if she was strangled shortly after the blow to the head, would the swelling still be minimal? If so, I wonder how long. It does seem to be the general consensus that the blow to the head came after. Since I still believe the Ramseys are guilty, this takes away any sympathy I may have had towards them...and also makes me lean more towards John being the actual killer.
We can speculate on the stun gun til the cows come home but only an exhumation of her body would have reached a difinitive conclusion. I'm sure it is too late now.
Photographs cannot determine exactly what those marks are.
Again, I bring up my aquaintance who was stabbed to death while 7 months pregnant. Her murderer was found guilty 9 years after the fact based on bite marks. Her body was too decomposed to actually identify the marks as bites so the coroner used a photo instead. Due to this, the murderer may actually get out of jail free because of the huge debate it has caused over the validity of bite mark evidence. If JB's body were exhumed today, I am sure there is no way they would be able to tell what those marks were made from.
All the better for the Ramseys for not wanting her body exhumed when it might have helped find her killer(s). IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-26-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
The conversation has turned away from favoring people who believe the Ramseys did it.

Use of a stun gun indicates they are innocent. I hope that would be generally recognized, and any exhumation that proved a stun gun was used would also have been considered proof the Ramseys are innocent.

Without an exhumation, determining a stun gun was used comes close to exonerating the Ramseys.

And consider this:

Why are so many people with reputations reversing themselves, coming out with different opinions later, and saying things they already said they didn’t believe?

It seems these people are being pressured from higher up to reverse their opinions. Like Boulder DA Mary Lacy who brought John Karr back, then let him go because there was no DNA when she knew this: “The 14 year old that was assaulted later in her home in the same neighborhood as JB should have had saliva from her attacker on her "privates" but no DNA was found from that on her.”

John Karr never actually directly said her killed or harmed her, though he took responsibility for it. We are pretty sure John Karr didn’t commit the other crime. Maybe the other kidnapper, after being paid to do the crime by those same people that are trying to block all evidence that points to an intruder, especially a specific intruder… The other kidnapper may have settled down in Boulder and then tried to repeat the same crime. Once again, he or she managed to leave no DNA behind. Why was John Karr released on the fact that there was no DNA?

That’s suspicious, considering a copycat crime in the same neighborhood left no DNA. The DA ignored that? and let John Karr go when his handwriting is a 99% match?

Good God! Would you let it go! John Karr did not kill Jonbenet! If you really read all of his e-mail to Michael Tracey, you would know that he DID say that he killed her. He said it in phone calls to Tracey. Where do you get your information??
The 14 year old that was assulted had nothing in common with the Ramsey case other than the fact that someone alledgedly waited in the home and assulted the girl when she was in bed. That is the only similarity. He didn't bind her, gag her, hurt her or leave a fake kidnapping note. I am inclined to believe that the kid and her mother made the entire thing up. DNA does not just disappear...unless you're a ghost.
Karr was supposed to know something about the murder that wasn't released to the press...obviously he didn't know squat. Where do you find an expert who says his handwriting is a 99% match? Show me a link.

thewhitewitch1

09-26-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
The Ramseys would have no reason to use a stun gun on their daughter to get her out of bed or for any other reason.

An intruder might, although John Karr insisted he didn't use a stun gun on her, but said a stun gun was used, though not by him. Then he recanted (he had said he wanted to protect the identity, even the mere existence of his accomplice) and he said a stun gun was never used.

As for a handwriting match, click here and decide for yourself. (http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php)

I decided. I don't see a 99% match. Are you a handwriting expert?

vaughancauthen

09-27-2006, 05:09 PM

The handwriting is a slam dunk in handwriting comparisons.

John Karr’s purpose in writing the emails was to apologize to the Ramseys for what happened to JonBenet. He felt he was her protector and a protector of little girls. He could not have said, “I have a deep need to apologize to the Ramseys for what I did, but actually, I didn’t kill JonBenet, someone else did it.”

What he said was, “I take responsibility for her death. I feel as though I killed her.”

And then, after agonizing over how he should handle revealing the identity of his accomplice, he took his accomplice out of the picture. He said that a stun gun had been used, but not by him. Then he took his accomplice out of the picture by saying a stun gun wasn’t ever used because he, Jon Karr would never use a stun gun on his lover JonBenet.

Because all he wanted to do was apologize for what happened. He never wanted to reveal his own identity or his accomplice’s. He avoided that, which tells people he was not looking for 15 minutes of fame. He was only sorry about JonBenet.

And then, since he had taken full responsibility for her killing, he said, “I am the killer of JonBenet.” But if you read closely, you will never see where he says he physically killed her. He takes responsibility. He was there when she died. He feels as though he killed her. It was never simply, he killed her.

Now if you have a problem with him loving JonBenet, just make JonBenet a few years older, and you have the age, 15, were Isaac went to the well and found and married his wife in the Bible. That was when Isaac was 32. Yes, our society has changed and 32 year old men don’t marry women at 15 anymore. They just have sex with them, at 13, if the men are 14 to 18. Maybe that is not a moral improvement. JonBenet was portrayed as an adult. So it follows that a man would love her as an adult. The fact was, he loved her.

Society considers the greatest sin of John Karr was that he loved JonBenet. Society tends to say this about John Karr: He was sick for loving her, but he wasn’t man enough to kill her.

As a society, we say it is okay for two men to be married, but we resist it when a man loves a women, unless it is like June Cleaver. You can’t show a movie on regular TV if it is implied that a man touches a woman’s breast, but it is okay to show it on regular TV if it is implied that he cuts it off with a chain saw.

Hence, as a society we form the opinion: John Karr is sick for loving her, but he is not man enough to kill her.

It was you, whitewitch, when I talked about the African Muslim practice of mutilating a girl's genitals so she wouldn’t have sex: you said, “Oh yes, they do it so the girl will be a virgin when she gets married.” The tone of your response was almost like: “Yes, it is a reasonable idea.”

The film clip I saw on CNN had several women holding a girl down, mutilating her vagina with a piece of broken glass while the girl screamed. In some places, this is what women do to little girls. And it was done to JonBenet, possibly by a woman, since John Karr said his accomplice was a woman.

That theory of mine answers a lot of questions. Why was there no DNA? Why was she mutilated with a broken paintbrush? Why was there broken glass but no sign of entry there? Why was the suitcase propped up against the wall from the inside, to get at the glass to break it?

After she broke the glass, did she choose another tool to mutilate JonBenet?

John Karr would have been upstairs with the ransom note. He might have gotten to the next to last sentence, which was: “John, use that good Southern common sense of yours.” He was thinking how to finish it. He heard suspicious noises from downstairs. He finished the last sentence in a hurry with wider spacing between words: It_ is_ up_ to_ you_ now_ John! Victory! He runs downstairs to see what is happening.

thewhitewitch1

09-27-2006, 05:22 PM

For Vaughancauthen -

First of all, I never made this comment:

It was you, whitewitch, when I talked about the African Muslim practice of mutilating a girl's genitals so she wouldn’t have sex: you said, “Oh yes, they do it so the girl will be a virgin when she gets married.” The tone of your response was almost like: “Yes, it is a reasonable idea.”

Apparently you do not pay much attention to what you read.
I've told you that I am through with the John Karr discussion. He DID admit to killing her; he described HOW he killed her and if you paid any attention at all, when he mentioned a female in the mix, I do believe he was refering to himself. You DO know he was about to get a sex change operation before he was arrested, right? Obviously he has a bit of a personality disorder, since he sees himself as both a male and a female.
How does he protect little girls? By having sex with them?
Of course he couldn't have his 15 minutes of fame....he would have went to jail. But he was planning on writing a book about his sick fantasies. If you think it's ok for a 30 something yr. old man to be in love with a 6 year old, maybe YOU need to be locked up.
Your theories are insane and I think you need some serious help.

vaughancauthen

09-27-2006, 08:07 PM

It may not have been you who said it, but someone answered my post about Moslems mutilating young girls by saying, "It is a common African Muslim practice done to make sure they are a virgin when they get married."

That reply seemed to almost condone the practice.

I apologize if it wasn't you who said it. I tried to do a search for who it was, but I couldn't figure out how to find that post using the search engine. I remembered it was you, maybe Rosebud. Did you answer that post? Maybe you didn't intend to sound so clinical about the practice.

Professor Tracey also brought up the idea that the female might be an alter ego. John Karr answered him in a matter of fact way, explaining what alter egos were, and going to the next topic. He indicated she was a real person.

Here is an interesting thought: Yes, it would most likely be a woman who would do genital mutilation. It is easy for a woman to dress up and look like a man.

I wonder what exactly the 14-year-old who was assaulted described about her attacker. Mainly, what was her attacker trying to do to her?

No one has brought up the subject of genital mutilation, but if the second assault could have been toward that end, we would have a significant clue that isn’t included in all the stuff that was lost, or bungled.

vaughancauthen

09-27-2006, 08:50 PM

The reason I couldn’t find that post is because it had been deleted. Whole pages and even topics where I was involved in the conversation had been deleted, which leads me to believe someone really is against these ideas and want to bungle or lose any evidence that leads to the ideas I have expressed.

John Karr’s entire computer was lost, maybe because it contained details that will prove to an honest investigator he was with JonBenet.

People can spew out any strange theory and they are left alone, but my theory, stated in calm, thoughtful, and fairly convincing words is deleted. Why not either ignore it or answer it but not delete it?

Ames

09-27-2006, 09:03 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rosebud

BS. The coroner who did the autopsy thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks. [/QUOTE

Another theory....the potholder making loom, that was found in her room. The police photographed it, why would they do that, if they were not suspicious that it played some sort of part in the crime. IMO

vaughancauthen

09-27-2006, 09:24 PM

The potholder loom was a reasonable culprit for the marks, but the coroner originally said he thought it was a stun gun. He even said a specific kind of stun gun that he had seen similar marks from, before. Then he reversed himself (after he was pressured?)

And losing John Karr’s entire computer was the latest in a long line of bungled and lost evidence. John Karr was there. He didn’t kill her. His accomplice brutalized her, mutilated her, and fractured her skull. John Karr may have done a mercy killing, but the important thing is he was there and he has a story to tell, which is very significant to this country. A lot of powerful people in this country are showing how much they don’t want this story told.

The computer probably had details he never sent to anyone, which would prove he was there. They couldn't use it to prove he was a pedophile, and they lost it. Isn't it extremely suspicious and hinting of a much greater coverup when investigators would lose a computer?

Athena

09-27-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Ames
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rosebud

BS. The coroner who did the autopsy thought that pebbles she was dragged across may have made the marks. [/QUOTE

Another theory....the potholder making loom, that was found in her room. The police photographed it, why would they do that, if they were not suspicious that it played some sort of part in the crime. IMO

The prongs on that loom would have caused indentation or even piercing on the skin not abrasions. jmo

rosebud

09-28-2006, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Athena

The prongs on that loom would have caused indentation or even piercing on the skin not abrasions. jmo

And as eminent forensic examiner Dr. Mark Spitz said, it was not a stun gun.

JMO

breezy1234

09-28-2006, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

And as eminent forensic examiner Dr. Mark Spitz said, it was not a stun gun.

JMO

Yeah, he said the marks were caused by "pebbles" or "buttons" backed up with nothing more than speculation. :rolleyes:

rosebud

09-28-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yeah, he said the marks were caused by "pebbles" or "buttons" backed up with nothing more than speculation. :rolleyes:

So what are your qualifications to discount those of Dr Spitz, who is a highly respected forensic pathologist?

breezy1234

09-28-2006, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by rosebud

So what are your qualifications to discount those of Dr Spitz, who is a highly respected forensic pathologist?

What are yours to discount Arapahoe County coroner Dr. Michael Doberson who said "the most likely explanation for those injuries is that they were caused by a stun gun,”? :rolleyes:

brad55

09-28-2006, 01:01 PM

If we stipulate that indeed a stun gun was used and thus there was indeed an intruder how did the rest of the crime unfold? It raise so many crazy questions!

The intruder brought a stun gun. Did he also bring tape? Why would he only bring those two items and not also bring rope and garrote handle? After he stunned her wouldn't he need to tie her up? Any one here ever make a garrote on a whim?

Are we to believe he also brought a bat? So there was a man walking around the house in early evening with a bat, stun gun, and tape? And he left nothing behind. Except a bat?

What did he carry all of this in?

What did he do with the note after he wrote it until the family returned and he had nabbed JB? Carry it in his pocket? Was the note folded?

There are so many contradictions. On the one hand this was a light traveling professional intruder who left no finger prints or palm prints and knew the intricate workings of a garrote.

On the other he supposedly brought a bat, stun gun, and roll of tape to the scene. Then tried to stuff the body in a huge suitcase, wrote a rambling "unprofessional" ransom note and left his bat behind?

brad55

09-28-2006, 01:51 PM

One more question:

It may seem simplistic, but when did intruder put the note on the stairs?

Prior to going to hide under the bed? Isn't that too risky with the family able to find it BEFORE the abduction?

After the stun gunning? With JB in his arms?

Before the garroting with JB alone and in the basement regaining her senses?

After the murder? With all the noise (scream) and struggle in the basement he redresses JB, puts a blanket over her body, and went back up stairs with a totally useless, incriminating, unfolded "ransom" note to place on the stairs?

Wouldn't JB DNA be on the note if he did this? Maybe it was, I don't recall that info.

LindaA

09-28-2006, 02:00 PM

Really? I don't remember hearing his name before. THe only Mark Spitz I remember was the Olympic swimmer about 20 years ago. OR were you "funnin' us?

LindaA

09-28-2006, 02:03 PM

Brad,
I think the most popular theory is that he wrote it during the time before the Ramseys returned home from the party.

brad55

09-28-2006, 02:25 PM

And when did he place it on the stairs?

bullmoose

09-28-2006, 02:39 PM

Regarding the note, I myself believe it was left right before he left the house. bullmoose

Ames

09-28-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by brad55
And when did he place it on the stairs?

Probably right after he and/or Patsy wrote it! IMO

WallyCleaver

09-28-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by brad55
If we stipulate that indeed a stun gun was used and thus there was indeed an intruder how did the rest of the crime unfold? It raise so many crazy questions!

The intruder brought a stun gun. Did he also bring tape? Why would he only bring those two items and not also bring rope and garrote handle? After he stunned her wouldn't he need to tie her up? Any one here ever make a garrote on a whim?

Are we to believe he also brought a bat? So there was a man walking around the house in early evening with a bat, stun gun, and tape? And he left nothing behind. Except a bat?

What did he carry all of this in?

What did he do with the note after he wrote it until the family returned and he had nabbed JB? Carry it in his pocket? Was the note folded?

There are so many contradictions. On the one hand this was a light traveling professional intruder who left no finger prints or palm prints and knew the intricate workings of a garrote.

On the other he supposedly brought a bat, stun gun, and roll of tape to the scene. Then tried to stuff the body in a huge suitcase, wrote a rambling "unprofessional" ransom note and left his bat behind?

Don't forget that he also removed the batteries from the flashlight and wiped the prints off them - though why he used a flashlight when he'd brought a bat with him is a "mystery".

If a stun gun was used, then I think we can say it wasn't a kidnapping gone bad. The plan of the kidnapper must surely have been to subdue JB and take her from the house. If you stun gun a 6 year old girl, you really shouldn't have much trouble carrying her to the first floor, and out the door.

thewhitewitch1

09-28-2006, 03:10 PM

rosebud

09-28-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

What are yours to discount Arapahoe County coroner Dr. Michael Doberson who said "the most likely explanation for those injuries is that they were caused by a stun gun,”? :rolleyes:

And a forensic examiner with high credentials says it was not stun gun. Doberson has not explained why the marks do not appear to be burn marks as a stun gun would make.

rosebud

09-28-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Athena

The prongs on that loom would have caused indentation or even piercing on the skin not abrasions. jmo

Maybe the Boulder Police Dept should put you on its detective staff, Athena. Lou Smit retired you know.

JMO

brad55

09-28-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Don't forget that he also removed the batteries from the flashlight and wiped the prints off them - though why he used a flashlight when he'd brought a bat with him is a "mystery".

If a stun gun was used, then I think we can say it wasn't a kidnapping gone bad. The plan of the kidnapper must surely have been to subdue JB and take her from the house. If you stun gun a 6 year old girl, you really shouldn't have much trouble carrying her to the first floor, and out the door.

Why use the door when you can stuff her in a huge suitcase that you need to use as your step stool out a tiny basement window? It's illogical.

Also wasn't JB supposedly "wiped down" with some form of towel or cloth? So now the intruder has in his napsack a stun gun, roll of tape, flashlight, hand towel and rope and is carrying a bat, while wearing gloves that he never takes off.

How do you construct a garrote and tie knots with gloves on? Can you tear tape with gloves on?

How could this guy not be sweating all over the place while doing this? Maybe its just me, but thinking about all this carrying a body, tying it up, making a garrote, using it, hitting in the head, stuffing someone in a suitcase, taking them out, redressing them, running a note up the steps and back down to climb out a small window all the while wearing winter clothes and gloves...phew!! I am sweating just imagining it!

Is there DNA in sweat? In addition to where they found DNA, wouldn't it also be on the blanket, clothes, suitcase, carpet etc.?

So many questions I am dizzy!!

bullmoose

09-28-2006, 04:27 PM

Rosbud: But don't you remember that Lou Smits was already retired when he got into the case, and not from the BPD? bullmoose

diplomat

09-28-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by brad55

Why use the door when you can stuff her in a huge suitcase that you need to use as your step stool out a tiny basement window? It's illogical.

Also wasn't JB supposedly "wiped down" with some form of towel or cloth? So now the intruder has in his napsack a stun gun, roll of tape, flashlight, hand towel and rope and is carrying a bat, while wearing gloves that he never takes off.

How do you construct a garrote and tie knots with gloves on? Can you tear tape with gloves on?

How could this guy not be sweating all over the place while doing this? Maybe its just me, but thinking about all this carrying a body, tying it up, making a garrote, using it, hitting in the head, stuffing someone in a suitcase, taking them out, redressing them, running a note up the steps and back down to climb out a small window all the while wearing winter clothes and gloves...phew!! I am sweating just imagining it!

Is there DNA in sweat? In addition to where they found DNA, wouldn't it also be on the blanket, clothes, suitcase, carpet etc.?

So many questions I am dizzy!!

How do you know he was wearing winter clothes? I doubt he was dressed in bulky clothing, i.e. heavy coat etc., thus making his movements easier. The adrenalin rush would have kept him warm. This person was not completely a novice at this, as it went off too smoothly. JMO

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by brad55

Why use the door when you can stuff her in a huge suitcase that you need to use as your step stool out a tiny basement window? It's illogical.

Also wasn't JB supposedly "wiped down" with some form of towel or cloth? So now the intruder has in his napsack a stun gun, roll of tape, flashlight, hand towel and rope and is carrying a bat, while wearing gloves that he never takes off.

How do you construct a garrote and tie knots with gloves on? Can you tear tape with gloves on?

How could this guy not be sweating all over the place while doing this? Maybe its just me, but thinking about all this carrying a body, tying it up, making a garrote, using it, hitting in the head, stuffing someone in a suitcase, taking them out, redressing them, running a note up the steps and back down to climb out a small window all the while wearing winter clothes and gloves...phew!! I am sweating just imagining it!

Is there DNA in sweat? In addition to where they found DNA, wouldn't it also be on the blanket, clothes, suitcase, carpet etc.?

So many questions I am dizzy!!

Any type of form-fitting gloves could have been used. Also doubt that a sociopath would break out into a sweat. jmo

Also re: the wiping down of a cloth; where did this come from? The only place I have actually seen it originate was from Thomas. Was is conjecture? Speculation? Really curious.

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Any type of form-fitting gloves could have been used. Also doubt that a sociopath would break out into a sweat. jmo

Also re: the wiping down of a cloth; where did this come from? The only place I have actually seen it originate was from Thomas. Was is conjecture? Speculation? Really curious.

Exactly!

MyrDawn

09-29-2006, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by brad55

Why use the door when you can stuff her in a huge suitcase that you need to use as your step stool out a tiny basement window? It's illogical.

Also wasn't JB supposedly "wiped down" with some form of towel or cloth? So now the intruder has in his napsack a stun gun, roll of tape, flashlight, hand towel and rope and is carrying a bat, while wearing gloves that he never takes off.

How do you construct a garrote and tie knots with gloves on? Can you tear tape with gloves on?

How could this guy not be sweating all over the place while doing this? Maybe its just me, but thinking about all this carrying a body, tying it up, making a garrote, using it, hitting in the head, stuffing someone in a suitcase, taking them out, redressing them, running a note up the steps and back down to climb out a small window all the while wearing winter clothes and gloves...phew!! I am sweating just imagining it!

Is there DNA in sweat? In addition to where they found DNA, wouldn't it also be on the blanket, clothes, suitcase, carpet etc.?

So many questions I am dizzy!!

A neurosurgeon preforms brain surgery while wearing latex gloves. Tape, rope, stun gun and washcloth would all fit in pockets.

Steve Thomas was the only one I ever heard of that speculated she was wiped down with a cloth, too. He said he thought that's where the dark (blue, black?) fibers came from that were found in her genital region. The ones so many RDI's claim came from Johns shirt. Thomas said he thought they came from a wash cloth.

And, who ever said she was undressed? The killer could have pulled down her pants and pulled them back up again. I've never seen any evidence to show her clothes were completely removed and put back on again.

Not everyone is prone to dripping sweat.

MOO

vaughancauthen

09-29-2006, 08:39 AM

John Karr said he wore tight driving gloves. The coroner found shiny powder residue in her vagina that comes from latex surgical gloves. There were two kidnappers, who were wearing gloves.

John Karr might have been told: “Our group wants to make parents think twice about parading their 6-year-old daughters in malls. What we want is a simple kidnapping of JonBenet Ramsey. You will be there to protect her. The end result will be that child beauty pageants might become less prevalent.”

“To make the kidnapping go as smoothly as possible, we want you to ask for an amount he can easily pay. He recently deposited $118,000 into his account.”

With that as his purpose, John Karr broke in and lured JonBenet downstairs. It was the “visit from Santa” she was expecting. She must have known John Mark Karr as a very nice man, though no one knew him in the family but JonBenet. I am sure JonBenet did know him. Read here: bottom of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=4)

The ransom note was written in his own words according to an outline he had been given. Professor Tracey said, “…it was written as if more than one person was involved.”

John Karr said, “I will say that I was part if not the whole part of that note.”

He was part of it: he was told certain things to say. He was the whole of it: he wrote them down in his own words.

He said to Professor Tracey, “In conclusion, I wish to take full responsibility for all the events that occurred that night. You might well think I am protecting a girl (his accomplice) and I might be. If I can think of a way to protect her and continue to interject and reveal that she was with me that night, I will. Otherwise, I just have to leave it for right now, until I can figure out how to handle it.” Read that here: top of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=6)

He is talking about a real person. But who is this person? For one thing, she might wear size ten military boots. A woman could wear size ten military boots, and that tells you a lot about her. It may answer how a simple kidnapping could have gone as badly wrong as it did.

She could have been someone who practiced vaginal mutilation to protect girls from desiring sex. Both kidnappers may have been in agreement that their overall purpose was to save JonBenet from the society that made her into a piece of sexual merchandize. John Karr said, “I hate them and how they are selling my darling little girl like a commodity.” But his accomplice’s idea of protecting little girls included mutilating their vaginas, which is an obscure Moslem practice. Common sense says a man wouldn’t do this to a girl, but some Muslim women do.

After he lured her downstairs, he was feeding her pineapple, and started writing the ransom note. She was told to go into the basement. There, his accomplice started in on her agenda. When John Karr was at the end of the note, pondering how to end it, he heard a scream from JonBenet. He quickly finished the last sentence. The word spacing of the last sentence is spread out like he was in a hurry. He puts it on the spiral staircase, then rushes down into the basement.

The accomplice has hit her with the flashlight, or hand, and fractured her skull. A woman would be more likely to use too much force and accidentally fracture JonBenet’s skull when trying to knock her unconscious. Men are better at using force with moderation. And only a woman would attempt to mutilate a girl’s vagina this way.

I think she had decided she would mutilate her vagina, and then take her out. But only a woman would go into overkill mode when things start to go wrong. When JonBenet’s skull is fractured, she is going to die but she might wake up first. The accomplice makes a garrote. Only a woman would see an art box as providing every tool necessary. While John Karr watches, his accomplice clinically strangles JonBenet with the garrote that he or she expertly made. His accomplice could have been a man who sees himself as a paramilitary commando. That explains the garrote, but a woman who sees herself as a paramilitary commando tends to explain everything that is so hard to understand about this crime. John Karr says goodbye to JonBenet. They get out through the window.

Ames

09-29-2006, 10:52 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vaughancauthen
[B]

<snipped>

The ransom note was written in his own words according to an outline he had been given. Professor Tracey said, “…it was written as if more than one person was involved.”

<snipped>

But only a woman would go into overkill mode when things start to go wrong. When JonBenet’s skull is fractured, she is going to die but she might wake up first. The accomplice makes a garrote. Only a woman would see an art box as providing every tool necessary. [quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was written as if more than one person was involved? Yes, and THAT would be the RAMSEY'S. Only a woman would see an art box as providing every tool necessary? And that would be PATSY. J Karr did not do it....forget about him already. IMO

MissOtisRegrets

09-29-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
But only a woman would go into overkill mode when things start to go wrong.

As a woman, I resent this, Vaughan. :mad:

brad55

09-29-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr said he wore tight driving gloves. The coroner found shiny powder residue in her vagina that comes from latex surgical gloves. There were two kidnappers, who were wearing gloves.

John Karr might have been told: “Our group wants to make parents think twice about parading their 6-year-old daughters in malls. What we want is a simple kidnapping of JonBenet Ramsey. You will be there to protect her. The end result will be that child beauty pageants might become less prevalent.”

“To make the kidnapping go as smoothly as possible, we want you to ask for an amount he can easily pay. He recently deposited $118,000 into his account.”

With that as his purpose, John Karr broke in and lured JonBenet downstairs. It was the “visit from Santa” she was expecting. She must have known John Mark Karr as a very nice man, though no one knew him in the family but JonBenet. I am sure JonBenet did know him. Read here: bottom of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=4)

The ransom note was written in his own words according to an outline he had been given. Professor Tracey said, “…it was written as if more than one person was involved.”

John Karr said, “I will say that I was part if not the whole part of that note.”

He was part of it: he was told certain things to say. He was the whole of it: he wrote them down in his own words.

He said to Professor Tracey, “In conclusion, I wish to take full responsibility for all the events that occurred that night. You might well think I am protecting a girl (his accomplice) and I might be. If I can think of a way to protect her and continue to interject and reveal that she was with me that night, I will. Otherwise, I just have to leave it for right now, until I can figure out how to handle it.” Read that here: top of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=6)

He is talking about a real person. But who is this person? For one thing, she might wear size ten military boots. A woman could wear size ten military boots, and that tells you a lot about her. It may answer how a simple kidnapping could have gone as badly wrong as it did.

She could have been someone who practiced vaginal mutilation to protect girls from desiring sex. Both kidnappers may have been in agreement that their overall purpose was to save JonBenet from the society that made her into a piece of sexual merchandize. John Karr said, “I hate them and how they are selling my darling little girl like a commodity.” But his accomplice’s idea of protecting little girls included mutilating their vaginas, which is an obscure Moslem practice. Common sense says a man wouldn’t do this to a girl, but some Muslim women do.

After he lured her downstairs, he was feeding her pineapple, and started writing the ransom note. She was told to go into the basement. There, his accomplice started in on her agenda. When John Karr was at the end of the note, pondering how to end it, he heard a scream from JonBenet. He quickly finished the last sentence. The word spacing of the last sentence is spread out like he was in a hurry. He puts it on the spiral staircase, then rushes down into the basement.

The accomplice has hit her with the flashlight, or hand, and fractured her skull. A woman would be more likely to use too much force and accidentally fracture JonBenet’s skull when trying to knock her unconscious. Men are better at using force with moderation. And only a woman would attempt to mutilate a girl’s vagina this way.

I think she had decided she would mutilate her vagina, and then take her out. But only a woman would go into overkill mode when things start to go wrong. When JonBenet’s skull is fractured, she is going to die but she might wake up first. The accomplice makes a garrote. Only a woman would see an art box as providing every tool necessary. While John Karr watches, his accomplice clinically strangles JonBenet with the garrote that he or she expertly made. His accomplice could have been a man who sees himself as a paramilitary commando. That explains the garrote, but a woman who sees herself as a paramilitary commando tends to explain everything that is so hard to understand about this crime. John Karr says goodbye to JonBenet. They get out through the window.

Two intruders makes most sense. One like Karr who has the motive of a pedophile and one a kidnapper who has motive of making Ramseys pay.

Karr's obssession makes the kidnapping go terribly wrong and then the murder is necessary to protect kidnapper's identity. Karr stays behind to cover the body providing a "staged" quality to the scene.

I sitll think it is more likely stun gun was used to get her downstairs however. I also don't agree with the female and muslim stereotypes presented here.

brad55

09-29-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

A neurosurgeon preforms brain surgery while wearing latex gloves. Tape, rope, stun gun and washcloth would all fit in pockets.

Steve Thomas was the only one I ever heard of that speculated she was wiped down with a cloth, too. He said he thought that's where the dark (blue, black?) fibers came from that were found in her genital region. The ones so many RDI's claim came from Johns shirt. Thomas said he thought they came from a wash cloth.

And, who ever said she was undressed? The killer could have pulled down her pants and pulled them back up again. I've never seen any evidence to show her clothes were completely removed and put back on again.

Not everyone is prone to dripping sweat.

MOO

bookratt

09-29-2006, 12:03 PM

It is not sexual or erotic in nature and it does not ever involve penetration.

It is part of a religious and social practice that is centuries old and NOT exclusive to Muslims. It is performed by selected village women, usually elderly, who hold a sacred place in their society.

It once was done in many places worldwide, not just in Africa or Muslim-controlled areas/countries, as seems to be prevalent today. Women were often tortured this way or made to pay for their own sexuality or sexual desires.

Noblemen in England once forced their women to wear iron and spiked chastity belts. Native Americans once placed living women they believed to be adulterors inside sewn-closed animal skins, then placed them, with guards around them so they couldn't escape, in the desert to suffocate and starve to death inside.

Some cultures stoned them. Others bound, tied and weighted them, them thru them off cliffs onto the rocks below or into the ocean to drown. In the US, domestic violence against women and incest with their own daughters or stepdaughters is anther form of this control of and hatred of women. By men.

To say it's a Muslim practice or more likely that a woman did it is wrong, wrong, wrong, given the evidence and situation we have here.

I think female circumcision is a horrid, terrifying practice designed to control the bodies and sexual natures of women and I do not condone it. Women undergo it to be eligible for marriage, not because they enjoy it and the women who perform it, do not do it to torture the women they perform it on.

It was designed by men and is done at the demands of men. They will not marry a woman who has not had it done; a woman who does not submit to the practice is not holy or clean. Mothers (who themselves had it done to them at age 13 or so) therefore force their female children to have it done. They know if they do not the daughter will not marry and the family will suffer for it.

But to say you think what was done to Jonbenet, to equate female circumcision to that, is incorrect. It devalues the horror of the circumcision practice, which in actuality is much worse than what was done to JB. Horrifying as what JB went thru was, I stand by that statement.

Female circumcision is MUCH worse because the victim lives and suffers cruelly the rest of her life with the pain, scars and horror of it. And goes thru it again and again, each time she gives birth.

And that theory, the way it was stated, unneccessarily starts rumors about and foments anger toward Muslims, an especially easy target at the moment, the world being what it is and their own divisive actions being what they are.

Not to mention the misguided and misdirected misogyny that is readily apparent in that post. I am a woman and that was enough to make me delurk and post this.

Everyone has a right to their opinion but some of this stuff is whacko, off the wall and has no basis in ANY reality, regardless of whether you're an IDI or RDI fanatic or not.

Let's stay on topic.

Athena

09-29-2006, 12:10 PM

bookratt: Thanks for posting that. I am not as articulate as you are and chose to ignore the post referring to this horrid mutilation of young women and not that you need my validation, I do know that you are correct.

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr said he wore tight driving gloves. The coroner found shiny powder residue in her vagina that comes from latex surgical gloves. There were two kidnappers, who were wearing gloves.

John Karr might have been told: “Our group wants to make parents think twice about parading their 6-year-old daughters in malls. What we want is a simple kidnapping of JonBenet Ramsey. You will be there to protect her. The end result will be that child beauty pageants might become less prevalent.”

“To make the kidnapping go as smoothly as possible, we want you to ask for an amount he can easily pay. He recently deposited $118,000 into his account.”

With that as his purpose, John Karr broke in and lured JonBenet downstairs. It was the “visit from Santa” she was expecting. She must have known John Mark Karr as a very nice man, though no one knew him in the family but JonBenet. I am sure JonBenet did know him. Read here: bottom of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=4)

The ransom note was written in his own words according to an outline he had been given. Professor Tracey said, “…it was written as if more than one person was involved.”

John Karr said, “I will say that I was part if not the whole part of that note.”

He was part of it: he was told certain things to say. He was the whole of it: he wrote them down in his own words.

He said to Professor Tracey, “In conclusion, I wish to take full responsibility for all the events that occurred that night. You might well think I am protecting a girl (his accomplice) and I might be. If I can think of a way to protect her and continue to interject and reveal that she was with me that night, I will. Otherwise, I just have to leave it for right now, until I can figure out how to handle it.” Read that here: top of page. (http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=6)

He is talking about a real person. But who is this person? For one thing, she might wear size ten military boots. A woman could wear size ten military boots, and that tells you a lot about her. It may answer how a simple kidnapping could have gone as badly wrong as it did.

She could have been someone who practiced vaginal mutilation to protect girls from desiring sex. Both kidnappers may have been in agreement that their overall purpose was to save JonBenet from the society that made her into a piece of sexual merchandize. John Karr said, “I hate them and how they are selling my darling little girl like a commodity.” But his accomplice’s idea of protecting little girls included mutilating their vaginas, which is an obscure Moslem practice. Common sense says a man wouldn’t do this to a girl, but some Muslim women do.

After he lured her downstairs, he was feeding her pineapple, and started writing the ransom note. She was told to go into the basement. There, his accomplice started in on her agenda. When John Karr was at the end of the note, pondering how to end it, he heard a scream from JonBenet. He quickly finished the last sentence. The word spacing of the last sentence is spread out like he was in a hurry. He puts it on the spiral staircase, then rushes down into the basement.

The accomplice has hit her with the flashlight, or hand, and fractured her skull. A woman would be more likely to use too much force and accidentally fracture JonBenet’s skull when trying to knock her unconscious. Men are better at using force with moderation. And only a woman would attempt to mutilate a girl’s vagina this way.

I think she had decided she would mutilate her vagina, and then take her out. But only a woman would go into overkill mode when things start to go wrong. When JonBenet’s skull is fractured, she is going to die but she might wake up first. The accomplice makes a garrote. Only a woman would see an art box as providing every tool necessary. While John Karr watches, his accomplice clinically strangles JonBenet with the garrote that he or she expertly made. His accomplice could have been a man who sees himself as a paramilitary commando. That explains the garrote, but a woman who sees herself as a paramilitary commando tends to explain everything that is so hard to understand about this crime. John Karr says goodbye to JonBenet. They get out through the window.

Why am I replying to this! :shrug: Dude, the female he was refering to was himself! He has a dual personality...he thinks he is male and female. He was going to get a sex change! Of course he is not going to reveal her identity because it's HIM!
He outlined the note, huh? Sure he did. Not like he hasn't seen it or read it before. It's been "out there" for quite a while.
Why do you want it so badly to be John Karr? Are you a groupie of his? Your obsession with him borders on lunacy.
HE DIDN'T DO IT!

Ames

09-29-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why am I replying to this! :shrug: Dude, the female he was refering to was himself! He has a dual personality...he thinks he is male and female. He was going to get a sex change! Of course he is not going to reveal her identity because it's HIM!
He outlined the note, huh? Sure he did. Not like he hasn't seen it or read it before. It's been "out there" for quite a while.
Why do you want it so badly to be John Karr? Are you a groupie of his? Your obsession with him borders on lunacy.
HE DIDN'T DO IT!

LOL...:lol: You tell 'em tww!!! Geez...John Karr....how ridulous! That guy is a lying nutso case!

vaughancauthen

09-29-2006, 10:24 PM

To understand the things about this crime that don’t make any sense, you have to understand it the way I described it. The motive was to purify Boulder from sexual sin, and from the kind of unapologetic overindulgence that was demonstrated by parading JonBenet like a commodity. That is not done here in Charlotte. What JonBenet was being guided to do was a little over the top. This is a crime that was instigated by religion and morals, not by lust. That is why there was no semen and no evidence of sexual assault.

I was right to say female circumcision exists as a religious and social practice. I did know it is a punishment for overindulgence. I knew it was demanded by men so they don’t have to sexually please their wives, since their wives can’t be pleased after it is done to them, and the wives won’t go looking for other men to please them. But any society that stoops to that logic for how to control people is as sick as a society can be.

It is not part of the Muslim religion but mostly done in Muslim countries. It was also done in European countries by people whose only goal was to have control over people. Our ancestors left those societies and formed America to be a country that is not primarily concerned with controlling its citizens.

Now there are people who want to reverse that idea, creating an America where everyone is controlled like the countries we left over 200 years ago.

Those kinds of people would tend to revisit female circumcision. The George Orwell book, 1984, had an Anti-Sex-League.

I was right to say this ritual is primarily done by women. Don't blame me for stating facts.

In the eyes of one kidnapper, who may have been a woman, JonBenet was overindulging and she needed this ritual performed on her, which is the sick motive behind the violence in this crime. You can start to understand the crime from that perspective.

Where my obsession comes in is: once I understood the crime was a 1984-like, anti-sex paramilitary operation planned and carried out against the Ramseys by a wealthy group who hired the kidnappers...

That is strange enough...

Then I see everyone in authority consistently losing and bungling evidence that points in that direction, as if those people behind this 1984-like anti-sex crime are controlling Boulder LE, the mainstream press, and a lot of other people in high places…

That is a huge amount of intrigue, maybe the biggest story in America, today. I am certain John Karr was there, just as Mary Lacy was certain when she brought him back to America. She had DNA, gotten surreptitiously from a drinking cup, a napkin, and one other source. We were told it wasn’t pure enough. But it was, and she already knew the DNA didn’t match. She also knew that didn’t disqualify John Karr. The handwriting, offered later by a schoolmate, places him squarely on the scene. Don’t come to any conclusions about his motives. They are too hard to understand. But with absolute certainty he was there. If John Karr tells his story, we begin to see who was behind this crime.

Check out John Karr's resume.
http://www.powerwurks.com/john_karr_resume.php
The last point was, World Traveled: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Zurich, Milan, Bologna, Stuttgart, Munich, Sydney Australia, Taipei, Singapore, Seoul Korea, Osaka Japan, Istanbul, Reunion Island off the coast of Madagascar, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other cities in the United States.

How did a failed school teacher working as a nanny travel that far and wide if he hadn't been paid very well to do something?

harz

09-29-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why am I replying to this! :shrug: Dude, the female he was refering to was himself! He has a dual personality...he thinks he is male and female. He was going to get a sex change! Of course he is not going to reveal her identity because it's HIM!
He outlined the note, huh? Sure he did. Not like he hasn't seen it or read it before. It's been "out there" for quite a while.
Why do you want it so badly to be John Karr? Are you a groupie of his? Your obsession with him borders on lunacy.
HE DIDN'T DO IT!

Well, vaugh posts do entertain me. If Karr get to be free and come on this forum crossing vaugh’s path, then I can image us reading the conversations between Karr & vaugh to get somewhat interesting. :tongue: IMO

thewhitewitch1

09-29-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
To understand the things about this crime that don’t make any sense, you have to understand it the way I described it. The motive was to purify Boulder from sexual sin, and from the kind of unapologetic overindulgence that was demonstrated by parading JonBenet like a commodity. That is not done here in Charlotte. What JonBenet was being guided to do was a little over the top. This is a crime that was instigated by religion and morals, not by lust. That is why there was no semen and no evidence of sexual assault.

I was right to say female circumcision exists as a religious and social practice. I did know it is a punishment for overindulgence. I knew it was demanded by men so they don’t have to sexually please their wives, since their wives can’t be pleased after it is done to them, and the wives won’t go looking for other men to please them. But any society that stoops to that logic for how to control people is as sick as a society can be.

It is not part of the Muslim religion but mostly done in Muslim countries. It was also done in European countries by people whose only goal was to have control over people. Our ancestors left those societies and formed America to be a country that is not primarily concerned with controlling its citizens.

Now there are people who want to reverse that idea, creating an America where everyone is controlled like the countries we left over 200 years ago.

Those kinds of people would tend to revisit female circumcision. The George Orwell book, 1984, had an Anti-Sex-League.

I was right to say this ritual is primarily done by women. Don't blame me for stating facts.

In the eyes of one kidnapper, who may have been a woman, JonBenet was overindulging and she needed this ritual performed on her, which is the sick motive behind the violence in this crime. You can start to understand the crime from that perspective.

Where my obsession comes in is: once I understood the crime was a 1984-like, anti-sex paramilitary operation planned and carried out against the Ramseys by a wealthy group who hired the kidnappers...

That is strange enough...

Then I see everyone in authority consistently losing and bungling evidence that points in that direction, as if those people behind this 1984-like anti-sex crime are controlling Boulder LE, the mainstream press, and a lot of other people in high places…

That is a huge amount of intrigue, maybe the biggest story in America, today. I am certain John Karr was there, just as Mary Lacy was certain when she brought him back to America. She had DNA, gotten surreptitiously from a drinking cup, a napkin, and one other source. We were told it wasn’t pure enough. But it was, and she already knew the DNA didn’t match. She also knew that didn’t disqualify John Karr. The handwriting, offered later by a schoolmate, places him squarely on the scene. Don’t come to any conclusions about his motives. They are too hard to understand. But with absolute certainty he was there. If John Karr tells his story, we begin to see who was behind this crime.

Check out John Karr's resume.
http://www.powerwurks.com/john_karr_resume.php
The last point was, World Traveled: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Zurich, Milan, Bologna, Stuttgart, Munich, Sydney Australia, Taipei, Singapore, Seoul Korea, Osaka Japan, Istanbul, Reunion Island off the coast of Madagascar, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other cities in the United States.

How did a failed school teacher working as a nanny travel that far and wide if he hadn't been paid very well to do something?

DUDE! She was NOT "circumsized"! I am beginning to wonder if you have any knowledge at all about the female anatomy; their sex organs in particular. I think maybe you should study up on it. Seriously.

Ames

09-30-2006, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

DUDE! She was NOT "circumsized"! I am beginning to wonder if you have any knowledge at all about the female anatomy; their sex organs in particular. I think maybe you should study up on it. Seriously.

Don't you think this person is just a little bit to occupied with J. Karr, and "female circumcision" (thats not spelled right, I know)?

MyrDawn

09-30-2006, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by treehouse

Things that don't make sense :lol:

Yes, female circumcision is often carried out by older females. Why it's called circumcision (someone help me spell), I don't know (changing of certain features on certain parts, yeah , I get that, but the female version is removing.........) Not a proper discussion for this board. Not a subject at all relevant to this board.

So, dude, do you know anything about the drug moban? Zyprexa? Somehow, I thought you might.

:lol:

Nice to see you, Tree! :seeya:

vaughancauthen

09-30-2006, 08:07 PM

The intruder mutilated her with a broken artist's paintbrush, but didn’t have any kind of sex with her. That points directly to this medieval practice of mutilating women who are overindulging in sex.

Who would think that motive overcomes the more obvious motive of a pedophile’s desire for JonBenet, or revenge on John Ramsey?

John Karr did have a sexual desire for JonBenet, but he may have been in a long process of seducing her. He says he woke her up and got her to come downstairs voluntarily. JonBenet had said she was “Looking for a visit from Santa.”

Professor Tracey said, "Several years back one of my students told me a really interesting story."
http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=4

One of my students, Susan Rajabi, Miss Colorado in 1996 had been a judge at one of the pageants JonBenet was involved in. After the judging, which JonBenet won, Susan noticed a guy with whom JonBenet seemed to be very friendly. She assumed that it was JonBenet’s father and went over, shook hands and said, “You must be very proud of your daughter.”

He replies, “Yes I am.”

After the murder, Susan was at home watching the news with her dad. John Ramsey’s photo came up on the screen, identified as JonBenet’s father. She turns to her father and says, “That’s not the guy I met at the pageant with JonBenet.”

Now that we know what John Karr looks like, we should ask former Miss Colorado if John Karr was the man she saw. Although, experience has shown that anyone with a reputation to protect seems to be holding back from telling the truth, if it could affect the case to this extent. Maybe the former Miss Colorado would be willing to brave the pressure and say it was him, if the man she was John Karr.

LadyFisher

09-30-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
The intruder mutilated her with a broken artist's paintbrush, but didn’t have any kind of sex with her. That points directly to this medieval practice of mutilating women who are overindulging in sex.

Who would think that motive overcomes the more obvious motive of a pedophile’s desire for JonBenet, or revenge on John Ramsey?

John Karr did have a sexual desire for JonBenet, but he may have been in a long process of seducing her. He says he woke her up and got her to come downstairs voluntarily. JonBenet had said she was “Looking for a visit from Santa.”

Professor Tracey said, "Several years back one of my students told me a really interesting story."
http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/emails.html?page=4

One of my students, Susan Rajabi, Miss Colorado in 1996 had been a judge at one of the pageants JonBenet was involved in. After the judging, which JonBenet won, Susan noticed a guy with whom JonBenet seemed to be very friendly. She assumed that it was JonBenet’s father and went over, shook hands and said, “You must be very proud of your daughter.”

He replies, “Yes I am.”

After the murder, Susan was at home watching the news with her dad. John Ramsey’s photo came up on the screen, identified as JonBenet’s father. She turns to her father and says, “That’s not the guy I met at the pageant with JonBenet.”

Now that we know what John Karr looks like, we should ask former Miss Colorado if John Karr was the man she saw. Although, experience has shown that anyone with a reputation to protect seems to be holding back from telling the truth, if it could affect the case to this extent. Maybe the former Miss Colorado would be willing to brave the pressure and say it was him, if the man she was John Karr. My husband thinks it could have been a man that connected with JB at the pageants...I don't personally think so...I would like to know who that girl did see that she believed at the time to be JB's father.....I don't think it was JK though, vaughan...I understand why you do...I saw probably the same handwriting expert that you did on tv proclaiming he believed that the writing was a 99% match...I don't believe any of the so-called writing experts really...medieval practices reminds me of the ransom note containing phrases about beheading, etc...probably from a board game, maybe....the perp imo was a younger man and a pedo but not necessarily Karr!

Athena

10-01-2006, 09:12 AM

Article written by Daniel Pride (the one who says he saw Karr in bus station):

I arrived at work the next morning to hear conversation about the murder the night before. Mac stopped by my cube to talk about it. He asked me if I had "seen anything" and I responded that I thought I may have. I did not want to come forward. I was involved in a series of issues which would greatly complicate such an action and in all probability make it completely fruitless. At first I felt it was probably nothing anyway, assuming the time of death was late in the night not midnight. I also had no idea, and no way of knowing, that the station was actually a short 15 Minute walk from the house. If it was the killer, he must have run into me in just minutes after leaving the body. Later on, when I learned of the time of death, I made half hearted attempts but by then the "Ramsey's did it" fix was in and as I expected it was blown off. I don't think they even really noticed or even bothered to write down my name.

http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/Christmas96.htm

MyrDawn

10-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Athena
Article written by Daniel Pride (the one who says he saw Karr in bus station):

I arrived at work the next morning to hear conversation about the murder the night before. Mac stopped by my cube to talk about it. He asked me if I had "seen anything" and I responded that I thought I may have. I did not want to come forward. I was involved in a series of issues which would greatly complicate such an action and in all probability make it completely fruitless. At first I felt it was probably nothing anyway, assuming the time of death was late in the night not midnight. I also had no idea, and no way of knowing, that the station was actually a short 15 Minute walk from the house. If it was the killer, he must have run into me in just minutes after leaving the body. Later on, when I learned of the time of death, I made half hearted attempts but by then the "Ramsey's did it" fix was in and as I expected it was blown off. I don't think they even really noticed or even bothered to write down my name.

http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/Christmas96.htm

Although I don't believe Karr had anything to do with JonBenet's death, that shows how easily the BPD blew off anything that didn't point to the Ramseys.

MOO

rosebud

10-01-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Although I don't believe Karr had anything to do with JonBenet's death, that shows how easily the BPD blew off anything that didn't point to the Ramseys.

MOO

Since the BPD investigated suspects outside the Ramseys to an extensive extent, your statement here has no basis in fact.

sweetcharlotte

10-01-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Although I don't believe Karr had anything to do with JonBenet's death, that shows how easily the BPD blew off anything that didn't point to the Ramseys.

MOO

I agree. I have read that they were hundreds of leads the BPD never even investigated. JMO

Athena

10-01-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I agree. I have read that they were hundreds of leads the BPD never even investigated. JMO

And even some of the ones they did were not investigated in-depth. Some suspects that were cleared still remained on the DA's list of suspects but were cleared rather quickly by the BPD according to Thomas' depo.

Athena

10-01-2006, 11:30 PM

This is freaky:

The Gordian Knot

For people the world over, the Gordian Knot represents the difficult, the intractable and often the insolvable problem. Academics, consultants and management gurus trivialize business problems by calling them "challenges." This softer word is supposed to motivate plebeians and keep them happily working. Business is war. Victory comes through struggle. It requires cunning and guile and superior strategy. Only the best thinkers deserve the spoils of this modern war we call "business."

In ancient Macedonia thinking was much the same as it is today. Little kingdoms fought bitterly for their lands. Pretenders rose and fell. No one had vision. None had a plan. All was struggle. Except for one–one gained his rule easily.

http://www.gordiansolutions.com/TheKnot.htm

MissOtisRegrets

10-01-2006, 11:35 PM

http://www.gordiansolutions.com/About.htm

Gordian Solutions, Inc. is the premier provider of technology related business advice and strategic software solutions in the Carolinas. Specializing in award-winning product designs, nobody–but nobody–develops more enduring software and data architectures. When battling knotty problems with technology, wield a sharp Gordian Solution. Cut through problems. Be victorious.

So, when facing a knotty business problem involving puzzling technology, seek a Gordian Solution to achieve a decisive advantage for your business.

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 12:37 PM

Another "business" connection to John?

Athena

10-02-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Another "business" connection to John?

I am so convinced that the killer was either an associate of John's or someone who sympathized with the Small Business dilemma that was occurring in 1996. Such a coincidence also that it followed that Access Graphics letter stating their $1B revenue attainment.

It appears that the staging and the "message" of the note are definitely connected. JMHO

rashomon

10-02-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I am so convinced that the killer was either an associate of John's or someone who sympathized with the Small Business dilemma that was occurring in 1996. Such a coincidence also that it followed that Access Graphics letter stating their $1B revenue attainment.

It appears that the staging and the "message" of the note are definitely connected. JMHO
And I am so convinced that the Ramseys placed exactly the amount of John's bonus in the ransom note to direct suspicion either to:
a) a disgruntled AccessGraphics employee who happened to know John's bonus
or
b) the housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who happened to see John's payslip lying around on his desk.
It sticks out like a sore thumb what they were up to when puttting that ridiculously low sum in their ransom note.

WallyCleaver

10-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

And I am so convinced that the Ramseys placed exactly the amount of John's bonus in the ransom note to direct suspicion either to:
a) a disgruntled AccessGraphics employee who happened to know John's bonus
or
b) the housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who happened to see John's payslip lying around on his desk.
It sticks out like a sore thumb what they were up to when puttting that ridiculously low sum in their ransom note.

Makes sense to me.

sweetcharlotte

10-02-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I am so convinced that the killer was either an associate of John's or someone who sympathized with the Small Business dilemma that was occurring in 1996. Such a coincidence also that it followed that Access Graphics letter stating their $1B revenue attainment.

It appears that the staging and the "message" of the note are definitely connected. JMHO

I agree and interestingly enough it could be someone John had never even met or it could be someone that felt John had slighted them at some point in time. And, it could be a former business associate that was never really "cleared." JMO

Athena

10-02-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Makes sense to me.

I sincerely don't understand how this $118K makes sense. Why would JR frame himself? That is exactly what is being implied. I do not believe a man that moved up the corporate ladder to become a CEO of a $1B Company would be that stupid to place an amount of his deferred compensation that could be tied right back to him. It DOES NOT make sense at all. jmo

Athena

10-02-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I agree and interestingly enough it could be someone John had never even met or it could be someone that felt John had slighted them at some point in time. And, it could be a former business associate that was never really "cleared." JMO

Or even a "friend"

humanpolygraph

10-02-2006, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by cantaloupe
That makes sense about where the notebook was. Maybe to take messages or something like that.

Why would an intruder/outsider leave the randsome note on the "back" stairwell instead of the front? The Ramseys allways came down the back stairwell in the morning, but if you were an intruder how would you know this? why not leave it on the front of the stairs where one would suspect they would come down? Makes no sense,

And oh btw...You are not alone in your obsession, Ive stayed up many nights thinking about this case and wondering what happened, always knowing in my heart that her parents covered up the murder of their daughter. I just dont understand what Patsy had over John to make him cover for her, it must have been something really big to make him go through all of that!

vaughancauthen

10-02-2006, 10:33 PM

John Karr was writing the ransom note on the kitchen counter, entertaining JonBenet and feeding her pineapple, telling her the note would tell her parents where she would be when she and her friend, John Karr, went on their adventure.

When he had finished all but the last sentence, he told JonBenet to go downstairs. The other kidnapper was there to help in case anything got hard. But hopefully, JonBenet would have been coaxed out of her house voluntarily.

I think John Karr would have taken her (on a private jet that had been arranged by his employers) to Alabama where he and JonBenet would have spent Christmas together. JonBenet might have no idea she had been kidnapped.

John Karr had finished the ransom note and had sent JonBenet downstairs. Now he was taking a ten minute break before he finished the last sentence.

He heard a scream from the basement. He hurriedly finished the last sentence, which has much greater line spacing, like it was written fast, and put it on the spiral staircase, the most convenient staircase to the kitchen counter. And went to the basement.

MissOtisRegrets

10-02-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by humanpolygraph

Why would an intruder/outsider leave the randsome note on the "back" stairwell instead of the front? The Ramseys allways came down the back stairwell in the morning, but if you were an intruder how would you know this? why not leave it on the front of the stairs where one would suspect they would come down? Makes no sense,

poly, the pages were laid out individually across the bottom step of the spiral staircase that the killer had taken down with JonBenet. They were laid out facing a person about to go upstairs, and they blocked the path. They were put on the spiral staircase to be noticed and read by John/Patsy, when they went UP to JonBenet's room to wake her.

MOO

Ames

10-03-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

poly, the pages were laid out individually across the bottom step of the spiral staircase that the killer had taken down with JonBenet. They were laid out facing a person about to go upstairs, and they blocked the path. They were put on the spiral staircase to be noticed and read by John/Patsy, when they went UP to JonBenet's room to wake her.

MOO

BUT...wasn't JBs room BELOW J and P bedroom?? Yeah, I know that P supposedly went down to make coffee first...and then would have had to go upstairs to wake JB, but how would an intruder know that? There were TWO staircases...why was that particular staircase chosen to leave the note on? Why not leave it on JB's bed? IMO

Athena

10-03-2006, 12:30 AM

This was another site and I read it. This is a "short history of the garrotte" in which this paragraph appears about 'the cord strangle". Basically walks you through how you can make a make-shift garrotte and how to do it -- what's coincidental I thought was the cord the author describes to use is 18" long - wasn't the rope used on JBR 17" and it also says to do it from BEHIND:

The Cord Strangle. Another type of strangulation, as old as history in the Far East, is accomplished with any light cord or wire of good tensile strength, about 18 inches long. The thinner the cord or wire, the quicker will be the effectiveness. Tie a loop at each end of the cord, or tie small wooden blocks on the ends, so that a secure grip can be taken. Approaching the man from the rear, throw him off balance, as with the stick [strangle], with your right foot against the inside of his right knee. With a hand on each end of the cord (the cord held taut), bring the cord over the victim’s head and back against the throat. Cross the hands at the rear of the neck and apply pressure both ways. Strangulation is quick and silent..." ~Applegate

http://www.donrearic.com/thegarrotte.html

Athena

10-03-2006, 12:33 AM

Another excerpt from the Forensic Science website. Note how the word victory is used.

Lady this also falls into line with the profiling that JD did in TCTHU re: the age:

Why Criminals Commit

Committing serious crimes usually start at around the mid to late twenties. Being able to manipulate victims and show a sense of power and domination is a main drive for criminals, as well sexual motives. Murdering victims gives them the sense of success and control that they have never felt in their lives. Some criminals have also found that they need to relive that sense of victory that was felt during the committing of the crime, so they take something from their victims, for example, jewelry, clothing and even body parts.

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

Good night all. :seeya: see you tomorrow.

MissOtisRegrets

10-03-2006, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Ames

BUT...wasn't JBs room BELOW J and P bedroom?? Yeah, I know that P supposedly went down to make coffee first...and then would have had to go upstairs to wake JB, but how would an intruder know that? There were TWO staircases...why was that particular staircase chosen to leave the note on? Why not leave it on JB's bed? IMO

Patsy stepped over the pages of the note to get downstairs. Then, she read them without touching them. That means they were facing her, when she was downstairs. The killer had brought JonBenet down by the spiral stairs. He knew that the note would be read if he left it there. And it was placed to be read by someone already downstairs. He may have assumed John/Patsy took the other stairs. It doesn't matter. They would go up these stairs to wake JonBenet, when she didn't come down. He probably left the note just before leaving. Came up the other stairs from the basement and left the note on the spiral stairs. Probably anxious to get out of there and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room. The note was not placed imo on which stairs Patsy would be expected to take down. It was placed on the stairs that went to JonBenet's room.

harz

10-03-2006, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Patsy stepped over the pages of the note to get downstairs. Then, she read them without touching them. That means they were facing her, when she was downstairs. The killer had brought JonBenet down by the spiral stairs. He knew that the note would be read if he left it there. And it was placed to be read by someone already downstairs. He may have assumed John/Patsy took the other stairs. It doesn't matter. They would go up these stairs to wake JonBenet, when she didn't come down. He probably left the note just before leaving. Came up the other stairs from the basement and left the note on the spiral stairs. Probably anxious to get out of there and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room. The note was not placed imo on which stairs Patsy would be expected to take down. It was placed on the stairs that went to JonBenet's room.

JB was dead before 3am, cannot be sure exactly between after they got home to 2pm when neighbor heard the scream. So that would give the intruder enough time to reconsider the note; but the note already point back to Ramsey base on "and hence", $118,000, SBTC, etc. How consider of this intruder placed the note on the stairs that way, why not while being kind to Ramseys by putting the note on a plate among with some breakfast & coffee too, maybe roll out a red luxury carpet to the wine cellar all the way from upstairs too? If an intruder had plenty time finding flash light, pen, notepad, pineapple, the details on John's desk, paintbrush stick, blanket, fibers collected from Ramseys, found Patsy's public hair somewhere or somehow to place it on JB, opened Andrew's suitcase to see what he could use then placed it under the broken window to frame John, placed baseball bat outside same time turn off patio light, had the neighbor dogs not to bark at him by getting these dogs to get known him first, opening cupboards everywhere all night until he found Burke's knife to place it in basement's bathroom, making a garrote after found some cords, duct tape, teasing JB with a stun gun, choked JB's neck, poking stick into her, wiping JB with cloth, time to wipe (polish) fingerprints off anything he touched with the gloves, and naturally comfort having a key to Ramsey's house which was given to him but then you said he was too anxious to get out of Ramsey's house and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room? How does that make sense? Sorry, if I was being rude but I am not trying to be; as I usually discover wit remarks which tend to help seeing the different perspectives or given better idea of the whole picture, at least it does for me. JMO

MyrDawn

10-03-2006, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by harz

JB was dead before 3am, cannot be sure exactly between after they got home to 2pm when neighbor heard the scream. So that would give the intruder enough time to reconsider the note; but the note already point back to Ramsey base on "and hence", $118,000, SBTC, etc. How consider of this intruder placed the note on the stairs that way, why not while being kind to Ramseys by putting the note on a plate among with some breakfast & coffee too, maybe roll out a red luxury carpet to the wine cellar all the way from upstairs too? If an intruder had plenty time finding flash light, pen, notepad, pineapple, the details on John's desk, paintbrush stick, blanket, fibers collected from Ramseys, found Patsy's public hair somewhere or somehow to place it on JB, opened Andrew's suitcase to see what he could use then placed it under the broken window to frame John, placed baseball bat outside same time turn off patio light, had the neighbor dogs not to bark at him by getting these dogs to get known him first, opening cupboards everywhere all night until he found Burke's knife to place it in basement's bathroom, making a garrote after found some cords, duct tape, teasing JB with a stun gun, choked JB's neck, poking stick into her, wiping JB with cloth, time to wipe (polish) fingerprints off anything he touched with the gloves, and naturally comfort having a key to Ramsey's house which was given to him but then you said he was too anxious to get out of Ramsey's house and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room? How does that make sense? Sorry, if I was being rude but I am not trying to be; as I usually discover wit remarks which tend to help seeing the different perspectives or given better idea of the whole picture, at least it does for me. JMO

First, to use the neighbors report of a "scream" to determine JonBenet's time of death doesn't make sense. Melody Stanton, the neighbor that claimed she heard that "scream" later recanted her story. She said later it might not have been an actual scream she heard, but rather JonBenet's "negative energy". LOL

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1914254,00.html

Second, I doubt it made any difference at all to the intruder when the Ramsey's found the note...when first coming down the stairs, or when going back up to wake JonBenet. She was already dead, so that note was not a "ransom note". Maybe he didn't even want it found first thing in the morning, to give him more time to get further away from the house.

Third, list of things you say the intruder would have had to do just doesn't make any sense.

Pen and notepad? (Very visible from the kitchen)

Pineapple? (Not proven)

Patsy's pubic hair? (Not proven, and even if it was her hair, she LIVED in the house. It could have been transferred anytime)

Stun gun? (Not proven)

Got to know the neighborhood dogs? (Where did THIS come from?)

Baseball bat? (No proof it was used in the murder)

Opening cupboards everywhere all night until he found Burkes knife? (SHEESH! There's no proof when the knife was put in the basement or that it had anything to do with the murder)
Details on John's desk? (If you mean learning about that $118,00 bonus, it could have been someone that learned that before the night of the murder)

Finding some cords and duct tape? (He could have brought those with him)

Poking JonBenet with a paintbrush? (Not proven)

WIPE fingerprints off anything he touched with GLOVES??? (Who leaves fingerprints when wearing gloves???)

"...naturally comfort having a key to Ramsey's house which was given to him but then you said he was too anxious to get out of Ramsey's house and didn't want to take the chance of going back upstairs to JonBenet's room? " (What does having a key to their house have to do with wanting to get out of the house fast after killing JonBenet?)

MOO

Ames

10-03-2006, 02:41 PM

Ames

10-03-2006, 02:43 PM

lucky13

10-03-2006, 03:13 PM

I have a problem with Patsy 'stepping over the note'. If it was all spread out, covering the step, are we supposed to believe that she just strolled right over that step & onto the next? I remember Diane Sawyer (years ago-in the Ramseys home) attempting to do just that & it was a very difficult thing to do. Almost impossible without clutching onto the bannister for support. And who would do that anyway? Maybe it's just me, but I would squat down & pick it up to read it. Why bend over in a dimly lit room & read it on the step? It's just weird IMO. And wouldn't you then go to a light somewhere after you read the part of, 'we have your daughter' to make sure that you had read it correctly before freaking out? It would only take seconds, & it COULD HAVE said, 'just kidding!!' somewhere. Who would think that a note saying your daughter had been kidnapped -right out from under your nose, in your house, would trigger an instant 'this HAS to be true' feeling. It's so out of the ordinary & improbable....MOO

Ames

10-03-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
I have a problem with Patsy 'stepping over the note'. If it was all spread out, covering the step, are we supposed to believe that she just strolled right over that step & onto the next? I remember Diane Sawyer (years ago-in the Ramseys home) attempting to do just that & it was a very difficult thing to do. Almost impossible without clutching onto the bannister for support. And who would do that anyway? Maybe it's just me, but I would squat down & pick it up to read it. Why bend over in a dimly lit room & read it on the step? It's just weird IMO. And wouldn't you then go to a light somewhere after you read the part of, 'we have your daughter' to make sure that you had read it correctly before freaking out? It would only take seconds, & it COULD HAVE said, 'just kidding!!' somewhere. Who would think that a note saying your daughter had been kidnapped -right out from under your nose, in your house, would trigger an instant 'this HAS to be true' feeling. It's so out of the ordinary & improbable....MOO

I totally agree with you. I saw that show too, with Diane Sawyer, I thought that she was going to take a tumble, and also remember, that Patsy was built a little bit different than Diane too, a little more plumper, which would have made that even MORE difficult to do. She said that she didn't want to pick it up, to destroy evidence, but how the heck did she know what it was, before even looking at it? It could have been a note from Burke, or something. Thats what my first impression would be, not that it may be a ransom note, and that I would have to step over it, and bend over to read it, because I didn't want to interfere with any evidence left on it.

MyrDawn

10-03-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I totally agree with you. I saw that show too, with Diane Sawyer, I thought that she was going to take a tumble, and also remember, that Patsy was built a little bit different than Diane too, a little more plumper, which would have made that even MORE difficult to do. She said that she didn't want to pick it up, to destroy evidence, but how the heck did she know what it was, before even looking at it? It could have been a note from Burke, or something. Thats what my first impression would be, not that it may be a ransom note, and that I would have to step over it, and bend over to read it, because I didn't want to interfere with any evidence left on it.

Would you really lean over frontwards to pick up things on the stair below you when you're headed down the steps? I'd NEVER do that. It's much harder, and more dangerous, than leaning over and picking up something that's on the floor level with your feet!

Ames

10-03-2006, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Would you really lean over frontwards to pick up things on the stair below you when you're headed down the steps? I'd NEVER do that. It's much harder, and more dangerous, than leaning over and picking up something that's on the floor level with your feet!

Nope, but...Patsy said that she somehow leaped over the steps while holding onto the railing...avoiding any contact with the note. She didn't want to intefere with any evidence on it. Why not just walk on the note to get to the bottom of the stairs? What would that have hurt? Especially if she had no clue what it was. Why grab onto the railing, and hoist yourself, over the note....in the process, potentionally pulling a muscle or something? Why did she assume that it was something that had "evidence" that she didn't want to disturb...as I have said before...after all, it could have been a note from Burke or something. Why did she avoid touching it at all, and go through all of that hassle to get around the note, without interfering with it? Why not just pick the darn thing up, if not at the top of the steps, at the bottom? Why almost kill yourself trying to get to the bottom (if you had no clue what the note was) lean over and read it? IMO

bullmoose

10-03-2006, 04:06 PM

To Myrdawn: You are right-on about things on stairways; whenever I pick anything up off my stairs, I always do it from the bottom side; if an item is covering a stair I step over it to the down side before I even look at it, otherwise I'm liable to take a tumble. My wife and daughter use the stairs sometimes as a temporary storage area, so this for me is almost a daily event, with ten years in my particular house I don't even think about it. With practice its not hard to do.

WallyCleaver

10-03-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I sincerely don't understand how this $118K makes sense. Why would JR frame himself? That is exactly what is being implied. I do not believe a man that moved up the corporate ladder to become a CEO of a $1B Company would be that stupid to place an amount of his deferred compensation that could be tied right back to him. It DOES NOT make sense at all. jmo

It's not being implied that John tried to frame himself.

If he used the amount 118K, of course he himself would know the amount. But so would others. Some AG employees, and the housekeeper. If he made it 500K, nothing would point at anyone. If he made it 1 million, it wouldn't point at anyone. If he made it 118K, it can be interpreted as pointing at him, or at others who knew the amount of his bonus. If his purpose was to implicate the housekeeper, or a disgruntled AG employee, or member of the SBTC, then it makes sense.

It's a calculated risk. Someone like me, who leans RDI would say it looks like staging. Someone else who is firmly IDI would say it's a message from a disgruntled employee, or the it was the housekeeper, etc. Exactly these things have been said, so apparently it worked.

What makes no sense to me is this - if the note really was written by an intruder, why would he use an amount that points at himslef? Or why would the housekeeper use that amount, knowing she'd be one of the people who knew the amount of his bonus?

Of the two scenarios - JR writing an amount intended to implicate someone with knowledge of his bonus, or an intruder with knowledge of JR's bonus writing an amount that pointed at himself, which one seems more plausible?

I can't see why an intruder who knew of JR's bonus would advertise his knowledge in the note.

JR is an intelligent man. He might also have been a desperate man. Desperate men can't always do what's smart.

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Nope, but...Patsy said that she somehow leaped over the steps while holding onto the railing...avoiding any contact with the note. She didn't want to intefere with any evidence on it. Why not just walk on the note to get to the bottom of the stairs? What would that have hurt? Especially if she had no clue what it was. Why grab onto the railing, and hoist yourself, over the note....in the process, potentionally pulling a muscle or something? Why did she assume that it was something that had "evidence" that she didn't want to disturb...as I have said before...after all, it could have been a note from Burke or something. Why did she avoid touching it at all, and go through all of that hassle to get around the note, without interfering with it? Why not just pick the darn thing up, if not at the top of the steps, at the bottom? Why almost kill yourself trying to get to the bottom (if you had no clue what the note was) lean over and read it? IMO

I have never read that Patsy "didn't want to interfere with any evidence." Why not walk on top of the note? Because anything you step on on a step can slide out from under your foot and throw you down the stairs. Also, the inside of steps on a spiral staircase are very narrow. Not difficult at all to step on the inside to avoid stepping on something. Lean over? And fall down the stairs. I don't think so. JMO

lucky13

10-03-2006, 04:53 PM

wally, I like your last post. Right on!

thewhitewitch1

10-03-2006, 07:11 PM

Regarding the note being left on the stairs leading to JB's bedroom....why not leave it on her bed or in front of her bedroom door since Patsy had to walk right by it to get to the stairs to get to the note? Did she even find it on the stairs to begin with? With all 3 sheets placed side by side on the step, she claimed she "stepped over it", which some have mentioned would have been very hard to do on those stairs. And, since she claimed that she didn't pick the note up (but then she says she did!?), how did she get back over the note to "race up the stairs to check on JB" without stepping on the note and breaking her neck in the process? There were no footprints on the note....and her handprints and fingerprints were not on the note.
Just another big question mark.

Ames

10-03-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I have never read that Patsy "didn't want to interfere with any evidence." Why not walk on top of the note? Because anything you step on on a step can slide out from under your foot and throw you down the stairs. Also, the inside of steps on a spiral staircase are very narrow. Not difficult at all to step on the inside to avoid stepping on something. Lean over? And fall down the stairs. I don't think so. JMO

Well I have read that, and thats why she didn't want to touch it. SO, she claims. Let me ask you this question....okay, assuming that she somehow managed to step over the step with the note (which imo..is not an easy task, on a spiral staircase), why, OH WHY...did she NOT pick up the note to read it? Why did she tell the police that she bent over the note to read it? If she had no clue what it was??? If I were Patsy, and I had of found the THREE page note, I would have automatically assumed that it was from Burke, or John or something. I wouldn't have automatically assumed that it was a ransom LETTER, and went out of my way NOT to pick it up. Remember, the room was dimly lit too....why not grab it up, and step into more light to read it? I still haven't figured out why all of the IDI don't have an idea as to why the "intruder" didn't leave it on her bed. WHY the stairs? How did they know that she would be coming down that way. I am sure that the intruder didn't take note of how the Ransom letter was facing. I could just see it now...INTRUDER to himself..."
OK...now...should I face the letter this way, to make it easier for the Ramsey's to see, while they are coming down the stairs?......NO...NO....thats not good, I will just put it on the bottom step, and face it out away from the other steps, so that IF the Ramsey's happen to come down these stairs for anything, like coffee, or something, BEFORE waking up JonBenet, they will see it, and it will be facing them.....yeah, thats what I will do. That would make it alot easier for them to read that way. Darn, I should have just left it on her bed." IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-03-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Well I have read that, and thats why she didn't want to touch it. SO, she claims. Let me ask you this question....okay, assuming that she somehow managed to step over the step with the note (which imo..is not an easy task, on a spiral staircase), why, OH WHY...did she NOT pick up the note to read it? Why did she tell the police that she bent over the note to read it? If she had no clue what it was??? If I were Patsy, and I had of found the THREE page note, I would have automatically assumed that it was from Burke, or John or something. I wouldn't have automatically assumed that it was a ransom LETTER, and went out of my way NOT to pick it up. Remember, the room was dimly lit too....why not grab it up, and step into more light to read it? I still haven't figured out why all of the IDI don't have an idea as to why the "intruder" didn't leave it on her bed. WHY the stairs? How did they know that she would be coming down that way. I am sure that the intruder didn't take note of how the Ransom letter was facing. I could just see it now...INTRUDER to himself..."
OK...now...should I face the letter this way, to make it easier for the Ramsey's to see, while they are coming down the stairs?......NO...NO....thats not good, I will just put it on the bottom step, and face it out away from the other steps, so that IF the Ramsey's happen to come down these stairs for anything, like coffee, or something, BEFORE waking up JonBenet, they will see it, and it will be facing them.....yeah, thats what I will do. That would make it alot easier for them to read that way. Darn, I should have just left it on her bed." IMO

You can't base what anyone else did on what you say you would do - especially after ten years of "second guessing."

To debate point by point what Patsy did/didn't do is useless. To debate why the note was left one place as opposed to another proves nothing. To say you would have done something another way just proves that we are individuals and that we don't all think and/or do things the same way. And that is JMO.

Ames

10-03-2006, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You can't base what anyone else did on what you say you would do - especially after ten years of "second guessing."

To debate point by point what Patsy did/didn't do is useless. To debate why the note was left one place as opposed to another proves nothing. To say you would have done something another way just proves that we are individuals and that we don't all think and/or do things the same way. And that is JMO.

You are right, but IMO there are way more things pointing in the direction of the Ramsey's, than away from them. Thats just my opinion, though. And because of that, unless some ground breaking evidence is found, that was not there before, that points to the IDI theory, I am sticking to my gut feeling of RDI. IMO

lucky13

10-03-2006, 09:19 PM

Ames, I just gotta say- I REALLY enjoy reading your posts. A lot of the time, you are saying exactly what I'm thinking.;) You rock!!

BigDeal

10-03-2006, 09:51 PM

Take a look at her bed (http://www.acandyrose.com/002jonbenetbed-x.gif).

Notice how the covers are pulled way back.

To my point, I noticed this getting my own child out of bed as she falls asleep at night by herself in mommy and daddy's bed and one of us move her into her bed after she is asleep. Without even thinking about, and watching my wife do the same as well, without exception, and I mean without exception every time she is asleep and we move her, we pull the covers back just like you see on that bed. The other times, when she is awake and we move her, the covers are NEVER pulled back like that.

I’m telling you someone moved that child out of that bed with her asleep or unconscious!

Why haven’t I seen this mentioned before? Maybe it has been and I’m just new here. But that Officer Thomas who thinks Patsy did this for bed wetting probably didn’t have children himself to draw that conclusion.

IMO!

LadyFisher

10-03-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by BigDeal
Take a look at her bed (http://www.acandyrose.com/002jonbenetbed-x.gif).

Notice how the covers are pulled way back.

To my point, I noticed this getting my own child out of bed as she falls asleep at night by herself in mommy and daddy's bed and one of us move her into her bed after she is asleep. Without even thinking about, and watching my wife do the same as well, without exception, and I mean without exception every time she is asleep and we move her, we pull the covers back just like you see on that bed. The other times, when she is awake and we move her, the covers are NEVER pulled back like that.

I’m telling you someone moved that child out of that bed with her asleep or unconscious!

Why haven’t I seen this mentioned before? Maybe it has been and I’m just new here. But that Officer Thomas who thinks Patsy did this for bed wetting probably didn’t have children himself to draw that conclusion.

IMO! BigDeal....Thomas didn't have children at that time...when he was on LKL with John and Patsy...Patsy asked him if he even had a pet...he confirmed he did..she asked him if he would kill his pet if it peed in the floor? He was imho young and totally inexperience in homicide cases....and anyone who disagreed with him such as Smit, he would scoff off as being old and senile....I can't imagine someone with an ego like that...why wouldn't he appreciate any help he could get...especially from more experienced colleagues? :confused: imho

Ames

10-04-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
Ames, I just gotta say- I REALLY enjoy reading your posts. A lot of the time, you are saying exactly what I'm thinking.;) You rock!!

WOW...thanks lucky, you just made my day!!! I am glad that you enjoy them. I just say whats on my mind, and sometimes I do alot of rambling!!! LOL Ten years ago, I suspected that one or both Ramsey's were involved, and ten years later...I STILL think that one or both are involved. I have yet to see anything that even makes me want to go "to the other side", from the IDI people. The more that I read, the more I know that one or both Ramsey's are guilty. The ONLY thing that will change my mind, as I have said before, is some ground breaking, earth shattering evidence that has yet to be brought forth. IMO....OH yeah...and YOU rock too!!! ;)

Ames

10-04-2006, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by BigDeal
Take a look at her bed (http://www.acandyrose.com/002jonbenetbed-x.gif).

Notice how the covers are pulled way back.

To my point, I noticed this getting my own child out of bed as she falls asleep at night by herself in mommy and daddy's bed and one of us move her into her bed after she is asleep. Without even thinking about, and watching my wife do the same as well, without exception, and I mean without exception every time she is asleep and we move her, we pull the covers back just like you see on that bed. The other times, when she is awake and we move her, the covers are NEVER pulled back like that.

I’m telling you someone moved that child out of that bed with her asleep or unconscious!

Why haven’t I seen this mentioned before? Maybe it has been and I’m just new here. But that Officer Thomas who thinks Patsy did this for bed wetting probably didn’t have children himself to draw that conclusion.

IMO!

Okay, just something to think about....what if....Jonbenet never went to bed that night? Think about it, first John AND Burke, say that she was awake when she came home from the Whites...(John even stated that he read to her), and THEN they both changed their story....gee...did I say awake? Ummmm....I MEANT to say that she was asleep. So, they first say she was awake...John read her a story, and she went to sleep...and then ...BAM...they both change their story. NOW..she is asleep, after arriving from the White's party, and has to be carried up the stairs to her room. You would think that John would have remembered if he "read a story" to a sleeping child. Who would do that anyway? So she is awake...no...she is asleep....geez...they both should have gotten their story straight before talking with Police. My thought is...and this is only MY thought...and my opinion...Jonbenet never went to bed that night. Her bedsheets are pulled down, in the crime scene photo, because thats the way that it was left, when she got up on Christmas morning. IMO

harz

10-04-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Okay, just something to think about....what if....Jonbenet never went to bed that night? Think about it, first John AND Burke, say that she was awake when she came home from the Whites...(John even stated that he read to her), and THEN they both changed their story....gee...did I say awake? Ummmm....I MEANT to say that she was asleep. So, they first say she was awake...John read her a story, and she went to sleep...and then ...BAM...they both change their story. NOW..she is asleep, after arriving from the White's party, and has to be carried up the stairs to her room. You would think that John would have remembered if he "read a story" to a sleeping child. Who would do that anyway? So she is awake...no...she is asleep....geez...they both should have gotten their story straight before talking with Police. My thought is...and this is only MY thought...and my opinion...Jonbenet never went to bed that night. Her bedsheets are pulled down, in the crime scene photo, because thats the way that it was left, when she got up on Christmas morning. IMO

Thats interesting. I have a puzzling question, why was JB's pillow on opposite end of bed, not where her head usually lay on? Did one of Ramsey moved it? Or was JB laying opposite side while someone else was sitting or laying down among with JB on her bed? Also did JB wet her pants one time or twice that night? Because Patsy said she cleaned up sheets, and changed JB's clothes, but JB's long sock was already soaked with urine when she was found in wine cellar correct? You may be right, she wasn't aslept when they got home because of pineapple and the bowl on dining table with Patsy & Burke's fingerprints on it. Burke should say something about pineapple but I want to know how come he wont confess to it yet. IMO

BigDeal

10-04-2006, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Ames

...Jonbenet never went to bed that night. Her bedsheets are pulled down, in the crime scene photo, because thats the way that it was left, when she got up on Christmas morning. IMO

I understand your analogy, but you miss my point. It doesn't matter if it was Christmas night or Christmas morning, the way the covers are peeled back some one removed her from the bed. Had she risen out of bed by herself(which I doubt to be the case on Christmas morning!), the covers would have been more to the front of the bed,as the pillow too. MOO

Ames

10-04-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by BigDeal

I understand your analogy, but you miss my point. It doesn't matter if it was Christmas night or Christmas morning, the way the covers are peeled back some one removed her from the bed. Had she risen out of bed by herself(which I doubt to be the case on Christmas morning!), the covers would have been more to the front of the bed,as the pillow too. MOO

No, I understand what you are saying, I just don't see the point of it. It looks like, in the picture that the corner or the sheets and covers are pulled down...as you stated...as if, someone removed a sleeping child, or put a sleeping child to bed. BUT...I have a five year old that is neat when she wakes up, and she folds the covers back like that, she just doesn't spring out of the bed. She folds back one of the corners, and she hops out...its easier for her, and she doesn't get all tangled up in the covers and sheets, trying to get out of the bed. AND also...the Ramsey's DID at one time say that she was asleep when she got home from the Whites, and John carried her up to bed. John, could have pulled back the covers like that, put her in the bed, and didn't cover her back up, because she still had on the clothes that she wore to the Whites, and he could have been afraid that she would get to warm under the covers. I still think that she was never asleep...and that SHE, or one of her parents that went to wake her on Christmas morning, pulled it back like that, so that she could get out of the bed. Just a thought...IMO

Ames

10-04-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by harz

Thats interesting. I have a puzzling question, why was JB's pillow on opposite end of bed, not where her head usually lay on? Did one of Ramsey moved it? Or was JB laying opposite side while someone else was sitting or laying down among with JB on her bed? Also did JB wet her pants one time or twice that night? Because Patsy said she cleaned up sheets, and changed JB's clothes, but JB's long sock was already soaked with urine when she was found in wine cellar correct? You may be right, she wasn't aslept when they got home because of pineapple and the bowl on dining table with Patsy & Burke's fingerprints on it. Burke should say something about pineapple but I want to know how come he wont confess to it yet. IMO

Is that a pillow? I need to enlarge the picture, I can't tell. I think that she wet her pants, only once...and that was after she died. I am sure that you know this, but the bladder empties automatically when someone dies. I think thats what happened in her case. Were wet sheets ever found? I don't know. I had heard that Patsy had stopped using the plastic sheet, that goes under the regular sheets, that are used on bed wetter's beds. If thats the case, then why wasn't the MATTRESS wet? Its going to soak through the sheets, onto the mattress, without a plastic covering under it. If she had wet the bed, wouldn't her bladder have been empty? Yes, her long johns were wet with urine, when she was found in the basement. How did the bladder automatically expel urine, if it was empty? IMO

rashomon

10-04-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Is that a pillow? I need to enlarge the picture, I can't tell. I think that she wet her pants, only once...and that was after she died. I am sure that you know this, but the bladder empties automatically when someone dies. I think thats what happened in her case. Were wet sheets ever found? I don't know. I had heard that Patsy had stopped using the plastic sheet, that goes under the regular sheets, that are used on bed wetter's beds. If thats the case, then why wasn't the MATTRESS wet? Its going to soak through the sheets, onto the mattress, without a plastic covering under it. If she had wet the bed, wouldn't her bladder have been empty? Yes, her long johns were wet with urine, when she was found in the basement. How did the bladder automatically expel urine, if it was empty? IMO
All this makes me question the 'toilet rage theory'. For as you said, if JB had had a (bed)wetting accident which caused Patsy's rage (and was the reason for the head bash) then why was there so much urine left in her body that it even soaked the anterior part of her longjohns at post-mortem release. It somehow doesn't fit.

I believe that something far more sinister than bedwetting was the reason for Patsy (I think it was she she struck the head blow) to snap and lose it.

sweetcharlotte

10-04-2006, 11:48 AM

For anyone who might be interested. The sheets were still on JonBenet's bed. They were not wet.

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

harz

10-04-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Is that a pillow? I need to enlarge the picture, I can't tell. I think that she wet her pants, only once...and that was after she died. I am sure that you know this, but the bladder empties automatically when someone dies. I think thats what happened in her case. Were wet sheets ever found? I don't know. I had heard that Patsy had stopped using the plastic sheet, that goes under the regular sheets, that are used on bed wetter's beds. If thats the case, then why wasn't the MATTRESS wet? Its going to soak through the sheets, onto the mattress, without a plastic covering under it. If she had wet the bed, wouldn't her bladder have been empty? Yes, her long johns were wet with urine, when she was found in the basement. How did the bladder automatically expel urine, if it was empty? IMO

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html
http://crimeshots.com/BEDjbr.jpeg

I cant tell if the pillow cover match to the sheets, if the sheets are for girls but pillow cover for boys if it was Burke's. I wish I have better picture. I agree with you, something is off about wetting bed without plastic cover as matress was dry and she had some urine left released after she died. I still like to know when the pillow was moved and who did it. IMO

Ames

10-04-2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

All this makes me question the 'toilet rage theory'. For as you said, if JB had had a (bed)wetting accident which caused Patsy's rage (and was the reason for the head bash) then why was there so much urine left in her body that it even soaked the anterior part of her longjohns at post-mortem release. It somehow doesn't fit.

I believe that something far more sinister than bedwetting was the reason for Patsy (I think it was she she struck the head blow) to snap and lose it.

Yeah, I just don't think that JB wet the bed that night. Personally, as I have said before, I don't even think that she WENT to bed that night. So, I don't buy into the Patsy got angry because of bedwetting theory, either. But, I DO buy into one of the RDI. IMO

Ames

10-04-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
For anyone who might be interested. The sheets were still on JonBenet's bed. They were not wet.

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

Maybe I am wrong here...but, I thought that Patsy had said that JB wet the bed that night, and that she had changed the sheets and JB....apparently thats when she was changed into the long johns...I don't know, though. But, IF she did say that...where were the wet sheets? And if she no longer used the plastic covering under the sheets, AND she wet the bed...why wasn't the mattress wet? Why was her bladder full enough to expel urine after her death? IMO

Ames

10-04-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by harz

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene2.html
http://crimeshots.com/BEDjbr.jpeg

I cant tell if the pillow cover match to the sheets, if the sheets are for girls but pillow cover for boys if it was Burke's. I wish I have better picture. I agree with you, something is off about wetting bed without plastic cover as matress was dry and she had some urine left released after she died. I still like to know when the pillow was moved and who did it. IMO

That is a "Beauty and the Beast" pillow covering (thanks for the enlarged photo...BTW), for girls. I cannot tell about the sheets, though. I DO see teacups on them, and there was a teacup named "CHIP", (because he was chipped), in the movie "Beauty and the Beast". Don' know how the pillow got to the foot of the bed, although I don't think that an "intruder" put it there. WHY would he do THAT? And IF "he" had JB in his arms, HOW would he move it? His arms would have been pretty full...if he took her out while she was asleep. IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-04-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Is that a pillow? I need to enlarge the picture, I can't tell. I think that she wet her pants, only once...and that was after she died. I am sure that you know this, but the bladder empties automatically when someone dies. I think thats what happened in her case. Were wet sheets ever found? I don't know. I had heard that Patsy had stopped using the plastic sheet, that goes under the regular sheets, that are used on bed wetter's beds. If thats the case, then why wasn't the MATTRESS wet? Its going to soak through the sheets, onto the mattress, without a plastic covering under it. If she had wet the bed, wouldn't her bladder have been empty? Yes, her long johns were wet with urine, when she was found in the basement. How did the bladder automatically expel urine, if it was empty? IMO

She still had the plastic cover on the mattress. How do you know that her long johns weren't wet because she HAD wet the bed? How do we know that the sheets weren't changed? Pretty easy to wash and dry a set of sheets, ya know. They (Ramseys) certainly had time to do that...and remake the bed.

Ames

10-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

She still had the plastic cover on the mattress. How do you know that her long johns weren't wet because she HAD wet the bed? How do we know that the sheets weren't changed? Pretty easy to wash and dry a set of sheets, ya know. They (Ramseys) certainly had time to do that...and remake the bed.

I am an RDI (just in case you couldn't tell). I read where Patsy said that they no longer used the plastic cover on JB's bed (I will try and find that link....I would not make that up, though...lol). If thats the case, though, the mattress would have been wet too. From what I have read, Patsy said that JB DID wet the bed, and that she changed her, though. You could be right about the long johns, which means that Patsy did NOT change her. Patsy could have been lying about that part...I believe that she has lied about alot of things. I USED to think that Patsy accidently killed JB for wetting the bed...the only thing that I found strange, is what Patsy said about the plastic cover not being used. Just thought that there would be NO way to dry the mattress (unless of course, they used a hair dryer on it). IMO

rashomon

10-04-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yeah, I just don't think that JB wet the bed that night. Personally, as I have said before, I don't even think that she WENT to bed that night. So, I don't buy into the Patsy got angry because of bedwetting theory, either. But, I DO buy into one of the RDI. IMO
I too don't think that JB ever made it to bed that night. But I thought in terms of maybe toilet rage being at the origin of the tragedy: a wetting accident doesn't necessarily mean it was been a BEDwetting accident, so maybe this happened while JB was still up.
But then why would her bladder still have shed urine via post-mortem release?
Maybe I am wrong here...but, I thought that Patsy had said that JB wet the bed that night, and that she had changed the sheets and JB..
But wasn't the Ramseys' story that they had put a sleeping JB straight to bed? I don't recall exactly, for they have changed parts of their story so often (imo they did this to make it fit the evidence, which points to their guilt).
Does anyone remember if Patsy said JB wet the bed on that night?