Take the IDI & RDI consistancy challenge ! [Archive]

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 10:15 AM

IDI consistancy challenge

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant.

For example, If you think a stun gun was used, then you have to say at what point in the crime it was used. If it was used by a kidnapper and he stunned JB in her bed, why then did he end up in the basement with her? How would going down the basement be part of a genuine kidnapping plan? How would use of a stun gun be consistant with a kidnapping gone bad? What could go bad carrying a stunned 6 year old down one flight of stairs and out a first floor door? If you think the stun gun was used in the basement, why ? How did the perp get JB down the basement w/o the stun gun, and why did he subsequently need to use it?

If your theory is that it started as a burglary, and morphed into a kidnapping plot, but then the would be kidnapper lost his nerve, - a perfectly reasonable theory, imo - then you still have to explain the vaginal injuries. You can explain them any way you like, but you canÕt ignore it. You have to explain why the perp took her in the basement and made fresh injuries to her vagina.

If you think, as Lou Smit apparently does, that it was the work of a paedophile, you have to explain why heÕd leave a fake ransom note.

If you think the ransom amount of 118K points to the Rs, and therefore the Rs wouldnÕt use that amount because they are intelligent people, then you have to attribute similar intelligence to the intruder. YouÕd have to explain why an Access Graphics employee, or the housekeeper, would point to themselves using the 118K figure.

I donÕt want to go through every element of the case showing examples - I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of IDI. It is my opinion that none of you IDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 10:17 AM

P.S.

You don't have to supply a motive. It may not be possilbe to know the motive. But, if you do include a motive in your theory, -revenge for example- then you have to explain why a revenge killer would do x,y, and z.

breezy1234

10-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
IDI consistancy challenge

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant.

For example, If you think a stun gun was used, then you have to say at what point in the crime it was used. If it was used by a kidnapper and he stunned JB in her bed, why then did he end up in the basement with her? How would going down the basement be part of a genuine kidnapping plan? How would use of a stun gun be consistant with a kidnapping gone bad? What could go bad carrying a stunned 6 year old down one flight of stairs and out a first floor door? If you think the stun gun was used in the basement, why ? How did the perp get JB down the basement w/o the stun gun, and why did he subsequently need to use it?

If your theory is that it started as a burglary, and morphed into a kidnapping plot, but then the would be kidnapper lost his nerve, - a perfectly reasonable theory, imo - then you still have to explain the vaginal injuries. You can explain them any way you like, but you canÕt ignore it. You have to explain why the perp took her in the basement and made fresh injuries to her vagina.

If you think, as Lou Smit apparently does, that it was the work of a paedophile, you have to explain why heÕd leave a fake ransom note.

If you think the ransom amount of 118K points to the Rs, and therefore the Rs wouldnÕt use that amount because they are intelligent people, then you have to attribute similar intelligence to the intruder. YouÕd have to explain why an Access Graphics employee, or the housekeeper, would point to themselves using the 118K figure.

I donÕt want to go through every element of the case showing examples - I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of IDI. It is my opinion that none of you IDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant with RDI.

I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of RDI. It is my opinion that none of you RDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. :shrug:

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant with RDI.

I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of RDI. It is my opinion that none of you RDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. :shrug:

docg has already done this. It's IDI's turn.

Athena

10-07-2006, 11:54 AM

OK -- I'll be the first to go -- this is just an outline for now -- working on it.

I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house recently.

Premeditated

Tore pages out of her notepad and took a marker.

Brought the note with him; duct tape, cord and flashlight

Had a key to the house

Went directly to JBRs room.

Removed her from the room – possibly covering her mouth taking the white blanket covering her and possibly the Barbie nightgown had been wrapped in the blanket (static cling)

Took her down into the basement

Stun gunned her to temporarily immobilize her for 10-15 minutes

On the way in notices the paint tool kit and goes back to it and removes one of the brushes and breaks it.

Makes the garrotte and proceeds to bind JBR

JBR starts to come out of immobilization while she is being strangled; struggles and attempts to remove the cord from her neck. He tightens the cord making her lose her breath. He does not finish binding her wrists.

Tries to put her in the suitcase and she doesn’t fit (fibers found on her from the blanket in the suitcase).

The intruder gets angry and violently smashes her in the head with a flashlight and then digitally manipulates her private parts and finishes strangling her and pulls up her long johns and covers her torso with the blanket.

He runs back upstairs to leave the note, flashlight and escapes through the window or the butler door leading from the basement.

WallyCleaver

10-07-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena
OK -- I'll be the first to go -- this is just an outline for now -- working on it.

I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house recently.

Premeditated

Tore pages out of her notepad and took a marker.

Brought the note with him; duct tape, cord and flashlight

Had a key to the house

Went directly to JBRs room.

Removed her from the room – possibly covering her mouth taking the white blanket covering her and possibly the Barbie nightgown had been wrapped in the blanket (static cling)

Took her down into the basement

Stun gunned her to temporarily immobilize her for 10-15 minutes

On the way in notices the paint tool kit and goes back to it and removes one of the brushes and breaks it.

Makes the garrotte and proceeds to bind JBR

JBR starts to come out of immobilization while she is being strangled; struggles and attempts to remove the cord from her neck. He tightens the cord making her lose her breath. He does not finish binding her wrists.

Tries to put her in the suitcase and she doesn’t fit (fibers found on her from the blanket in the suitcase).

The intruder gets angry and violently smashes her in the head with a flashlight and then digitally manipulates her private parts and finishes strangling her and pulls up her long johns and covers her torso with the blanket.

He runs back upstairs to leave the note, flashlight and escapes through the window or the butler door leading from the basement.

That's a good start. One question would be - If it wasn't a kidnapping, why would an intruder leave a RN? What elements of the RN - if any- do you think are consistant with the type of killing you've described?

Mimi428

10-08-2006, 12:24 AM

Ames

10-08-2006, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

That's a good question mimi. Wonder if the IDI folks have an answer to that one?

Mimi, didn't John say that he saw a car or van parked in the street near his home, either the 25th or 26th? I thought that I read that somewhere...please correct me if I am wrong. IF he did...then why didn't he turn on his house alarm? IMO

Ames

10-08-2006, 01:38 AM

"Unknown vehicles: An unknown party parked in a blue van across the street from the Ramsey residence Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar was seen in the area during a Christmas party at a friend's home Dec. 25. "

Above is a direct quote from the Rocky Mountain News.
John Ramsey, knew about the parked blue van on the 24th. Why didn't he turn on his alarm system, at least for a couple of months? If he saw a suspicious van parked across his street on the 24th, his alarm system should have been ON. IMO

harz

10-08-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Ames
"Unknown vehicles: An unknown party parked in a blue van across the street from the Ramsey residence Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar was seen in the area during a Christmas party at a friend's home Dec. 25. "

Above is a direct quote from the Rocky Mountain News.
John Ramsey, knew about the parked blue van on the 24th. Why didn't he turn on his alarm system, at least for a couple of months? If he saw a suspicious van parked across his street on the 24th, his alarm system should have been ON. IMO

It was Christmas time, alot of people came from other places visiting or staying at their relatives or friends. I have seen alot of unknown cars parking on my street during Thanksgiving or Christmas. JR implied the blue van as suspicious in his part of staging, so he was lying because if there was a blue van, it would have already been noticed by others. Strange if both Ramseys were the only ones who noticed that van that night if it already left before the BPD arrived. JMO

Ames

10-08-2006, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by harz

It was Christmas time, alot of people came from other places visiting or staying at their relatives or friends. I have seen alot of unknown cars parking on my street during Thanksgiving or Christmas. JR implied the blue van as suspicious in his part of staging, so he was lying because if there was a blue van, it would have already been noticed by others. Strange if both Ramseys were the only ones who noticed that van that night if it already left before the BPD arrived. JMO

Oh for sure...I know that he was lying about it. Notice that the quote from the Rocky Mountain News...said that an "UNKNOWN PARTY WAS PARKED....." to me, that sounds like there were people inside of it. Thats why I said, IF it was there, IF people were inside, and IF it was suspicious, WHY didn't he turn on his burglar alarm? Because, IMO..there was NO blue van. You are right...I don't remember reading where anyone else, besides the Ramsey's saw it. Maybe it was a "special" van, and it was only visible to the Ramsey's.....or not...maybe it was never there at all. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Oh for sure...I know that he was lying about it. Notice that the quote from the Rocky Mountain News...said that an "UNKNOWN PARTY WAS PARKED....." to me, that sounds like there were people inside of it. Thats why I said, IF it was there, IF people were inside, and IF it was suspicious, WHY didn't he turn on his burglar alarm? Because, IMO..there was NO blue van. You are right...I don't remember reading where anyone else, besides the Ramsey's saw it. Maybe it was a "special" van, and it was only visible to the Ramsey's.....or not...maybe it was never there at all. IMO

Let's be as fair as possible here. Harz is correct that there would be a lot of friends and relatives dropping by for the holidays. It's possible there was a blue van, but no one thought itsusicious - including the Rs, until after the murder. That's why no one remembers it.

rashomon

10-08-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

Athena: According to your theory, the intruder tried to stuff JB into the suitcase, saw he couldn't do it and then angrily smashed in the head of an already dead (or almost dead) child.
He then digitally penetrated JB. So you think a kidnapper running out of time would suddenly transform into a pedophile? This doesn't make sense imo.
- And what about the pineapple (see Mimi's post)? It has to be fit in too. The Ramseys said JB was asleep when they got home and they put her straight to bed.
But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.

- Another crucial element: how did fibers from Patsy's jacket end up in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape? How do you build this into your theory?

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 04:36 PM

Wally, I think there will be elements to this case that will never be explained, just as there has been in many other profile murders...whether the perp is ever apprehended or not..................I do believe a stun gun was used....I would like to know how the RDI tie that to the Ramseys, they were JB's parents...there was no need for one of them to use a stun gun.....I know that many will say...well, it wasn't a stun gun...but until you folks can give us a reasonable explanation, other than a snap, etc....I will believe it was a stun gun....experts have looked at the marks in the pics and have stated that it's very possible a stun gun was used......................Wally, you just can't hide behind Doc's theory, we want to hear all the RDIs theories, come on, don't be shy! :)

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

Athena: According to your theory, the intruder tried to stuff JB into the suitcase, saw he couldn't do it and then angrily smashed in the head of an already dead (or almost dead) child.
He then digitally penetrated JB. So you think a kidnapper running out of time would suddenly transform into a pedophile? This doesn't make sense imo.
- And what about the pineapple (see Mimi's post)? It has to be fit in too. The Ramseys said JB was asleep when they got home and they put her straight to bed.
But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.

- Another crucial element: how did fibers from Patsy's jacket end up in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape? How do you build this into your theory? Nothing has blown the Ramseys timeline.....they have consistently stated they do not have a clue how pineapple (if that's really what it was) was found in JB's body.....imho if they were guilty, they would have offered some innocent excuse why it was there, they didn't...they didn't know then and still don't know! Maybe the true killer does, but the Ramseys do not! imho

rashomon

10-08-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Nothing has blown the Ramseys timeline.....they have consistently stated they do not have a clue how pineapple (if that's really what it was) was found in JB's body.....imho if they were guilty, they would have offered some innocent excuse why it was there, they didn't...they didn't know then and still don't know! Maybe the true killer does, but the Ramseys do not! imho
John Ramsey himself said to Lou Smit (who asked him when JB had eaten pineapple): "I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep."

So how did the pineapple get into JB's stomach? That's what this thread asks IDIs to explain (among many other things).

LadyFisher

10-08-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

John Ramsey himself said to Lou Smit (who asked him when JB had eaten pineapple): "I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep."

So how did the pineapple get into JB's stomach? That's what this thread asks IDIs to explain (among many other things). What I was saying is....we don't know! The Ramseys don't know either....how can you explain something you don't know........there is still speculation whether it was really pineapple or if Ardnt suggested it to the ME during the autopsy....nobody knows, Rash! :seeya:

Ames

10-08-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Let's be as fair as possible here. Harz is correct that there would be a lot of friends and relatives dropping by for the holidays. It's possible there was a blue van, but no one thought itsusicious - including the Rs, until after the murder. That's why no one remembers it.

Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-08-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I think there will be elements to this case that will never be explained, just as there has been in many other profile murders...whether the perp is ever apprehended or not..................I do believe a stun gun was used....I would like to know how the RDI tie that to the Ramseys, they were JB's parents...there was no need for one of them to use a stun gun.....I know that many will say...well, it wasn't a stun gun...but until you folks can give us a reasonable explanation, other than a snap, etc....I will believe it was a stun gun....experts have looked at the marks in the pics and have stated that it's very possible a stun gun was used......................Wally, you just can't hide behind Doc's theory, we want to hear all the RDIs theories, come on, don't be shy! :)

I'm working on my theory. Should have it done in a couple weeks.

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

I am not convinced that JBR ate that pineapple upon arriving home. John Myers never came up with time of death. I've seen several posts where it says pineapple takes 2-3 hours to digest but if that's so positive -- why didn't Myers attempt to arrive at a time?

I've also seen other expert opinions that says JBR could have eaten a fruit or vegetable as early as 4:30 pm before they left the Whites. The Whites also have never said they did not serve pineapple but just did not recall. How does anyone know if that bowl of pineapple was not taken out that morning when people were there? I'm also not convinced that it was definitely pineapple found in her stomach. John Myers would have been told that pineapple was found in the house and made a logical guess as he does not say it was definitely pineapple - he says fruit or vegetable that MAY be fragments of pineapple.

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

Easy to say in hindsight. Many people do not use their alarms for whatever reason and I am certainly one of them. Usually I go into a "spurt" of time after finding out a neighbor has been robbed and then get lax about it again. John had explained that alarm had not been used not just recently but for months because the kids would trip it and it was loud. I don't turn mine on for the same reason because the kids not only forget the code to turn it off but then also forget the "password" when the police call. If you don't know the password and a car is dispatched -- I pay a $100.00 fine the first three times and after that it is even more - I've paid $600 in a couple of months which is why I stopped using it.

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:34 PM

PS: If my theory HAS to include the pineapple then I would have to say that JBR was awoken by someone she knew; she trusted --and walked downstairs on her own where she had the pineapple before being taken down to the basement in a guise that the intruder told her he had a surprise for her down there.

I'm also reading more of these interviews and noticed that the housekeeper's daughter was tested for DNA some two years later. I'm now wondering if that DNA that was isolated and found in her underwear was possibly from a female???

Again -- I'm still working on putting this into a "story" but that was the initial outline and it will take time. I've been extremely busy this weekend which is why I haven't posted much and actually am going to bed shortly.

Another thought I had about the red fibers being found in the paint supplies -- red is an extremely popular color during the Christmas holiday. The housekeeper, her husband, her daughter and son-in-law all carried that stuff downstairs. Wonder if any of them had on red. Patsy even said she was down there prior to Christmas day to wrap presents. It is also possible that red materials were used to wrap gifts.

I just find it highly unusual that Patsy's jacket was red, black and gray - but only red fibers were found and stated "consistent with" not identical.

MissOtisRegrets

10-08-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I am not convinced that JBR ate that pineapple upon arriving home. John Myers never came up with time of death. I've seen several posts where it says pineapple takes 2-3 hours to digest but if that's so positive -- why didn't Myers attempt to arrive at a time?

I've also seen other expert opinions that says JBR could have eaten a fruit or vegetable as early as 4:30 pm before they left the Whites. The Whites also have never said they did not serve pineapple but just did not recall. How does anyone know if that bowl of pineapple was not taken out that morning when people were there? I'm also not convinced that it was definitely pineapple found in her stomach. John Myers would have been told that pineapple was found in the house and made a logical guess as he does not say it was definitely pineapple - he says fruit or vegetable that MAY be fragments of pineapple.

It doesn't really go with the RDI Steve Thomas theory, either. If JonBenet wet the bed and Patsy got mad and threw her across the room, then JonBenet had to have gone to bed. And been there for at least two hours, having eaten pineapple first. Why would the Ramseys lie about her falling asleep in the car and being carried up? The eating of pineapple and the death still are not related. JonBenet is in bed for two hours in between the two events.

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

It doesn't really go with the RDI Steve Thomas theory, either. If JonBenet wet the bed and Patsy got mad and threw her across the room, then JonBenet had to have gone to have been in bed for at least two hours at that point, having eaten pineapple before going to bed. Why would they lie about her falling asleep in the car and being carried up? The eating of pineapple and the death still are not related. JonBenet is in bed for two hours in between.

Exactly! and if JBR was hit in the head first over an alleged bedwetting incident and everything else allegedly was to cover up an accident; she would have been unconscious according to Thomas' theory. I personally think too much has been made of this pineapple but I posted above if HAD to include it I could explain that as well.

Athena

10-08-2006, 10:44 PM

I'd also like to see an RDI theory other than docg's since docg believed it was all John.

What about the ones who think it was Patsy? Even an outline for now much like I did.

For other IDIs -- please feel free to expand/modify the outline I wrote. Especially interested in what you think.

harz

10-09-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

Ohh, there was an unknown party inside that van? Could means thefts or robbers who usually break into houses stealing while nobody were home during the holidays. But who else saw that van or unknown party beside the Ramseys? What about Burke? I am not going to buy John's story after reading and listening to his "crying wolf". Even if there were robbers or an unknown party already inside the van, why wait until Ramseys got home if Ramseys noticed them after the party? IMO

rashomon

10-09-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
What I was saying is....we don't know! The Ramseys don't know either....how can you explain something you don't know........there is still speculation whether it was really pineapple or if Ardnt suggested it to the ME during the autopsy....nobody knows, Rash! :seeya:
It was pineapple. There is no doubt about it:

JohnRamsey to Lou Smit: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

All we have is the Ramseys' words that they don't know how it got into JB's stomach. But since the contents of the stomach are a crucial element in determining the time of death, the pineapple has to be explained in any IDI theory. Of course we as posters don't 'know' how it got there, but this is about offering a theory about what could have occurred.

Athena: you tried to explain that an intruder fed JB pineapple. But then the intruder would have had to stay with JB for over an hour after she ate it, before abducting her (since your initial scenario was a kidnapping). I can't imagine an intruder staying in the house full of people without the slightest fear of being detected.
And what is more: kidnappers are usually in and out of the house in seconds - they grab their victim and are gone.
Now which kidnapper would set himself up for detection by sitting down with the victim in the kitchen?

sweetcharlotte

10-09-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

<snip>

But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.
<snip>

I have never read that the forensic evidence proved she ate the pineapple after she got home. Maybe the pineapple was in the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites. As in Pineapple/Crab dip? JMO

MissOtisRegrets

10-09-2006, 10:58 AM

Pineappless Abandoned Kidnapping Theory:

1. Perp reads article in Daily Camera on Dec. 21st. He is aware of the Ramseys. Knows where they live. Has either direct or indirect link. Decides to burglarize their house. He has burglarized homes in the past.

2. Goes to the house. Finds broken window entry. Enters and goes through their things. While going through John's desk, finds bank book for retirement account in third drawer on right in desk. Sees deposit of $118K. Has idea to kidnap John's daughter, rather than burglarize house. Christmas night will be a good time. Everyone will be tired and their defenses will be down. It is Christmas. John can get the $118K quickly. By Friday.

3. Watches house. Sees family leave on Dec. 25th with gifts in car. Enters again by broken window. Knows it is not on alarm, because has left it open a crack to test. Has flashlight, cord, duct tape, and stun gun in backpack. Plans to remove JonBenet by this same window.

4. Writes ransom note, using Ramsey pad and pen so as not to leave links to self. Knows to do this from cop shows on TV. Has basic outline in head. Enjoys writing note. He is a real kidnapper now. He is somebody. Better than people like John Ramsey. They fear him. He is in control of them. Does walk through rehearsal.

5. After Ramseys home and to bed, he goes up to JonBenet's room. Stuns her in bed, while she sleeps. Puts duct tape over mouth. Ties her hands together, so that her arms do not flop around during trip to basement in dark and something get knocked over. Fibers consistent with those in cord will later be found in bed. Wraps her in blanket found on other bed, which has been taken from dryer to make room for next load and thrown onto other bed. Barbie nightgown is attached (static electricity).

6. Carries her to basement. Lays her on floor in storage room, near window he plans to take her through. Stuns her again for good measure, because will be leaving her alone, while upstairs. Tears ransom note and early drafts from pad. Early drafts go in backpack. In dark leaves "Mr. and Mrs." page on pad. Goes upstairs. Returns pad and pen. Leaves ransom note on stairs to JonBenet's room.

7. Returns to basement, intending to leave now with JonBenet. To horror finds is unable to take her through window. Because of the way it is constructed off of ledge, he cannot get out until he has gotten JonBenet all the way out, yet he cannot get her all the way out until he has gotten himself out. He is concerned about removing her by any other exit, as this window is the only thing he knows is not on the alarm. He tries various ways. Suitcase, etc. At some point a scuff mark from his boot is left on the wall. In addition to this rather basic problem, JonBenet is waking up again and is not going to be happy, when she does. She is moaning now.

8. He hits her with flashlight to make sure she doesn't wake up and abandons kidnapping plan. Takes her to wine cellar. Makes and uses garrotte. Sexually abuses her. Turns off light in wine cellar and closes door behind himself. Exits house through window and goes home.

9. In the end, he got nothing, and a child is dead. The ransom note he was so proud of becomes the laughing stock of the entire country.

MissOtisRegrets

10-09-2006, 11:40 AM

edit to above post:

I believe "Pineappless" should be "Pineappleless". It sounds like a city the way I wrote it.

Apologies,

:seeya:

MissO

lucky13

10-09-2006, 12:06 PM

Way to go Wally!! Thank you for starting a thread that I've many times considered starting myself.

Athena, You say that JB was struggling & attempted to remove the cord from her neck?? Why aren't there scratches on her neck where she was trying to get that cord off then?
-Unless the Ramseys NEVER read the newspaper & NEVER watched their local news....they would know that there had been a LOT of local robberies recently. Why take a chance, at Christmas time, when you have Cmas presents, other valuables, & 2 small children to protect? Plus, he admits to breaking the basement window previously- leaving a free entry for a robber. Was he really that stupid or naive? I doubt it, he was running a billion dollar business.
-The pineapple...whether it was pineapple or some other fruit( it was pineapple!! c'mon) it was still there, alone, away from the cracked crab, etc. that she had eaten earlier. If it was all eaten at the same time, it would all be digested at the same time. (right?) - IMO, it was just a slip-up by the Ramseys- forgetting to remove it before the investigation started. "I don't know, I can't remember"- famous words of guilty persons.....

lucky13

10-09-2006, 12:38 PM

MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

Mimi428

10-09-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I have never read that the forensic evidence proved she ate the pineapple after she got home. Maybe the pineapple was in the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites. As in Pineapple/Crab dip? JMO

If that had been the case, the coroner would have noted & notated MORE than he did. He specifically identified what was in the upper portion of her intestine as belonging to the fruit/vegetable family.

I hope you realize that CRAB does not belong in the fruit/veggie category.

Bottom line - any IDI theory MUST answer the question of how she ate something in the fruit/veggie family - whether you want to claim it is pineapple or anything else - when it was not ingested at the party held at the White's home. We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp there. We also know the cracked crab & shrimp was eaten long enough before she died that it was no longer present in her stomach or the upper portion of her small intestine (where the pineapple was found).

And as soon as you can answer when she ate it - you will recognize that the story her parents claimed - how she fell asleep in the vehicle & was carried to bed still asleep - is not plausible. She DID EAT something that was not served at the Christmas party.

You can't conveniently ignore the facts when they don't support the theory. No matter how enamored you may personally be of the parents.

MOO

MissOtisRegrets

10-09-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

a. Yes. He's a practiced prowler/burglar and not wearing mohair.

b. The opportunity presented itself. If she had been successfully removed from the house, she would have been molested and killed. Or the reverse. But that isn't what drove the crime.

c. I think the "pinepple" was eaten completely independently of the crime. And probably earlier than thought. Lucky13, I lost my dog last summer due to cancer of the pancreas. He died on a Monday. When he passed, a rabbit he had caught and eaten the previous Tuesday remained undigested in his stomach. His digestion had stopped, when his pancreas began to shut down. We know that JonBenet did not die quickly. Her system shut down gradually. Maybe she stopped digesting before she actually died. If she grabbed something (like celery used for dip) from a plate just as they were leaving the Whites, it would have been digested independently of and after the other food she had eaten there. I don't think it had anything to do with the crime, but if you want, I can have my kidnapper give her something, even pineapple, while she is still conscious, in an attempt to make friends.

Mimi428

10-09-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

Thank you. Truer words, never spoken. The number & the variety of motivations, actions & travels which would had to present in any intruder for this crime defies belief.

A kidnapper who is not a kidnapper. A pedophile who, with a completely helpless (& probably close to lifeless) target behaves with extremely low impact. A Will-O-The-Wisp burglar who was so ethereal he just materialized into the house & then out again without so much as a fingerprint.

A murderer so full of premeditation he brings his own rope - but who is also so bungling he must use items in the house. So meticulous he leaves with the rest of the rope, cleans & wipes down the flashlight down to the batteries - but can't figure out how to get the body out of the house. No...wait....that's the kidnapper part.

And somewhere in all of this, an awake child has eaten pineapple, despite the fact that the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Yeah. Right.

Nowhere else in the annals of crime have so many competing actions & oppositional motivations appeared in one crime scene by at INTRUDER breaking into a house with the residents present. The whole thing screams of a resident in the house doing anything & everything in a state described as "blood simple". Desperate to cover up. Frantic to make the final crime scene look as if an intruder broke in. Overdone so that every sort of other crime, from kidnapping to sexual assault was thrown in afterwards.

MOO

MissOtisRegrets

10-09-2006, 01:31 PM

MissOtisRegrets

10-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Thank you. Truer words, never spoken. The number & the variety of motivations, actions & travels which would had to present in any intruder for this crime defies belief.

A kidnapper who is not a kidnapper. A pedophile who, with a completely helpless (& probably close to lifeless) target behaves with extremely low impact. A Will-O-The-Wisp burglar who was so ethereal he just materialized into the house & then out again without so much as a fingerprint.

A murderer so full of premeditation he brings his own rope - but who is also so bungling he must use items in the house. So meticulous he leaves with the rest of the rope, cleans & wipes down the flashlight down to the batteries - but can't figure out how to get the body out of the house. No...wait....that's the kidnapper part.

And somewhere in all of this, an awake child has eaten pineapple, despite the fact that the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Yeah. Right.

Nowhere else in the annals of crime have so many competing actions & oppositional motivations appeared in one crime scene by at INTRUDER breaking into a house with the residents present. The whole thing screams of a resident in the house doing anything & everything in a state described as "blood simple". Desperate to cover up. Frantic to make the final crime scene look as if an intruder broke in. Overdone so that every sort of other crime, from kidnapping to sexual assault was thrown in afterwards.

MOO

Why on earth would the Ramseys lie about giving their daughter a snack several hours before she died? Why would they lie about carrying her in from the car asleep? How did they co-opt Burke into that lie? And what are the chances of BOTH parents suddenly becoming murdering sociopaths and child molesters, as well as raving idiots, on the same night?

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-09-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snip>

I hope you realize that CRAB does not belong in the fruit/veggie category.

<snip>

Gee, Mimi. I didn't know that. Are you telling me those aren't CRAB plants growing in my garden? How disappointing.........

thewhitewitch1

10-09-2006, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

We don't know whose flashlight that was upstairs. It might have been left by the police. It was the kind they carry. It might have belonged to the Ramseys (who had no idea what they did/did not own).

And that isn't kind of suspicious? Not only did they not know what they did or did not own, they also didn't know which light switches turned what on in JB's bedroom...including if the fan had a light kit on it or not. But yet, they are so sure of other facts that support their innocence. They know what they wore to the Whites party, what JB wore there and to bed two nights in a row but nobody knows what Burke wore at any time.
It sure is amazing how they only remember what it is important for them to remember in order for their story to work.

Mimi428

10-09-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

And what are the chances of BOTH parents suddenly becoming murdering sociopaths and child molesters, as well as raving idiots, on the same night?

MOO

If you want to believe the killer was a sociopath, so be it. But you can't claim that the killer HAD to be a sociopath. We have prisons full of people who behaved in violent & irrational ways when they committed murder. But they were not & are not sociopaths. Some may be but too many others are NOT.

Not sure why y'all want an intruder to be a sociopath in the first place, for if that were the case, it makes it all the more strange that this person somehow, magically, lost all sociopathic tendencies & never struck again.

MOO

Mimi428

10-09-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

It sure is amazing how they only remember what it is important for them to remember in order for their story to work.

Handy, isn't it?

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 10:48 PM

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

If you want to believe the killer was a sociopath, so be it. But you can't claim that the killer HAD to be a sociopath. We have prisons full of people who behaved in violent & irrational ways when they committed murder. But they were not & are not sociopaths. Some may be but too many others are NOT.

Not sure why y'all want an intruder to be a sociopath in the first place, for if that were the case, it makes it all the more strange that this person somehow, magically, lost all sociopathic tendencies & never struck again.

MOO Well, Mimi, Doc thinks it was a sociopath, too...only he thinks it was John...and he never struck again...........but I don't see how you can look at this murder scene and not see the perp as a sociopath? :shrug: Even JD thinks it was, but he doesn't necessarily think he was a serial killer, he was motivated by a grudge/hate! Where is your RDI theory, mimi?

Athena

10-09-2006, 11:02 PM

LadyFisher

10-09-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Great question LadyFisher - I haven't seen her theory either but would be interested.

Mimi?? I don't think it was Wally's intention, but I do think some of the RDI's enjoy us posting our thoughts so they can shoot us down, kinda like an arcade shooting gallery with ducks ;)...well, the way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! :)

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Why on earth would the Ramseys lie about giving their daughter a snack several hours before she died? Why would they lie about carrying her in from the car asleep? How did they co-opt Burke into that lie? And what are the chances of BOTH parents suddenly becoming murdering sociopaths and child molesters, as well as raving idiots, on the same night?

MOO

They would lie about these things because something happened after they came home that led to their childs death. It is a much easier story to remember to tell. Once they said that she was asleep when they got home, there was no way they could admit that she had been given a snack without being busted for lying. They simply didn't count on the autopsy showing that she had eaten something later that night.
The family that slays together, stays together. IMO

harz

10-10-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't think it was Wally's intention, but I do think some of the RDI's enjoy us posting our thoughts so they can shoot us down, kinda like an arcade shooting gallery with ducks ;)...well, the way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! :)

Well, I believe in RDI because it easier or my way of seeing the evidences pointing toward the Ramseys, but I do enjoy the challenging thoughts about how and what kind of IDI would have done to JB. I do encourage IDI theories, but most haven't satisfy me yet or not fruitful enough or there are too few of them. Hope this thread would help to challenge IDI to work on better or fruitful theories. IMO

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I don't think it was Wally's intention, but I do think some of the RDI's enjoy us posting our thoughts so they can shoot us down, kinda like an arcade shooting gallery with ducks ;)...well, the way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! :)

It was my intention to let the thread run a few weeks, and look at several IDI theories.

In the end, I would have "shot down" parts of theories if I thought they didn't make sense - but I didn't want to single out any particular poster. I just wanted to question some of the inconsistancies - if there were any.

I think RDI theories will have inconsistancies as well. IMO, not as many, but still some. If this was an easy case, it would have been solved by now.

The moderators have changed the title of the thread, so that it's now a challenge for RDIs as well. IMO, that will make the thread too long and difficult to follow.

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snip>

Not sure why y'all want an intruder to be a sociopath in the first place, for if that were the case, it makes it all the more strange that this person somehow, magically, lost all sociopathic tendencies & never struck again.

MOO

How do you know this person never struck again?

lucky13

10-10-2006, 10:30 AM

First of all, Ames, if you're here, I really enjoyed your short-lived RDI thread. It bites that it is now gone.......

I came back to this thread expecting to read at least one IDI theory that made some sense. All the talk about how the Ramseys just HAVE to be innocent, yet nothing to back that up. WHY, please tell me why you cannot accept the fact that there is no plausable IDI theory? Athena & MissO, no disrespect, but your theories are very weak & full of holes. You can't even answer the questions asked after you posted them. Do ya'll not ever watch shows like American Justice, Forensic Files, New Detectives, etc.?? I just don't see how you could be so absolutely convinced that the parents couldn't be involved.. It's mind blowing!
Athena, I just re-read your theory post again. Besides the questions that I already asked you (that went unanswered)....You say it was premeditated, so tell us WHY you think that. Also, you say that he brought his own flashlight, & when he was done, he went back upstairs with it to leave it on the counter. Why? Please explain your reasoning for believing this.
MissO, what did you mean by the intruder not wearing mohair?? Huh? Did he also have some new form of clothing that is somehow made using NO FIBERS? You said #8 about the flashlight being used on JB, but then you say it could have belonged to one of the BPD? What does that mean?
And the question, "Why would the Ramseys lie about the pineapple & JB being asleep if she wasn't? Oh man.....are you really serious with that question?

Mimi428

10-10-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Well, Mimi, Doc thinks it was a sociopath, too...only he thinks it was John...and he never struck again...........but I don't see how you can look at this murder scene and not see the perp as a sociopath? :shrug: Even JD thinks it was, but he doesn't necessarily think he was a serial killer, he was motivated by a grudge/hate! Where is your RDI theory, mimi?

Perhaps the problem is that we may have disparate views on the definition of a sociopath. Ted Bundy, Kenneth McDuff - yes, those two certainly meet my definition of sociopath.

But a whole lot more people who commit murder do not fall into that category. Just because a crime is violent does not mean the murderer is sociopathic. A personality disorder may be present, the crime may have been irrational, but that is a far, far cry from sociopathy, in the true sense, imo.

As for my personal theory of HOW it happened, I don't have one. Just like I don't have a theory of how Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife. I don't spend time wondering if she was awake or asleep at the time he killed her, I don't care to speculate on how he got her into the boat or into the water. I can believe in his guilt without knowing those details.

Jeffrey MacDonald is another example. I don't know what led up to him slaughtering his family & although I have a passing curiousity as to his motive, not knowing those details doesn't particularly bother me. I have confidence that he murdered them. That's enough for me.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, what did you mean by the intruder not wearing mohair?? Huh? Did he also have some new form of clothing that is somehow made using NO FIBERS? You said #8 about the flashlight being used on JB, but then you say it could have belonged to one of the BPD? What does that mean?
And the question, "Why would the Ramseys lie about the pineapple & JB being asleep if she wasn't? Oh man.....are you really serious with that question?

Lucky13, we don't know whose flashlight was found upstairs. It might have been the perp's. I think it is more likely that it wasn't. I believe this possibly was a kidnapping gone wrong (committed either by someone who knew that John Ramsey had $118K in his account and wanted it or by someone who felt that John Ramsey owed him $118K and he was going to get it). I think the kidnapper's last trip upstairs would have been to leave the ransom note on the stairs. At this point he thought he would be taking JonBenet with him from the house. With all that I believe transpired next, he would have needed his flashlight. If he realized he had left it upstairs, he would have gone and gotten it.

I believe the killer acted alone. He goes from "we" to "I" in the ransom note, when he becomes himself. I believe he was young, sexually immature, and fascinated by ritual. Intelligent, educated, sick.

The Ramseys have no reason to lie about JonBenet falling asleep in the car or having eaten at home. Neither fact would suggest they killed their daughter. She died several hours later. Burke would have had to have been told to lie along with them, as far as her being carried upstairs and put to bed.

MOO

rashomon

10-10-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

The Ramseys have no reason to lie about JonBenet falling asleep in the car or having eaten at home. Neither fact would suggest they killed their daughter. She died several hours later. Burke would have had to have been told to lie along with them, as far as her being carried upstairs and put to bed.
MOO
But how would it have looked if they had now backpedaled and when confronted with the pineapple evidence, suddenly said JB had been awake? The only choice they had was to stick to their original version.
Imo they wanted to conceal that JB had been awake when they got home, because something had happened when JB was still awake.
And Burke's testimony (Burke stated JB was awake when they got home) contradicts the testimony of his parents. So either Burke or the Ramseys had to be lying. And the pineapple evidence points to John and Patsy being the liars here.

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 01:03 PM

The story the Rs originally told police the morning of the 26th is that they tucked Jonbenet in bed, Patsy singing to her, and John reading her a book.

Four months later, when they finally sat down to a police interview, they had a different story to tell. Patsy now claimed she sang to JonBenet while JonBenet was sleeping (come on - it's been a long day, they have to get up really early, Patsy still needs to do last minute packing...and she's standing there singing to a child who is already asleep? I don't think so. Not in the real world, only Ramsey Storybook Land.)

And John changed his story to saying he been misunderstood, and he had said he read a book, not that he read her a book.

This new version of events contradicted the story that the Rs had told three independent police officers - Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach - how are we supposed to believe all three of these officers misunderstood when they spoke with the Rs at different times?

When Burke was interviewed in Atlanta in June of 1999, he said that JonBenet had fallen asleep in the car, but woke up when they stopped at a friend's house to drop off gifts and was still awake when they arrived home that night, walking in the house in front of their mother.

Why would the Rs lie at the pineapple? Because JonBenet being awake and eating pineapple (that was consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl on the breakfast table) does not fit in with the story they want people to believe, that JonBenet was asleep and they have no idea what happened. According to the pineapple in her intestine, according to Burke's testimony, and according the original story the Ramseys themselves told police, JonBenet was awake when the family got home Christmas night.

Why indeed do they feel the need to lie about it? Because they know more than they are willing to admit.

As for the stun gun - that has never been proven. Meyer said those marks were abrasions and not burns.

And for the record, I think Patsy killed JonBenet. Give me a few days and I'll submit a detailed theory - though I doubt it will stay up on this board for very long.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 01:33 PM

Thanks, rashomon and nuisanceposter. I knew there was some discrepancy in the stories about what went on when they got home, but, I didn't realize how much. It's, also, of course, possible that each is telling the truth as he/she remembers it.

What I meant by "Why would they lie?" is that, if JonBenet was given pineapple as a snack, when she got home, and died two to three hours later from a blow inflicted accidentally/on purpose because she had wet the bed, that means she went to bed after eating the pineapple. How important, then, is it that she was given pineapple before bed at home? It has nothing to do with the murder. Why lie about it?

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Thanks, rashomon and nuisanceposter. I knew there was some discrepancy in the stories about what went on when they got home, but, I didn't realize how much. It's, also, of course, possible that each is telling the truth as he/she remembers it.

What I meant by "Why would they lie?" is that, if JonBenet was given pineapple as a snack, when she got home, and died two to three hours later from a blow inflicted accidentally/on purpose because she had wet the bed, that means she went to bed after eating the pineapple. How important, then, is it that she was given pineapple before bed at home? It has nothing to do with the murder. Why lie about it?

Missotis....I believe that at the time the Ramseys gave their original version of the story, they did not even give the pineapple a second thought. I am sure they never realized that an autopsy would show such a thing. Their story was that she was asleep period. Not much you can mess up giving details if your child was asleep when you last saw her. In other words...keep it simple. When the autopsy was done and it was determined that she had eaten something after they returned home, they could not make such a huge change in their story to add the pineapple in because then they would have to admit that at some point she woke up and had a snack. Suddenly remembering that fact would not have been believeable when they were so adamant that she never woke up. It makes such perfect sense, that I don't understand why you IDI's can't see it. And, again, no offense. It's just frusterating to keep pointing these things out and explaining the logic to them over and over.

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 02:52 PM

Seriously...the Ramseys have contradicted themselves repeatedly and been caught in outright lies more than once- example: the pineapple. They were caught lying. That pineapple in JonBenet's intestine was consistent down to the rind with the pineapple in the bowl, and it was nowhere near as far in her digestive tract as the crab (which was already soft matter in her large intestine, meaning those items were not eaten at the same time, or even close.) They lied about her being asleep when they got home, their own son SAID she was awake when they got home - as did the Ramseys in their original statements to police.

Why would they need to change their stories and/or lie if this murder was committed by some intruder and they had nothing to do with it?

LindaA

10-10-2006, 03:07 PM

The pineapple is the one detail that bothers me the most about this case. I started a thread about it, but it was absorbed into a larger one and the discussion ended at that point. I, too, believe that it blows their story out of the water.

However, it is interesting to me that the RDIs discount the coroner's conclusion regarding which injury came first, but feel his conclusions about what was in her stomach is gospel.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 03:35 PM

What did Burke say about the pineapple?

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
The pineapple is the one detail that bothers me the most about this case. I started a thread about it, but it was absorbed into a larger one and the discussion ended at that point. I, too, believe that it blows their story out of the water.

However, it is interesting to me that the RDIs discount the coroner's conclusion regarding which injury came first, but feel his conclusions about what was in her stomach is gospel.

I have no problem with Meyer's conclusion of cause of death. His autopsy states JonBenet's brain was swollen (sulci narrowed and gyri flattened - that means her brain was pressing up against the inside of her skull), indicating the head wound occurred while she was alive, says there are three layers of pooled blood in her brain, and that the strangulation was the ultimate cause of death.

I agree with all of that. Someone hit her on the head, the head wound had a chance to develop, then someone tied a cord around her neck which strangled her to death.

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
The pineapple is the one detail that bothers me the most about this case. I started a thread about it, but it was absorbed into a larger one and the discussion ended at that point. I, too, believe that it blows their story out of the water.

However, it is interesting to me that the RDIs discount the coroner's conclusion regarding which injury came first, but feel his conclusions about what was in her stomach is gospel.

I don't believe the coroner concluded that the garrotting came first. Both injuries are listed in the same sentence except that the garrotting was mentioned first.
Also, it doesn't matter what was in her stomach. It's why it was there (when it was eaten) that is what we accept as gospel. The fact that pineapple was suggested and the bowl of pineapple sitting out at the Ramseys can NOT just be a coincidence. Nor can it be a coincidence that the Ramseys deny putting it there or feeding it to JB. That goes beyond coincidence.

LadyFisher

10-10-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
The pineapple is the one detail that bothers me the most about this case. I started a thread about it, but it was absorbed into a larger one and the discussion ended at that point. I, too, believe that it blows their story out of the water.

However, it is interesting to me that the RDIs discount the coroner's conclusion regarding which injury came first, but feel his conclusions about what was in her stomach is gospel. And they also believe the coroner's conclusions concerning the abrasion instead of a stun gun.....I don't think the coroner even considered the fact a stun gun was used when he made that determination....too many experts have looked at those photos and concluded the marks could very well have been a stun gun! After the loss of a child, especially under these circumstances it is normal for the parents to be in shock and not remember certain details...but one thing is...JR & PR have no idea how/when she consumed the pineapple, they have never wavered in that....if imo they had been guilty..it would have been all too easy for one of them to suddenly have a recollection of it and explained it somehow....they didn't...their comments are those of innocent people imho!

Mimi428

10-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
And they also believe the coroner's conclusions concerning the abrasion instead of a stun gun.....I don't think the coroner even considered the fact a stun gun was used when he made that determination....too many experts have looked at those photos and concluded the marks could very well have been a stun gun! After the loss of a child, especially under these circumstances it is normal for the parents to be in shock and not remember certain details...but one thing is...JR & PR have no idea how/when she consumed the pineapple, they have never wavered in that....if imo they had been guilty..it would have been all too easy for one of them to suddenly have a recollection of it and explained it somehow....they didn't...their comments are those of innocent people imho!

They stun gun people looked at photos....

The coroner looked at her SKIN. Do you really think he was not capable of recognizing BURNS?

I don't think so.

MOO

nuisanceposter

10-10-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

They stun gun people looked at photos....

The coroner looked at her SKIN. Do you really think he was not capable of recognizing BURNS?

I don't think so.

MOO

Absolutely. Meyer was the only expert who saw Jonbenet's body in person, and he was quite capable of telling the difference between a burn and an abrasion. Stun guns leave burns, not abrasions.

All of the speculation to prove or disprove the stun gun theory really makes me wish Meyer had kept JonBenet's body an extra day or two for more testing after all.

The stun gun theory was put forth by Lou Smit, who thought that the abrasions looked like they could have been made by a stun gun (looking at pictures, of course, not JonBenet's body)...then he went looking for a stun gun to fit the marks. The closest he came was an Air Taser, but reps from that company said those marks were too close together to have come from their stun gun, among other things.

In a meeting between BPD and FBI's CASKU unit, Lou Smit there without saying a word while theories were presented and discussed. He had every opportunity to present his intruder theory complete with stun gun usage, and he didn't bring it up at all. I really have to wonder why.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 04:47 PM

There is a minimum of 2 to 3 hours between the pineapple and death. Why would they lie about it? They were in their own home. They had the right to feed their child.

MOO

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
There is a minimum of 2 to 3 hours between the pineapple and death. Why would they lie about it? They were in their own home. They had the right to feed their child.

MOO

The reason they might lie about it, is that initially they'd said JB was carried into the house asleep and put to bed. When the police questioned them later about the pineapple they had either to deny knowledge of it, or change their story.

Now a good question is why didn't they just change their story, as that wasn't in any way unusual for them.

MissOtisRegrets

10-10-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The reason they might lie about it, is that initially they'd said JB was carried into the house asleep and put to bed. When the police questioned them later about the pineapple they had either to deny knowledge of it, or change their story.

Now a good question is why didn't they just change their story, as that wasn't in any way unusual for them.

Possibly, they don't know/honestly can't remember anything about her eating after they left the Whites.

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

snip>

In a meeting between BPD and FBI's CASKU unit, Lou Smit there without saying a word while theories were presented and discussed. He had every opportunity to present his intruder theory complete with stun gun usage, and he didn't bring it up at all. I really have to wonder why.

According to what you've posted previously, CASKU (and Thomas) were convinced the Ramseys did it. CASKU was functioning in an advisory role. What would Mr. Smit gain by presenting his theory to them?

Mimi428

10-10-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Possibly, they don't know/honestly can't remember anything about her eating after they left the Whites.

Huh? According to J & P - she fell asleep in the vehicle after they left the Whites.

There is no "don't know, can't remember" possibility when they claim she fell asleep in the vehicle, was carried upstairs while asleep, was put in bed while asleep.

Now if they were going to claim they just didn't know & couldn't remember whether she was awake or not when they left the Whites - they don't know & can't remember when/how she got to bed...don't know & can't remember a blessed thing about the entire evening - then it could be said that they also don't know/can't remember when & where she ate the pineapple.

But that is NOT THEIR CLAIM. They claim they DID KNOW that she fell asleep in the car on the drive home from the White's. That's their "official" story, they stuck to it.

And that is why, when the pineapple was discovered to be the last thing she ate - AND...no pineapple was served at the Whites....AND pineapple was found in the Ramsey home - every person capable of logical thinking comes to the conclusion that the "asleep" story is full of holes.

There is no other plausible explanation, unless someone wants to claim the child roamed around downstairs & ate after everyone else in the house went to bed - AND managed to do so without leaving a single fingerprint on the bowl.

I don't know WHY the Ramsey parents lied about her falling asleep & staying asleep - but there is no other rational conclusion to come to when you look at the totality of it.

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

Possibly, they don't know/honestly can't remember anything about her eating after they left the Whites.

I don't think the Ramseys were asked about the pineapple until some months later (April '97?).

If asked, could you explain in sequence everything you did one night four months ago?

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 07:33 PM

"The Cases That Haunt Us" John Douglas - large print edition page 616

(re: pineapple)

"Police picked this out as an inconsistency in Patsy's story. Patsy and John said they were perplexed by the finding and had no explanation for it. I would expect guilty people to come up with some explanation."

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 07:47 PM

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

According to what you've posted previously, CASKU (and Thomas) were convinced the Ramseys did it. CASKU was functioning in an advisory role. What would Mr. Smit gain by presenting his theory to them?

He'd have had this to gain -

1. A chance to run his theory by the top experts in the country, and have it critiqued (both positively and negatively).

2. A chance to find out whether or not he was on the right track.

3. A chance to determine the probability of his theory.

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't think the Ramseys were asked about the pineapple until some months later (April '97?).

If asked, could you explain in sequence everything you did one night four months ago?

I think they would have remembered if she woke up and was fed. Please...give me a break. They remembered other details about that night quite well.
We have explained why they couldn't admit to feeding her anything and you all refuse to accept it. I give up.

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
What did Burke say about the pineapple?

I have never heard what he had to say about it. It would be interesting to know.

MaryD

10-10-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I don't think the Ramseys were asked about the pineapple until some months later (April '97?).

If asked, could you explain in sequence everything you did one night four months ago?

If someone asked me what I did on an ordinary night four months ago, I probably wouldn't remember. However, if someone asked about the most profound night of my life where some supposed intruder came into my home killing my daugter, I would have racked my brain to recall every detail and never forget any of them. It's not like they weren't asked the very next day when their memory was fresh, that alone should reinforce their memory.

When asked in an interview if Patsy had given her daughter a bath that day or washed her up, she had absolutely no recollection. Was she on drugs? That is not a difficult question. Her memory is very selective, and when the questions get too hairy her lawyer jumps in to protect her. And why did neither of them pick up the ransom note? No fingerprints? It is a natural instinct to pick up the papers you are reading, who reads them from upside down a** over backwards?

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

He'd have had this to gain -

1. A chance to run his theory by the top experts in the country, and have it critiqued (both positively and negatively).

2. A chance to find out whether or not he was on the right track.

3. A chance to determine the probability of his theory.

You know and I know his theory would have been dismissed. They had their own theory and were not interested in his. MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-10-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by MaryD

If someone asked me what I did on an ordinary night four months ago, I probably wouldn't remember. However, if someone asked about the most profound night of my life where some supposed intruder came into my home killing my daugter, I would have racked my brain to recall every detail and never forget any of them. It's not like they weren't asked the very next day when their memory was fresh, that alone should reinforce their memory.

When asked in an interview if Patsy had given her daughter a bath that day or washed her up, she had absolutely no recollection. Was she on drugs? That is not a difficult question. Her memory is very selective, and when the questions get too hairy her lawyer jumps in to protect her. And why did neither of them pick up the ransom note? No fingerprints? It is a natural instinct to pick up the papers you are reading, who reads them from upside down a** over backwards?

Asked the next day about the pineapple? I don't think so.
Patsy stepped over the note and then bent over to read it. And they both touched it. What are you talking about?

thewhitewitch1

10-10-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You know and I know his theory would have been dismissed. They had their own theory and were not interested in his. MOO

You mean much like you keep dismissing our theories and asking the same questions that we have answered and posted links to over and over again? Seems like you have the same mind set as you are accusing the BPD of having. IMO

MaryD

10-10-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Asked the next day about the pineapple? I don't think so.
Patsy stepped over the note and then bent over to read it. And they both touched it. What are you talking about?

I didn't say she was specifically asked about the pineapple. I said she was asked about the events of the previous evening. When you said who would remember what they did four months ago, the point is you should remember what you did the next morning, especially if you are asked to repeat it over and over again by the cops. That alone would keep your memory fresh for a long long time to come, IMO of course.

LadyFisher

10-10-2006, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Absolutely. Meyer was the only expert who saw Jonbenet's body in person, and he was quite capable of telling the difference between a burn and an abrasion. Stun guns leave burns, not abrasions.

All of the speculation to prove or disprove the stun gun theory really makes me wish Meyer had kept JonBenet's body an extra day or two for more testing after all.

The stun gun theory was put forth by Lou Smit, who thought that the abrasions looked like they could have been made by a stun gun (looking at pictures, of course, not JonBenet's body)...then he went looking for a stun gun to fit the marks. The closest he came was an Air Taser, but reps from that company said those marks were too close together to have come from their stun gun, among other things.

In a meeting between BPD and FBI's CASKU unit, Lou Smit there without saying a word while theories were presented and discussed. He had every opportunity to present his intruder theory complete with stun gun usage, and he didn't bring it up at all. I really have to wonder why. But when asked by Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth on April 11 if those marks he saw on JBs body could have been from a stun gun, John Meyer agreed that they could have! :confused: Even he said that it was very possible! Why would he say that to them if he didn't really think so?

WallyCleaver

10-10-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You know and I know his theory would have been dismissed. They had their own theory and were not interested in his. MOO

You're telling me the CASKU people wouldn't have been willing to listen to his theory? That's nonsense.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

You're telling me the CASKU people wouldn't have been willing to listen to his theory? That's nonsense.

They probably would have "listened", but they were there to present their "findings" - not to listen to other theories. JMO

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

They probably would have "listened", but they were there to present their "findings" - not to listen to other theories. JMO

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

To quote myself and add - this is one of those issues that doesn't really matter anyway.

I wasted my time and bandwidth making this post. :)

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by MaryD

I didn't say she was specifically asked about the pineapple. I said she was asked about the events of the previous evening. When you said who would remember what they did four months ago, the point is you should remember what you did the next morning, especially if you are asked to repeat it over and over again by the cops. That alone would keep your memory fresh for a long long time to come, IMO of course.

We both have ideas about what we think. Obviously we don't agree.

Unfortunately, what we think about "what could/should" have happened won't solve this case. JMO :seeya:

nuisanceposter

10-11-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

You mean much like you keep dismissing our theories and asking the same questions that we have answered and posted links to over and over again? Seems like you have the same mind set as you are accusing the BPD of having. IMO

Absolutely, and I share your opinion.

The point of the meeting with CASKU was to discuss the case and all possibilities. That's why Smit was included in the first place.

Meyer said abrasions on the autopsy, not burns. He said it could have been a stun gun, but that's could have, not oh, yes, it must have been.

The Rs most certainly would have remembered JonBenet being awake to eat pineapple the next day as well as four months later. Their original story was she was awake and they tucked her in bed, then they changed it to she was asleep, and neither time do they mention the pineapple - but the pineapple in the bowl and in JonBenet's small intestine say she was awake and ate it at home. Patsy's prints are on the bowl, despite her convenient amnesia rearing up when asked about it. She didn't think it was hers, but both John and Burke recognized it.

Neither John's or Patsy's prints are on the ransom note at all, which is quite remarkable, considering both of them claimed to have handled it firsthand. There are seven fingerprints on the pad of paper, one from CBI guy Chet Ubowski, one from the person who handed the pad to him, and five others are Patsy's.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 01:55 PM

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Why do you insist on making this personal? The poll that MyrDawn posted proves that on this board IDIs and RDIs are appx. 50/50. It also proves that RDIs are less likely to change their minds so please - get off the IDIs backs. TIA

I was responding to YOU because you have this way of being rude and irritating with your eye rolling and smart aleck comments. I think it is YOU who is taking it personally and I am just responding in kind.
If you can't take it, please don't dish it out.

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I was responding to YOU because you have this way of being rude and irritating with your eye rolling and smart aleck comments. I think it is YOU who is taking it personally and I am just responding in kind.
If you can't take it, please don't dish it out.

ROFL............you're the one banging your head on the desk because everyone isn't buying what you're selling. JMO

Ames

10-11-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

ROFL............you're the one banging your head on the desk because everyone isn't buying what you're selling. JMO

You have to admit...you do have a bad habit of putting that little eye rolling smiley in the majority of your posts. I have used it once myself, but it reminds me of something that a two year old would put after their posts, (IF they could type). And according to the poll on another thread....I would say that not everyone is buying what YOU are selling. IMO

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Ames

You have to admit...you do have a bad habit of putting that little eye rolling smiley in the majority of your posts. I have used it once myself, but it reminds me of something that a two year old would put after their posts, (IF they could type). And according to the poll on another thread....I would say that not everyone is buying what YOU are selling. IMO

I have a bad habit........surely not. You must have me mixed up with someone else.

If you are talking about the analysis of how people have posted, I'm not "selling" that. It speaks for itself. Facts, ma'm. Just facts. :seeya:

LindaA

10-11-2006, 06:48 PM

I think TWW1 is one of the most sarcastic people on the board!! And I just don't see it with SweetCharlotte!

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
I think TWW1 is one of the most sarcastic people on the board!! And I just don't see it with SweetCharlotte!

Thanks for saying that. However, I'm afraid I do rub some people the wrong way. :)

Ames

10-11-2006, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Thanks for saying that. However, I'm afraid I do rub some people the wrong way. :)

Yes...you do! :D

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes...you do! :D

Good night, Ames!

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

ROFL............you're the one banging your head on the desk because everyone isn't buying what you're selling. JMO

LindaA, I'm sorry you think I am one of the most sarcastic people on this board. I did not start being that way until a certain person started irritating me. (see above quote)
I realize what I said to inspire her comment was rather rude, though. I will tell you what, though....I have never inserted ROFL after one of the IDI's posts; nor have I inserted the eyeroll icon.
I have been most respectful of everyone until recently.
Maybe we are all just banging our heads on our desks now because nobody can prove anything; most of us aren't going to change our minds no matter what evidence we provide so this entire thing is pointless.
I am truely sorry for anyone I have offended in here (except SC) because I think most of you are very nice people.

MissOtisRegrets

10-11-2006, 08:29 PM

Sweetcharlotte is so uncontentious (word?) on a VERY contentious board (Blake) that I don't even know if she's a G or an NG and I have posted with her for several years there. I have never read one post of hers that shows a lack of respect for either side. Sweetcharlotte is one of my posting heroes.

:patriot:

MissO (banned four times for inappropriate behavior)

sweetcharlotte

10-11-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Sweetcharlotte is so uncontentious (word?) on a VERY contentious board (Blake) that I don't even know if she's a G or an NG and I have posted with her for several years there. I have never read one post of hers that shows a lack of respect for either side. Sweetcharlotte is one of my posting heroes.

:patriot:

MissO (banned four times for inappropriate behavior)

MissO - you are MY hero. FWIW, I apologized to Ames, but so far she is the only one I have any intention of apologizing to. I would post an icon or a rofl......but that would just trigger more debate so I will stifle myself. Good night, MissO.......SweetC

thewhitewitch1

10-11-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Sweetcharlotte is so uncontentious (word?) on a VERY contentious board (Blake) that I don't even know if she's a G or an NG and I have posted with her for several years there. I have never read one post of hers that shows a lack of respect for either side. Sweetcharlotte is one of my posting heroes.

:patriot:

MissO (banned four times for inappropriate behavior)

Missotis...I don't see how you can say that. If you'd like, I can go right now and show you some of her offensive posts. I just read a few. On the other hand, if you don't think she is being rude, mean or snotty, then I will just carry on with my sarcastic self. I am not going to curb my behavior if you find nothing wrong with it in someone else (who happens to also be on your IDI side so maybe that's why you don't see it).
BTW...I can't believe you ever got banned for that!

MissOtisRegrets

10-11-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Missotis...I don't see how you can say that. If you'd like, I can go right now and show you some of her offensive posts. I just read a few. On the other hand, if you don't think she is being rude, mean or snotty, then I will just carry on with my sarcastic self. I am not going to curb my behavior if you find nothing wrong with it in someone else (who happens to also be on your IDI side so maybe that's why you don't see it).
BTW...I can't believe you ever got banned for that!

WW1, feelings are hurt all the time at CTV. Almost always it is unintentional. We don't know who the person is on the other side of the monitor or where they're coming from at the moment. The first pm I ever received at CTV said, "Could you maybe learn to use icons? I think we have the same sense of humor and I find your posts funny, but people are jumping out of windows!" I was stunned. I had no idea that I sounded hard.

I can't stand sarcastic remarks directed at me for my thoughts. They are worse than a direct attack imo. I have had many (not from you) posted to me on this board. But, with the new rules and a static IP, I can't afford another ban.

A plane has flown into a building in NYC killing two people. My neighbors' dog died tragically today. Another journalist (14th) has been murdered by Putin government (MOO). We all need to lighten up. It's just posting! :)

your friend in posting

:seeya:

MissO

MissOtisRegrets

10-11-2006, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

MissO - you are MY hero. FWIW, I apologized to Ames, but so far she is the only one I have any intention of apologizing to. I would post an icon or a rofl......but that would just trigger more debate so I will stifle myself. Good night, MissO.......SweetC

I like you just the way you are, sweetcharlotte.

:rose: for the unemployed icon

Athena

10-12-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Meyer said abrasions on the autopsy, not burns. He said it could have been a stun gun, but that's could have, not oh, yes, it must have been.

Burns vary by degree. An abrasion is just a general term for superficial injuries to the skin. When Myers did the autopsy he had no idea what those marks were from and thus labelled them "abrasions". Abrasions can be superficial burns aka as can be caused by a stun gun. jmo
TYPES OF BURN WOUNDS

Burn wounds have numerous causes:

* thermal-residential fires, automobile accidents, playing with matches, improper handling of firecrackers, scalds caused by kitchen or bathroom accidents

* chemical-contact, ingestion, inhalation, or injection of acids, alkalis, or vesicants

* electrical-contact with faulty electrical wiring, electrical cords, or high-voltage power lines

* friction or abrasion

* ultraviolet radiation-sunburn.

In burn injury, these injuring agents denature all cellular protein. Some cells die because of traumatic or ischemic necrosis. Denaturation also disrupts collagen cross-links in connective tissue. This results in abnormal osmotic and hydrostatic pressure gradients, which force intravascular fluid into interstitial spaces. Cellular injury triggers the release of inflammation mediators, further contributing to local or systemic increases in capillary permeability.

Burn wounds are classified by depth: superficial, partial-thickness, full-thickness,5,7 or subdermal.8 The depth of injury is diagnosed by the anatomic thickness of the skin involved, based on clinical observation.5-8

Superficial burns

Superficial burns affect only the epidermis of the skin. They are usually caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Although the epidermis anatomically lacks a direct blood supply, this wound type still becomes erythematous. Coloration is due to irritation of the vascular plexus that project upward into the epidermal-dermal junction from the underlying dermis.8

In a true superficial burn, no blisters are present and the surface is dry.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3977/is_200307/ai_n9270135

harz

10-13-2006, 12:53 AM

While I may admit these marks on JB’s back & neck look a lot like stun gun, why stunned her from behind in the same manner as garrote which the killer doesn’t want see JB’s face during these kinds of assaults? Although, JR had a video tape in Spanish about stun gun found in his office. Of course, he didn’t get rid of it since he wasn’t able to read or speak Spanish to recognize it. I wish BPD had torn down the storm drains & sewers to search for duct tape rolls & stun gun that JR might had stashed these evidences down in the drain while he went out to get the mail. IMO

harz

10-13-2006, 01:15 AM

Also how convenience that of stun gun was no where to be found, but not the flashlight after the fingerprints on it were wiped off and its batteries too. Of course, flashlight cannot be rid of, since it was a Christmas gift to JR. We can expect JR doesn’t want to hurt Andrew’s feelings or he cherished his own son’s Christmas gift. JR also may felt the pause realizing his relatives & friends witnessed him opening Andrew’s present containing the flashlight or Andrew would be asking what happened to his gift. IMO

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Thanks for saying that. However, I'm afraid I do rub some people the wrong way. :) :rose: Just thought you needed a rose, Charlotte.....We rub folks the wrong way because we don't agree with them! Hang in there! :)

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
:rose: Just thought you needed a rose, Charlotte.....We rub folks the wrong way because we don't agree with them! Hang in there! :)

Good morning - and thank you. I am trying to be a kinder, more diplomatic person. :)

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Absolutely, and I share your opinion.

The point of the meeting with CASKU was to discuss the case and all possibilities. That's why Smit was included in the first place.

Meyer said abrasions on the autopsy, not burns. He said it could have been a stun gun, but that's could have, not oh, yes, it must have been.

The Rs most certainly would have remembered JonBenet being awake to eat pineapple the next day as well as four months later. Their original story was she was awake and they tucked her in bed, then they changed it to she was asleep, and neither time do they mention the pineapple - but the pineapple in the bowl and in JonBenet's small intestine say she was awake and ate it at home. Patsy's prints are on the bowl, despite her convenient amnesia rearing up when asked about it. She didn't think it was hers, but both John and Burke recognized it.

Neither John's or Patsy's prints are on the ransom note at all, which is quite remarkable, considering both of them claimed to have handled it firsthand. There are seven fingerprints on the pad of paper, one from CBI guy Chet Ubowski, one from the person who handed the pad to him, and five others are Patsy's. When Meyer did the autopsy imho he didn't even consider the fact a stun gun was probably used.....I think it is a doggone powerful statement coming from him that it was a good possibility a stun gun was used! How can you get around that..you can't! Look at those pics of the autopsy, that was a STUN GUN! The Ramseys had no need to use one on their own child!

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
When Meyer did the autopsy imho he didn't even consider the fact a stun gun was probably used.....I think it is a doggone powerful statement coming from him that it was a good possibility a stun gun was used! How can you get around that..you can't! Look at those pics of the autopsy, that was a STUN GUN! The Ramseys had no need to use one on their own child!

He said it could have been, not "oh yes, that was it absolutely" and yes, it could have been, but that hasn't been proven

I don't think it was a stun gun, and I think John and Patsy knew it. They had the chance to exhume JonBenet and have that question answered, and they didn't take it up because they knew those marks weren't from a stun gun. That was purely Lou Smit and his fantastical intruder theory that doesn't account for all of the evidence and the Ramseys propensity to change their story to fit the evidence.

I'm sure they didn't want to disturb their daughter's rest, but as good practicing Christians, they know that their daughter's body is just a shell and her soul is at rest. It also would have made the life of their living child much easier, if they could have exhumed her and proven the stun gun theory, as well as their own. I can't imagine why they didn't take the chance to prove their innocence and clear their name when they could have. They certainly appeared on tv and called in to LKL enough.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

He said it could have been, not "oh yes, that was it absolutely" and yes, it could have been, but that hasn't been proven

I don't think it was a stun gun, and I think John and Patsy knew it. They had the chance to exhume JonBenet and have that question answered, and they didn't take it up because they knew those marks weren't from a stun gun. That was purely Lou Smit and his fantastical intruder theory that doesn't account for all of the evidence and the Ramseys propensity to change their story to fit the evidence.

I'm sure they didn't want to disturb their daughter's rest, but as good practicing Christians, they know that their daughter's body is just a shell and her soul is at rest. It also would have made the life of their living child much easier, if they could have exhumed her and proven the stun gun theory, as well as their own. I can't imagine why they didn't take the chance to prove their innocence and clear their name when they could have. They certainly appeared on tv and called in to LKL enough. Since you RDIs seems to put so much stock in what the ME says/said....I will, too...he believed it was a good possibility those marks were caused by a stun gun...as hard as those photos are to look at...you cannot explain those marks away....as far as the Ramseys reaction to exhuming their daughter's body....you bury a child and then come back to this board and tell me you would do anything different than they did!

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Since you RDIs seems to put so much stock in what the ME says/said....I will, too...he believed it was a good possibility those marks were caused by a stun gun...as hard as those photos are to look at...you cannot explain those marks away....as far as the Ramseys reaction to exhuming their daughter's body....you bury a child and then come back to this board and tell me you would do anything different than they did!

The guy from Air Taser, the brand of stun gun Lou Smit thought was used, said that there is no way those marks came from a stun gun. I've heard countless other experts debunk those marks being from a stun gun as well.

I'd exhume my child in a heartbeat if it meant I could prove my spouse and I were innocent of the accusation that we killed her and it could save my other children from having to grow up and live in a world that doubts their family's innocence. Wouldn't that be worth it?

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
you bury a child and then come back to this board and tell me you would do anything different than they did!

<snipped>

Sorry, I cannot buy the claim that parents who have buried a child would not exhume the body if it meant finding the murderer.

Just like I cannot buy the claim that innocent parents would not cooperate with the police investigation.

Or that innocent parents would show no interest in finding their child's killer & bringing him/her to justice.

Or that innocent parents would hire a team of attorneys for every member of the family in less than 24 hours.

Or that innocent parents would hightail it across the country & not dog the police to find the murderer.

Or that innocent parents reading a ransom note saying they were being watched & their child would be beheaded would allow a houseful of people to come over.

Or that innocent parents would refuse to take a lie detector test so that their "innocence" could be immediately ascertained & get the police officers past looking at them & on to the trail of the murderer.

Or that innocent parents would stumble all over their words when the questions are about anything connected to the crime & the crime scene - but can breeze right along without a tenth of the "you know, I mean, you know, you know" phrases when discussing situations unrelated to the crime.

Or that innocent parents would be making travel arrangements within minutes of the discovery of their child's corpse.

Or that innocent parents would speak of what their little child endured while being murdered as if it was not nearly so tragic as what they, the parents, endured in life.

Or that innocent parents would have no explanation for why fibers consistent with their own clothing were found under the duct tape on their child's mouth.

Or that innocent parents would have no explanation for why fibers consistent with their own clothing were found tied into the knot.

Or that innocent parents would be so lackadaisical as to not give a rip that the "foundation" information was bogus on their own book.

Or that innocent parents would be so self-centered that they considered it more important to pay a PR firm & attorneys than to dedicate the same amount of money to the so-called "reward" or the bogus "foundation".

You think all those actions are demonstrative of INNOCENCE? Not in this world, imo.

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 11:59 AM

Excellent, Mimi.

Like I've said before, you can't look at this puzzle piece by piece...you need to look at them all together as the bigger picture, and when you do, the Rs look mighty guilty. One or two of those things Mimi listed, maybe not so much - but all of them...come on, the Rs were involved.

cantstandnuts

10-13-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

John Ramsey himself said to Lou Smit (who asked him when JB had eaten pineapple): "I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep."

So how did the pineapple get into JB's stomach? That's what this thread asks IDIs to explain (among many other things).

She ate the pineapple after her cracked crab (I still can't imagine a six year old eating cracked crab, but whatever) because she saw some cake she liked, maybe carrot, and it had fresh pineapple on top.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Sorry, I cannot buy the claim that parents who have buried a child would not exhume the body if it meant finding the murderer.

Just like I cannot buy the claim that innocent parents would not cooperate with the police investigation.

Or that innocent parents would show no interest in finding their child's killer & bringing him/her to justice.

Or that innocent parents would hire a team of attorneys for every member of the family in less than 24 hours.

Or that innocent parents would hightail it across the country & not dog the police to find the murderer.

Or that innocent parents reading a ransom note saying they were being watched & their child would be beheaded would allow a houseful of people to come over.

Or that innocent parents would refuse to take a lie detector test so that their "innocence" could be immediately ascertained & get the police officers past looking at them & on to the trail of the murderer.

Or that innocent parents would stumble all over their words when the questions are about anything connected to the crime & the crime scene - but can breeze right along without a tenth of the "you know, I mean, you know, you know" phrases when discussing situations unrelated to the crime.

Or that innocent parents would be making travel arrangements within minutes of the discovery of their child's corpse.

Or that innocent parents would speak of what their little child endured while being murdered as if it was not nearly so tragic as what they, the parents, endured in life.

Or that innocent parents would have no explanation for why fibers consistent with their own clothing were found under the duct tape on their child's mouth.

Or that innocent parents would have no explanation for why fibers consistent with their own clothing were found tied into the knot.

Or that innocent parents would be so lackadaisical as to not give a rip that the "foundation" information was bogus on their own book.

Or that innocent parents would be so self-centered that they considered it more important to pay a PR firm & attorneys than to dedicate the same amount of money to the so-called "reward" or the bogus "foundation".

You think all those actions are demonstrative of INNOCENCE? Not in this world, imo. Mimi, I think you have been reading far TOO much of "twisting Thomas", I don't have the time today to respond to everything you've stated, but everything you mentioned has been responded to in excess many times before....no, I wouldn't have exhumed my daughter's body either...they did cooperate with LE from the first day...only Thomas says they didn't....they retained lawyers on the advice of Bynum their friend and attorney, these folks were grief stricken, they wanted to return to Atlanta were they felt safe, I would have called the police, too, any normal parent would have.........I have two words to leave you with STUN GUN! :seeya:

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Mimi, I think you have been reading far TOO much of "twisting Thomas", I don't have the time today to respond to everything you've stated, but everything you mentioned has been responded to in excess many times before....no, I wouldn't have exhumed my daughter's body either...they did cooperate with LE from the first day...only Thomas says they didn't....they retained lawyers on the advice of Bynum their friend and attorney, these folks were grief stricken, they wanted to return to Atlanta were they felt safe, I would have called the police, too, any normal parent would have.........I have two words to leave you with STUN GUN! :seeya:

Another example of you coming to an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that I have been reading ST. Wrong, yet again. Other than the few passage excerpts that have appeared on this board & on a few other sites, I have not read anything that he has written.

I do not need Thomas to tell me a single thing about the level of non-cooperation from the parents - their actions speak for themselves. How long, again, did it take them to sit down with the investigators???

You think that INNOCENT parents who are frantic with grief over the murder of their child refuse for months to sit down with the police investigators and answer questions? Not the parents of murdered children I know (although in each case the child was not killed at home with the parents present in the house).

Show me any other case where that has been so. Please. Name any child murder where the crime scene is the home, the corpse is found in the home, the parents were present and innocent - AND the parents refused to help the investigation - AND the crime was ultimately determined to be committed by someone outside of the house.

How fast do you think Jessica Lunsford's father worked with the police to find the man who abducted his daughter? Do you think LE in that jurisdiction DIDN'T initially suspect someone in the house? Weeks passed before her body was found . Do you think that Mark Lunsford, an INNOCENT PARENT of substantially more modest means than the Ramseys wasn't cooperating with the investigation during that time?

THAT'S how "innocent" parents behave - they work their grieving, heartbroken butts off to find out who murdered their child. They spend their time & whatever money they have to get justice for their child. NOT covering themselves with PR. NOT hiding out hundreds of miles away. And NOT putting all their efforts into legal representation for their miserable hides.

MOO

nuisanceposter

10-13-2006, 01:09 PM

Awww, LadyFisher's not going to be able to answer you today, Mimi...and I really want to hear about all of the other parents of murdered children who have behaved just like the Ramseys did, with the child killed and the body found in the house while they were home with parents refusing to cooperate and the killer turning out to be someone else.

harz

10-13-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
SNIPPED
that was a STUN GUN! The Ramseys had no need to use one on their own child!

Why not? Stun gun could be a part in staging to point directly against the intruder or if she was stunned before her death, one of Ramsey, probably Patsy, stunned her in rage or for some reasons. Were you surprised Andrea Yates drowned her 5 boys? Maybe Patsy was upset about JB not liking her dolls with strings she got as Christmas gift from Patsy. Maybe something snapped Patsy somehow which may explain why the staging. Or who knows that Burke found the stun gun and used it on JB. IMO

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Awww, LadyFisher's not going to be able to answer you today, Mimi...and I really want to hear about all of the other parents of murdered children who have behaved just like the Ramseys did, with the child killed and the body found in the house while they were home with parents refusing to cooperate and the killer turning out to be someone else.

Well we can rule out the parents of Polly Klaas - they both took polygraphs ASAP so the police could move beyond suspecting them & finding the murderer.

Jennifer Wilbanks was certainly not a child, but in the early days of her disappearance from her home (& before we found out she was a runaway bride) - her fiance took a polygraph so the police could move past investigating him as the cause for her disappearance.

John Walsh & his wife took one in less than 12 hours so they could be eliminated as a suspects.

Elizabeth Smart's father took a polygraph within 6 days when she was abducted from her home so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Jessica Lunsford's father took a voice stress test & a polygraph so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

David Smith took a polygraph within 2 days after his little sons went missing so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Danielle van Dams parents both took polygraphs in less than a week's time so the police could eliminate them as suspects.

And the list goes on of how INNOCENT parents & other parties in the home behave to help the police in murder and/or abduction crime investigations.

LindaA

10-13-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Well we can rule out the parents of Polly Klaas - they both took polygraphs ASAP so the police could move beyond suspecting them & finding the murderer.

Jennifer Wilbanks was certainly not a child, but in the early days of her disappearance from her home (& before we found out she was a runaway bride) - her fiance took a polygraph so the police could move past investigating him as the cause for her disappearance.

John Walsh & his wife took one in less than 12 hours so they could be eliminated as a suspects.

Elizabeth Smart's father took a polygraph within 6 days when she was abducted from her home so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Jessica Lunsford's father took a voice stress test & a polygraph so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

David Smith took a polygraph within 2 days after his little sons went missing so HE could be eliminated as a suspect.

Danielle van Dams parents both took polygraphs in less than a week's time so the police could eliminate them as suspects.

And the list goes on of how INNOCENT parents & other parties in the home behave to help the police in murder and/or abduction crime investigations.

...we don't know about every murder than has ever been committed. We have no idea how many innocent parents of murder victims refused polygraphs and how many guilty ones took and passed them.

rashomon

10-13-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

And somewhere in all of this, an awake child has eaten pineapple, despite the fact that the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Yeah. Right.

Nowhere else in the annals of crime have so many competing actions & oppositional motivations appeared in one crime scene by at INTRUDER breaking into a house with the residents present. [/B]

So true Mimi. It all defies logic to an extent that it borders on the absurd. LOL!
And wasn't it John Ramsey himself who, backed into a corner when confronted with the damaging pineapple evidence, suggested that the pedophile fed JB pineapple before killing her?
Yeah right, John. And after the pedophile fed your daughter pineapple, he waited for at least one hour before bashing her head in and strangling her. Very 'convincing' scenario indeed! :D

sweetcharlotte

10-13-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

...we don't know about every murder than has ever been committed. We have no idea how many innocent parents of murder victims refused polygraphs and how many guilty ones took and passed them.

Exactly.

Athena

10-13-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

She ate the pineapple after her cracked crab (I still can't imagine a six year old eating cracked crab, but whatever) because she saw some cake she liked, maybe carrot, and it had fresh pineapple on top.

Funny you should say that because there is a popular sauce made from pineapples and mango that alot of people place on fish-type foods including crab.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Another example of you coming to an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that I have been reading ST. Wrong, yet again. Other than the few passage excerpts that have appeared on this board & on a few other sites, I have not read anything that he has written.

I do not need Thomas to tell me a single thing about the level of non-cooperation from the parents - their actions speak for themselves. How long, again, did it take them to sit down with the investigators???

You think that INNOCENT parents who are frantic with grief over the murder of their child refuse for months to sit down with the police investigators and answer questions? Not the parents of murdered children I know (although in each case the child was not killed at home with the parents present in the house).

Show me any other case where that has been so. Please. Name any child murder where the crime scene is the home, the corpse is found in the home, the parents were present and innocent - AND the parents refused to help the investigation - AND the crime was ultimately determined to be committed by someone outside of the house.

How fast do you think Jessica Lunsford's father worked with the police to find the man who abducted his daughter? Do you think LE in that jurisdiction DIDN'T initially suspect someone in the house? Weeks passed before her body was found . Do you think that Mark Lunsford, an INNOCENT PARENT of substantially more modest means than the Ramseys wasn't cooperating with the investigation during that time?

THAT'S how "innocent" parents behave - they work their grieving, heartbroken butts off to find out who murdered their child. They spend their time & whatever money they have to get justice for their child. NOT covering themselves with PR. NOT hiding out hundreds of miles away. And NOT putting all their efforts into legal representation for their miserable hides.

MOO Why don't you show me one case that parents killed their daughter and staged a horrific scene like this case......parents that kill statistic wise have precursive behavior...in other words there are signs there for the world to see that they were capable of such a thing.....just like the mentally ill woman who drowned her five children...she was NUTS, Mimi, and people knew it for years, yet nobody did anything...there's nothing in this case that indicated the Ramseys were capable of this...if there were...the world would have known it...these folks have been scrutinized like no other family that I have heard of.......who exactly do you think killed her, Mimi? Was it Patsy? Was it John? And WHY?

Athena

10-13-2006, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Why don't you show me one case that parents killed their daughter and staged a horrific scene like this case......parents that kill statistic wise have precursive behavior...in other words there are signs there for the world to see that they were capable of such a thing.....just like the mentally ill woman who drowned her five children...she was NUTS, Mimi, and people knew it for years, yet nobody did anything...there's nothing in this case that indicated the Ramseys were capable of this...if there were...the world would have known it...these folks have been scrutinized like no other family that I have heard of.......who exactly do you think killed her, Mimi? Was it Patsy? Was it John? And WHY?

I admire your tenacity Lady...... We've posted links to parents that have killed their children and they ALL had precursive behavior PRIOR to the killing of their children. Not one exception.

LadyFisher

10-13-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I admire your tenacity Lady...... We've posted links to parents that have killed their children and they ALL had precursive behavior PRIOR to the killing of their children. Not one exception. And she knows it, Althena....quite frankly, I might have to put some on ignore...it gets old! I would like to hear more of your thoughts, MissO's, Sweets, etc. on this case..I think you all are on the right track here! :seeya:

Athena

10-13-2006, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
And she knows it, Althena....quite frankly, I might have to put some on ignore...it gets old! I would like to hear more of your thoughts, MissO's, Sweets, etc. on this case..I think you all are on the right track here! :seeya:

Be careful what you say - she may copy your post and enlarge the font and post it in red AND take it out of context. LOL :eek:

What happened to the RDIs only thread? Just wondering if it were deleted? I was going to start an IDI only thread but don't see the other one and don't want posts to get deleted.

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Be careful what you say - she may copy your post and enlarge the font and post it in red AND take it out of context. LOL :eek:

What happened to the RDIs only thread? Just wondering if it were deleted? I was going to start an IDI only thread but don't see the other one and don't want posts to get deleted.

It was deleted. I don't know why.

This thread has had RDI added by the moderators. I don't know why.

Athena

10-13-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

It was deleted. I don't know why.

This thread has had RDI added by the moderators. I don't know why.

Thanks Wally. :)

I would guess that the moderator did not the board to be divisive. She probably added RDI to this thread indicating the posts were merged -- so guess I shoud not start an IDI thread; but honestly I prefer discussing both sides of the case. Wouldn't need to "discuss" the case if everyone agreed. :shrug:

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Thanks Wally. :)

I would guess that the moderator did not the board to be divisive. She probably added RDI to this thread indicating the posts were merged -- so guess I shoud not start an IDI thread; but honestly I prefer discussing both sides of the case. Wouldn't need to "discuss" the case if everyone agreed. :shrug:

True. I started this one just to have one place to see IDI theory set out. The theory of the case thread just takes too long to wade through.

Louisadelmar

10-13-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by harz
Also how convenience that of stun gun was no where to be found, but not the flashlight after the fingerprints on it were wiped off and its batteries too. Of course, flashlight cannot be rid of, since it was a Christmas gift to JR. We can expect JR doesn’t want to hurt Andrew’s feelings or he cherished his own son’s Christmas gift. JR also may felt the pause realizing his relatives & friends witnessed him opening Andrew’s present containing the flashlight or Andrew would be asking what happened to his gift. IMO

The flashlight wasn't a gift from JAR that Christmas. He'd given it a year or two earlier. Also a flashlight isn't exactly a sentimental object. I doubt in the midst of coping with his sister's murder JAR would be wondering where his gift from 1995/94 was.

Athena

10-13-2006, 09:16 PM

Athena

10-13-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

True. I started this one just to have one place to see IDI theory set out. The theory of the case thread just takes too long to wade through.

I understand completely Wally. And honestly when I responded to you did not even clique that this was your original IDI challenge thread.

WallyCleaver

10-13-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Athena

I also have not seen any proof that in fact it was the same flashlight. Also why would a Ramsey wipe it down for fingerprints including the batteries when their fingerprints could easily have been explained.

I think this can go either way (like everything else in this case). The Rs might wipe it down in order to be able to deny it was theirs.

An intruder might wipe it down to avoid having his own prints on it, or to make it appear that the Rs wiped it down.

IMO it's unlikely to belong to a cop. I don't think they'd leave behind a flashlight. Most have a specific place on the belt for the flashlight, so it's in their hand, or on the belt. It's possible it was left by the cops, but I don't think it's likely.

What is strange to me is why an intruder brings some stuff with him, uses other stuff from the home, takes some stuff with him when he leaves, and leaves behind some things he brought.

I think it's probably the R's flashlight.

Mimi428

10-13-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Why don't you show me one case that parents killed their daughter and staged a horrific scene like this case

<snipped>

Does the name Scott Peterson mean nothing to you? What was his precursive behavior?

How about Jeffrey MacDonald? What was his precursive behavior?

Your theory that precursive behavior MUST be present in the murderer is without merit. There are plenty of killers who have murdered their own spouses and/or children & half of their friends, family & acquaintances have fallen over themselves with the shock & disbelief. We read about & see the protests of "but s/he couldn't have done that - s/he was a perfect spouse/parent."

Now - back to you - your turn to name a case where an intruder broke in, murdered someone & left the corpse in the home, wrote out some idiotic ransom note, the parents or other family members were there, they refused to cooperate with the police investigation AND when it was all said & done the parents/family members turned out to be innocent as the day is long.

We'll all be as old as Methuselah before you can find anything remotely similar to the cock-and-bull story presented by Camp Ramsey of intruder/kidnapper/pedophile/murderer/revenge-seeking perp.

MOO

harz

10-14-2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

The flashlight wasn't a gift from JAR that Christmas. He'd given it a year or two earlier. Also a flashlight isn't exactly a sentimental object. I doubt in the midst of coping with his sister's murder JAR would be wondering where his gift from 1995/94 was.

Someone here, I don't recall who, stated it was Christmas gift from Andrew, how come their information is different from yours? Different books? It still even make it more interesting that batteries were wiped off if the flashlight that belongs to JR was 1 to 2 years old. If there was intruder, why would he wipe off fingerprints too if he wore the gloves? Where excatly did he found the flashlight and that he had to search for Ramsey's batteries to go with it? Too much comfort activity in Ramsey's house as if the killer lived there. Or flashlight was just an attempt tool in staging to blame intruder. JMO

Athena

10-14-2006, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

Does the name Scott Peterson mean nothing to you? What was his precursive behavior?

How about Jeffrey MacDonald? What was his precursive behavior?

Your theory that precursive behavior MUST be present in the murderer is without merit. There are plenty of killers who have murdered their own spouses and/or children & half of their friends, family & acquaintances have fallen over themselves with the shock & disbelief. We read about & see the protests of "but s/he couldn't have done that - s/he was a perfect spouse/parent."

Now - back to you - your turn to name a case where an intruder broke in, murdered someone & left the corpse in the home, wrote out some idiotic ransom note, the parents or other family members were there, they refused to cooperate with the police investigation AND when it was all said & done the parents/family members turned out to be innocent as the day is long.

We'll all be as old as Methuselah before you can find anything remotely similar to the cock-and-bull story presented by Camp Ramsey of intruder/kidnapper/pedophile/murderer/revenge-seeking perp.

MOO

Mimi - in both Peterson's and MacDonalds cases witnesses described them both as sociopaths with bad tempers. Psychiatrists that evaluated them said they were capable of comitting murder. Some witnesses even said they had seen MacDonald in rages prior to this murder.

Scott Peterson had a motive -- he did not want to be tied down to his wife and yet to be newborn baby.

NOT ONE person that knew the Ramseys had anything negative to say about them.

Here is an article I posted a while back about parents who kill:

There are many parents you've read of recently listed in these articles - and John and Patsy are NOT among them:

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

http://crime.about.com/od/female_of...her_killers.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WallyCleaver

10-14-2006, 07:14 AM

It's not true that there is always precursive behavior - though I'd guess there is in the majority of cases.

The man who killed the Amish girls a few weeks ago had no precursive behavior that anyone was aware of. True, this isn't a case where a man killed his own children, but it is a case where a man killed female children and was planning to molest them.

" Roberts reportedly contacted his wife while still in the schoolhouse and stated that he had molested two young female relatives (between the ages of three and five) twenty years ago (when he would have been 12), and had been daydreaming about molesting again.[7] Both of the relatives in question have denied these claims"

So if the claims are false, there is no precursive behavior. If the claims are true, and his molestations were never reported to anyone, there is no precursive behavior anyone was aware of.

I know you IDIs think you really have something here - The Rs couldn't possibly have done it because there were no signs. But sometimes it just doesn't work that way.

I will agree that precursive behavior is probably the norm. You have a fair point, but it's not iron clad.

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

LindaA

10-14-2006, 08:14 AM

WallyCleaver

10-14-2006, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

With Peterson Amber Frey described his precursive behavior. MacDonald -- wasn't there also an issue of womanizing? Also I believe he was taking self-prescribed amphetamines which were later proved to have a negative effect on behavior and emotions. I read that in Fatal Vision, but as I no longer have the book I cannot cite a page.

Let me challenge you to cite a murder in which a parent did what you believe the Ramseys did in this case. I don't believe such a case exists and that is precisely why we are talking about it 10 years later.

And please don't mistate the IDIs. They don't believe the murderer was all these things; some believe one, others believe one of the other motives. For the most part RDIs don't know which of the 3 family members committed the murder. Some move from one to the other. And there are only 3 possibilities if you believe RDI.
Its very hard to make all the facts fit on either side. That's why is makes me angry when I see one side belittling the beliefs of the other. Only a fool would be 100% sure he is right. I'm convinced there are pieces to the puzzle -- facts -- we don't know that would make the answer obvious. There couldn't be proof positive of the R's guilt; otherwise JMK would never have been able to pull off what he did.

Actually a lot of IDIs do believe the murderer was several things. A bungling kidnapper who lost his nerve then his paedophile instincts took over. Another theory is a burglar, who decided on the spur of the moment to become a kidnapper, then changed his mind, but still acted out his paedophile tendancies. Then there is the aggrevied employee paedo, then there is the housekeeper paedo, and zaniest of all - the small foreign faction compossed apparently of bungling kidnapper paedophiles.

WallyCleaver

10-14-2006, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Actually a lot of IDIs do believe the murderer was several things. A bungling kidnapper who lost his nerve then his paedophile instincts took over. Another theory is a burglar, who decided on the spur of the moment to become a kidnapper, then changed his mind, but still acted out his paedophile tendancies. Then there is the aggrevied employee paedo/killer, then there is the housekeeper kidnapper/killer/paedo, and zaniest of all - the small foreign faction compossed apparently of bungling kidnapper paedophiles.

WallyCleaver

10-14-2006, 08:51 AM

sorry about the double post. I was trying to edit my prior reply

MyrDawn

10-14-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

So true Mimi. It all defies logic to an extent that it borders on the absurd. LOL!
And wasn't it John Ramsey himself who, backed into a corner when confronted with the damaging pineapple evidence, suggested that the pedophile fed JB pineapple before killing her?
Yeah right, John. And after the pedophile fed your daughter pineapple, he waited for at least one hour before bashing her head in and strangling her. Very 'convincing' scenario indeed! :D

What possible reason could the Ramsey's have had for denying any knowledge JonBenet ate pineapple, if they knew she'd eaten it. All they would have had to do is say JonBenet woke up when they got home and was a little hungry so they gave her some pineapple, then put her to bed. To lie about it defies logic, when it would have been so simple to make up an innocent explanation.

What possible reason could Patsy have had to keep on the same clothes she murdered her daughter in, yet take the time to write a 2 and a half page ransom note and apply fresh makeup? It defies logic.

What possible reason could either of the Ramseys have had to use part of Patsy's paintbursh to form the garrotte? They could have simply strangled her with just the cord, or used a stick from their yard for the garrotte. It defies logic.

What possible reason could either of the Ramseys have had to use $180,000 for the ransom amount, knowing it would point directly at them? John himself said it was strange of a kidnapper to ask for that amount. It defies logic.

MyrDawn

10-14-2006, 10:16 AM

The Ramseys cooperation with police...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_9b.html

Police questioned them both on December 27 and John again on December 28. Officers were with the Ramseys 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. December 26, the day JonBenet's body was found, through 2 p.m. December 29, when the Ramseys left for the funeral in Atlanta.

Police questioned Burke Ramsey on December 26. The conversation was tape-recorded without either parent present and without parental consent. A police psychologist interviewed Burke on January 6. Burke was interviewed again, over three days, in May 1998.

Handwriting samples were given by John (December 26, 28, January 5, 1997); Patsy (December 28, January 4, 1997, February 28, April 12, May 20), and Burke (December 28).

After the Ramseys returned from JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta, their attorneys offered to make them available for a joint interview January 18, 1997. The police declined this offer and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."

The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to an open-ended interrogation. That suggestion was rejected, in part because of the written statement above.

Patsy and John gave hair and blood samples, as well as fingerprints, immediately when the police requested them; so did all other members of the family. In February 1997 both Patsy and John voluntarily gave pubic hair samples.

Early in the investigation, the Ramseys offered to let the police search both of their houses, John's office, their cars and his airplane hangar without a search warrant.

On April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of the DA's office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's and Detective Wickman's request. An apology was given for the way the family had been treated. The Ramseys were asked to give additional interviews and continue their previous cooperation. John accepted their apology and agreed to move forward. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted.

On April 12, 1997, the Ramseys agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to destructive testing of walls located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on April 23. The Ramseys also agreed to answer any questions put to them. On April 22, the Boulder police cancelled the interviews.

The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the Boulder police and district attorney's office on April 30, 1997. These interviews lasted two hours (John) and six hours (Patsy).

They were interrogated by the district attorney's office for three full days each in June 1998. No additional interviews were requested.

They signed more than 100 releases for information requested by the police, ranging from medical records to credit card records and even videotape rental records. The Ramseys provided all evidence and information requested by the police.

Burke Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey Long all were subpoenaed and testified before the grand jury.
John and Patsy Ramsey offered to testify before the grand jury, but were never subpoenaed. The Ramseys asked to meet with the governor and his advisory council. The request went unanswered.

Louisadelmar

10-14-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by harz

Someone here, I don't recall who, stated it was Christmas gift from Andrew, how come their information is different from yours? Different books? It still even make it more interesting that batteries were wiped off if the flashlight that belongs to JR was 1 to 2 years old. If there was intruder, why would he wipe off fingerprints too if he wore the gloves? Where excatly did he found the flashlight and that he had to search for Ramsey's batteries to go with it? Too much comfort activity in Ramsey's house as if the killer lived there. Or flashlight was just an attempt tool in staging to blame intruder. JMO

Did the 'someone' post their source? I got mine from here:

0001
1 _________________________________________________
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
4
5
6 INTERVIEW WITH JOHN RAMSEY
7
8 _________________________________________________
11 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
13 VOLUME 1 OF 4
14 PAGES 1 - 246
19 JUNE 23RD, 1998

[…]
19 LOU SMIT: Okay. Did you use a flashlight
20 at that point?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
22 LOU SMIT: What kind of flashlight do you
23 have?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Well we've got several, I guess.
25 One that, I believe, came up as an item was this
0145
1 MAG light flashlight. If it's the one I think it
2 is, my son gave me that for a Christmas present a
3 year or two ago. And that was probably in the bar.
4 The bar drawer was typically where it was kept.
5 LOU SMIT: You don't remember getting that?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I know I did not get it.
7 LOU SMIT: Anyone else get it?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I recall. I don't even
9 know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't
10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).
11 We might have a few blown flashlights around.

[…]

As far as the wiping the batteries etc goes I think this was done by someone who fancied himself a crime buff and thought he was being clever to think to wipe the batteries off.

Athena

10-14-2006, 12:10 PM

Thanks for posting that MyrDawn. I believe it is blown out of proportion about the Ramseys' lack of cooperation. Let us not forget also that within 48 hours of JBR's death the BPD wanted to withhold her remains for burial. Whether the Ramseys were guilty or not there was no compassion for these parents by the BPD or the media and it came through loud and clear which is why Bynum suggested the immediate hiring of lawyers. The parents knew very early on they were the primary focus in this bungled investigation. I can only imagine the grief is compounded by the murder of a child. jmo

Louisadelmar

10-14-2006, 12:20 PM

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

What possible reason could the Ramsey's have had for denying any knowledge JonBenet ate pineapple, if they knew she'd eaten it. All they would have had to do is say JonBenet woke up when they got home and was a little hungry so they gave her some pineapple, then put her to bed. To lie about it defies logic, when it would have been so simple to make up an innocent explanation.

What possible reason could Patsy have had to keep on the same clothes she murdered her daughter in, yet take the time to write a 2 and a half page ransom note and apply fresh makeup? It defies logic.

What possible reason could either of the Ramseys have had to use part of Patsy's paintbursh to form the garrotte? They could have simply strangled her with just the cord, or used a stick from their yard for the garrotte. It defies logic.

What possible reason could either of the Ramseys have had to use $180,000 for the ransom amount, knowing it would point directly at them? John himself said it was strange of a kidnapper to ask for that amount. It defies logic.

What possible reason is there for you to ask what possible reason is there to this behavior when some of us have offered reasons already and you all keep dismissing them? Why keep asking it if you don't want to discuss possible reasons?
Sweetcharlotte will keep saying that "you aren't buying what we (or I) am trying to sell" so why are you bothering to ask if you don't want someone's opinion that doesn't happen to fit your IDI theory?
We are supposed to be having a discussion about what took place and "who-done-it", how and why but if you just want to insist that it was all IDI, then YOU can figure out the entire scenerio and let me know when you catch they guy.
I will not post anymore unless I find something that hasn't already been discussed to death and then you can insert whatever it is into your IDI theory whether it fits or not.
Have fun....and don't spend that entire $100,000.00 Ramsey reward money that doesn't exist all in one place.

Athena

10-14-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What possible reason is there for you to ask what possible reason is there to this behavior when some of us have offered reasons already and you all keep dismissing them? Why keep asking it if you don't want to discuss possible reasons?
Sweetcharlotte will keep saying that "you aren't buying what we (or I) am trying to sell" so why are you bothering to ask if you don't want someone's opinion that doesn't happen to fit your IDI theory?
We are supposed to be having a discussion about what took place and "who-done-it", how and why but if you just want to insist that it was all IDI, then YOU can figure out the entire scenerio and let me know when you catch they guy.
I will not post anymore unless I find something that hasn't already been discussed to death and then you can insert whatever it is into your IDI theory whether it fits or not.
Have fun....and don't spend that entire $100,000.00 Ramsey reward money that doesn't exist all in one place.

TWW: Alot of us question these same things as well and obviously if you believe you feel you've answered these questions as to possible reasons and we are dismissing them -- it's because we don't agree with them. Since we've already heard your thoughts maybe it is possible that someone else can offer an opinion as well. I don't think anyone is asking you to repeat yourself. You are coming across as if your answers are the correct nad only ones so therefore these questions shouldn't be asked. :shrug: jmo

harz

10-14-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Did the 'someone' post their source? I got mine from here:

0001
1 _________________________________________________
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
4
5
6 INTERVIEW WITH JOHN RAMSEY
7
8 _________________________________________________
11 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW
13 VOLUME 1 OF 4
14 PAGES 1 - 246
19 JUNE 23RD, 1998

[…]
19 LOU SMIT: Okay. Did you use a flashlight
20 at that point?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
22 LOU SMIT: What kind of flashlight do you
23 have?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Well we've got several, I guess.
25 One that, I believe, came up as an item was this
0145
1 MAG light flashlight. If it's the one I think it
2 is, my son gave me that for a Christmas present a
3 year or two ago. And that was probably in the bar.
4 The bar drawer was typically where it was kept.
5 LOU SMIT: You don't remember getting that?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: No. I know I did not get it.
7 LOU SMIT: Anyone else get it?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Not that I recall. I don't even
9 know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't
10 work because we needed new batteries (INAUDIBLE).
11 We might have a few blown flashlights around.

[…]

As far as the wiping the batteries etc goes I think this was done by someone who fancied himself a crime buff and thought he was being clever to think to wipe the batteries off.

Thank you, I won’t forget that. Do you know where Ramseys stored the batteries? Were any batteries removed from packages that night if BPD found anything in trash? Maybe the fresh unpacked batteries were already in some drawers or containers in kitchen (Where I usually store my batteries). I am thinking about outlining the activities between evidences on Ramsey's house’s floor plan for that night.

Ames

10-14-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

MissO - you are MY hero. FWIW, I apologized to Ames, but so far she is the only one I have any intention of apologizing to. I would post an icon or a rofl......but that would just trigger more debate so I will stifle myself. Good night, MissO.......SweetC

Thanks again for apologizing to me...that takes a big person to do that. !! imo

Ames

10-14-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by lucky13

<snipped>

First of all, Ames, if you're here, I really enjoyed your short-lived RDI thread. It bites that it is now gone.......

:lol: Yeah, I thought that it BITES too...that it is gone. I figured that it wouldn't last very long. It may have gotten merged with another one, but I have been too busy to search for it.

Louisadelmar

10-14-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by harz

Thank you, I won’t forget that. Do you know where Ramseys stored the batteries? Were any batteries removed from packages that night if BPD found anything in trash? Maybe the fresh unpacked batteries were already in some drawers or containers in kitchen (Where I usually store my batteries). I am thinking about outlining the activities between evidences on Ramsey's house’s floor plan for that night.

I don't recall reading anything about the Ramsey's having extra batteries in the house. Like you, we have a place for spare batteries but my general impression is the Ramsey house was fairly disorganized. In one of the interviews John talks about how they were always late taking off with the plane.

Mimi428

10-14-2006, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Athena
Thanks for posting that MyrDawn. I believe it is blown out of proportion about the Ramseys' lack of cooperation. Let us not forget also that within 48 hours of JBR's death the BPD wanted to withhold her remains for burial. Whether the Ramseys were guilty or not there was no compassion for these parents by the BPD or the media and it came through loud and clear which is why Bynum suggested the immediate hiring of lawyers. The parents knew very early on they were the primary focus in this bungled investigation. I can only imagine the grief is compounded by the murder of a child. jmo

How long did it take the Ramsey parents to sit down and answer questions once it turned into a murder investigation?

Had they sat down with the personnel in charge of the investigation before the body was released?

They gave whatever information they wished to give to the officers who arrived at their home believing an abduction was being reported - & as soon as the corpse was found they hightailed it to hide behind their attorneys. Pure, plain & simple. Then they refused to be interviewed for months.

For all the attorneys they had, its a darn shame that apparently not a single one of them was willing to say to J & P - "hey, if you want to find the intruder/murderer/faux kidnapping/pedophile scum who murdered your baby - you must first submit to questions by the investigators. The sooner they eliminate you as suspects, the sooner the monster will be found. It's SOP in cases like this for the parents to be suspected - so gut up, do it, get it over with. We'll be there with you to make sure you aren't railroaded".

That's a sorry bunch of high-powered attorneys if they were so inept, incompetent, obtuse & oblivious that they DIDN'T tell J & P something along those lines. And I have a strong hunch that the Haddon firm did NOT earn their reputation for being top-of-the-line in legal counsel by being that unbelievably dense. I think the percentage is much higher that they sat down with their clients & realized they HAD no good answers for the investigators in the first place.

And it's a sorry pair of parents who wouldn't be begging their attorneys to help them answer the RIGHTEOUS questions of MURDER investigators & get their hides out of the spotlight ASAP so that whoever took the life of that innocent child could be arrested & brought to justice.

But they sure weren't interested in THAT, were they?

MOO

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 06:03 PM

Ames

10-14-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Athena, I am not the only one who answered those questions (and more than once). If you don't like our theories and are just dismissing them, then I guess you are not really looking for an answer because those theories we've given are as plausable as any, including some of your IDI theories. One question...if you don't believe our theories, can you at least explain what about it is out of the realm of belief?

I am not Athena....obviously....but, I think that the IDI folks don't believe our theory, because they cannot believe (for some reason) that the Ramsey's killed their own child, even though...it happens (sadly) time and time again. IMO

cantstandnuts

10-14-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Funny you should say that because there is a popular sauce made from pineapples and mango that alot of people place on fish-type foods including crab.

I had it on swordfish at the Cajun Fish, a restaraunt near my home. It was awesome, you should try it.

So, the Whites may think there was no pineapple served at their home that night and I can see why they may remember fresh pineapple, but I still think there could have been something served, a dessert, that had pinepple in it or on top. The cake would digest well before the pineapple. It could easily have been at that party and maybe JB ate some.

Ames

10-14-2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I had it on swordfish at the Cajun Fish, a restaraunt near my home. It was awesome, you should try it.

So, the Whites may think there was no pineapple served at their home that night and I can see why they may remember fresh pineapple, but I still think there could have been something served, a dessert, that had pinepple in it or on top. The cake would digest well before the pineapple. It could easily have been at that party and maybe JB ate some.

Maybe, but not likely. The White's would have remembered that, don't you think? As I recall, Fleet was the one that was asked if Pineapple was served. How the heck should HE know? Unless, as you say...it could have been on the top of a cake, and he had baked the cake himself....which I doubt. His wife would have been the one that could have answered the questions better, if she was the one that prepared the food. IMO And why, if it was on the top of some cake, would it have been hardly chewed?...The medical examiner said that it looked like it had been barely chewed, so you think that she would have just swallowed a piece of cake AND the pineapple almost whole? IMO

LadyFisher

10-14-2006, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What possible reason is there for you to ask what possible reason is there to this behavior when some of us have offered reasons already and you all keep dismissing them? Why keep asking it if you don't want to discuss possible reasons?
Sweetcharlotte will keep saying that "you aren't buying what we (or I) am trying to sell" so why are you bothering to ask if you don't want someone's opinion that doesn't happen to fit your IDI theory?
We are supposed to be having a discussion about what took place and "who-done-it", how and why but if you just want to insist that it was all IDI, then YOU can figure out the entire scenerio and let me know when you catch they guy.
I will not post anymore unless I find something that hasn't already been discussed to death and then you can insert whatever it is into your IDI theory whether it fits or not.
Have fun....and don't spend that entire $100,000.00 Ramsey reward money that doesn't exist all in one place. I'll take the $100,000 reward money :) I sure could use it.........I think a few of us are narrowing this down to a good profile on the perp....now we just got to figure out who he is! :seeya: I'll split my money with the other IDIs on the board, I'm not selfish, ladies! :)

Ames

10-14-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I'll take the $100,000 reward money :) I sure could use it.........I think a few of us are narrowing this down to a good profile on the perp....now we just got to figure out who he is! :seeya: I'll split my money with the other IDIs on the board, I'm not selfish, ladies! :)

Yes, I could too. I agree...a few of us have narrowed this down to a good profile on the perp. Lets see...they lived in the same house as the victim, and their last name is Ramsey, same as the victim. That just about narrows it down....IMO

Louisadelmar

10-14-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I am not Athena....obviously....but, I think that the IDI folks don't believe our theory, because they cannot believe (for some reason) that the Ramsey's killed their own child, even though...it happens (sadly) time and time again. IMO

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

http://www.deathreference.com/Ce-Da/Children-Murder-of.html

Familial Homicides
The psychiatrist P. T. D'Orban classifies the factors that play a role in filicides (the killing of a son or daughter) into three categories: family stress, including a family history of mental illness and crime, parental discord, parental maltreatment, and separation from one or both parents before age fifteen; social stress, involving financial and housing problems, marital discord, a criminal record, and living alone; and psychiatric stress, comprising a history of psychiatric symptoms, a psychiatric diagnosis, and a suicide attempt after the offense.
A history of child abuse or neglect is the most notable risk factor for the future death (i.e., murder of a child). Scholars note that the best predictor of future violence is a past history of violence. Most child abuse killings fall into the category of battering deaths, resulting from misguided, but brutal, efforts to discipline, punish, or quiet children. According to a study conducted by Murray Levine and associates, 75 percent of maltreatment-related fatalities occur in children under age four. Very young children are at the greatest risk because they are more physically vulnerable and less likely to be identified as at-risk due to their lack of contact with outside agencies. Shaken baby syndrome, in which the child is shaken so violently that brain damage can occur, takes the lives of many young children.
There are numerous risk factors for child murder. The criminal justice expert Neil Websdale has identified several situational antecedents such as a history of child abuse and/or neglect, a history of domestic violence, poverty, inequality, unemployment, criminal history, the use of drugs and/or alcohol, and the availability of weapons. Male and nonwhite children are more likely to be victims of child murder than female and white children.
According to the American psychiatrist and expert on child murder, Phillip Resnick, typical neonaticidal mothers (mothers who kill their children the first day of birth) are young, unmarried, are not suffering from psychotic illness, and do not have a history of depression. They characteristically conceal their pregnancy, often denying that they are pregnant. Other researchers have concluded that most deaths are the result of unwanted pregnancies, and that many mothers are overwhelmed by the responsibilities and have little or no support system. A number of women have serious drug and/or alcohol problems and lose control in a fit of intoxication.
Mental disorder is a major factor in the killing of children. In Fatal Families (1997), Charles Ewing notes that psychotic infanticide and filicide perpetrators are most likely to be suffering from postpartum psychosis, while parents who batter their children to death are more likely to suffer from nonpsychotic mental illnesses, such as personality disorders, impulse control disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and/or substance abuse disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1994) explains that postpartum psychotic episodes are characterized by command hallucinations to kill the infant or delusions that the infant is possessed. Other researchers report that mothers who kill their newborn are often suffering from dissociative disorders at the time of the birth because they feel overwhelmed by the pregnancy and perceived lack of support, necessitating their handling the traumatic experience on their own. However, when mothers kill older children, it is the children who have mental aberrations or psychiatric conditions rather than the mother, who in fear of her life or the lives of other family members, feels she has to end the life of her child.
According to Levine and colleagues, not only are males predominantly the perpetrators, but the presence of a male in the household increases the risk of maltreatment-related fatalities, especially from physical abuse. Fathers kill infants when they cry excessively and the father has little tolerance for such disruption due to the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because he is suffering from antisocial personality disorder. Some fathers kill their son when he is old enough to challenge the father's authority and they physically fight. Occasionally, fathers have killed their daughters following rape or sexual exploitation, when they threatened to reveal the abuse.
The rate of child murder is greatly elevated in stepfamilies. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that whereas young children incurred about seven times higher rates of physical abuse in families with a stepparent than in two-genetic-parent homes, stepchildren were 100 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse. In a sample of men who slew their preschool-age children, 82 percent of the victims of stepfathers were beaten to death, while the majority of children slain by genetic fathers were killed by less violent means

harz

10-14-2006, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I don't recall reading anything about the Ramsey's having extra batteries in the house. Like you, we have a place for spare batteries but my general impression is the Ramsey house was fairly disorganized. In one of the interviews John talks about how they were always late taking off with the plane.

I will try my luck searching information about batteries. I had been thinking about this statement made by JR's;
"I don't even know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't work because we needed new batteries."
I wonder how would he know that? When last time he used that flashlight that might be in drawer since 2 years? Did he checked that flashlight on that 26th day to see if it worked, but BPD said no fingerprints were on it. Also he said they need new batteries, does it mean he didn't have spares? I wish BPD had report details about batteries and interviewed him about it in few days, not 2 years later. JMO

Ames

10-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

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

http://www.deathreference.com/Ce-Da/Children-Murder-of.html

Familial Homicides
The psychiatrist P. T. D'Orban classifies the factors that play a role in filicides (the killing of a son or daughter) into three categories: family stress, including a family history of mental illness and crime, parental discord, parental maltreatment, and separation from one or both parents before age fifteen; social stress, involving financial and housing problems, marital discord, a criminal record, and living alone; and psychiatric stress, comprising a history of psychiatric symptoms, a psychiatric diagnosis, and a suicide attempt after the offense.
A history of child abuse or neglect is the most notable risk factor for the future death (i.e., murder of a child). Scholars note that the best predictor of future violence is a past history of violence. Most child abuse killings fall into the category of battering deaths, resulting from misguided, but brutal, efforts to discipline, punish, or quiet children. According to a study conducted by Murray Levine and associates, 75 percent of maltreatment-related fatalities occur in children under age four. Very young children are at the greatest risk because they are more physically vulnerable and less likely to be identified as at-risk due to their lack of contact with outside agencies. Shaken baby syndrome, in which the child is shaken so violently that brain damage can occur, takes the lives of many young children.
There are numerous risk factors for child murder. The criminal justice expert Neil Websdale has identified several situational antecedents such as a history of child abuse and/or neglect, a history of domestic violence, poverty, inequality, unemployment, criminal history, the use of drugs and/or alcohol, and the availability of weapons. Male and nonwhite children are more likely to be victims of child murder than female and white children.
According to the American psychiatrist and expert on child murder, Phillip Resnick, typical neonaticidal mothers (mothers who kill their children the first day of birth) are young, unmarried, are not suffering from psychotic illness, and do not have a history of depression. They characteristically conceal their pregnancy, often denying that they are pregnant. Other researchers have concluded that most deaths are the result of unwanted pregnancies, and that many mothers are overwhelmed by the responsibilities and have little or no support system. A number of women have serious drug and/or alcohol problems and lose control in a fit of intoxication.
Mental disorder is a major factor in the killing of children. In Fatal Families (1997), Charles Ewing notes that psychotic infanticide and filicide perpetrators are most likely to be suffering from postpartum psychosis, while parents who batter their children to death are more likely to suffer from nonpsychotic mental illnesses, such as personality disorders, impulse control disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and/or substance abuse disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1994) explains that postpartum psychotic episodes are characterized by command hallucinations to kill the infant or delusions that the infant is possessed. Other researchers report that mothers who kill their newborn are often suffering from dissociative disorders at the time of the birth because they feel overwhelmed by the pregnancy and perceived lack of support, necessitating their handling the traumatic experience on their own. However, when mothers kill older children, it is the children who have mental aberrations or psychiatric conditions rather than the mother, who in fear of her life or the lives of other family members, feels she has to end the life of her child.
According to Levine and colleagues, not only are males predominantly the perpetrators, but the presence of a male in the household increases the risk of maltreatment-related fatalities, especially from physical abuse. Fathers kill infants when they cry excessively and the father has little tolerance for such disruption due to the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because he is suffering from antisocial personality disorder. Some fathers kill their son when he is old enough to challenge the father's authority and they physically fight. Occasionally, fathers have killed their daughters following rape or sexual exploitation, when they threatened to reveal the abuse.
The rate of child murder is greatly elevated in stepfamilies. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that whereas young children incurred about seven times higher rates of physical abuse in families with a stepparent than in two-genetic-parent homes, stepchildren were 100 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse. In a sample of men who slew their preschool-age children, 82 percent of the victims of stepfathers were beaten to death, while the majority of children slain by genetic fathers were killed by less violent means

And I will say this YET again...I think that it was something that happened out of rage. One of the Ramsey's snapped...I do not think that they intentionally set out to kill their child. IMO

LadyFisher

10-14-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by harz

I will try my luck searching information about batteries. I had been thinking about this statement made by JR's;
"I don't even know it worked. Typically our flashlights didn't work because we needed new batteries."
I wonder how would he know that? When last time he used that flashlight that might be in drawer since 2 years? Did he checked that flashlight on that 26th day to see if it worked, but BPD said no fingerprints were on it. Also he said they need new batteries, does it mean he didn't have spares? I wish BPD had report details about batteries and interviewed him about it in few days, not 2 years later. JMO Harz, I really don't understand what you're getting at here....we have flashlights, too...and on the rare occasions that we need one...my hubby makes the same comment John did...the batteries are probably dead.....so, what's the point you are trying to make, cause I don't get it? :seeya:

harz

10-14-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Harz, I really don't understand what you're getting at here....we have flashlights, too...and on the rare occasions that we need one...my hubby makes the same comment John did...the batteries are probably dead.....so, what's the point you are trying to make, cause I don't get it? :seeya:

If he or intruder knew the batteries were dead, then it would need to be replaced. A point I’m trying to say, he said “Typically our flashlights didn't work because we needed new batteries”, makes me wonder if he didn’t have any spare batteries since he said "they need new batteries". So if it was IDI, then intruder brought his batteries for JR’s flashlight? If intruder did not brought batteries for JR’s flashlight, remember Ramsey’s house was disorganized, how would an intruder found the spares? Seems strange to me that intruder would know where his flashlight was, and that it would need batteries if JR didn't have spares. JMO

thewhitewitch1

10-14-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by harz

If he or intruder knew the batteries were dead, then it would need to be replaced. A point I’m trying to say, he said “Typically our flashlights didn't work because we needed new batteries”, makes me wonder if he didn’t have any spare batteries since he said "they need new batteries". So if it was IDI, then intruder brought his batteries for JR’s flashlight? If intruder did not brought batteries for JR’s flashlight, remember Ramsey’s house was disorganized, how would an intruder found the spares? Seems strange to me that intruder would know where his flashlight was, and that it would need batteries if JR didn't have spares. JMO

Good point, Harz and good reason for the batteries to be wiped clean of fingerprints.

harz

10-14-2006, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Good point, Harz and good reason for the batteries to be wiped clean of fingerprints.

I wonder also if the flashlight had old batteries inside before they were replaced? Did BPD found old batteries in trash? If so, were fingerprints on old batteries also wiped off? Or the flashlight was empty of batteries before new batteries were put in? Im interesting to know what type & size of batteries that flashlight needs. IMO

MyrDawn

10-15-2006, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Athena

TWW: Alot of us question these same things as well and obviously if you believe you feel you've answered these questions as to possible reasons and we are dismissing them -- it's because we don't agree with them. Since we've already heard your thoughts maybe it is possible that someone else can offer an opinion as well. I don't think anyone is asking you to repeat yourself. You are coming across as if your answers are the correct nad only ones so therefore these questions shouldn't be asked. :shrug: jmo

Bingo! :beer:

The Ramsey's weren't stupid people.

Even if they were so stupid as to believe pineapple eaten shortly before she died wouldn't show up in her stomach during her autopsy, or so stupid they didn't realize there was a bowl of pineapple on the table, they could have said, "Well, she was sleeping when we got home and didn't eat anything, but there was a bowl of pineapple and maybe she woke up hungry and went downstairs and had some.

But, to adamately deny there was any pineapple AT ALL in the house would have been stupid, stupid, stupid, if they knew she'd eaten it and it had been found during her autopsy. Stupidity is not something I've ever heard being attributed to the Ramseys.

I just can't think of any reason for them to so vehmently denying there was even any pineapple in the house, once she learned what the autopy report said, if they knew she'd eaten it.

MOO

Athena

10-15-2006, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Good point, Harz and good reason for the batteries to be wiped clean of fingerprints.

You guys make me laugh at times. No reason for him to wipe down the batteries if it was their flashlight.

Re: batteries -- I know for a fact I have no spare batteries in the house right now that I am aware of and I have about 5 flashlights. Don't know if any of them work because haven't had a need to use them.

When we have had blackouts can't even find the damn flashlights nevermind batteries. I'm lucky to find matches so we can light any of the dozens of candles laying around and my husband and I both smoke. But who can find a lighter or match when needed??

Athena

10-15-2006, 09:48 AM

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Bingo! :beer:

The Ramsey's weren't stupid people.

Even if they were so stupid as to believe pineapple eaten shortly before she died wouldn't show up in her stomach during her autopsy, or so stupid they didn't realize there was a bowl of pineapple on the table, they could have said, "Well, she was sleeping when we got home and didn't eat anything, but there was a bowl of pineapple and maybe she woke up hungry and went downstairs and had some.

But, to adamately deny there was any pineapple AT ALL in the house would have been stupid, stupid, stupid, if they knew she'd eaten it and it had been found during her autopsy. Stupidity is not something I've ever heard being attributed to the Ramseys.

I just can't think of any reason for them to so vehmently denying there was even any pineapple in the house, once she learned what the autopy report said, if they knew she'd eaten it.

MOO

Why would it be "stupid" to deny knowledge of the pineapple? Couldn't it be characterized as prudent? They'd been caught in a contradition. They said JB was asleep before the got home and was carried to bed. Then the police mention the pineapple. Like most people, the Rs weren't foresnics buffs and hadn't considered the pineapple. They could have made up a different story - such as she got up in the night and ate pineapple, but then there would have been more questions - did you hear her get up? Why did you leave the pineapple out on the table? If you didn't leave it out, JB would have had to get it out hereself, why are JB's prints not on the bowl ?

All in all, it just easier not to remember serving pineapple in a bowl that belongs to you and happense to be full of pineapple, and happens to be sitting on the family table.

No, the Rs aren't stupid at all.

MyrDawn

10-15-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Athena

You guys make me laugh at times. No reason for him to wipe down the batteries if it was their flashlight.

Re: batteries -- I know for a fact I have no spare batteries in the house right now that I am aware of and I have about 5 flashlights. Don't know if any of them work because haven't had a need to use them.

When we have had blackouts can't even find the damn flashlights nevermind batteries. I'm lucky to find matches so we can light any of the dozens of candles laying around and my husband and I both smoke. But who can find a lighter or match when needed??

Exactly! Why would either Ramsey wipe their fingerprints off the flashlight and batteries? They'd know the police would expect to find them there, and it wouldn't cast any suspicion on them at all to have their own fingerprints on their own items in their own house. IMO, having all the fingerprints wiped off both the flashlight and batteries points to an intruder, not a Ramsey.

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 09:59 AM

error

I was trying to edit a typo in my prior post. For some reason my whole post was reproduced. Maybe I hit quote instead of edit.

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Exactly! Why would either Ramsey wipe their fingerprints off the flashlight and batteries? They'd know the police would expect to find them there, and it wouldn't cast any suspicion on them at all to have their own fingerprints on their own items in their own house. IMO, having all the fingerprints wiped off both the flashlight and batteries points to an intruder, not a Ramsey.

Yes, it does point to an intruder, which is a good reason for a Ramsey to do it.

I don't know that the falshlight was the weapon used to strike JB in the head - I don't really think so- but if it's wiped down (batteries included) then it's possible to deny ownership.

Athena

10-15-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes, it does point to an intruder, which is a good reason for a Ramsey to do it.

I don't know that the falshlight was the weapon used to strike JB in the head - I don't really think so- but if it's wiped down (batteries included) then it's possible to deny ownership.

I was always under the impression that the knife found belonged to Burke but just read in the interviews that the knife was never sourced to Burke and the flashlight was never definitely sourced to the Ramseys. Now I have to go find a link. Just read it either in Thomas' or Becker's depos. The BPD were also looking for either brown work or gardener gloves (cotton fibers) to link to the brown fibers they found and never sourced those either.

Athena

10-15-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
error

I was trying to edit a typo in my prior post. For some reason my whole post was reproduced. Maybe I hit quote instead of edit.

OOOOh Wally - will have to report you for not following rules!!! :lol:

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Athena

I was always under the impression that the knife found belonged to Burke but just read in the interviews that the knife was never sourced to Burke and the flashlight was never definitely sourced to the Ramseys. Now I have to go find a link. Just read it either in Thomas' or Becker's depos. The BPD were also looking for either brown work or gardener gloves (cotton fibers) to link to the brown fibers they found and never sourced those either.

One of the advantages of wiping it down is that it can't be "sourced". One black mag lite looks just like any other black maglite.

MyrDawn

10-15-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes, it does point to an intruder, which is a good reason for a Ramsey to do it.

I don't know that the falshlight was the weapon used to strike JB in the head - I don't really think so- but if it's wiped down (batteries included) then it's possible to deny ownership.

A good reason for a Ramsey to do it? They thought to do something as insiginificant as wipe down the flashlight and batteries, yet they "forgot" to leave a door unlocked, or get rid of the pineapple...or say it had been in their fridge, or have Patsy change clothes if she'd had them all night while murdering JonBenet, or do any of the more obvious things that would point towards their innocence and/or towards an intruder? :rolleyes:

MOO

Athena

10-15-2006, 10:15 AM

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

A good reason for a Ramsey to do it? They thought to do something as insiginificant as wipe down the flashlight and batteries, yet they "forgot" to leave a door unlocked, or get rid of the pineapple...or say it had been in their fridge, or have Patsy change clothes if she'd had them all night while murdering JonBenet, or do any of the more obvious things that would point towards their innocence and/or towards an intruder? :rolleyes:

MOO

First, no one can think of every detail, and the Rs weren't professional criminals.

Second, if the flashlight was the blunt instrument used to hit JB, they'd naturally have been thinking of wiping it down (assuming an RDI theory of course) whereas they wouldn't necessarily have been thinking of pineapple.

Thrid, I'm not saying the Rs did wipe it down, just pointing out that the fact it was wiped down doesn't automatically mean IDI, as your prior post seemed to suggest. Like everything in this case, it could go either way. If they hit their daughter with the flashlight, why wouldn't they wipe it down. And as you say yourself, they aren't stupid, so that's why they thought of the batterires as well.

Another thing to consider- If an intruder used the Rs flashlight, and wasn't wearing gloves, then he'd have wiped down the light, but not the batteries - assuming the batteries had been installed by the Rs, and were working.

And since were looking at improbabilities, why would an intruder bring a "roll" of cord, a roll of tape no paper no pen, no flashlight, no stick? Or if he brought his own flashlight, why'd he forget it, but remembered to take the "missing" cord and missing tape roll?

harz

10-15-2006, 01:56 PM

Did Ramseys denied that flashlight was theirs at first? Then admit it belongs to John 2 years later in interview? Seems to me they want to use it to point at intruder as staging that intruder forgot his flashlight, which why the fingerprints were wiped off, JMO.

LadyFisher

10-15-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

First, no one can think of every detail, and the Rs weren't professional criminals.

Second, if the flashlight was the blunt instrument used to hit JB, they'd naturally have been thinking of wiping it down (assuming an RDI theory of course) whereas they wouldn't necessarily have been thinking of pineapple.

Thrid, I'm not saying the Rs did wipe it down, just pointing out that the fact it was wiped down doesn't automatically mean IDI, as your prior post seemed to suggest. Like everything in this case, it could go either way. If they hit their daughter with the flashlight, why wouldn't they wipe it down. And as you say yourself, they aren't stupid, so that's why they thought of the batterires as well.

Another thing to consider- If an intruder used the Rs flashlight, and wasn't wearing gloves, then he'd have wiped down the light, but not the batteries - assuming the batteries had been installed by the Rs, and were working.

And since were looking at improbabilities, why would an intruder bring a "roll" of cord, a roll of tape no paper no pen, no flashlight, no stick? Or if he brought his own flashlight, why'd he forget it, but remembered to take the "missing" cord and missing tape roll? aaaaaah, Wally, I hate to be the one to keep reminding you...:)....but, the intruder brought a stun gun, cord, & duct tape, wearing latex gloves...he intended to abduct her...remove her from the home, kill her, & dump the body....but he changed his mind after he got there...he couldn't help himself imho he had to write that note to John...he was on a nervous high...possibly due to drugs and just the excitement of being in the Ramseys home..he couldn't wait to get his revenge..he decided to torture and kill her in her own basement....he had to take the things he brought with him in his coat pocket, they might be traced back to him! :seeya:

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
aaaaaah, Wally, I hate to be the one to keep reminding you...:)....but, the intruder brought a stun gun, cord, & duct tape, wearing latex gloves...he intended to abduct her...remove her from the home, kill her, & dump the body....but he changed his mind after he got there...he couldn't help himself imho he had to write that note to John...he was on a nervous high...possibly due to drugs and just the excitement of being in the Ramseys home..he couldn't wait to get his revenge..he decided to torture and kill her in her own basement....he had to take the things he brought with him in his coat pocket, they might be traced back to him! :seeya:

I don't know if I have ever said this before but why don't we drop the stun gun from the story. There is no absolute proof that one was ever used. To say that there was is pure speculation.

Revenge for what? Did he go on to live a normal life after murdering a helpless child? How can you know he was on drugs?
Why did he "just have to write that note?" When did he give JB pineapple? In what way was she tortured? Why did he change his mind and take the risk of killing her there? Why didn't he bring his own stick for the "garrote?" Do you think he went back upstairs and grabbed a pair of underwear that was too big for her and put them on her? Why? Why bother redressing her at all? Did he fold her in the blanket like a "papoose" because he hated John so much? Why and how did he move the boxes and chair back in front of the train room door when he exited from there (we will use the scuff mark on the wall and the suitcase to prove that he must have exited that way). Why did he place a Barbie nightgown next to her? I believe it was caught to the blanket by static cling....so did he get the blanket out of the dryer and how did he know that it was in there and where the dryer was located and why would he chance doing that when he may have awakened someone?
Why would he waste the time trying to find paper and a pen to write a note just because he felt he "had to" but for no other reason? Why leave it behind when it could have been traced to him? Why take the time to write it and chance being caught?

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 02:52 PM

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't know if I have ever said this before but why don't we drop the stun gun from the story. There is no absolute proof that one was ever used. To say that there was is pure speculation.

<snip>

I have a better suggestion. If you see something you don't agree with why don't you just skip over it and go on to something else?

Last account I had Freshwater is still the moderator of this board.

JMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't know if I have ever said this before but why don't we drop the stun gun from the story. There is no absolute proof that one was ever used. To say that there was is pure speculation.

Revenge for what? Did he go on to live a normal life after murdering a helpless child? How can you know he was on drugs?
Why did he "just have to write that note?" When did he give JB pineapple? In what way was she tortured? Why did he change his mind and take the risk of killing her there? Why didn't he bring his own stick for the "garrote?" Do you think he went back upstairs and grabbed a pair of underwear that was too big for her and put them on her? Why? Why bother redressing her at all? Did he fold her in the blanket like a "papoose" because he hated John so much? Why and how did he move the boxes and chair back in front of the train room door when he exited from there (we will use the scuff mark on the wall and the suitcase to prove that he must have exited that way). Why did he place a Barbie nightgown next to her? I believe it was caught to the blanket by static cling....so did he get the blanket out of the dryer and how did he know that it was in there and where the dryer was located and why would he chance doing that when he may have awakened someone?
Why would he waste the time trying to find paper and a pen to write a note just because he felt he "had to" but for no other reason? Why leave it behind when it could have been traced to him? Why take the time to write it and chance being caught?

WOW...great post! You ask some pretty tough questions for the IDI folks.

One of the MAIN reasons that I never suspected that an IDI, is because she had been reclothed (every time I use the word, redressed...an IDI person says "There is NO evidence indicating that she had been redressed..she was wearing the same shirt that she wore to the White's party"....and thats not what I meant.) Why would an intruder violate her with a paintbrush, and then take the time to pull up her panties and long johns? Have you ever tried putting long johns on a child? Its not easy...especially when they are asleep...because they are so tight. So, imagine how hard it would be if a person were dead or unconscious. Not an easy task...and WHY would an intruder do that anyway?... Why not just leave her naked from the waist down, and get the crap outta there? I have never ever heard of a rapist, or sexual perv. that has killed his victim after molesting or raping them, and then PUT HER CLOTHES BACK ON. Like he was trying to protect her "modesty". (Thats another reason I suspect the parents..now THEY WOULD try to protect her modesty....even in death.) IMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

<snipped>
To me this just shows how many inconsistancies one has to swallow in order to believe IDI theory.

Exactly! The IDI theory does not make any sense...IMO

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I have a better suggestion. If you see something you don't agree with why don't you just skip over it and go on to something else?

Last account I had Freshwater is still the moderator of this board.

JMO

Ok...then how about we all speculate things and argue them as facts. I don't agree with a lot of things...so you are telling me that I can't post my opinion?

Last account I had Freshwater is still the moderator of this board.
:punch:

sweetcharlotte

10-15-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Ok...then how about we all speculate things and argue them as facts. I don't agree with a lot of things...so you are telling me that I can't post my opinion?

Last account I had Freshwater is still the moderator of this board.
:punch:

No, I'm suggesting you post what you want to post and let others do the same and if they want to talk about stun guns till the cows come home that is their right as long as the provide links or post something to the effect of MO.

:punch: yourself

LadyFisher

10-15-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

No, I'm suggesting you post what you want to post and let others do the same and if they want to talk about stun guns till the cows come home that is their right as long as the provide links or post something to the effect of MO.

:punch: yourself Thank you, sweet, you are a dear heart! I'm sorry if my THEORY gets the RDIs all stirred up....but imho there is no other explanation for those marks...imo it is a STUN GUN..and yes, I will keep posting it...STUN GUN STUN GUN STUN GUN! :) whew, there! My theory beats trying to lay a sadistic murder on a nine y/o child imho! I wish the moderator would curb some of the cursing that's done on here, too! :seeya: Have a great night everyone....maybe folks will cool down a little bit!

WallyCleaver

10-15-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, sweet, you are a dear heart! I'm sorry if my THEORY gets the RDIs all stirred up....but imho there is no other explanation for those marks...imo it is a STUN GUN..and yes, I will keep posting it...STUN GUN STUN GUN STUN GUN! :) whew, there! My theory beats trying to lay a sadistic murder on a nine y/o child imho! I wish the moderator would curb some of the cursing that's done on here, too! :seeya: Have a great night everyone....maybe folks will cool down a little bit!

You can say stun gun all you like. You should also understand that it's only conjecture. There isn't any hard proof of stun gun being used. What is the phrase IDIs are so fond of - Consistant with doesn't mean equal to? :seeya:

harz

10-15-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, sweet, you are a dear heart! I'm sorry if my THEORY gets the RDIs all stirred up....but imho there is no other explanation for those marks...imo it is a STUN GUN..and yes, I will keep posting it...STUN GUN STUN GUN STUN GUN! :) whew, there! My theory beats trying to lay a sadistic murder on a nine y/o child imho! I wish the moderator would curb some of the cursing that's done on here, too! :seeya: Have a great night everyone....maybe folks will cool down a little bit!

I can't speak for other RDI, but I don't have problem about stun gun. The more I see the details about the stun gun, then the more it focus on JR. Remember he had a video tape in Spainish about the stun gun in his office. He got rid of the stun gun between 10:40 to noon, during his mail errands. BPD sure did screw up big time, they would have found stun gun if they secured the scene the moment they arrived. JMO

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 08:30 PM

Well, sure you can theorize stun guns til the cows come home all you like.
If you are actually trying to solve a murder, though, you have to base your theory on facts....not, as Wally said, "conjecture". Not only that, but it isn't going to get solved if you omit pieces of the evidence to fit your theory.
I know we are just a bunch of people playing slueth but I really want to put this puzzle together and make the pieces fit.
Also, I don't see any "cursing". :confused:
I'm not in need of cooling down at all. I don't get mad at folks on the internet and in fact, I enjoy the bantering with Sweetcharlotte. She and I seem to share the same sense of sarcasm. :D

Louisadelmar

10-15-2006, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by harz

I can't speak for other RDI, but I don't have problem about stun gun. The more I see the details about the stun gun, then the more it focus on JR. Remember he had a video tape in Spainish about the stun gun in his office. He got rid of the stun gun between 10:40 to noon, during his mail errands. BPD sure did screw up big time, they would have found stun gun if they secured the scene the moment they arrived. JMO

What mail errand? He says he never left the house and one would think if he had someone would have noticed .

Athena

10-15-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Ames

And I will say this YET again...I think that it was something that happened out of rage. One of the Ramsey's snapped...I do not think that they intentionally set out to kill their child. IMO

You are entitled to your opinion but was just wondering what the article you posted had to do with your response which directly contradicts what you say. From your article above:

A history of child abuse or neglect is the most notable risk factor for the future death (i.e., murder of a child). Scholars note that the best predictor of future violence is a past history of violence.

MissOtisRegrets

10-15-2006, 09:33 PM

I can't imagine a parent out of nowhere garrotting their six year old daughter on Christmas. Surely there would have been signs of internet sites visited or something showing an interest in this kind of thing. I know they researched this.

harz

10-15-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

What mail errand? He says he never left the house and one would think if he had someone would have noticed .

Check out the timeline
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/dec96.html

There's more links, I forgot which they were under but they were interviews or transcripts. Yes he did left the house, his street had storm drain, where things can be stashed into sewers. I will try find the link again about storm drain, or maybe Boulder has website about their sewer systems with storm drains. JMO

Louisadelmar

10-15-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by harz

Check out the timeline
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/dec96.html

There's more links, I forgot which they were under but they were interviews or transcripts. Yes he did left the house, his street had storm drain, where things can be stashed into sewers. I will try find the link again about storm drain, or maybe Boulder has website about their sewer systems with storm drains. JMO

I think the story about him leaving stemmed from speculation by Arndt but was subsequently discounted.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html
10:30 am - 12:00 pm Noon Det. Arndt wrote in her report that "between 10:30 and noon, John Ramsey left the house to pick up the family mail."* This has been interpreted to mean he left the house for an extended period of time, but it has since been reported that he didn't leave the house.

* It is likely that it was actually after 10:30 am, (when Arndt was the only police presence in the house) that John Ramsey went downstairs to the basement alone. Lawrence Schiller wrote that it occured at an earlier time

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 09:55 PM

Re: broken window

Page 295 (Referencing John and Patsy Interviews by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo in April 1997):

"John Ramsey said that he had gone down to the basement at around 10:00am that morning. It was the first the police had heard about this. None of Det. Arndt's reports indicated that Ramsey had visited the basement before the body was found. Ramsey now told the detectives for the first time about his finding the broken window open, which had surprised him. Taken aback by the revelation of Ramsey's visit to the basement, Thomas asked him why he didn't report what he found to Det. Arndt since someone could have entered through the window. Ramsey said he didn't know why. He just didn't know, he said a second time. When asked if he also went into the boiler room and checked the wine cellar. He didn't go into that area of the basement, he said."

Now this:

2000 March 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
NBC News Today Show
Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey

COURIC: Detective Linda Arndt was assigned to the Ramsey home during those long hours. Sometime that morning, John Ramsey headed for the basement. Why did you go there?

Mr. RAMSEY: We had a basement window that was under a--a grate, a removable grate that I had used the past summer to get into the house when I'd lost my keys. I--I wanted to check that window. I went down to that room. The window was open. It was broken. I went back upstairs and reported that to Detective Arndt.

COURIC: You did tell her about the...

Mr. RAMSEY: Yes.

COURIC: ...open window?

Mr. RAMSEY: I did.

COURIC: And what did she say?

Mr. RAMSEY: I don't recall that she said anything.

Then this:

1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of John Ramsey by Lou Smit and Michael Kane in Colorado

NE Book Page 302

John Ramsey: "(She said) When this person calls you've got to insist that you talk to JonBenet and stall for time. And I said why..? (She said) to tell him it's a hard job to raise this much money and use the time. But you must talk to JonBenet...."

Lou Smit: "...Did you ever go down to the basement?"

John Ramsey: "Uh huh. I went....I was by myself. There's three windows across here...the middle one...was broken. There was pane glass broken out of it, which I attributed to breaking myself... it was open (an inch or so) and there was a suitcase under it...this hard Samonsite suitcase...and I closed the window. I don't know why, but I closed it... I latched it... I don't think I looked anywhere else."

Lou Smit: "...Did you tell anybody about that?"

John Ramsey: "I don't really remember... I mean part of what is going on, you're in such a state of disbelief this can happen. And the, you know, the window had been broken out. And you say, hah, that's it. But it was a window that I had used to get into the house before. It was cracked and open a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me. Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in because that basement could get real hot in winter...it was still sort of explainable to me that it could have been left open.....The suitcase was unusual. That shouldn't have been there. I took that suitcase downstairs, I remember. But I sure wouldn't have taken it all the way back there and put it against the window. I'm 99.9 percent (sure) that I wouldn't have taken it all the way back and set it against that wall."

harz

10-15-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I think the story about him leaving stemmed from speculation by Arndt but was subsequently discounted.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html
10:30 am - 12:00 pm Noon Det. Arndt wrote in her report that "between 10:30 and noon, John Ramsey left the house to pick up the family mail."* This has been interpreted to mean he left the house for an extended period of time, but it has since been reported that he didn't leave the house.

* It is likely that it was actually after 10:30 am, (when Arndt was the only police presence in the house) that John Ramsey went downstairs to the basement alone. Lawrence Schiller wrote that it occured at an earlier time

I remember reading other sources that Det. Arndt did noticed him getting mail, not sure before or after. I tried search her report at realsundancekid site
http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/depositions.htm
but her depositions no longer in service. Also I learned about storm drain from this
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm
I did some researching about Boulder system. I would like to visit Boulder sometime to take a good look at storm drains on same street where Ramsey lived since google and websites of Boulder are imperceptives to my requests. I wonder if anyone got dirty by entering man-hole to search for evidences through the sewers? I would. IMO

Louisadelmar

10-15-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
[B]Re: broken window

Page 295 (Referencing John and Patsy Interviews by Steve Thomas and Tom Trujillo in April 1997):

"John Ramsey said that he had gone down to the basement at around 10:00am that morning. It was the first the police had heard about this. None of Det. Arndt's reports indicated that Ramsey had visited the basement before the body was found. Ramsey now told the detectives for the first time about his finding the broken window open, which had surprised him. Taken aback by the revelation of Ramsey's visit to the basement, Thomas asked him why he didn't report what he found to Det. Arndt since someone could have entered through the window. Ramsey said he didn't know why. He just didn't know, he said a second time. When asked if he also went into the boiler room and checked the wine cellar. He didn't go into that area of the basement, he said."

I may have just missed it but I couldn't find that question in the interview nor a reference to the boiler room. (Assuming they used the word boiler) Also - since they had already interviewed Fleet White they should have heard from him that John said he'd been down earlier. Wonder if they asked Fleet why he didn't mention the window to Arndt?

thewhitewitch1

10-15-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

I may have just missed it but I couldn't find that question in the interview nor a reference to the boiler room. (Assuming they used the word boiler) Also - since they had already interviewed Fleet White they should have heard from him that John said he'd been down earlier. Wonder if they asked Fleet why he didn't mention the window to Arndt?

Who went down first? White or Ramsey? If Ramsey, then he had said that he closed and latched the window. If White, then perhaps Ramsey lied that it had ever been open. Did White notice the suitcase under the window? Ramsey said he did not even know White went in the basement alone.
Boiler room? The open window was in the train room. Did White even GO in the train room, since the door was blocked by a chair and boxes?

Louisadelmar

10-15-2006, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by harz

I remember reading other sources that Det. Arndt did noticed him getting mail, not sure before or after. I tried search her report at realsundancekid site
http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/depositions.htm
but her depositions no longer in service. Also I learned about storm drain from this
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm
I did some researching about Boulder system. I would like to visit Boulder sometime to take a good look at storm drains on same street where Ramsey lived since google and websites of Boulder are imperceptives to my requests. I wonder if anyone got dirty by entering man-hole to search for evidences through the sewers? I would. IMO

Here is her depo. The mail conversation is a bit more than this but this quote pretty much covers it.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5650

25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a
Page 117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of
4 time; is that correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It's not correct?
7 A. That is not correct.
8 Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said
9 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up
10 the mail.
11 A. No.
12 Q. What did you say?
13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather
14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in
15 the media are not the same. I said something during
16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.

harz

10-15-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

Here is her depo. The mail conversation is a bit more than this but this quote pretty much covers it.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5650

25 Q. And you had lost track of John Ramsey for a
Page 117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 period between 10:40 and twelve o'clock?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You didn't see him during that period of
4 time; is that correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It's not correct?
7 A. That is not correct.
8 Q. Didn't you report - all right. You said
9 sometime between 10:40 and 12:00 he went out to pick up
10 the mail.
11 A. No.
12 Q. What did you say?
13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather
14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in
15 the media are not the same. I said something during
16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.

Thanks for update, it seems the information I got was old or outdated. So JR was in basement during that time. I read a poster about what could happened to the evidences which Patsy could had them in her purse or shopping bags when they left the house on that afternoon. JMO

Ames

10-15-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Athena

You are entitled to your opinion but was just wondering what the article you posted had to do with your response which directly contradicts what you say. From your article above:

A history of child abuse or neglect is the most notable risk factor for the future death (i.e., murder of a child). Scholars note that the best predictor of future violence is a past history of violence.

Hi, I didn't post the paragraph starting with "A History of child abuse or neglect....etc", someone else did...I was just responding to it.

harz

10-16-2006, 01:48 AM

Interesting reading about discussion on stun gun.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43444

MyrDawn

10-16-2006, 01:13 PM

MissOtisRegrets

10-16-2006, 01:25 PM

Is there a better explanation for those marks?

PMPT pg. 431:

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun."

MyrDawn

10-16-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Who went down first? White or Ramsey? If Ramsey, then he had said that he closed and latched the window. If White, then perhaps Ramsey lied that it had ever been open. Did White notice the suitcase under the window? Ramsey said he did not even know White went in the basement alone.
Boiler room? The open window was in the train room. Did White even GO in the train room, since the door was blocked by a chair and boxes?

Just how familiar are you with the case, anyway?

White himself said he'd gone into the room with the broken window and suitcase, and moved the suitcase and picked up a piece of glass and put it on the suitcase.

He HAD to have gone in the train room door, and walked completely throught the train room, to get into that room with the broken window and suitcase. That is the ONLY way to get into the room with the broken window and suitcase.

UNLESS White lied about going into the room with the broken window, moving the suitcase and picking up the piece of glass.

harz

10-16-2006, 01:51 PM

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Arndt noticed John HOLDING the mail and assumed he'd had to have gone outside to get it. What she didn't know was that the Ramsey's mail was delivered through a slot in their door. John had picked up the mail off the floor INSIDE the house.

One of many wrong assumptions Arndt made, IMO.

According to Arndt it was the media who made the assumption not her.

13 A. I believe I worded it in my report rather
14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in
15 the media are not the same. I said something during
16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.

Bardach got her information from who....?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html
[…]
One story, printed by Vanity Fair magazine, suggested that John Ramsey had left the house before the police had arrived. Ann Bardach, the journalist who wrote the story, described how John Ramsey had used the excuse of going out to get the mail. The story was false and was traced back to another leaked police report. Curiously, even after the story was proved to be untrue, the police did not make any attempts to correct the situation. Perhaps they were hoping that such stories would place additional pressure on the Ramseys.
[…]

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm
[…]
“The ransom note warned the couple not to contact the police but to await a phone call between 8 and 10 that morning. Arndt wrote in her report that "between 10:30 and noon, John Ramsey left the house to pick up the family mail," which she later saw him open and read
[…]

thewhitewitch1

10-16-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

Just how familiar are you with the case, anyway?

White himself said he'd gone into the room with the broken window and suitcase, and moved the suitcase and picked up a piece of glass and put it on the suitcase.

He HAD to have gone in the train room door, and walked completely throught the train room, to get into that room with the broken window and suitcase. That is the ONLY way to get into the room with the broken window and suitcase.

UNLESS White lied about going into the room with the broken window, moving the suitcase and picking up the piece of glass.

Hey, excuse me. I am very familiar with the case. I've read so much about it and so many contradicting stories that it's hard to get it straight. I just asked a question. Take a pill.
I do know that when Fleet and John went into the basement together, they looked for glass and one of them put a piece or two on the window ledge. Are you sure that isn't when Fleet put the piece on the suitcase? John was asked if he put the glass on the suitcase and he stated that he didn't remember but he could have. I know that when John went down there by himself the first time, he said that he didn't see any glass at all.
I'd like to know if Fleet saw the boxes and chairs in front of the train room door also and did he move them too to get into that room? I am sorry if I don't remember every little detail, but as I said, the stories are often conflicting.

MyrDawn

10-16-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Hey, excuse me. I am very familiar with the case. I've read so much about it and so many contradicting stories that it's hard to get it straight. I just asked a question. Take a pill.
I do know that when Fleet and John went into the basement together, they looked for glass and one of them put a piece or two on the window ledge. Are you sure that isn't when Fleet put the piece on the suitcase? John was asked if he put the glass on the suitcase and he stated that he didn't remember but he could have. I know that when John went down there by himself the first time, he said that he didn't see any glass at all.
I'd like to know if Fleet saw the boxes and chairs in front of the train room door also and did he move them too to get into that room? I am sorry if I don't remember every little detail, but as I said, the stories are often conflicting.

A pill? Ah, more insults, I see.

Fleet White admitted he'd gone down to the basement within a few minutes of when he arrived at the Ramseys house the morning of the 26th, and looked around, and moved the suitcase from where he first saw it, directly under the broken window, and picked up that little piece of glass and put it on the suitcase.

This has been discussed again and again on this board, because it was such a strange thing to do for him to head almost directly to the basement, move those things, and not tell anyone at the time.

Athena

10-16-2006, 04:52 PM

MyrDawn

10-16-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Athena

And FW went down there within 15 minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home. Never offered an explanation either. jmo

Yep, yet some RDI's conveniently forget that strange fact. :rolleyes:

MOO

sweetcharlotte

10-16-2006, 04:58 PM

WallyCleaver

10-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Athena

And FW went down there within 15 minutes of arriving at the Ramsey home. Never offered an explanation either. jmo

That's a fair point, but it doesn't excuse JR for not telling the police standing on the first floor of his home that he'd discovered a window open - and that he'd closed it. It seems he forgot by the time he'd reached the top of the stairs. Somehow, it came back to him in April '97.

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

That's a fair point, but it doesn't excuse JR for not telling the police standing on the first floor of his home that he'd discovered a window open - and that he'd closed it. It seems he forgot by the time he'd reached the top of the stairs. Somehow, it came back to him in April '97.

It appears neither was functioning very well. Fleet fails to mention the broken window and John fails to mention the open window. Until we know for sure that one or the other or both are involved I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the whys and wherefores of this failure.

WallyCleaver

10-16-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

It appears neither was functioning very well. Fleet fails to mention the broken window and John fails to mention the open window. Until we know for sure that one or the other or both are involved I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the whys and wherefores of this failure.

I think we can fairly draw the conclusion that a man who just (supposedly) had his daughter kidnapped failed to inform the police (present at the time in his home) of an important fact. That's at least a little suspicious.

sweetcharlotte

10-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

I think we can fairly draw the conclusion that a man who just (supposedly) had his daughter kidnapped failed to inform the police (present at the time in his home) of an important fact. That's at least a little suspicious.

I think the same could be said for his "friend."

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 05:56 PM

harz

10-16-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

But by the same token it could be viewed as suspicious that the friend who was supposedly looking for clues failed to mention finding a broken window leading into the basement.

JR told Fleet he broken it himself, Fleet was assuming intruder, but while Fleet was probably trying to figure out if intruder went through that window, JR went straight to wine cellar. I read that in one of transcripts, sorry no link, will try find it. Fleet could have told the police but JR told him he broke it.

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by harz

JR told Fleet he broken it himself, Fleet was assuming intruder, but while Fleet was probably trying to figure out if intruder went through that window, JR went straight to wine cellar. I read that in one of transcripts, sorry no link, will try find it. Fleet could have told the police but JR told him he broke it.

He told him that when they went down together on the same trip they found her body. Fleet went down alone shortly after arriving at the house that morning and saw the window, found the glass, and moved the suitcase. And apparently told no one.

Also - John didn't go straight to the wine cellar when he and Fleet went downstairs together. The two of them went to the train room and had the discussion about John breaking the window in the summer etc. They they both headed to the wine cellar area.

WallyCleaver

10-16-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I think the same could be said for his "friend."

Yes it can. But in the end, it isn't up to WF to do everything possible to find JB's abductor (remember it's a kidnapping at this stage) it's up to the father.

sweetcharlotte

10-16-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Yes it can. But in the end, it isn't up to WF to do everything possible to find JB's abductor (remember it's a kidnapping at this stage) it's up to the father.

Actually, Wally, it should have been up to the police but looks like no one met expectations that morning. JMO

Athena

10-16-2006, 07:17 PM

harz

10-16-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

He told him that when they went down together on the same trip they found her body. Fleet went down alone shortly after arriving at the house that morning and saw the window, found the glass, and moved the suitcase. And apparently told no one.

Also - John didn't go straight to the wine cellar when he and Fleet went downstairs together. The two of them went to the train room and had the discussion about John breaking the window in the summer etc. They they both headed to the wine cellar area.

How would you know if Fleet apparently told no one? He was there for 7 hours, I wish someone brought tape recorders to record all conversation going on inside the house. He might had ask JR after first trip about that window, then discussed more about that window again after the second trip. I wonder what everyone's conversations were, every details at what did they said between 6am to 1pm, too many blanks of conversation details between that time or were they pretty much muted?

In some links, I read Fleet followed John which John took the lead around in basement then into wine cellar. I haven't read anything that they went into wine cellar together yet.
IMO

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by harz

How would you know if Fleet apparently told no one? He was there for 7 hours, I wish someone brought tape recorders to record all conversation going on inside the house. He might had ask JR after first trip about that window, then discussed more about that window again after the second trip. I wonder what everyone's conversations were, every details at what did they said between 6am to 1pm, too many blanks of conversation details between that time or were they pretty much muted?

In some links, I read Fleet followed John which John took the lead around in basement then into wine cellar. I haven't read anything that they went into wine cellar together yet.
IMO When I'm looking for Fleet info I usually start with Thomas. I figure as Fleet's friend he probably got the most detailed descriptions. From 'the horse's mouth' as it were. In Thomas' book on p. 20 he talks about Fleet's early trip to the basement. On p 29 he talks about them finding the body. They check the train room, John tells Fleet about breaking the window. They head to the wine cellar from the train room together. John Ramsey was several steps ahead as they approach the white door. He finds the body and Fleet runs up the stairs ahead of John who was carrying JonBenet.

I have never read any mention anywhere that Fleet said he told anyone about finding a broken window. I would think Arndt would have either wanted to check a broken window herself or at a minimum have made sure someone from LE checked it. One would also think he would have mentioned it to Steve Thomas but I can't find anything to say he did. There is no mention of it in Byfield's warrant other than pieces of broken glass listed as having been removed from the house.

We would all love to have a transcript of the conversations that went on that morning.

Louisadelmar

10-16-2006, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Thank you Louisadelmar for posting accurate information. It gets so frustrating hearing some of the same misinformation posted repeatedly. :)

Why thank you, Athena. :-)

LadyFisher

10-17-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Is there a better explanation for those marks?

PMPT pg. 431:

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun." Thank you, MissO...I posted approx. the same thing quoted from DOI....it had to be a stun gun...nobody has given any other logical explanation for those marks....those aren't the marks of a snap or button imho STUN GUN! And I don't believe a family member would have had to use one.

nuisanceposter

10-17-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, MissO...I posted approx. the same thing quoted from DOI....it had to be a stun gun...nobody has given any other logical explanation for those marks....those aren't the marks of a snap or button imho STUN GUN! And I don't believe a family member would have had to use one.

And then there's WolfmarsGirl's theory. She presents her theory well and I think it's really worth considering...

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1167368#post1167368

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1178078&postcount=62

LadyFisher

10-17-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And then there's WolfmarsGirl's theory. She presents her theory well and I think it's really worth considering...

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1167368#post1167368

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1178078&postcount=62 Thanks for the links, Nuisance.....it's probably a better explanation than any I've read from a RDI...but I'm not buying it..because..along with wearing my make-up daily, I am also a jewelry hound and wears rings on a daily basis...I've never left marks consistent with those in the pics with JB, and I even take care of patients with my jewelry! Sorry! It was a good attempt though! :seeya:

nuisanceposter

10-17-2006, 12:29 PM

Right on. I just figured I'd link that in since we're pondering the cause of those weird marks on JonBenet.

I don't know what caused those marks. I think a stun gun is a good theory, but I've read a lot of experts who say those aren't the way stun gun marks would look, so I don't know and am not convinced that's what they're from. I have no idea what could have caused the marks, and it bothers me.

There's so many things about this case that leave you scratching your head. I doubt we'll ever have a definite answer as to who killed her and why, but I think we should keep talking about it and looking for answers. You never know what proof may arise, even years and years later.

bullmoose

10-17-2006, 02:46 PM

To nuisanceposter:I know we may not agree on everything, but I just want to tell you I totally agree with your last post. We all want justice for Jonbenet, I pray that it will happen someday, too.:seeya:

LadyFisher

10-17-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
To nuisanceposter:I know we may not agree on everything, but I just want to tell you I totally agree with your last post. We all want justice for Jonbenet, I pray that it will happen someday, too.:seeya: I agree, Bull, I, too, pray there will be justice for JB! :beer:

thewhitewitch1

10-17-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I agree, Bull, I, too, pray there will be justice for JB! :beer:

I think that is the one thing that we all can agree on.

Athena

10-17-2006, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I think that is the one thing that we all can agree on.

I'll join in on this agreement as well. Never want to miss an opportunity. :beer:

Athena

10-17-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Is there a better explanation for those marks?

PMPT pg. 431:

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun."

From the same page 431:

Ainsworth also met with Dr. Robert Deters a pathologist on the case of a 13 month old girl from Larimer County who had been murdered in 1988. Deters examined the photos of JBR and agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury but he did not think the body had to be exhumed. Deters believed that nothing more could be learned by examing the skin tissue.

Source: PMPT

harz

10-17-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Right on. I just figured I'd link that in since we're pondering the cause of those weird marks on JonBenet.

I don't know what caused those marks. I think a stun gun is a good theory, but I've read a lot of experts who say those aren't the way stun gun marks would look, so I don't know and am not convinced that's what they're from. I have no idea what could have caused the marks, and it bothers me.

There's so many things about this case that leave you scratching your head. I doubt we'll ever have a definite answer as to who killed her and why, but I think we should keep talking about it and looking for answers. You never know what proof may arise, even years and years later.

I wonder if many critical details on this case not yet reveal to public means there nothing to pursue any further that the gag order was to protect the Ramseys then there wasn’t an intruder at all. If there were more evidences that we don’t know about, then LE should have revealed everything to public in exchange for any leading information from public that would help in their investigations. I remember some other cases that police went on news announcing the public on the evidences or suspects in asking for help from public if anyone recognize them. Apparently, evidences I was looking for are still sealed from the public meaning the judge and Ramsey’s attorneys don’t want us to learn what they are. They only do that to protect the Ramseys; somehow I doubt they would do that to protect an intruder. JMO

Mimi428

10-17-2006, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Thank you Louisadelmar for posting accurate information. It gets so frustrating hearing some of the same misinformation posted repeatedly. :)

Tell me about it. Lin Wood discusses the pineapple BEING pineapple - yet we have at least a few here & there inevitably saying "how do we know it was pineapple?".

LOL

Ames

10-17-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Tell me about it. Lin Wood discusses the pineapple BEING pineapple - yet we have at least a few here & there inevitably saying "how do we know it was pineapple?".

LOL

Well, on another thread, some IDI folks are saying that the heart on the palm on JB hand, is REALLY a V (I guess, its supposed to be a "bubble" V, because it doesn't look like a V to me), and it was drawn by the "intruder"....LOL I would like a link that provides that information....(since they are so fast to ask the RDI folks for one). Alot of them are stating it as a fact...even though, NOBODY knows for sure where it came from, or what is supposed to be. Looks like a child drawn heart to me, though...that she could have drawn on herself at her friends house. IMO

Athena

10-17-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Tell me about it. Lin Wood discusses the pineapple BEING pineapple - yet we have at least a few here & there inevitably saying "how do we know it was pineapple?".

LOL

Whether pineapple or not I think too much is being made of it since it could have been eaten earlier in the day. Personally I'm finished with the pineapple. jmo

Athena

10-18-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, on another thread, some IDI folks are saying that the heart on the palm on JB hand, is REALLY a V (I guess, its supposed to be a "bubble" V, because it doesn't look like a V to me), and it was drawn by the "intruder"....LOL I would like a link that provides that information....(since they are so fast to ask the RDI folks for one). Alot of them are stating it as a fact...even though, NOBODY knows for sure where it came from, or what is supposed to be. Looks like a child drawn heart to me, though...that she could have drawn on herself at her friends house. IMO

What looks like a heart to you looks like a V to me. That has nothing to do with RDI v IDI. When I introduced that here it was because my son and daughter who have no "dog" in this fight, could care less and have fresh eyes stated it looked like a Letter V that would be written on a poster and caused me to look a bit closer. They had no idea what I was looking at. If it looks like a heart to you -- that's fine too as that is your opinion. I had never questioned it before nor did I look closely at it as originally I just accepted it was a heart. Taking a closer look, a heart is rounded at the top and does not dip like that -- even a child's drawing; and that is my opinion. The link was to the picture Ames.

MOO