Too much reasonable doubt

[elvislives]

First off, I apologize for starting a new thread. But I joined this board because I am on the fence in this case--one day I think the Ramseys did it, then I consider some other evidence and conclude that they could not have killed their daughter, then I consider the IDI theory and that seems preposterous, so I'm back to the Ramseys. I tried reading thru the archives to gain others' perspectives, but got a headache at all the infighting and bickering. Sooo, if anyone is willing (and yes I do realize that this has probably been all hashed out before), can you answer a few questions?

1. For the RDIs, presumably one parent was the killer and the other an accomplice after the fact. So, which parent do you think killed her?

2. If the parents went to all this trouble to stage this elaborate botched kidnapping, why did they not stage the most critical component--an obvious break in?

3. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, didn't John give it his stamp of approval? He seems to be an intelligent man, why would he allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left?

4. If one parent accidentally knocked her to the floor and she hit her head (or was bashed on the head with something in a fit of anger, etc, etc) and saw JB unconscious (remember no bleeding from that head wound), why wouldn't they just call 911? Instead they garrot, molest, and tie up their daughter to make it look like a kidnapping gone awry? Seems ridiculous when you think about it considering these are educated people.

I am sorry if these questions are redundant, but these are the inconsistencies with the RDI theory that are preventing me from taking that side. Usually I am very opinionated with criminal cases (e.g. OJ-guilty as sin; Karla Homolka should be locked up for life; Joseph E Duncan-please let me flip the switch) but NOTHING in this case makes sense!! I understand that there will always be unanswered questions in criminal cases, but the unanswered quesions in this case rise to the level of reasonable doubt imo. Can anyone sway me one way or he other? Thanks in advance for your perspective.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives

<snip>
1. For the RDIs, presumably one parent was the killer and the other an accomplice after the fact. So, which parent do you think killed her?

2. If the parents went to all this trouble to stage this elaborate botched kidnapping, why did they not stage the most critical component--an obvious break in?

3. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, didn't John give it his stamp of approval? He seems to be an intelligent man, why would he allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left?

4. If one parent accidentally knocked her to the floor and she hit her head (or was bashed on the head with something in a fit of anger, etc, etc) and saw JB unconscious (remember no bleeding from that head wound), why wouldn't they just call 911? Instead they garrot, molest, and tie up their daughter to make it look like a kidnapping gone awry? Seems ridiculous when you think about it considering these are educated people.

<snip>

Your questions are excellent and go to the heart of the mystery that permeates this case. I'll try to answer each as best I can.

1. There is no reason to assume that, if one parent killed her, the other would be an accomplice. In fact there is every reason to assume otherwise. An accident seems absurd to me, for the reasons you offer in question 4. As I see it, there is only one likely motive: incest, and the need to cover it up. Which tells us that John, not Patsy, is the most likely suspect.

2. A breakin WAS staged. How else can we explain the scene at the basement window? That window had been broken, glass and debris from the well were found on the basement floor, a suitcase was found beneath the window. Everything points to a staged breakin followed by an attempt to UNstage, prompted in all likelihood by police comments regarding the lack of footprints or any other sign of disturbance outside the house.

3. The note was written, as I see it, largely for Patsy's benefit, to discourage her from searching the house and calling the police. If you read it carefully you'll figure out the plan behind it, which involved dumping the body that night under pretext of delivering the ransom. I doubt very much that the writer planned on handing his incriminating note over to the police. He could easily have claimed the "kidnappers" insisted he return it. But Patsy called 911 despite the threats in the note, and his plan had to be scrapped.

4. Yes, the accident scenario is certainly ridiculous. John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note and Patsy hadn't. So the Keystone Kops, plus the Keystone media, took off after her just like in those hilarious old time movies. The experts were wrong. John is the most likely one to have written the note. Patsy couldn't have written it because if she had she most certainly would NOT have called 911 first thing in the morning -- and then handed them a patently phoney note printed in her own hand. How dumb is that?

[bullmoose]

Of course, if you are an IDI, none of the 4 points makes any sense; if you are an RDI, its as good as any other theory. At least it provides a motivation for what seems to be a one of a kind child murder- incest. But, being an IDI, I just do not buy it. There are too many very strange things here for it to make any sense to me; a while back we were discussing the 'heart' drawn on her hand---or is it a stylized V? for victory. If the Ramseys did it, why the heart, or V? Why the horrible strangulation, the cord was wound twice around her neck, the first turn was imbedded in her neck; if it was the Ramseys, why the horrific strangulation? Even the FBI doesn't have any other case like this. Why the incredible weird ransom note? It makes no sense, for instance John is from Michigan, so why the reference to his good southern sense? And if the Ramseys were, either or both capable of such a strange staged murder and were bright enough to completely and totally dispose of the flat cord in the garrote and the duct tape used on Jonbenet, so that they have never been found; then why oh why would they leave the pad and sharpie the weird ransom note was written on and with? I suppose that is why we come to this board, to try to make sense of it one way or the other. I'm still working on it.

[Athena]

docg:

I have a question for you re: #2.

You are saying that when the police searched the outside of the house prior to JR finding the body, they told everyone in the house or at least JR - that they "found no footprints in the snow" and no points of entry, etc.? I don't believe that information would have been shared at that time in order for him to unstage a "false" break-in prior to 10AM.

My thinking would be that JR would not have known what was written in the notes that morning so how could he have known to unstage a break-in designed by the broken window?

[shill]

Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

[docg]

Originally posted by bullmoose
<snip>If the Ramseys did it, why the heart, or V? Why the horrible strangulation, the cord was wound twice around her neck, the first turn was imbedded in her neck; if it was the Ramseys, why the horrific strangulation? Even the FBI doesn't have any other case like this. Why the incredible weird ransom note? It makes no sense, for instance John is from Michigan, so why the reference to his good southern sense? And if the Ramseys were, either or both capable of such a strange staged murder and were bright enough to completely and totally dispose of the flat cord in the garrote and the duct tape used on Jonbenet, so that they have never been found; then why oh why would they leave the pad and sharpie the weird ransom note was written on and with? I suppose that is why we come to this board, to try to make sense of it one way or the other. I'm still working on it.

As I see it, IDI makes as little sense as PDI. (Forget about RDI, that don't work either.) Just as there was no reason for Patsy to write that note and then call 911 there was also no reason for any intruder to write the note and not then take the child, dead or alive. Also, no footprints or ANY OTHER SIGN OF DISTURBANCE was found outside the house. And the ONLY way for an intruder to avoid the lawn and stick to the pavement was if he entered AND exited via the front door, which seems completely contrary to what any intruder would do. And don't forget those Xmas lights! Intruders tend to avoid the light. ALL the so-called intruder evidence can be easily explained, including the DNA fragments.

Why the heart? I have no idea. Maybe she drew it herself earlier, just out of boredom. Why the horrible garotte strangulation? Probably to cover the real strangulation, most likely manual. You can't think like the rube in the audience trying to figure out how the magician did his trick. You have to think like the magician himself. It was all about misdirection. If you take the bait, you are lost. The ransom note was very much to the point with very explicit directions, all consistent with my theory. The odd references were part of the misdirection, why take them seriously? The cord and tape were probably taken from some leftover Christmas packaging and all used up during the crime. Why make such a big deal over such a minor issue? It's easy to dispose of such items in any case -- but not so easy to dispose of a legal size writing pad! Where do you think John could have dumped that without taking a HUGE risk?

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena
docg:

I have a question for you re: #2.

You are saying that when the police searched the outside of the house prior to JR finding the body, they told everyone in the house or at least JR - that they "found no footprints in the snow" and no points of entry, etc.? I don't believe that information would have been shared at that time in order for him to unstage a "false" break-in prior to 10AM.

My thinking would be that JR would not have known what was written in the notes that morning so how could he have known to unstage a break-in designed by the broken window?

I see no reason the police woudn't have shared such info with John. They had no reason to suspect John or Patsy at that time, they were operating on the basis of a kidnapping note and working with the Ramseys to look for clues. It could certainly have become obvious to John that his window staging wasn't going to fly. And if not, then it would be strong evidence against him once the body was found.

If you want to argue that there was no insider staging, then please explain what the debris was doing on the floor under the window or why the suitcase was flush against the wall under it. If you look at the photos of the window well, you can see very clearly that no one could have actually gone through that window. The thick layer of dirt on the sill is pristine. If an intruder entered and left via a door, using a key, then what happened to the basement window, how did it get opened, and what was all that stuff doing under it?

[docg]

Originally posted by shill
Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa? :D

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.

[elvislives]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. It really bothers me that the brutal murderer of this little girl remains at large. The obvious suspects of course (as in every child murder case) are the parents. At first I was convinced that the Ramseys did it. BTW I was also convinced that Elizabeth Smart's parents were involved in her disappearance (originally the police said the screen was cut from the inside) and obviously they turned out to be totally innocent.
So back to the Ramseys, yes their behaviour was unconventional to say the least. But I'm not a big believer in behaviour as a science. Nor am I an advocate of handwriting analysis. After the arrest of John Mark Karr I heard numerous handwriting "experts" say with 95% certainty that JMK wrote the ransom note! There was even some "proof" from an old high school year book where he signed off SBTC (he didn't use those initials, but used a phrase with those initials that escapes me right now). Anyway I dont think it is good detective work to find a suspect, then try to fit the facts around said suspect.
That said, John Ramsey as the prime suspect with Patsy in the dark about everything, hmmm....I had always assumed that the RDi's are of the belief that Patsy was the killer. I find too many inconsistencies with that one as I mentioned above. As far as John Ramsey, I am still not convinced that he was the killer, not even close. For one, if he did write the ransom note for Patsy's benefit (and was able to disguise his handwriting enough to fool everyone) with the idea that the police would never see it, then why would he tell Patsy to call the police? When she asked what they should do, why didn't he say "Don't call the police or they might kill Jonbenet. I'll get the money and deliver it in an attache, you take Burke to the Whites for safety". Then he could dispose of the body, clean up the crime scene etc. This is a very intelligent man. If he was trying to kill his daughter, then why do such a sloppy job? He surely would know that he and Patsy would be thoroughly investigated. Also when did he develop the penchant for child molestation. He has two older daughters who he never molested (okay one of them is dead and I've heard several theories that he rigged her car to crash to shut her up too--too absurd as far as I'm concerned). Do people just wake up one day and decide they are sexually attracted to children? I have always assumed that this is a biological malfunction, not something that comes and goes, or develops when you're in your 50s. I know the police did a thorough forensics investigation on his computers and found no evidence of kiddy porn. Don't you think someone would at least look at some kinky website first before going after the real thing? I am still so baffled by this case. Nothing makes sense. I lean toward the intruder theory by default, but I still have some questions with that one. But at least you can presume that an intruder would have been psychotic...and I think if either Ramsey was involved with this twisted crime, they would have to have some history of psychosis, especially with that ludicrous ransom note. So again, I'm back to being totally on the fence. If anyone can help me off, I'd appreciate it.

[watson]

I'd just like to chime in with a couple of points. It's a logically impossible fact that BOTH parents could've done it, or been 'in' on it, because if they both were, then the police never would have been called first thing. If they were both involved they would have gotten rid of the body that morning as the ransom letter clearly intended, and gave them perfect cover, time and excuse to do. It's impossible they both cooperated in the murder and in writing the excuse for not calling police first thing that am, and then called the police on themselves, to be caught with the body still at the scene! IF a parent did it, only 1 of them could have, and the other is innocent.
Patsy can be automatically cleared of doing it, or being in on it, because as a FACT, she called the police, against ALL the ransom letters instructions (so she did not write those instructions), within minutes of finding the letter, and brought the police to the scene BEFORE the body was removed, ruining the killers plans of staging it as a kidnapping.
DocG's logic is inescapable.........if a parent did it, it couldn't be both, Patsy can be cleared by her ignoring the note and calling police, and John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives
<snip>As far as John Ramsey, I am still not convinced that he was the killer, not even close. For one, if he did write the ransom note for Patsy's benefit (and was able to disguise his handwriting enough to fool everyone) with the idea that the police would never see it, then why would he tell Patsy to call the police? When she asked what they should do, why didn't he say "Don't call the police or they might kill Jonbenet. I'll get the money and deliver it in an attache, you take Burke to the Whites for safety". Then he could dispose of the body, clean up the crime scene etc. This is a very intelligent man. If he was trying to kill his daughter, then why do such a sloppy job? <snip>

Another excellent question! According to Patsy's version of what happened, as immortalized in Tracey's first documentary, calling the police was HER idea, not his. And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.

John announced to the world that calling was HIS idea, on their CNN interview, just a few days after the crime. So what was Patsy supposed to do, publicly accuse him of lying? I'm convinced the call was her idea, not his. If he'd wanted the call made, he'd have made it himself. The rest of your scenario is right on. Good thinking. :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by docg


Another excellent question! According to Patsy's version of what happened, as immortalized in Tracey's first documentary, calling the police was HER idea, not his. And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.

John announced to the world that calling was HIS idea, on their CNN interview, just a few days after the crime. So what was Patsy supposed to do, publicly accuse him of lying? I'm convinced the call was her idea, not his. If he'd wanted the call made, he'd have made it himself. The rest of your scenario is right on. Good thinking. :beer:

With all due respect, Docg, in everything ever written, including the interviews with the LE and in all of the books, John is the one who said to call the police upon finding the note.
So are you saying that she was calling John a liar on the documentary? Hard to believe anything the Ramseys say when they can't keep the story straight.
Also, if you have read Cherokees analysis of the ransom note on FFJ (there is a link in here somewhere), I think it will make about as much sense as your analysis does, with Patsy being the writer of the note and both of them "being in on it."
Personally, I believe they both were involved in every aspect of the staging. How and why the head wound occured is still the big mystery. It is not such a mystery as to why they did not remove the body and opted to call the police. Please do read Cherokees theory on the ransom note. It makes perfect sense as he went over every single aspect of the ransom note and fit the pieces together very well. IMO
Removing the body from the home was far more risky than writing that note and staging the scene. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

I do agree that docg's theory is probably the most plausible out of any that I have read/heard. I have disagreed with docg on some issues but nevertheless have to admit it's the most persuasive argument and one of the reasons I'm not 100% IDI but still not totally convinced JDI.
JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa? :D

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.

Fleet White admitted to moving the suitcase and picking up glass and put it on the sill which means he could have also stirred the debris. Just a couple of months ago (and almost 10 years later) Thomas told Greta he thinks Fleet also opened the window.

I just cannot imagine that if JDI he would not have provided an entry/exit point. The note bothers me as well re: JDI. He literally framed himself if he wrote that note as it had the opposite effect of diverting it away from himself.

You do have a persuasive argument but you just haven't convinced me. JMO

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
I'd just like to chime in with a couple of points. It's a logically impossible fact that BOTH parents could've done it, or been 'in' on it, because if they both were, then the police never would have been called first thing. If they were both involved they would have gotten rid of the body that morning as the ransom letter clearly intended, and gave them perfect cover, time and excuse to do. It's impossible they both cooperated in the murder and in writing the excuse for not calling police first thing that am, and then called the police on themselves, to be caught with the body still at the scene! IF a parent did it, only 1 of them could have, and the other is innocent.
Patsy can be automatically cleared of doing it, or being in on it, because as a FACT, she called the police, against ALL the ransom letters instructions (so she did not write those instructions), within minutes of finding the letter, and brought the police to the scene BEFORE the body was removed, ruining the killers plans of staging it as a kidnapping.
DocG's logic is inescapable.........if a parent did it, it couldn't be both, Patsy can be cleared by her ignoring the note and calling police, and John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect.

Thank you, my dear Watson! :rose: By process of elimination, we arrive at John. And once we see how likely it is that he and he alone is the guilty party, then we must re-evaluate all the other evidence to see whether or not we have made some mistake, whether there is something, anything, that would make his involvement an impossibility. People have been tossing out all sorts of problems with John as suspect for many years now and I have, so far, been able to answer every single one. The toughest question is why Patsy would want to lie for him if she believes him to be innocent. Because if she WAS telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he could NOT have done it. The flaw here is the assumption that an innocent person wouldn't have any reason to lie. I think she was manipulated into lying. I think she was led to believe that the two of them had to function as a team and what made one of them look bad made both look bad. Her alternative would have been to confront John with his lies, leave him, get a lawyer of her own and . . .then what? All eyes were on HER as suspect. John had been ruled out as writer of the note, so what could she possibly have gained by accusing him? I don't think she had any choice but to tell a few "innocent" lies to bolster his version of what happened.

[aussiesheila]

Hi elvislives,

Since I am an IDI I did not reply to your post that started this thread, but I am reading through the replies looking for any RDI answers that are credible.

I want to take issue with three of the four points Docg makes in reply to your post

Docg suggests that as he sees it, incest is the only likely motive and that John therefore is the most likely suspect. I think while this might have been a reasonable belief to hold to in the early days, the fact is that the BPD thoroughly investigated John over a number of months, and found absolutely nothing, nothing in his family background, nothing on his computers, nothing in his work files or reading matter in the home to indicate that he might have ever indulged in any form of child molestation whatsoever. Knowing this, surely it is drawing a very long bow to still be deriving theories based on the assumption that he was

I think Docg is saying that John wrote the note. However, as you say, and I completely agree with you, that John seems to be an intelligent man and therefore most unlikely to allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left. I have made this point to RDIs in posts I made at Websleuths, but never got a satisfactory reply.

Docg goes on to say that Patsy couldn’t have written the note because she most certainly would NOT have called 911 and showed them a note written in her own hand. But this same logic could be applied to John. He was right there beside Patsy, He TOLD her to ring the police, and it was he, or him together with Patsy who handed them the note.

Docg’s reply was all I had time to read tonight. I will have more to say when I read the rest of the replies


So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives?

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena

<snip>
You do have a persuasive argument but you just haven't convinced me. JMO

Thanks, Athena. It's gratifying to know that you find my argument persuasive. And it's OK if you're not convinced, because this is anything but slam dunk. I myself am convinced, but have never claimed I can actually prove John's guilt.

What's important, as I see it, is that the authorities catch on to the possibility that I could be right, the possibility that John could have manipulated Patsy into telling some fibs and therefore distorting their picture of what did and did not happen. There is at this point no real case to be made against John Ramsey, despite the many reasons I've presented to suspect him. But there ARE compelling reasons for a renewed investigation of John.

First and foremost, the mystery surrounding the document on Brugnatelli's website must be investigated. Did John print this or not? If he did print it, then why wasn't it seen by the handwriting experts who ruled him out? And why are the exemplars by John that they DID see so completely different? This information comes from one of the Ramsey's staunchest defenders: Jameson herself.

Secondly, his story about breaking into the house months earlier must be thoroughly checked. If he was returning from a business trip, then where did he go, who did he meet with? What flight did he take, with what airline? Why didn't he have his key? And why didn't he make an effort to call ahead to a friend while at the airport, or go next door to the Barnhill's who had a key? Was that window ever repaired or not? And why was it so hard for both John and Patsy to recall anything about that?

Also, why did he close the basement window without reporting not only the open window, but also the debris and glass on the floor and the suitcase? On this, as with so many other segments of the interview, he was questioned with a powder puff and allowed to dissemble freely without every being sharply challenged over anything.

There is presently no solid case to be made against John, and thus no reason for you to be convinced of my theory. What my theory DOES provide, however, is good reason to re-investigate him, with far more energy and persistence than before. Perhaps we can agree on that.

[docg]

Originally posted by aussiesheila
>Docg suggests that as he sees it, incest is the only likely motive and that John therefore is the most likely suspect. I think while this might have been a reasonable belief to hold to in the early days, the fact is that the BPD thoroughly investigated John over a number of months, and found absolutely nothing, nothing in his family background, nothing on his computers, nothing in his work files or reading matter in the home to indicate that he might have ever indulged in any form of child molestation whatsoever. Knowing this, surely it is drawing a very long bow to still be deriving theories based on the assumption that he was

I'm not assuming anything. What is being assumed, by you and so many others, is that a "respectable" father like John could not have commited incest. What I'm arguing is that we have no reason to assume that. Much more is now known about incest than in the past. Respectable fathers HAVE been known to succumb to temptation and molest their daughters, that is a known fact. Also we cannot assume that the sort of investigation the police conducted could have given us a complete picture of John, as he spent a great deal of his time out of town and even overseas. Let's not forget, also, that a woman DID come forward claiming an affair with John and claiming also that he asked her to dress like a little girl.

>I think Docg is saying that John wrote the note.

I'm saying that the note makes sense only if it were written by John -- as part of a kidnap staging plan. No other explanation of the note makes any sense at all.

>However, as you say, and I completely agree with you, that John seems to be an intelligent man and therefore most unlikely to allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left. I have made this point to RDIs in posts I made at Websleuths, but never got a satisfactory reply.

Here is my reply: I don't think John ever intended for that note to get into the hands of the police. The plan was to use the note to delay a call to the police long enough for the body and ALL the evidence to be disposed of. He could easily have claimed the kidnappers wanted the original note back. He would then have presented the police with a copy.

>Docg goes on to say that Patsy couldn’t have written the note because she most certainly would NOT have called 911 and showed them a note written in her own hand. But this same logic could be applied to John. He was right there beside Patsy, He TOLD her to ring the police, and it was he, or him together with Patsy who handed them the note.

If I am right and John wrote the note, he certainly would not have told Patsy to make that call. She herself has, on one occasion, presented a version of the story where this is HER idea, NOT his. I think he manipulated her into eventually going along with his version of what happened. She would have been convinced of his innocence by the early reports from HIS handwriting experts that ruled him out as writer of the note. So, since the truth would have made him look suspicious, and she "knew" he was innocent, she agreed to lie rather than pointlessly challenge him over a minor issue.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg


I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa? :D

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.
I totally disagree that any 'Patsy dunnit' theory is absurd.
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

Again Docg:
Why do you keep ignoring that it was JOHN who told Patsy to call the police?
And Patsy Ramsey was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the writer of the note. There exist handwriting comparisons soo similar that it makes one's head spin.
The whole note has Patsy Ramsey written over it. The dramatic tone, just about everything.

Why do you think it is totally unrealistic that Patsy snapped and lost it? Do you think such things never happen?
My theory is that Patsy, for whatever reason, delivered the head bash to JB in an attack of blind rage. She is frantic and desperate and wakes up John.
Why did John help her cover up? Because he had something to hide too. For he had been chronically abusing JB sexually and is afraid it will be found out in the autopsy. It is he who suggests to Patsy that she stage the sexual predator scene because his true motive is to camouflage the signs of chronic abuse in JB's body.
John lets Patsy write the note because he doesn't want to get too involved in the staging. For in case the police should not buy their story, the note will implicate her, and not him. Quite clever.
For I'm not at all sure that John ever believed they would get away with it.

And the head bash struck by Patsy relieved John from a big problem: his sexual abuse victim JonBenet would be silent forever ...

Aside from that, I think it is totally UNREALISTIC to assume that either John or Patsy could have carried all this out alone (thinking out what to do, staging the scene, writing the ransom note) without the other spouse becoming aware of what was going on.
For the Ramseys shared a common bedroom, and to do all this, one of them would have had to be gone from that bedroom for HOURS. Most people wake up at least once during the night, go to the bathroom etc, and what would e. g. Patsy have thought if John's side of the bed was empty and he didn't return? Wouldn't she have gotten up and looked for him?

[elvislives]

So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives? [/B][/QUOTE]

First off, I agree that docg's theory is the most plausible I've heard from the RDI camp...at least it fits in with the physical evidence. The most important piece of hard physical evidence imo is the autopsy. She died of strangulation, but the final finish-her-off head blow came AT or VERY close to the time of death (by strangulation). This rules out the possiblility that the head blow was an accident and the garrotting just part of the staging to cover up an accidental killing. So the murder HAD to be premeditated. Even if I were to buy in to the fact that Patsy bashed JB on the head in a fit of rage, she would have to think at lightning speed in order to come up with the cover up plan, fashion a garrot, then strangle her daughter to death before she died of the head wound (remember:cause of death was asphyxia....and JB would have bled out from the 8 inch skull crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull within minutes. Way too improbable, impossible imo.
So Patsy's out, now on to John. While docg's theory is plausible, it is extremely improbable. First of all, I have never heard of a case where someone developed a sexual attraction to children in their 50s. This is a pathology that begins early in life and he had absolutely no history. But lets put that aside right now and assume that John was molesting Jonbenet. Sadly thousands of fathers molest their daughters and are able to keep them quiet thru manipulation or intimidation. Why would he have to KILL her to shut her up? Also why the day after Christmas?I think if he did plan to kill her he would have done a much better job planning it. But maybe it was an emergency and he didn't have much time to plan, perhaps Jonbenet was about to break her silence and report that her dad had been molesting her. Okay assuming he was molesting her and had some reason to believe she was about to talk, so he killed her unbeknownst to Patsy and staged the botched kidnapping and goofy ransom note for Patsy's sake. When Patsy said lets call the police, John could easily have persuaded her against it. He could simply say to Patsy--No we absolutely cannot call the police or they will kill JB. If Patsy insisted he could unplug the phone, after all he is trying to save his daughter's life. I think it would be easy to explain to police why you didn't want your wife to call the authorities under the circumstances-- a lot easier than explaining your daughter's dead body in your basement. He just seems way to intelligent and methodical to have done such a sloppy job.
So that leaves the intruder theory. Also possible but so highly improbable which is why this case is so baffling. For example, there were definitely some elements of the crime that were staged--why would the intruder need to stage anything? Why did he put the tape on her mouth for example? She was clearly dead or unconscious when that happened, so what purpose did it serve? Also, why did he leave her in the house? Some say that he couldn't get her out of the basement window, but why not just walk out the back door with her in the suitcase? And why take the risk of molesting her inside of the house? Why not just incapacitate her and take her to a location where he was less likely to be caught red handed? And if her intended to kidnap her, then killed her by mistake and decided to just leave the body...why wouldn't he go back upstairs and grab the ransom note before exiting? Seems like this guy was very careful not to leave any physical evidence, but he leaves a useless 3 page letter written by him? Any way you slice it in this case, it doesn't add up.

[shill]

I think John Karr was closer to the suspect in Thailand then the BP know.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
I think John Karr was closer to the suspect in Thailand then the BP know.

Putting aside all differences, would you be willing to share your thoughts on this. I have never dismissed your theory or deductive analytical process. Do you feel this way because Homeland Sec is wanting a further look or has this got something to do with the theory discussed in the past? I am open to hearing. Bearing in mind that to do so we must be respectful of one another even if we have differences of opinion as it is requirement of this forum. Also BP does not have charge of this case it is under the auspices of the DA's office if I am correct.

[elvislives]

[John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is what bothers me. If Elizabeth Smart had never been found alive, her parents would still be under "an umbrella of suspission" by process of elimination. Who else had the motive, the means and the opportunity?? Perhaps her dad had been molesting her too and had to kill her to keep her quiet. She was an attractive girl like Jonbenet and while her dad had no history of child molestation, maybe like John Ramsey he just gave into temptation, then had to kill her so as not to lose his place in society. Not a bad theory, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it, only speculation based on the lack of other suspects. In Elizabeth Smart's case, her discovery turned out to exonerate the parents, but those theories were floated before her discovery, just like JB.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by docg

And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.


But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Personally, I believe they both were involved in every aspect of the staging. How and why the head wound occured is still the big mystery.

I would agree that if one was involved the other would have to be incahoots. But that would make the murder a premeditated planned crime. What would be the motive???

[nuisanceposter]

Why would it have to be premeditated and planned of both were involved? One of them hits her, the other decides to help cover up. I think this crime would look a lot different had it been planned ahead of time by the Rs.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Why would it have to be premeditated and planned of both were involved? One of them hits her, the other decides to help cover up. I think this crime would look a lot different had it been planned ahead of time by the Rs.

I think what you are implying is that one parent killed her, possibly accidentally and the other was an accomplice after the fact? The physical evidence prevents me from buying into that theory. I am an ER physician and have seen more head wounds than you can imagine. I reviewed the autopsy report and the photos and my conclusion based on the physical evidence and my experience is that the head wound occured just before, at the time of, or right after death by strangulation. If one of them hit her, he would have about 20 seconds to 1 minute (at most!) to 1) determine she was dead or close to it; 2) employ the complicity of the other parent in the cover up; 3) fashion a garrot out of materials in the basement; 4) wrap the garrotte twice around JB's neck and strangle her to death. There is just NO WAY, not enough time for the head wound to organize. She was bashed in the head just about the time of death by strangulation. IF the parents killed her, I believe docg's theory that it had to be planned and intentional. This was definitely no accident and cover-up.

[Athena]

Originally posted by elvislives


But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

One of the same issues I've raised with docg before and I do agree with you. I believe if JR really did not want Patsy to call 911 in docg's theory, he definitely could have prevented it as I do not believe Patsy would have jeopardized JBRs life and that is easily how JR could have convinced her. JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by elvislives

This is what bothers me. If Elizabeth Smart had never been found alive, her parents would still be under "an umbrella of suspission" by process of elimination. Who else had the motive, the means and the opportunity?? Perhaps her dad had been molesting her too and had to kill her to keep her quiet. She was an attractive girl like Jonbenet and while her dad had no history of child molestation, maybe like John Ramsey he just gave into temptation, then had to kill her so as not to lose his place in society. Not a bad theory, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it, only speculation based on the lack of other suspects. In Elizabeth Smart's case, her discovery turned out to exonerate the parents, but those theories were floated before her discovery, just like JB.
So true, so very very true.

[shill]

Originally posted by Athena


One of the same issues I've raised with docg before and I do agree with you. I believe if JR really did not want Patsy to call 911 in docg's theory, he definitely could have prevented it as I do not believe Patsy would have jeopardized JBRs life and that is easily how JR could have convinced her. JMO
For John to get rid of the body on the way to the bank, he would need to do it before calling the police, wait for the NO CALL from mystery kidnapper, then contact the police. That would have worked IMO.
Letting Patsy call flushes the whole plan down the tubes, and as such, ended up with JB still in the house.
Patsy calling foiled his plan, he should have given himself up at that point, since he gave up on stopping Patsy. Game Over.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Putting aside all differences, would you be willing to share your thoughts on this. I have never dismissed your theory or deductive analytical process. Do you feel this way because Homeland Sec is wanting a further look or has this got something to do with the theory discussed in the past? I am open to hearing. Bearing in mind that to do so we must be respectful of one another even if we have differences of opinion as it is requirement of this forum. Also BP does not have charge of this case it is under the auspices of the DA's office if I am correct. Homeland Security being involved would be important if they were involved before Karr surfaced or believed Karr knew who the suspect was.
I have come up with even more correlating evidence to my theory since you left, but I only talk about that theory on that site. That's one of the things that makes that site special and different.
And we now have some names to look at as suspects, and I would be surprised if any of these people were ever questioned or put on the suspect list.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives


But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

I imagine he DID insist. And Patsy probably agreed with him. At first, anyhow. And that might have been enough to put him off his guard. No reason to assume she'd call the police after agreeing with him that this would be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened between them prior to the call. Actually we don't have a clue. We DO know, however, that 1. Patsy DID make the call and 2. she would NOT have done that if she'd written the note -- or was conspiring with someone who did.

So, either they both wanted the call made and are both innocent -- or something happened to change Patsy's mind, and, when John was distracted, make the call anyhow. I have no idea what that could have been. But I DO know there was no intruder. So where does that leave us?

John didn't want the call made. Patsy made it anyhow, for whatever reason, who knows? That's the logic of the 911 call, like it or not.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Homeland Security being involved would be important if they were involved before Karr surfaced or believed Karr knew who the suspect was.
I have come up with even more correlating evidence to my theory since you left, but I only talk about that theory on that site. That's one of the things that makes that site special and different.
And we now have some names to look at as suspects, and I would be surprised if any of these people were ever questioned or put on the suspect list.

Thank you for sharing that with me. In the future I'll remember that your theory is only discussed on that site. I apologize for bringing it up. I won't since that is a special things to that site. Congrats at the names to look at. I only wish I had know it was a confidential theory earlier. Thanks again Shill.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


<snipped>

Why the heart? I have no idea. Maybe she drew it herself earlier, just out of boredom.

I have read that it was faded, sounds to me like it was drawn days before the murder. I know that Patsy said that she didn't notice it, but...she didn't know if JB had a bath that day, either. Sounds like she wasn't very observant. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by elvislives


<snipped>
I reviewed the autopsy report and the photos and my conclusion based on the physical evidence and my experience is that the head wound occured just before, at the time of, or right after death by strangulation.

And based on MY experience...the strangulation came AFTER the head wound. In order for there to have not to have been scratch marks, where she would have been trying to pry the cord from her neck...she would have either had to have been unconscious (from the head wound) or suspended. Theres no evidence of her ever being suspended....so, I go with the facts...John saying that he found her wrapped in a blanket ON THE FLOOR. That leaves only one other possiblity...the head wound came first, rendering her unconscious....and THEN the strangulation. I am sure that the strangulation is what killed her though....although the head wound would have eventually done it, if she hadn't of been strangled. IMO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by elvislives
So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives?

First off, I agree that docg's theory is the most plausible I've heard from the RDI camp...at least it fits in with the physical evidence. The most important piece of hard physical evidence imo is the autopsy. She died of strangulation, but the final finish-her-off head blow came AT or VERY close to the time of death (by strangulation). This rules out the possiblility that the head blow was an accident and the garrotting just part of the staging to cover up an accidental killing. So the murder HAD to be premeditated. Even if I were to buy in to the fact that Patsy bashed JB on the head in a fit of rage, she would have to think at lightning speed in order to come up with the cover up plan, fashion a garrot, then strangle her daughter to death before she died of the head wound (remember:cause of death was asphyxia....and JB would have bled out from the 8 inch skull crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull within minutes. Way too improbable, impossible imo.
So Patsy's out, now on to John. While docg's theory is plausible, it is extremely improbable ? [/B][/QUOTE]

DocG's theory does not fit in with the physical evidence. For it disregards the fiber evidence which incriminates Patsy. It also disregards that in all probability Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.
So Patsy is not "out of it" at all.
Nor does the autopsy report say that the strangulation came first. The head wound was fully developed and there was a lot of blood inside JB's skull.
I agree with you that Patsy could not have carried out all that staging alone. And the same appies to John.
Imo John helped Patsy to stage the scne, for he too had something to hide.
Like you, I too think DocG's theory is highly improbable, for John could easily have talked Patsy out of calling the police.
And if he had absolutely wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would not have let the RN lying around for Patsy to find, but made sureit was HE who 'found' it.
It also was John who told Patsy to call the police.

Any way you slice it in this case, it doesn't add up.
Imo it adds up perfectly if one's theory involves both Ramseys and doesn't assume that one Ramseys carried all this out alone.
And the forensic evidence supports this theory.

[shill]

If Patsy had done it, the red fibers from her jacket/sweater would be all over JB's body, but they were not. There was only four on the tape and a few in the garrote knot.
She couldn't have transfered those few fibers with out transfering some fibers to JB's body.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by Ames


And based on MY experience...the strangulation came AFTER the head wound. IMO

That is certainly possible, but if so the strangulation came IMMEDIATELY AFTER the head wound. It takes about 5 minutes for a 45 lb kid to die of ashphxia. It is highly unlikely, but possible that the head wound was bleeding for 5+ minutes before she died--the lack of blood could be explained by the fact that her carotid arteries were being constricted by the ligature, which could explain why there was a relatively small amount of blood from the head wound. So while it is impossible to determine which came first, they were definitely within a very close time frame. So IF Patsy accidentally hit her on the head, she would have to have had the garrotte within arms reach and strangled her immediately. Not enough time between injuries for that theory to float.

[elvislives]

Originally posted by docg


I imagine he DID insist. And Patsy probably agreed with him. At first, anyhow. And that might have been enough to put him off his guard. No reason to assume she'd call the police after agreeing with him that this would be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened between them prior to the call. Actually we don't have a clue. We DO know, however, that 1. Patsy DID make the call and 2. she would NOT have done that if she'd written the note -- or was conspiring with someone who did.

So, either they both wanted the call made and are both innocent -- or something happened to change Patsy's mind, and, when John was distracted, make the call anyhow. I have no idea what that could have been. But I DO know there was no intruder. So where does that leave us?

John didn't want the call made. Patsy made it anyhow, for whatever reason, who knows? That's the logic of the 911 call, like it or not.

You make some very compelling arguements, docg. And while much of your theory is speculative, it is certainly within the realm of possiblity that it could have happened that way. I am new to this board, can you explain to me why you are so certain that the intruder theory is impossible? I am still of the belief that like the JDI theory, the IDI, while highly improbable is still a possiblility. The only one I have ruled out (with 98% certainty) is Patsy.

[Ames]

Originally posted by elvislives


That is certainly possible, but if so the strangulation came IMMEDIATELY AFTER the head wound. It takes about 5 minutes for a 45 lb kid to die of ashphxia. It is highly unlikely, but possible that the head wound was bleeding for 5+ minutes before she died--the lack of blood could be explained by the fact that her carotid arteries were being constricted by the ligature, which could explain why there was a relatively small amount of blood from the head wound. So while it is impossible to determine which came first, they were definitely within a very close time frame. So IF Patsy accidentally hit her on the head, she would have to have had the garrotte within arms reach and strangled her immediately. Not enough time between injuries for that theory to float.

I believe that they happened between minutes of each other too. She also could have been struck, and knocked out...stranged...and THEN struck again. Who knows? This case just baffles me! My husband doesn't understand why I care about a ten year old case. It's just not a case to me...or the other poster's here...its about justice for little JonBenet. (IMO)
Off subject...are you an Elvis fan? (Just curious...I am from the south...my cousin married into his family. When he died, we found out through her first, before hearing it on the news. He could sing, but I wasn't a huge fan of his.)

[elvislives]

Originally posted by Ames


I believe that they happened between minutes of each other too. She also could have been struck, and knocked out...stranged...and THEN struck again. Who knows?

This is the reason why I haven;t ruled Patsy out 100%. It is conceivable that JB was hit once to incapacitate her (or was otherwise incapacited in some way that went undetected), then garrotted, then came the final blow which caused the huge crack and hole in her skull. However I have not seen any evidence that suggests there were multiple blows to the head. Unfortunately portions of the autopsy report were redacted so it's hard to say for sure.


This case just baffles me! My husband doesn't understand why I care about a ten year old case. It's just not a case to me...or the other poster's here...its about justice for little JonBenet. (IMO)
Off subject...are you an Elvis fan? (Just curious...I am from the south...my cousin married into his family. When he died, we found out through her first, before hearing it on the news. He could sing, but I wasn't a huge fan of his.)

Agreed. SOMEONE brutally murdered this little girl and to this day justice has not been served. And no, I'm not much of an Elvis fan. But when I was trying to come up with a screen name I looked at my coffee cup which said Elvis lives. I'm not even sure where I got that coffee cup, but it seemed like a reasonable screen name so I went with it.

[Ames]

Originally posted by elvislives


Agreed. SOMEONE brutally murdered this little girl and to this day justice has not been served. And no, I'm not much of an Elvis fan. But when I was trying to come up with a screen name I looked at my coffee cup which said Elvis lives. I'm not even sure where I got that coffee cup, but it seemed like a reasonable screen name so I went with it.


LOL..from your coffee cup? Now THATS pretty funny! Well, I guess its as good of name as any. I had a hard time trying to come up with a screen name too....so I just stuck with my nickname, it seems to work. BTW....welcome to the board.

[Ames]

QUOTE:

This is the reason why I haven;t ruled Patsy out 100%. It is conceivable that JB was hit once to incapacitate her (or was otherwise incapacited in some way that went undetected), then garrotted, then came the final blow which caused the huge crack and hole in her skull. However I have not seen any evidence that suggests there were multiple blows to the head. Unfortunately portions of the autopsy report were redacted so it's hard to say for sure.

End QUOTE:


I know this may sound weird...but, I had even thought that maybe Patsy hit her, and it WASN'T an accident. I had even thought that maybe she could have killed her as a sacrifice..so that God would heal her cancer. YES...I know that sounds absurd. I wondered about that, because Patsy had said that she decorated in Purple for Christmas (Purple to Christians, is a sign of rebirth....Easter...the resurrection of Christ). And that JB's Christmas dress was purple. I am still leaning toward an accident, though....it makes more sense than a sacrifice. I have read on other forums, where that has been discussed, though. (Please...all of you IDI's....don't bash me...I said that I am leaning more toward an accident.....and NOT the sacrifice). (IMO IMO)

[Athena]

Originally posted by elvislives


Agreed. SOMEONE brutally murdered this little girl and to this day justice has not been served. And no, I'm not much of an Elvis fan. But when I was trying to come up with a screen name I looked at my coffee cup which said Elvis lives. I'm not even sure where I got that coffee cup, but it seemed like a reasonable screen name so I went with it.

LOL -- we have to change passwords at work every 30 days for security reasons and whatever I'm reading at the time the screen pops up I use. Problem with me is I always have to have my password reset.

[bullmoose]

I'm just catching up on reading the posts for the last couple days, but I think there is some good discussion on this thread. Rashoman, I don't agree with you on much, but I do agree with you that if one of the Ramseys was involved in this murder, then they both were in it up to their eyeballs; nothing else would make sense. Of course, as you well know, I do not believe the Ramseys to be involved past being victims. Ames, I don't agree with your theory, but it is more believable than some that I've read.IMO IMO:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by watson
DocG's logic is inescapable.........if a parent did it, it couldn't be both, Patsy can be cleared by her ignoring the note and calling police, and John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect.
I disagree. DocG's logic is full of holes. For of course one parent could have done it and then asked the other for help in the cover-up.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives


You make some very compelling arguements, docg. And while much of your theory is speculative, it is certainly within the realm of possiblity that it could have happened that way. I am new to this board, can you explain to me why you are so certain that the intruder theory is impossible? I am still of the belief that like the JDI theory, the IDI, while highly improbable is still a possiblility. The only one I have ruled out (with 98% certainty) is Patsy.

Thanks, elvis. Yes, my theory IS speculative. But it can easily be put to the test -- assuming anyone in authority would have the guts to re-investigate John Ramsey after all the media hype about how he's been "exonerated."

As for the intruder theory, there are a great many reasons why that won't wash. Your best bet on that would be Ms. Marple's great JonBenet Encyclopedia: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

For my take on the note, look here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Note

My critique of Lou Smit's intruder theory can be found here: http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1220&forum=DCForumID61

Bottom line: no intruder would have had a reason to do all that was done that night: write a pointless ransom note; hide the body away in the most remote room in the house; place a small piece of tape on the victim's mouth, where it could easily have been removed by repeated jaw action; tie the victim so loosly she could easily have untied herself, if alive. Also no intruder could have entered and left the house without leaving signs of that, especially on the outside, in the form of footprints, not only in the frost and snow but also the grass -- and in the window area, where there was no sign anyone displaced any of the thick dirt on the window sill and frame.

[shill]

Originally posted by docg

Bottom line: no intruder would have had a reason to do all that was done that night: write a pointless ransom note; hide the body away in the most remote room in the house; place a small piece of tape on the victim's mouth, where it could easily have been removed by repeated jaw action; tie the victim so loosly she could easily have untied herself, if alive.
Duct tape is 2" wide and that piece was probably 5"-6" long. Another poster I know taped her daughters mouth shut with duct tape and said she couldn't open her mouth or press her tongue into the tape.
If your going to hide a body, you hide it in the most remote spot possible.
She wasn't tied loosely.
The ransom note was for a kidnapping that didn't happen because of JB's accidental death.

[docg]

Originally posted by shill

Duct tape is 2" wide and that piece was probably 5"-6" long. Another poster I know taped her daughters mouth shut with duct tape and said she couldn't open her mouth or press her tongue into the tape.
If your going to hide a body, you hide it in the most remote spot possible.
She wasn't tied loosely.
The ransom note was for a kidnapping that didn't happen because of JB's accidental death.

The method officially approved by the Kidnapper's Association of America is to wind the tape completely around the victim's head, thus ensuring that it won't be worked loose by jaw action. The cord around JonBenet's wrist was in fact found to be loosely tied. And yes, if you're going to hide a body, you hide it as effectively as you can. But what would the intruder have gained by hiding the body? And why would the victim's death have prevented him from taking the body with him anyhow. A dead body is far easier to deal with than a living child.

[shill]

Originally posted by docg


The method officially approved by the Kidnapper's Association of America is to wind the tape completely around the victim's head, thus ensuring that it won't be worked loose by jaw action. The cord around JonBenet's wrist was in fact found to be loosely tied. And yes, if you're going to hide a body, you hide it as effectively as you can. But what would the intruder have gained by hiding the body? And why would the victim's death have prevented him from taking the body with him anyhow. A dead body is far easier to deal with than a living child. According to John it's a fact they were tight. He tried to undue both of them, succeeded with one and loosened the other.
The killer could no longer hide the body in the suitcase to take with him or leave her hidden in the house in the suitcase for them to find much later after they deliver a ransom or he escapes town.
Maybe he didn't bring enough tape to wrap around her mouth and tape her ankles to the chair legs.

I think it's obvious by now that the Ramseys, the BP, and any witnesses have been sworn to secracy about certain information in this case. TWW brought up a good point about John not mentioning the neck garrote when he found her and yet there is no public record of them asking about it when he found her. There are no follow up questions or photos of the tape on JB's legs. There are no photos of her from the waist down. They are holding back revealing information that only the killer knows and we can imagine.

[LindaA]

Excellent point, Shill. I have come to feel that is true over the years reading about this case, regardless that Mary Lacy denied it.

[Eagle1]

It's certainly refreshing to have another point of view, well-expressed, than the worn-out PR one.

Karr's handwriting, from his h.s. yearbook I believe, matching the note as well as PR's matched is a new factor to be considered.

They say he's not off the hook, because he also knew Nedgra's nickname, besides his handwriting having quite a few similarities to the RN's, AND THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN WITH OTHERS who actually did the crime, reason his DNA didn't match, as he predicted.

I've forgotten how many similarities to the RN Karr's handwriting had, and how many PR's handwriting had. Anyone know?

Must agree JR was too smart, and imo so was PR, who, despite what she'd been through, never again "lost it" even after having lost her child and being accused for years of murder. There are just too many much more evil people out there.

At WS in the thread "SlipUp in the Ransom Note?", approximately pg 3 or 4, the thread starter, T-Rex, says the word "scrutiny" implies a constant thing against this family. a motive, and I agree. The note writer seemed to have a dangerous amount of pride in the ability to scrutinize and monitor that family, almost blew his cover. Probably the answer to "Why?" would be "Because we can"?

Besides the most obvious info about the house interior, there was also outsider )1) hate propaganda, for instance the loiterer at the gas station in Charlevoix bad-mouthing JR, about a month or longer before the murder, and (2) the tabloid-reported attempt to set up JBR in a boating accident, maybe a grain of truth in it, involving someone posing as JAR, and finally,(3) the Barnhills' seeing a walker at twilight after the R's had left, who strongly resembled JAR. Did he go into the house?

All these outsider factors have to be considered, which show something had been going on for a while.

Did the walker actually go into the house while the Barnhills watched? They hadn't exchanged greetings across the street? Or just didn't mention it? I've heard the houses are close together across a narrow street. Also that there was a young peoples' party a couple of doors away, that night, according to one J.T. Colfax. And some strange cars noticed in the neighborhood which didn't appear to have any connection with the "rave party". RDI's seem to try to delete all of this but it can't be done. It's all got to fit. And the Karr thing has to fit somehow.

[LindaA]

Eagle1, what about the intruder who had been in the Charlevoix house? Was that the summer before the murder?

[docg]

Originally posted by Eagle1
>It's certainly refreshing to have another point of view, well-expressed, than the worn-out PR one.

Thanks.

>Karr's handwriting, from his h.s. yearbook I believe, matching the note as well as PR's matched is a new factor to be considered.

I never thought Patsy was a match. Not even close. And I certainly don't see Karr's yearbook entry as a match either. What this episode does tell us is what I've been saying for years: we see what we want -- or expect -- to see. And fail to see what is right under our nose, if we don't want to see it. The reaction by certain "experts" to Karr's printing gives us an insight as to the reaction of other "experts" to Patsy's. A scientific comparison has to be done with a control sample -- and double blind, meaning that neither the experts doing the comparison nor the person supervising them knows whose exemplars are whose. If Patsy's or Karr's printing were to be picked out of a control sample from, say, 30 or 40 individuals, THAT would be convincing.

>They say he's not off the hook, because he also knew Nedgra's nickname, besides his handwriting having quite a few similarities to the RN's, AND THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN WITH OTHERS who actually did the crime, reason his DNA didn't match, as he predicted.

The lack of a DNA match should have had no bearing on the investigation into Karr, not only because he could have had accomplices but also because that evidence is probably irrelevant. This whole Karr thing was handled in the dumbest possible way from the start. All it accomplished was that it gave John Ramsey the right to claim that, if Karr was let off the hook because HIS DNA didn't match, then he should be off the hook too. The whole episode looks to me like a setup orchestrated by team Ramsey to make the DNA seem more important than it is.

>Must agree JR was too smart, and imo so was PR, who, despite what she'd been through, never again "lost it" even after having lost her child and being accused for years of murder. There are just too many much more evil people out there.

We have no way of knowing whether or not John Ramsey is evil. Little, in fact, is known about him. He spent much of his time away from home, away from family, out of town and often out of the country.

>All these outsider factors have to be considered, which show something had been going on for a while.

The real problem with Karr as perp was that he would have to have explained how he (or his accomplice) could have entered that house without leaving any sign, any footprint, any disruption, any evidence at all of his presence. He would have to explain how he entered and left. Did he have a key and if so how did he get it? And why did he relock the door when leaving? If he entered via the basement window, as he'd claimed, then why wasn't any of the dirt on the window sill displaced? If this was a planned kidnapping then why leave the body behind? And if not, then why take the risk of leaving a three page note printed in your own hand?

I do think there are things about Karr that need to be checked further. There's reason to believe he could have murdered some other child. But it's impossible to believe he was involved in the Ramsey case.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by Eagle1
>It's certainly refreshing to have another point of view, well-expressed, than the worn-out PR one.

Thanks.

>Karr's handwriting, from his h.s. yearbook I believe, matching the note as well as PR's matched is a new factor to be considered.

I never thought Patsy was a match. Not even close. And I certainly don't see Karr's yearbook entry as a match either.
I always thought Patsy's handwriting was a match. A very close match. Especially after seeng the handwriting comparison ranom note/Patsy here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

In terms of Karr, a big media ballyhoo was made because he wrote the a's similar to the a's in the RN, but I doubt if his handwriting has ever been thoroughly analyzed by the CBI like Patsy's.

And Patsy Ramsey was among the few people who could not be leiminated as the author of the ransom note.
The whole note has Patsy written over it anyway. The hysterical touch of drama, the lack of logic.
I can't imagine a cold type like John Ramseys have written a note like that.

But this raises the question why John let Patsy write that idiotic note at all.
Frankly, I don't think John ever believed that Patsy would get away with the crime. But he agreed to help her cover up because he had to hide something too: the signs of chronic abuse in JB's body. Which is why he suggested to Patsy that she stage it as a sexual predator scene because in truth he wanted to camouflage the signs of chronic sexual abuse in JB's body.
But on the whole he wanted to get as little involved in the staging itself as possible, for in case of Patsy's arrest, no forensic and other circumstantial evidence should implicate him.

This theory takes into account the fibers from Patsy's jacket found in incriminating locationsand also her probable authorship of the ransom note.

[Louisadelmar]

How many people were "eliminated" as the author of the ransom note?

[LindaA]

But then what about those so-called incriminating black fibers from John's shirt found in JBR's crotch? Or do you not believe those fibers were from John's shirt?

[shill]

If he entered via the basement window, as he'd claimed, then why wasn't any of the dirt on the window sill displaced? If this was a planned kidnapping then why leave the body behind?
Dirt gets moisture in it and freezes like rock. I've experienced this first hand.

If the intent was to taunt John, give him hope of getting her back, only to take her away and make him feel powerless, it would be pointless with a dead body. I believe her death was a mistake, and that is where the kidnapping plan changed.

[shill]

But then what about those so-called incriminating black fibers from John's shirt found in JBR's crotch? Or do you not believe those fibers were from John's shirt?They have in evidence a black blanket with semen stains on it.

[shill]

This theory takes into account the fibers from Patsy's jacket found in incriminating locations and also her probable authorship of the ransom note.
If Patsy had done it, the red fibers from her jacket/sweater would be all over JB's body, but they were not. There was only four on the tape and a few in the garrote knot, and a few in the paint tote.
She couldn't have transfered those few fibers with out transfering some fibers to JB's body.

[Louisadelmar]

They have in evidence a black blanket with semen stains on it.

Oh, that's right. I had forgotten about JAR's bedspread and that she was wearing black velvet pants.

[Athena]

If Patsy had done it, the red fibers from her jacket/sweater would be all over JB's body, but they were not. There was only four on the tape and a few in the garrote knot, and a few in the paint tote.
She couldn't have transfered those few fibers with out transfering some fibers to JB's body.

A few? How about only four strands on the duct tape, and just a couple on the garrote and paint tote. And consistent with does not mean a match especially since it was the only garment it was compared to. In order to be a "match" there can only be one of it in the entire world.

[LindaA]

I was responding to this post by Rashomon This theory takes into account the fibers from Patsy's jacket found in incriminating locationsand also her probable authorship of the ransom note. in which she is making the case for PR as the murderer. However,m on another thread she was talking about those iincriminating fibers she thinks were from John's shirt. I was wondering why she thinks those fibers are not just as incriminating as those allegedly from PR's jacket.

Good theory, Shill about the black fibers and the black blanket. I wonder if they matched or were ever tested against the blanket. OTOH, was don't know if they ever existed at all as the are not part of any documentation -- just referred to in an interview of JR, right?

[bullmoose]

Here we go with Vlad's vampire threads, again.As in the past, rashoman equates consistant with match, for Patsy's jacket. and the undead black fibers that did not and do not match John's shirt; in fact they do not match any fiber samples taken from the house. As for the probable authorship of the note by Patsy, as rashoman glibly asserts, I find the analysis totally unconvincing.

[aussiesheila]

I'm not assuming anything. What is being assumed, by you and so many others, is that a "respectable" father like John could not have commited incest. What I'm arguing is that we have no reason to assume that. Much more is now known about incest than in the past. Respectable fathers HAVE been known to succumb to temptation and molest their daughters, that is a known fact. Also we cannot assume that the sort of investigation the police conducted could have given us a complete picture of John, as he spent a great deal of his time out of town and even overseas. Let's not forget, also, that a woman DID come forward claiming an affair with John and claiming also that he asked her to dress like a little girl.
docg, there is an inference here in your reply that I am stupid. Stupid enough to think that beautiful, rich people never commit hideous murders. I gave you at least one good reason why I do not think John did it, and that is, he was investigated to the nth degree by a police department who were so convinced he was guilty they left no stone unturned in their efforts to find something that would implicate him as a pedophile. They found absolutely nothing. The chances that there would be not the even slightest little hint of such a predilection found in a man's past if he was sufficiently depraved to be committing incest are of the order of millions to one.

You do your argument a disservice if you have to resort to denigrating people who have an opposite view to you.

Also, please would you give the link to where the woman who had the affair with John asked her to dress like a little girl.

[aussiesheila]

If I am right and John wrote the note, he certainly would not have told Patsy to make that call. She herself has, on one occasion, presented a version of the story where this is HER idea, NOT his. I think he manipulated her into eventually going along with his version of what happened. She would have been convinced of his innocence by the early reports from HIS handwriting experts that ruled him out as writer of the note. So, since the truth would have made him look suspicious, and she "knew" he was innocent, she agreed to lie rather than pointlessly challenge him over a minor issue.

I think you are incorrect in saying that it was Pasty's idea to make the 911 call. There doesn't appear to be any argument against them having been together when the call was made. If he had not meant for the police to be called, which I think is what you are saying then why would he have stood by and let Patsy dial 911?

Patsy might have said it was her idea to make the call, but my belief would be that she was lying.I think John's version is that he told her to call 911. Of course he could have been lying, so I guess you take your pick as who you believe. For me, I go for John as the truthful one and Patsy as the deceiver.

Also, I think you are wrong about John having written the note. I think even the BPD and FBI handwriting experts were unanimous in ruling out John as the author, weren't they?

[aussiesheila]

So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives?
First off, I agree that docg's theory is the most plausible I've heard from the RDI camp...at least it fits in with the physical evidence. The most important piece of hard physical evidence imo is the autopsy. She died of strangulation, but the final finish-her-off head blow came AT or VERY close to the time of death (by strangulation). This rules out the possiblility that the head blow was an accident and the garrotting just part of the staging to cover up an accidental killing. So the murder HAD to be premeditated. Even if I were to buy in to the fact that Patsy bashed JB on the head in a fit of rage, she would have to think at lightning speed in order to come up with the cover up plan, fashion a garrot, then strangle her daughter to death before she died of the head wound (remember:cause of death was asphyxia....and JB would have bled out from the 8 inch skull crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull within minutes. Way too improbable, impossible imo.
So Patsy's out, now on to John. While docg's theory is plausible, it is extremely improbable. First of all, I have never heard of a case where someone developed a sexual attraction to children in their 50s. This is a pathology that begins early in life and he had absolutely no history. But lets put that aside right now and assume that John was molesting Jonbenet. Sadly thousands of fathers molest their daughters and are able to keep them quiet thru manipulation or intimidation. Why would he have to KILL her to shut her up? Also why the day after Christmas?I think if he did plan to kill her he would have done a much better job planning it. But maybe it was an emergency and he didn't have much time to plan, perhaps Jonbenet was about to break her silence and report that her dad had been molesting her. Okay assuming he was molesting her and had some reason to believe she was about to talk, so he killed her unbeknownst to Patsy and staged the botched kidnapping and goofy ransom note for Patsy's sake. When Patsy said lets call the police, John could easily have persuaded her against it. He could simply say to Patsy--No we absolutely cannot call the police or they will kill JB. If Patsy insisted he could unplug the phone, after all he is trying to save his daughter's life. I think it would be easy to explain to police why you didn't want your wife to call the authorities under the circumstances-- a lot easier than explaining your daughter's dead body in your basement. He just seems way to intelligent and methodical to have done such a sloppy job.
So that leaves the intruder theory. Also possible but so highly improbable which is why this case is so baffling. For example, there were definitely some elements of the crime that were staged--why would the intruder need to stage anything? Why did he put the tape on her mouth for example? She was clearly dead or unconscious when that happened, so what purpose did it serve? Also, why did he leave her in the house? Some say that he couldn't get her out of the basement window, but why not just walk out the back door with her in the suitcase? And why take the risk of molesting her inside of the house? Why not just incapacitate her and take her to a location where he was less likely to be caught red handed? And if her intended to kidnap her, then killed her by mistake and decided to just leave the body...why wouldn't he go back upstairs and grab the ransom note before exiting? Seems like this guy was very careful not to leave any physical evidence, but he leaves a useless 3 page letter written by him? Any way you slice it in this case, it doesn't add up.[/B]


I think this was my question you are replying to elvislives. I agree completely with everything you have said about the problems with RDI theories.

I don't think the murder was premeditated, however. You probably have worked out by now that I am an IDI, who thinks there was more than one intruder and they were all pedophiles. I think they only went there that night intending to molest her, but when one of them thrust a hard object up her vagina and she screamed, I think that, in desperately trying to silence her, the one operating the garotte pulled too tightly and the brutal one picked up a baseball bat up from the floor and cracked her skull in.

I don't think these were stranger pedophiles who were unknown to the family and who had broken into the house. If they had been, everything would have been simple, they all would have left the house immediately, the body would just have been left in the position it was in when they killed her, there would have been no ransom note and no tape over her mouth. I think one of them was known to Patsy. I think that one was Santa and I think he had convinced Patsy that his photographer friend Charles Kuralt wanted to take some photos of JonBenet with him for a magazine article and it would have to be that night or they would miss the publication deadline. So I think Patsy let Santa in and while they were waiting for the photographer she fell asleep and that was when Santa let the others in.

I think that to cover up the fact that the crime was the result of child sexual abuse, it was decided to make the killing look like a kidnapping gone wrong. I don't think that suitcase was large enough to fit the body in and besides I don't think they had a car to take it away in either so they had to leave the body in the house. I think Patsy was forced to write a ransom note and the body was hidden in the cellar from John and everyone else until they could safely remove it and dump it in the mountains. I think Patsy was instructed to 'find' the note in the morningand yell out to John, not to call the police, but to call the coverup mastermind, who would come over and take care of everything.

[aussiesheila]

I think what you are implying is that one parent killed her, possibly accidentally and the other was an accomplice after the fact? The physical evidence prevents me from buying into that theory. I am an ER physician and have seen more head wounds than you can imagine. I reviewed the autopsy report and the photos and my conclusion based on the physical evidence and my experience is that the head wound occured just before, at the time of, or right after death by strangulation. If one of them hit her, he would have about 20 seconds to 1 minute (at most!) to 1) determine she was dead or close to it; 2) employ the complicity of the other parent in the cover up; 3) fashion a garrot out of materials in the basement; 4) wrap the garrotte twice around JB's neck and strangle her to death. There is just NO WAY, not enough time for the head wound to organize. She was bashed in the head just about the time of death by strangulation. IF the parents killed her, I believe docg's theory that it had to be planned and intentional. This was definitely no accident and cover-up.You are an ER (?emergency room) physician!!! A medically qualified person!!! How absolutely wonderful to have you here at this forum!!!! And I must say I am so happy to have someone with the medical knowlege confirm what I have been saying all along about the head injury and the asphyxiation being virtually simeltaneous events. You've no idea how many people believe otherwise.

Now, can you PLEASE tell us what possible causes might there be for these changes to the surface of the brain that the coroner observed?

"Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen."

[aussiesheila]

We DO know, however, that 1. Patsy DID make the call and 2. she would NOT have done that if she'd written the note -- or was conspiring with someone who did.Just run me through the logic of how you came to this conclusion could you please docg?. I know Patsy made the call, but since I believe Patsy wrote the note as well I'm just a bit perplexed as to how you came to be so absolutely certain that this was not so.

[LindaA]

I must admit your theory, as outlandish as it sounds, does fit with the evidence. However, I have this problem with it: I don't believe PR would have allowed JBR to be photographed in the middle of the night when she was tired and cranky. I also believe that she would have wanted to do JBR's hair and makeup just beforehand, something I don't think JBR would have submitted to at that point. If photographers had been expected momentarily, PR would not have been snoozing on the couch, but busy grooming JBR for the photo shoot.

[rashomon]

Here we go with Vlad's vampire threads, again.As in the past, rashoman equates consistant with match, for Patsy's jacket. and the undead black fibers that did not and do not match John's shirt; in fact they do not match any fiber samples taken from the house. As for the probable authorship of the note by Patsy, as rashoman glibly asserts, I find the analysis totally unconvincing.
It's IDIs like you who glibly allege that the incriminanting fibers did not come from John or Patsy's clothing, by simply misinterpreting the documented record. for has been pointed out to you dozens of times that 'consistent with' is the scientific way of putting it when lab techs have actaully found what we laypeople would call a 'match'.
And you simply say that the fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants did not match John's shirt? Then why did lawyer Levin, in the presence of Lin Wood, confront John with this evidence? And remember that Levin was no cop (for the police is allowed to lie in interrogations with suspects), but a lawyer.

And if the CBI did not exclude Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, why do you simply shrug off their conclusion?

[Zoey]

It's IDIs like you who glibly allege that the incriminanting fibers did not come from John or Patsy's clothing, by simply misinterpreting the documented record. for has been pointed out to you dozens of times that 'consistent with' is the scientific way of putting it when lab techs have actaully found what we laypeople would call a 'match'.
And you simply say that the fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants did not match John's shirt? Then why did lawyer Levin, in the presence of Lin Wood, confront John with this evidence? And remember that Levin was no cop (for the police is allowed to lie in interrogations with suspects), but a lawyer.

And if the CBI did not exclude Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, why do you simply shrug off their conclusion?


So you are saying that under no circumstances whatsoever, a lawyer can not and will not, and never has lied? Have you ever been to an interrogation, a deposition, a child custody court hearing? Lawyers lie, all the time. They just don't always get caught.

[rashomon]

So you are saying that under no circumstances whatsoever, a lawyer can not and will not, and never has lied? Have you ever been to an interrogation, a deposition, a child custody court hearing? Lawyers lie, all the time. They just don't always get caught.
We are not talking here about a laywer representing a personal client, and whose duty is to his client only (like e. g. Wood's role as John Ramsey's lawyer).
The situation in this interview can't be compared to those you mentioned in your post.
Remember that Lin Wood at once tried to direct the attention away from the fiber evidence?
Don't you think that if Lin Wood had suspected Levin of lying, he would have asked to be shown the lab reports? But Wood did nothing of the sort, for he knew that the evidence was there.

[sweetcharlotte]

So you are saying that under no circumstances whatsoever, a lawyer can not and will not, and never has lied? Have you ever been to an interrogation, a deposition, a child custody court hearing? Lawyers lie, all the time. They just don't always get caught.

This bit about Levin/not lying, etc. has been discussed (and discounted) so many times. It's like "if you say it enough it will be true." JMO

[elvislives]

Bottom line: no intruder would have had a reason to do all that was done that night: write a pointless ransom note; hide the body away in the most remote room in the house; place a small piece of tape on the victim's mouth, where it could easily have been removed by repeated jaw action; tie the victim so loosly she could easily have untied herself, if alive. Also no intruder could have entered and left the house without leaving signs of that, especially on the outside, in the form of footprints, not only in the frost and snow but also the grass -- and in the window area, where there was no sign anyone displaced any of the thick dirt on the window sill and frame.

Doc, I read thru the links and understand why you think the intruder theory is improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE?? I'm still not there yet. While yes, there are many things that don't make sense, they *could* be explained by the fact that the intruder was psychotic, and since there is no suspect there is no way to conclude that he wasn't psychotic. Look at Dennis Rader's crimes (BTK). He did all sorts of things that made no sense, same with the Zodiac, the son of sam, etc.

[elvislives]

The method officially approved by the Kidnapper's Association of America .


There's a Kidnaper's Association of America!!:eek:

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=aussiesheila;8784698]
I don't think the murder was premeditated,QUOTE]

What I meant to say is that I have ruled out the theory that the CRIME was not premeditated. It is definitely possible that someone set out to strangle her for their own enjoyment, and "accidentally" killed her. But there is no way this crime was an accident. Whether it was a premeditated murder, or a premeditated strangling for kicks, I don't know, but the CRIME itself was planned and was not an accident then cover up.

[docg]

I always thought Patsy's handwriting was a match. A very close match. Especially after seeng the handwriting comparison ranom note/Patsy here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf
<snip>
But this raises the question why John let Patsy write that idiotic note at all.
Frankly, I don't think John ever believed that Patsy would get away with the crime. But he agreed to help her cover up because he had to hide something too: the signs of chronic abuse in JB's body. Which is why he suggested to Patsy that she stage it as a sexual predator scene because in truth he wanted to camouflage the signs of chronic sexual abuse in JB's body.
But on the whole he wanted to get as little involved in the staging itself as possible, for in case of Patsy's arrest, no forensic and other circumstantial evidence should implicate him.

This theory takes into account the fibers from Patsy's jacket found in incriminating locationsand also her probable authorship of the ransom note.

The comparisons Darnay Hoffmann turned up are interesting, but inconclusive. A similar type of comparison has been done with the court document attributed to John: http://web.tiscali.it/faustobrugnatelli/

In a display I put together years ago, exemplars from the same document are intermixed with examplars from the note. No one has ever been able to sort them out.

Unlike Hoffmann, neither Brugnatelli nor I have ever claimed our comparisons constitute a match. No meaningful match can be demonstrated just by doing a one on one comparison, because there are a great many people who've learned to form their letters in the same way. As I stated above, the only meaningful way to do this would be via a double blind testing process using a control group.

If you believe that John was molesting JonBenet, then why do you need Patsy as the killer? If John was molesting her then that in itself would be a motive for murder -- to shut her up.

[docg]

Dirt gets moisture in it and freezes like rock. I've experienced this first hand.

If the intent was to taunt John, give him hope of getting her back, only to take her away and make him feel powerless, it would be pointless with a dead body. I believe her death was a mistake, and that is where the kidnapping plan changed.

Shill, the police ON THE SCENE AT THE TIME carefully examined that window. Not only was there a thick layer of dirt on the sill, the window frame was also caked with dirt and the paint was peeling. The police saw NO SIGN that any of the dirt or paint had been displaced. There was, in addition NO SIGN that anyone had been present in the area surrounding the window well from the outside, not only no prints in the layer of frost that had formed, but no prints or any other indentations in the grass either -- also no sign that the grate had been displaced. The intact spider web was only one part of the picture, in which there was NO SIGN of forced entry at that point -- or anywhere else. Smit was NOT at the scene, and based his conclusions SOLELY on photos. A photo cannot tell you whether or not the dirt was frozen. That was something only the police at the scene were able to determine. Their conclusion? No one passed through that window.

If the "kidnappers" accidently killed her and decided to call off their kidnap plan, then there would no longer have been any reason to leave a pointless and possibly incriminating note.

Ramsey defenders have tried every which way they can to get around this sort of evidence by concocting every sort of dodge they can think of, but the fact remains: NO conclusive evidence of an intruder was found.

[docg]

docg, there is an inference here in your reply that I am stupid. Stupid enough to think that beautiful, rich people never commit hideous murders. I gave you at least one good reason why I do not think John did it, and that is, he was investigated to the nth degree by a police department who were so convinced he was guilty they left no stone unturned in their efforts to find something that would implicate him as a pedophile. They found absolutely nothing. The chances that there would be not the even slightest little hint of such a predilection found in a man's past if he was sufficiently depraved to be committing incest are of the order of millions to one.

You do your argument a disservice if you have to resort to denigrating people who have an opposite view to you.

Also, please would you give the link to where the woman who had the affair with John asked her to dress like a little girl.

I neither said nor implied that you were stupid, where did you get that? I said you were making an assumption. Which is what you accused ME of doing. You, like a great many others, are assuming because John was investigated and nothing came up, that he could not have been molesting his daughter. I refuse to accept that. How does that make you stupid?

The woman's name was Kim something I think. You could try to look that up on Geraldo Rivera's website, that's where she made her accusations. She was very specific and persistent in this. Then suddenly she refused to discuss it anymore. Looks to me like she could have been bought off -- or threatened. I'm not saying she was telling the truth, she could have made the whole thing up. But it's hard to see why she'd go to all the trouble of making up that story and then suddenly go quiet. It's also hard to see why John and his lawyers wouldn't have gone after her for libel.

I hear continually the claim that John has been investigated and found to be pure as the driven snow. As the above story indicates, that may NOT be true. We have no way of knowing for sure, THAT's my point.

[elvislives]

You are an ER (?emergency room) physician!!! A medically qualified person!!! How absolutely wonderful to have you here at this forum!!!! And I must say I am so happy to have someone with the medical knowlege confirm what I have been saying all along about the head injury and the asphyxiation being virtually simeltaneous events. You've no idea how many people believe otherwise.

Now, can you PLEASE tell us what possible causes might there be for these changes to the surface of the brain that the coroner observed?

"Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen."

I have to admit I get a little frustrated when I hear some of these theories that are just physiologically impossible. Again, I am not saying that PR was NOT involved, but the theory that she accidentally hit JB, or knocked her against some object causing the horrific head wound, then tried to cover up the accident with the staged strangulation is just impossible (BTW before the autopsy report was released, this was MY theory). If PR was involved, it could not have happenned that way. That is why docg's theory is such a refreshing change. I'm not sure I agree with him, but at least his theory does not defy the laws of physics.

Okay that said, onto the cerebral injuries. I have intentionally avoided this topic since most people on this forum are probably lay persons, but since you asked...

Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri can be caused by cerebral edema which can be caused by trauma, vascular disease, etc. To put it in perspective, keep in mind that many people are walking around with mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri and may not even be aware of it. In JB's case I am working off the assumption that she did not have peripheral vascular disease or any other organic condition that caused these injuries. So what caused them? One of two things: The head wound that she suffered would have caused ACUTE narrowing of the sulci and DIFFUSE flattening of the gyri, UNLESS of course she died of strangulation before the injuries could progress. The sulci and gyri could also be affected by the constriction of her carotid arteries and jugular veins during the stangulation. So take your pick.

Another thing I want to clarify. I have read and heard people (even physicians) say that they have seen many skull fractures which have caused little to no bleeding. I too have seen many skull fractures that cause little or no bleeding, but these are hairline fractures that would never be fatal. Usually they are self healing and are not even treated, aside from observation. I have NEVER seen or even heard of an 8 inch crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in the skull that did not cause profuse bleeding and acute cerebral edema. If JB had not been strangled to death first, she would definitely have died of the head trauma. And no one dies of head trauma if it caused no bleeding. Just had to get that off my chest.

[docg]

I think you are incorrect in saying that it was Pasty's idea to make the 911 call. There doesn't appear to be any argument against them having been together when the call was made. If he had not meant for the police to be called, which I think is what you are saying then why would he have stood by and let Patsy dial 911?

Patsy might have said it was her idea to make the call, but my belief would be that she was lying.I think John's version is that he told her to call 911. Of course he could have been lying, so I guess you take your pick as who you believe. For me, I go for John as the truthful one and Patsy as the deceiver.

Also, I think you are wrong about John having written the note. I think even the BPD and FBI handwriting experts were unanimous in ruling out John as the author, weren't they?

I don't think John stood by while Patsy made the call. According to her version as presented in the first Tracey documentary, he was upstairs when she called to him and told him she was going to call 911. And then, as she describes it, she went downstairs to make the call. He would not have had time to stop her.

While it is true that the handwriting experts ruled John out as writer of the note, new evidence has emerged suggesting he might not have provided the investigators with the full range of his printing style. The document on Brugnatelli's site, which exhibits so many similarities with the note, was NOT seen by these experts, nor did they see anything similar. This information comes from a very well known insider, Jameson, who has persistently defended both Patsy and John and would have no reason to lie about this.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=docg;8784367]Originally posted by Eagle1
>It's certainly refreshing to have another point of view, well-expressed, than the worn-out PR one.

Thanks.

>Karr's handwriting, from his h.s. yearbook I believe, matching the note as well as PR's matched is a new factor to be considered.

I never thought Patsy was a match. Not even close. And I certainly don't see Karr's yearbook entry as a match either. What this episode does tell us is what I've been saying for years: we see what we want -- or expect -- to see. And fail to see what is right under our nose, if we don't want to see it. The reaction by certain "experts" to Karr's printing gives us an insight as to the reaction of other "experts" to Patsy's. A scientific comparison has to be done with a control sample -- and double blind, meaning that neither the experts doing the comparison nor the person supervising them knows whose exemplars are whose. If Patsy's or Karr's printing were to be picked out of a control sample from, say, 30 or 40 individuals, THAT would be convincing.

>
I couldn't agree more, docg. Until handwriting can be matched via computer analysis (like fingerprints or dna) it will always be subjective and therefore useless imo in a court of law.

[elvislives]

I neither said nor implied that you were stupid, where did you get that? I said you were making an assumption. Which is what you accused ME of doing. You, like a great many others, are assuming because John was investigated and nothing came up, that he could not have been molesting his daughter. I refuse to accept that. How does that make you stupid?

The woman's name was Kim something I think. You could try to look that up on Geraldo Rivera's website, that's where she made her accusations. She was very specific and persistent in this. Then suddenly she refused to discuss it anymore. Looks to me like she could have been bought off -- or threatened. I'm not saying she was telling the truth, she could have made the whole thing up. But it's hard to see why she'd go to all the trouble of making up that story and then suddenly go quiet. It's also hard to see why John and his lawyers wouldn't have gone after her for libel.

I hear continually the claim that John has been investigated and found to be pure as the driven snow. As the above story indicates, that may NOT be true. We have no way of knowing for sure, THAT's my point.

Hey doc, I agree wholeheartedly with your logic here. Just because no evidence was found does not mean that it doesn't exist. But couldn't that same logic be applied to the IDI theory? Just because no evidence of an intruder was found, does that mean there could be no intruder?

[docg]

I have to admit I get a little frustrated when I hear some of these theories that are just physiologically impossible. Again, I am not saying that PR was NOT involved, but the theory that she accidentally hit JB, or knocked her against some object causing the horrific head wound, then tried to cover up the accident with the staged strangulation is just impossible (BTW before the autopsy report was released, this was MY theory). If PR was involved, it could not have happenned that way. That is why docg's theory is such a refreshing change. I'm not sure I agree with him, but at least his theory does not defy the laws of physics.

Okay that said, onto the cerebral injuries. I have intentionally avoided this topic since most people on this forum are probably lay persons, but since you asked...

Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri can be caused by cerebral edema which can be caused by trauma, vascular disease, etc. To put it in perspective, keep in mind that many people are walking around with mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri and may not even be aware of it. In JB's case I am working off the assumption that she did not have peripheral vascular disease or any other organic condition that caused these injuries. So what caused them? One of two things: The head wound that she suffered would have caused ACUTE narrowing of the sulci and DIFFUSE flattening of the gyri, UNLESS of course she died of strangulation before the injuries could progress. The sulci and gyri could also be affected by the constriction of her carotid arteries and jugular veins during the stangulation. So take your pick.

Another thing I want to clarify. I have read and heard people (even physicians) say that they have seen many skull fractures which have caused little to no bleeding. I too have seen many skull fractures that cause little or no bleeding, but these are hairline fractures that would never be fatal. Usually they are self healing and are not even treated, aside from observation. I have NEVER seen or even heard of an 8 inch crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in the skull that did not cause profuse bleeding and acute cerebral edema. If JB had not been strangled to death first, she would definitely have died of the head trauma. And no one dies of head trauma if it caused no bleeding. Just had to get that off my chest.

Thanks so much, elvis, for being logical -- and also authoritative. The blow to the head did not break the scalp, or there would have been lots of blood at that point and the head injury would have been immediately apparent. Which is why the authorities suspect the blow came from the rubber tipped maglite. Hard to see that as an accident. Looks more like a deliberate attempt to strike a blow in such a way that no blood is produced, consistent with a plan to get the body out of the house before calling the police. I think she was them immediately strangled. Manually. That would have worked like a tourniquet, I would think, stopping the blood flow from the heart in its tracks, no? I think the "garotte" must have been an afterthought, a way of obliterating any prints left from the strangler's hands.

I think John struck that blow to knock her out, thus sparing her any pain or awareness of what was happening. The blow could have killed her, but he could have strangled her to be sure. And only later realized his hand prints might be recoverable from her neck. Does this make sense?

[rashomon]

The comparisons Darnay Hoffmann turned up are interesting, but inconclusive. A similar type of comparison has been done with the court document attributed to John: http://web.tiscali.it/faustobrugnatelli/

In a display I put together years ago, exemplars from the same document are intermixed with examplars from the note. No one has ever been able to sort them out.

Unlike Hoffmann, neither Brugnatelli nor I have ever claimed our comparisons constitute a match. No meaningful match can be demonstrated just by doing a one on one comparison, because there are a great many people who've learned to form their letters in the same way. As I stated above, the only meaningful way to do this would be via a double blind testing process using a control group.

Don't you think that the CBI lab's conclusion weighs most heavily here? Per the CBI, Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the writer of the note.
If you believe that John was molesting JonBenet, then why do you need Patsy as the killer? If John was molesting her then that in itself would be a motive for murder -- to shut her up
It's not about me 'needing' Patsy as the killer for my thoery - I'm going by the forensic and other circumstantial evidence which implicates her.
Remember the police officer saing that Patsy eyeballed watched him through after having one of her crying fits on the morining of Dec 26.
And her priceless Lazarus performance wehn JB was brought up from the basememt. She had sat frozen on the sofa and not even reacted when she heard the noise downstairs. But suddenly, as if on cue, she threw herself on the body and intoned: "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby from the dead!" Now if that isn't a stage performance, I don't know what is.

And for John, the 'spin-off' resulting from Patsy's rage attack on JB was that it relieved him from a big problem: JonBenet would remain silent forever. For without realizing it, Patsy had done the dirty work for him.
That's why that sociopath smiled and even joked with the investigators on the morning of Dec. 26th. For in case his wife should be arrested, the forensic evidence would point to her, and not him.

[elvislives]

Thanks so much, elvis, for being logical -- and also authoritative. The blow to the head did not break the scalp, or there would have been lots of blood at that point and the head injury would have been immediately apparent. Which is why the authorities suspect the blow came from the rubber tipped maglite. Hard to see that as an accident. Looks more like a deliberate attempt to strike a blow in such a way that no blood is produced, consistent with a plan to get the body out of the house before calling the police. I think she was them immediately strangled. Manually. That would have worked like a tourniquet, I would think, stopping the blood flow from the heart in its tracks, no? I think the "garotte" must have been an afterthought, a way of obliterating any prints left from the strangler's hands.

I think John struck that blow to knock her out, thus sparing her any pain or awareness of what was happening. The blow could have killed her, but he could have strangled her to be sure. And only later realized his hand prints might be recoverable from her neck. Does this make sense?


This is the only part of your theory, doc, that is implausible...the manual strangulation, that is. If JR, or anyone, had strangled her manually there would be physical evidence of that. Have you ever seen an autopsy photo of someone who was manually stranlged? If not you can probably find one on the web. They literally have a red or purple handprint and fingerprints around their neck. The garrotte string would be too narrow to cover that up. If it happened like you theorize, JR must have strangled her with the string, then used the garrotte to deflect attention away from himself.

[rashomon]

I have to admit I get a little frustrated when I hear some of these theories that are just physiologically impossible. Again, I am not saying that PR was NOT involved, but the theory that she accidentally hit JB, or knocked her against some object causing the horrific head wound, then tried to cover up the accident with the staged strangulation is just impossible (BTW before the autopsy report was released, this was MY theory). If PR was involved, it could not have happenned that way. That is why docg's theory is such a refreshing change. I'm not sure I agree with him, but at least his theory does not defy the laws of physics.

Okay that said, onto the cerebral injuries. I have intentionally avoided this topic since most people on this forum are probably lay persons, but since you asked...

Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri can be caused by cerebral edema which can be caused by trauma, vascular disease, etc. To put it in perspective, keep in mind that many people are walking around with mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri and may not even be aware of it. In JB's case I am working off the assumption that she did not have peripheral vascular disease or any other organic condition that caused these injuries. So what caused them? One of two things: The head wound that she suffered would have caused ACUTE narrowing of the sulci and DIFFUSE flattening of the gyri, UNLESS of course she died of strangulation before the injuries could progress. The sulci and gyri could also be affected by the constriction of her carotid arteries and jugular veins during the stangulation. So take your pick.

Another thing I want to clarify. I have read and heard people (even physicians) say that they have seen many skull fractures which have caused little to no bleeding. I too have seen many skull fractures that cause little or no bleeding, but these are hairline fractures that would never be fatal. Usually they are self healing and are not even treated, aside from observation. I have NEVER seen or even heard of an 8 inch crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in the skull that did not cause profuse bleeding and acute cerebral edema. If JB had not been strangled to death first, she would definitely have died of the head trauma. And no one dies of head trauma if it caused no bleeding. Just had to get that off my chest.

Elvislives,
most of the top-flight medical experts consulted on the case happen to disagree with you. For in their opinion, the head wound was fully developed, which is why they think it came before the strangulation. And what gives you the idea that there was no bleeding in JB's brain?
Did you believe Cyril Wecht's flat-out lies about there being almost no blood inside her brain? For in order to support his idiotic 'Erotic Asphyxiation' theory (according to Wecht, JR strangled JB in some kinky EA game) Wecht conveniently left out that part of the autopsy report where that blood in her brain is mentioned:
For the autopsy report says verbatim that there is an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage measuring an area of 7x4 inches, and that this was fresh hemorrhage.
And since dead persons don't bleed, JB must still have been alive when the head blow was delivered.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: I do understand that you live in Germany; perhaps lawyers are not liars in Germany, but your glib assertion that if lawyers lie, they would be disbarred, therefor there must have matching fibers found on Jonbenet's genital area that matched John's shirt, because the lawyer wouldn't and couldn't ask the question if it werent true,proves to me that you have never been involved in a criminal case in this country. One more time: the lawyer was asking the BPD's questions while the questioning was taped and observed by the BPD, to see what reactions came out of the questioning. IMO, had there been a match of fibers, there would have been an indictment by the grand jury at the very least. But evidentally, no such evidence was shown to the grand jury; the only explanation I can think of to explain why is that no such evidence of a match ever existed.

[elvislives]

Elvislives,
most of the top-flight medical experts consulted on the case happen to disagree with you. For in their opinion, the head wound was fully developed, which is why they think it came before the strangulation. And what gives you the idea that there was no bleeding in JB's brain?
Did you believe Cyril Wecht's flat-out lies about there being almost no blood inside her brain? For in order to support his idiotic 'Erotic Asphyxiation' theory (according to Wecht, JR strangled JB in some kinky EA game) Wecht conveniently left out that part of the autopsy report where that blood in her brain is mentioned:
For the autopsy report says verbatim that there is an measuring an area of 7x4 inches, and that this was fresh hemorrhage.
And since dead persons don't bleed, JB must still have been alive when the head blow was delivered.

I did not say there was no bleeding in JB's brain. I said there was relatively little bleeding considering the severity of the skull fracture. I think you are misunderstanding the language of the autopsy:

This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.

Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the blood had not yet coagulated. And to say that "dead persons don't bleed" is not necessarily correct. If I were to strangle you and stop your heart at let's say 5:00 pm. Then I pick up a bat and bash your skull at 5:01, you (though technically dead) could still bleed because the bat would sever blood vessels in which the blood would not yet have coagulated. So you, though dead, could still bleed provided I bashed you in the skull before your blood had a chance to clot.

And I have not read about Cyril Wecht's lies, but if he claims as you say that there was no blood on the brain, that is clearly disproven by the autopsy report which states that there was 7-8 cc's of blood (about 1-1/2 teaspoons)

[andU]

I think this was my question you are replying to elvislives. I agree completely with everything you have said about the problems with RDI theories.

I don't think the murder was premeditated, however. You probably have worked out by now that I am an IDI, who thinks there was more than one intruder and they were all pedophiles. I think they only went there that night intending to molest her, but when one of them thrust a hard object up her vagina and she screamed, I think that, in desperately trying to silence her, the one operating the garotte pulled too tightly and the brutal one picked up a baseball bat up from the floor and cracked her skull in.

I don't think these were stranger pedophiles who were unknown to the family and who had broken into the house. If they had been, everything would have been simple, they all would have left the house immediately, the body would just have been left in the position it was in when they killed her, there would have been no ransom note and no tape over her mouth. I think one of them was known to Patsy. I think that one was Santa and I think he had convinced Patsy that his photographer friend Charles Kuralt wanted to take some photos of JonBenet with him for a magazine article and it would have to be that night or they would miss the publication deadline. So I think Patsy let Santa in and while they were waiting for the photographer she fell asleep and that was when Santa let the others in.

I think that to cover up the fact that the crime was the result of child sexual abuse, it was decided to make the killing look like a kidnapping gone wrong. I don't think that suitcase was large enough to fit the body in and besides I don't think they had a car to take it away in either so they had to leave the body in the house. I think Patsy was forced to write a ransom note and the body was hidden in the cellar from John and everyone else until they could safely remove it and dump it in the mountains. I think Patsy was instructed to 'find' the note in the morningand yell out to John, not to call the police, but to call the coverup mastermind, who would come over and take care of everything.

Although this is a new view, I disagree.... it just doesn't feel right... IMO

[bullmoose]

I have to agree with andU on this new theory; it doesn't feel right and seems to me to be unnecessarily complicated, especially to have stayed unsuspected all this time. IMO, there would be too many people involved for there not to be a weak link, somebody snitching off, these past ten years.

[docg]

Doc, I read thru the links and understand why you think the intruder theory is improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE?? I'm still not there yet. While yes, there are many things that don't make sense, they *could* be explained by the fact that the intruder was psychotic, and since there is no suspect there is no way to conclude that he wasn't psychotic. Look at Dennis Rader's crimes (BTK). He did all sorts of things that made no sense, same with the Zodiac, the son of sam, etc.

Yes, it's true that criminals often make no sense. But in my view it's not just the theoretical intruder, but the whole intruder theory itself that doesn't make sense. For example, no footprints were found in the lawn surrounding the house. Not only in the layer of frost, which has been much debated, but in the grass itself. Nor was there any other sign anywhere around the house that an intruder had been present, no sign of ANY disturbance anywhere. When IDI's argue that this tells us nothing about the walkways, which were clear, that seems to make some sense. Until we take a long hard look at the photos and realize there was no way for any intruder to enter the house from the side or rear without stepping over areas of lawn, where his prints WOULD have been visible. The only way an intruder could have entered while sticking to the walkway, was via the very well lit front door.

Since it is clear that no one could have entered via the basement window without leaving very obvious signs of that in several places, including the window sill and frame, and also clear that ALL the outside doors were found locked, not only by John, but also the police, then we are forced to conclude that the only way our intruder could have entered AND left was with a key, via the front door. Which he would then have locked behind him when leaving. How probable is that?

But not yet impossible, agreed. What makes it impossible for me is the scene we find at the basement window, broken, with debris from the well strewn on the floor, glass on the floor, a suitcase propped against the wall beneath it. This is the window John testified that he found broken and open the morning of the 26th. If no one actually went through that window and the intruder entered and left via the front door, then how can that scene be explained?

Again, maybe this does not strike you as totally impossible as yet, maybe one could squeeze some tiny shards of reasonable doubt from the notion of some truly demented intruder capable of doing whatever is required to make an inside job seem likely. Very accomodating of this person, I'd say.

[docg]

This is the only part of your theory, doc, that is implausible...the manual strangulation, that is. If JR, or anyone, had strangled her manually there would be physical evidence of that. Have you ever seen an autopsy photo of someone who was manually stranlged? If not you can probably find one on the web. They literally have a red or purple handprint and fingerprints around their neck. The garrotte string would be too narrow to cover that up. If it happened like you theorize, JR must have strangled her with the string, then used the garrotte to deflect attention away from himself.

Yes, you have a point there. Manual strangulation isn't a necessary component of my theory, but it does explain the use of the garotte, which otherwise seems very odd for ANYONE to use, insider or intruder -- especially when we notice that tufts of her hair were entwined inside those knots, telling us this was NOT an erotic strangulation device.

Are you aware of the Althusser case? If not, look up Louis Althusser on the internet. He was a world famous French philosopher who "accidently" strangled his wife while he thought (as he claimed) he was only massaging her neck. The signs of strangulation were not apparent from an outer examination of the victim's neck and no one at first believed his story. I think this will interest you.

[rashomon]

I did not say there was no bleeding in JB's brain. I said there was relatively little bleeding considering the severity of the skull fracture. I think you are misunderstanding the language of the autopsy:

This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.

Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the blood had not yet coagulated. And to say that "dead persons don't bleed" is not necessarily correct. If I were to strangle you and stop your heart at let's say 5:00 pm. Then I pick up a bat and bash your skull at 5:01, you (though technically dead) could still bleed because the bat would sever blood vessels in which the blood would not yet have coagulated. So you, though dead, could still bleed provided I bashed you in the skull before your blood had a chance to clot.

And I have not read about Cyril Wecht's lies, but if he claims as you say that there was no blood on the brain, that is clearly disproven by the autopsy report which states that there was 7-8 cc's of blood (about 1-1/2 teaspoons)
Elvislives,
oh, Wecht does mention the 7-8 cc's of blood, but (on purpose imo) left out the rest of the blood in her brain (the area measuring approx. 4x7 inches, and also the subarachnoid bleeding in her brain.

And don't you think that your time line gets a little absurd: so in your opinion, to explain the fresh hemmorrhage in JB's brain, the strangulation must have occured one minute prior to the head bash, for in that case the blood in JB's body would not yet have coagulated.
So you think the perp strangled JB and then immediately bashed her head in? Not even die-hard IDIs have ever offered such a far-fetched explanation which totally defies logic.

[shill]

So you think the perp strangled JB and then immediately bashed her head in? Not even die-hard IDIs have ever offered such a far-fetched explanation which totally defies logic.You must have missed this post.

11-29-2006, 03:10 AM shill
Posts: 371
This is a scenerio of how JB might have died.

It recently occurred to me and was varified that JB's mouth might not have needed to be taped shut until after the strangulation started because she would not be able to scream out when she was being strangled. And covering her mouth with tape would restrict her oxygen and make the garrote to risky to use if he did not want to kill her.

So he's strangling her with the garrote and she passes out. He goes to loosen the noose but the knot is sticking and he can't get it loose, and she will die on him. He takes a flat pry bar he has with him and slips it under the knot and pulls it loose, but leaves a mark on her kneck from the prybar. (see photo)
http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg
Suddenly she gasps for air and comes to. She lets out a haunting scream heard by the nieghbor. The killer strikes her in the head with the flat prybar he still has in hand. He begins to choke her again so she can not scream again, but she is dying and his game ends and his plans must now change.

[elvislives]

Yes, it's true that criminals often make no sense. But in my view it's not just the theoretical intruder, but the whole intruder theory itself that doesn't make sense. For example, no footprints were found in the lawn surrounding the house. Not only in the layer of frost, which has been much debated, but in the grass itself. Nor was there any other sign anywhere around the house that an intruder had been present, no sign of ANY disturbance anywhere. When IDI's argue that this tells us nothing about the walkways, which were clear, that seems to make some sense. Until we take a long hard look at the photos and realize there was no way for any intruder to enter the house from the side or rear without stepping over areas of lawn, where his prints WOULD have been visible. The only way an intruder could have entered while sticking to the walkway, was via the very well lit front door.

Since it is clear that no one could have entered via the basement window without leaving very obvious signs of that in several places, including the window sill and frame, and also clear that ALL the outside doors were found locked, not only by John, but also the police, then we are forced to conclude that the only way our intruder could have entered AND left was with a key, via the front door. Which he would then have locked behind him when leaving. How probable is that?

But not yet impossible, agreed. What makes it impossible for me is the scene we find at the basement window, broken, with debris from the well strewn on the floor, glass on the floor, a suitcase propped against the wall beneath it. This is the window John testified that he found broken and open the morning of the 26th. If no one actually went through that window and the intruder entered and left via the front door, then how can that scene be explained?

Again, maybe this does not strike you as totally impossible as yet, maybe one could squeeze some tiny shards of reasonable doubt from the notion of some truly demented intruder capable of doing whatever is required to make an inside job seem likely. Very accomodating of this person, I'd say.

I first should point out that I am no expert in the area of weather, which is perhaps why I'm not convinced one way or the other on the IDI theory. I live in a fairly moderate climate (no snow) but right now I am in the mountains skiing. (Actually my family is skiing and I, due to a sprained ankle am sitting in the lodge sipping hot chocolate, debating the Ramsey murder online). But anyway, it has been snowing here on and off since we arrived. Since I live in a climate with no snow, I've done some mini non-scientific tests here for my own education. For example, on our balcony I have wiped the snow off completely or created footprints in the snow and a few hours later, there is no visible evidence of any disturbance, due sometimes to more snow falling or other times to the wind blowing the existing snow around. I have heard experts debate this on both sides and because the crime scene was not adequately secured and photos were not taken first thing in the am, I have given the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Regarding the broken window in the basement. First off it is possible for someone to go thru this window (one of the investigators did this on tv) and again, since the crime scene was so contaminated by all the people walking thru the house, it is hard to say whether or not there was a disturbance. Two possiblilies: the intruder came thru that window and his footprints leading up to the window were obscured by the weather conditions ( I have also seem photos of a back or side door with a walkway leading right up to it--no need to walk thru the grass) or 2) the intruder used some other mode of entry and the broken window and suitcase have nothing to do with the crime. The broken window could be explained by the fact that JR broke it himself the previous summer and it was never repaired (again assuming he was telling the truth about that).

The 3rd possibility of course is that the broken window and suitcase were part of the Ramsey(s) staging. I just don't feel certain enough to rule out the IDI theory based on the above.

[docg]

I first should point out that I am no expert in the area of weather, which is perhaps why I'm not convinced one way or the other on the IDI theory. I live in a fairly moderate climate (no snow) but right now I am in the mountains skiing. (Actually my family is skiing and I, due to a sprained ankle am sitting in the lodge sipping hot chocolate, debating the Ramsey murder online). But anyway, it has been snowing here on and off since we arrived. Since I live in a climate with no snow, I've done some mini non-scientific tests here for my own education. For example, on our balcony I have wiped the snow off completely or created footprints in the snow and a few hours later, there is no visible evidence of any disturbance, due sometimes to more snow falling or other times to the wind blowing the existing snow around. I have heard experts debate this on both sides and because the crime scene was not adequately secured and photos were not taken first thing in the am, I have given the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Regarding the broken window in the basement. First off it is possible for someone to go thru this window (one of the investigators did this on tv) and again, since the crime scene was so contaminated by all the people walking thru the house, it is hard to say whether or not there was a disturbance. Two possiblilies: the intruder came thru that window and his footprints leading up to the window were obscured by the weather conditions ( I have also seem photos of a back or side door with a walkway leading right up to it--no need to walk thru the grass) or 2) the intruder used some other mode of entry and the broken window and suitcase have nothing to do with the crime. The broken window could be explained by the fact that JR broke it himself the previous summer and it was never repaired (again assuming he was telling the truth about that).

The 3rd possibility of course is that the broken window and suitcase were part of the Ramsey(s) staging. I just don't feel certain enough to rule out the IDI theory based on the above.

The conditions were described by officer Reichenbach as "a thin layer of frost and light snow." These observations were made prior to any of the guests arriving. Heavy snow might have obliterated any prints, but this was just frost and a thin layer of snow. There were also patches of snow from a previous snowfall. Again, Smit's observations were made long after the fact and based on photos of the house in full sunlight, which would have melted the layer of frost. And by the way, the disturbance in the well he points to in the photo is inconsistent with an intruder dropping down into it, which would have crushed the debris, not swept it aside. The condition of the debris is consistent with someone scooping it up from inside in order to drop it on the floor. Staging!

It is also very difficult to understand how anyone could have walked across the narrow bit of lawn leading to the grate without leaving any sign of his presence in either the layer of frost or the grass under it. An intact spider web was found linking the grate to the adjoining lawn. Smit and Wood often belittle the observations of the police as though they "had it in" for the Ramseys right off the bat, from the very beginning, which is absurd. No one went through that window.

And if John is the perp, you are not "giving 'the Ramseys' the benefit of the doubt," you are giving John that benefit, despite clear evidence he not only killed his daughter but destroyed the happiness of his wife and entire family.

The debris on the floor, including the glass, and the suitcase, have no innocent explanation. Either they were tracked in by an intruder, which is impossible, or they were part of a staging attempt.

If you look carefully at John's story about breaking the window earlier, you'll see it is full of holes. For one thing he can't even recall when it happened, if it happened once or more than once, how he forgot his key, why he didn't get one from his neighbor, etc. Most damning of all, the housekeeper has denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused both John and Patsy of lying. Her theory is that they broke the window the night of the cimre and then concocted a phoney story so they wouldn't be accused of staging. I'd say she's got it almost exactly right!

[elvislives]

Elvislives,
oh, Wecht does mention the 7-8 cc's of blood, but (on purpose imo) left out the rest of the blood in her brain (the area measuring approx. 4x7 inches, and also the subarachnoid bleeding in her brain.

And don't you think that your time line gets a little absurd: so in your opinion, to explain the fresh hemmorrhage in JB's brain, the strangulation must have occured one minute prior to the head bash, for in that case the blood in JB's body would not yet have coagulated.
So you think the perp strangled JB and then immediately bashed her head in? Not even die-hard IDIs have ever offered such a far-fetched explanation which totally defies logic.

I think you need to read things more carefully before responding. I said nothing in my message to indicate that my opinion is that Jonbenet was strangled one minute prior to the head bash. The reason for the scenario I outlined was to disprove your assertion that " dead persons don't bleed" which is incorrect. Here is my quote:

>And to say that "dead persons don't bleed" is not necessarily correct. If I were to strangle you and stop your heart at let's say 5:00 pm. Then I pick up a bat and bash your skull at 5:01, you (though technically dead) could still bleed because the bat would sever blood vessels in which the blood would not yet have coagulated. So you, though dead, could still bleed provided I bashed you in the skull before your blood had a chance to clot.<

So you see I was not talking about Jonbenet at all. I said that if I were to strangle YOU (not Jonbenet) and stop your heart at 5pm then bash YOU (not Jonbenet) in the head at 5:01, your head would bleed even tho you would be technically dead. This again was intended to disprove your assertion that "dead persons don't bleed". Is English your second language?

[elvislives]

Yes, you have a point there. Manual strangulation isn't a necessary component of my theory, but it does explain the use of the garotte, which otherwise seems very odd for ANYONE to use, insider or intruder -- especially when we notice that tufts of her hair were entwined inside those knots, telling us this was NOT an erotic strangulation device.

Are you aware of the Althusser case? If not, look up Louis Althusser on the internet. He was a world famous French philosopher who "accidently" strangled his wife while he thought (as he claimed) he was only massaging her neck. The signs of strangulation were not apparent from an outer examination of the victim's neck and no one at first believed his story. I think this will interest you.


Take out the manual strangulation, doc, and you make a VERY good case. I have never heard of the Althusser case but I will look it up. It does sound interesting.

[elvislives]

The conditions were described by officer Reichenbach as "a thin layer of frost and light snow." These observations were made prior to any of the guests arriving. Heavy snow might have obliterated any prints, but this was just frost and a thin layer of snow. There were also patches of snow from a previous snowfall. Again, Smit's observations were made long after the fact and based on photos of the house in full sunlight, which would have melted the layer of frost. And by the way, the disturbance in the well he points to in the photo is inconsistent with an intruder dropping down into it, which would have crushed the debris, not swept it aside. The condition of the debris is consistent with someone scooping it up from inside in order to drop it on the floor. Staging!

WAS THE WIND BLOWING? LIKE I SAID IN MY PRIOR MESSAGE I DID A LITTLE EXPERIMENT WHERE I DISTURBED THE SNOW AND IT WAS OBSCURED BY SNOW THAT WAS BLOWN OVER IT.BTW I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE EASILY BETWEEN YOUR POST AND MY REPLY. I KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO SNIP, BUT I HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT.

It is also very difficult to understand how anyone could have walked across the narrow bit of lawn leading to the grate without leaving any sign of his presence in either the layer of frost or the grass under it. An intact spider web was found linking the grate to the adjoining lawn. Smit and Wood often belittle the observations of the police as though they "had it in" for the Ramseys right off the bat, from the very beginning, which is absurd. No one went through that window.

THE INTACT SPIDER WEB IS COMPELLING. I NEED TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THAT. ALSO, I ALWAYS HEAR THAT THE RAMSEYS FELT THAT THEY WERE SUSPECTS FROM THE START. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPECTS FROM THE START. SADLY THE MAJORITY OF CHILD MURDER'S ARE PERPETRATED BY THE PARENTS SO IF THE POLICE HAD NOT SUSPECTED THEM, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IRRESPONSIBLE.

And if John is the perp, you are not "giving 'the Ramseys' the benefit of the doubt," you are giving John that benefit, despite clear evidence he not only killed his daughter but destroyed the happiness of his wife and entire family.

WELL THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS PRESUMES THAT A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND I AM DOING JUST THAT, PRESUMING HIM INNOCENT. AND I DISAGREE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT IS CLEAR. THE GRAND JURY DIDN'T EVEN INDICT HIM AND AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, THE GRAND JURY WILL INDICT A HAM SANDWICH. IT IS CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE A RUBBER STAMP, YET THEY DID NOT INDICT JOHN RAMSEY.

The debris on the floor, including the glass, and the suitcase, have no innocent explanation. Either they were tracked in by an intruder, which is impossible, or they were part of a staging attempt.

If you look carefully at John's story about breaking the window earlier, you'll see it is full of holes. For one thing he can't even recall when it happened, if it happened once or more than once, how he forgot his key, why he didn't get one from his neighbor, etc. Most damning of all, the housekeeper has denied any knowledge of any broken window and accused both John and Patsy of lying. Her theory is that they broke the window the night of the cimre and then concocted a phoney story so they wouldn't be accused of staging. I'd say she's got it almost exactly right!

SHE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT. AND YOU MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT THAT HE IS GUILTY. I AM JUST NOT CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB MAKING YOUR CASE.

[shill]

And by the way, the disturbance in the well he points to in the photo is inconsistent with an intruder dropping down into it, which would have crushed the debris, not swept it aside. The condition of the debris is consistent with someone scooping it up from inside in order to drop it on the floor. Staging!

It is also very difficult to understand how anyone could have walked across the narrow bit of lawn leading to the grate without leaving any sign of his presence in either the layer of frost or the grass under it. An intact spider web was found linking the grate to the adjoining lawn. Smit and Wood often belittle the observations of the police as though they "had it in" for the Ramseys right off the bat, from the very beginning, which is absurd. No one went through that window.

The debris on the floor, including the glass, and the suitcase, have no innocent explanation. Either they were tracked in by an intruder, which is impossible, or they were part of a staging attempt.

If you stick your hand in a glass of water it displaces the water and it spills out. A window well is like the glass and air the water, it gets displaced. On top of what ever kicking and scuffing is done once your down there, the debri is going to get swept aside. Spider web strands take minutes to make. It is possible that someone went through.
But it doesn't matter because the intruder had other options for entering.

If someone wears gloves so they don't leave fingerprints, and no fingerprints are found, it doesn't mean the person didn't touch anything.

Why would you have to walk on the lawn? They build walk ways for all doors so you don't have to do that.

[aussiesheila]

I have to admit I get a little frustrated when I hear some of these theories that are just physiologically impossible. Again, I am not saying that PR was NOT involved, but the theory that she accidentally hit JB, or knocked her against some object causing the horrific head wound, then tried to cover up the accident with the staged strangulation is just impossible (BTW before the autopsy report was released, this was MY theory). If PR was involved, it could not have happenned that way. That is why docg's theory is such a refreshing change. I'm not sure I agree with him, but at least his theory does not defy the laws of physics.

Okay that said, onto the cerebral injuries. I have intentionally avoided this topic since most people on this forum are probably lay persons, but since you asked...

Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri can be caused by cerebral edema which can be caused by trauma, vascular disease, etc. To put it in perspective, keep in mind that many people are walking around with mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri and may not even be aware of it. In JB's case I am working off the assumption that she did not have peripheral vascular disease or any other organic condition that caused these injuries. So what caused them? One of two things: The head wound that she suffered would have caused ACUTE narrowing of the sulci and DIFFUSE flattening of the gyri, UNLESS of course she died of strangulation before the injuries could progress. The sulci and gyri could also be affected by the constriction of her carotid arteries and jugular veins during the stangulation. So take your pick.

Another thing I want to clarify. I have read and heard people (even physicians) say that they have seen many skull fractures which have caused little to no bleeding. I too have seen many skull fractures that cause little or no bleeding, but these are hairline fractures that would never be fatal. Usually they are self healing and are not even treated, aside from observation. I have NEVER seen or even heard of an 8 inch crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in the skull that did not cause profuse bleeding and acute cerebral edema. If JB had not been strangled to death first, she would definitely have died of the head trauma. And no one dies of head trauma if it caused no bleeding. Just had to get that off my chest.Oh elvislives, you have no idea how much I enjoy reading posts about the medical aspects of the crime from someone who knows what they are talking about. When I used to post at Websleuths I tried to get a thread going about the physics of the force that caused that head blow – I don’t think there was a single reply. Surely it could only have been caused by a fairly long object hitting it at considerable velocity, as for instance a baseball bat wielded by a strong person who knew exactly how to swing a bat to get maximum or near maximum strike force. I can’t see how a flashlight could have been swung to get that force, much less a fall against the edge of a bath. But you’re the physician who has seen however many head wounds. Am I incorrect in thinking this? Could the wound in JonBenet’s skull have been created with not much of a bash?

I am also wondering if reperfusion injury can cause mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri.

I ask you this because my theory is that at least in the hours prior to her death, JonBenet was being repeatedly strangled with the garrotte just to the point of losing conciousness and between each successive strangling, being allowed to regain conciousnees by the garrotte tension being released. This is a method I have heard that pedophiles are purported to use on their female victims in order to simulate the female orgasm.

Now I’m not asking you whether you think this could have been what happened, I am asking you whether, if it did happen, if it could have caused the sulci narrowing and gyri flattening. I am also asking you if it could have been a long standing condition. The reason I ask this is because I think JonBenet had been subjected to this treatment before in previous episodes of sexual abuse that I believe had been occurring for about 3 years prior to her death.

[rashomon]

I think you need to read things more carefully before responding. I said nothing in my message to indicate that my opinion is that Jonbenet was strangled one minute prior to the head bash. The reason for the scenario I outlined was to disprove your assertion that " dead persons don't bleed" which is incorrect. Here is my quote:

>And to say that "dead persons don't bleed" is not necessarily correct. If I were to strangle you and stop your heart at let's say 5:00 pm. Then I pick up a bat and bash your skull at 5:01, you (though technically dead) could still bleed because the bat would sever blood vessels in which the blood would not yet have coagulated. So you, though dead, could still bleed provided I bashed you in the skull before your blood had a chance to clot.<

So you see I was not talking about Jonbenet at all. I said that if I were to strangle YOU (not Jonbenet) and stop your heart at 5pm then bash YOU (not Jonbenet) in the head at 5:01, your head would bleed even tho you would be technically dead. This again was intended to disprove your assertion that "dead persons don't bleed". Is English your second language?
It is, but I understood your post perfectly well.
You wanted to prove that a dead person can still 'bleed' from a post-mortem injury when the blood has not yet coagulated. But the time for blood to coagulate seems to be very short.
So the basic question is: how could JB's brain have hemorrhaged if she was already dead from strangulation? Was it because the head blow was delivered immediately afterward? That's what I wanted to know from you.
In short, what is your time line of JB's injuries which takes into account the hemorrhaging in her brain?

[elvislives]

Oh elvislives, you have no idea how much I enjoy reading posts about the medical aspects of the crime from someone who knows what they are talking about. When I used to post at Websleuths I tried to get a thread going about the physics of the force that caused that head blow – I don’t think there was a single reply. Surely it could only have been caused by a fairly long object hitting it at considerable velocity, as for instance a baseball bat wielded by a strong person who knew exactly how to swing a bat to get maximum or near maximum strike force. I can’t see how a flashlight could have been swung to get that force, much less a fall against the edge of a bath. But you’re the physician who has seen however many head wounds. Am I incorrect in thinking this? Could the wound in JonBenet’s skull have been created with not much of a bash?

I am also wondering if reperfusion injury can cause mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri.

I ask you this because my theory is that at least in the hours prior to her death, JonBenet was being repeatedly strangled with the garrotte just to the point of losing conciousness and between each successive strangling, being allowed to regain conciousnees by the garrotte tension being released. This is a method I have heard that pedophiles are purported to use on their female victims in order to simulate the female orgasm.

Now I’m not asking you whether you think this could have been what happened, I am asking you whether, if it did happen, if it could have caused the sulci narrowing and gyri flattening. I am also asking you if it could have been a long standing condition. The reason I ask this is because I think JonBenet had been subjected to this treatment before in previous episodes of sexual abuse that I believe had been occurring for about 3 years prior to her death.

As far as the blow to the head, there is no way she fell or was pushed into the bathroom vanity for example since a very hard object with a sharp edge would have broken the skin and resulted in blood loss. As far as the baseball bat, that is possible. But I think the flashlight is also a possiblitly. I am not sure how heavy the flashlight in question is, but a six year old's skull is fairly "soft" and if an adult used force and momentum I think the flashlight could have caused the injuries too.

As far as reperfusion, that is definitely a possibility. You sound like you have some medical training. When patients are treated for carotid artery stenosis (blockage of the carotid arteries which causes ischemia in the brain and stroke if left untreated) --once the blockage is removed and the blood can flow freely into the brain, many patients get something called 'reperfusion syndrome' which is basically a headache caused by sudden changes in the sulci and gyri.

As far as this being a long standing condition, I have no idea. I have heard pathologists discuss this and my understanding is that at autopsy there is no way to tell. If the victim had some history of headaches, that might be indicative, but there is no way to know for sure.

[Ames]

<snipped>

As far as the blow to the head, there is no way she fell or was pushed into the bathroom vanity for example since a very hard object with a sharp edge would have broken the skin and resulted in blood loss.

I have never seen a bathtub with a "sharp edge"....thats what I think she was pushed up against, the first blow. (IMO)

No offense to you elvislives....I appreciate your medical input on this. But, I also want to add that doctors do not know everything. Have you ever heard the words "second opinion"? Thats why alot of patient's get one...because doctors don't know everything....(some may THINK they do...I am not referring to you!) Nobody knows which came first, the head blow, or the strangulation...even the ME that actually saw her body couldn't tell. So, everything that you post is based on YOUR opinion...just like everyone else here. (I promise...I am not trying to be rude...and I hope that you don't take this wrong....I DO appreciate your input). (IMO)

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
As far as this being a long standing condition, I have no idea. I have heard pathologists discuss this and my understanding is that at autopsy there is no way to tell. If the victim had some history of headaches, that might be indicative, but there is no way to know for sure.


Interesting. I was wondering when I read your earlier post if her chronic sinus infections could be related to these changes?

[elvislives]

It is, but I understood your post perfectly well.
You wanted to prove that a dead person can still 'bleed' from a post-mortem injury when the blood has not yet coagulated. But the time for blood to coagulate seems to be very short.
So the basic question is: how could JB's brain have hemorrhaged if she was already dead from strangulation? Was it because the head blow was delivered immediately afterward? That's what I wanted to know from you.
In short, what is your time line of JB's injuries which takes into account the hemorrhaging in her brain?

The time for blood to clot in a LIVING person is relatively short as you say, depending on the severity of the injury. But once a person is dead, it's a whole other story. The hemostasis cascade (the miriad of protiens, blood factors etc that accummulate to organize a clot) is interrupted at death. That is why dead people develop liver mortis which is when the red blood cells separate and settle based on gravity. So the long and the short of it is that yes, dead people can still bleed.

So to answer your basic question above, she could have been struck in the head just before, at the time of, or shortly after death by strangulation -- any of which could explain the brain hemorrhage. There is no way to know for sure based on the physical evidence of the autopsy.

As far as my own theory of the time line, I don't have one. When this crime was originally reported, I presumed the mother was the killer, based on statistics and the fact that she seemed a little out there, parading her daughter around in all these get-ups, dying her hair and enrolling her in pageants--it all seemed pretty wierd to me. So originally I presumed that Patsy hit her in some fit of anger, then upon realizing she was dead staged the botched kidnapping and garrotting as a cover up for her crime. Case closed. But once the autopsy report was released I was shocked and realized that the theory I held all along was impossible. So I don't claim to know what happened--I only know what didn't happen. The reason I came to this board is because many people are very good at speculating, which in this case is essential due to the lack of good physical evidence. I am not much of a speculator, so I came here to learn from others and hopefully reach a theory of my own.

[elvislives]

<snipped>



I have never seen a bathtub with a "sharp edge"....thats what I think she was pushed up against, the first blow. (IMO)

No offense to you elvislives....I appreciate your medical input on this. But, I also want to add that doctors do not know everything. Have you ever heard the words "second opinion"? Thats why alot of patient's get one...because doctors don't know everything....(some may THINK they do...I am not referring to you!) Nobody knows which came first, the head blow, or the strangulation...even the ME that actually saw her body couldn't tell. So, everything that you post is based on YOUR opinion...just like everyone else here. (I promise...I am not trying to be rude...and I hope that you don't take this wrong....I DO appreciate your input). (IMO)


The smooth edge of a bathtub would not have caused a hole in her skull. My original theory was that Patsy slammed her against the corner of the vanity. But again, that whole scenario of Patsy accidentally killing her, then staging the strangulation just doesn't fit with the physical evidence in the autopsy report.

And btw, as you point out my opinion is just that-MY opinion. I don't and have never claimed to speak for the entire medical community. I also don't claim to be all knowing. As I pointed out before, my original theory of what happened, yes MY theory, was disproven by the autopsy report. So clearly, doctors can be wrong as I was. So what I have to offer, like everyone else on this board, is simply my opinion.

[Ames]

The smooth edge of a bathtub would not have caused a hole in her skull. My original theory was that Patsy slammed her against the corner of the vanity. But again, that whole scenario of Patsy accidentally killing her, then staging the strangulation just doesn't fit with the physical evidence in the autopsy report.

And btw, as you point out my opinion is just that-MY opinion. I don't and have never claimed to speak for the entire medical community. I also don't claim to be all knowing. As I pointed out before, my original theory of what happened, yes MY theory, was disproven by the autopsy report. So clearly, doctors can be wrong as I was. So what I have to offer, like everyone else on this board, is simply my opinion.

Thanks for clarifying! What about if the initial blow was not hard enough to crack her skull? What if Patsy, out of anger, slammed her against....maybe the tub? JB was unconscious...and not wanting to be arrested for child abuse...Patsy decided to not take JB to the ER. And then the staging began....would that fit the autopsy evidence?? Just curious??

[elvislives]

Thanks for clarifying! What about if the initial blow was not hard enough to crack her skull? What if Patsy, out of anger, slammed her against....maybe the tub? JB was unconscious...and not wanting to be arrested for child abuse...Patsy decided to not take JB to the ER. And then the staging began....would that fit the autopsy evidence?? Just curious??

This is why I haven't totally ruled out Patsy. It IS possible that the initial blow just knocked her out, then came the deadly blow and strangulation (not necessarily in that order). The only conclusion that can be drawn based on the physical evidence is that the blow that caused the hole/crack and the death by strangulation happened within a VERY short time frame, perhaps even simultaneously.

That said, I have never heard of ANY evidence that suggests there were multiple blows to the head, which would have to be the case for the Patsy-did-it-accidentally theory to work. Doesn't mean it didn't happen that way and since portions of the autopsy report were redacted, who knows? But I think if there were evidence of multiple blows to the head, that would have leaked, since almost everything else did. But this of course is just speculation.

[Ames]

This is why I haven't totally ruled out Patsy. It IS possible that the initial blow just knocked her out, then came the deadly blow and strangulation (not necessarily in that order). The only conclusion that can be drawn based on the physical evidence is that the blow that caused the hole/crack and the death by strangulation happened within a VERY short time frame, perhaps even simultaneously.

That said, I have never heard of ANY evidence that suggests there were multiple blows to the head, which would have to be the case for the Patsy-did-it-accidentally theory to work. Doesn't mean it didn't happen that way and since portions of the autopsy report were redacted, who knows? But I think if there were evidence of multiple blows to the head, that would have leaked, since almost everything else did. But this of course is just speculation.

Thanks...okay...one more question for ya. What about Patsy, while having her hands around JB neck (obviously out of anger)..and squeezing...repeatedly bashing her head against the tub....sort of like shaken baby syndrome, only with a six year old, and while her head is pounding against something??

[Ames]

Okay, I am having trouble going back to edit on this new board....

WHAT IF...Patsy, out of anger, grabbed JB around the neck and started squeezing, and while she was doing that, she slammed JB head against the tub or something. That could possibly account for the strangulation AND the head wound occuring at the same time, or around the same time. Whats your thoughts on this? I am anxiously awaiting your reply....

[Ames]

I meant to add also...that Patsy could have bashed JB head into the tub only ONCE...causing the crack in the skull.

[docg]

If you stick your hand in a glass of water it displaces the water and it spills out. A window well is like the glass and air the water, it gets displaced. On top of what ever kicking and scuffing is done once your down there, the debri is going to get swept aside. Spider web strands take minutes to make. It is possible that someone went through.
But it doesn't matter because the intruder had other options for entering.

If someone wears gloves so they don't leave fingerprints, and no fingerprints are found, it doesn't mean the person didn't touch anything.

Why would you have to walk on the lawn? They build walk ways for all doors so you don't have to do that.

Packing peanuts, leaves, etc. don't displace automatically like water. If someone let himself down into that well, you'd see crushed peanuts and leaves where he stepped. Smit's demonstration also showed that he would have to have flattened his whole body flush against the bottom of the well in order to reach through and open the window, which would have crushed a great many of the objects we see in the photos. But there's no sign of anything like that. The spider that produced this web was found to be dormant in the winter. It was an old web. And yes, there were other options for entering, assuming he had a key. All the locks were examined for pry marks and other signs of forced entry. One was found, but it was old. If he had a key and entered and left via a door, it's hard to understand why he'd bother to lock the door behind him. It's even harder to understand why he'd want to stage a phoney entrance/exit at the basement window.

There was no way to approach the side or rear of the house without stepping over portions of the lawn. Only the highly visible front door walkway was directly accessible, which is the least likely path for an intruder.

While the above doesn't make it impossible for an intruder to have foujnd a way in (and out), it would force any defense lawyer to walk through hoops and bend himself into a pretzel to convince a jury an intruder somehow got in (and out) that night. But, of course, this case will never be tried.

[docg]

Elvislives:
WAS THE WIND BLOWING? LIKE I SAID IN MY PRIOR MESSAGE I DID A LITTLE EXPERIMENT WHERE I DISTURBED THE SNOW AND IT WAS OBSCURED BY SNOW THAT WAS BLOWN OVER IT.BTW I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE EASILY BETWEEN YOUR POST AND MY REPLY. I KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO SNIP, BUT I HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT.

The crime scene photos show no sign of blown snow and there were no such reports. There was a light layer of snow and frost on the ground, not enough snow to obscure prints. Anyone walking across that lawn to enter via the window well would have left signs of his presence, in the form of various sorts of disturbances, ranging from footprints to displacements of grass and turf. None were found.

THE INTACT SPIDER WEB IS COMPELLING. I NEED TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THAT. ALSO, I ALWAYS HEAR THAT THE RAMSEYS FELT THAT THEY WERE SUSPECTS FROM THE START. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPECTS FROM THE START. SADLY THE MAJORITY OF CHILD MURDER'S ARE PERPETRATED BY THE PARENTS SO IF THE POLICE HAD NOT SUSPECTED THEM, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IRRESPONSIBLE.

I fully agree. Actually the authorities bent over backwards to accomodate the Ramseys -- and look at a great many other possible suspects. The spider web has been the object of much scrutiny and the usual sort of back and forth squabbling among the "experts." As I see it, this is just one out of a great many other pieces of evidence, that, when taken together, make an intruder entrance or exit at that point virtually impossible. Smit's refusal to see the obvious totally undercuts his credibility as a Ramsey defender.

WELL THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS PRESUMES THAT A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND I AM DOING JUST THAT, PRESUMING HIM INNOCENT. AND I DISAGREE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT IS CLEAR. THE GRAND JURY DIDN'T EVEN INDICT HIM AND AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, THE GRAND JURY WILL INDICT A HAM SANDWICH. IT IS CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE A RUBBER STAMP, YET THEY DID NOT INDICT JOHN RAMSEY.

Your attitude is totally reasonable, given the aspects of the case with which you may still not be aware. When ALL the evidence is taken into consideration, it all points in one direction: John Ramsey. Since you seem to be free of bias and genuinely open minded about this case, I think you will eventually, as you learn more, come to agree with me. Almost everyone who's ever gotten involved in this mystery finds themselves sidetracked very quickly into one or another of its dead ends: the intruder theory, the accident theory, the atttempt by Patsy to bop John over the head and hitting JonBenet instead theory, the bedwetting theory, etc. Very sadly people get stuck on one or other of these nutty tracks and then refuse to see any other possible path. Sadest of all are those who keep insisting they can "see Patsy all over the note" -- but can't explain why she'd WANT to write such a note in the first place.

SHE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT. AND YOU MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT THAT HE IS GUILTY. I AM JUST NOT CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB MAKING YOUR CASE.

Thank you. It's a very complicated case, with lots of twists and turns, so be patient. The more you learn the more you'll see what's possible and what's not.

[shill]

Packing peanuts, leaves, etc. don't displace automatically like water. If someone let himself down into that well, you'd see crushed peanuts and leaves where he stepped.
I disagree, this is a confined space and the air is pushed and has to move. Airplanes fly on air because there is a density to the air, it is a substance.

And yes, there were other options for entering, assuming he had a key. All the locks were examined for pry marks and other signs of forced entry. One was found, but it was old. If he had a key and entered and left via a door, it's hard to understand why he'd bother to lock the door behind him. It's even harder to understand why he'd want to stage a phoney entrance/exit at the basement window. A key is possible. Picking a lock wouldn't leave traces and the Butler door was left open, which is right near the basement stairs. And the window was prepped from the inside for an emergency escape route.

There was no way to approach the side or rear of the house without stepping over portions of the lawn. Only the highly visible front door walkway was directly accessible, which is the least likely path for an intruder.How many doors are there to get into this house and how many of those would you have no choice but to walk on lawn to get to them?
And lawns in the winter are usually flattened by snow and when there is no snow they freeze up, so footprints are less visible.
Are we to believe there were no footprints on the lawn. I'd like to know how they put all those decorations on the lawn without leaving any footprints.

[elvislives]

Okay, I am having trouble going back to edit on this new board....

WHAT IF...Patsy, out of anger, grabbed JB around the neck and started squeezing, and while she was doing that, she slammed JB head against the tub or something. That could possibly account for the strangulation AND the head wound occuring at the same time, or around the same time. Whats your thoughts on this? I am anxiously awaiting your reply....

Manual strangulation leaves very distinctive marks--hand and fingerprints on the neck that look like a bruise. Also, the hole in the skull could not have been caused by something smooth and flat like a bathtub. It would have to come from a corner, or something else with a small enough surface area to create the 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole. Also, if she was repeatedly struck in the head and didn't die immediately she would have bruising around her head and very organized cerebral hemorrage(s) which according to the autopsy was not observed. I am fairly confident that IF Patsy did it, it was intentional. I have heard some farfetched theories like Patsy killed her out of jealousy or because she would not wear the particular christmas dress or as some sort of a sacrifice for her cancer...anything is possible. But I have never been able to come up with a scenario that would make the accident theory possible and consistent with the autopsy report (even tho statistically that IS the most likely explanation).

[elvislives]

Elvislives:
WAS THE WIND BLOWING? LIKE I SAID IN MY PRIOR MESSAGE I DID A LITTLE EXPERIMENT WHERE I DISTURBED THE SNOW AND IT WAS OBSCURED BY SNOW THAT WAS BLOWN OVER IT.BTW I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE EASILY BETWEEN YOUR POST AND MY REPLY. I KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO SNIP, BUT I HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT.

The crime scene photos show no sign of blown snow and there were no such reports. There was a light layer of snow and frost on the ground, not enough snow to obscure prints. Anyone walking across that lawn to enter via the window well would have left signs of his presence, in the form of various sorts of disturbances, ranging from footprints to displacements of grass and turf. None were found.

THE INTACT SPIDER WEB IS COMPELLING. I NEED TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THAT. ALSO, I ALWAYS HEAR THAT THE RAMSEYS FELT THAT THEY WERE SUSPECTS FROM THE START. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPECTS FROM THE START. SADLY THE MAJORITY OF CHILD MURDER'S ARE PERPETRATED BY THE PARENTS SO IF THE POLICE HAD NOT SUSPECTED THEM, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IRRESPONSIBLE.

I fully agree. Actually the authorities bent over backwards to accomodate the Ramseys -- and look at a great many other possible suspects. The spider web has been the object of much scrutiny and the usual sort of back and forth squabbling among the "experts." As I see it, this is just one out of a great many other pieces of evidence, that, when taken together, make an intruder entrance or exit at that point virtually impossible. Smit's refusal to see the obvious totally undercuts his credibility as a Ramsey defender.

WELL THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS PRESUMES THAT A PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND I AM DOING JUST THAT, PRESUMING HIM INNOCENT. AND I DISAGREE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT IS CLEAR. THE GRAND JURY DIDN'T EVEN INDICT HIM AND AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, THE GRAND JURY WILL INDICT A HAM SANDWICH. IT IS CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE A RUBBER STAMP, YET THEY DID NOT INDICT JOHN RAMSEY.

Your attitude is totally reasonable, given the aspects of the case with which you may still not be aware. When ALL the evidence is taken into consideration, it all points in one direction: John Ramsey. Since you seem to be free of bias and genuinely open minded about this case, I think you will eventually, as you learn more, come to agree with me. Almost everyone who's ever gotten involved in this mystery finds themselves sidetracked very quickly into one or another of its dead ends: the intruder theory, the accident theory, the atttempt by Patsy to bop John over the head and hitting JonBenet instead theory, the bedwetting theory, etc. Very sadly people get stuck on one or other of these nutty tracks and then refuse to see any other possible path. Sadest of all are those who keep insisting they can "see Patsy all over the note" -- but can't explain why she'd WANT to write such a note in the first place.

SHE MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT. AND YOU MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT THAT HE IS GUILTY. I AM JUST NOT CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AT THIS POINT, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB MAKING YOUR CASE.

Thank you. It's a very complicated case, with lots of twists and turns, so be patient. The more you learn the more you'll see what's possible and what's not.

I have a few problems with the JDI theory that you perhaps can help explain. First off, your theory is based not so much on evidence, but a LACK of evidence, just like the IDI theory. Secondly the motive is very questionable imo. I am not of the opinion that decent, respectable people do not molest their children--they can and they do all the time, but unless they are young, there is usually some history or corroborating evidence to support the accusation. If for example the computer forensics team had found that JR had visited child porn websites, THAT would be enough corroborative evidence for me to believe that theory. But the computer forensics team found NOTHING on either his home or work computers. Also his former wife said she never saw anything in his behaviour to indicate he had any interest in children sexually. So while the theory is plausible there is simply no evidence to support it. There was a case here in San Diego where a young girl was kidnapped from her bed and later found raped and murdered in the mountains. Her parents of course were the prime suspects and their every flaw was covered on the evening news, but they turned out to be innocent. The killer was a neighbor with no criminal history at all, but computer forensics specialists were able to uncover child porn websites that he had visited. Of course he erased everything related to this, but after months of examining his hard drive they found the "footprints".
The Elizabeth Smart case is another one that comes to mind. I had completely convicted her parents based on the LACK of evidence of an intruder. I speculated that her father must have been molesting her and must have had to kill her to shut her up. No evidence of that, but it seemed more reasonable to me than the IDI theory. And guess what? An intruder did it! I often wonder if the father would have been charged if Elizabeth's body had turned up. There ARE wierdos out there. And btw, I HOPE JR is guilty. To have your child murdered and to be accused of not only killing her, but molesting her first is a hideous accusation. It would be a horrible travesty of justice if he, after enduring all these aweful accusations turned out to be innocent. So I am hoping he is guilty, just not convinced at this point.

[Ames]

Manual strangulation leaves very distinctive marks--hand and fingerprints on the neck that look like a bruise. Also, the hole in the skull could not have been caused by something smooth and flat like a bathtub. It would have to come from a corner, or something else with a small enough surface area to create the 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole. Also, if she was repeatedly struck in the head and didn't die immediately she would have bruising around her head and very organized cerebral hemorrage(s) which according to the autopsy was not observed. I am fairly confident that IF Patsy did it, it was intentional. I have heard some farfetched theories like Patsy killed her out of jealousy or because she would not wear the particular christmas dress or as some sort of a sacrifice for her cancer...anything is possible. But I have never been able to come up with a scenario that would make the accident theory possible and consistent with the autopsy report (even tho statistically that IS the most likely explanation).

So, it would have to have been a corner? But, my 5 year old daughter, was running through the house, and fell and hit her head on the corner of the doorway (its just a throughway, no door...and the walls are sharp corners)...and it split her head wide open...she had to have five staples. So, wouldn't it had to have been something rounded and smooth, to cause the skin not to break? Maybe even the foot of the tub...maybe they had one of those kinds that have legs on them, with the fancy "feet"...(do you know what I am talking about? Anyway, yeah, I had a fleeting thought that it could have been a sacrifice...because Patsy had said that she decorated in Purple for Christmas that year...and that she didn't know why. JB Christmas dress was purple. (Purple is a sign of resurrection, of life....Easter...for Christians). Maybe she thought that she would sacrifice her, and that she would rise up....remember her words when John brought JB's body up. "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby my baby from the dead". Maybe she actually thought that he would. IMO

[docg]

elvislives:
>I have a few problems with the JDI theory that you perhaps can help explain. First off, your theory is based not so much on evidence, but a LACK of evidence, just like the IDI theory.

It's based on a combination of things. There's lack of intruder evidence, sure. But there is also evidence of staging. The ransom note is evidence. It's been compared by an Italian expert with a court document attributed to John and striking similarities have been found. Recently I've learned that this document was never seen by the experts who ruled John out. So he has to be ruled back IN. THAT's evidence. There is also what I'd call "negative evidence." Items were used that can be associated with Patsy or Burke, but not John. That points to John, as I see it, since if he's guilty he'd avoid using anything of his own. Also there is the logic of the case. If we eliminate every possibility and John can't be eliminated, that's important. All that's ever eliminated him has been the testimony of the experts, who seem to have seen only the exemplars John wanted them to see.

>Secondly the motive is very questionable imo. I am not of the opinion that decent, respectable people do not molest their children--they can and they do all the time, but unless they are young, there is usually some history or corroborating evidence to support the accusation. If for example the computer forensics team had found that JR had visited child porn websites, THAT would be enough corroborative evidence for me to believe that theory.

First, we know very little about John, so we can't rule out child molestation in his past. Second, the Ramsey home was very unusual. JonBenet was made by her mother into a highly sexualized child. It's possible that John had no history of molestation but could nevertheless have been tempted for the first time by JonBenet. Regardless of motive, we have to go by the evidence and as I see it, the evidence makes sense only if John is the guilty party. Every other scenario not only fails, but is patently absurd.

[Ames]

elvislives:
>I have a few problems with the JDI theory that you perhaps can help explain. First off, your theory is based not so much on evidence, but a LACK of evidence, just like the IDI theory.

It's based on a combination of things. There's lack of intruder evidence, sure. But there is also evidence of staging. The ransom note is evidence. It's been compared by an Italian expert with a court document attributed to John and striking similarities have been found. Recently I've learned that this document was never seen by the experts who ruled John out. So he has to be ruled back IN. THAT's evidence. There is also what I'd call "negative evidence." Items were used that can be associated with Patsy or Burke, but not John. That points to John, as I see it, since if he's guilty he'd avoid using anything of his own. Also there is the logic of the case. If we eliminate every possibility and John can't be eliminated, that's important. All that's ever eliminated him has been the testimony of the experts, who seem to have seen only the exemplars John wanted them to see.

>Secondly the motive is very questionable imo. I am not of the opinion that decent, respectable people do not molest their children--they can and they do all the time, but unless they are young, there is usually some history or corroborating evidence to support the accusation. If for example the computer forensics team had found that JR had visited child porn websites, THAT would be enough corroborative evidence for me to believe that theory.

First, we know very little about John, so we can't rule out child molestation in his past. Second, the Ramsey home was very unusual. JonBenet was made by her mother into a highly sexualized child. It's possible that John had no history of molestation but could nevertheless have been tempted for the first time by JonBenet. Regardless of motive, we have to go by the evidence and as I see it, the evidence makes sense only if John is the guilty party. Every other scenario not only fails, but is patently absurd.

So its not possible that John was molesting JB, and Patsy knew about it?? And was in on the crime??

[elvislives]

So, it would have to have been a corner? But, my 5 year old daughter, was running through the house, and fell and hit her head on the corner of the doorway (its just a throughway, no door...and the walls are sharp corners)...and it split her head wide open...she had to have five staples. So, wouldn't it had to have been something rounded and smooth, to cause the skin not to break? Maybe even the foot of the tub...maybe they had one of those kinds that have legs on them, with the fancy "feet"...(do you know what I am talking about? Anyway, yeah, I had a fleeting thought that it could have been a sacrifice...because Patsy had said that she decorated in Purple for Christmas that year...and that she didn't know why. JB Christmas dress was purple. (Purple is a sign of resurrection, of life....Easter...for Christians). Maybe she thought that she would sacrifice her, and that she would rise up....remember her words when John brought JB's body up. "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, raise my baby my baby from the dead". Maybe she actually thought that he would. IMO

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a corner, just something with a small enough surface area to have created the hole in her skull, without piercing the skin. And I suspect that while your daughter's accident split her scalp wide open, it did not split her skull wide open. Looking at JB's skull, it is highly unlikely (some say impossible) that she could have survived that injury even if she had immediate medical attention. And while your fleeting thought that Patsy may have sacrificed her daughter is certainly farfetched....every possible explanation for this crime is farfetched. The only theory that can be ruled out is the obvious--that one parent killed her accidentally, then tried to cover up the accident with the strangulation and staging. It is farfetched to think that Patsy, for any reason, would INTENTIONALLY kill her daughter. It is also farfetched to believe that John Ramsey, with no history of child molestation and no known interest in child porn would have KILLED his 6 year old to silence her in such a sloppy and incriminating manner. It is equally farfetched to believe that some intruder got in and out of the house and spent considerable time there abusing this child without getting caught or even leaving any evidence. So whatever the truth in this case is, it is farfetched, but one of these preposterous theories is proabably right.

[Ames]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a corner, just something with a small enough surface area to have created the hole in her skull, without piercing the skin. And I suspect that while your daughter's accident split her scalp wide open, it did not split her skull wide open. Looking at JB's skull, it is highly unlikely (some say impossible) that she could have survived that injury even if she had immediate medical attention. And while your fleeting thought that Patsy may have sacrificed her daughter is certainly farfetched....every possible explanation for this crime is farfetched. The only theory that can be ruled out is the obvious--that one parent killed her accidentally, then tried to cover up the accident with the strangulation and staging. It is farfetched to think that Patsy, for any reason, would INTENTIONALLY kill her daughter. It is also farfetched to believe that John Ramsey, with no history of child molestation and no known interest in child porn would have KILLED his 6 year old to silence her in such a sloppy and incriminating manner. It is equally farfetched to believe that some intruder got in and out of the house and spent considerable time there abusing this child without getting caught or even leaving any evidence. So whatever the truth in this case is, it is farfetched, but one of these preposterous theories is proabably right.

NO, thank goodness....my daughter's scalp wasn't split wide open. I was mainly referring to the bleeding, thats all. It just seems to me that a corner would cause a laceration...and a blunt object...such as a tub...would not. Yep, its hard to believe that a parent would kill their own flesh and blood intentionally, but stranger things have happened...and as YOU (being an ER doc.) probably know..it happens every single day.

[shill]

So its not possible that John was molesting JB, and Patsy knew about it?? And was in on the crime??
If John was molesting her, then the garrote and ligature were probably not staged and part of John's fantasy he acted out that evening. If he has no prior indication of child molesting, maybe this bondage scenerio brought it out in him. And IMO he would definitely keep this a secret from Patsy. And he would kill her so no one would learn of his horrible sadistic urge he acted on. And now he has to cover it up.

[bullmoose]

Ames: I think that when Patsy made her plea to Jesus to resurrect Jonbenet like he did to Lazurus she was in a state of hysterical shock; nothing more. I think that if Patsy sacrificed Jonbenet to cure herself of cancer she would be totally insane; in all interviews that I saw, up until Patsy died, I saw nothing to make me think she was crazy. If Jonbenet had been sacrificed for some bizarre reason like that, don't you think they would have used a less gruesome method than ligature strangulation? Sacrifices in Jesus' day were done by cutting the throats of the sacrificial animals, surely that would have been the method if it were her parents. Just in general, I'd like to address the broken window issue, there is no question that whenever the window was broken, it was from the outside; the glass was in the basement, not in the well of the window. If it was broken as a coverup, where were the footprints outside? remember it was broken from outside.

[Ames]

If John was molesting her, then the garrote and ligature were probably not staged and part of John's fantasy he acted out that evening. If he has no prior indication of child molesting, maybe this bondage scenerio brought it out in him. And IMO he would definitely keep this a secret from Patsy. And he would kill her so no one would learn of his horrible sadistic urge he acted on. And now he has to cover it up.


Could be possible...this case just baffles the heck outta me!!!!

[rashomon]

First, we know very little about John, so we can't rule out child molestation in his past. Second, the Ramsey home was very unusual. JonBenet was made by her mother into a highly sexualized child. It's possible that John had no history of molestation but could nevertheless have been tempted for the first time by JonBenet. Regardless of motive, we have to go by the evidence and as I see it, the evidence makes sense only if John is the guilty party. Every other scenario not only fails, but is patently absurd.
Why is a scenario absurd in which Patsy struck out at JB in a rage and hurt her fatally? This happens more often than you think .
And via her rage attack on JB, Patsy, without realizing it, played into the hands of John, who now was relieved to have suddenly gotten rid of a witness who would never talk again.
Another possible scenario is that Patsy caught John molesting JB, but directed her rage at her daughter instead.

You mentioned the woman who said that John Ramsey wanted her to dress as a little girl. Who was that woman? And what is your source for that - do you have a link?

[Ames]

<snipped>
Another possible scenario is that Patsy caught John molesting JB, but directed her rage at her daughter instead.



I have heard this possible scenario before.

[shill]

I think this tool would do the kind of damage suffered to JB's skull.
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00002X1XT.01._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

[bullmoose]

To rashoman: I do not have the links for the woman you are talking about[ in truth I am so computer-illiterate, I don't know how] but her name is Kay Ballard; she slithered out from under a rock and made all kinds of claims about herself and John Ramsey. None of her claims of times and places were ever substantiated as factual; her credability was so low that even National Enquirer wouldn't pay her for her story. She refused to take lie detector tests and was concluded to be a total fraud; apparently she then slithered back under her rock and was heard of no more.

[bullmoose]

I do believe that the tool shown might do the skull trauma, if swung with sufficent force. I have always wondered about the assumption that the flashlight found on the counter was the club used to fracture Jonbenet's skull; it always seemed to me that if it were that weapon it would have had hair or skin on it, where it struck Jonbenet. And how big was it; two D batteries,three, four, five? I have a six battery maglight that would make a good club; but a two battery maglight would be very unwieldy as a club, holding it by the lensecase wouldn't give a easily swung weapon to do much harm. The nailbar shill posted is much more likely to be the weapon used, IMO.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8785652]Why is a scenario absurd in which Patsy struck out at JB in a rage and hurt her fatally? This happens more often than you think .
QUOTE]

Okay I'll give this one last shot, then I'm done...

The theory that Patsy struck JB in a rage and fatally injured her is not at all absurd. In fact, it is the most likely and most obvious explanation for the murder, and as you stated this happens all the time. As I have pointed out before this was MY original theory and that of many on the BPD as well. The ONLY problem with this scenario is that the autopsy report completely CONFLICTS with this theory. If the autopsy had shown that JB suffered severe head wounds that had begun to organize prior to her strangulation....or if the autopsy had shown that JB died of internal bleeding from the head wounds and the garrotting was there just for show....then that scenario would make perfect sense and Patsy Ramsey would likely have been tried and convicted for her daughter's murder. The only problem is that the autopsy shows unequivically that the bash to the head and the strangulation occurred within a VERY VERY short time frame. So based on the evidence, there are several possibilities in terms of the sequence: Jonbenet could have been strangled with the garrotte, then shortly before, at the time of, or immediately after death she was bashed in the head--hard to imagine how that could have been an accident, unless you believe that Patsy in a fit of rage strangled her daughter with a cord. Another possibility is that JB was bashed in the head, then immediately strangled with the garrotte and killed by strangulation (which takes ~5 minutes) before the blood from her head wound even began to clot (which happens within seconds). So what is your theory, consistent with the physical evidence that this was an accident? The only thing I can think of--that is consistent with the physical evidence-- is that Patsy beaned JB on the head in a fit of rage, then immediately (within seconds) grabbed a cord and wrapped it around her neck and strangled her. Or just the reverse...Patsy in a fit of rage strangled her daughter to death with a cord (which again takes ~ 5 minutes) then bashed her on the head with some blunt heavy object. Then perhaps, she later fashioned the garrotte, wrote the phony ransom letter, etc to complete the staging. These scenarios, imo and in the opinions of most rational people are absurd. So unless you can come up with an accident scenario that is consistent with the physical evidence, it HAD to be intentional. If you have a theory that does not defy physics, by all means share it.

[elvislives]

NO, thank goodness....my daughter's scalp wasn't split wide open. I was mainly referring to the bleeding, thats all. It just seems to me that a corner would cause a laceration...and a blunt object...such as a tub...would not. Yep, its hard to believe that a parent would kill their own flesh and blood intentionally, but stranger things have happened...and as YOU (being an ER doc.) probably know..it happens every single day.

You are correct that a corner of a vanity sink or anything else would have lacerated the skin. My initial theory was that Patsy in a fit of rage violently shoved JB who hit her head on the corner of the vanity. Patsy, realizing she was fatally injured staged the garrotte, break in, silly ransom note, etc. However, I developed this theory BEFORE all the forensic evidence was made public. For all I knew at the time the corner did break the skin, she bled all over, and Patsy cleaned it up. Obviously we now know that the skin was never broken, so the object that struck her skull had to be one with a small enough surface area to cause the hole, yet blunt enough not to break the skin. The flashlight, the bat or that instrument Shill brought forth are all possiblities.

[thewhitewitch1]

You are correct that a corner of a vanity sink or anything else would have lacerated the skin. My initial theory was that Patsy in a fit of rage violently shoved JB who hit her head on the corner of the vanity. Patsy, realizing she was fatally injured staged the garrotte, break in, silly ransom note, etc. However, I developed this theory BEFORE all the forensic evidence was made public. For all I knew at the time the corner did break the skin, she bled all over, and Patsy cleaned it up. Obviously we now know that the skin was never broken, so the object that struck her skull had to be one with a small enough surface area to cause the hole, yet blunt enough not to break the skin. The flashlight, the bat or that instrument Shill brought forth are all possiblities.


With all due respect to your professional knowledge, other physicians, medical examiners and professionals in the medical field disagree with you. Some have stated that the strangling could have occured as long as an hour after the head wound so I don't believe that Patsy and the "accidental head blow" theory can be so easily dismissed. If all opinions from professionals were unanimous that the head blow came last, I'd abandon the idea but since it isn't, I'm still of the belief that an "accident" occured and the rest was staged to cover it. IMO

[docg]

So its not possible that John was molesting JB, and Patsy knew about it?? And was in on the crime??

When a father is molesting his daughter, the mother is generally kept out of the loop. That goes double when he's just murdered her.

Of course, anything is possible. But there is no REAL evidence Patsy was involved and one piece of really strong evidence she wasn't: her 911 call.

If you are convinced of her involvement because you can't get past the "similarities" between her printing and that on the ransom note, then sorry, I can't take you seriously. Handwriting identification is NOT for beginners. Millions of people share the same basic ways of forming letters. Even the so-called "experts" disagree on what to look for. Some "experts" were convinced Pasty wrote it; others saw no evidence of that, including a top expert at the Secret Service; still others were convinced Karr wrote it; Brugnatelli obviously suspects John. I too suspect John, but I would never claim I could prove that from comparing his court document with the note. Above all, we have to ask ourselves WHY anyone would WANT to write such a note in the first place. Certainly it couldn't have been Patsy, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so and then calling the police on herself.

[docg]

I do believe that the tool shown might do the skull trauma, if swung with sufficent force. I have always wondered about the assumption that the flashlight found on the counter was the club used to fracture Jonbenet's skull; it always seemed to me that if it were that weapon it would have had hair or skin on it, where it struck Jonbenet. And how big was it; two D batteries,three, four, five? I have a six battery maglight that would make a good club; but a two battery maglight would be very unwieldy as a club, holding it by the lensecase wouldn't give a easily swung weapon to do much harm. The nailbar shill posted is much more likely to be the weapon used, IMO.

I read somewhere that one of the investigators matched the maglite to the dent in the skull. I think that's the most likely weapon by far, since it is big, heavy and rubber tipped. It could do a lot of damage but would be unlikely to break the scalp. Perfect weapon for someone planning to stage a kidnapping, where the child is supposedly murdered AFTER leaving the house. You wouldn't want there to be blood all over the place. No hair or skin was found on it because it had been carefully wiped. The batteries had also been carefully wiped. Interesting psychology. An intruder killing her with his own maglite would have simply taken it with him, not bothered to wipe it down and then leave it. An intruder using the house maglite would have had no reason to wipe it at all, either the tip or the batteries -- especially if he were wearing gloves, which it is assumed he was. An insider using it to stun his victim might have wanted all trace of that obliterated. And if his prints were on the batteries, those too might need to be obliterated, to eliminate all trace of his involvement -- for the same reason he'd have chosen Patsy's pad, pen and paintbrush and Burke's knife. He'd have wanted to distance himself from any aspect of the crime.

[Ames]

When a father is molesting his daughter, the mother is generally kept out of the loop. That goes double when he's just murdered her.

Of course, anything is possible. But there is no REAL evidence Patsy was involved and one piece of really strong evidence she wasn't: her 911 call.

If you are convinced of her involvement because you can't get past the "similarities" between her printing and that on the ransom note, then sorry, I can't take you seriously. Handwriting identification is NOT for beginners. Millions of people share the same basic ways of forming letters. Even the so-called "experts" disagree on what to look for. Some "experts" were convinced Pasty wrote it; others saw no evidence of that, including a top expert at the Secret Service; still others were convinced Karr wrote it; Brugnatelli obviously suspects John. I too suspect John, but I would never claim I could prove that from comparing his court document with the note. Above all, we have to ask ourselves WHY anyone would WANT to write such a note in the first place. Certainly it couldn't have been Patsy, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so and then calling the police on herself.

I have never seen John's handwriting samples..compared to the ransom note. I guess that I need to check that out, huh? The ransom note was not the only reason that I suspected Patsy was in on it.

[thewhitewitch1]

When a father is molesting his daughter, the mother is generally kept out of the loop. That goes double when he's just murdered her.

Of course, anything is possible. But there is no REAL evidence Patsy was involved and one piece of really strong evidence she wasn't: her 911 call.

If you are convinced of her involvement because you can't get past the "similarities" between her printing and that on the ransom note, then sorry, I can't take you seriously. Handwriting identification is NOT for beginners. Millions of people share the same basic ways of forming letters. Even the so-called "experts" disagree on what to look for. Some "experts" were convinced Pasty wrote it; others saw no evidence of that, including a top expert at the Secret Service; still others were convinced Karr wrote it; Brugnatelli obviously suspects John. I too suspect John, but I would never claim I could prove that from comparing his court document with the note. Above all, we have to ask ourselves WHY anyone would WANT to write such a note in the first place. Certainly it couldn't have been Patsy, who had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so and then calling the police on herself.


Sorry, DocG...have to disagree with your last sentence. I'm sure you have read Cherokees analysis of the ransom note. It makes as much, if not more sense than your analysis does. IMO What does it matter who called 911? Were the Ramseys supposed to just sit around and wait for...how long? until her body was found? I don't believe they had any intention of "dumping" it. I do not believe they would have denied her "a proper burial." I do not see them as being cold blooded murderers. I also have a hard time getting past John being a child molester. I still believe that in some way, Burke was the one who set all of this into motion. I very much believe both parents would cover up an accident and stick together as they have all those years with this horrible secret to protect him. I know most disagree with me but I think this is a very real possibility.

[docg]

rashomon:
>Why is a scenario absurd in which Patsy struck out at JB in a rage and hurt her fatally? This happens more often than you think .

Mothers can lash out at their daughters and harm them. But that is not consistent with either the evidence in this case or the logic. It's not unusual to stage a murder to look like an accident. But I defy you to name any case in history where an accident was staged to look like a murder. If Patsy struck out at JonBenet "by accident" or even on purpose, it could easily have been presented to the police as an accident. Going to all that trouble to stage it as a grotesque murder makes no sense. Writing a hand printed ransom note to cover what could be explained as an accident makes no sense. Calling 911 with the body in the house and then giving the police the patently phoney ransom note you yourself just wrote makes no sense. So yes, that scenario is absurd.

>And via her rage attack on JB, Patsy, without realizing it, played into the hands of John, who now was relieved to have suddenly gotten rid of a witness who would never talk again.
Another possible scenario is that Patsy caught John molesting JB, but directed her rage at her daughter instead.

If you think John was molesting JonBenet, why bring Patsy into it, why not focus on John? Because she was "ruled out" and he wasn't? C'mon, the "experts" have been all over the place on the handwriting, why take any of them seriously? Because YOU are convinced she wrote that note, because it "just screams Patsy"? Get over yourself! What do you know about handwriting forensics? Because you don't approve of Patsy, you don't think she was a good mother, you see her as a drama queen? Sorry, none of those are reasons to suspect her of murdering her favorite child, the apple of her eye. And if it's the fibers, again, forget it. She lived in the house, she was the child's mother, it stands to reason you'd find her fibers wherever you'd find JonBenet.

>You mentioned the woman who said that John Ramsey wanted her to dress as a little girl. Who was that woman? And what is your source for that - do you have a link?

Bullmoose just posted on that. Her name was Kim Ballard or Kay Ballard. She was on the Geraldo show, so you can check her out on his website I imagine. The woman had nothing whatever to gain from making those accusations. From the way she suddenly backed off I'd say she was paid off or threatened.

[docg]

I have never seen John's handwriting samples..compared to the ransom note. I guess that I need to check that out, huh? The ransom note was not the only reason that I suspected Patsy was in on it.

A comparison, 9 pages worth, can be found here:
http://web.tiscali.it/faustobrugnatelli/

It's important to understand that, according to Jameson, who claims to have copies of ALL the exemplars seen by the "experts" who ruled John out, this document was NOT among them. Nor, according to Jameson, a staunch Ramsey defender, is there any resemblance between the exemplars seen by the "experts" and the court document studied by Brugnatelli. Jameson says she is convinced John did NOT print that document. But she has also flatly refused to enquire about it with anyone in the family or anyone connected with the investigation. Jameson and I were once in a chat room with Aunt Pam Paugh and she immediatelly identified it as "John's chicken scratch." Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

[bullmoose]

Actually, there is much less to Ballard than you are letting on, docg. She was a fat, troll-like creature when she appeared on Geraldo; her claim was that she was much skinnier[ and less ugly] when her and John Ramsey supposedly had their affair.But the dates and places of the claimed trysts never checked out; moreover when police investigators asked her to submit to lie detector tests, she refused, then she slithered back out of sight. AS for having nothing to gain from the accusations, her asking price for an exclusive with the Enquirer reportedly was 100k, even they turned down, since not one single aspect of her story could be verified, even to their high standards. What did she stand to gain??? Money, lots of it,if she had been believable. I think she backed off[slithered back under her rock] when she realized she could run into real legal trouble for lying to the authorities; the pressure to take a lie detector test scared her into silence[except for the occasional reeb-beep! from the pond].

[shill]

No hair or skin was found on it because it had been carefully wiped. The batteries had also been carefully wiped. Interesting psychology. An intruder killing her with his own maglite would have simply taken it with him, not bothered to wipe it down and then leave it. An intruder using the house maglite would have had no reason to wipe it at all, either the tip or the batteries -- especially if he were wearing gloves, which it is assumed he was.
I think you would wipe down the batteries and the flashlight before you went to the crime scene, just in case you had to leave it behind. A smart burglar would do this so he couldn't be traced to the crime. I think the killer took precautions to not leave evidence.
In a crime novel, the killer shaves all his hair except his head (didn't want to stand out with a newly shaved blald head) so that he wouldn't leave hair evidence and need only wear a cap for the hair on his head. I think our killer is a fan of the murder mysteries.

You would put the flashlight down to write the ransom note. The light was already on in the kitchen, pen and pad near by. So he most likely wrote it in the kitchen where he left the flashlight. He might not have needed the flashlight anymore and didn't want to get caught with it. It was clean so it was expendable. Seems you are always suppose to get rid of the murder weapon, not sure why but it always seems like trouble when they don't know what the murder weapon was.

[aussiesheila]

I must admit your theory, as outlandish as it sounds, does fit with the evidence. However, I have this problem with it: I don't believe PR would have allowed JBR to be photographed in the middle of the night when she was tired and cranky. I also believe that she would have wanted to do JBR's hair and makeup just beforehand, something I don't think JBR would have submitted to at that point. If photographers had been expected momentarily, PR would not have been snoozing on the couch, but busy grooming JBR for the photo shoot.Yes LindaA, you do have a point there. I don’t think Patsy would have been mad keen on the timing of the photographic session, but I believe she was very ambitious for JonBenet and if Santa could have put over a convincing enough story for it having to be that night I believe Patsy would have gone along with it. I also think JonBenet was used to having to perform while her mother was standing over her, even if she did have to push herself a bit to do it, besides to cheer her up, Santa had brought her a little Santa Bear present and some of her favourite food (fresh pineapple) to eat, I think he had also told her the photographer was going to bring an even more special surprise for her (which would turn out to be a live baby rabbit).

I think I will have to go with my original theory, which was that Patsy went upstairs and woke JonBenet and that it was she who brought her down to the kitchen. This would mean that Patsy could have re-done her hair while in in the bedroom. I did read that there were heaps of hairties found strewn all over JonBenet’s bedroom floor (perhaps they were choosing one that would match the Barbie nightgown).

You are right about the makeup too, maybe Santa told her Charles Kuralt wanted to photograph JonBenet without makeup, that he wanted the fresh, innocent, childlike look, and that he was so skilled with lighting that JonBenet’s natural beauty would shine through.

How long would the photoshoot have needed to be? Maybe Santa said 1 ½ to 2 hours. How long were the 2 plane trips the next day? They would be ideal times for JonBenet to catch up on her lost sleep (a great plus for Patsy who wouldn’t then be bothered with a bored 6 year old bugging her on the flights)

[aussiesheila]

It's IDIs like you who glibly allege that the incriminanting fibers did not come from John or Patsy's clothing, by simply misinterpreting the documented record. for has been pointed out to you dozens of times that 'consistent with' is the scientific way of putting it when lab techs have actaully found what we laypeople would call a 'match'.
And you simply say that the fibers in the crotch area of JB's underpants did not match John's shirt? Then why did lawyer Levin, in the presence of Lin Wood, confront John with this evidence? And remember that Levin was no cop (for the police is allowed to lie in interrogations with suspects), but a lawyer.

And if the CBI did not exclude Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note, why do you simply shrug off their conclusion?rashomon, as someone who can barely order a coffee in any language other than my own, I hold people who can in the highest regard, and as for your being able to discuss a complex subject in a foreign language as you do most capably, I have to say I look up at you in humble admiration. But whoever has told you that in English ‘consistent with’ means ‘exactly the same as’ or in scientific English means a ‘match’, they are wrong, trust me, I do know what I am talking about here, and I really don’t think they do.

[docg]

Actually, there is much less to Ballard than you are letting on, docg. She was a fat, troll-like creature when she appeared on Geraldo; her claim was that she was much skinnier[ and less ugly] when her and John Ramsey supposedly had their affair.But the dates and places of the claimed trysts never checked out; moreover when police investigators asked her to submit to lie detector tests, she refused, then she slithered back out of sight. AS for having nothing to gain from the accusations, her asking price for an exclusive with the Enquirer reportedly was 100k, even they turned down, since not one single aspect of her story could be verified, even to their high standards. What did she stand to gain??? Money, lots of it,if she had been believable. I think she backed off[slithered back under her rock] when she realized she could run into real legal trouble for lying to the authorities; the pressure to take a lie detector test scared her into silence[except for the occasional reeb-beep! from the pond].

I don't know what to make of Ballard. It's hard to believe anyone would just pop up out of nowhere and make such potentially damaging claims, with no basis, in the hope of selling her story and getting lots of attention. This sort of thing could have landed her in jail. And she could easily have been sued. Neither of these things happened, by the way, and the Ramseys, who could have pressed charges or sued, were strangely passive on this particular matter. I don't think her story was ever checked in any detail by the authorities. John simply denied he was in the same place as Ballard during the period in question. The matter was never fully investigated by the police because Ballard suddenly backed off and refused to discuss it anymore. If someone made such accusations about me, I'd insist on a full investigation, I'd press charges and, if I had the kind of money John had, I'd definitely sue. And if my accuser backed off, I wouldn't. I'd pursue the matter until my name had been unequivocally cleared. The woman appeared on national television, for crying out loud!

Ballard could have been lying, though it's hard to see what she expected to gain from her lies. She could also have been telling the truth -- and been bought off or threatened. We have no way of determining which, because her story was never fully investigated.

My real point here is that the people who see John as someone leading an exemplarly, squeaky-clean life until his daughter's murder need to understand that this is a simplistic and naive view. For one thing, he cheated on his first wife for two years, which means he was a habitual liar. For another thing, he was away from home for long periods of time and nothing is known of his activities during such excursions. Finally, there are unresolved questions about his past, such as the Ballard episode, that cannot simply be discounted. Bottom line: we ought not presume anything about John's past, but instead concentrate on the facts of the case itself, period.

[docg]

I think you would wipe down the batteries and the flashlight before you went to the crime scene, just in case you had to leave it behind. A smart burglar would do this so he couldn't be traced to the crime. I think the killer took precautions to not leave evidence.
In a crime novel, the killer shaves all his hair except his head (didn't want to stand out with a newly shaved blald head) so that he wouldn't leave hair evidence and need only wear a cap for the hair on his head. I think our killer is a fan of the murder mysteries.

You would put the flashlight down to write the ransom note. The light was already on in the kitchen, pen and pad near by. So he most likely wrote it in the kitchen where he left the flashlight. He might not have needed the flashlight anymore and didn't want to get caught with it. It was clean so it was expendable. Seems you are always suppose to get rid of the murder weapon, not sure why but it always seems like trouble when they don't know what the murder weapon was.

Good thinking, that does make sense. Except the flashlight found on the table, with the batteries wiped, was the Ramsey's, NOT the intruder's. The rubber tip was also wiped, most likely to hide the fact that this was the weapon used to club JonBenet. When shown a picture of the flashlight, John said it looked like his, but was the wrong color. The interviewer (Smit, as I recall) informed him that it had been dusted for prints, which is what made it look darker. The Ramseys owned a maglite "just like it." No other maglite was found. Do the math.

[rashomon]

Thanks for the info about Kim Ballard. Was this the woman John had an affair with during his first marriage, an affair which he said was so wild that it reminded him of the movie "Fatal Attraction"?

[elvislives]

With all due respect to your professional knowledge, other physicians, medical examiners and professionals in the medical field disagree with you. Some have stated that the strangling could have occured as long as an hour after the head wound so I don't believe that Patsy and the "accidental head blow" theory can be so easily dismissed. If all opinions from professionals were unanimous that the head blow came last, I'd abandon the idea but since it isn't, I'm still of the belief that an "accident" occured and the rest was staged to cover it. IMO

Do you know which professionals hold this theory? Also, how do they square that with the autopsy report? I would be very interested in understanding why they think the head wound would have been there for 1 hour prior to death without organizing. Do you know how they explain this?

I googled some of the experts on the case and I found a number of them who held that theory before the autopsy report was made public--based I think on the info that was leaked at the time. But I can't find anyone reputable or with an explanation that squares with the autopsy. If you can enlighten me I would appreciate it.

[Zoey]

Thanks for the info about Kim Ballard. Was this the woman John had an affair with during his first marriage, an affair which he said was so wild that it reminded him of the movie "Fatal Attraction"?


No, the woman in the first marriage that JR had an affair with was a co-worker, named Gloria Williams.

[rashomon]

rashomon:

Mothers can lash out at their daughters and harm them. But that is not consistent with either the evidence in this case or the logic. It's not unusual to stage a murder to look like an accident. But I defy you to name any case in history where an accident was staged to look like a murder. If Patsy struck out at JonBenet "by accident" or even on purpose, it could easily have been presented to the police as an accident. Going to all that trouble to stage it as a grotesque murder makes no sense. Writing a hand printed ransom note to cover what could be explained as an accident makes no sense. Calling 911 with the body in the house and then giving the police the patently phoney ransom note you yourself just wrote makes no sense. So yes, that scenario is absurd.

DocG,

Henry Lee brought a lot of confusion into the JBR case by calling the initial attack on JB an 'accident'. But a rage attack, while not premeditated, is no accident either.
Sure they could have tried to say the child had 'accidentally' fallen down the stairs etc. in the middle of the night. But since JB obviously was not dead from the initial head blow, how would the Ramseys know that she would not regain consciousness after days/weeks ad then tell the doctor "Mommy hit me"?

Because she was "ruled out" and he wasn't? C'mon, the "experts" have been all over the place on the handwriting, why take any of them seriously? Because YOU are convinced she wrote that note, because it "just screams Patsy"? Get over yourself! What do you know about handwriting forensics?
And what do YOU know about handwriting forensics? Certainly not more than these top experts who ALL came to the conclusion that Patsy wrote the note: Gideon Epstein, David S. Liebman, Tom Miller, Chet Ubowski, Cina L. Wong, Larry F. Ziegler.

Because you don't approve of Patsy, you don't think she was a good mother, you see her as a drama queen? Sorry, none of those are reasons to suspect her of murdering her favorite child, the apple of her eye. And if it's the fibers, again, forget it. She lived in the house, she was the child's mother, it stands to reason you'd find her fibers wherever you'd find JonBenet.
In terms of JB's violent death, I'm going by the circumstantial evidence in this case, not by what kind of mother Patsy was.
On the morning of Dec. 26, Patsy eyeballed a policeman through splayed fingers - why would she do that? To see if her performance was convincing of course.
And more mothers have hurt their beloved children, 'the apple of their eye' in a rage than you'd think. Enough people have done things while in a rage which they have forever regretted afterward.

But the way Patsy dressed up her daughter in those sexually alluring clothes may very well have led John Ramsey to become JB's abuser.

If you think John was molesting JonBenet, why bring Patsy into it, why not focus on John?
One can't give Patsy a pass, since the ransom note and the fiber evidence implicate her in the staging of the scene. And these fibers were found in very incriminating locations. I'm convinced that if it had been John's fibers which had been found in the wrappings of the garrote, on the duct tape and in the paint tote, you would point this out to everyone as implicating him. You can't play down the fiber evidence against Patsy, but at the same time stress the fiber evidence against John.

Of course the whole staging is a jumbled mess. A mess John Ramsey wanted to get involved with as little as possible.
For frankly, I believe John thought Patsy would never be able to deceive the police. So he probably intended (in case she should be arrested) to leave as little evidence behind as possible which might point to HIM.

[elvislives]

elvislives:
>I have a few problems with the JDI theory that you perhaps can help explain. First off, your theory is based not so much on evidence, but a LACK of evidence, just like the IDI theory.

It's based on a combination of things. There's lack of intruder evidence, sure. But there is also evidence of staging. The ransom note is evidence. It's been compared by an Italian expert with a court document attributed to John and striking similarities have been found. Recently I've learned that this document was never seen by the experts who ruled John out. So he has to be ruled back IN. THAT's evidence. There is also what I'd call "negative evidence." Items were used that can be associated with Patsy or Burke, but not John. That points to John, as I see it, since if he's guilty he'd avoid using anything of his own. Also there is the logic of the case. If we eliminate every possibility and John can't be eliminated, that's important. All that's ever eliminated him has been the testimony of the experts, who seem to have seen only the exemplars John wanted them to see.

>Secondly the motive is very questionable imo. I am not of the opinion that decent, respectable people do not molest their children--they can and they do all the time, but unless they are young, there is usually some history or corroborating evidence to support the accusation. If for example the computer forensics team had found that JR had visited child porn websites, THAT would be enough corroborative evidence for me to believe that theory.

First, we know very little about John, so we can't rule out child molestation in his past. Second, the Ramsey home was very unusual. JonBenet was made by her mother into a highly sexualized child. It's possible that John had no history of molestation but could nevertheless have been tempted for the first time by JonBenet. Regardless of motive, we have to go by the evidence and as I see it, the evidence makes sense only if John is the guilty party. Every other scenario not only fails, but is patently absurd.

Okay, docg, I'm still struggling with the motive here with the JDI theory. But for the moment let me accept as fact that John was molesting JB and felt the need to kill her to silence her. Why that night? Why not wait until they got to Michigan, then say JB is missing, and John could drown her in the lake and make it look like an accident? That seems a lot safer and a lot less incriminating than committing an obvious first degree, premeditated murder in your own home and leaving the body there. I know you say that his plan was to dump the body, and that plan was foiled by Patsy, but JR was a CEO...it is hard for me to believe that he would be so sloppy with such an important tas

[rashomon]

Okay, docg, I'm still struggling with the motive here with the JDI theory. But for the moment let me accept as fact that John was molesting JB and felt the need to kill her to silence her. Why that night? Why not wait until they got to Michigan, then say JB is missing, and John could drown her in the lake and make it look like an accident? That seems a lot safer and a lot less incriminating than committing an obvious first degree, premeditated murder in your own home and leaving the body there. I know you say that his plan was to dump the body, and that plan was foiled by Patsy, but JR was a CEO...it is hard for me to believe that he would be so sloppy with such an important tas
I have to agree. For a premeditated crime, this was the dumbest date to choose: some hours before the family had a scheduled flight to Michigan. If John had actually planned a first-degree murder, he would have come up with something better thought out.
I believe JB was first struck on the head by an enraged Patsy. I wouldn't call it accident, but 'rage attack' instead.

Another hole in DocG's theory: if John had actually planned to dump JB's body somewhere, then the child would already have been in the car trunk by the time Patsy got to see the note. It doesn't make sense that John would have let JB's body lying around in the basement.

[elvislives]

rashomon, as someone who can barely order a coffee in any language other than my own, I hold people who can in the highest regard, and as for your being able to discuss a complex subject in a foreign language as you do most capably, I have to say I look up at you in humble admiration. But whoever has told you that in English ‘consistent with’ means ‘exactly the same as’ or in scientific English means a ‘match’, they are wrong, trust me, I do know what I am talking about here, and I really don’t think they do.

That's the problem with the English language...or at least with American English--the definition depends on the context. When they say that someone's DNA is "consistent with" a particular sample, that does mean a match. But when they say that handwriting is "consistent with" a particular sample, it only means that it *could* be a match. I have heard experts say that JMK's handwriting is consistent with the ransom note, which may or may not mean that he wrote it. But if they said his DNA was consistent with the sample under JB's nails, it would be case closed.

[elvislives]

Sorry, DocG...have to disagree with your last sentence. I'm sure you have read Cherokees analysis of the ransom note. It makes as much, if not more sense than your analysis does. IMO What does it matter who called 911? Were the Ramseys supposed to just sit around and wait for...how long? until her body was found? I don't believe they had any intention of "dumping" it. I do not believe they would have denied her "a proper burial." I do not see them as being cold blooded murderers. I also have a hard time getting past John being a child molester. I still believe that in some way, Burke was the one who set all of this into motion. I very much believe both parents would cover up an accident and stick together as they have all those years with this horrible secret to protect him. I know most disagree with me but I think this is a very real possibility.


If Burke was the killer, that would definitely explain the Ramsey's behaviour, the ransom note, etc. But I have ruled him out completely based on the fact that the parents turned him over to investigators on Jan 8th for a 6 hour interview. I would think that if parents went to all this trouble to cover for their son's murder, the last thing they would do is allow their 10 year old son to be interviewed by the authorities. They would have shielded him behind lawyers like they did themselves. And according to the FBI profiler, a 10 year old perpetrator's story will fold like a house of cards under questioning, and Burke held up. So I think he was not one bit involved.

[bullmoose]

To Elvislives: Not only did the Ramseys allow the BPD to question Burke for six hours on 1/8/97, but it is a fact that the BPD questioned Burke illegally on 12/26/96 at Fleet Whites' house. The BPD claimed his grandmother gave permission, although his grandmother was in Georgia where she lived. The Ramseys were not even aware of this fact until they returned from burying Jonbenet and were told the BPD wanted to question Burke again. I think that if Burke had actually had any knowledge whatsoever on the case, they would have gotten it from him. The first questioning was of course, illegal, but illustrates how total the BPD bias was from the instant the body was found. She wasn't found until 1PM, Burke was over at Fleet White's house, and was then questioned by the cops. Oddly, I have never once read that Fleet or his wife, supposedly such good friends of the Ramseys, ever informed the Ramseys of the illegal questioning. I mean, they went to Atlanta with them for the funeral; I wonder if the BPD asked the Whites to keep Burkes' questioning secret? That might explain Fleet Whites' bizarre behavior in Atlanta and ever since.

[thewhitewitch1]

rashomon:
>Why is a scenario absurd in which Patsy struck out at JB in a rage and hurt her fatally? This happens more often than you think .

Mothers can lash out at their daughters and harm them. But that is not consistent with either the evidence in this case or the logic. It's not unusual to stage a murder to look like an accident. But I defy you to name any case in history where an accident was staged to look like a murder. If Patsy struck out at JonBenet "by accident" or even on purpose, it could easily have been presented to the police as an accident. Going to all that trouble to stage it as a grotesque murder makes no sense. Writing a hand printed ransom note to cover what could be explained as an accident makes no sense. Calling 911 with the body in the house and then giving the police the patently phoney ransom note you yourself just wrote makes no sense. So yes, that scenario is absurd.

>And via her rage attack on JB, Patsy, without realizing it, played into the hands of John, who now was relieved to have suddenly gotten rid of a witness who would never talk again.
Another possible scenario is that Patsy caught John molesting JB, but directed her rage at her daughter instead.

If you think John was molesting JonBenet, why bring Patsy into it, why not focus on John? Because she was "ruled out" and he wasn't? C'mon, the "experts" have been all over the place on the handwriting, why take any of them seriously? Because YOU are convinced she wrote that note, because it "just screams Patsy"? Get over yourself! What do you know about handwriting forensics? Because you don't approve of Patsy, you don't think she was a good mother, you see her as a drama queen? Sorry, none of those are reasons to suspect her of murdering her favorite child, the apple of her eye. And if it's the fibers, again, forget it. She lived in the house, she was the child's mother, it stands to reason you'd find her fibers wherever you'd find JonBenet.

>You mentioned the woman who said that John Ramsey wanted her to dress as a little girl. Who was that woman? And what is your source for that - do you have a link?

Bullmoose just posted on that. Her name was Kim Ballard or Kay Ballard. She was on the Geraldo show, so you can check her out on his website I imagine. The woman had nothing whatever to gain from making those accusations. From the way she suddenly backed off I'd say she was paid off or threatened.


The accident scenerio is not absurd. If the Ramseys thought that she was dead or near death, how could they explain that to authorities? Especially if she was struck in a rage...or pushed. They would have been investigated for child abuse. You know that, don't you? I don't think the Ramseys would have taken well to that. Image was quite important to them, not to mention they may have had Burke taken away from them. What if their perfect child had lived and sustained major brain damage?
Saying that the accident theory is absurd is absurd. Nobody knows what really happened except the killer(s) and every scenerio; intruder or Ramsey, is certainly possible.
We know you feel strongly about your "John done it alone" theory, DocG, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

[andU]

I don't see John Ramsey as squeaky clean, but I don't see him as the murderer of his daughter, either. I view him as a business man, mostly on the up and up but someone who would 'bend' some rules if he felt strongly about something. I see him as a nose to the grindstone type of guy in business but when it came to family time, I see him as a person who would be very angry if he had planned something with his family and something broke loose in the business requiring him to abandon his family plans. I see him as a man who worked hard and played hard but also as a man who would go to the end of the earth to protect his family from any ugliness. I do not see him as a child molester, nor a politician for that matter. He's too honest to be a politician. IMO, of course.

[elvislives]

The accident scenerio is not absurd. If the Ramseys thought that she was dead or near death, how could they explain that to authorities? Especially if she was struck in a rage...or pushed. They would have been investigated for child abuse. You know that, don't you? .


Wouldn't it be better to be investigated for child abuse rather than first degree murder?

[bullmoose]

To docg: Ballard cannot be let off the hook as easily as you might want; yes, she appeared on TV and made her fraudulent claims, but she never made any sworn statements to actual investigaters because of her fear of being charged with perjury, which is lying under oath. That's quite a bit different than lying on Geraldo. It is not hard at all for me to imagine somebody like her appearing and making up the whole story. In my mind, she probably thought that other, real people would appear with similar stories[ like happened to Clinton], the only problem for her was nobody ever did. Authorities did start investigating her claims of dates and places, but none ever proved to have a shred of truth to them. That is why she slithered back under her rock and disappeared from human view. Reeb-beep!:D

[thewhitewitch1]

Wouldn't it be better to be investigated for child abuse rather than first degree murder?

Obviously they didn't think that they would be investigated for murder; hence the bogus ransom note and all of the staging.
Also, as "pillars of society", what kind of dark light would a child abuse investigation put them in the eyes of their socialite friends? If they had been found guilty of child abuse, if she had died (and she would have), it would still have been murder so why not try to cover it up and give yourself a chance at "getting away with it?" (so to speak)

[elvislives]

Obviously they didn't think that they would be investigated for murder; hence the bogus ransom note and all of the staging.
Also, as "pillars of society", what kind of dark light would a child abuse investigation put them in the eyes of their socialite friends? If they had been found guilty of child abuse, if she had died (and she would have), it would still have been murder so why not try to cover it up and give yourself a chance at "getting away with it?" (so to speak)

I still have a hard time believing that JR would have thought that ransom note could fool investigators. Thats the part of docg's theory that makes sense--if it was intended for Patsy's eyes only.

[shill]

Good thinking, that does make sense. Except the flashlight found on the table, with the batteries wiped, was the Ramsey's, NOT the intruder's. The rubber tip was also wiped, most likely to hide the fact that this was the weapon used to club JonBenet. When shown a picture of the flashlight, John said it looked like his, but was the wrong color. The interviewer (Smit, as I recall) informed him that it had been dusted for prints, which is what made it look darker. The Ramseys owned a maglite "just like it." No other maglite was found. Do the math.
I did the math, and of course I thought it was the Ramsey's until I read that the batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints.

If it is theirs, why are there no fingerprints on the batteries.
My only conclusion is;
A) The Ramseys lost their flashlight awhile back and didn't realize it was missing, and the one left behind is the intruders.
B) The Ramseys flashlight was in the kitchen close by and mistakenly grabbed by the intruder.
C) The BP are clueless on how to find fingerprints.

Either way it is odd to be right there in the kitchen with no fingerprints.

[thewhitewitch1]

I still have a hard time believing that JR would have thought that ransom note could fool investigators. Thats the part of docg's theory that makes sense--if it was intended for Patsy's eyes only.


He still would have had to have the ransom note or a copy of it to show to the police, so there is no way it could have been "for Patsys eyes only".
It did "fool investigators"...until her body was found. I am sure they were not counting on it going against them when that happened.
As far as that goes, JR has not been charged or arrested, now has he? And neither was Patsy. So I'd say the "plan" worked just fine. IMO
BTW...I believe both Ramseys wrote the note together (the wording) but am undecided on who I think actually penned it. I lean more towards Patsy.

[elvislives]

He still would have had to have the ransom note or a copy of it to show to the police, so there is no way it could have been "for Patsys eyes only".
It did "fool investigators"...until her body was found. I am sure they were not counting on it going against them when that happened.
As far as that goes, JR has not been charged or arrested, now has he? And neither was Patsy. So I'd say the "plan" worked just fine. .

Good point. If they DID do it, they got away with murder, so the plan-no matter how lame it may seem to arm chair quarterbacks such as myself -was a successful one. But still there are just so many inconsistencies with this case. I have yet to hear a scenario that really feels right to me.

[thewhitewitch1]

I did the math, and of course I thought it was the Ramsey's until I read that the batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints.

If it is theirs, why are there no fingerprints on the batteries.
My only conclusion is;
A) The Ramseys lost their flashlight awhile back and didn't realize it was missing, and the one left behind is the intruders.
B) The Ramseys flashlight was in the kitchen close by and mistakenly grabbed by the intruder.
C) The BP are clueless on how to find fingerprints.

Either way it is odd to be right there in the kitchen with no fingerprints.

The Ramseys had a hard time knowing what was theirs and what wasn't. The flashlight that was supposed to be kept in a drawer in a certain location wasn't where it should have been (by Ramseys own admission). If the flashlight had not been used in a long time, the batteries could have been dead and had have to have been replaced. If you are going to deny that a flashlight belongs to you, why would you want your fingerprints on the batteries?

[elvislives]

I did the math, and of course I thought it was the Ramsey's until I read that the batteries were wiped clean of fingerprints.

If it is theirs, why are there no fingerprints on the batteries.
My only conclusion is;
A) The Ramseys lost their flashlight awhile back and didn't realize it was missing, and the one left behind is the intruders.
B) The Ramseys flashlight was in the kitchen close by and mistakenly grabbed by the intruder.
C) The BP are clueless on how to find fingerprints.

Either way it is odd to be right there in the kitchen with no fingerprints.

There could be an innocent explanation as to why their were no prints on the batteries..
I recently bought a flashlight that already had the batteries preloaded. If batteries are put in at the factory, do the employees wear gloves? Obviously I didn;t dust the batteries in my flashlight for prints, but I wonder if any would be there if I checked...
of course the handle of the flashlight is another story, though

[shill]

The flashlight that was supposed to be kept in a drawer in a certain location wasn't where it should have been (by Ramseys own admission). If you are going to deny that a flashlight belongs to you, why would you want your fingerprints on the batteries?You wouldn't want your fingerprints on the flashlight if you were trying to make it look like an intruder left it, but why go through all that trouble and then say you have a flashlight just like that but don't know where it is, when it's right in front of you?
If your staging an Intruder scenario, you would think one would say we don't own a flashlight like that. And then investigators are going to assume it was left by an intruder.
For the Ramseys, wiping down fingerprints would serve no purpose other then to add to the staging, which they botch by saying they have a simular flashlight.

[bullmoose]

If the flashlight was a maglite, as I have read, it would very difficult to get fingerprints from the handle, if the handle was like the one I have. Its got a grill-like surface, like an old german lugar, great for gripping but not condusive to leaving prints. I checked on mine and there are no prints on the handle after I hold it. As for the Ramseys not knowing if it was their flashlight or not, if you have a number of flashlights[ I've got at least 25,setting all around my house in case of power outage] how would anyone know for sure if a single flashlight were theirs. My reply to the cops would have been the same as the Ramseys" It looks like one of mine, but I can't be sure".

[shill]

I don't recall ever seeing a rubber coated Maglite, maybe another brand.
The on button or the lens housing that you turn to focus the beam(or to turn on some Maglites) would have fingerprints if there are any.

[bullmoose]

My maglite is all metal, like you say only the lense housing and on button, and the lense itself will easily take a print.

[docg]

Okay, docg, I'm still struggling with the motive here with the JDI theory. But for the moment let me accept as fact that John was molesting JB and felt the need to kill her to silence her. Why that night? Why not wait until they got to Michigan, then say JB is missing, and John could drown her in the lake and make it look like an accident? That seems a lot safer and a lot less incriminating than committing an obvious first degree, premeditated murder in your own home and leaving the body there. I know you say that his plan was to dump the body, and that plan was foiled by Patsy, but JR was a CEO...it is hard for me to believe that he would be so sloppy with such an important tas

As usual, you come up with some really meaningful and challenging questions, elvis. If John truly premeditated this act, then I agree, he'd have chosen a better time and place to carry it out. But he'd also have prepared a less dangerous note, certainly not something hand printed. He'd probably have had the note printed on some computer at Access Graphics, I'd assume, since the note seems designed to point to some resentful business associate or employee.

This tells me his decision must have been made that night, on the spur of the moment, probably in response to something JonBenet said. Perhaps she said something that led him to believe she was about to spill the beans to her big brother and/or sister when they got together the next day. It's also possible this was not a deliberate act, but something that happened "accidently" while he was molesting her. Maybe he accidently strangled her, as Althusser did. Though if that's the case, it's hard to understand the head blow.

Does the above seem logical? Or are you still sitting astride that fence? :)

[docg]

I still have a hard time believing that JR would have thought that ransom note could fool investigators. Thats the part of docg's theory that makes sense--if it was intended for Patsy's eyes only.

My theory is that the note was at least partly intended for Patsy, true. But it would also have been intended to fool the authorities, for sure. Not that he'd have planned on handing the original over to them, that would have been destroyed, on the pretext that the kidnappers insisted on its being returned when he paid the ransom. But he would certainly have made a copy. And probably also shown it to friends. The note was important because it outlined the whole kidnapping scenario he'd have been depending on as a cover.

I don't think he expected the authorities to take it literally. No one ever thought this was really a small foreign faction (except maybe poor old Lou Smit). But there's no reason to assume, just from the look of it, that it wasn't a real ransom note. All the necessary details are spelled out, it tells John exactly what to do and when to do it, and even allows for his doing it sooner than necessary. The threats certainly sound threatening enough. What don't you find credible about it?

[bullmoose]

I don't think that whoever wrote the note thought the cops would take it literally; I think the very strange three page note did what it was intended to: to throw a heavy shadow of suspicion on the Ramseys from the get-go. I think it succeeded in a big way: I think that is why the BPD went over to Fleet White's house and illegally questioned Burke Ramsey that first day. The BPD thought they knew what happened and started their long bout of tunnelvision, instead of actually investigating the crime itself. I think Lou Smit followed the evidence and came to a conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion and just trying to find enough evidence to back a theory. If Smit thinks it might actually be a small foreign faction then maybe it is.

[Ames]

<snipped>
I believe JB was first struck on the head by an enraged Patsy. I wouldn't call it accident, but 'rage attack' instead.

<snipped>

.

I think this is what happened too. And a "rage attack" sounds more like it.."accident" was not the right word. In a "rage attack", after striking JB...she couldn't very well take her to the ER...she would have been arrested on the spot for CHILD ABUSE!! AND HENCE, the reason for the coverup. IMO

[shill]

Christmas day would be a good day to kill somebody if you are a devil worshipper. Just a thought.

[Louisadelmar]

I think this is what happened too. And a "rage attack" sounds more like it.."accident" was not the right word. In a "rage attack", after striking JB...she couldn't very well take her to the ER...she would have been arrested on the spot for CHILD ABUSE!! AND HENCE, the reason for the coverup. IMO

If we were talking Diane Downs I might agree. But as Schiller says "Not even a slap in a supermarket"

[Ames]

If we were talking Diane Downs I might agree. But as Schiller says "Not even a slap in a supermarket"

The only thing about that is...nobody really KNOWS for sure what actually went on inside the Ramsey home. How do we know "Not even a slap in a supermarket"? Because the Ramsey's said it? I have never slapped my kid in a supermarket either, but they do get spankings at home if they misbehave. Even if Patsy never hit JB a day in her life, JB wetting the bed or maybe even wetting herself in the car on the way home from the White's Christmas party (remember...she was ASLEEP when she came home...and had to be carried in....according to the Ramsey's), could have pushed her over the edge. I am sure that Patsy was getting just a little bit tired of washing and changing wet clothes and wet bedsheets (the housekeeper even said that Patsy took care of that). It would be interesting to find out if the seat in the car had any urine stains on it. (IMO)

[Louisadelmar]

Actually I think Schiller got that from interviewing the people who knew the Ramseys. Patsy never struck me (no pun intended) as the silent type so I think if she was frazzled or prone to striking out her friends would have heard about it.

[shill]

Maybe if she was crazy with PMS.

[Louisadelmar]

Hysterectomy

[thewhitewitch1]

Actually I think Schiller got that from interviewing the people who knew the Ramseys. Patsy never struck me (no pun intended) as the silent type so I think if she was frazzled or prone to striking out her friends would have heard about it.


I don't think Patsy would reveal herself as anything other than what she wanted people to think of her as. If she ever spanked or struck her kids in the privacy of their own home, why would she ever tell a friend about it? It's not something you'd want anyone to know.
It appears to me as though the Ramseys wanted people to believe that they were the perfect family with perfect lives. We all know that there is no such thing.
I bet you could ask my friends if I ever lost my temper with my daughter and smacked her and they would tell you "no." That doesn't mean that I never have.

[thewhitewitch1]

Hysterectomy


Menopause.

[shill]

Menopause.
I thought she was in her early 40's.

My parents never once struck out at any of their six kids in anger. They would spank us to punish us, but they would tell you they were going to do it. Sometimes the waiting for it to happen was worse then the spanking.

[docg]

I don't think that whoever wrote the note thought the cops would take it literally; I think the very strange three page note did what it was intended to: to throw a heavy shadow of suspicion on the Ramseys from the get-go. I think it succeeded in a big way: I think that is why the BPD went over to Fleet White's house and illegally questioned Burke Ramsey that first day. The BPD thought they knew what happened and started their long bout of tunnelvision, instead of actually investigating the crime itself. I think Lou Smit followed the evidence and came to a conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion and just trying to find enough evidence to back a theory. If Smit thinks it might actually be a small foreign faction then maybe it is.

No, the note could not have been written to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. You don't write a note in your own hand and then expect the authorities to decide it was written by someone else. Unless you are a professional forger, in which case you make sure it's going to be virtually identical to the hand of the person you've targeted. That was not the case and no one has ever suggested the note was forged.

And no, Smit did not follow the evidence, not by a long shot. He developed a theory and then bent the evidence to fit.

[Louisadelmar]

I thought she was in her early 40's.

My parents never once struck out at any of their six kids in anger. They would spank us to punish us, but they would tell you they were going to do it. Sometimes the waiting for it to happen was worse then the spanking.

I believe she was turning 40 Dec 29th. A full hysterectomy could be equated to a forced menopause.

Given the number of workers around the house I think if she were prone to lose it with her kids she would have and someone would have seen and reported it after the murder.

[andU]

I thought she was in her early 40's.

My parents never once struck out at any of their six kids in anger. They would spank us to punish us, but they would tell you they were going to do it. Sometimes the waiting for it to happen was worse then the spanking.

Although I didn't get many spankings, I sure got a lot of: "You should be ashamed, I deserve more respect than that! Wait until your father gets home!" .... the brow-beating, tongue lashing stuff... I can see Patsy doing that.

[rashomon]

No, the note could not have been written to throw suspicion on the Ramseys. You don't write a note in your own hand and then expect the authorities to decide it was written by someone else. Unless you are a professional forger, in which case you make sure it's going to be virtually identical to the hand of the person you've targeted. That was not the case and no one has ever suggested the note was forged.
But wasn't it YOU who actually suggested a while back that John mimicked Patsy's handwriting because he wanted to implicate her?

Have you now dropped that part of your theory?

[docg]

But wasn't it YOU who actually suggested a while back that John mimicked Patsy's handwriting because he wanted to implicate her?

Have you now dropped that part of your theory?

There are aspects of my theory that have led people to believe I think John was trying to implicate Patsy. That's not the case and never was. For one thing, I don't think the note looks anything like Patsy's printing. While certain details seem to match, the overall style is completely different. Same with the content. Patsy expresses herself in a highly informal, breezy manner, totally unlike the prose style of the note, which is far closer to John's formal, turgid mode of expression. So no no no, I do NOT think John was trying to frame Patsy, not even close. That would NOT have been in his interest at all.

While it's true that John used Patsy's pad, pen and paintbrush, IMO that was because he didn't want to use anything associated with himself, NOT because he was trying to implicate her. He also used Burke's knife, again for the same reason.

It would have been far too dangerous for him to try to frame Patsy, that could have very easily backfired.

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe she was turning 40 Dec 29th. A full hysterectomy could be equated to a forced menopause.

Given the number of workers around the house I think if she were prone to lose it with her kids she would have and someone would have seen and reported it after the murder.


I get the impression that Patsy wasn't exactly one to hang around the house. Seems she was always off doing something while the kids were in school and I doubt the workers were there in the evening when the family was home. IMO
Also, according to Patsy, the menopause never bothered her. Of course she would say that...the woman was a saint.:rolleyes: She was so perfect even menopause couldn't touch her. I'm sorry but as one who has been going through it (started in my early 40's too), I find that hard to believe. The mood swings are hell.

[Zoey]

I get the impression that Patsy wasn't exactly one to hang around the house. Seems she was always off doing something while the kids were in school and I doubt the workers were there in the evening when the family was home. IMO
Also, according to Patsy, the menopause never bothered her. Of course she would say that...the woman was a saint.:rolleyes: She was so perfect even menopause couldn't touch her. I'm sorry but as one who has been going through it (started in my early 40's too), I find that hard to believe. The mood swings are hell.

Well then, based on your post, I guess you need to put me right up there in the sainthood listing. I had a complete hsyterectomy 4 years ago due to cancer. I went through was is called forced menopause right there on the operating table and have never had a problem since. Because you have problems TWW1, does not mean that everyone does, so it is wrong to judge Patsy based on your own experience.

[Louisadelmar]

Can I be a saint too? The only part of menopause I noticed were the hot flashes in the summertime. It didn't seem fair that it would be 110 degrees out and I'd get a hot flash on top of that.

Forgot to add my step-mother had her hot flashes in VT in the winter. She loved them!

[andU]

Didn't Patsy have a hysto also because of the cancer? It effects many of us in different ways. I suffered depression, mildly, and hot flashes...unable to take estrogen because there is a history of breast cancer in my immediate family.

[Coloradokares]

Christmas day would be a good day to kill somebody if you are a devil worshipper. Just a thought.

Why, IMHO it is never a good time to kill anyone. Why kill at all. What evil exists that a person feels the right to take the life of another. Perhaps you know or perhaps not but what is the nature of devil worship that would necessitate killing someone? Why pick random people
or children or whatever and decide to terminate their lives. And those
who chose such actions should be willing to forfiet their own with as
little thought as they took anothers. Chilling. Do you really feel that
satanic forces or devil worship was at play in JonBenet's murder or what was the impetus of Christmas being a good day to kill sombody if you are a devil worshipper. I mean really Shill that thought alone is chilling and beyond comprehension or at least it would be in the world I live in. Where kindness and good will towards all men exists.

[Coloradokares]

I get the impression that Patsy wasn't exactly one to hang around the house. Seems she was always off doing something while the kids were in school and I doubt the workers were there in the evening when the family was home. IMO
Also, according to Patsy, the menopause never bothered her. Of course she would say that...the woman was a saint.:rolleyes: She was so perfect even menopause couldn't touch her. I'm sorry but as one who has been going through it (started in my early 40's too), I find that hard to believe. The mood swings are hell.

It never really has bothered me that much and I faced it 23 years old. I am closer now to 60 than 50. :eek: Of course mine was immediate and surgical.

[LindaA]

Add me to the list. Menopause never bothered me at all. The only thing I noticed was the end of the monthly curse.

[LindaA]

Why, IMHO it is never a good time to kill anyone. Why kill at all. What evil exists that a person feels the right to take the life of another. Perhaps you know or perhaps not but what is the nature of devil worship that would necessitate killing someone? Why pick random people
or children or whatever and decide to terminate their lives. And those
who chose such actions should be willing to forfiet their own with as
little thought as they took anothers. Chilling. Do you really feel that
satanic forces or devil worship was at play in JonBenet's murder or what was the impetus of Christmas being a good day to kill sombody if you are a devil worshipper. I mean really Shill that thought alone is chilling and beyond comprehension or at least it would be in the world I live in. Where kindness and good will towards all men exists.

CK, don't take things so literally. I think Shill meant that if you want to get maximum effect, kills on a day that has special significance to the victim and his family. I don't think he was makaing a suggestion.

[docg]

There could be an innocent explanation as to why their were no prints on the batteries..
I recently bought a flashlight that already had the batteries preloaded. If batteries are put in at the factory, do the employees wear gloves? Obviously I didn;t dust the batteries in my flashlight for prints, but I wonder if any would be there if I checked...
of course the handle of the flashlight is another story, though


Good point! It would be interesting to know whether Maglites are generally sold with batteries included.

[bullmoose]

To Docg: Whose hand are you suggesting the note was written in? It is not in either parents handwriting; whoops! wait a minute, don't blow a gasket over this point; here:IMHO it wasn't. The note to me defies explanation, from the standpoint of the Ramseys writing it. Ransom notes are not three pages long, the shorter the better,and I'm sure that if the Ramseys had written a note, it would have been short and to the point like a real one. John was ruled out, Patsy very nearly so; if she had written it, it seems like they would not have called the cops so soon. I believe that there were many people whose handwriting samples more nearly matched the so-called ransom note. My reading of the case with regards Lou Smit is that he, from the beginning, saw evidence pointing away from the parents in the case which nobody in the BPD was the least bit interested in pursuing. He pursued them, and was treated very poorly by the BPD, which wanted no contrary theories to confuse the official line of suspician of the Ramseys. People with tunnelvision do not want to consider, or to let anyone else consider alternate possibilities as to what actually happened.

[bullmoose]

My maglite came without batteries, however it is very easy to load all six batteries into mine without touching them, just sliding them out of their package into the end of my maglite. I did it last night to see how hard it would be; on a scale of 1 to 10 it was only about a two. And had I been wearing latex gloves it would be absolutely easy to place the batteries in the maglite without ever getting near a fingerprint, I could juggle them and then put them in without a trace.

[LadyFisher]

Christmas day would be a good day to kill somebody if you are a devil worshipper. Just a thought.

Interesting point, shill! I don't know about the perp being a full-fledged devil worshiper, but I do think he played around with the dark side, occultic practices of some form, maybe in board games!

[shill]

Why, IMHO it is never a good time to kill anyone. Why kill at all. What evil exists that a person feels the right to take the life of another. Perhaps you know or perhaps not but what is the nature of devil worship that would necessitate killing someone? Why pick random people
or children or whatever and decide to terminate their lives. And those
who chose such actions should be willing to forfiet their own with as
little thought as they took anothers. Chilling. Do you really feel that
satanic forces or devil worship was at play in JonBenet's murder or what was the impetus of Christmas being a good day to kill sombody if you are a devil worshipper.
Devil whorshippers, Satan, the Anti-Christ, ever hear of them?
I'm just saying, when Devil worshippers are not out collecting food and toys for the needy, they might make an offering to Satan on Christ’s birthday.
I mean really Shill that thought alone is chilling and beyond comprehension or at least it would be in the world I live in. Where kindness and good will towards all men exists.You live near Boulder where a six yr old girl was brutally murdered among other heinous murders and crimes. And you chat about those chilling murders hear and then you print it's "beyond comprehension or at least it would be in the world I live in"
The world you live in is Boulder. I guess this is your wake up call.

[Coloradokares]

CK, don't take things so literally. I think Shill meant that if you want to get maximum effect, kills on a day that has special significance to the victim and his family. I don't think he was makaing a suggestion.

Then don't say it so literally. Christmas sounds like a great day to kill someone if your a devil worshipper...... It sounded like he was suggesting perhaps a devil worshiper. I didn't think he was making a suggestion....What I thought was he was saying that if your devil worshipper Christmas would be a good day to kill someone. I am not at all sure that devil worshipers 1) kill people 2) strive to do so on Christmas above any other day etc etc. I was more asking for an explanation from Shill on his statement than making a statement.
Like he may have studied devil worshipers and hence the suggestion?

[Coloradokares]

Devil whorshippers, Satan, the Anti-Christ, ever hear of them?
I'm just saying, when Devil worshippers are not out collecting food and toys for the needy, they might make an offering to Satan on Christ’s birthday.
You live near Boulder where a six yr old girl was brutally murdered among other heinous murders and crimes. And you chat about those chilling murders hear and then you print it's "beyond comprehension or at least it would be in the world I live in"
The world you live in is Boulder. I guess this is your wake up call.

I think I need to explain as a Christian of course I have heard of the antichrist. satan ...etc. The ultimate battle of Armageddon. Rapture etc. But I honestly had never heard of making an offering to satan on Christs birthday. Relatively speaking Boulder is not a community of high murder statistics. Despite JonBenet's murder or the Midyette case now going before the grand jury. I also am not aware of the Boulder Valley having an unusually high percentage of its populace represented in Satan Worshippers. Perhaps indeed this is my wake up call!!! Pastor Dennis HELP!!!!!! I always heard that down around the Springs there is some unusual cultic experiences and strange things. I meant nothing personal or in a flip way. Its simply not a part of the world according to Coloradokares. Perhaps I should be ashamed for not knowing my community.:confused: :eek:

[Coloradokares]

Interesting point, shill! I don't know about the perp being a full-fledged devil worshiper, but I do think he played around with the dark side, occultic practices of some form, maybe in board games!

Exactly LadyFisher this is an interesting point or theory or whatever. Were there indications of this occultic practice or element of sacrifice. If so I really would like to hear of it. Especially being from here. I mean the Ramseys were purported to be christians. I am being absolutely straight faced and serious here. I have never thought of that significance of it being on Christmas.....

[elvislives]

As usual, you come up with some really meaningful and challenging questions, elvis. If John truly premeditated this act, then I agree, he'd have chosen a better time and place to carry it out. But he'd also have prepared a less dangerous note, certainly not something hand printed. He'd probably have had the note printed on some computer at Access Graphics, I'd assume, since the note seems designed to point to some resentful business associate or employee.

This tells me his decision must have been made that night, on the spur of the moment, probably in response to something JonBenet said. Perhaps she said something that led him to believe she was about to spill the beans to her big brother and/or sister when they got together the next day. It's also possible this was not a deliberate act, but something that happened "accidently" while he was molesting her. Maybe he accidently strangled her, as Althusser did. Though if that's the case, it's hard to understand the head blow.

Does the above seem logical? Or are you still sitting astride that fence? :)

It does seem logical...well maybe not logical, but plausible at least. But yes, I am still astride the fence. While your theory is certainly possible it is still very hard for me to believe that John Ramsey --EVEN IF he were molesting his daughter (which btw there is no evidence to support)--but assuming he was molesting her, I think the decision to kill your kid is a BIG decision and one that he would have thought out very methodically. Now it could be possible as you speculate that it was a last minute decision--maybe she was about to squeal--but did he think she was going to start blabbing on the plane? He couldn't wait til they got to Michigan, then kill her there and make it look like an accident? That just seems so much more reasonable to me, if his objective was to get away with it.

A couple things I am trying to find out that you or someone here might know. When Burke was interviewed by the police, which I believe happened the day after the crime as well as on Jan 8---did his story jive with the parents? Did he also say that JB was asleep when they got home and stayed asleep up until the time he went to bed? I would love to know this because I highly doubt that she would have woken up at midnight and said "Dad I'm telling everyone tomorrow that you've been molesting me". As I said before I am not good at speculating and I have yet to come up with a scenario that seems to make sense in this case. EXCEPT, some deranged pervert broke into the house, had plenty of time on his hands since the Ramseys were out for the evening. And perhaps he was bored, so he picked up a pad of paper and a pen from their kitchen and wrote the absurd "ransom" note, then when everyone came home and went to sleep he stole up to JB's room, took her down to the basement and killed her. At least I can assume from that scenario that the unknown assailant was deranged. JR just seems too smart to have tried to pull off such a foolish crime.

Another thing I;m dying to know. What is up with Fleet WHite? I heard he said to John..."the next time I see you I hope will be in court"...or something to that effect. Does he think John is guilty? I would love to hear his perspective.

[elvislives]

My theory is that the note was at least partly intended for Patsy, true. But it would also have been intended to fool the authorities, for sure. Not that he'd have planned on handing the original over to them, that would have been destroyed, on the pretext that the kidnappers insisted on its being returned when he paid the ransom. But he would certainly have made a copy. And probably also shown it to friends. The note was important because it outlined the whole kidnapping scenario he'd have been depending on as a cover.

I don't think he expected the authorities to take it literally. No one ever thought this was really a small foreign faction (except maybe poor old Lou Smit). But there's no reason to assume, just from the look of it, that it wasn't a real ransom note. All the necessary details are spelled out, it tells John exactly what to do and when to do it, and even allows for his doing it sooner than necessary. The threats certainly sound threatening enough. What don't you find credible about it?

Oh, come on a 3 page ransom note explaining all the reasons why the kidnappers are out to get his kid? A REAL kidnapper would say something short and sweet as in--have your daughter, get 118,000 in small bills and I'll call you and tell you where to deliver it. Something like that. But to say, we are a small foreign faction...we respect your company but not the country it serves.. get some rest. Come on, why would any kidnapper feel the need to explain their actions? It is totally incredible imo.

[elvislives]

I don't think that whoever wrote the note thought the cops would take it literally; I think the very strange three page note did what it was intended to: to throw a heavy shadow of suspicion on the Ramseys from the get-go. I think it succeeded in a big way: I think that is why the BPD went over to Fleet White's house and illegally questioned Burke Ramsey that first day. The BPD thought they knew what happened and started their long bout of tunnelvision, instead of actually investigating the crime itself. I think Lou Smit followed the evidence and came to a conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion and just trying to find enough evidence to back a theory. If Smit thinks it might actually be a small foreign faction then maybe it is.

Why wouldnt the BPD have conducted a parallel investigation? IOW why wouldn't they have one team to investigate the parents, then another to follow the intruder theory? Thats what most police depts do in cases like this.

[Louisadelmar]

Unfortunately Burke has said both she was carried and she walked. Thomas concluded he just didn't remember. I don't recall it being clarified at which interviews he said what.

[elvislives]

If we were talking Diane Downs I might agree. But as Schiller says "Not even a slap in a supermarket"

This is exactly the problem I have with the RDI theory. I just think that people don't just one day lose it and act completely out of character. If there were SOME shred of evidence that either of these parents had a violent and sadistic side, I'd have a lot easier time buying into the RDI.

[elvislives]

The only thing about that is...nobody really KNOWS for sure what actually went on inside the Ramsey home. How do we know "Not even a slap in a supermarket"? Because the Ramsey's said it? I have never slapped my kid in a supermarket either, but they do get spankings at home if they misbehave. Even if Patsy never hit JB a day in her life, JB wetting the bed or maybe even wetting herself in the car on the way home from the White's Christmas party (remember...she was ASLEEP when she came home...and had to be carried in....according to the Ramsey's), could have pushed her over the edge. I am sure that Patsy was getting just a little bit tired of washing and changing wet clothes and wet bedsheets (the housekeeper even said that Patsy took care of that). It would be interesting to find out if the seat in the car had any urine stains on it. (IMO)

This is why Burke's testimony would be invaluable. Have the transcripts of his interview been released?

[elvislives]

To Docg: Whose hand are you suggesting the note was written in? It is not in either parents handwriting; whoops! wait a minute, don't blow a gasket over this point; here:IMHO it wasn't. The note to me defies explanation, from the standpoint of the Ramseys writing it. Ransom notes are not three pages long, the shorter the better,and I'm sure that if the Ramseys had written a note, it would have been short and to the point like a real one. John was ruled out, Patsy very nearly so; if she had written it, it seems like they would not have called the cops so soon. I believe that there were many people whose handwriting samples more nearly matched the so-called ransom note. My reading of the case with regards Lou Smit is that he, from the beginning, saw evidence pointing away from the parents in the case which nobody in the BPD was the least bit interested in pursuing. He pursued them, and was treated very poorly by the BPD, which wanted no contrary theories to confuse the official line of suspician of the Ramseys. People with tunnelvision do not want to consider, or to let anyone else consider alternate possibilities as to what actually happened.

Again, I am baffled that they didn't run a parallel investigation. I thought that was standard operating procedure for investigators. When we have a kid in the ER where we suspect the injuries were the result of child abuse (which unfortunately happens all the time) the police along with CPS run a parallel investigation to avoid this very problem. If nothing else, I hope that the BPD has learned from this collossal mistake

[bullmoose]

To elvislives: This was a small police dept. that latched on tight to a single theory about what happened to Jonbenet. That is why they went over to Fleet White's house and questioned Burke for several hours, after Jonbenet was found on 12/26 at 1PM or so. They must have thought they could break the case by themselves. Why else would they have backed the FBI off the investigation? But why question Burke illegally, without parental consent? Something I've always found strange is the fact that the Ramseys were not aware of Burke's questioning until after they had returned from Atlanta, where Fleet White's behavior was bizarre; why didn't Fleet White tell his good friends the Ramseys about the police questioning at his house? That has always struck me as more than strange; I would love an explanation as to whom it was the cops claimed gave them permission to question Burke, as his grandmother was in Atlanta; so who gave them permission?

[Coloradokares]

It does seem logical...well maybe not logical, but plausible at least. But yes, I am still astride the fence. While your theory is certainly possible it is still very hard for me to believe that John Ramsey --EVEN IF he were molesting his daughter (which btw there is no evidence to support)--but assuming he was molesting her, I think the decision to kill your kid is a BIG decision and one that he would have thought out very methodically. Now it could be possible as you speculate that it was a last minute decision--maybe she was about to squeal--but did he think she was going to start blabbing on the plane? He couldn't wait til they got to Michigan, then kill her there and make it look like an accident? That just seems so much more reasonable to me, if his objective was to get away with it.

A couple things I am trying to find out that you or someone here might know. When Burke was interviewed by the police, which I believe happened the day after the crime as well as on Jan 8---did his story jive with the parents? Did he also say that JB was asleep when they got home and stayed asleep up until the time he went to bed? I would love to know this because I highly doubt that she would have woken up at midnight and said "Dad I'm telling everyone tomorrow that you've been molesting me". As I said before I am not good at speculating and I have yet to come up with a scenario that seems to make sense in this case. EXCEPT, some deranged pervert broke into the house, had plenty of time on his hands since the Ramseys were out for the evening. And perhaps he was bored, so he picked up a pad of paper and a pen from their kitchen and wrote the absurd "ransom" note, then when everyone came home and went to sleep he stole up to JB's room, took her down to the basement and killed her. At least I can assume from that scenario that the unknown assailant was deranged. JR just seems too smart to have tried to pull off such a foolish crime.

Another thing I;m dying to know. What is up with Fleet WHite? I heard he said to John..."the next time I see you I hope will be in court"...or something to that effect. Does he think John is guilty? I would love to hear his perspective.

It is not a secret that Fleet White feels the Ramseys are guilty. He has worked tirelessly to get this matter before a Special Prosecutor.

[bullmoose]

Something I find very curious is trying to figure out when Fleet White came to this momentous conclusion. He let the cops interrogate Burke illegally at his house on 12/26, but then travels as a trusted family friend to Jonbenet's funeral, without informing the Ramseys. His behavior in Atlanta was bizarre. Was he already co-opted by the BPD on 12/26 as an inside spy? Thats what it smells like to me, up in Idaho. It smells like a RAT! Any thoughts?

[docg]

To Docg: Whose hand are you suggesting the note was written in? It is not in either parents handwriting; whoops! wait a minute, don't blow a gasket over this point; here:IMHO it wasn't. The note to me defies explanation, from the standpoint of the Ramseys writing it. Ransom notes are not three pages long, the shorter the better,and I'm sure that if the Ramseys had written a note, it would have been short and to the point like a real one. John was ruled out, Patsy very nearly so; if she had written it, it seems like they would not have called the cops so soon. I believe that there were many people whose handwriting samples more nearly matched the so-called ransom note. My reading of the case with regards Lou Smit is that he, from the beginning, saw evidence pointing away from the parents in the case which nobody in the BPD was the least bit interested in pursuing. He pursued them, and was treated very poorly by the BPD, which wanted no contrary theories to confuse the official line of suspician of the Ramseys. People with tunnelvision do not want to consider, or to let anyone else consider alternate possibilities as to what actually happened.

Bullmoose, I guess you must have skipped over some of my earlier posts, so I will repeat myself here, just for you. :patriot:

If you go to the following website you will see a printed sample, attributed to John Ramsey, which looks very much like the ransom note. http://web.tiscali.it/faustobrugnatelli/

The owner of the site, Fausto Brugnatelli, is an Italian forensic documentation specialist, with a long history of serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Italian court system. He doesn't claim he has found a match, and I agree, you can't produce a match from a simple one to one comparison. But he does provide 9 pages of very compelling similarities, which do suggest that John Ramsey could have printed the note.

Why was he ruled out, despite all these similarities? According to Jameson, probably the best known Ramsey defender aside from Lou Smit and Lin Wood, the "experts" never saw this document or anything like it, nothing of that kind was among the exemplars they studied. Jameson is convinced that John didn't write this document, but has never agreed to test her conviction by actually asking anyone who might be in a position to know. Clearly, she doesn't want to know. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document, which has been on the Internet for many years and has never been challenged.

So, to answer your question, yes, I think John wrote the note. My guess is that he is ambidextrous and wrote it with his "off" hand. Patsy was asked to supply exemplars using her left hand, but John was NOT. IMO the strangest aspect of this case by far was the investigation, NOT the crime.

[docg]

My maglite came without batteries, however it is very easy to load all six batteries into mine without touching them, just sliding them out of their package into the end of my maglite. I did it last night to see how hard it would be; on a scale of 1 to 10 it was only about a two. And had I been wearing latex gloves it would be absolutely easy to place the batteries in the maglite without ever getting near a fingerprint, I could juggle them and then put them in without a trace.

It was reported that they had been wiped clean, NOT simply that there were no prints on them.

[rashomon]

As I said before I am not good at speculating and I have yet to come up with a scenario that seems to make sense in this case. EXCEPT, some deranged pervert broke into the house, had plenty of time on his hands since the Ramseys were out for the evening. And perhaps he was bored, so he picked up a pad of paper and a pen from their kitchen and wrote the absurd "ransom" note, then when everyone came home and went to sleep he stole up to JB's room, took her down to the basement and killed her. At least I can assume from that scenario that the unknown assailant was deranged. JR just seems too smart to have tried to pull off such a foolish crime.

And that sexual pervert could mimic Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to perfection?
And you may not be aware of the crucial case facts, but JB had eaten pineapple one to two hours before she died, so the sexual predator must have sat down in the kitchen with JB, fed her pineapple, then waited for up to two hours before bashing her head in. Totally absurd, don't you think so?
No wonder that even Lou Smit called the incriminating pineapple evidence the "big bugaboo" in the case ...

[rashomon]

There are aspects of my theory that have led people to believe I think John was trying to implicate Patsy. That's not the case and never was. For one thing, I don't think the note looks anything like Patsy's printing. While certain details seem to match, the overall style is completely different. Same with the content. Patsy expresses herself in a highly informal, breezy manner, totally unlike the prose style of the note, which is far closer to John's formal, turgid mode of expression. So no no no, I do NOT think John was trying to frame Patsy, not even close. That would NOT have been in his interest at all.

While it's true that John used Patsy's pad, pen and paintbrush, IMO that was because he didn't want to use anything associated with himself, NOT because he was trying to implicate her. He also used Burke's knife, again for the same reason.

It would have been far too dangerous for him to try to frame Patsy, that could have very easily backfired.

Do you really think a rational type of person like John Ramsey would have written such an idiotic, rambling, hysterical and totally implicating ransom note?

[Louisadelmar]

And that sexual pervert could mimic Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to perfection?
And you may not be aware of the crucial case facts, but JB had eaten pineapple one to two hours before she died, so the sexual predator must have sat down in the kitchen with JB, fed her pineapple, then waited for up to two hours before bashing her head in. Totally absurd, don't you think so?
No wonder that even Lou Smit called the incriminating pineapple evidence the "big bugaboo" in the case ...

Not according to a number of experts including the Secret Service.

In truth, we don't know when JonBenet ate the pineapple. What the autopsy says is:


G.I. Tract: The esophagus is empty. It is lined by gray-white mucosa. The stomach contains a small amount (8-11cc) of viscous to green to tan colored thick mucous material without particulate matter identified. The gastic mucosa is autolyzed but contains no areas of hemorrhage or ulceration. The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple. No hemorrhage is identified. The remainder of the small intestine is unremarkable. The large intestine contains soft green fecal material. The appendix is present.

Digestion times vary. Doctors have also suggested it was entirely possible she ate the pineapple before leaving to go to the Whites.

[docg]

Oh, come on a 3 page ransom note explaining all the reasons why the kidnappers are out to get his kid? A REAL kidnapper would say something short and sweet as in--have your daughter, get 118,000 in small bills and I'll call you and tell you where to deliver it. Something like that. But to say, we are a small foreign faction...we respect your company but not the country it serves.. get some rest. Come on, why would any kidnapper feel the need to explain their actions? It is totally incredible imo.

You got it, elvis, exactly, right on the money. Why would a REAL kidnapper want to write such a long note with so many detailed instructions? But you are forgetting one important thing. If our culprit was John Ramsey, then the person who wrote it was NOT a real kidnapper, just someone trying to sound like one. But a minimalist note wouldn't have worked for him. It had to accomplish several different things: 1. Persuade Patsy there was no poiint in turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet, because she'd been kidnapped; 2. Frighten Patsy into not calling the police, because the kidnappers were monitoring their home, were familiar with police tactics, resented John, hated "fat cats," etc., and were threatening to behead her child -- the more threats the better, to be sure she'd get the point; 3. Provide a detailed list of very specific instructions, so John could later claim he was following the orders of the kidnappers when he went to the bank, withdrew the money, headed for some remote spot near where the body would eventually be found, etc. 4. Give John a full 24 hours to do everything he needed to do by scheduling the phone call for "tomorrow" -- and at the same time providing him with some flexibility by helpfully informing him that if he got the money early they'd be contacting him early.

This couldn't be some ordinary ransom note, it had way too much to accomplish.

[docg]

<snip>
A couple things I am trying to find out that you or someone here might know. When Burke was interviewed by the police, which I believe happened the day after the crime as well as on Jan 8---did his story jive with the parents? Did he also say that JB was asleep when they got home and stayed asleep up until the time he went to bed? I would love to know this because I highly doubt that she would have woken up at midnight and said "Dad I'm telling everyone tomorrow that you've been molesting me". As I said before I am not good at speculating and I have yet to come up with a scenario that seems to make sense in this case. EXCEPT, some deranged pervert broke into the house, had plenty of time on his hands since the Ramseys were out for the evening. And perhaps he was bored, so he picked up a pad of paper and a pen from their kitchen and wrote the absurd "ransom" note, then when everyone came home and went to sleep he stole up to JB's room, took her down to the basement and killed her. At least I can assume from that scenario that the unknown assailant was deranged. JR just seems too smart to have tried to pull off such a foolish crime.

Another thing I;m dying to know. What is up with Fleet WHite? I heard he said to John..."the next time I see you I hope will be in court"...or something to that effect. Does he think John is guilty? I would love to hear his perspective.

No, Burke's story did not completely confirm his parent's version. According to Burke JonBenet was awake when they entered the house and walked up the steps under her own power. John and Patsy claimed she was fast asleep. Regardless of whether or not she was asleep, she could certainly have awakened later that night. It's also possible she was faking and not really asleep, but instead very upset.

We do know that she ate some pineapple that night. If someone was with her, it certainly wouldn't have been an intruder. She'd have been too alarmed to eat. So it's possible someone from the family was with her at that time.

There's no way we can know or even guess what could have happened prior to the attack and there's little point in speculating. From what we DO know, as I've said, the ONLY logical suspect, very sadly for her sake, is her father.

[Louisadelmar]

As I posted earlier, Burke has said both.

[elvislives]

It is not a secret that Fleet White feels the Ramseys are guilty. He has worked tirelessly to get this matter before a Special Prosecutor.

Which Ramsey does he think did it?

[elvislives]

And that sexual pervert could mimic Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to perfection?
And you may not be aware of the crucial case facts, but JB had eaten pineapple one to two hours before she died, so the sexual predator must have sat down in the kitchen with JB, fed her pineapple, then waited for up to two hours before bashing her head in. Totally absurd, don't you think so?
No wonder that even Lou Smit called the incriminating pineapple evidence the "big bugaboo" in the case ...

As I mentioned before, after JMK "confessed" I heard numerous hand writing "experts" proclaim that John Mark Karr's handwriting was a 95% match to the ransom note. "I can all but guarantee that he was the author of the ransom note".. to quote one of the so called experts. Another one even produced an old high school year book where not only was his printing similar but his sign off was a phrase that began with S.B.T.C. So you'll pardon me if I classify hand-writing analysis as a soft science and refuse to send someone to the gas chamber based on such weak evidence.

And believe it or not, as unaware as I am of the crucial facts in this case, I AM in the loop about the pineapple. Exactly what is your theory? Jonbenet and Patsy stayed up late to bake a pineapple upside-down cake; Jonbenet licked the bowl without washing her hands first, so Patsy garrotted her then bashed her brains in?

[elvislives]

You got it, elvis, exactly, right on the money. Why would a REAL kidnapper want to write such a long note with so many detailed instructions? But you are forgetting one important thing. If our culprit was John Ramsey, then the person who wrote it was NOT a real kidnapper, just someone trying to sound like one. But a minimalist note wouldn't have worked for him. It had to accomplish several different things: 1. Persuade Patsy there was no poiint in turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet, because she'd been kidnapped; 2. Frighten Patsy into not calling the police, because the kidnappers were monitoring their home, were familiar with police tactics, resented John, hated "fat cats," etc., and were threatening to behead her child -- the more threats the better, to be sure she'd get the point; 3. Provide a detailed list of very specific instructions, so John could later claim he was following the orders of the kidnappers when he went to the bank, withdrew the money, headed for some remote spot near where the body would eventually be found, etc. 4. Give John a full 24 hours to do everything he needed to do by scheduling the phone call for "tomorrow" -- and at the same time providing him with some flexibility by helpfully informing him that if he got the money early they'd be contacting him early.

This couldn't be some ordinary ransom note, it had way too much to accomplish.

You forgot to mention that, if all else fails, it helps explain the dead body in the basement...

[thewhitewitch1]

As I mentioned before, after JMK "confessed" I heard numerous hand writing "experts" proclaim that John Mark Karr's handwriting was a 95% match to the ransom note. "I can all but guarantee that he was the author of the ransom note".. to quote one of the so called experts. Another one even produced an old high school year book where not only was his printing similar but his sign off was a phrase that began with S.B.T.C. So you'll pardon me if I classify hand-writing analysis as a soft science and refuse to send someone to the gas chamber based on such weak evidence.

And believe it or not, as unaware as I am of the crucial facts in this case, I AM in the loop about the pineapple. Exactly what is your theory? Jonbenet and Patsy stayed up late to bake a pineapple upside-down cake; Jonbenet licked the bowl without washing her hands first, so Patsy garrotted her then bashed her brains in?

The thing about the pineapple is Patsys complete and utter denial over ever having seen the bowl containing it that day or night. She admits that the bowl belongs to her but claims that she "would not put that there like that", as in that bowl with the spoon that was in it. It was fresh pineapple so someone had to have cut it up and put it in that bowl. JonBenet couldn't have done it. I'd like to know what Burke had to say about it.
The real point is not so much what time she could have eaten it but that the "mystery" of why Patsy so empathically denies everything about it...which certainly makes me think that she knows everything about it and that JonBenet was served it some time after the family returned home from the Whites, which would make it a huge lie that she was asleep when they got home and never woke up, to their knowledge.
So...how and why does/would an intruder bring their own fresh pineapple, chop it up, put it in Patsys bowl and serve it to their victim prior to killing her?
If anything doesn't make sense, that would be it. IMO
What makes sense is that JonBenet either wasn't asleep when they got home, or she woke up and was given a snack by one of her parents and that parent forgot to dump the bowl or put it away. When it was called to their attention later by the LE, they HAD to deny all knowlege of it or admit that they lied about her being asleep. Yep, they could have said she ate it before they went to the Whites; but they didn't. Why? Because they had woven such a string of lies that there was no going back. IMO

[shill]

And that sexual pervert could mimic Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to perfection?
And you may not be aware of the crucial case facts, but JB had eaten pineapple one to two hours before she died, so the sexual predator must have sat down in the kitchen with JB, fed her pineapple, then waited for up to two hours before bashing her head in. Totally absurd, don't you think so?
No wonder that even Lou Smit called the incriminating pineapple evidence the "big bugaboo" in the case ...
JB could have awoken in the middle of the night hungry, and went down stairs for a Midnight snack of pineapple. The only one that would know is JB.

[thewhitewitch1]

JB could have awoken in the middle of the night hungry, and went down stairs for a Midnight snack of pineapple. The only one that would know is JB.

Who put the pineapple in that bowl, then? Patsy denies doing it....ever. You are not saying that JonBenet cut up the fresh pineapple herself, are you? Or that she put it into that serving bowl herself? Patsy didn't even know if they had fresh pineapple in their house at the time...or so she said. So why was there a spoon in the bowl with Burkes prints on it? It would appear as though he also had a midnight snack and JB ate hers with her fingers and didn't leave any prints at all on the bowl.

[elvislives]

The thing about the pineapple is Patsys complete and utter denial over ever having seen the bowl containing it that day or night. She admits that the bowl belongs to her but claims that she "would not put that there like that", as in that bowl with the spoon that was in it. It was fresh pineapple so someone had to have cut it up and put it in that bowl. JonBenet couldn't have done it. I'd like to know what Burke had to say about it.
The real point is not so much what time she could have eaten it but that the "mystery" of why Patsy so empathically denies everything about it...which certainly makes me think that she knows everything about it and that JonBenet was served it some time after the family returned home from the Whites, which would make it a huge lie that she was asleep when they got home and never woke up, to their knowledge.
So...how and why does/would an intruder bring their own fresh pineapple, chop it up, put it in Patsys bowl and serve it to their victim prior to killing her?
If anything doesn't make sense, that would be it. IMO
What makes sense is that JonBenet either wasn't asleep when they got home, or she woke up and was given a snack by one of her parents and that parent forgot to dump the bowl or put it away. When it was called to their attention later by the LE, they HAD to deny all knowlege of it or admit that they lied about her being asleep. Yep, they could have said she ate it before they went to the Whites; but they didn't. Why? Because they had woven such a string of lies that there was no going back. IMO

Did the police check the R's trash for pineapple rinds? It should be fairly easy to figure out whether someone in the family cut up a pineapple, there should be some recent trash if it was fresh.

[Coloradokares]

Something I find very curious is trying to figure out when Fleet White came to this momentous conclusion. He let the cops interrogate Burke illegally at his house on 12/26, but then travels as a trusted family friend to Jonbenet's funeral, without informing the Ramseys. His behavior in Atlanta was bizarre. Was he already co-opted by the BPD on 12/26 as an inside spy? Thats what it smells like to me, up in Idaho. It smells like a RAT! Any thoughts?


No mystery as the Ramseys step by step shut out the police and Fleet could see that they were not in his opinion doing everything they could to cooperate in the investigation and indeed gave a press conference to tv before going back to deal with the investigation things started sliding into slots for him....like a Rubics cube. Nuff said.

[Coloradokares]

Which Ramsey does he think did it?

He said when the matter goes before a criminal court or off ice of special prosecutor he will tell everything . Has to be good enough for me. He isn't doing interviews or making statements writing books or going on tour.

[thewhitewitch1]

Did the police check the R's trash for pineapple rinds? It should be fairly easy to figure out whether someone in the family cut up a pineapple, there should be some recent trash if it was fresh.


Of course we don't know the answer to that. Regardless, why on earth would an intruder bring pineapple with them? Of course it had to have been in the house already.
I am not even sure that it was a whole pineapple that had to be cut. I suppose it could be some of that pre-cut stuff. Would that be considered fresh pineapple? Either way, it makes no sense that anyone would bring pineapple into a home to feed a child that you are going to kidnap/molest and kill.
So why the big denial over it??

[Zoey]

No mystery as the Ramseys step by step shut out the police and Fleet could see that they were not in his opinion doing everything they could to cooperate in the investigation and indeed gave a press conference to tv before going back to deal with the investigation things started sliding into slots for him....like a Rubics cube. Nuff said.


Nuff said? I don't feel there is enough said about Fleet White and the fact that everything about him is hidden from public view. Nuff said? I don't feel that every time the Fleet White fan club comes out that they all forget to mention that his niece worked at CNN as an up and coming reporter, and he felt CNN would be a good place for the Ramseys to tell their story. Nuff said? IMO there has not been enough said about Fleet White and all of his sealed questioning needs to be opened up for public view. For goodness sakes, the graphic autopsy photos of this dead little girl are on the internet, but nothing about Fleet White. Something is wrong with that, IMO.

[shill]

Fleet White should be at the top of the list. Molestation is usually done by someone who the victim knows.

[Coloradokares]

Nuff said? I don't feel there is enough said about Fleet White and the fact that everything about him is hidden from public view. Nuff said? I don't feel that every time the Fleet White fan club comes out that they all forget to mention that his niece worked at CNN as an up and coming reporter, and he felt CNN would be a good place for the Ramseys to tell their story. Nuff said? IMO there has not been enough said about Fleet White and all of his sealed questioning needs to be opened up for public view. For goodness sakes, the graphic autopsy photos of this dead little girl are on the internet, but nothing about Fleet White. Something is wrong with that, IMO.


Zoey google him.....you'll find plenty to keep you going. But what you will find is despite interrogations. DNA writing analysis. Scrutiny up kazoo. He was cleared by the same LE that never cleared the Ramseys. He has worked tirelessly to get this case before a body willing to look at all the evidence and get it to trial. He leads a petition to get the governor to appoint an office of special prosecutor...You know perhaps if you calim his questioning is sealed from view there are legal reasons for it. They wouldn't just seal them for grins and giggles.....If he were guilty they'd of nailed him long ago. Perhaps its protecting the innocent or a minor. I will tell you this no one under the age of 10 can be held responsible for a criminal act. Not in this state.....I am not sure. What I know is I lived in the Valley and Fleet was hardly quiet or secretive. He has been very vocal in his seeking justice for JonBenet.

[rashomon]

Oh, come on a 3 page ransom note explaining all the reasons why the kidnappers are out to get his kid? A REAL kidnapper would say something short and sweet as in--have your daughter, get 118,000 in small bills and I'll call you and tell you where to deliver it. Something like that. But to say, we are a small foreign faction...we respect your company but not the country it serves.. get some rest. Come on, why would any kidnapper feel the need to explain their actions? It is totally incredible imo.
Exactly Elvislives. You have taken a giant leap off your fence by arriving at this conclusion.

Not even the IDIs have ever attempted to defend the ransom note as a real note, i. e. not even the IDIs believe that the 'Small Foreign Faction' ever existed.
In short, both RDIs and IDIs agree on the ransom note being a BOGUS note.
But since there is no reason for a sexual predator to leave a bogus kidnapping note, this leaves one or both Ramseys as the author(s) of the note.

[rashomon]

JB could have awoken in the middle of the night hungry, and went down stairs for a Midnight snack of pineapple. The only one that would know is JB.
Valid point, for it is theoretically possible.
This might explain John Ramsey's adamance about the pineapple when he told Lou Smit "I swear you it was not after she got home".[that JB ate the pineapple]
Maybe he didn't know that JB went down later to eat the pineapple?
But suppose Patsy became aware of it, found JB down there, and got very angry at her?

[rashomon]

And believe it or not, as unaware as I am of the crucial facts in this case, I AM in the loop about the pineapple. Exactly what is your theory? Jonbenet and Patsy stayed up late to bake a pineapple upside-down cake; Jonbenet licked the bowl without washing her hands first, so Patsy garrotted her then bashed her brains in?
My theory is that the Ramseys simply didn't take into account that the pineapple in JB's stomach woud blow their whole concocted story apart. They had presented their story like that: JB was asleep when they got home, and everybody went to bed soon. And then soon afterward the kidnapper snatched JB from her bed ...
Now they couldn't very well tell the investigators "ah, now that you mention it, I remember JB was not asleep at all, but had some pineapple in the kitchen." Now how would that have looked? Like people trying to make the evidence fit into their concocted story of course.
So the Ramseys had no choice but to stick to their story.
They wanted to avoid the impression that something had happend to JB while she was still awake. The less they told about what happened after they got home, the better.
Which is also why John Ramsey changed his version of events: for he initially had told the police that JB had been awake when they got home ...

[rashomon]

But a minimalist note wouldn't have worked for him. It had to accomplish several different things: 1. Persuade Patsy there was no poiint in turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet, because she'd been kidnapped; 2. Frighten Patsy into not calling the police, because the kidnappers were monitoring their home, were familiar with police tactics, resented John, hated "fat cats," etc., and were threatening to behead her child -- the more threats the better, to be sure she'd get the point;


C'mon, Docg. John Ramsey was a CEO, a very rational type of person. If we go along (for the sake of the discussion) with your theory that John wrote it: do you really believe he would have run the risk of having his handwriting identifed by the police? Even Patsy could have recognized his handwriting.

Imo a scant note would have sounded far more threatening, for to me all that babbling nonsense in the RN dilutes the threatening aspect. "We respect your business" -- what balderdash!
John was a take-charge type, used to make decisions.
All he needed to do was take her in his arms and tell her. "Let me handle this, Patsy!" And I bet Patsy would have leaned on him.

And if his plan was to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would NEVER have let that RN lying around for Patsy to find. He would have made sure that it was HE who found it, and then have shown it to her.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if John had planned to dump the body somewhere, the child would already have been in the trunk of the Ramsey car at the time Patsy got to read the note.

I have a question: is Dec 26 a normal workday in the US? For here in Germany this is also a Christmas holiday, where the banks are not open.

[docg]

Do you really think a rational type of person like John Ramsey would have written such an idiotic, rambling, hysterical and totally implicating ransom note?

I consider myself rational and I find the note rational. It makes no sense only if you assume it was written for no particular purpose by someone like Patsy or a crazed intruder. If you assume it was written for a very specific purpose as part of a very specific plan, such as the plan I've outlined, then it makes a great deal of sense and all the little pieces fall together quite clearly.

The media and investigators like Thomas and Smit have tried very hard to interpret the note in ways that make no sense, and this has had a profound impact on how it has been perceived. If you see it as Patsy or as an intruder, then I suppose it does look irrational. Try reading it again with my theory in mind and see if that makes a difference.

[docg]

Which Ramsey does he think did it?

Fleet very clearly suspects John. It was John he nearly came to blows with at one point. Fleet looked in that room and saw nothing unusual. He was present when John found the body in the same room and cried out PRIOR to turning on the light. Fleet was also upset with John's decision to lawyer up so early and stonewall the police.

[docg]

As I mentioned before, after JMK "confessed" I heard numerous hand writing "experts" proclaim that John Mark Karr's handwriting was a 95% match to the ransom note. "I can all but guarantee that he was the author of the ransom note".. to quote one of the so called experts. Another one even produced an old high school year book where not only was his printing similar but his sign off was a phrase that began with S.B.T.C. So you'll pardon me if I classify hand-writing analysis as a soft science and refuse to send someone to the gas chamber based on such weak evidence. <snip>


Thank you!

[docg]

You forgot to mention that, if all else fails, it helps explain the dead body in the basement...

No, elvis, that's exactly what the note does NOT help explain. Providing a ransom note in your own hand to the police is NOT the way to stage an intruder homicide that left a dead body in your own home. For one thing, why stage a FAILED kidnapping? And for another why provide the authorities with evidence against you? The note was clearly written by someone who intended to get that body OUT of the house -- AND it was surely never part of the plan to hand such an incriminating document over to the authorities, no way.

[Athena]

Fleet very clearly suspects John. It was John he nearly came to blows with at one point. Fleet looked in that room and saw nothing unusual. He was present when John found the body in the same room and cried out PRIOR to turning on the light. Fleet was also upset with John's decision to lawyer up so early and stonewall the police.

This is incorrect docg. According to Fleet's own deposition he admits the room was dark when he looked into it and he also says John DID TURN ON THE LIGHT BEFORE seeing JBR. Also note that JR did NOT immediately go to the wine cellar as many have suggested:

Later that afternoon, Mr. Ramsey and Mr. White together returned to the basement at the suggestion of the Boulder Police. (SMF 32; PSMF 32; White Dep. at 212-217; J. Ramsey Dep. at 17 20.) During this joint search of the basement, the men first. Mr. Ramsey testified that the window had been broken the previous summer. (SMF 30; PSMF 30; J. Ramsey Aff. , 30

examined the playroom and observed the broken window. (SMF 33; PSMF 33.) The men next searched a shower stall located in the basement. {SMF 34; PSMF 34.} Mr. Ramsey then noticed a heavy fireplace grate propped in front of a closet and Mr. White moved the grate so the closet could be searched. (SMF 35: PSMF 35.) Upon finding nothing unusual in the closet, the men proceeded to the wine cellar room. Mr. Ramsey entered the room first, turned on the light and, upon discovery of JonBenet's dead body, he exclaimed "Oh my God, my baby." (SMF 36, 37: PSMF 36, 37; White Dep. at 162-63, 193-93.)

edited to take page numbers out in between paragraphs to read easier

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

[Coloradokares]

Why wouldnt the BPD have conducted a parallel investigation? IOW why wouldn't they have one team to investigate the parents, then another to follow the intruder theory? Thats what most police depts do in cases like this.

They did ....its pure bunk they didn't. If not explain Lou Smit....

[Coloradokares]

Fleet very clearly suspects John. It was John he nearly came to blows with at one point. Fleet looked in that room and saw nothing unusual. He was present when John found the body in the same room and cried out PRIOR to turning on the light. Fleet was also upset with John's decision to lawyer up so early and stonewall the police.

While I agree with most everything you say here. We don't know specifically if Fleet feels John killed JonBenet or was part of staging and coverup on behalf of Patsy or someone else. Only that he holds John accountable for the actions he witnessed. I think the rest is a matter which he will testify about in a court or to an office of special prosecutor. It is logical to think he thinks John did it. But I have never seen that opinion expressed by Fleet specifically to this point. If I have I forgot it I guess.

[nuisanceposter]

They did ....its pure bunk they didn't. If not explain Lou Smit....

Lou Smit was hired by the DA's office.


http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Events%20in%20the%20Investigation

3-12-97 Lou Smit Hired. Boulder DA hired retired Colorado Springs investigator Lou Smit to work on investigation (Daily Camera chronology); Smit's employment contract is dated March 17, 1997.

[elvislives]

They did ....its pure bunk they didn't. If not explain Lou Smit....

I thought Lou Smit resigned because he said he didn't want to take part in the prosecution of innocent people. IF they were running a parallel investigation there would be no need for him to quit...he could just help with the IDI team.

[elvislives]

Of course we don't know the answer to that. Regardless, why on earth would an intruder bring pineapple with them? Of course it had to have been in the house already.
I am not even sure that it was a whole pineapple that had to be cut. I suppose it could be some of that pre-cut stuff. Would that be considered fresh pineapple? Either way, it makes no sense that anyone would bring pineapple into a home to feed a child that you are going to kidnap/molest and kill.
So why the big denial over it??

Did they question Burke about the pineapple? If his prints were on the bowl then he must have some knowledge of it.
Even if the R's are guilty, it makes no sense to lie about the pineapple. If they had come home and fed JB pineapple they could say they came home and fed JB pineapple then put her to bed. That doesn't mean they killed her. It doesn't make sense that they would lie about it---especially with a 10 year old kid in the house whose version of events would have to be consistent with theirs.