Parents who kill...

[Louisadelmar]

I don't see the Ramseys in this.

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

[SnarkyCow]

Good post - even tho I believe the Ramseys were involved in the death of JonBenet. It is fair to say that not every instance will fit into a neat, clean profile. You'd be hard pressed (in fact, it'd be impossible) to find another case where a supposed-to-be kidnapped child is found sexually abused and murdered in her home AND accompanied by a three page ransom note. My point is: This case doesn't fall into any profile - it is unique unto itself.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[shill]

Motive needs to match the crime.

[SnarkyCow]

Motive needs to match the crime.

Not when it's a crime of passion (I'm not talking about romantic relationship) or rage. Not every murder is premeditated or motivated.

[shill]

People can't believe an intruder would fit the profile the evidence points to, but they believe the Ramseys thought it would be a convincing staging.

IMO the intruder did not intend to kill JB in the house and it was an accident. And this is why the evidence is confusing. The original plan had to be aborted and then everything was improvised, and not thought out.
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

[shill]

Not when it's a crime of passion (I'm not talking about romantic relationship) or rage. Not every murder is premeditated or motivated.

Murder was just part of the crime. Staging a crime (if it was the Ramseys), moving the body, death threats, strangulation, sexual penetration, imprisonment, attempted kidnapping.

[SnarkyCow]

People can't believe an intruder would fit the profile the evidence points to, but they believe the Ramseys thought it would be a convincing staging.

IMO the intruder did not intend to kill JB in the house and it was an accident. And this is why the evidence is confusing. The original plan had to be aborted and then everything was improvised, and not thought out.
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

Well, I guess that's what makes you IDI and me RDI. I completely see your point and respect it, but I don't believe that is what happened - in my opinion there is no evidence of an intruder, none. The only evidence at the crime scene ties one or both of the Ramseys to the crime. This is how I interpret it. I've read a lot of your posts while lurking here & know already that we'll have to agree to disagree, but that is the beauty of being able to speak freely & have an opinion. :beer:

Cheers,

Snarky

[Ames]

<snipped>
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???

[shill]

If you wear gloves at a crime scene and leave no fingerprints, that doesn't mean you didn't touch anything.
If you leave no signs of breaking into a house, that doesn't mean you were not in the house.
But there is a lot of evidence missing from the crime scene that is no longer in the house. So who removed it?

[shill]

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???No, why would they, she had been kidnapped. They didn't search for her even after the call didn't come from the kidnapper at the time they thought it was suppose to. Unless you know of someone telling John and the others to look for JB's body, I don't think it really occured to them. As far as I have seen, they were just looking for clues or things out of the ordinary.

[SnarkyCow]

If you wear gloves at a crime scene and leave no fingerprints, that doesn't mean you didn't touch anything.
If you leave no signs of breaking into a house, that doesn't mean you were not in the house.
But there is a lot of evidence missing from the crime scene that is no longer in the house. So who removed it?

Good question - who removed it? I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to find something to do with it in the 7 hours between coming home and calling the police. Wasn't Patsy's sister allowed in the house shortly after to collect a number of things Patsy wanted?

Also, why would someone bring some of the things they used to kill JB with them, but use other things from the house? If it were a kidnapping gone wrong and the note was left to give the intruder time to escape wouldn't the intruder write a short, succinct ransom note instead of a three page masterpiece? If it was a kidnapping or sexual assault gone murder wouldn't the person want to get out ASAP? Would they take the time to put the pad of paper and the pen back where they found it?

Would an intruder interupt their kidnapping mission, or suppress their deviant urges to feed JB some pineapple? Must have been one calm, collected pedophile, kidnapping, murderer - and nice too, giving JB a snack. This makes no sense to me - none at all.

I wish these things could be explained away, but they can't - no matter what I read nothing justifies the events of that evening being caused by an intruder.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[SnarkyCow]

SNIP: As far as I have seen, they were just looking for clues or things out of the ordinary.

Like a broken basement window as a means of entry or exit? Funny that wasn't mentioned by JR when he was looking for things out of the ordinary don't you think?

[Louisadelmar]

Nor by Fleet White...

[shill]

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.

[shill]

SNIP:

Like a broken basement window as a means of entry or exit? Funny that wasn't mentioned by JR when he was looking for things out of the ordinary don't you think?

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

[SnarkyCow]

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.

Exactly! Why lie!? Why lie about any of what you mentioned! According to Burke she was awake when they arrived home - if this is the case Patsy & John did lie. What would Burke have to gain by fabricating his story? Nothing!

Patsy is the one, in her interview in 1998, who said JB would not be able to reach that bowl and would never get up to fix herself a snack - if she wanted something Patsy said JB would have woken her up.

From Patsy's 1998 interview:
PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.
3 PATRICK BURKE: Before we get off of that,
4 just to finish, I think we have time left on the tape.
5 TOM HANEY: I am done talking, okay.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: Do I understand you to say that
7 JonBenet would not have fixed herself pineapple?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I very seriously doubt that.
9 TRIP DEMUTH: So if she had pineapple in her
10 system, someone had to serve that to her?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: That would be my guess.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. And we know that she did
13 have pineapple in her system.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
15 TRIP DEMUTH: Right.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: That is why I'm here.
17 TRIP DEMUTH: Someone would have had to serve
18 her pineapple.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems to me like that.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: The Whites have told us that
21 they did not serve her pineapple.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: We need to figure out when she
24 got pineapple.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Exactly.

[SnarkyCow]

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

[thewhitewitch1]

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.


We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

Sorry, Snarky...must have missed your post!

[thewhitewitch1]

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.


No, it doesn't.
And he did look for her. He looked under her bed for her and in the refriderator. I guess he thought she wrote the RN as a joke. :punch:

[shill]

We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

I was under the impression the bowl of pineapple was out on a table top and that is what is shown in the crime scene photos.

[thewhitewitch1]

I was under the impression the bowl of pineapple was out on a table top and that is what is shown in the crime scene photos.

See Patsys statements in Snarkycows post above.

[shill]

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.
I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

[SnarkyCow]

My personal, favorite conversation regarding the pineapple and bowl. From Patsy's 1998 interview:
PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my knowledge, unless
17 she -- you know, I can't remember what was served over
18 at the White's. Does anybody know? Except there was
19 crab. I remember crab.
20 TOM HANEY: That seems to be the only thing
21 you recall that she ate.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
23 Did you fingerprint that?
24 TOM HANEY: Yes.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Did it show anything?
0480
1 TOM HANEY: Well, what would that tell you,
2 somebody's fingerprints were on it.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, if they weren't mine, if
4 they were not John's, maybe somebody fed her pineapple.
5 TOM HANEY: What if those fingerprints
6 belonged to one of the two of you?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I don't know.
8 TOM HANEY: Well, wait a minute. You started
9 that line.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't put the bowl there,
11 okay. I did not put the bowl there. I would not do
12 this, set it.
13 TOM HANEY: Let's go back to your line of
14 reasoning here. If they were not -- now talk to me.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Look at me. If they are not
17 yours and they are not John's, then they would be
18 somebody else's.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
20 TOM HANEY: But now I am telling you they are
21 not somebody else's. Those prints belong to one of the
22 two of you.
23 PATSY RAMSEY: They do? You are sure? Well,
24 I don't know. I did not put that there. No.
25 TOM HANEY: Now, so could we just slough it
0481
1 off like that, because --
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know how else to -- I
3 mean, I would not do this set like this. JonBenet
4 could not reach a bowl that size.
5 TOM HANEY: Wait. Talk to me. Your line of
6 reasoning, and this was your logic a couple sentences
7 ago, they are not yours, they are not John's, then they
8 are somebody else's, whoever put it there. I'm telling
9 you that it isn't somebody else's.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Well --
11 TOM HANEY: You know sometimes the simplest,
12 most obscure little thing could be so significant.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed
14 JonBenet pineapple, so I don't know how it got in her
15 stomach. I don't know where this bowl of pineapple
16 came from. I can't recall putting that there. I can
17 never recall putting a tea bag like that in a cup, so I
18 don't know. I don't know the answer.

[SnarkyCow]

I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

I agree that LE should've noticed it - I don't claim the investigation wasn't f-ed up or that the detectives did the right things. But we were talking about John Ramsey - there is no question LE screwed up, there is also no question that John Ramsey's behavior is suspicious as hell.

[shill]

We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

Sorry, Snarky...must have missed your post!

I take it that it is a fact that there was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning.
So was there an open can of pineapple or the skin and rind of a pineapple found anywhere that morning or was that pineapple in the refrigerator for days?

[aussiesheila]

I take it that it is a fact that there was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning.
So was there an open can of pineapple or the skin and rind of a pineapple found anywhere that morning or was that pineapple in the refrigerator for days?There was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning. The pineapple was fresh (not canned). No skin or rind was found in the house.

I did read the transcript of the interview in which Patsy was asked about the pineapple. My recollection is that her answer as to whether she bought the pineapple or not was a bit vague, as were a lot of her answers. Deliberately so, IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

IIRC, the pineapple had been bought at Safeway, and had come in a bag with a sealing top. The pineapple that was in JonBenet's stomach was found to be consistent down to the rind with what was still in the bowl.

[Ames]

No, it doesn't.
And he did look for her. He looked under her bed for her and in the refriderator. I guess he thought she wrote the RN as a joke. :punch:


Thanks for posting this...I knew that I had read where he had looked in the basement freezer for her...because he said that he had a fear of her getting trapped in there.

[Ames]

My personal, favorite conversation regarding the pineapple and bowl. From Patsy's 1998 interview:


Thanks for posting this...its the first time that I had ever seen it before. Okay, so the "intruder" fed her pineapple AND had tea with her??? Oh good GRIEF!!!! I can see why this would be your personal, favorite conversation. She is SO lying.....What a crock of bull poop!!

[Ames]

I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

[shill]

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

Well, John probably figured that since the detectives didn't mention it, and he had broken prior to that night, it had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, the detectives would have mentioned it.

[LindaA]

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

Detectives should never assume anything esp. about a possible source of entry at a crime scene. Shame on them, if that is the case.

[shill]

Ramseys windows, door unlocked.
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/US/jonbenet_ramsey_murder/news_stories/SIG=120ooedcu/*http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1110jon1.html

[nuisanceposter]

Shill, thanks for the article. It was written in November of 1997, almost a year after the murder. This is typical RST spin, done for damage control IMO.

Here's what I question:

"But the source said a police officer inspected the 15-room home after the Ramseys called police at 5:45 a.m. Dec. 26 and found six windows unlocked."

Who is that source?

According to the article, the source is "a prominent defense attorney."

Whose defense attorney? The Ramsey's? Who is this police officer that found these windows unlocked? How did this anonymous defense attorney come upon this information? Is there any other verification?

Three police officers, Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach, all independently heard John Ramsey tell them that he had made sure to lock up the night before. In PMPT, Patsy tells her friends the house was locked up. It also says in PMPT, according to friends and corroborated by Burke in an interview, that the Ramseys were good about locking up.

Is this another situation similar to the one with JR saying FBI were never on the case when they were?

[elvislives]

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???

In all fairness, the police did not search the house for the child....at least not adequately.

[elvislives]

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

Thats an interesting point. Did the cop who searched the basement and felt so guilty about not finding JBs body (I can t think of his name right now)...but did he ever mention the broken window?

[SnarkyCow]

His name is Officer French I believe & I'm not sure about him mentioning the window or not. I think it's bizarre that the John Ramsy and one of the first officers searching the house failed to mention it. It's like "HELLO!? Does this not seem like it could be important!?" :rolleyes:

[elvislives]

Good question - who removed it? I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to find something to do with it in the 7 hours between coming home and calling the police. Wasn't Patsy's sister allowed in the house shortly after to collect a number of things Patsy wanted?

Also, why would someone bring some of the things they used to kill JB with them, but use other things from the house? If it were a kidnapping gone wrong and the note was left to give the intruder time to escape wouldn't the intruder write a short, succinct ransom note instead of a three page masterpiece? If it was a kidnapping or sexual assault gone murder wouldn't the person want to get out ASAP? Would they take the time to put the pad of paper and the pen back where they found it?

Would an intruder interupt their kidnapping mission, or suppress their deviant urges to feed JB some pineapple? Must have been one calm, collected pedophile, kidnapping, murderer - and nice too, giving JB a snack. This makes no sense to me - none at all.

I wish these things could be explained away, but they can't - no matter what I read nothing justifies the events of that evening being caused by an intruder.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

Hey Snarky, I struggle with these same questions too but I also struggle with RDi questions. For example, if JBs parents wrote the ransom note, why in the world would they leave the tablet and pen on the kitchen counter...especially with the original 'false start' letter still in the pad? If I were going to kill one of my family members and write a bogus ransom note, I would find a piece of paper in my house that could not be traced to my grocery list. Also, if I started out writing a letter (Dear mr and mrs) then decided to change it, I would be absolutely careful to destroy the original...flush it down the toilet or something...maybe even swallow it. But the last thing I would do is leave the evidence, then hand it over to police as a handwriting example. I am not at all convinced that the Rs are innocent, but these inconsistencies make me question their guilt. Could they really be that smart, yet that stupid???

[SnarkyCow]

Hey Snarky, I struggle with these same questions too but I also struggle with RDi questions. For example, if JBs parents wrote the ransom note, why in the world would they leave the tablet and pen on the kitchen counter...especially with the original 'false start' letter still in the pad? If I were going to kill one of my family members and write a bogus ransom note, I would find a piece of paper in my house that could not be traced to my grocery list. Also, if I started out writing a letter (Dear mr and mrs) then decided to change it, I would be absolutely careful to destroy the original...flush it down the toilet or something...maybe even swallow it. But the last thing I would do is leave the evidence, then hand it over to police as a handwriting example. I am not at all convinced that the Rs are innocent, but these inconsistencies make me question their guilt. Could they really be that smart, yet that stupid???

I totally hear you. I realize polygraphs and handwriting samples aren't iron-clad. I just think about the not cooperating with the police, lawyering-up so early, refusal of FBI polygraphs, the difference in story between Burke & the parents regarding JB being awake or asleep when they got home, and the whole pineapple thing.... if the Rs did this thing, which I think they did, they had hours on end to figure out how they were going to play it out. The other thing is: The crime scene was staged. What intruder would stay in a house, with the possiblity of being caught at any minute, and elaboratly stage the crime? IMO there is no plausible answer for this - it just does not make sense to me. Pedophiliac kidnapper turned murderer? I just don't buy it.

When I think of the Ramseys (as I've said before) the phrase "Crazy like a fox" comes to mind.

What did they have to lose by doing everything in their power to cover up and get away with this dispicable crime? Nothing, in my opinion. If it was an accident, they chose not to call for help in time to make a difference in the life or death of their daughter, so they decided to uphold their image and try to gain sympathy rather than the alternative.... If they admit to it they go to jail. If they mess with the crime scene - stage it, fill the house with people, contaminate it, leave a rambling note, confuse people, clam up, point fingers away from themselves - they may have a chance to come away as victims rather than cold-blooded killers. At least by staging they had a chance to get away with what they did. In my opinion they took that chance - I don't see evidence that says anything else.

Warm Regards,

Snarks

[shill]

Rape and sexual attacks are not always about sexual gratification, but are often about empowerment and punishment.
I do not think this was done by a pedophile. There are no signs what so ever of fornication with JB.
But pedophiles very often do kill their victims.

[SnarkyCow]

Rape and sexual attacks are not always about sexual gratification, but are often about empowerment and punishment.
I do not think this was done by a pedophile. There are no signs what so ever of fornication with JB.
But pedophiles very often do kill their victims.

Fair enough - all good points.

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, John probably figured that since the detectives didn't mention it, and he had broken prior to that night, it had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, the detectives would have mentioned it.


Lame as it may sound, it's possible the detective didn't even check the train room because of the chair being in front of the door. With the chair blocking the door, it may not have seemed like an obvious entry/exit route, which is what he was looking for.
Kind of dumb of him but a possible explanation...maybe?

[Ames]

In all fairness, the police did not search the house for the child....at least not adequately.

You missed my point....IF an intruder had actually written that ransom note...then how would he/she KNOW for certain that the house would not be searched. Some IDI's speculate that the ransom note was written to "buy the intruder some time to get out of the country"....or to just get far, far away .....somewhere besides Boulder, CO. In my previous post, the one that you are referring to, my point was...how would an INTRUDER KNOW for certain that the Ramsey's wouldn't search their house. John says that he DID search after Patsy found the ransom note...he looked under the beds...and in the freezer in the basement. Alot of IDI's say that since the note says KIDNAPPING, that the Ramsey's would have NO reason to search their house.....but John did, though (under the beds, the freezer). I'm a rambilng now....sorry about that. Hope this makes sense to you. I get carried away with the BOLD feature..sorry about that too.

[Ames]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8789478

<snipped>
For example, if JBs parents wrote the ransom note, why in the world would they leave the tablet and pen on the kitchen counter...especially with the original 'false start' letter still in the pad?
<snipped>
But the last thing I would do is leave the evidence, then hand it over to police as a handwriting example. I am not at all convinced that the Rs are innocent, but these inconsistencies make me question their guilt. Could they really be that smart, yet that stupid???[/QUOTE]

I think the answer to your last question is YES. I believe, that in their panic....they obviously forgot a thing or two. (IMO)

[thewhitewitch1]

People can't believe an intruder would fit the profile the evidence points to, but they believe the Ramseys thought it would be a convincing staging.

IMO the intruder did not intend to kill JB in the house and it was an accident. And this is why the evidence is confusing. The original plan had to be aborted and then everything was improvised, and not thought out.
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

Who says we think the Ramseys thought that their staging was convincing? I think they did what they did with what they had and hoped for the best. What else were they going to do?

If an intruder had accidentally killed her, I see no point for the ransom note.
How does this intruder "accidentally" kill her with a head bash and strangling her? If this person was pedophile, he would have removed her from the house to act out his fantasys. How hard could it be to knock her out and take her? If he accidentally killed her, why didn't he just take her anyway and go for the money?
To think that he killed her and then thought up a bogus ransom note is just insane; especially one as long winded as that one was. If he accidentally killed her, he probably would have panicked and just gotten the hell out of there. Why would anyone sit around and compose a 2 1/2 page note for no reason? Couldn't be to "buy time to get out of Boulder" because nobody had a clue who "he" was to go looking for him. They still don't....because "he" doesn't exist. IMO

[Ames]

Lame as it may sound, it's possible the detective didn't even check the train room because of the chair being in front of the door. With the chair blocking the door, it may not have seemed like an obvious entry/exit route, which is what he was looking for.
Kind of dumb of him but a possible explanation...maybe?

Didn't John tell the detective that the door had been painted shut....I read that somewhere...but have no clue how true it is. I thought THAT was the reason that the room wasn't checked.

[Ames]

Who says we think the Ramseys thought that their staging was convincing? I think they did what they did with what they had and hoped for the best. What else were they going to do?

If an intruder had accidentally killed her, I see no point for the ransom note.
How does this intruder "accidentally" kill her with a head bash and strangling her? If this person was pedophile, he would have removed her from the house to act out his fantasys. How hard could it be to knock her out and take her? If he accidentally killed her, why didn't he just take her anyway and go for the money?
To think that he killed her and then thought up a bogus ransom note is just insane; especially one as long winded as that one was. If he accidentally killed her, he probably would have panicked and just gotten the hell out of there. Why would anyone sit around and compose a 2 1/2 page note for no reason? Couldn't be to "buy time to get out of Boulder" because nobody had a clue who "he" was to go looking for him. They still don't....because "he" doesn't exist. IMO

Whoa....I totally agree with everything that you have said....You are on a ROLL tonight TWW.

[thewhitewitch1]

Didn't John tell the detective that the door had been painted shut....I read that somewhere...but have no clue how true it is. I thought THAT was the reason that the room wasn't checked.

I've heard that too, Ames but not sure if it's true. I think the "latch" was down so he didn't look there knowing that someone leaving through there could not have latched the door behind him. Anyway, that was the wine cellar. I was refering to the train room.

[Ames]

I've heard that too, Ames but not sure if it's true. I think the "latch" was down so he didn't look there knowing that someone leaving through there could not have latched the door behind him. Anyway, that was the wine cellar. I was refering to the train room.

:o Oh yeah....that doggone house has so many rooms...I can't remember which is which.

[shill]

Who says we think the Ramseys thought that their staging was convincing? I think they did what they did with what they had and hoped for the best. What else were they going to do?

If an intruder had accidentally killed her, I see no point for the ransom note.
How does this intruder "accidentally" kill her with a head bash and strangling her? If this person was pedophile, he would have removed her from the house to act out his fantasys. How hard could it be to knock her out and take her? If he accidentally killed her, why didn't he just take her anyway and go for the money?
To think that he killed her and then thought up a bogus ransom note is just insane; especially one as long winded as that one was. If he accidentally killed her, he probably would have panicked and just gotten the hell out of there. Why would anyone sit around and compose a 2 1/2 page note for no reason? Couldn't be to "buy time to get out of Boulder" because nobody had a clue who "he" was to go looking for him. They still don't....because "he" doesn't exist. IMO

Should of, could of, would of, but I think the death blow was an accident IMO and changed everything.
I've explained everything you've asked in past posts and you aren't buying it. I'm not buying what you're selling either, because I too think it is insane.

[elvislives]

I totally hear you. I realize polygraphs and handwriting samples aren't iron-clad. I just think about the not cooperating with the police, lawyering-up so early, refusal of FBI polygraphs, the difference in story between Burke & the parents regarding JB being awake or asleep when they got home, and the whole pineapple thing.... if the Rs did this thing, which I think they did, they had hours on end to figure out how they were going to play it out. The other thing is: The crime scene was staged. What intruder would stay in a house, with the possiblity of being caught at any minute, and elaboratly stage the crime? IMO there is no plausible answer for this - it just does not make sense to me. Pedophiliac kidnapper turned murderer? I just don't buy it.

When I think of the Ramseys (as I've said before) the phrase "Crazy like a fox" comes to mind.

What did they have to lose by doing everything in their power to cover up and get away with this dispicable crime? Nothing, in my opinion. If it was an accident, they chose not to call for help in time to make a difference in the life or death of their daughter, so they decided to uphold their image and try to gain sympathy rather than the alternative.... If they admit to it they go to jail. If they mess with the crime scene - stage it, fill the house with people, contaminate it, leave a rambling note, confuse people, clam up, point fingers away from themselves - they may have a chance to come away as victims rather than cold-blooded killers. At least by staging they had a chance to get away with what they did. In my opinion they took that chance - I don't see evidence that says anything else.

Warm Regards,

Snarks


Yeah I am totally with you on the behaviour thing. I can't imagine why an innocent parent would not cooperate with the police. I have heard the explanation that the Ramseys felt that the police suspected them from the start...but guess what?? ALL parents of murdered children (especially when they are murdered in their home) are the prime suspects. Most parents fully cooperate with police so they can be eliminated and the police can focus on finding the real killer. So no doubt, they definitely acted guilty.

And I agree that the staging is also very suspicious. I have asked this question of the IDIs before....why in the world would an intruder take the risk of molesting this kid inside her home?? Why wouldn't he just kidnap her then molest her in the privacy of his own home without the risk of being caught red handed? Also, if he did decide the risk was a thrill, then accidentally killed her....he took the time to wipe down the body, hide it in a basement room, and clean up all the evidence..so why not take the ransom note before exiting so he wouldn't leave a 3 page incriminating note in his own hand?? It definitely does not make sense.

There are a few reasons that I have not totally deemed the Rs as guilty: There HAVE been cases of deranged intruders doing all sorts of bizarre things that make no sense to sane people (Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy etc). Also I am not a huge proponent of behaviour as a science. Again there are plenty of innocent people who have looked guilty based on their behaviour and turned out to be innocent. But the main thing I struggle with is the autopsy report. I keep hearing people on this site proclaim that the head wound came first, hence the lack of defense wounds....so JB must have been hit in a rage, then the staging came later as a cover up. This was my original theory before the autopsy was made public. What is so confounding about the autopsy is that it turns that theory upside-down. The autopsy clearly shows that she died of asphixia (which takes ~5 min) and the head would had not yet begun to organize (i.e. the clotting cascade had not yet begun which means she was dead by strangulation immediately before or immediately after the head wound was inflicted).Not to mention the insignificant bleeding in her brain relative to the severe crack and hole in the skull. So there went my theory that Patsy bashed her on the head, then panicked and staged the rest. I am hoping that someone will come up with a theory that explains why Patsy would have strangled JB first--do parents strangle kids in a rage? I guess it's possible, but I havent' yet heard a theory that seems to ring true and also fits with the physical evidence. There are people that keep saying the so called medical experts are wrong...the autopsy has been misinterpreted. But until I hear of a physiologically possible explanation as to how she could have been hit in the head more than 5 minute before dying and head wound would not have begun to organize, I will stay with the facts that she was strangled first, then bashed. This is why I am still on the fence--and as Ames pointed out before it is very uncomfortable. But aside from that, I agree with you that everything else points to the Ramseys.

[elvislives]

You missed my point....IF an intruder had actually written that ransom note...then how would he/she KNOW for certain that the house would not be searched. Some IDI's speculate that the ransom note was written to "buy the intruder some time to get out of the country"....or to just get far, far away .....somewhere besides Boulder, CO. In my previous post, the one that you are referring to, my point was...how would an INTRUDER KNOW for certain that the Ramsey's wouldn't search their house. John says that he DID search after Patsy found the ransom note...he looked under the beds...and in the freezer in the basement. Alot of IDI's say that since the note says KIDNAPPING, that the Ramsey's would have NO reason to search their house.....but John did, though (under the beds, the freezer). I'm a rambilng now....sorry about that. Hope this makes sense to you. I get carried away with the BOLD feature..sorry about that too.

No I totally got your point. I am a parent too and if I woke up and found a ransom note I would turn the house upside down searching for my kid. IF there was an intruder, I can't explain the bogus ransom note. I was just pointing out that imo it is pretty unbelievable that the police did not find the body--and apparently did not mention the open window. I don't get it.

[LindaA]

Elvislives, I agree with everything you have said -- not that I am any expert. I'm not in love with either of the Ramsey's, but I do find logical explainationis for most of their behavior that is -- mmm -- off kilter to us. I don't believe JR comprehended the situation he was in after the murder -- that parents are always the first ones to be suspected and he needed to do whatever it took to get LE off his case on onto other things. We all know that now, but 10 years ago? I think he took the advice offered him by more astute friends and lawyered up asap. From then on he acted on the advice of his attorney.

The big thing that keeps me on the fence is that I don't understand why if either parent had accidentally-on-purpose bashed JBR in the head they didn't choose a less complicated method of covering it up. Why not just throw her unconscious body down the steps, plant the flashlight (if that was, indeed, the weapon) or some other hard object close to her body and the next morning "find" her there, call the police, and say she must have been roaming around in the night looking for something to eat, for Santa to return for his special visit -- whatever and fallen and hit her head? (Yeah, I know JR had to cover up his previous molestation of JBR. I'm not buying that either as there is no evidence of it.)

I would not have been capable of doing any of the things that were done to JBR if she had been my daughter and I had just killed her accidentally or not, but I'm willing to concede that not everyone is like me. I'd be a quivering heap in the corner. And yet there are those who expect us to believe that PR did all this and then appeared at the door when police arrived in clothes that were not sweat stained and in full-face makeup that was not ruined by sweat and tears. I don't see it.

Of course, the intruder theories are pretty far-fetched, too. So I remain with you on that uncomfortable fence, but leaning mostly towards the IDI side...

[andU]

.....And I agree that the staging is also very suspicious. I have asked this question of the IDIs before....why in the world would an intruder take the risk of molesting this kid inside her home?? Why wouldn't he just kidnap her then molest her in the privacy of his own home without the risk of being caught red handed? Also, if he did decide the risk was a thrill, then accidentally killed her....he took the time to wipe down the body, hide it in a basement room, and clean up all the evidence..so why not take the ransom note before exiting so he wouldn't leave a 3 page incriminating note in his own hand?? It definitely does not make sense.

.....

Perhaps the staging and lingering in the house was part of the 'rush' to 'Get John'.... As I have stated before, although I believe it was an intruder, he/they may not have been a total stranger, but someone that was not recognized for his/their efforts. It could have been someone who had been to the Ramsey house on occasion, more than once and was familiar with it. Ya know, this thing could have been in planning for months... but I still don't think the murder was planned, I agree with Shill, 'playtime' - turned disatrous. Go ahead and mock me, RDI's... I feel the same about the bull that you all spread...

[andU]

I agree, if the IDI theory is too far out there, why didn't the Ramsey's stage a more believable in-home accident rather than the theatrics in the way that JB was found. It is difficult enough to accept that a parent (and I know it happens daily) would kill his/her own child, much less do it intentionally and then stage such a dramatic scene. What would people think? It would sure bring a lot of ugliness to the surface and who would do that to themselves? Who would set themselves up for the kind of scrutiny that the Ramsey's have endured?

[nuisanceposter]

Who would set themselves up for the kind of scrutiny that the Ramsey's have endured?

People who were so criminally unsophisticated that they not only didn't know how a real crime scene should look but also didn't realize their staging would cause them to endure this kind of scrutiny.

[Louisadelmar]

Yeah I am totally with you on the behaviour thing. I can't imagine why an innocent parent would not cooperate with the police. I have heard the explanation that the Ramseys felt that the police suspected them from the start...but guess what?? ALL parents of murdered children (especially when they are murdered in their home) are the prime suspects. Most parents fully cooperate with police so they can be eliminated and the police can focus on finding the real killer. So no doubt, they definitely acted guilty.

I'm not sure the Ramseys knew that was standard. But even if they had known, most parents aren't subjected to leaks deliberately framed to make them seem guilty. In addition they had the experience of Melinda and JAR as a baseline of how they would be treated. From all I have read Patsy was a complete wreck and people were worried about what that kind of interview might do to her. Despite that, after the funeral the Ramseys called to arrange for interviews and were told the time for that had passed. If you haven't you might check into the refusal of Jennifer Wilbank's fiance to cooperate with the police after it became clear they were focused on him as her killer. (Though she turned out to be a runaway) Also in Jeanne Boylan's book, Portraits of Guilt she talks about one of Polly Klaas' friends ultimately refusing to talk to LE because they questioned her so harshly in the first few days. Plus I think their lawyers did them a dis-service by continuing to use the kind of knee-jerk handling that they would use with a possibly guilty client. You do know the FBI also blames the BPD for the delay in the interviews?

And I agree that the staging is also very suspicious. I have asked this question of the IDIs before....why in the world would an intruder take the risk of molesting this kid inside her home?? Why wouldn't he just kidnap her then molest her in the privacy of his own home without the risk of being caught red handed? Also, if he did decide the risk was a thrill, then accidentally killed her....he took the time to wipe down the body, hide it in a basement room, and clean up all the evidence..so why not take the ransom note before exiting so he wouldn't leave a 3 page incriminating note in his own hand?? It definitely does not make sense.
I think this could have been just what it appeared. Someone who had access to knowledge of the Ramsey's plans, perhaps a copy of a house key; entered the house while they were out (Barnhill's young man), took her from her bed to the basement (Perhaps like Elizabeth Smart who stayed silent because of threats while she was led away) where she would be left trussed up until the money was delivered. Then either she recognized him or she screamed or some other trigger happened and he hit her on the head. Everything flowed from there to make it look like a pedophile killer as a form of misdirection since this guy wasn't a pedophile, he wouldn't be on the list of suspects. For a pedophile alone, with complete control of a child the molestation seems quite tepid and perfunctory. Either he forgot or didn't care about leaving the ransom note since he wanted to leave as quickly as possible after staging his misdirection.

[...].

[andU]

People who were so criminally unsophisticated that they not only didn't know how a real crime scene should look but also didn't realize their staging would cause them to endure this kind of scrutiny.

If that's the case, there should have been more difinitive evidence. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

If that's the case, there should have been more difinitive evidence. IMO

FBI's CASKU unit was convinced this crime gave every indication of being an inside job, with "staging within staging" meant to make it look like the work of an intruder.

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

As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.

<snip>

FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.



*Lou Smit attended this same presentation with CASKU, and throughout the entire presentation, he sat there without saying anything about his intruder theory. The point of the meeting to present theories for discussion to figure out what happened, and Lou Smit didn't say one word to present his theory at all. I really have to wonder why - I think he realized his theory would not hold water with people as experienced as CASKU.

[nuisanceposter]

andU, I'm not sure you understand that this case was not run by the books. Standard operating procedure for police was thrown out the window when it came to the Ramseys. They were given preferential treatment from early on, and nothing about the case and the way it's been conducted is standard at all. For example, detectives wanted the phone records. They got the okay signature from their supervisor, but when it came time for the DA's office to issue search warrants, police were told to build a rapport with the Rs, and then politely ask them for the records.

WHAT???

Name one other child murder investigation where the police investigating the murder were told to go buddy up with the prime suspects and then ask them to hand potentially incriminating evidence.

And that's just one example of how this case was caught up in a circus sideshow and never had a chance of being solved by convential methods. If all of the LE and officials in this case had run the investigation by the books, then the Ramseys would have gone to jail long ago. Scott Peterson was convicted on less evidence than what they have on the Rsmeys - and the fact that they haven't been charged with the murder DOES NOT mean there isn't enough evidence to charge them, and get a conviction. It means Boulder is being run by some corrupt and incompetent people, including the BPD who allowed the crime scene to become hopelessly contaminated.

[Louisadelmar]

The Susan Smith case wouldn't have been solved if the sheriff hadn't "buddied-up" with the prime suspect.

[andU]

FBI's CASKU unit was convinced this crime gave every indication of being an inside job, with "staging within staging" meant to make it look like the work of an intruder.

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

As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.

<snip>

FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.



*Lou Smit attended this same presentation with CASKU, and throughout the entire presentation, he sat there without saying anything about his intruder theory. The point of the meeting to present theories for discussion to figure out what happened, and Lou Smit didn't say one word to present his theory at all. I really have to wonder why - I think he realized his theory would not hold water with people as experienced as CASKU.

I don't doubt the staging, I disagree with who you say did the staging....

[andU]

andU, I'm not sure you understand that this case was not run by the books. Standard operating procedure for police was thrown out the window when it came to the Ramseys. They were given preferential treatment from early on, and nothing about the case and the way it's been conducted is standard at all. For example, detectives wanted the phone records. They got the okay signature from their supervisor, but when it came time for the DA's office to issue search warrants, police were told to build a rapport with the Rs, and then politely ask them for the records.

WHAT???

Name one other child murder investigation where the police investigating the murder were told to go buddy up with the prime suspects and then ask them to hand potentially incriminating evidence.

And that's just one example of how this case was caught up in a circus sideshow and never had a chance of being solved by convential methods. If all of the LE and officials in this case had run the investigation by the books, then the Ramseys would have gone to jail long ago. Scott Peterson was convicted on less evidence than what they have on the Rsmeys - and the fact that they haven't been charged with the murder DOES NOT mean there isn't enough evidence to charge them, and get a conviction. It means Boulder is being run by some corrupt and incompetent people, including the BPD who allowed the crime scene to become hopelessly contaminated.

Oh I am familiar, I have been following it for 10 years. For the first five I believed, as many of you now do, that Patsy did it. The staging is only a part of what changed my mind. I am aware of the circus, the botching of the BPD, the stupidity of not allowing other LE to assist, I am aware of this being a waaay off the record case.

[nuisanceposter]

The Susan Smith case wouldn't have been solved if the sheriff hadn't "buddied-up" with the prime suspect.

I guarantee you he was granted a search warrant when he requested one and wasn't told to ask Susan Smith for evidence that could be used against her rather be given the search warrant he asked for.

[nuisanceposter]

Oh I am familiar, I have been following it for 10 years. For the first five I believed, as many of you now do, that Patsy did it. The staging is only a part of what changed my mind. I am aware of the circus, the botching of the BPD, the stupidity of not allowing other LE to assist, I am aware of this being a waaay off the record case.

What all was it that made you change your mind, if you don't mind me asking?

[Louisadelmar]

I guarantee you he was granted a search warrant when he requested one and wasn't told to ask Susan Smith for evidence that could be used against her rather be given the search warrant he asked for.

You didn't ask about warrants.

[...]
Name one other child murder investigation where the police investigating the murder were told to go buddy up with the prime suspects and then ask them to hand potentially incriminating evidence.

[...]

The sheriff didn't ask for incriminating evidence he asked for a confession. Because he had "buddied up" to Smith, he got one.

[nuisanceposter]

Other than being a situation with dead children and the mother being a suspect, there is no similarity between the murders of Michael and Alex Smith and JonBenet Ramsey at all.

[andU]

What all was it that made you change your mind, if you don't mind me asking?

I don't mind you asking, I hope I can put it into words and not leave anything out....
First of all, I researched John and Patsy, I didn't rely on what was in the media. I found them both to be upstanding citizens (although not someone that I would 'hang' with because they (Patsy, at least) were too much in the click). I believe that Patsy and John were/are Christians although I'm not sure to what depth of that they lived their lives (everything I found offered no indication that they lived otherwise, at least in recent - last 15-20 yrs). I do believe that John spent too much time with business and I now believe he regrets that. I also believe that Patsy lived her life through her children, especially JonBennet. I tried my best to find something solid to connect them to the murder, I wantedPatsy to be guilty. But, I couldn't find any, neither can anyone else, at least at this point. (No, I am not nor have I ever been in LE - I sleuthed just as many on this board has done).
Basically, I went with my gut after reading the court documents, the evidence list, the interviews, and looking at photos of the house, family, crime scene, etc. So, pretty much like everyone else on the board, I'm just going with what I 'feel' is right. It would sure help if we all had more evidence!

[Coloradokares]

I agree, if the IDI theory is too far out there, why didn't the Ramsey's stage a more believable in-home accident rather than the theatrics in the way that JB was found. It is difficult enough to accept that a parent (and I know it happens daily) would kill his/her own child, much less do it intentionally and then stage such a dramatic scene. What would people think? It would sure bring a lot of ugliness to the surface and who would do that to themselves? Who would set themselves up for the kind of scrutiny that the Ramsey's have endured?


Someone who faced far worse alternatives if they didn't?

[Ames]

No I totally got your point. I am a parent too and if I woke up and found a ransom note I would turn the house upside down searching for my kid. IF there was an intruder, I can't explain the bogus ransom note. I was just pointing out that imo it is pretty unbelievable that the police did not find the body--and apparently did not mention the open window. I don't get it.


I totally agree with you...I would have turned the house upside down looking for MY child too. I wouldn't care if the note stated KIDNAPPING....I would tear it apart, just in case. I cannot believe that the police didn't find her body either (Barney Fife cops). I have read that John had told one of the investigators not to bother looking (in the room where JB was found), because the door had been painted shut. And thats why they never checked that room. I don't know how true that is, but I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

[Louisadelmar]

I totally agree with you...I would have turned the house upside down looking for MY child too. I wouldn't care if the note stated KIDNAPPING....I would tear it apart, just in case. I cannot believe that the police didn't find her body either (Barney Fife cops). I have read that John had told one of the investigators not to bother looking (in the room where JB was found), because the door had been painted shut. And thats why they never checked that room. I don't know how true that is, but I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

As I recall the one who didn't look in the room was looking for exit points and since it was locked decided not to bother.

[Ames]

[QUOTE=LindaA;8789715]
Why not just throw her unconscious body down the steps, plant the flashlight (if that was, indeed, the weapon) or some other hard object close to her body and the next morning "find" her there, call the police, and say she must have been roaming around in the night looking for something to eat, for Santa to return for his special visit -- whatever and fallen and hit her head? (Yeah, I know JR had to cover up his previous molestation of JBR. I'm not buying that either as there is no evidence of it.)

[QUOTE]


Because doctors can tell if the injury meshes with the accident. Like, when people abuse their child and tell the doctor that they "fell" from a chair or something. OR...when a baby has shaken baby syndrome, and the person that shook the baby, comes up with some lame excuse as to why the baby's brain had been scrambled. Doctors can tell by the injury ( I am sure that elvislives can verify this), if it occurred the way that parent said it did.

[shill]

People who were so criminally unsophisticated that they not only didn't know how a real crime scene should look but also didn't realize their staging would cause them to endure this kind of scrutiny.

And you know how a real crime scene looks? And watching CSI doesn't count.

Funny, this crime scene looks real to me. But that's the big difference between RDI and IDI. RDI argues that nothing is as it seems and nothing the Ramseys say is true, and IDI argues it is just as it seems and the Ramseys are telling the truth.

[shill]

Because doctors can tell if the injury meshes with the accident. Like, when people abuse their child and tell the doctor that they "fell" from a chair or something. OR...when a baby has shaken baby syndrome, and the person that shook the baby, comes up with some lame excuse as to why the baby's brain had been scrambled. Doctors can tell by the injury ( I am sure that elvislives can verify this), if it occurred the way that parent said it did.

So do the doctors say the head blow was consistant with an accident or a flashlight, since they can tell that stuff?

[LindaA]

[QUOTE=LindaA;8789715]
Why not just throw her unconscious body down the steps, plant the flashlight (if that was, indeed, the weapon) or some other hard object close to her body and the next morning "find" her there, call the police, and say she must have been roaming around in the night looking for something to eat, for Santa to return for his special visit -- whatever and fallen and hit her head? (Yeah, I know JR had to cover up his previous molestation of JBR. I'm not buying that either as there is no evidence of it.)

[QUOTE]


Because doctors can tell if the injury meshes with the accident. Like, when people abuse their child and tell the doctor that they "fell" from a chair or something. OR...when a baby has shaken baby syndrome, and the person that shook the baby, comes up with some lame excuse as to why the baby's brain had been scrambled. Doctors can tell by the injury ( I am sure that elvislives can verify this), if it occurred the way that parent said it did.

I suppose there might be a difference in falling down stairs and onto something and being hit over the head with it, but if they had done it while she was still alive (but unconscious) the additional injuries she would have sustained might have masked the head injury better than strangling her. And they didn't know how serious the brain injury was at the time so it would have been a logical thing for them to think that a fall down the steps might explain her head injury. How logical is it to think that strangling her would cover up anything else?

I doubt the Ramsey's knew about your theory. And I didn't say they would have gotten away with it necessarily. I'm just thinking that it would have more likely for someone in their position to have done that than the over-the-top staging that was done. That sounds more to me like someone either trying to frame them or send a message, which is why I'm more IDI than RDI. JMO.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=Ames;8790062][QUOTE=LindaA;8789715]
Why not just throw her unconscious body down the steps, plant the flashlight (if that was, indeed, the weapon) or some other hard object close to her body and the next morning "find" her there, call the police, and say she must have been roaming around in the night looking for something to eat, for Santa to return for his special visit -- whatever and fallen and hit her head? (Yeah, I know JR had to cover up his previous molestation of JBR. I'm not buying that either as there is no evidence of it.)



I suppose there might be a difference in falling down stairs and onto something and being hit over the head with it, but if they had done it while she was still alive (but unconscious) the additional injuries she would have sustained might have masked the head injury better than strangling her. And they didn't know how serious the brain injury was at the time so it would have been a logical thing for them to think that a fall down the steps might explain her head injury. How logical is it to think that strangling her would cover up anything else?

I doubt the Ramsey's knew about your theory. And I didn't say they would have gotten away with it necessarily. I'm just thinking that it would have more likely for someone in their position to have done that than the over-the-top staging that was done. That sounds more to me like someone either trying to frame them or send a message, which is why I'm more IDI than RDI. JMO.

Keep in mind that JB had no external head injuries---the coroner didn't even notice until the internal exam. So if the parents bashed her on the head, she would definitely have passed out--but for all they knew she was going to come around in a few minutes and be fine. But just to be on the safe side, they garrotte, molest her and write a phoney ransom note???

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=LindaA;8789715]
Why not just throw her unconscious body down the steps, plant the flashlight (if that was, indeed, the weapon) or some other hard object close to her body and the next morning "find" her there, call the police, and say she must have been roaming around in the night looking for something to eat, for Santa to return for his special visit -- whatever and fallen and hit her head? (Yeah, I know JR had to cover up his previous molestation of JBR. I'm not buying that either as there is no evidence of it.)

[QUOTE]


Because doctors can tell if the injury meshes with the accident. Like, when people abuse their child and tell the doctor that they "fell" from a chair or something. OR...when a baby has shaken baby syndrome, and the person that shook the baby, comes up with some lame excuse as to why the baby's brain had been scrambled. Doctors can tell by the injury ( I am sure that elvislives can verify this), if it occurred the way that parent said it did.

That is true, but the thing (one of the many) that baffles me is that JB did not have any external head injuries. The parents had no way of knowing that she had an 8 inch crack and a 1 3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull. The coroner didnt even notice the head trauma until the internal exam. So because she is passed out, they decide (immediately) to strangle her and make it look like a botched kidnapping? How did they know she wasn't going to regain consciousness in 3 minutes and be fine?

[bullmoose]

Maybe the Ramseys had a portable X-ray machine in the house and immediately after bashing Jonbenet's skull they X-rayed her head, determined she had a fatal head wound and then set about strangling her with a garotte, sexually abusing her, writing the weird ransom note, etc. to cleverly cover up what they had done. Wait a minute! What happened to the portable X-ray machine, the BPD never found one anywhere? Easy,they diposed of it when they disposed of the extra cord for the garotte and the rest of the roll of duct tape. If the X-ray machine is ever found, it will be found to be cleverly disguised , wrapped in duct tape and cord.:biggrin:

[shill]

That is true, but the thing (one of the many) that baffles me is that JB did not have any external head injuries. The parents had no way of knowing that she had an 8 inch crack and a 1 3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull. The coroner didnt even notice the head trauma until the internal exam. So because she is passed out, they decide (immediately) to strangle her and make it look like a botched kidnapping? How did they know she wasn't going to regain consciousness in 3 minutes and be fine?
Call 911 or throw her down the spiral staircase.

[LindaA]

Maybe the Ramseys had a portable X-ray machine in the house and immediately after bashing Jonbenet's skull they X-rayed her head, determined she had a fatal head wound and then set about strangling her with a garotte, sexually abusing her, writing the weird ransom note, etc. to cleverly cover up what they had done. Wait a minute! What happened to the portable X-ray machine, the BPD never found one anywhere? Easy,they diposed of it when they disposed of the extra cord for the garotte and the rest of the roll of duct tape. If the X-ray machine is ever found, it will be found to be cleverly disguised , wrapped in duct tape and cord.:biggrin:

Nah, Aunt Pam dismantled it and carried it out in those boxes. :punch:

[nuisanceposter]

I'm pretty sure the sickening sound of JonBenet's skull fracturing would have tipped off whoever hit her that the injury was deadly serious. I have heard that it would have rendered her immediately unconscious, heading to a comatose state, and that her breathing and heartrate would have responded and slowed down. It's possible the breathing and heartrate was to the point of being hard to discern - personally, I think the Rs thought she was already dead when they decided to stage the murder to look like an intruder did it.

I think they chose the strangling scene because whoever hit her had already been choking her - most likely by grabbing her by the collar and yanking her up hard (that big mark on her neck look like she was manually roughed up to me) - and the strangling would work to cover up any evidence of that.

[Athena]

Rape and sexual attacks are not always about sexual gratification, but are often about empowerment and punishment.
I do not think this was done by a pedophile. There are no signs what so ever of fornication with JB.
But pedophiles very often do kill their victims.

I agree that the perp was not a pedophile.

I believe the perp who killed JonBenet did it in retaliation of a slight that occurred or was perceived to be done by John. This killing was done with rage and JBR was just a symbol of the hatred he had for John. The ransom note was written to render John totally helpless and make the perp feel in control if even just once in his life. The ransom note was not written for any other reason to play with John's head and its meaning is known only to the killer. The $118,000 was mentioned deliberately possibly because of the perceived injustice done to the perp by John. I've also stated before what I believe triggered the death of JBR was the Access Grraphics memo which was released shortly before her death:


"The third category is anger-retaliatory killers. These killers planned both rape and murder. They are extremely violence toward their victims because of their need to let out their frustrations. The victim is used as a substitution for another person who the killer deeply despises such as his/her boss, father, or mother."

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/5887.php


"By contrast, an anger-retaliatory rapist is just interested in anger, not so much sexual gratification. However, for a sadist, the aggression is eroticized. They take pleasure in the torment, anguish, distress, helplessness, and suffering of their victims. Victim selection is usually on the basis of the victim being a symbol of someone they want to punish. Age, appearance, and occupation are typical victim selection categories."

Strangulation is a technique that can be done in two (2) ways: manually (using your hands) or by ligature (a rope, wire, or line that can be twisted tighter and tighter). The purpose is the same, to compress the arteries in the neck to restrict the flow of blood to the brain. Offenders love to bring their victims in and out of consciousness this way, achieving sexual gratification from the victim's intermittent suffering responses (if still alive). It's also a common form of killing a victim besides blunt force trauma.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect13.htm

[shill]

IIRC, the pineapple had been bought at Safeway, and had come in a bag with a sealing top. The pineapple that was in JonBenet's stomach was found to be consistent down to the rind with what was still in the bowl.

Was there any pineapple left in the bag in the refrigerator?

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed
14 JonBenet pineapple, so I don't know how it got in her
15 stomach. I don't know where this bowl of pineapple
16 came from. I can't recall putting that there. I can
17 never recall putting a tea bag like that in a cup, so I
18 don't know. I don't know the answer.

Is there any more info on the tea bag and cup? Finger prints, lip prints? Tea bag used or not? Who is a tea drinker?

[bullmoose]

I have been a teadrinker all my life; for the most part, teadrinkers are just as particular as gourmet coffee drinkers. Some teadrinkers drink it by the cup, with the bag in the cup,others will brew it only in a teapot, with or without bags. If Patsy was a teadrinker and said she didn't drink it that way, IMO, its almost certainly true; you drink it one way or the other, but in my experience, not both ways. Even herb tea I have to brew in a pot with boiling water, in a cup with a bag would be like a Starbucks' junkie making instant coffee in a cup.

[Coloradokares]

I have been a teadrinker all my life; for the most part, teadrinkers are just as particular as gourmet coffee drinkers. Some teadrinkers drink it by the cup, with the bag in the cup,others will brew it only in a teapot, with or without bags. If Patsy was a teadrinker and said she didn't drink it that way, IMO, its almost certainly true; you drink it one way or the other, but in my experience, not both ways. Even herb tea I have to brew in a pot with boiling water, in a cup with a bag would be like a Starbucks' junkie making instant coffee in a cup.

See ... will wonders never cease, Have I got a tea house for you in Boulder. C'mon out... when the blizzard ceases. I do so enjoy a nice pot of tea.

[Louisadelmar]

Didn't John tell the detective that the door had been painted shut....I read that somewhere...but have no clue how true it is. I thought THAT was the reason that the room wasn't checked.

You may be thinking of when LHP went down there to get the Christmas trees in Nov and she said had trouble opening it because it had been painted shut.

[Tober]

The ransom note was written to render John totally helpless and make the perp feel in control if even just once in his life.

That's highly unlikely considering the note was part of a staged crime scene. Notes found at staged crime scenes are written in desperation, not confidence. How do you know the perp was a male?

[LindaA]

Tober, you post some interesting thoughts and theories. Your source?

[Tober]

Tober, you post some interesting thoughts and theories. Your source?

Ransom note, specific: http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/ Totality of evidence, specific: http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm Crime Scene Reconstruction, general: http://www.law-forensic.com/behavioral_evidence_analysis.htm

[Louisadelmar]

Read McClish years ago it didn't move me.

For starters...
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
As we read the ransom note, we find it doesn't make much sense. Line #2, "We are a group of individuals." What exactly does the writer mean by "group of individuals?" Every group is comprised of individuals. That's what makes it a group. Is the writer telling us despite being a group, they maintain their individuality? Most of the year they live separate lives, but everyone once in a while they come together as a group?


Like these?

Maine District Court Holds that Group of Individuals Who Published ...
The United States District Court for the District of Maine held on a motion for summary judgment that a group of individuals who published allegedly ...
cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets003812.shtml - 22k - Dec 21, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Early psychological reactions in a group of individuals with pre ...
Early psychological reactions in a group of individuals with pre-existing and enduring mental health difficulties following a major coach accident ...
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3222817 - Similar pages
The effects of implementing program consequences with a group of ...
The effects of implementing program consequences with a group of individuals who engaged in sensory maintained hand mouthing. WD TURNER, RE REALON, D IRVIN, ...
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3178512 - Similar pages

Greenways of Greater Dayton, Ohio :: An Umbrella Group Of ...
Greenways of Greater Dayton serves as the umbrella organization for Greenways in the Greater Dayton Area.
www.daytongreenways.org/ - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Joint Statement of DOJ and HUD
However, if a group of individuals with disabilities or a group home operator shows by credible and unrebutted evidence that the home will not create a need ...
www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/final8_1.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

[DOC]
The Harmony Hundred is a group of individuals who have pledged ...
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
The Harmony Hundred is a group of individuals who have pledged monthly support to IMA. IMA is the manifestation of a dream held by many. ...
www.ima.org/rockcamp/downloads/TheHarmonyHundredForm.doc - Similar
pages

[PDF]
ITRG Proposal : Tracking an individual / group of individuals by ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Tracking an individual / group of individuals by search. query patterns. Satyaki Mahalanabis. Proposal Idea: With tremendous increase in the number of ...
www.cs.rochester.edu/u/smahalan/satyaki_itrg.pdf - Similar pages

Corese Demo Site
[group of individuals] group of individuals,. English, Francais. -. Inherits from : thing · entity · role entity · management able entity · organizational ...
ubaye.inria.fr:8080/.../corese?screen=class_presentation.xsl&language=en&class=GroupOfIndividuals - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Philippine History Group of Los Angeles
We are a small group of individuals with different backgrounds but who share a common interest in Philippine history. We meet every second Saturday of the ...
www.bibingka.com/phg/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

Hire Disability Solutions : Benefits of Hiring Individuals with ...
Individuals with disabilities represent a group of individuals that have skills but are currently an underutilized group of individuals in the employment ...
www.hireds.com/Login/DisplayHiringBenefits - 22k - Cached - Similar pages


Plus 1,190,000 more.

[Tober]

The term "group of individuals" is not uncommon. However, it is not typical in an actual ransom note. A true ransom note represents either an individual or a group, but not a group of individuals.

[LindaA]

Ah, Tober, but what if it's not really a ransome note? How common is the phrase in a ransome note that is not a ransome note?

[Louisadelmar]

The term "group of individuals" is not uncommon. However, it is not typical in an actual ransom note. A true ransom note represents either an individual or a group, but not a group of individuals.

No. He took issue with the phrase 'group of individuals." Not its use within the context of a ransom note.

What exactly does the writer mean by "group of individuals?" Every group is comprised of individuals. That's what makes it a group. Is the writer telling us despite being a group, they maintain their individuality?

Furthermore I take issue with his mischaracterization of the word hence as being rare. I use it. My family uses it. I have heard reporters on TV use it. Soometimes I even put an and in front of it.

[Tober]

No. He took issue with the phrase 'group of individuals." Not its use within the context of a ransom note.

The context dictates itself. Since Mr. McClish is analyzing the Ramsey ransom note, his questions and comments regarding that particular phrase are referring to its use in the note itself. He isn't referencing the use of that phrase beyond the scope of the particular note in question, thus its use is suspect in the Ramsey ransom note.

[Tober]

Ah, Tober, but what if it's not really a ransome note? How common is the phrase in a ransome note that is not a ransome note?

When an individual is attempting partial or total deception through writing, a group descriptive is common. The writer is wishing to portray his or herself as a group (Unabomber Ted Kaczynski comes to mind). The giveaway is overuse of the group descriptives. In the case of the Ramsey ransom note its writer not only does this, but reveals his or herself as an individual by slipping up by using "I" and "my."

[shill]

When an individual is attempting partial or total deception through writing, a group descriptive is common. The writer is wishing to portray his or herself as a group (Unabomber Ted Kaczynski comes to mind). The giveaway is overuse of the group descriptives. In the case of the Ramsey ransom note its writer not only does this, but reveals his or herself as an individual by slipping up by using "I" and "my."

What if the individual has multiple personalities or thinks he is representing individuals he is close to but they are not aware of his intentions?

You can regurgitate everything you read, but it's not your opinion, it's somebody else’s.

[shill]

23 JOHN RAMSEY: I wouldn't have
24 known it but she certainly would have said it.
25 I mean, there was no reason she would have
0524
1 denied it. I mean, it would be very easy, if we
2 were trying to hide this, it would be very easy
3 to say oh, yeah, I got up and fed her pineapple,
4 that explains that, then put her back to bed.
5 We didn't.

[Tober]

23 JOHN RAMSEY: I wouldn't have
24 known it but she certainly would have said it.
25 I mean, there was no reason she would have
0524
1 denied it. I mean, it would be very easy, if we
2 were trying to hide this, it would be very easy
3 to say oh, yeah, I got up and fed her pineapple,
4 that explains that, then put her back to bed.
5 We didn't.

The pineapple issue is simple. Patsy denied it because admitting to it would have placed her in contact with JonBenet at a time later than Patsy wanted to convey. She feared a time of death estimation would be performed.

[Louisadelmar]

When an individual is attempting partial or total deception through writing, a group descriptive is common. The writer is wishing to portray his or herself as a group (Unabomber Ted Kaczynski comes to mind). The giveaway is overuse of the group descriptives. In the case of the Ramsey ransom note its writer not only does this, but reveals his or herself as an individual by slipping up by using "I" and "my."

None of which points to Patsy and excludes an intruder attempting to do the same thing.

[Tober]

None of which points to Patsy and excludes an intruder attempting to do the same thing.

It can be inferred that the note was written after JonBenet had been killed. Its primary purpose was to offer an explanation for her dead body. Its writer didn't only have direct association with JonBenet, but with the crime scene as well. An intruder would have no need to explain a dead body in someone else's home.

[Louisadelmar]

It can be inferred that the note was written after JonBenet had been killed. Its primary purpose was to offer an explanation for her dead body. Its writer didn't only have direct association with JonBenet, but with the crime scene as well. An intruder would have no need to explain a dead body in someone else's home.

Only if you believe the note was written afterwards. I don't.

[LindaA]

I don't believe it was written after either.

[Athena]

Only if you believe the note was written afterwards. I don't.

I have always believed the ransom note was written prior to the murder not after. I also find it extremely difficult to believe and comprehend that a parent, even one that has lost their mind, could write a two page+ ransom note immediately after killing their child and use terms such as "executed' and "beheaded" and there be no tell-tale signs of moisture on the note from tears. I don't believe for one second Patsy wrote that note. The note was a message and intended to play with John's head. JMO

[Tober]

I also find it extremely difficult to believe and comprehend that a parent, even one that has lost their mind, could write a two page+ ransom note immediately after killing their child and use terms such as "executed' and "beheaded" and there be no tell-tale signs of moisture on the note from tears.

If the individual in question had narcissistic tendencies, as did the writer of the Ramsey ransom note, this would be quite easy for them. Self-preservation is paramount to a narcissist.

[Athena]

Was there any pineapple left in the bag in the refrigerator?

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed
14 JonBenet pineapple, so I don't know how it got in her
15 stomach. I don't know where this bowl of pineapple
16 came from. I can't recall putting that there. I can
17 never recall putting a tea bag like that in a cup, so I
18 don't know. I don't know the answer.

Is there any more info on the tea bag and cup? Finger prints, lip prints? Tea bag used or not? Who is a tea drinker?

Picture of bowl of pineapple and glass with tea bag. I've never seen tea served in a glass like this???

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whynut/226799939/

Here's the bowl also used on the 23rd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whynut/226799940/

[LindaA]

Athena, the glass with the tea bag has always puzzled me. I wonder why more has never been made of it. I've never seen hot tea served that way; ( and with iced tea, the tea bag would have been removed entirely.) it almost looks as if someone who really wanted some tea had to serve it in whatever he/she could find quickly. Were fingerprints found on the glass? If the glass was placed there at the same time as the bowl of pineapple, then it looks as if an adult -- kids are not fond of tea generally --was there with JBR -- most likely one who had to improvise a method of serving the tea or drank the tea from another container which he/she washed and put away, leaving the wet tea bag in the glass to drain. Why not just put it in the trash? Too much noise? Didn't know where the trash can was kept?

[thewhitewitch1]

Athena, the glass with the tea bag has always puzzled me. I wonder why more has never been made of it. I've never seen hot tea served that way; ( and with iced tea, the tea bag would have been removed entirely.) it almost looks as if someone who really wanted some tea had to serve it in whatever he/she could find quickly. Were fingerprints found on the glass? If the glass was placed there at the same time as the bowl of pineapple, then it looks as if an adult -- kids are not fond of tea generally --was there with JBR -- most likely one who had to improvise a method of serving the tea or drank the tea from another container which he/she washed and put away, leaving the wet tea bag in the glass to drain. Why not just put it in the trash? Too much noise? Didn't know where the trash can was kept?


I believe Patsys prints were on the glass.
What intruder would sit down for a glass of tea in the process of a kidnapping/murder? Patsy denying knowledge of the glass and tea bag does not make it true.

[sweetcharlotte]

I don't have a page number but from PM/PT, Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, only Burke's were on the tea glass. What I've always wondered is if they tested the spoon that was in the bowl for DNA?

[shill]

I don't have a page number but from PM/PT, Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl, only Burke's were on the tea glass. What I've always wondered is if they tested the spoon that was in the bowl for DNA?

I find it hard to believe Burke would be attempting to make a glass of tea. But if he helps put away the dishes, his fingerprints would be on them and the absence of any other prints, IMO, would have to mean a gloved intruder got the glass out or Burke got himself a tall glass and a tea bag for it in the middle of the night.

[thewhitewitch1]

I find it hard to believe Burke would be attempting to make a glass of tea. But if he helps put away the dishes, his fingerprints would be on them and the absence of any other prints, IMO, would have to mean a gloved intruder got the glass out or Burke got himself a tall glass and a tea bag for it in the middle of the night.


What kind of intruder would sit down for a nice glass of tea?
Somehow I can't imagine Burke "helping to put away the dishes".
I thought it was Patsys prints on the glass and hers and Burkes on the bowl.
Maybe not. No time to look it up.

[Athena]

What kind of intruder would sit down for a nice glass of tea?
Somehow I can't imagine Burke "helping to put away the dishes".
I thought it was Patsys prints on the glass and hers and Burkes on the bowl.
Maybe not. No time to look it up.

Hi TWW - Patsy's and Burke's prints were found on the bowl and only Burke's prints were found on the glass with the teabag.

[shill]

From the Associate Press 01/04/07

DANVILLE, Pa. - Authorities are dropping a disorderly conduct charge against a 12-year-old special education student who they accused of deliberately wetting her pants at school.

Superintendent Steve Keifer said Thursday that it was a mistake to bring police into a case of school discipline.

The girl was told to go to the kitchen to wash some pots and pans, but refused, and wet her pants after teachers summoned the principal, the mother said. The newspaper withheld the names of the girl and her mother.

Police Chief Eric Gill had said school officials were at “wit’s end” with the girl, and that they believe her actions were deliberate.

District Attorney Robert Buehner spoke with Keifer and Gill on Thursday and decided to drop the disorderly conduct charge. Buehner said, “it makes better sense to just let the school district handle it with the child and parents.”

District Attorney Robert Buehner was just glad that Patsy Ramsey was not the girl's mother.

[createthis]

Was there any pineapple left in the bag in the refrigerator?

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed
14 JonBenet pineapple, so I don't know how it got in her
15 stomach. I don't know where this bowl of pineapple
16 came from. I can't recall putting that there. I can
17 never recall putting a tea bag like that in a cup, so I
18 don't know. I don't know the answer.

Is there any more info on the tea bag and cup? Finger prints, lip prints? Tea bag used or not? Who is a tea drinker?

I noticed you wrote that Patsy said she did not "feed" Jonbenet pineapple. I said it out loud and I would have said "give" her pineapple. JB's prints weren't on the bowl..was it poosible she was "fed" like from a spoon or her and Patsy shared a spoon and Patsy just fed her instead of making her a seperate bowl. My point is did Patsy make a slip here? By saying feed instead of give?

[bandit's mom]

I believe Patsys prints were on the glass.
What intruder would sit down for a glass of tea in the process of a kidnapping/murder? Patsy denying knowledge of the glass and tea bag does not make it true.

I agree. She couldn't admit to being the one who fed JonBenet the Pineapple
for obvious reasons. The idea that an "intruder" broke in on Christmas of
all days, and then took JonBenet to the Basement, instead of out through
the outside door they had to pass to get to the basement, then knew to
leave the ransom note on the back stairs, is all hard enough to fathom. But,
the fantasy that said "intruder" stopped to feed her pineapple? It truly
does boggle the mind.

[bullmoose]

Patsy's fingerprint on a dish isn't proof of anything more than she last washed and dried the dish while putting it away;since Patsy's prints weren't on the glass, the fact that she denied knowledge of the glass and teabag makes sense, especially if she was telling the truth[ which I believe]. IMO, this is all just a tempest in a teapot, disbelieving anything she said just for the sake of it.

[shill]

I agree. She couldn't admit to being the one who fed JonBenet the Pineapple
for obvious reasons. The idea that an "intruder" broke in on Christmas of
all days, and then took JonBenet to the Basement, instead of out through
the outside door they had to pass to get to the basement, then knew to
leave the ransom note on the back stairs, is all hard enough to fathom. But,
the fantasy that said "intruder" stopped to feed her pineapple? It truly
does boggle the mind.
It was only Burkes prints on the glass with the teabag. Explain the absence of Patsy's prints on that glass and JB's on the glass, spoon, or bowl.

[bandit's mom]

It was only Burkes prints on the glass with the teabag. Explain the absence of Patsy's prints on that glass and JB's on the glass, spoon, or bowl.


Maybe Patsy wiped the bowl and glass and missed a spot. Maybe Burke is the
only one that handled the glass, but Patsy handled the bowl. As for JB's prints
not on anything, simple, she ate the pineapple put in front of her with her
fingers and didn't take a drink. That would apply whether it was an intruder
or a Ramsey. I've never been 100% against the theory that Burke was
up, about and quite a large part of what unflolded that night. All I do know
is that the idea of an intruder stretches common sense waaaay past the
point that I'm capable of stretching it. Which Ramsey was ultimately responsible for the death is not something I'm 100% convinced of.

[shill]

Maybe Patsy wiped the bowl and glass and missed a spot. Maybe Burke is the
only one that handled the glass, but Patsy handled the bowl. As for JB's prints
not on anything, simple, she ate the pineapple put in front of her with her
fingers and didn't take a drink. That would apply whether it was an intruder
or a Ramsey. I've never been 100% against the theory that Burke was
up, about and quite a large part of what unflolded that night. All I do know
is that the idea of an intruder stretches common sense waaaay past the
point that I'm capable of stretching it. Which Ramsey was ultimately responsible for the death is not something I'm 100% convinced of.
Wouldn't the pineapple be dripping with the juice it was floating in and make a mess, leaving traces of it on her hands and face if she ate it with her fingers?

[shill]

Wouldn't the pineapple be dripping with the juice it was floating in and make a mess, leaving traces of it on her hands and face if she ate it with her fingers?If she ate it with her fingers, then she didn't need anyone to serve it to her. She could have woken in the middle of the night, was hungry and went downstairs for a snack.

[bullmoose]

To bandit'smom: To me the idea that there was an intruder/s is much less of a stretch to believe than the idea that one or both parents cruelly garotted Jonbenet and then clubbed her, massively fracturing her skull; or vice-versa if you think she was clubbed first; and then staged the world's strangest fake kidnapping so that all suspicion would fall on them, when the body was found. To me, to believe that scenario is a waaaaaaaaaay bigger stretch of the imagination than I am capable of. But I am an IDI, and you are a RDI; in truth I have no strong suspect; I wish the case was solved, I doubt it ever will be, unfortunately.

[Louisadelmar]

To bandit'smom: To me the idea that there was an intruder/s is much less of a stretch to believe than the idea that one or both parents cruelly garotted Jonbenet and then clubbed her, massively fracturing her skull; or vice-versa if you think she was clubbed first; and then staged the world's strangest fake kidnapping so that all suspicion would fall on them, when the body was found. To me, to believe that scenario is a waaaaaaaaaay bigger stretch of the imagination than I am capable of. But I am an IDI, and you are a RDI; in truth I have no strong suspect; I wish the case was solved, I doubt it ever will be, unfortunately.

Don't forget the sexual assault.

[KingCoyote]

I would like to revisit Louisadelmar's original post with some information I have been slowing putting together during my research on other matters. This list is in no way to be considered comprehensive and I invite you to add to the list. In no way does it express my opinion of "Whodunnit?"

The lists concentrates on the Ramsey's activities immediately prior to the death of JBR and the possible stresses that exist at holiday time. It also adds some particular dynamics between PR and JBR as to pageants. It will touch on some medical issues of both JBR and PR. Some issues will be interlaced with others.

Since there has been an allegation that PR killed JBR in some rage incident (over what ST concluded was bedwetting). I will address indications of evidence of "rage" from holiday activity/stress, dynamics of a relationship and medical situations. Then I will try to list all of what I could find that could be considered contraindications of rage. I will let the reader decide for themselves what, if anything, this list presents.

Again, I did not do a specific search for these items, I just jotted them down as I saw them. It is in no way intended to be all inclusive and please don't kill the messenger. I am not a medical or mental health professional and make no comment as to any psychological ramifications, if any, of any of the entries below. They are merely my impressions of a two sided issue.

Indications

1. 12/17 - Little Miss Christmas Pageant - PMPT 121-126
2. 12/17 - Patsy makes 3 calls to M.D. - PR98IV580
3. 12/22 - SW Plaza Pageant - PMPT 47-48
4. 12/23 - PR agitated at JBR re: makeup and dress for party - PMPT238
5. 12/23 - Ramsey Christmas party - (General Knowledge)
6. 12/23 or 12/25 - Sheets changed JBR possible wet bed - See Section 3 Pam Griffin Factor First post by KingCoyote
7. 12/24 - LHP no show to clean after party - PMPT238
8. 12/24 - PR gift wrapping/Dinner Pasta Jays/Christmas Drive - JBR not allowed to leave car to go up to lights (lost cite)
9. 12/25 - Christmas - PR packing for Charlevoix and Boat trip (no cite)
10. 12/25 - PR disappointed at JBR reaction to MyTwinn - DOI 4
11. 12/25 - PR/JBR disagreement re: red turtleneck (General Knowledge)

12. PR yells at JBR in Bathroom re: toileting - (Unsubstantiated - NO CITE)
13. PR - Ovarian Cancer 1993 - Chemotherapy
14. PR - Hysterectomy 1993 -No Hormone Replacement Therapy/Mood Swings? - PR98IV431
15. JBR - I don't feel pretty 12/23 Party - ST7

16. Dynamic - Fernie/PW/Kovack to talk to PR re:Mega JB thing STDepo400
17. Dyn. - P. Kovack - Pageants were more than Sundays - PMPT 477
18. Dyn. - Kit Andre - Pageants were PR's gig;JBR was PR's alter ego;PR could relive her own pageant thing - PMPT99
19. Dyn. - Kit Andre - I saw JBR pageant video;you don't do that to a 6 year old. - PMPT 99
20. Dyn.-Kit Andre -PR was miserable in reception area; PR insisted on showing JBR routine - PMPT97
21. Dyn.-PR spends any amount; go to any length to win pageant PMPT 125
22. Dyn.-Randy Simon - PR brought more clothes than I have ever seen a parent bring (Photo shoots) PMPT258
23. Dyn. - PR had JBR recompete in pageants where JBR won trophies PMPT 121-126
24. Dyn. - PR states All JBR ever wanted to do was win a crown like yours (Kristine Griffin) PMPT 52-54
25. Dyn - Brian Scott- Gardner - Asks JBR if excited about Little Miss Christmas title; JBR response: I really don't care about it.

Contraindications

1. Dyn. - Brian Scott - Now there's a mother (PR) who really cares about her children PMPT 4
2. Dyn. -Randy Simon - tabloids say PR forced exruciating shots on JBR; I never saw any of that. PMPT 259
3. Dyn. -Kit Andre - Dance lessons: Never once did JBR say I don't want to; I'd rather go play PMPT98
4. Dyn - PR turns down Gingerbread National Pageant in favor of family reunion PMPT121-126
5. Dyn - Pam Griffin - Pageants not forced on JBR PMPT 47-48
6. Dyn. - Pam G. - Ramseys respected their kids PMPT 47-48
7. Dyn. - Pam G. - I never saw abuse of JBR by Ramseys PMPT 47-48

8. PR - Ovarian Cancer - In remission- No current chemotherapy
9. PR - Hysterectomy - No mood swings without HRT PR98IV

Just a few items as food for thought.

KingCoyote :read:

[bullmoose]

To King Coyote: I enjoy your posts; they are indeed food for thought. The two points of view on this case, in a way reminds me of the Jack the Ripper case, where there was and still is a line-up of possible suspects. My fear is that, like the Ripper case, there will never be an agreed upon solution as to whodunit. :shrug:

[shill]

Mystery swirls around abductions
To those who track child abductions, the mystery surrounding the boys’ discovery stood out.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, about 58,000 children are the victims of non-family abductions. The vast majority of those children are returned safely.

An average of 115 cases, however, involve children taken by non-family members for long periods, put up for ransom or killed by their abductors. Of that number, about 60 come home safely, said center spokeswoman Joann Donnellan.

Associated Press Jan 14, 2007

[KingCoyote]

Does anyone have any thoughts, comments or discussion as to why JBR did not start kindergarten until age 6 when most kids start the first grade? I thought that interesting and wonder if it had to do with some special dynamic between JBR and PR or what??. It was not like the Rs had just moved to Boulder and missed a cutoff date for registration. JBR's birthday was August 6th, wasn't it? That seem like she would have been able to register easily for kindergarten the year before.

Could it have had anything to do with PR wanting JBR to participate in pageants and wanting to keep school from getting in the way??? Did PR want JBR to be older than the other kids in her class for some reason? Did PR just miss the registration? Didn't JBR have friends which were close in age that would have alerted her to kindergarten? Did JBR not want to go to school and PR gave in? I am really kind of open to any discussion on this one.

Some of you mother's out there give me some clues.

KingCoyote :confused:

[Zoey]

Does anyone have any thoughts, comments or discussion as to why JBR did not start kindergarten until age 6 when most kids start the first grade? I thought that interesting and wonder if it had to do with some special dynamic between JBR and PR or what??. It was not like the Rs had just moved to Boulder and missed a cutoff date for registration. JBR's birthday was August 6th, wasn't it? That seem like she would have been able to register easily for kindergarten the year before.

Could it have had anything to do with PR wanting JBR to participate in pageants and wanting to keep school from getting in the way??? Did PR want JBR to be older than the other kids in her class for some reason? Did PR just miss the registration? Didn't JBR have friends which were close in age that would have alerted her to kindergarten? Did JBR not want to go to school and PR gave in? I am really kind of open to any discussion on this one.

Some of you mother's out there give me some clues.

KingCoyote :confused:


I don't know about all states, but in some states, you have to be 5 on or before August 1st. Since she didn't turn 5 until August 6th, they may have made her wait until she was 6 to start kindergarten. My kids were all 6 when they started kindergarten due to this.

[KingCoyote]

Does anyone know what grade Burke was in and when his birthday was?

Just Curious

KingCoyote

I found it...he was born Jan. 27, 1987.

[KingCoyote]

I found the answer to my own question. He was in the fourth grade so he would have been a full 5 when he started kindergarten so that really doesn't answer the question. I may try to check Colorado law.

KC

[Louisadelmar]

Does anyone have any thoughts, comments or discussion as to why JBR did not start kindergarten until age 6 when most kids start the first grade? I thought that interesting and wonder if it had to do with some special dynamic between JBR and PR or what??. It was not like the Rs had just moved to Boulder and missed a cutoff date for registration. JBR's birthday was August 6th, wasn't it? That seem like she would have been able to register easily for kindergarten the year before.

Could it have had anything to do with PR wanting JBR to participate in pageants and wanting to keep school from getting in the way??? Did PR want JBR to be older than the other kids in her class for some reason? Did PR just miss the registration? Didn't JBR have friends which were close in age that would have alerted her to kindergarten? Did JBR not want to go to school and PR gave in? I am really kind of open to any discussion on this one.

Some of you mother's out there give me some clues.

KingCoyote :confused:

My kids were born in late July. When the time came for them to start school I decided, even though they made the cut off date age-wise to start school, they would be better off in the long run to have an extra year of maturity before they started. Quite a few studies were done late 80s?, early 90s? suggesting this was a better way to go for kids whose birthdays are close to the cut-off date.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks...and welcome back....

That is interesting and somewhat logical to add the extra year of maturity for purposes of education...I will ponder that...because I wouldn't have thought that on my own or from my own experiences.

I guess that I may fall into a different setting with my friends...Now I am not bragging mind you, but all of my close friends and I were way past the cut off dates to start school and everyone that I can think of that did start way early, some of us as late as December birthdays making us 6 in the first semester of the first grade, became MDs, JDs, PHDs, CPAs etc, etc, etc,. and I do mean several people....I am talking 8 or 9 in my immediate neighborhood. I think the least successful has a degree in mechanical engineering....I guess there are skews to every set of analyses.

I must have lived in a unique neighborhood.

KC

[Louisadelmar]

Louisa:

Thanks...and welcome back....

That is interesting and somewhat logical to add the extra year of maturity for purposes of education...I will ponder that...because I wouldn't have thought that on my own or from my own experiences.

I guess that I may fall into a different setting with my friends...Now I am not bragging mind you, but all of my close friends and I were way past the cut off dates to start school and everyone that I can think of that did start way early, some of us as late as December birthdays making us 6 in the first semester of the first grade, became MDs, JDs, PHDs, CPAs etc, etc, etc,. and I do mean several people....I am talking 8 or 9 in my immediate neighborhood. I think the least successful has a degree in mechanical engineering....I guess there are skews to every set of analyses.

I must have lived in a unique neighborhood.

KC
Good to be back, if only briefly. Got a busy weekend scheduled.

I did find this site which lists age requirements for all states as of 2000.

http://www.doe.state.in.us/legwatch/2000/a_kinder_issues.html.

True to form it looks like CO was pretty laid-back.

[User615]

Does anyone know what grade Burke was in and when his birthday was?

Just Curious

KingCoyote

I found it...he was born Jan. 27, 1987.



So he was almost 10 years old when this happened. I have not formed any opinions as to who really did this, but I think you have to play out different scenarios to see if any of them fit, then try to find some evidence to prove that it is not possible. While this crime seems like an inside job, the ransom note certainly does through me a curve, but for now I am overlooking it as a plant. I will go down that road in the future. If you are to believe that this was done by the family, I can only think of one scenario that makes any sense. If Burke and JBR were up late playing with Xmas toys, and then it went further, to the point Burke was playing sexual games, then some of the evidence makes sense. Strangulation sexplay, using the paintbrush for penetration and bondage come to mind. Then it goes too far, JBR screams, and she gets silenced by a blow to the head. PR hears it, comes down and realizes what has happened. To avoid the embarrassment and possible police charges, the crime scene begins to be staged. Literally she is "on a mission" to protect her other child. Whether she gets JR involved is speculation, but I suspect she did, and he helped her compose the ransom note. There are too many refrences in it to macho type movies I believe for her to have thought all that out. The paintbrush handle used is destroyed or hidden. JBR, while violently assaulted earlier, is "laid to rest" in a blanket that has been kindly wrapped around her, not just thrown over her. A blanket that is located easily by PR in the dryer. If you are going to believe that the R's did this, I believe this is close to the actual truth on how things played out. As I said, this is just one road to take, and it is just my opinion.

[LindaA]

User615, while your scenario makes a certain amount of sense, there are a couple things you might want to think about:
1.) Could Burke have delivered the blow to JB's skull? Experts say the blow has to have come from someone far stronger than a 10 year old boy.

2.) Dr. Henry Lee says that it would have taken a man to break the paint brush.

3.) Burke underwent a long interrogation by LE without his parents or an attorney present. LE did not conclude that he did it.

4.) There has been no mention of fibers associated with Burke in and around the body.

5.) Would he have known how to construct the garotte?

[thewhitewitch1]

User615, while your scenario makes a certain amount of sense, there are a couple things you might want to think about:
1.) Could Burke have delivered the blow to JB's skull? Experts say the blow has to have come from someone far stronger than a 10 year old boy.

2.) Dr. Henry Lee says that it would have taken a man to break the paint brush.

3.) Burke underwent a long interrogation by LE without his parents or an attorney present. LE did not conclude that he did it.

4.) There has been no mention of fibers associated with Burke in and around the body.

5.) Would he have known how to construct the garotte?


I'm not the person you addressed (obviously :) ) but....

1) Burke played in little league and could swing a bat. I think it's very possible he could have dealt a blow like that using a heavy flashlight.

2) Anyone can break a paintbrush. You can put it under your foot and break it if you can't break it with your hands. There are any number of ways to break a paintbrush. There is no way for us to know how it was done so it's ridiculous to speculate that only a man could have done it. (sorry Dr. Lee)

3) How long was this interrogation and when did it occur? I questioned on another thread if Burke was questioned by LE at FWs house before or after it went from a kidnapping to a murder. The questions would be quite different in each scenerio. IMO

4) There is evidence we haven't heard about and with those 4000 fibers collected, if none of them belong to Burke, that would be pretty surprising and unbelievable, since he lived in the house.

5) I think that if Burke was involved and there was some "experimenting" going on between JB and himself, no "erotic asphyiation" was involved. I think the garrote and wrist ligatures were staged later by Patsy and John to cover for him in their "kidnap" scenerio.

All JMO

[Tober]

2.) Dr. Henry Lee says that it would have taken a man to break the paint brush.

If the individual who broke the paint brush wore gloves, the gloves would have provided just enough leverage for a woman to have broken it. Also, in high-stress situations, normally physically weak individuals are capable of above-average displays of strength. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

If the individual who broke the paint brush wore gloves, the gloves would have provided just enough leverage for a woman to have broken it. Also, in high-stress situations, normally physically weak individuals are capable of above-average displays of strength. This post is my opinion.
Have you seen the short stub left in the paint tote?

That paintbrush was at least a 1/2" thick at that end and they aren't made of the same wood as a pencil. Try snapping off an inch or less of the end of a pencil to get an idea of how much strength it takes. Now the paintbrush is 4 times thicker in area and harder wood.
This post is my "Oh My Gosh" opinion.

[Tober]

Have you seen the short stub left in the paint tote?

That paintbrush was at least a 1/2" thick at that end and they aren't made of the same wood as a pencil. Try snapping off an inch or less of the end of a pencil to get an idea of how much strength it takes. Now the paintbrush is 4 times thicker in area and harder wood.
This post is my "Oh My Gosh" opinion.

See point #2 in post #134 by thewhitewitch1.

[Jayelles]

If the individual who broke the paint brush wore gloves, the gloves would have provided just enough leverage for a woman to have broken it. Also, in high-stress situations, normally physically weak individuals are capable of above-average displays of strength. This post is my opinion.

A foot or door could also have been used for leverage.

[shill]

A foot or door could also have been used for leverage.
Leverage requires a lever against a fulcrum point. Unless the short end was clamped into a vise, IMO it would be very difficult to get leverage from the long end to break a short end off. In other words, the fulcrum point close to the soft shoe sole would leverage the shoe and not exert the load force needed to break the brush at the fulcrum point. It was probably difficult to break by a man with good hand strength.
I'm not at all sure how you think a door would work, please tell?

[Jayelles]

Leverage requires a lever against a fulcrum point. Unless the short end was clamped into a vise, IMO it would be very difficult to get leverage from the long end to break a short end off. In other words, the fulcrum point close to the soft shoe sole would leverage the shoe and not exert the load force needed to break the brush at the fulcrum point. It was probably difficult to break by a man with good hand strength.
I'm not at all sure how you think a door would work, please tell?


Use the hinge side of a door like a vice. It would be simpe enough to insert an item as small as a paintbrush handle.

ETA - we break firewood with our feet all the time.

[shill]

Use the hinge side of a door like a vice. It would be simpe enough to insert an item as small as a paintbrush handle.

ETA - we break firewood with our feet all the time.You must be a man.
That would leave tell tale crushing marks.

Do you break one inch off the end of the firewood all the time?

[andU]

Have you seen the short stub left in the paint tote?

That paintbrush was at least a 1/2" thick at that end and they aren't made of the same wood as a pencil. Try snapping off an inch or less of the end of a pencil to get an idea of how much strength it takes. Now the paintbrush is 4 times thicker in area and harder wood.
This post is my "Oh My Gosh" opinion.


Shill, I agree, I don't think it would have been that easily broken, even if it were a woman using gloves. ...and there would be some of the fibers collected (that we don't know about, of course).

[Jayelles]

You must be a man.

Eh - no. If I was a man, I'd be able to snap the firewood with my bare hands....


That would leave tell tale crushing marks.

I suppose that would depend on the quality of one's doors.

Do you break one inch off the end of the firewood all the time?

One inch? Where did that measurement come from?

[User615]

User615, while your scenario makes a certain amount of sense, there are a couple things you might want to think about:
1.) Could Burke have delivered the blow to JB's skull? Experts say the blow has to have come from someone far stronger than a 10 year old boy.

2.) Dr. Henry Lee says that it would have taken a man to break the paint brush.

3.) Burke underwent a long interrogation by LE without his parents or an attorney present. LE did not conclude that he did it.

4.) There has been no mention of fibers associated with Burke in and around the body.

5.) Would he have known how to construct the garotte?
I only posted that for people like you to play "Devil's advocate" and blow some holes in that theory. In fact, I wish we could completely put it to rest, but to me there is nothing conclusive that says it could not have happened that way. To follow this theory, you have to believe at some point one or both parents got involved, and helped finish staging the crime scene, which can explain the ropes and broken paint brush. Keep at it though, I welcome anyone to debunk this line of thinking. As I said, I believe you have to start with a premise and then try to dispute it beyond all possibility. This theory may have some holes, but it's not the Titanic yet.

[LindaA]

User615, I figured that's what y ou wanted. I still believe the BDI theory has too many holes. I do believe, however, that it would be the one thing that would make PR do anything to cover it up. I just don't think that is what happened.

[Jayelles]

User615, I figured that's what y ou wanted. I still believe the BDI theory has too many holes. I do believe, however, that it would be the one thing that would make PR do anything to cover it up. I just don't think that is what happened.


I agree. I don't think either Ramsey would have covered for the other and I certainly don't think they would have stayed together if one was guilty and the other knew about it. I think they only thing that makes sense for them both to have been involved in a cover up is if they were protecting another one of their children... but I don't think BDI.

[bullmoose]

I agree. I don't think either Ramsey would have covered for the other and I certainly don't think they would have stayed together if one was guilty and the other knew about it. I think they only thing that makes sense for them both to have been involved in a cover up is if they were protecting another one of their children... but I don't think BDI.Whoever did what was done to Jonbenet was and I assume is[if alive] a monster masquerading as a human being; I simply cannot imagine John or Patsy being part of a cover-up, even to protect Burke; they would have had to be upstairs all those hours knowing she was downstairs dead in that room. My mind staggers trying to imagine the depth of the evil they would have to be capable of to do such a thing. Everytime I come back to the same conclusion: that the Ramseys are as innocent as I am of Jonbenet's murder.

[Zoey]

I agree. I don't think either Ramsey would have covered for the other and I certainly don't think they would have stayed together if one was guilty and the other knew about it. I think they only thing that makes sense for them both to have been involved in a cover up is if they were protecting another one of their children... but I don't think BDI.


Jayelles, am I reading into your posting correctly? Are you implying that perhaps one of the other Ramsey's children were involved, since you don't think it was Burke?

[Tober]

Keep at it though, I welcome anyone to debunk this line of thinking.

The problem I have with the Burke-did-it scenario is that if he did, I couldn't imagine John and Patsy letting him go off to the White's. The questions Burke asks on the 911 call enhancement (the Aerospace Corporation one) seem to suggest he wasn't involved. I think he knew something terrible went on through the night, but I don't think he knows any details. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Brazen man creeps into homes to attack young girls (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16932728/)

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, am I reading into your posting correctly? Are you implying that perhaps one of the other Ramsey's children were involved, since you don't think it was Burke?


No I don't think any of the Ramsey children were involved. The older two were in Atlanta anyway and I was taking that as read. Sorry if my post was misleading.

[Athena]

Does anyone have any thoughts, comments or discussion as to why JBR did not start kindergarten until age 6 when most kids start the first grade? I thought that interesting and wonder if it had to do with some special dynamic between JBR and PR or what??. It was not like the Rs had just moved to Boulder and missed a cutoff date for registration. JBR's birthday was August 6th, wasn't it? That seem like she would have been able to register easily for kindergarten the year before.

Could it have had anything to do with PR wanting JBR to participate in pageants and wanting to keep school from getting in the way??? Did PR want JBR to be older than the other kids in her class for some reason? Did PR just miss the registration? Didn't JBR have friends which were close in age that would have alerted her to kindergarten? Did JBR not want to go to school and PR gave in? I am really kind of open to any discussion on this one.

Some of you mother's out there give me some clues.

KingCoyote :confused:

It may be possible that because of Patsy's illness, JBR was emotionally less mature than others her age. . Academically she may have been ready but not emotionally. Just a thought JMO

[Tober]

JonBenet was pretty mature, but wasn't as intellectually sophisticated as Burke. I'm sure her not starting kindergarten until she was six had more to do with Patsy, and less to do with her. This post is my opinion.

[Jayelles]

I have observed that people who lose a close friend or relative have a tendency to say things like:-

"I just can't believe it"

or

"Last time I saw him he was ......" or "That was the last time I saw him..."

i.e. 1) frequent expression of an overwhelming disbelief that the person is no longer with them and

2) a tendency to focus upon and to replay the last time they saw the person over and over in conversations with other people.

Is there any record of the Ramseys saying either of the above?

[User615]

The problem I have with the Burke-did-it scenario is that if he did, I couldn't imagine John and Patsy letting him go off to the White's. The questions Burke asks on the 911 call enhancement (the Aerospace Corporation one) seem to suggest he wasn't involved. I think he knew something terrible went on through the night, but I don't think he knows any details. This post is my opinion.

I read the reports on that....and no one can seem to validate the AC enhancements. I also stumbled across an interview with JR that said Burke was awakened by PR's screams, and he had tears in his eyes. Earlier JR said he checked on Burke and he was asleep (or pretending to be). This is why I can't get off the R's, just too many things that are inconsistent. I also read that PR said JBR would often sleep with Burke. If she had a bed wetting problem and did that in his bed, would it infuriate him to retaliate in anger? I am rambling, and this post is JMO.

[Louisadelmar]

Patsy did not say JonBenet woujld often sleep with Burke. She might move into the other bed in Burke's room but there was nothing about her doing it "often."

1997
ST: Was it common for her to uh, get up during the night at all, either to uh, use the bathroom or to go downstairs or uh, was she a, a fairly good sleeper that would sleep the night through.
PR: She, she was a fairly good sleeper. She um, very rarely, you know, would wake up at night. If she did she would, you know, sometimes she would have wet the bed and she would get up and get in that other bed or she, sometimes would come up to our bed, but it was not very often.
[…]
PR: Yeah. But she had a lot of dry nights, but she would wet the bed probably once a week.
TT: When she wet the bed, would she come up and tell you guys, or would she just crawl onto the other bed, crawl into Burke’s spare bed, what was the routine if she actually wet the bed?
PR: Well, ah, sometimes she would get up and get into the other bed or sometimes she really wouldn’t wake up and until morning when she normally would wake up and maybe she’d change her nightgown or something and I’d find her things and pajamas in the bathroom floors and…
TT: OK. Is this something you guys (inaudible) about at all?
PR: No, cause I mean, all of, Burke wore pull-ups, you know till he was, at night, you know. Till he was fairly old. And Melinda was, we didn’t even have pull-ups back then, she wet the bed till she was, I mean at least when we were married, she was 8 then. So I didn’t see anything, and a lot of our friends, I mean, and Matthew use to wear pull-ups, you know, so …
[…]
TT: Okay. Do you have an idea if JonBenet moved over towards Burke’s room at all that night. Slept in his room?
PR: Um, I can’t remember, can’t remember.
TT: Okay. Is that something that she would normally do?
PR: No.
TT: Sleep in Burke’s room. I know everybody’s got, you got, they both have two beds in their rooms.
PR: Yeah, right um, I don’t think so. I just can’t remember.
[…]
ST: How about on the, uh, night of the 25th when you and John put her to bed, would it have been unlikely for her to have then moved to another location in the house to have slept, your bed or Burke’s room?
PR: Yeah, it would have been unlikely.
[…]
PR: Right as you go in the door.
ST: And if, on occasion, JonBenet would go sleep in Burke’s room would she get into the other bed.
PR: She’d be in, yeah.
[…]

[Athena]

I read the reports on that....and no one can seem to validate the AC enhancements. I also stumbled across an interview with JR that said Burke was awakened by PR's screams, and he had tears in his eyes. Earlier JR said he checked on Burke and he was asleep (or pretending to be). This is why I can't get off the R's, just too many things that are inconsistent. I also read that PR said JBR would often sleep with Burke. If she had a bed wetting problem and did that in his bed, would it infuriate him to retaliate in anger? I am rambling, and this post is JMO.

I believe Louisa addressed the frequency issue of JBR sleeping in Burke's room. But how likely is it that JBR would wet her bed, go into Burke's bed and wet the bed again? MO is it would be very unlikely.

[Athena]

I have observed that people who lose a close friend or relative have a tendency to say things like:-

"I just can't believe it"

or

"Last time I saw him he was ......" or "That was the last time I saw him..."

i.e. 1) frequent expression of an overwhelming disbelief that the person is no longer with them and

2) a tendency to focus upon and to replay the last time they saw the person over and over in conversations with other people.

Is there any record of the Ramseys saying either of the above?

How many of these close friends or relatives were living with the person at the time of their death? My friend's mom just died recently (attended the funeral Thurs) and I did not hear any of his immediate family say that either; she lived with them. Also how many of these observations of close friends/relatives re: a murdered person? My brother got killed and we didn't talk about the last time we saw him - we talked about the vicious murderer who killed him and wanted to know why? What I have heard Patsy and JR both say over and over again is "why" which seems more appropro under these circumstances. JMO

[Jayelles]

How many of these close friends or relatives were living with the person at the time of their death? My friend's mom just died recently (attended the funeral Thurs) and I did not hear any of his immediate family say that either; she lived with them. Also how many of these observations of close friends/relatives re: a murdered person? My brother got killed and we didn't talk about the last time we saw him - we talked about the vicious murderer who killed him and wanted to know why? What I have heard Patsy and JR both say over and over again is "why" which seems more appropro under these circumstances. JMO

No idea but I know my mother said it over and over ...for weeks after my father's death - "I just can't believe it..." and she also went over and over her last conversation with him and her last memories of him alive. They were married for 56 years.

[Louisadelmar]

I think it's more something one might say in a private conversation. I recall saying it after Steve Irwin died. But it doesn't strike me as something that would be likely to come up in an interrogation/depo or public interview.

[Athena]

No idea but I know my mother said it over and over ...for weeks after my father's death - "I just can't believe it..." and she also went over and over her last conversation with him and her last memories of him alive. They were married for 56 years.

Understood and we don't know what the Ramseys said to their close friends in private conversations. I don't know that words they spoke would be public knowledge. I addressed your post based on what I would think would be public knowledge. JMO

[Jayelles]

Understood and we don't know what the Ramseys said to their close friends in private conversations. I don't know that words they spoke would be public knowledge. I addressed your post based on what I would think would be public knowledge. JMO

And my question is whether we know if they did say these things - obviously we would only know about what they said in interviews or what friends/family are quoted as saying in the books. I read the CNN transcript (Jan 1997) and they didn't express any disbelief in what was a 40/45 minute interview just days after the murder.

I am interested to know if anyone is aware of them doing so (or being described as doing so).

[Zoey]

JonBenet was pretty mature, but wasn't as intellectually sophisticated as Burke. I'm sure her not starting kindergarten until she was six had more to do with Patsy, and less to do with her. This post is my opinion.


All of my kids started kindergarten when they were 6. It had nothing to do with maturity or anything to do with me as their mom. It has to do with when their birthdays were and the rules of the school. IMO, this is exactly they situation with JB. I don't feel it had anything to do with what Patsy wanted.

[Athena]

And my question is whether we know if they did say these things - obviously we would only know about what they said in interviews or what friends/family are quoted as saying in the books. I read the CNN transcript (Jan 1997) and they didn't express any disbelief in what was a 40/45 minute interview just days after the murder.

I am interested to know if anyone is aware of them doing so (or being described as doing so).

OK gotcha! Sorry I think I probably read more into your initial post than was intended by you and overanalyzed it! :)

[Louisadelmar]

Rashomon -

In what way did Patsy dress as Scarlett (O'Hara) at her own wedding. I'm curious.

[shill]

I have observed that people who lose a close friend or relative have a tendency to say things like:-

"I just can't believe it"

or

"Last time I saw him he was ......" or "That was the last time I saw him..."

i.e. 1) frequent expression of an overwhelming disbelief that the person is no longer with them and

2) a tendency to focus upon and to replay the last time they saw the person over and over in conversations with other people.

Is there any record of the Ramseys saying either of the above?
John states that he had wished he had taken the time to take JB out for a bicycle ride and he regrets not doing it.

[LindaA]

John states that he had wished he had taken the time to take JB out for a bicycle ride and he regrets not doing it.

That is posted somewhere on this board. He talks about theirleaving for the Whites' and having to hury JBR telling her he will help her ride her bike another time -- but never had the chance.

[Eagle1]

This whole case is so sad, and I'll bet John agonizes over his putting her off about riding the new bike on the very last day of her life. Little things like that are often part of forever grieving. And I just wanted to bump this up before it goes off the bottom of the page.

[andU]

I agree, this case is many things: sad, frustrating, confusing, infruriating, and on and on.....

[bullmoose]

I agree, this case is many things: sad, frustrating, confusing, infruriating, and on and on.....Although this was a very high profile case,it has fallen into a class of murders that everyone hates, murders that never get solved; even here in a small town in Idaho, once in a while a case occurs that is somewhat like this one--that is, unsolved. Three separate ones here spring to mind over the years, sure there were suspects, and they are suspected still, though several have since died, but the evidence apparently was just not there to try and convict anyone. By posting here, we help keep Jonbenet's memory alive[ if I'm not giving us way too much credit], hopefully someday DNA evidence will solve this one. But I'm not holding my breath on it. JMHO

[Sharon]

Although this was a very high profile case,it has fallen into a class of murders that everyone hates, murders that never get solved; even here in a small town in Idaho, once in a while a case occurs that is somewhat like this one--that is, unsolved. Three separate ones here spring to mind over the years, sure there were suspects, and they are suspected still, though several have since died, but the evidence apparently was just not there to try and convict anyone. By posting here, we help keep Jonbenet's memory alive[ if I'm not giving us way too much credit], hopefully someday DNA evidence will solve this one. But I'm not holding my breath on it. JMHO

With you 100% on all of that!

[Tober]

This whole case is so sad, and I'll bet John agonizes over his putting her off about riding the new bike on the very last day of her life. Little things like that are often part of forever grieving. And I just wanted to bump this up before it goes off the bottom of the page.
The problem, though, is that John and Patsy have done nothing to help investigators get to the bottom of what happened that night. They have lied repeatedly, hindered the investigation, etc. If John truly (notice I said "truly") felt remorse
over JonBenet, he'd come clean with all that he knows about what happened that night. And he does know something, why else would he lie? (IMO)

[bullmoose]

The problem, though, is that John and Patsy have done nothing to help investigators get to the bottom of what happened that night. They have lied repeatedly, hindered the investigation, etc. If John truly (notice I said "truly") felt remorse
over JonBenet, he'd come clean with all that he knows about what happened that night. And he does know something, why else would he lie? (IMO)Tober, the way I see it, though, is that you have done nothing to help posters on this board come to an objective opinion on this case based on evidence, because you never offer any for your self-righteous claims. If Colorado's Caped Crusaders operated with the same attitude that IMO you have shown on this board, I would have to venture my opinion that the BPD lied[to the tabloids] constantly, vilifying the Ramseys and insuring their hostility to the Kolorado Keystone Kops when they told Durgin that they were the killers before they had buried their daughter. Boy, if that isn't a plan for non-co-operation with the BPD, what is? I would say that the BPD hindered the investigation fatally by its actions. When the main tactic seemed to be breakfast with the tabloids,nothing but a lynchmob mentality was the result. The BPD didn't even accomplish an indictment by grand jury; whether or not they voted or were allowed to vote is unimportant--what was and is important is the BPD evidently offered insufficient evidence up to get an indictment--of anyone. IMO thats the problem with Tober; and the BPD, too, no evidence to back their claims. JMHO:biggrin:

[nuisanceposter]

The problem, though, is that John and Patsy have done nothing to help investigators get to the bottom of what happened that night. They have lied repeatedly, hindered the investigation, etc. If John truly (notice I said "truly") felt remorse
over JonBenet, he'd come clean with all that he knows about what happened that night. And he does know something, why else would he lie? (IMO)

Absolutely, Tober. JR has been caught lying and contradicting himself repeatedly throughout this investigation...even in their own book, DOI. DOI is completely self-serving and exists to explain away the multitude of evidence implicating the Rs. The death of innocence referred to in the title has nothing to do with JonBenet - the death of innocence was their own. The Rs refused to cooperate with police unless ridiculous conditions that seriously slanted the interviews in the favor of the Rs were met, then turned around and claimed they were trying to cooperate, but didn't mention their ridiculous conditions. JR said he hired people not to search for the killer, but keep him and his wife out of jail. They hired a PR firm within the same week that their daughter was murdered and appeared on television, when they were supposedly so grief-stricken they couldn't bear talking to LE.

The RST has been lying, hindering investigation, and misleading the public since day one, and I just don't see any reason for them to do so unless they know what happened to JonBenet and who did it, and are covering for that person.

What I want to know is, if they're such good Christians, how come they don't seem to care enough about anyone other than themselves in regards to this killer? Why is their need to hide away so much more important than doing what they can to make sure this killer is caught, so another precious little girl isn't killed like JB was, and so that another set of parents doesn't have to go through the same torment they did? If there's a killer on the loose and people need to keep their babies close, why didn't the Rs, who are so generous and considerate not to mention well-connected and wealthy, do everything they could to stop this person and bring him to justice as other parents of murdered children have?

[Nemesis43]

Sometimes the motive to kill a child can be just plain pure selfishness.

I believe that the guy who murdered my mother and little sister - who was just two and a half at the time - did so because he wanted to get back with his divorced wife. He wanted to break up with my mother and I also believe he didn't want to pay maintenance for his child.

The worst part is that the murders have been so carefully planned and executed that the bodies have never been found. If you'd like to help solve the murder case of Louise and Charmian please click here
http://www.louiseandcharmian.com

[shill]

Sometimes the motive to kill a child can be just plain pure selfishness.

I believe that the guy who murdered my mother and little sister - who was just two and a half at the time - did so because he wanted to get back with his divorced wife. He wanted to break up with my mother and I also believe he didn't want to pay maintenance for his child.

The worst part is that the murders have been so carefully planned and executed that the bodies have never been found. If you'd like to help solve the murder case of Louise and Charmian please click here
http://www.louiseandcharmian.com

This is true, so what do you think the Ramseys selfish motive was?