Please explain RDI's

[andU]

I feel I must input some thoughts at this point:
The guilty parties may hide his/her crime from the eyes of this world, but God sees every move that each of us makes and one day, he/she will answer to the Ultimate Judge for this horrendous deed. The truth will prevail!

[aussiesheila]

You can see the hymen and labia. He mentions turniing in suspected abuse cases so I think sign of sexual abuse is one of the things he checks for.I'm sure Beuf did report SOME of the cases he saw of suspected sexual abuse. He would be a fool not to, after all, as a pediatrician he would be expected to come across a number of cases each year, and if he didn't report some he would look a bit suspect. But did he report ALL of the cases he saw? That is what I would like to know. I suspect he didn't and JonBenet was one of them. I suspect there were some pedophiles he was prepared to protect, I don't know what his payoff would have been, but I'm sure there was something in it for him.

[andU]

I'm sure Beuf did report SOME of the cases he saw of suspected sexual abuse. He would be a fool not to, after all, as a pediatrician he would be expected to come across a number of cases each year, and if he didn't report some he would look a bit suspect. But did he report ALL of the cases he saw? That is what I would like to know. I suspect he didn't and JonBenet was one of them. I suspect there were some pedophiles he was prepared to protect, I don't know what his payoff would have been, but I'm sure there was something in it for him.

Sheila, I think you are suspecting something that cannot be proven. If there is no documentation, and again, if the person does not just come out and say that Beuf was involved, we would be arguing in vain about yet another theory. I am not saying that you are wrong, I am not saying that I agree with you. But, I'm suggesting that perhaps we need to simplify instead of trying to proved theories. Please don't be offended, I am making this suggestion to all of us, myself included.

[Jayelles]

One day I might get around to doing my own bit of editing. I notice that my theory which used to be posted on the Members' Theories thread at Websleuths was referred to in Wikipedia under Intruder theories. Actually it still is. But if you follow the link back to Websleuths you can't view it. Tricia has deleted the whole thread, just as she deleted a whole thread on which I had a lot of posts about Fleet White. So that is where I got the feeling that it has been highjacked by Tricia et al. Maybe that was a bit of an overstatement, perhaps I should have said the RDIs are more assiduous with their editing than IDIs. Methinks there is an agenda there and I'll leave you to guess just what I think it is.

Ahah - now you've jogged my memory. When Karr was arrested, one of the Websleuths moderators (Tybee I think) made a post to say that they were going to have to move some threads temporarily because the forum was so busy that new threads were running into several pages. I think the member's theory was one of them. I don't think they deleted it at all. Perhaps you'll remember that the forum was so busy, that it kept crashing. The mods were going mental trying to merge threads to stop them dropping down so quickly.

I'll pm Tybee and ask her if the thread could be put back. I think you are reading too much into this (with regards to there being an "agenda"). There were a lot of good posts on that thread.

ETA - I agree with the Fleet bashing threads being removed. If there was one shred of hard evidence against the man it might be different, but the FWDI theories are based on nothing more than a load of speculation and "what ifs".

[Sharon]

I feel I must input some thoughts at this point:
The guilty parties may hide his/her crime from the eyes of this world, but God sees every move that each of us makes and one day, he/she will answer to the Ultimate Judge for this horrendous deed. The truth will prevail!

Well, thats a whole other debate...imo

[aussiesheila]

Sheila, I think you are suspecting something that cannot be proven. If there is no documentation, and again, if the person does not just come out and say that Beuf was involved, we would be arguing in vain about yet another theory. I am not saying that you are wrong, I am not saying that I agree with you. But, I'm suggesting that perhaps we need to simplify instead of trying to proved theories. Please don't be offended, I am making this suggestion to all of us, myself included.Yes you are right andU, that was a badly worded post of mine. I have been posting madly trying to catch up and I get carried away sometimes.

I this any better?

It is my opinion that Beuf was protecting some pedophiles that I believe were abusing JonBenet. Any practising pediatrician would be expected to come across a number of cases of sexual abuse each year, so if a pediatrican was involved with pedophiles I think he would make sure he did report some so he would not look suspect. I think that if Beuf was involved in what I am suggesting he would have reported some cases but not ALL. And the cases I don't think he would report would be the ones where he had some arrangement with the pedophiles involved. I suspect any such arrangement would involve things like financial payoffs, blackmail or even joining in the pedophile activites themselves. I don't believe Beuf was ever investigated and until I see evidence that he was and was cleared I will remain suspicious of him.

[andU]

Yes you are right andU, that was a badly worded post of mine. I have been posting madly trying to catch up and I get carried away sometimes.

I this any better?

It is my opinion that Beuf was protecting some pedophiles that I believe were abusing JonBenet. Any practising pediatrician would be expected to come across a number of cases of sexual abuse each year, so if a pediatrican was involved with pedophiles I think he would make sure he did report some so he would not look suspect. I think that if Beuf was involved in what I am suggesting he would have reported some cases but not ALL. And the cases I don't think he would report would be the ones where he had some arrangement with the pedophiles involved. I suspect any such arrangement would involve things like financial payoffs, blackmail or even joining in the pedophile activites themselves. I don't believe Beuf was ever investigated and until I see evidence that he was and was cleared I will remain suspicious of him.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to berate you. Yes, the second posting does explain your thoughts better and it makes some sense. I hope it isn't true, but stranger things have happened in these times of imorality. I would not be at all surprised to find this type of activity happening anywhere in the country.

[Sharon]

Yes you are right andU, that was a badly worded post of mine. I have been posting madly trying to catch up and I get carried away sometimes.

I this any better?

It is my opinion that Beuf was protecting some pedophiles that I believe were abusing JonBenet. Any practising pediatrician would be expected to come across a number of cases of sexual abuse each year, so if a pediatrican was involved with pedophiles I think he would make sure he did report some so he would not look suspect. I think that if Beuf was involved in what I am suggesting he would have reported some cases but not ALL. And the cases I don't think he would report would be the ones where he had some arrangement with the pedophiles involved. I suspect any such arrangement would involve things like financial payoffs, blackmail or even joining in the pedophile activites themselves. I don't believe Beuf was ever investigated and until I see evidence that he was and was cleared I will remain suspicious of him.

Its sad that even if you were 100% right on the money here, we may never know due to all the evidence that has slipped through the cracks or is locked away from the public.

But I personally dont see any evidence on Beuf that is incriminating unless we know for certain that JBR was being sexually molested. You may be right that she was, but it is another grey area for some.
jmo

[aussiesheila]

Ahah - now you've jogged my memory. When Karr was arrested, one of the Websleuths moderators (Tybee I think) made a post to say that they were going to have to move some threads temporarily because the forum was so busy that new threads were running into several pages. I think the member's theory was one of them. I don't think they deleted it at all. Perhaps you'll remember that the forum was so busy, that it kept crashing. The mods were going mental trying to merge threads to stop them dropping down so quickly.

I'll pm Tybee and ask her if the thread could be put back. I think you are reading too much into this (with regards to there being an "agenda"). There were a lot of good posts on that thread.

ETA - I agree with the Fleet bashing threads being removed. If there was one shred of hard evidence against the man it might be different, but the FWDI theories are based on nothing more than a load of speculation and "what ifs".Well thank you, Jayelles.

As for the business of Fleet bashing. I don't believe I ever did that. I am very concious of what bashing is, having seen countless instances of it directed at the Ramseys at Websleuths and I try not to do it. All my posts were well considered and backed up with reason and they were not part of any FWDI theory as such. There were many posts in which other people were talked about as possible suspects or as having been involved in some way, but as far as I know, it was only those relating to Fleet that ever got deleted. I have since posted along similar lines regarding Fleet at this forum and I don't think anyone has ever picked it up as Fleet bashing. I do not think that was the reason my posts were removed. It is probably unwise for me to say what I think the real reason was.

[aussiesheila]

Its sad that even if you were 100% right on the money here, we may never know due to all the evidence that has slipped through the cracks or is locked away from the public.

But I personally dont see any evidence on Beuf that is incriminating unless we know for certain that JBR was being sexually molested. You may be right that she was, but it is another grey area for some.
jmoSharon and andU I am very happy to receive your comments. I realise that most of what I say is highly speculative and with only flimsy wisps of evidence to back it up. But the unfortunate thing is, the only people who have ever been seriously investigated in this case were the Ramseys and so they are the only two suspects out there for whom we have more than a smidgeon of evidence about.

For people like me, who, after examining the mountains of information assembled about them, and can't see anything there that makes them appear guilty to us, we have very little material to refer to when trying to produce concrete evidence against them.

I know people are going to say this, that and the other person were investigated and in depth. But other than taking polygraphs, having handwriting checked and giving DNA, I don't think much more about them was looked into. I think it quite possible for someone to have passed all those tests (none of which are guaranteed perfect anyway) yet still be guilty, given that we don't even know how many perpetrators there actually were.

[Sharon]

Sharon and andU I am very happy to receive your comments. I realise that most of what I say is highly speculative and with only flimsy wisps of evidence to back it up. But the unfortunate thing is, the only people who have ever been seriously investigated in this case were the Ramseys and so they are the only two suspects out there for whom we have more than a smidgeon of evidence about.

For people like me, who, after examining the mountains of information assembled about them, and can't see anything there that makes them appear guilty to us, we have very little material to refer to when trying to produce concrete evidence against them.

I know people are going to say this, that and the other person were investigated and in depth. But other than taking polygraphs, having handwriting checked and giving DNA, I don't think much more about them was looked into. I think it quite possible for someone to have passed all those tests (none of which are guaranteed perfect anyway) yet still be guilty, given that we don't even know how many perpetrators there actually were.

Aussie, I didnt mean to come across as negative towards your efforts in this case. I am sorry if it came across as judgemental. I really agree with you 100% about what you have said here about the lack of suspects being properly examined. I truely wonder what all the 100`s of thousands of dollars (alot at the time) was spent on. jmo

[Jayelles]

Well thank you, Jayelles.

As for the business of Fleet bashing. I don't believe I ever did that. I am very concious of what bashing is, having seen countless instances of it directed at the Ramseys at Websleuths and I try not to do it. All my posts were well considered and backed up with reason and they were not part of any FWDI theory as such. There were many posts in which other people were talked about as possible suspects or as having been involved in some way, but as far as I know, it was only those relating to Fleet that ever got deleted. I have since posted along similar lines regarding Fleet at this forum and I don't think anyone has ever picked it up as Fleet bashing. I do not think that was the reason my posts were removed. It is probably unwise for me to say what I think the real reason was.


Fleet bashing isn't my term - I am quoting. However, I believe Fleet bashing to be the continued purual of Fleet White as a suspect based upon nothing more than speculation. I have read these posts and it shocks me that people can basically invent a scenario which protrays someone as a murderer when there is no hard evidence to support it. The 'evidence' which they offer against Fleet White is things like - he was making notes or they repeat unsubstantiated second-hand gossip from one of the Ramsey cleaners which said that Jonbenet preferred to follow the cleaner around when she was working than be with Fleet White (my little girl would also prefer to hanging around someone cleaning our house too - that is not an indication that any other person in the house is abusing her!) Or they suggest that since Fleet White didn't sue poor mentally-ill Nancy Krebs for alleging that he had been part of a group which sexually abused her for years and years - that it must have been true! Well that logic could be applied to the Ramseys for not suing Cyril Wecht or the Kimblerley person surely? I don't think that a failure to sue for libel equates to an admission of guilt. I confess that I don't understand why someone doesn't sue purely to set the record straight but I have been told that this doesn't usually happen - people sue for money in the States.

The same goes for the Santa bashing - there are posters who have cited historical writings of the santas as "evidence"... I mean stuff they wrote many years before Jonbenet was even born.

As Lou SMit himself said - there is a different standard for the Ramseys as opposed to other suspects. He said they had an obligation to help prove their innocence to investigators because had an intruder been arrested and tried, his/her defence would have been that the parents did it. John Ramsey responded that he hadn't thought of that (his lawyers should have though!). Other investigators pointed out to the Ramseys that they were in the 'bucket' by mere virtue of the fact that they were in the house and therefore had means and opportunity. Therefore there was an onus to get the Ramseys OUT of the bucket whereas other suspects had to be placed IN the bucket - i.e. the first hurdle for investigators would be to place them at the scene.

There is no evidence which places Fleet White at the scene - no hard evidence which connects him to the crime at all. No DNA, no fibres, no footprints, no unexplainable fingerprints. Sure we've got John Ramsey saying "oh Fleet knows how to tie knots" ...or "Oh Fleet had different kinds of tape" and ..."Priscilla is from California so she might have had a stungun" (all paraphrased) but that is not evidence. It doesn't prove that John Ramsey didn't know how to tie knots or that he wouldn't have had duct tape (the stungun isn't a fact).

Fleet White had a house full of visitors from out of State that night and had just spent the day entertaining them plus other friends. He'd been entertaining the houseguests for several days actually - that's pretty tiring. Anyone with children knows that parents are usually pretty exhausted on Christmas night. We stay up late on Christmas Eve to ensure the kids are asleep before doing the Santa bit, then we are up again with the kids early on Christmas morning to open presents and share in their excitement. By evening we are ready to collapse - not to give up a night's sleep in order to walk several miles and murder our dearest friends' beloved youngest child.

I think the man displayed all the signs of having had a nervous breakdown after the murder - he pleaded with the Ramseys to speak to the police, he wrote public letters complaining about the standard of the investigation, he has criticised the media handling of the case.

The Fleet Bashers have destroyed numerous forums with their viciousness and hatred-filled speculation. I have even read a couple of posts which stated that he should be executed. I applaud Tricia for keeping them out of her forums.

[Jayelles]

Well thank you, Jayelles.

I do not think that was the reason my posts were removed. It is probably unwise for me to say what I think the real reason was.


Posts are usually removed at Websleuths if they are flaming others. I have seldom seen posts removed for any other reason.

[andU]

"As Lou SMit himself said - there is a different standard for the Ramseys as opposed to other suspects. He said they had an obligation to help prove their innocence to investigators because had an intruder been arrested and tried, his/her defence would have been that the parents did it. John Ramsey responded that he hadn't thought of that (his lawyers should have though!). Other investigators pointed out to the Ramseys that they were in the 'bucket' by mere virtue of the fact that they were in the house and therefore had means and opportunity. Therefore there was an onus to get the Ramseys OUT of the bucket whereas other suspects had to be placed IN the bucket - i.e. the first hurdle for investigators would be to place them at the scene."

.... but, it is my understanding that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty .... that standard should apply to all people, IMO.

[aussiesheila]

Fleet bashing isn't my term - I am quoting. However, I believe Fleet bashing to be the continued purual of Fleet White as a suspect based upon nothing more than speculation. I have read these posts and it shocks me that people can basically invent a scenario which protrays someone as a murderer when there is no hard evidence to support it. The 'evidence' which they offer against Fleet White is things like - he was making notes or they repeat unsubstantiated second-hand gossip from one of the Ramsey cleaners which said that Jonbenet preferred to follow the cleaner around when she was working than be with Fleet White (my little girl would also prefer to hanging around someone cleaning our house too - that is not an indication that any other person in the house is abusing her!) Or they suggest that since Fleet White didn't sue poor mentally-ill Nancy Krebs for alleging that he had been part of a group which sexually abused her for years and years - that it must have been true! Well that logic could be applied to the Ramseys for not suing Cyril Wecht or the Kimblerley person surely? I don't think that a failure to sue for libel equates to an admission of guilt. I confess that I don't understand why someone doesn't sue purely to set the record straight but I have been told that this doesn't usually happen - people sue for money in the States.

The same goes for the Santa bashing - there are posters who have cited historical writings of the santas as "evidence"... I mean stuff they wrote many years before Jonbenet was even born.

As Lou SMit himself said - there is a different standard for the Ramseys as opposed to other suspects. He said they had an obligation to help prove their innocence to investigators because had an intruder been arrested and tried, his/her defence would have been that the parents did it. John Ramsey responded that he hadn't thought of that (his lawyers should have though!). Other investigators pointed out to the Ramseys that they were in the 'bucket' by mere virtue of the fact that they were in the house and therefore had means and opportunity. Therefore there was an onus to get the Ramseys OUT of the bucket whereas other suspects had to be placed IN the bucket - i.e. the first hurdle for investigators would be to place them at the scene.

There is no evidence which places Fleet White at the scene - no hard evidence which connects him to the crime at all. No DNA, no fibres, no footprints, no unexplainable fingerprints. Sure we've got John Ramsey saying "oh Fleet knows how to tie knots" ...or "Oh Fleet had different kinds of tape" and ..."Priscilla is from California so she might have had a stungun" (all paraphrased) but that is not evidence. It doesn't prove that John Ramsey didn't know how to tie knots or that he wouldn't have had duct tape (the stungun isn't a fact).

Fleet White had a house full of visitors from out of State that night and had just spent the day entertaining them plus other friends. He'd been entertaining the houseguests for several days actually - that's pretty tiring. Anyone with children knows that parents are usually pretty exhausted on Christmas night. We stay up late on Christmas Eve to ensure the kids are asleep before doing the Santa bit, then we are up again with the kids early on Christmas morning to open presents and share in their excitement. By evening we are ready to collapse - not to give up a night's sleep in order to walk several miles and murder our dearest friends' beloved youngest child.

I think the man displayed all the signs of having had a nervous breakdown after the murder - he pleaded with the Ramseys to speak to the police, he wrote public letters complaining about the standard of the investigation, he has criticised the media handling of the case.

The Fleet Bashers have destroyed numerous forums with their viciousness and hatred-filled speculation. I have even read a couple of posts which stated that he should be executed. I applaud Tricia for keeping them out of her forums.I still don't see that as a valid reason for deleting my posts. I have never said he was one of the murderers. I don't believe he was. I don't think he was ever at the Ramsey house that night. I do think he was involved in the coverup and I do think he had in the past sexually abused JonBenet. Plenty of people state on forums that they think John Ramsey sexually abused JonBenet. Tricia does not delete their posts. There is just as much evidence to suggest that FW abused JonBenet as there is that John abused her.

[Jayelles]

"As Lou SMit himself said - there is a different standard for the Ramseys as opposed to other suspects. He said they had an obligation to help prove their innocence to investigators because had an intruder been arrested and tried, his/her defence would have been that the parents did it. John Ramsey responded that he hadn't thought of that (his lawyers should have though!). Other investigators pointed out to the Ramseys that they were in the 'bucket' by mere virtue of the fact that they were in the house and therefore had means and opportunity. Therefore there was an onus to get the Ramseys OUT of the bucket whereas other suspects had to be placed IN the bucket - i.e. the first hurdle for investigators would be to place them at the scene."

.... but, it is my understanding that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty .... that standard should apply to all people, IMO.

In the eyes of the law - yes. That protects people from being punished without a trial. However we are talking about the investigation here and if you read the transcript up to page 33, you will see Lou Smit and Michael Kane explaining how important it is not just to prove that the perp is guilty, but also to prove that the other suspects are innocent to lessen the risk of the defence showing reasonable doubt on the grounds that someone else could have done it.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

1 And, of course, as a prosecutor, our goal is to

2 prove guilt of that individual beyond a reasonable

3 doubt. And the flip side of that is, that the

4 defense only has to suggest to create a reasonable

5 doubt that maybe you were involved.

6 And so from my perspective, and I think Lou and I

7 talked about this since the day I came in, and

8 everybody in the D.A.'s office, I think, looked at

9 it the same way. In fact, as Lou said, we have to

10 prove -- if we're going to prove it's an intruder,

11 we have to prove your innocence.

[aussiesheila]

Posts are usually removed at Websleuths if they are flaming others. I have seldom seen posts removed for any other reason.The posts of mine that Tricia deleted were not flaming anyone. I'll see if I can find some of them and I'll re-post them here.

[Jayelles]

I still don't see that as a valid reason for deleting my posts. I have never said he was one of the murderers. I don't believe he was. I don't think he was ever at the Ramsey house that night. I do think he was involved in the coverup and I do think he had in the past sexually abused JonBenet. Plenty of people state on forums that they think John Ramsey sexually abused JonBenet. Tricia does not delete their posts. There is just as much evidence to suggest that FW abused JonBenet as there is that John abused her.

There is NO evidence to suggest Fleet White abused Jonbenet. None whatsoever. That is sick speculation. Another ridiculous piece of "evidence" we keep hearing is that Fleet delivered Jonbenet back to the Ramseys along with a pair of her wet knickers because she had an accident - what was he supposed to do? Leave her in the wet knickers? There is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Fleet personally changed her knickers for her or that he abused her in the process of doing so. All we know is that he delivered her home with her dirty underwear in a bag.

What you call "evidence" is no more than sick speculation.

[Sharon]

I still don't see that as a valid reason for deleting my posts. I have never said he was one of the murderers. I don't believe he was. I don't think he was ever at the Ramsey house that night. I do think he was involved in the coverup and I do think he had in the past sexually abused JonBenet. Plenty of people state on forums that they think John Ramsey sexually abused JonBenet. Tricia does not delete their posts. There is just as much evidence to suggest that FW abused JonBenet as there is that John abused her.

I agree. jmo

[nuisanceposter]

The posts of mine that Tricia deleted were not flaming anyone. I'll see if I can find some of them and I'll re-post them here.

Well, they weren't flaming other posters. I've never seen you be rude to other posters, aussiesheila. No offense intended, but I think and think others may think that a good bit of your theory rests on things that have in no way been anywhere near proven - things such as FW, CW, GM, and Santa Bill were all not only pedophiles, but pedos that all knew each other and further knew that each other were pedos, and conspired to have an orgy starring JonBenet. That speculation with no basis in fact or evidence may be reason to delete your posts. That's flaming those men pretty hard, with no proof to back up such allegation.

But I don't know, this is just IMO. Last time I checked, your posts from when you were there on a regular basis are still there.

ETA: I'd also think they'd PM you if they thought your posts were in need of deletion.

[Sharon]

There is NO evidence to suggest Fleet White abused Jonbenet. None whatsoever. That is sick speculation. Another ridiculous piece of "evidence" we keep hearing is that Fleet delivered Jonbenet back to the Ramseys along with a pair of her wet knickers because she had an accident - what was he supposed to do? Leave her in the wet knickers? There is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Fleet personally changed her knickers for her or that he abused her in the process of doing so. All we know is that he delivered her home with her dirty underwear in a bag.

What you call "evidence" is no more than sick speculation.

Jayelles, it was a sick crime. We are here to speculate and put forward our theories. The theory involving the parents sticking a paintbrush up their daughter to stage a crime is also sick speculation imo.
Infact, to be honest all we have is sick speculation because we have no proof that anyone did or did not do anything in this murder.

When someone says the brother accidently bashed his sister & the parents covered up for him, that is sick speculation. When someone says P. accidently kills JBR and they garrot her to stage a murder, that is really sick speculation too.

Basically, every theory involves something awful about someone who is thought to have been involved.

If we cant speculate, what can we discuss??? There is nothing to say that is not speculation here. Someone seems to have got away with it, which is the really sick part. jmo

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, it was a sick crime. We are here to speculate and put forward our theories. The theory involving the parents sticking a paintbrush up their daughter to stage a crime is also sick speculation imo.
Infact, to be honest all we have is sick speculation because we have no proof that anyone did or did not do anything in this murder.

When someone says the brother accidently bashed his sister & the parents covered up for him, that is sick speculation. When someone says P. accidently kills JBR and they garrot her to stage a murder, that is really sick speculation too.

Basically, every theory involves something awful about someone who is thought to have been involved.

If we cant speculate, what can we discuss??? There is nothing to say that is not speculation here. Someone seems to have got away with it, which is the really sick part. jmo

There is a difference between posting and discussing theories which are based on evidence and theories which are based purely on speculation. The fact is that Burke was in the house when JonBenet died and therefore had opportunity although perhaps not the means to stage a cover-up on his own.

I think my own theory is perfectly plausible but I never post it because like the FWDI theory, there is no evidence to connect my prime suspect to the crime and I wouldn't slander a potential innocent person in my efforts to convince others of my theory's merits. That would just be wrong. So many awful things have been said about Fleet White and based on no more than speculation and hearsay.

You cannot compare this to people posting theories about the Ramseys because we KNOW the Ramseys were in the house, we know they had means and opportunity and that for whatever reasons, they avoided police interviews for a long time and refused to take an FBI administered polygraph completely. No-one else did that and like it or lump it, it made the Ramseys look suspicious to a lot of people (police included ... Lou Smit included!).

The Ramseys were and are still suspects and it is therefore reasonable for people to discuss them. It might be ugly at times and it might be OTT and unreasonable at times. It is not reasonable to discuss people who have been cleared as suspects nor suggest that they should be executed.

[Jayelles]

More from Lou Smit:-

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

22 LOU SMIT: And I know that a lot of work

23 has been done in regards to you. But see, John, I

24 have to stick up for the Boulder Police Department

25 a little bit. I don't know what all personally

0023

1 went with you. But they initially focused on you

2 because of certain things that happened in the

3 house and that they found. And you were in the

4 house. So, as a detective, I myself would have

5 probably have done that. I would have probably

6 said, (Wait a minute, I got to put you on the

7 front burner, John.̃ And I gotta do that.
8 So, in fairness to them, I think that they

9 started off doing what detectives do. They take

10 the most logical thing that's happened. You were

11 there; there were strange circumstances that

12 occurred and we'll get into these here a little

13 bit later. And so they would focus on you

14 initially. And I would. I'd do the same thing. And

15 I'd concentrate my investigation on you. And

16 really, what detectives do, they aren't supposed

17 to make judgments. What they are supposed to do is

18 to focus on an area of the investigation and

19 collect and record information. That's what

20 detectives do. That's all we're supposed to do.

21 Then we're supposed to take this information to a

22 prosecutor or to other people that evaluate this

23 information. And then they make a determination as

24 to whether there will be charges filed.

25 So really, as detectives, even on the Boulder

0024

1 Police Department, that's what they were doing

2 initially, is gathering information. And, sure,

3 they gathered a whole lot of it. And, John, on

4 this area, there's going to be way more

5 information gathered.

6 But that's how I would look at it. It's

7 information. I'm not going conclude that you're

8 guilty because of this. And I'm not going to

9 conclude that an intruder is guilty. I'm going to

10 collect information and then let other people

11 evaluate that. What do you say to that?




25 LOU SMIT: Well, you know, it just seems

0016

1 what the public perception of it is: is that you

2 offered to do this in the past, to come in and to

3 talk. And then all of a sudden you don't talk. For

4 instance, like that CNN interview, for instance

5 where you said you'd be in --

[Sharon]

There is a difference between posting and discussing theories which are based on evidence and theories which are based purely on speculation. The fact is that Burke was in the house when JonBenet died and therefore had opportunity although perhaps not the means to stage a cover-up on his own.

I think my own theory is perfectly plausible but I never post it because like the FWDI theory, there is no evidence to connect my prime suspect to the crime and I wouldn't slander a potential innocent person in my efforts to convince others of my theory's merits. That would just be wrong. So many awful things have been said about Fleet White and based on no more than speculation and hearsay.

You cannot compare this to people posting theories about the Ramseys because we KNOW the Ramseys were in the house, we know they had means and opportunity and that for whatever reasons, they avoided police interviews for a long time and refused to take an FBI administered polygraph completely. No-one else did that and like it or lump it, it made the Ramseys look suspicious to a lot of people (police included ... Lou Smit included!).

The Ramseys were and are still suspects and it is therefore reasonable for people to discuss them. It might be ugly at times and it might be OTT and unreasonable at times. It is not reasonable to discuss people who have been cleared as suspects nor suggest that they should be executed.

I hear you, and I get what you are saying about not incriminating innocent people. But, it seems that other than the R. or intruders who we dont know, there is no one else that we can theorise due to lack of hard evidence.

I think where people are coming from in discussing other people of interest who were cleared, is that in many other cases, it often is an original person of interest who was cleared who turns out to be the killer. That happened many times with some mass murderers, they kept on being dismissed even if they were at some stage interviewed. eg Ted Bundy
jmo

[Jayelles]

I hear you, and I get what you are saying about not incriminating innocent people. But, it seems that other than the R. or intruders who we dont know, there is no one else that we can theorise due to lack of hard evidence.

I think where people are coming from in discussing other people of interest who were cleared, is that in many other cases, it often is an original person of interest who was cleared who turns out to be the killer. That happened many times with some mass murderers, they kept on being dismissed even if they were at some stage interviewed. eg Ted Bundy
jmo

I disagree. I think we can theorise about "the intruder" and build a profile stack of evidence against him/her. There's a whole bunch of evidential leads which can be discussed and developed without resorting to fabricating a case against someone.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Jayelles:

<snip>

There is no evidence which places Fleet White at the scene - no hard evidence which connects him to the crime at all. No DNA, no fibres, no footprints, no unexplainable fingerprints.

Personally I have never said that FW killed JBR. However, funny you should type an exact statement to the very questions I do have about FW.

Why did he move the glass, the suitcase, go back downstairs and touch the duct tape and lay it on the blanket. Ever hear of planting evidence? Guess he wouldn't have "unexplainable" fibers, footprints or fingerprints. I also found it very strange that on the day of a funeral of your "best friend's daughter" you would choose that time and place to discuss why your friends are not talking to the police. It was not the right place or time or have this type of discussion.

His rambling letters also strike me as odd as in "me thinks he doth protesteth too much".

There are many unanswered questions about FW as well as some others. Another irony here is that DNA cleared FW but not the Ramseys??? The same DNA that many RDI believe to be artifact? You can't have it both ways and I don't consider this to be Fleet bashing but genuine unanswered questions. JMO

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by Jayelles:

<snip>

There is no evidence which places Fleet White at the scene - no hard evidence which connects him to the crime at all. No DNA, no fibres, no footprints, no unexplainable fingerprints.

Personally I have never said that FW killed JBR. However, funny you should type an exact statement to the very questions I do have about FW.

Why did he move the glass, the suitcase, go back downstairs and touch the duct tape and lay it on the blanket. Ever hear of planting evidence? Guess he wouldn't have "unexplainable" fibers, footprints or fingerprints. I also found it very strange that on the day of a funeral of your "best friend's daughter" you would choose that time and place to discuss why your friends are not talking to the police. It was not the right place or time or have this type of discussion.

His rambling letters also strike me as odd as in "me thinks he doth protesteth too much".

There are many unanswered questions about FW as well as some others. Another irony here is that DNA cleared FW but not the Ramseys??? The same DNA that many RDI believe to be artifact? You can't have it both ways and I don't consider this to be Fleet bashing but genuine unanswered questions. JMO


Who said he moved those things?

ETA - I am one of those people who believe that the DNA might not be the killer's and I concur that this placed everyone back in the frame. What I object to are people saying that the Ramseys - who stratistically are the most likely killers - and who had means AND opportunity were cleared by the DNA and continue to bash Fleet White who was also cleared on DNA.

It works both ways that way too.

[andU]

There is NO evidence to suggest Fleet White abused Jonbenet. None whatsoever. That is sick speculation. Another ridiculous piece of "evidence" we keep hearing is that Fleet delivered Jonbenet back to the Ramseys along with a pair of her wet knickers because she had an accident - what was he supposed to do? Leave her in the wet knickers? There is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Fleet personally changed her knickers for her or that he abused her in the process of doing so. All we know is that he delivered her home with her dirty underwear in a bag.

What you call "evidence" is no more than sick speculation.

The same could be said for those who think John was abusing JB, IMO... any speculation about child abuse is sick, but if anyone has a desire to solve the crime, they must think like the sick person who commited it.

[andU]

Ok, so to make sure I understand correctly let me re-phrase:
Unless we agree that the R's did it and post sick thoughts about them, we are not to mention who we think may have done it. We cannot name who we think the intruder could be? Are the postings on this board that restricted? I was under the impression that we could without slandering state our thoughts and opinions, if we express that they are that. Otherwise we must have a link to where the info came from. Is this correct?
It is my personal opinion that Fleet White is not completely innocent. It is also my opinion that he was not the 'good neighbor' that he appeared to be. Now, I am stating my opinion, is that permitted?

[bullmoose]

Ok, so to make sure I understand correctly let me re-phrase:
Unless we agree that the R's did it and post sick thoughts about them, we are not to mention who we think may have done it. We cannot name who we think the intruder could be? Are the postings on this board that restricted? I was under the impression that we could without slandering state our thoughts and opinions, if we express that they are that. Otherwise we must have a link to where the info came from. Is this correct?
It is my personal opinion that Fleet White is not completely innocent. It is also my opinion that he was not the 'good neighbor' that he appeared to be. Now, I am stating my opinion, is that permitted?I think you finally get it, AndU: To utter any thoughts that do not incriminate the Ramseys in every imaginable evil way is wrong; furthermore, to think and[gasp!] mention the name of somebody else as a possible suspect other than the obviously wicked and depraved Ramseys is an unthinkable affront to any right-minded RDI! Just kidding, say whatever you want, I find Fleet's behavior more than a little bit odd, myself. JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

I think you finally get it, AndU: To utter any thoughts that do not incriminate the Ramseys in every imaginable evil way is wrong; furthermore, to think and[gasp!] mention the name of somebody else as a possible suspect other than the obviously wicked and depraved Ramseys is an unthinkable affront to any right-minded RDI! Just kidding, say whatever you want, I find Fleet's behavior more than a little bit odd, myself. JMHO:biggrin:

It helps knowing that I am not alone in my thoughts. Thanks!

[Miss Marple]

The posts of mine that Tricia deleted were not flaming anyone. I'll see if I can find some of them and I'll re-post them here.

I wasn't aware links to your theory had died. FWIW, the JBR wiki uses wiki "technology" nearly identical to that used at Wikipedia, but it has no formal connection to that site. There is an article on JBR at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey but most posters here would already know that basic information and the most expert posters will recognize various statements that are not completely accurate. So wikis aren't perfect, but anyone who's read the various books, newspaper articles and even legal documents related to this case knows those sources are not entirely error-free either.

Anyway, please email me at marple.miss@gmail.com and I will send you the pw to post your theory directly on the JBR Case Encyclopedia wiki. I can't speak for motivations at WS, but can assure you there was no behind-the-scenes plot to bury your theory at the wiki. Any theory is welcome, including some Jayelles would characterize as "speculative" but as you'll see from the layout, the idea is to even-handedly consider the evidence for AND against every theory poster. It's not my goal to libel anyone nor to suppress theories that may only attract a small minority of enthusiasts, but I would prefer that those who post theories cite the evidence on which they are based.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

Ok, so to make sure I understand correctly let me re-phrase:
Unless we agree that the R's did it and post sick thoughts about them, we are not to mention who we think may have done it. We cannot name who we think the intruder could be? Are the postings on this board that restricted? I was under the impression that we could without slandering state our thoughts and opinions, if we express that they are that. Otherwise we must have a link to where the info came from. Is this correct?
It is my personal opinion that Fleet White is not completely innocent. It is also my opinion that he was not the 'good neighbor' that he appeared to be. Now, I am stating my opinion, is that permitted?

I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't post. However, I am entitled to express my opinion too and my opinion is that it's just wrong to make up entire theories based on no more than speculation - e.g. the guy provided JOnbenet with a dry pair of knickers when she wet herself - therefore he might have murdered her.

[andU]

Will of course you are welcome to state your opinion; I hope I posted to that effect. Without repeating what I've already stated, I feel that as sure as I am sitting in front of this computer, this man is not without some guilt of what happened to Jonnie B.

[Jayelles]

Will of course you are welcome to state your opinion; I hope I posted to that effect. Without repeating what I've already stated, I feel that as sure as I am sitting in front of this computer, this man is not without some guilt of what happened to Jonnie B.

Well I think that JonBenet's killer hated her with a passion.

[Zoey]

Well I think that JonBenet's killer hated her with a passion.

I disagree. I don't think the killer hated JB at all. I think the hatred was for JR and little JB was used to vent this hatred. IMO.

[Sharon]

Ok, so to make sure I understand correctly let me re-phrase:
Unless we agree that the R's did it and post sick thoughts about them, we are not to mention who we think may have done it. We cannot name who we think the intruder could be? Are the postings on this board that restricted? I was under the impression that we could without slandering state our thoughts and opinions, if we express that they are that. Otherwise we must have a link to where the info came from. Is this correct?
It is my personal opinion that Fleet White is not completely innocent. It is also my opinion that he was not the 'good neighbor' that he appeared to be. Now, I am stating my opinion, is that permitted?

yes yes yes.....thats it!

Because the R. were there we can say absolutely anything about them even if we are speculating with no evidence, we can accuse the dad of molesting his daughter and its fair, we can say P. killed her daughter & then went into a mad frenzie of cover up, as you would, including strangling your only daughter, jabbing her & writing letters as part of the trickery. And without rhyme or reason you can even say the brother did it because he was there too. jmo.

[shill]

If we had proof that one of any named suspects other then the R's where in the house that night, this case would be solved and we wouldn't be discussing it.

But there is evidence, motive, and behavior that we can link them with to the crime. And that is what is being done, just as the RDI does.
The only difference is the R's are known to be in the house that night, which is not unusual and perfectly normal.

[Athena]

Well I think that JonBenet's killer hated her with a passion.

I believe the perp hated John and JBR was only a symbol of the perp's anger/hatred and I also believe the release of the Access Graphics 1B sales attainment was the catalyst. JMO

[Jayelles]

I believe the perp hated John and JBR was only a symbol of the perp's anger/hatred and I also believe the release of the Access Graphics 1B sales attainment was the catalyst. JMO

I'd be interested to hear what a psychologist would say about that. IMO, someone with a hatred for John would have targeted John by discrediting him in some way (e.g. planting child porn on John's computer and then making sure he got caught).

I don't think someone targeting John would have staged the crime in such a way as to point AWAY from the parents.

I think it takes a special kind of sickness to torture and kill a beautiful child and it just doesn't make sense to me that someone incensed over business success would have had the psychopathic make-up to do that.

[Athena]

I'd be interested to hear what a psychologist would say about that. IMO, someone with a hatred for John would have targeted John by discrediting him in some way (e.g. planting child porn on John's computer and then making sure he got caught).

I don't think someone targeting John would have staged the crime in such a way as to point AWAY from the parents.

I think it takes a special kind of sickness to torture and kill a beautiful child and it just doesn't make sense to me that someone incensed over business success would have had the psychopathic make-up to do that.

When I read that ransom note for the very first time I just got feeling that this person had probably gone through life feeling inferior and at one point believed that JR had shamed him or slighted him and he just wanted to punish JR; to feel in control and have a sense of power that he's never had before. I too would be curious to have a Psychologist evaluate the ransom note from that viewpoint. Of course, I can be totally off-point but that is the first impression I got when reading the note.

I posted this from an article I read a long while back and if I find the link I will post it. Did not realize I did not copy the link when I saved this excerpt. I do believe though I had posted one somewhere on this board or at CTV but I'll look for it.

"One of the signature aspects of sadism is anger, but this should be at least as evident as sexual gratification. The intention is to hurt, degrade, defile, or destroy the victim. Sexuality and power are accompanied by anger in the service of sexual gratification. 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."

[shill]

I think it takes a special kind of sickness to torture and kill a beautiful child and it just doesn't make sense to me that someone incensed over business success would have had the psychopathic make-up to do that.

Just look at the Middle East if you want to see examples of sadistic revenge.

American culture may have a tuff time excepting that kind of vengeful behavior as possible, but in other cultures it is encouraged.

Look how different Japan is historically. People would kill themselves if they failed or dishonored their families. Americans would have just said they're sorry, but no, Japanese kill themselves. Go figure?

[Miss Marple]

"One of the signature aspects of sadism is anger, but this should be at least as evident as sexual gratification. The intention is to hurt, degrade, defile, or destroy the victim. Sexuality and power are accompanied by anger in the service of sexual gratification. 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."

The link is here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect13.htm
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

I'd be interested to hear what a psychologist would say about that. IMO, someone with a hatred for John would have targeted John by discrediting him in some way (e.g. planting child porn on John's computer and then making sure he got caught).

I don't think someone targeting John would have staged the crime in such a way as to point AWAY from the parents.

I think it takes a special kind of sickness to torture and kill a beautiful child and it just doesn't make sense to me that someone incensed over business success would have had the psychopathic make-up to do that.

Jayelles, hopefully Im not splitting hairs here, but I dont think you need to actually hate a child to do sick things & kill her if you are actually wired that way. ie very sick monster/ phycopath.

I think the number 1 way to hurt a person the most is by hurting their children. It is conceivable that a perp. with a hatred or jelousy of JR could exact the greatest revenge by taking away his daughter. It may well be that this perp. was looking for a victim to act out his fantasies & certain events just led him to the R. home.

I often have a student at the back of my mind when I try to imagine the type of person who did this. jmo

[Miss Marple]

I don't think someone targeting John would have staged the crime in such a way as to point AWAY from the parents.

I think it takes a special kind of sickness to torture and kill a beautiful child and it just doesn't make sense to me that someone incensed over business success would have had the psychopathic make-up to do that.

But as you well know, there are numerous elements of this crime ranging from the pad and pen used to craft the RN, the use of PATSY's paintbrush handle in the garrote, "insider" references within the note itself and even leaving the body in the house (along with an "obviously fake" RN!) that many have seized on as evidence the parents DID do this. So whether intentional or not, IF an intruder did this, it would appear that the perp succeeded in casting some suspicions on the parents that otherwise would have been absent. Anti-K's Attempt to Frame Theory is the best single synthesis of evidence that the killer may have been very decidedly been trying to point to the parents:
http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/the-attemtpt-to-frame-theory-vt212-sanctuary2.html

The business world is huge. Rather than starting with someone jealous over business success and calculating the odds they are psychopathic, start from the other direction. If in the presumably hundreds or thousands of people John had gotten to know in the business world as AG grew, there was a lone psychopath, might John's business success been a sufficient trigger to act out? It might have been the "last straw" for an individual seething with a growing anger towards John for years due to some actual or perceived slight, and hitting the $1 billion mark just led this person to conclude that John deserved his comeuppance. The nearly simultaneous news of JBR's recent contest success in Boulder (or her appearance in the parade) might have planted the idea of how to get to John in a way that would literally never be forgotten. In contrast, tactics such as arson or any sort of property damage is precisely the sort of thing John would have had insurance against and while inconvenient, would have been an event that eventually faded into memory. Do you think that to his dying day John Ramsey will ever forget JBR's killing? Imagining such an individual strikes me at least as likely as the Ramseys out of the blue exhibiting behavior you are characterizing as psychopathic.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[shill]

The ransom note IMO seems entirely targeted at John with JB's name being mentioned nowhere. It seems to claim John can control the damage if he surrenders to the writers will.
It most definitely appears to be a note of revenge.

[Sharon]

But as you well know, there are numerous elements of this crime ranging from the pad and pen used to craft the RN, the use of PATSY's paintbrush handle in the garrote, "insider" references within the note itself and even leaving the body in the house (along with an "obviously fake" RN!) that many have seized on as evidence the parents DID do this. So whether intentional or not, IF an intruder did this, it would appear that the perp succeeded in casting some suspicions on the parents that otherwise would have been absent. Anti-K's Attempt to Frame Theory is the best single synthesis of evidence that the killer may have been very decidedly been trying to point to the parents:
http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/the-attemtpt-to-frame-theory-vt212-sanctuary2.html

The business world is huge. Rather than starting with someone jealous over business success and calculating the odds they are psychopathic, start from the other direction. If in the presumably hundreds or thousands of people John had gotten to know in the business world as AG grew, there was a lone psychopath, might John's business success been a sufficient trigger to act out? It might have been the "last straw" for an individual seething with a growing anger towards John for years due to some actual or perceived slight, and hitting the $1 billion mark just led this person to conclude that John deserved his comeuppance. The nearly simultaneous news of JBR's recent contest success in Boulder (or her appearance in the parade) might have planted the idea of how to get to John in a way that would literally never be forgotten. In contrast, tactics such as arson or any sort of property damage is precisely the sort of thing John would have had insurance against and while inconvenient, would have been an event that eventually faded into memory. Do you think that to his dying day John Ramsey will ever forget JBR's killing? Imagining such an individual strikes me at least as likely as the Ramseys out of the blue exhibiting behavior you are characterizing as psychopathic.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Wow, that`s exactly how I would have said it if I could write better.
Alternatively, this psychopath may have targeted JBR from the get go of first coming into contact with her. It could have happened that he spotted her, found out her name, researched the family, and then planned to act out his fantasy. He may have developed a hate for JR to justify to himself what he was going to do, or it may have just been part of the fantasy that it was him against a big bad enemy.

The hate as expressed in the rn seems pretty general as opposed to specific. It has been theorised that this perp may have had a strong overbearing father figure & was acting out his anger at authority on JR (as part of his fantasy??).

But, as weak as the evidence is for an IDI, I cant see how the parents could have been part of any of it. And, to further confuse everything, I am aware that there is unanswered questions about the R. that shed a bad light on them.

To me the evidence (we know of) against them doing it is greater than the evidence that they did do it. For example, how is it that in the morning PR had a clean face, no tears, no signs of being up all night working at tricks & props involving her own dead daughter. Not to mention that parents dont just murder their daughter as if its the most natural thing in the world to do. And in the ten years after, no confession, no violence, no mental illness??? Wouldnt monsters such as the R. commit other crimes in their life, or was this the only one?

jmo

[Sharon]

Hey Sharon, I am RDI, but I don't bash a person for being IDI..I agree with you on one thing though: the RDI who accuse Burke of killing Jonbenet are completely..uhh..I'll just say they need to be realistic! That boy was only 9 years old, just too young to have committed such crime and covered up so well..No way..He didn't do it!

Have you read the section here on children who kill. I think a 9 year old (who is pure evil) is capible of committing great attrocities, but Bourke does not fit the profile, thankfully not many do. So, its not just his age but the fact that he was not pychcotic. Normal 9 year olds dont bash their sister on the head with the forse used in this blow. If we had evidence that he was a bully at school, liked to torture animals etc. we might conclude that he was involved.
jmo

[Jayelles]

Why would someone jealous of John's business success stage the crime to make it all point towards a foreign faction of kidnappers? If that person wanted to ruin John wouldn't they stage it to make it look like John did it?

The killer had no way of knowing how the Ramseys would react to the death of their daughter. The Ramseys were vilified for their perceived failure to co-operate with LE but it could have gone completely the opposite way. The Ramseys might have gone out of their way to co-operate, been cleared and had they used their charm and social status to campaign for murdered children - John might well have risen to have a fantastically successful media or political career and what would the killer have achieved then?

The killer had no way of knowing that the Ramseys would become the most hated couple in America - not whilst the killer had endeavoured to point the crime away from the Ramseys.

No, I think the target was JonBenet. I think the killer had an unusual hatred or perhaps jealousy for her. I think the staging was done to point away from the family and their close associates.

I think if the killer was jealous of John then John's business or reputation would have been targeted. The staging would have been done to make John look like the demon - not like the victim. If anything, I think this had more to do with Patsy than John. I think the killer hated JonBenet because she was Patsy's life.

[Sharon]

Hey Sharon, I know that there are young killers, but in this case..Looking at the details and circumstances..there is no way a 9 year old could be responsible for this murder..The sexual assault--I don't think a 9 year old would think of raping his sister..The massive blows to her head--I don't think a 9 year old as small as Burke could cause such damage..The rope and garote--a child would not think to do that..The ransom note--Just NO way a 9 year old could write such note..See when young kids kill, they leave all the evidence behind or they confess to the crime..Kids are not smart enough to
outsmart investigators..I just can not believe a 9 year old could be responsible for this child's murder..

The theory involving Burke is that he `only` hit her over the head, and the parents did the rest as a coverup for him. I dont think anyone has ever thought he did more than that. It gives some RDI theorists a motive that might account for why both parents might be in the cover up together. ie most people see it as far fetched to imagine one parent covering up for the other if one of them was the killer, but they might both cover up for their son.

But, yes, I agree Burke seems pretty innocent from where Im standing. jmo

[Sharon]

Why would someone jealous of John's business success stage the crime to make it all point towards a foreign faction of kidnappers? If that person wanted to ruin John wouldn't they stage it to make it look like John did it?

The killer had no way of knowing how the Ramseys would react to the death of their daughter. The Ramseys were vilified for their perceived failure to co-operate with LE but it could have gone completely the opposite way. The Ramseys might have gone out of their way to co-operate, been cleared and had they used their charm and social status to campaign for murdered children - John might well have risen to have a fantastically successful media or political career and what would the killer have achieved then?

The killer had no way of knowing that the Ramseys would become the most hated couple in America - not whilst the killer had endeavoured to point the crime away from the Ramseys.

No, I think the target was JonBenet. I think the killer had an unusual hatred or perhaps jealousy for her. I think the staging was done to point away from the family and their close associates.

I think if the killer was jealous of John then John's business or reputation would have been targeted. The staging would have been done to make John look like the demon - not like the victim. If anything, I think this had more to do with Patsy than John. I think the killer hated JonBenet because she was Patsy's life.

Ok, what about this as a theory......the punishment was that they killed his daughter......not that he was given a bad pr experience (that was probably a bonus for the perp). Nothing could ever make up for the loss of JBR, even if he made a billion dollars & became president of America.

Like, most people I know would never recover from loosing a child. It almost goes without saying. jmo

[Jayelles]

Ok, what about this as a theory......the punishment was that they killed his daughter......not that he was given a bad pr experience (that was probably a bonus for the perp). Nothing could ever make up for the loss of JBR, even if he made a billion dollars & became president of America.

Like, most people I know would never recover from loosing a child. It almost goes without saying. jmo


Why not his son and heir? JonBenet was Patsy's "doll baby". She was Patsy's "mega JonBenet thing". John Ramsey wasn't part of that. John's business was his baby. If the killer wanted to hurt John by killing his daughter, why hide her body away in a remote cellar? Why not "display" her in a prominent position for maximum shock and impact? The staging of the crime was an apology in some sense - telling the Ramseys to be rested, only asking for £50,000 (the Ramseys might spend that on a car!)

Let's face it, if the killer wanted to destory John by killing Jonbenet then he/she has failed miserably. John has his health, he is "looking good", he's still flying around in his private plane, he ran for a government office and had a reasonable following, he appears on tv shows, he has friends, he has a nice house in Michigan - he's out there, he's alive and he's getting on with his life. If the killer had targeted John Ramsey's reputation - portrayed him as a dishonest person or as a sexual deviant, it would have harmed him in a much more damaging way. Had the killer spent his/her time in the Ramsey home planting child pornography and then making sure John got caught, his career would have been over instantly. He might have gone to jail where as a "nonce", he would have suffered the maximum wrath of the other prisoners. His family would have borne the stigma and would have been unable to hold their heads high.

If you want to destroy a man, you target his reputation or his business. Fortunately, there are few people capable of killing a child in such a brutal way but how likely it is that they are driven by jealousy for the child's father's business success?

[Sharon]

Also, how do we know that it was a pay back. It could have just been part of the perps fantasy to bring some big guy down. The rn does have strong references to movies and seems hell bent on a power rush. The foreign faction was probably part of this overall fantasy in the mind of the perp. Maybe the writer was a young guy? Maybe he was bipolar, who knows?? jmo

[bullmoose]

Why would someone jealous of John's business success stage the crime to make it all point towards a foreign faction of kidnappers? If that person wanted to ruin John wouldn't they stage it to make it look like John did it?

The killer had no way of knowing how the Ramseys would react to the death of their daughter. The Ramseys were vilified for their perceived failure to co-operate with LE but it could have gone completely the opposite way. The Ramseys might have gone out of their way to co-operate, been cleared and had they used their charm and social status to campaign for murdered children - John might well have risen to have a fantastically successful media or political career and what would the killer have achieved then?

The killer had no way of knowing that the Ramseys would become the most hated couple in America - not whilst the killer had endeavoured to point the crime away from the Ramseys.

No, I think the target was JonBenet. I think the killer had an unusual hatred or perhaps jealousy for her. I think the staging was done to point away from the family and their close associates.

I think if the killer was jealous of John then John's business or reputation would have been targeted. The staging would have been done to make John look like the demon - not like the victim. If anything, I think this had more to do with Patsy than John. I think the killer hated JonBenet because she was Patsy's life.I strongly disagree, Jayelles, with your viewpoint. IMO, precisely the way the ransom note was written indicated to me that the killer had a very good idea of the ****storm of suspician that would be unleashed upon the Ramseys; nobody believed that note was for real from the beginning. My belief in this is the knowledge that theCaped Crusaders ofColorado[BPD] immediately illegally questioned Burke at Fleet White's house, even before Jonbenet was found; that note was designed to point a finger of suspician at the Ramseys, not to throw suspician elsewhere. The vilification of the Ramseys by the tabloids was in large part caused by the unethical connections that the Twister and his buddies at the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD] exploited when the Ramseys exercised their legal rights when they saw the lynch mob forming. The BPD told the mayor, Durgin, that the Ramseys were guilty of murdering Jonbenet while the Ramseys were burying their daughter, the entire focus of that bunch of Keystone Kops in demanding interviews on BPD terms was in sweating out confessions. I'm not real sure how much of the US legal system you understand the nuances of, but a citizen does not have to submit to police questioning if not under arrest. If the gutsy cops of Boulder had arrested them, they then would have the right to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present. The cops did not want to arrest them, the cops had a great many advantages over them unless they arrested them. If they could have gotten the Ramseys to submit to questioning on the cops terms, it would have been a cops dream. Have I told you that in my own experience with cops in a situation dealing with crime, that the cops effortlessly lie and perjure themselves with joyous abandon? Was my questioning taped, of course, but hey, no problem, the cops can and do edit and redub evidence tapes. I know from personal experience. I think the killer knew exactly how the police would react, both to the crime and careful staging, and how they would use their buddies at such fine publications as the Globe and Enquirer to get the truth out[as perceived by the BPD] rather than using the lawful legal system.IMO

[shill]

If you want to destroy a man, you target his reputation or his business. That's exactly what happened. His reputation and his position in his business was destroyed.
Fortunately, there are few people capable of killing a child in such a brutal way but how likely it is that they are driven by jealousy for the child's father's business success?
Jealousy is not the motive. Not getting the respect they think they deserve is the motive, the same motive that drives the school shooting rampages.

[andU]

Ok, what about this as a theory......the punishment was that they killed his daughter......not that he was given a bad pr experience (that was probably a bonus for the perp). Nothing could ever make up for the loss of JBR, even if he made a billion dollars & became president of America.

Like, most people I know would never recover from loosing a child. It almost goes without saying. jmo

I can speak of losing a child. Mine was an infant who passed due to SIDS. She would now be 43 yrs old. To me she is still my baby and I still yearn for her ... although hers was not a violent death, nor was she murdered. There was very little known about SIDS in 1965, in fact it was then being called sudden infant death syndrome, not the abbrievated version. A mother does not 'get over' losing a baby. I don't dwell on it, I know that she is in a far better place than this world; but, I think of her and wonder what she would be like as an adult; what she would have studied in college.....

[Miss Marple]

Why not his son and heir? JonBenet was Patsy's "doll baby". She was Patsy's "mega JonBenet thing". John Ramsey wasn't part of that. John's business was his baby. If the killer wanted to hurt John by killing his daughter, why hide her body away in a remote cellar? Why not "display" her in a prominent position for maximum shock and impact? The staging of the crime was an apology in some sense - telling the Ramseys to be rested, only asking for £50,000 (the Ramseys might spend that on a car!)

Let's face it, if the killer wanted to destory John by killing Jonbenet then he/she has failed miserably.

All other things equal, Burke might have been a more logical choice to "get" at John, but a) JBR, not Burke, was the family "celebrity" in the sense of having been recently in print news for certain and I'm guessing there may well have been local TV coverage of the Boulder pageant she'd recently won as well; and b) at a symbolic level, it is more of an assault on a man's "manliness" if you demonstrate him to be incapable of protecting his own "women", most particularly a vulnerable young daughter who (perhaps unlike Patsy) wouldn't be expected to be even be remotely capable of fending for herself etc.

I'm not sure the goal was necessarily to "ruin" John and concur that if that were the goal, John's resilience precluded that. However, unless you have information to the contrary, my strong impression is that this tragedy wounded John to his soul and he would gladly trade some of his current creature comforts to get his daughter back. In that sense, the killer had a lifelong impact that will endure no matter what sort of financial success John might endure (BTW, he failed in his political efforts and it seems a stretch to believe this had no connection with how some of the public has vilified him and/or Patsy for how they behaved following the killing; but in pointing this out I am in no way even remotely claiming the killer anticipated John's political aspirations or sought to do these in; I'm just caveating the generally rosy picture you painted of John's post-1996 life.).

If the killer were so focused on JBR, then what's YOUR explanation for all the pretty pointed and negative references to John in the RN? It sure doesn't sound as if John was a complete stranger to the note writer. Indeed, it is ONLY from the contents of the note--not the nature of the killing etc.--that leads me to infer that revenge/jealousy towards John may have been a non-trivial motive. As one earlier poster said, it is conceivable that the killer first "took note" of JBR, but then upon further research learned enough about John to rationalize the killing his his/her own mind.

Absent a confession, I'm not sure the available evidence alone can differentiate between these 2 alternative theories of how the RN came to center so much on John. But it seems to me that any credible theory of the case would have to account for the repeated instances of mocking or disrespectful verbiage directed John's way. Moreover, it is precisely the presence of such language that makes it unlikely either of the parents crafted this note. It really doesn't fit at all with the "small foreign faction" premise of the note at all. I think there's little doubt that elements of that note were "staged", but given ALL the evidence--the nature of the killing, the ferocity of the head blow, the unequivocal sexual component of the assault--it makes more sense to imagine a killer who entered the house with the intention of kidnapping JBR and/or killing JBR (either of which would have demonstrated this individual's power over John, but both of which would be consistent with an RN conceived and crafted in advance of the killing) and who perhaps subsequently discovered themselves unable to desist from acting out some sexual fantasy, culminating in an angry head blow and hiding the body out of shame etc. This "storyline" seems a better fit to what we know about the evidence (and about human nature) than any RDI theory that would otherwise compel us to believe that "out-of-the-blue" the Ramseys engaged in very bizarre out-of-character behavior for which we have no precedent in their personal histories either before or after the event.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

But it seems to me that any credible theory of the case would have to account for the repeated instances of mocking or disrespectful verbiage directed John's way.
Imo the note toward the end sounds almost like an angry wife insulting her husband ...
Moreover, it is precisely the presence of such language that makes it unlikely either of the parents crafted this note.
Why is it unlikely? Who knows what grudge Patsy had against her husband deep inside, and it could have spilled into the note, without her becoming aware of it.
It really doesn't fit at all with the "small foreign faction" premise of the note at all.
And that small foreign faction stuff is concocted nonsene anyway, and the Ramseys' suspicious non-reaction to the deadline given in the note speaks volumes in that respect.

[Miss Marple]

Imo the note toward the end sounds almost like an angry wife insulting her husband ...
The forensic evidence doesn't support an accidental head-blow scenario. Elvislives has explained far more expertly than I ever could. This reduces RDI theories to either accidental strangulation (e.g., Wecht's theory as it relates to John; BlueCrab's theory as it relates to Burke or invited teen) or deliberate murder. Deliberate murder "out-of-the-blue" with no previous history of pathology strikes me as exceedingly remote. Accidental strangulation is more probable than deliberate murder, though again, there is no evidence of John's having molested his other (also very attractive) daughters. But if he were responsible, this presumably would indeed provide ample grounds for anger and hostility. My problem with the scenario is this: Patsy was no meek, shrinking violet with dismal marital prospects were John to go to prison. What would motivate her to go along with assisting him in covering up, ESPECIALLY in a fashion most likely to point a finger back at her (her pad, her handwriting, her paintbrush)? How could the prospect of possibly joining John in prison for obstruction of justice (leaving her lone remaining child parentless) be appealing especially if she were uncertain about her own prospects for surviving cancer? If you could cite JUST ONE known case in history where a wife has assisted her husband in covering up the sexual abuse AND KILLING of her own daughter, please do so. Sure, there have been ample instances in which women with far weaker personalities and marital prospects than Patsy have essentially "looked the other way" as their husbands abused their daughters. I don't picture Patsy as the type who would "suffer in silence" ESPECIALLY if her husband's dalliance (extremely hurtful and outrageous in its own right) had led to the death of the very child in which she invested much of her hopes and dreams etc. So given a choice between these exceedingly remote (admittedly not IMPOSSIBLE) scenarios and a much more straightforward IDI scenario, the KISS principle/Occam's razor suggests IDI.


Why is it unlikely? Who knows what grudge Patsy had against her husband deep inside, and it could have spilled into the note, without her becoming aware of it. I infer you are relatively young and probably unmarried. I suggest you talk with 10 married women to get a more realistic perspective about how real married women--not those you imagine in your head--would react to the scenario I just described. Can they imagine themselves or even a single one of their friends facilitating in a cover-up, especially one that entailed "staging" a brutal murder and dumping the body in a dark basement room?


And that small foreign faction stuff is concocted nonsene anyway, and the Ramseys' suspicious non-reaction to the deadline given in the note speaks volumes in that respect.
This is one of the dangers of 20:20 hindsight. It was by no means CERTAIN what "tomorrow" meant in the RN. Moreover, by all accounts, both Ramseys were in a state of shock and despair that morning. Did the POLICE make any comment about the missed deadline? Is THAT suspicious? It's clear that no one took the RN completely at face value. The Ramseys did what most RN victims do in the face of admonitions not to alert LE: they called LE anyway. When LE arrived and read the actual note, their reaction wasn't "OMG, this note says they are monitoring the house! We need to get all these people out of here immediately, hide all the police vehicles and make our presence as invisible as possible." To all appearances, the RN was treated like any other in terms of how it was actually handled (yes, there are some accounts of SOME LE thinking the note seemed odd, but until Linda Arndt had her flash of insight after the body was found that perhaps John was involved, there's no indication she thought she was dealing with anything BUT an attempt to collect a ransom). If LE believed otherwise, why squander resources tapping the phone? Why give JR elaborate instructions for how to handle the incoming call?

In short, it's trivially easy to start with a theory and then "see" how all the evidence somehow fits the theory (it's especially easy when you can attribute to foresight and shrewd planning selected elements that "fit" your theory [e.g., some RDI theorists apparently believe that the Ramseys left behind evidence such as the remaining cord and duct tape fully confident that Pam would later be permitted to enter the house and take all that damning evidence away! If that's how this case actually went down, I'd have to say the Ramseys were STUNNING prescient and self-confident that LE would allow this in the first place or wouldn't have already found the inculpatory evidence before she arrived] and "explain away" puzzling lapses of judgment such as Patsy's overtly letting her anger towards John seep out in a note that was INTENDED to point AWAY from the parents!).

But to solve the case, good sleuths start with the evidence and then select theories based on how well they fit that evidence. I continue to believe the weight of the evidence in this particular case leans in the IDI direction. If you don't believe me, read a few Sherlock Holmes stories.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Louisadelmar]

[...]

And that small foreign faction stuff is concocted nonsene anyway, and the Ramseys' suspicious non-reaction to the deadline given in the note speaks volumes in that respect.

Why is just the Ramsey's non-reaction suspicious?

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0912rams1.shtml
[…]
Arndt, in more than four hours of taped interviews at her lawyer's Denver office, told ABC she thought it strange that no one in the Ramsey home commented at all when the deadline for a promised call from alleged kidnappers passed without the phone ringing.
"Ten o'clock comes and goes, and there's no acknowledgment within the house from anyone that the deadline imposed by the author of the ransom note has come and gone," Arndt told ABC.
Also in the Ramseys' home that morning after Christmas, giving comfort to JonBenet's parents, were their friends Fleet and Priscilla White, John and Barbara Fernie, all of Boulder, plus their minister, the Rev. Rol Hoverstock.
"Nobody said it was 10 o'clock and the kidnappers haven't called?" the ABC interviewer asked Arndt.
"Nobody said that."
"Was that something you took note of?" she is asked in the interview.
"Absolutely."
[…]

[nuisanceposter]

Linda Arndt, pshhht. She's not credible, IMO. She told BPD that she didn't remember a thing about the Ramsey case and they should just refer to her notes...now magically she remembers again to write a book?

ST, hb, page 240

Arndt told Commander Beckner that she "couldn't remember anything about December 26th. The 26th and the next several months are a total loss."

When I asked her directly, she repeated her memory loss: "You know, I don't remember a lot of stuff from last year. Whatever is in my reports, just go with that."

[Louisadelmar]

Linda Arndt, pshhht. She's not credible, IMO. She told BPD that she didn't remember a thing about the Ramsey case and they should just refer to her notes...now magically she remembers again to write a book?

ST, hb, page 240

Arndt told Commander Beckner that she "couldn't remember anything about December 26th. The 26th and the next several months are a total loss."

When I asked her directly, she repeated her memory loss: "You know, I don't remember a lot of stuff from last year. Whatever is in my reports, just go with that."

In that case Rashomon's claim that there was a suspicious non-reaction from the Ramseys is moot.

[andU]

Without sounding like I'm 'crossing over', I believe that the case started out all wrong.
I agree that friends should not have been called.
I agree that BPD should have shown up in unmarked cars and interviewed the parents separately; dispersing anyone who was not family from the house (except perhaps the minister).
I agree that JB's room should have been taped off from the moment BPD arrived
I agree that once the body was found, the entire house should have been taped off as a crime scene
Thoughts/ IMO
I think John had planned to take his family to Atlanta because he felt they would be safe their and he also planned to meet with his financial person there to get the money demanded.
When this first happened I felt deeply that Patsy had killed JB out of rage (although my mind's eye could not really fathom such anger), but that was before the info had been released about her having been molested. I cannot believe that a parent would kill their own child and stage such a gross scene.... I just can't swallow that.
I really, deeply believe that the person yet living is still residing in Boulder and may even still maintain contact with John. I believe this is a person that had staged a friendship to John just to find out how he/she could implement the most damage to him and his family. It may be FW (please notice I said may be and, of course it may not be....
What little we know seems to keep us in circles and has us pitted against each other in our beliefs. Personally, it does not matter to me who did it, I have no problem with being wrong in my belief, I pray that this person is caught in my lifetime.

[Jayelles]

I strongly disagree, Jayelles, with your viewpoint. IMO, precisely the way the ransom note was written indicated to me that the killer had a very good idea of the ****storm of suspician that would be unleashed upon the Ramseys; nobody believed that note was for real from the beginning. My belief in this is the knowledge that theCaped Crusaders ofColorado[BPD] immediately illegally questioned Burke at Fleet White's house, even before Jonbenet was found; that note was designed to point a finger of suspician at the Ramseys, not to throw suspician elsewhere. The vilification of the Ramseys by the tabloids was in large part caused by the unethical connections that the Twister and his buddies at the Rocky Mountain Murder Mystery Club[BPD] exploited when the Ramseys exercised their legal rights when they saw the lynch mob forming. The BPD told the mayor, Durgin, that the Ramseys were guilty of murdering Jonbenet while the Ramseys were burying their daughter, the entire focus of that bunch of Keystone Kops in demanding interviews on BPD terms was in sweating out confessions. I'm not real sure how much of the US legal system you understand the nuances of, but a citizen does not have to submit to police questioning if not under arrest. If the gutsy cops of Boulder had arrested them, they then would have the right to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present. The cops did not want to arrest them, the cops had a great many advantages over them unless they arrested them. If they could have gotten the Ramseys to submit to questioning on the cops terms, it would have been a cops dream. Have I told you that in my own experience with cops in a situation dealing with crime, that the cops effortlessly lie and perjure themselves with joyous abandon? Was my questioning taped, of course, but hey, no problem, the cops can and do edit and redub evidence tapes. I know from personal experience. I think the killer knew exactly how the police would react, both to the crime and careful staging, and how they would use their buddies at such fine publications as the Globe and Enquirer to get the truth out[as perceived by the BPD] rather than using the lawful legal system.IMO

So why remove the duct tape and cord from the house? Surely if the killer was trying to frame the Ramseys he/she would have planted some evidence? Why not obtain DNA from a Ramsey toothbrush and plant that?

[andU]

Bullmoose, I agree with much that you post. I believe the person knew someone in the PD or had experience themselves and realized how the staged scene would be percieved. This person is devious, not stupid at all. But, someone with an overflow of hate for John and/or his family.

[Jayelles]

That's exactly what happened. His reputation and his position in his business was destroyed.
Jealousy is not the motive. Not getting the respect they think they deserve is the motive, the same motive that drives the school shooting rampages.


But as I suggested above, the killer had no way of knowing how John Ramsey would react. It could just as easily have swung the opposite way and he might have become a much admired, high profile child victim advocate.

[Miss Marple]

But as I suggested above, the killer had no way of knowing how John Ramsey would react. It could just as easily have swung the opposite way and he might have become a much admired, high profile child victim advocate.

Seriously, if you gave John Walsh the choice between remaining the "much admired, high profile child victim advocate" he is, or foregoing all of that but having his son Adam alive, do you think he'd hesitate even a nanosecond in figuring out which he preferred? Do you think John Ramsey is SO different from John Walsh that he'd make a different choice? And even if YOU might think John Ramsey crass enough to sacrifice a daughter for admiration and a high profile, do you really think a perp would have anticipated this?

Assuming an intruder had the motivation being postulated by several of us here, the intent of this crime was to wound John for the rest of his days on earth. If that indeed was the intent, I believe the perp was successful, perhaps even more successful than s/he could have dared hope. In contrast, destroying John's personal or business property or even making him lose his job were things from which he likely would eventually recover and might largely have forgotten a decade or two later. Likewise, killing John might have given the perp some immediate gratification, but not the satisfaction of seeing John suffer for many decades.

All that's required for "success" is the killing of JBR. Successfully framing the parents would have been icing on the cake, but might have been something that occurred to the perp "on the spot" and not been well-planned or executed. I agree that someone with CLEAR INTENT to frame the parents might well have taken steps such as leaving behind cord and tape. But given the numbers who persist in believing RDI, it's clear that such framing--if intentional--in fact did succeed with some non-trivial share of the public.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

Seriously, if you gave John Walsh the choice between remaining the "much admired, high profile child victim advocate" he is, or foregoing all of that but having his son Adam alive, do you think he'd hesitate even a nanosecond in figuring out which he preferred? Do you think John Ramsey is SO different from John Walsh that he'd make a different choice? And even if YOU might think John Ramsey crass enough to sacrifice a daughter for admiration and a high profile, do you really think a perp would have anticipated this?

Good Grief. Who said anything about choice? Who said anything about sacrifice? That's a VERY warped interpretation of what I posted.

Let's put it another way - if John walsh had the choice between being a much admired, high profile child advocate and a person vilified for not co-operating with his own child's murder investigation - which do you think he;d prefer?

Assuming an intruder had the motivation being postulated by several of us here, the intent of this crime was to wound John for the rest of his days on earth. If that indeed was the intent, I believe the perp was successful, perhaps even more successful than s/he could have dared hope. In contrast, destroying John's personal or business property or even making him lose his job were things from which he likely would eventually recover and might largely have forgotten a decade or two later. Likewise, killing John might have given the perp some immediate gratification, but not the satisfaction of seeing John suffer for many decades.

All that's required for "success" is the killing of JBR. Successfully framing the parents would have been icing on the cake, but might have been something that occurred to the perp "on the spot" and not been well-planned or executed. I agree that someone with CLEAR INTENT to frame the parents might well have taken steps such as leaving behind cord and tape. But given the numbers who persist in believing RDI, it's clear that such framing--if intentional--in fact did succeed with some non-trivial share of the public.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple[/QUOTE]


Deary me.

[shill]

Linda Arndt, pshhht. She's not credible, IMO.


So is Steve Thomas the only credible person you'll listen to?

Too bad he wasn't an eyewitness like all the people you don't find credible.

[Miss Marple]

[B]Good Grief. Who said anything about choice? Who said anything about sacrifice? That's a VERY warped interpretation of what I posted.
Here's what you did post:
"But as I suggested above, the killer had no way of knowing how John Ramsey would react. It could just as easily have swung the opposite way and he might have become a much admired, high profile child victim advocate."

The implication of your quote above is that IF John had turned into admired high profile child victim advocate, the perp would have failed in his/her goal of "getting" John. I was merely pointing out no matter how things turned out for John--hero or goat--the perp likely still would conclude "mission accomplished." And to convince readers of the plausibility of my argument, I postulated a hypothetical choice, starting with John Walsh (since I presume virtually everyone here, RDI and IDI alike, might agree on how JW would choose) and then moving over to JR, for whom there might well be more division of opinion. I was in no way implying that you had raised the prospect of such a choice.

Let's put it another way - if John walsh had the choice between being a much admired, high profile child advocate and a person vilified for not co-operating with his own child's murder investigation - which do you think he;d prefer?
For better or for worse, JR followed the advice of his lawyers hook, line and sinker. Bynum observed his friend SO distraught that he was incapable of processing details (I'm 90% certain I read that somewhere else on this forum today), yet another tidbit of evidence that suggests to me that John was not the cold and calculating individual many would like to paint him to be. Bynum asked John for permission to handle the legal aspects and John gratefully agreed to this offer from a good friend.

Sadly, LE and prosecutorial misconduct are very far from rare events in the U.S. legal system. The lesson a really smart lawyer like Scooter Libby just learned is that the smartest strategy is to just shut up and say nothing. Trying to cooperate with investigators who have an agenda is too often a losing battle. So John's actual choice may not have been the one you posed but instead a choice between cooperating and ending up in jail vs. "stonewalling" and being vilified in the process. Justice for JBR certainly would not have been served by the former if indeed an IDI; so he was "stuck" with the latter--a possibly unanticipated twisting of the knife that the perp likely enjoyed a great deal.


[/QUOTE="Miss Marple"]All that's required for "success" is the killing of JBR. Successfully framing the parents would have been icing on the cake, but might have been something that occurred to the perp "on the spot" and not been well-planned or executed. I agree that someone with CLEAR INTENT to frame the parents might well have taken steps such as leaving behind cord and tape. But given the numbers who persist in believing RDI, it's clear that such framing--if intentional--in fact did succeed with some non-trivial share of the public.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple[/QUOTE]



Deary me.
I'll confess it was unclear to me exactly what in my last quote above triggered a "Deary me" unless this comment of yours was simply a summary reaction to my entire post. I hope that the fact that many are friends of yours at FFJ doesn't so cloud your vision that you can't see the veracity of my final statement above.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[nuisanceposter]

So is Steve Thomas the only credible person you'll listen to?

Too bad he wasn't an eyewitness like all the people you don't find credible.

You mean like John and Patsy Ramsey? No, they've proven they aren't credible. The only thing they're consistent about is consistently changing their stories, and that's only when they can manage to remember something (which isn't often.)

Linda Arndt ran the situation at the R house as if she had never even been taught police procedure. I guarantee you Steve Thomas would have handled things differently than the way Arndt let it all get bungled up. I highly doubt Thomas would have allowed all those people to remain in the house (I know he would have sent the Rs themselves to HQ for interviews, etc), and I doubt he'd ever have sent anyone other than officers to search the house for anything.

He sure as hell didn't claim to forget everything he'd seen and done as soon as the heat was on like Arndt did.

[andU]

I don't think the Ramsey's should have been made to leave their home... they could/should have maybe been interviewed in seperate rooms.
I will never understand all of those people being allowed to be there. Even the advocates, at this early point in time. Who called them? Was it an organization from the the City of Boulder or a group from the Ramsey's church? I cannot fathom all of those people being permitted to roam around, especially in JB's room!
I'm not for or against Arndt, I'm just saying it was mis-handled. If she was so inexperienced, why wasn't someone else sent? Ok, it was Christmas Day, but we are talking about a child missing, for Heaven's sake. My first blame, if this case is never solved will be to the way the investigation was bungled.

[Athena]

You mean like John and Patsy Ramsey? No, they've proven they aren't credible. The only thing they're consistent about is consistently changing their stories, and that's only when they can manage to remember something (which isn't often.)

Linda Arndt ran the situation at the R house as if she had never even been taught police procedure. I guarantee you Steve Thomas would have handled things differently than the way Arndt let it all get bungled up. I highly doubt Thomas would have allowed all those people to remain in the house (I know he would have sent the Rs themselves to HQ for interviews, etc), and I doubt he'd ever have sent anyone other than officers to search the house for anything.

He sure as hell didn't claim to forget everything he'd seen and done as soon as the heat was on like Arndt did.

Ardnt was a scapegoat. You cannot "guarantee" anything that Thomas may or may not have done. He had never even worked a homicide before nevermind a kidnapping. All of the BPD were novices re: procedures except Mason who Eller felt threatened by and wouldn't listen to him.

The FBI should have been contacted as soon as the 911 call was received BEFORE the police were dispatched.

As far as remembering stories, Thomas didn't do a bad job at twisting them either and he is an officer of the law. JMO

[Jayelles]

I don't think it's entirely valid to dismiss Thomas' capabilities because this was his first homicide. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the techniques are the same.

For example, someone could have trained as a French teacher and learned all the techniques of classroom management, lesson preparation, lesson delivery, consolidation, assessment.... That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to adapt to teaching a different subject area. Sure there would be differences, but a lot of the training would still be relevant.

Also - there was another murder case in the US (quite a famous one I believe) where young women were going missing and there was a signature to the murders. The case was solved by a dedicated young rookie detective. I watched a documentary on the Crime channel about it some months ago but I have a poor memory for names so I forget the name of the perp and the victim whose murder led to the case being solved.

Sometimes young enthusiastic blood is better than older, experienced but jaded blood.

[Sharon]

[QUOTE=Jayelles;8826543]Why not his son and heir? JonBenet was Patsy's "doll baby". She was Patsy's "mega JonBenet thing". John Ramsey wasn't part of that. John's business was his baby. If the killer wanted to hurt John by killing his daughter, why hide her body away in a remote cellar? Why not "display" her in a prominent position for maximum shock and impact? The staging of the crime was an apology in some sense - telling the Ramseys to be rested, only asking for £50,000 (the Ramseys might spend that on a car!)

Let's face it, if the killer wanted to destory John by killing Jonbenet then he/she has failed miserably. John has his health, he is "looking good", he's still flying around in his private plane, he ran for a government office and had a reasonable following, he appears on tv shows, he has friends, he has a nice house in Michigan - he's out there, he's alive and he's getting on with his life. If the killer had targeted John Ramsey's reputation - portrayed him as a dishonest person or as a sexual deviant, it would have harmed him in a much more damaging way. Had the killer spent his/her time in the Ramsey home planting child pornography and then making sure John got caught, his career would have been over instantly. He might have gone to jail where as a "nonce", he would have suffered the maximum wrath of the other prisoners. His family would have borne the stigma and would have been unable to hold their heads high.

If you want to destroy a man, you target his reputation or his business. Fortunately, there are few people capable of killing a child in such a brutal way but how likely it is that they are driven by jealousy for the child's father's business success?[/QUOTE[

Maybe, the perp. just did what he could.

You may be right that J. bounced back, something that I am curious about myself. But really, considering from where he was, running a top company, living the life of a high roller, going from strength to strength, he is in a much lower position now. See, he may be ok from where we look now, but he would be comparing to what was his potential at the time of his height.

jmo

[Athena]

I agree with some of what you say Jayelles. However, I still have an issue with the statement "guarantee". Guess we'll never know though since it didn't happen.

Also I do hope that you do not believe that I think JBR was killed by an angry sadist because of mere ealousy? Goes far deeper than that.

[Sharon]

I don't think the Ramsey's should have been made to leave their home... they could/should have maybe been interviewed in seperate rooms.
I will never understand all of those people being allowed to be there. Even the advocates, at this early point in time. Who called them? Was it an organization from the the City of Boulder or a group from the Ramsey's church? I cannot fathom all of those people being permitted to roam around, especially in JB's room!
I'm not for or against Arndt, I'm just saying it was mis-handled. If she was so inexperienced, why wasn't someone else sent? Ok, it was Christmas Day, but we are talking about a child missing, for Heaven's sake. My first blame, if this case is never solved will be to the way the investigation was bungled.

You are so right. Also, the fact that it was Christmas day really didnt help imo.

[Sharon]

All other things equal, Burke might have been a more logical choice to "get" at John, but a) JBR, not Burke, was the family "celebrity" in the sense of having been recently in print news for certain and I'm guessing there may well have been local TV coverage of the Boulder pageant she'd recently won as well; and b) at a symbolic level, it is more of an assault on a man's "manliness" if you demonstrate him to be incapable of protecting his own "women", most particularly a vulnerable young daughter who (perhaps unlike Patsy) wouldn't be expected to be even be remotely capable of fending for herself etc.

I'm not sure the goal was necessarily to "ruin" John and concur that if that were the goal, John's resilience precluded that. However, unless you have information to the contrary, my strong impression is that this tragedy wounded John to his soul and he would gladly trade some of his current creature comforts to get his daughter back. In that sense, the killer had a lifelong impact that will endure no matter what sort of financial success John might endure (BTW, he failed in his political efforts and it seems a stretch to believe this had no connection with how some of the public has vilified him and/or Patsy for how they behaved following the killing; but in pointing this out I am in no way even remotely claiming the killer anticipated John's political aspirations or sought to do these in; I'm just caveating the generally rosy picture you painted of John's post-1996 life.).

If the killer were so focused on JBR, then what's YOUR explanation for all the pretty pointed and negative references to John in the RN? It sure doesn't sound as if John was a complete stranger to the note writer. Indeed, it is ONLY from the contents of the note--not the nature of the killing etc.--that leads me to infer that revenge/jealousy towards John may have been a non-trivial motive. As one earlier poster said, it is conceivable that the killer first "took note" of JBR, but then upon further research learned enough about John to rationalize the killing his his/her own mind.

Absent a confession, I'm not sure the available evidence alone can differentiate between these 2 alternative theories of how the RN came to center so much on John. But it seems to me that any credible theory of the case would have to account for the repeated instances of mocking or disrespectful verbiage directed John's way. Moreover, it is precisely the presence of such language that makes it unlikely either of the parents crafted this note. It really doesn't fit at all with the "small foreign faction" premise of the note at all. I think there's little doubt that elements of that note were "staged", but given ALL the evidence--the nature of the killing, the ferocity of the head blow, the unequivocal sexual component of the assault--it makes more sense to imagine a killer who entered the house with the intention of kidnapping JBR and/or killing JBR (either of which would have demonstrated this individual's power over John, but both of which would be consistent with an RN conceived and crafted in advance of the killing) and who perhaps subsequently discovered themselves unable to desist from acting out some sexual fantasy, culminating in an angry head blow and hiding the body out of shame etc. This "storyline" seems a better fit to what we know about the evidence (and about human nature) than any RDI theory that would otherwise compel us to believe that "out-of-the-blue" the Ramseys engaged in very bizarre out-of-character behavior for which we have no precedent in their personal histories either before or after the event.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Beautifully written!!! I like your style & ease of explaination.

[Sharon]

Without sounding like I'm 'crossing over', I believe that the case started out all wrong.
I agree that friends should not have been called.
I agree that BPD should have shown up in unmarked cars and interviewed the parents separately; dispersing anyone who was not family from the house (except perhaps the minister).
I agree that JB's room should have been taped off from the moment BPD arrived
I agree that once the body was found, the entire house should have been taped off as a crime scene
Thoughts/ IMO
I think John had planned to take his family to Atlanta because he felt they would be safe their and he also planned to meet with his financial person there to get the money demanded.
When this first happened I felt deeply that Patsy had killed JB out of rage (although my mind's eye could not really fathom such anger), but that was before the info had been released about her having been molested. I cannot believe that a parent would kill their own child and stage such a gross scene.... I just can't swallow that.
I really, deeply believe that the person yet living is still residing in Boulder and may even still maintain contact with John. I believe this is a person that had staged a friendship to John just to find out how he/she could implement the most damage to him and his family. It may be FW (please notice I said may be and, of course it may not be....
What little we know seems to keep us in circles and has us pitted against each other in our beliefs. Personally, it does not matter to me who did it, I have no problem with being wrong in my belief, I pray that this person is caught in my lifetime.

I also have problems with the same info. that you have written here. Why were so many people in the house, how did they come over so quickly, why didnt the police kick them out?
Re. the police questioning....from what I understand, although it would be great for our records here, people dont usually go into voluntary questioning with police unless they are charged, in which case they will have the right to a lawyer. Also, under the circumstances, which we could never totally comprehend, the parents may not have been capable of answering questions.
jmo

[andU]

At the onsought there was no murder, the police were investigating a missing child. Why on earth would they take the parents to police headquarters? Even at that, I don't understand the advocates coming in. I've never heard of them coming in that soon after the report of a missing child. Unless they happen to be a Social Worker associated with the PD, I don't think they should have been on the scene that soon. Aren't they usually there to offer support to the family? An advocate is a person who 'stands in' for someone who isn't able to stand up for him/herself, right? Child advocate, I would understand... legal advocate I understand. But, what the heck were these people advocating at this stage? JB was missing, it was early when they arrived, right? Does anyone have any questions or answers about this? It seems they just descended and took over the kitchen and who knows were else they trodded in the house.
Am I being 'off the wall' about this?

[Sharon]

At the onsought there was no murder, the police were investigating a missing child. Why on earth would they take the parents to police headquarters? Even at that, I don't understand the advocates coming in. I've never heard of them coming in that soon after the report of a missing child. Unless they happen to be a Social Worker associated with the PD, I don't think they should have been on the scene that soon. Aren't they usually there to offer support to the family? An advocate is a person who 'stands in' for someone who isn't able to stand up for him/herself, right? Child advocate, I would understand... legal advocate I understand. But, what the heck were these people advocating at this stage? JB was missing, it was early when they arrived, right? Does anyone have any questions or answers about this? It seems they just descended and took over the kitchen and who knows were else they trodded in the house.
Am I being 'off the wall' about this?

All wonderful, excellent questions. I hope they get answered, I really do.

[thewhitewitch1]

At the onsought there was no murder, the police were investigating a missing child. Why on earth would they take the parents to police headquarters? Even at that, I don't understand the advocates coming in. I've never heard of them coming in that soon after the report of a missing child. Unless they happen to be a Social Worker associated with the PD, I don't think they should have been on the scene that soon. Aren't they usually there to offer support to the family? An advocate is a person who 'stands in' for someone who isn't able to stand up for him/herself, right? Child advocate, I would understand... legal advocate I understand. But, what the heck were these people advocating at this stage? JB was missing, it was early when they arrived, right? Does anyone have any questions or answers about this? It seems they just descended and took over the kitchen and who knows were else they trodded in the house.
Am I being 'off the wall' about this?

Beyond that, I don't understand why the Ramseys called their friends over in the first place. The RN was very emphatic about not calling anyone, and while I can understand calling the police (though I think I would have taken a little while to weigh the pros and cons), I can't understand why they would take the risk with their daughters life at stake. Surely some of you IDIs must understand how we can question this.
After all, it's not like they could actually do anything...except further contaminate the crime scene and add to the confusion.

[Sharon]

I can speak of losing a child. Mine was an infant who passed due to SIDS. She would now be 43 yrs old. To me she is still my baby and I still yearn for her ... although hers was not a violent death, nor was she murdered. There was very little known about SIDS in 1965, in fact it was then being called sudden infant death syndrome, not the abbrievated version. A mother does not 'get over' losing a baby. I don't dwell on it, I know that she is in a far better place than this world; but, I think of her and wonder what she would be like as an adult; what she would have studied in college.....

Sorry to hear about the loss of your precious baby due to SIDS. I think mothers of today are armed with much information about it and there is much more support and awareness in the community about SIDS. Even still, I know of two young mothers who each lost a baby to SIDS in the last few years.

I think as a mother it would be one of the hardest things in life to endure.
Wishing you peace & strength.

[bullmoose]

So why remove the duct tape and cord from the house? Surely if the killer was trying to frame the Ramseys he/she would have planted some evidence? Why not obtain DNA from a Ramsey toothbrush and plant that?Look at this way; whoever did it knew his dummys[BPD}, that the Caped Crusader{ST} and his sidekicks would spend hundreds of manhours trying their best to somehow connect the Ramseys to the items, instead of wasting time on a real investigation; of course as everybody knows you can't pound that square peg through that round hole. Why plant DNA in the Ramsey home? I think maybe even the Colorado Murder Mystery Club[BPD] might have sniffed at the obviousness of that one; and as we all know, it wasn't needed to put the bloodhounds on the scent; the BPD figured they had it solved before they bothered collecting evidence, right??? JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

I don't think it's entirely valid to dismiss Thomas' capabilities because this was his first homicide. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the techniques are the same.

For example, someone could have trained as a French teacher and learned all the techniques of classroom management, lesson preparation, lesson delivery, consolidation, assessment.... That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to adapt to teaching a different subject area. Sure there would be differences, but a lot of the training would still be relevant.

Also - there was another murder case in the US (quite a famous one I believe) where young women were going missing and there was a signature to the murders. The case was solved by a dedicated young rookie detective. I watched a documentary on the Crime channel about it some months ago but I have a poor memory for names so I forget the name of the perp and the victim whose murder led to the case being solved.

Sometimes young enthusiastic blood is better than older, experienced but jaded blood.

Still, it goes without saying that when you have a choice, you want someone skilled & experienced in the area in question. Thats how I try to choose service givers in my life anyway. jmo

[AmyW]

I have a question about Burke Ramsey. What's your take on this? He was awakened to a house in chaos and didn't ask what was going on? Is this true or is this false information? And was he out of the house or in? If the below facts are true, I find it odd that he would be more concerned about his video game than what was going on in his house.

The Ramseys had always maintained that Burke Ramsey slept through the entire grisly episode, until John Ramsey and Fleet White awakened him, several hours after the police arrived at the Ramsey residence. That was why the police allowed Burke to be taken away from the Ramsey house – to Fleet White's house – in mid-morning, after being "awakened." It's been reported that Burke walked past all the police, and assembled people, without asking what was going on. As he left, he took with him one of his Christmas presents, a Nintendo game. On the way to Fleet White's house, Burke talked about his Nintendo game.

However, when Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:51 a.m., Dec. 26, 1996, she failed to hang the phone up immediately.

The tape of that call had been sent to a California sound laboratory for enhancement. Patsy Ramsey is said to be heard saying, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus." Then she fumbled with the phone, trying to hang it up.

Prior to the phone being hung up, a voice in the background, described as Burke Ramsey's, is said to be heard, followed by John Ramsey saying, "We weren't speaking to you."

Burke Ramsey: "But what did you find?"



http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

[bullmoose]

I don't think it's entirely valid to dismiss Thomas' capabilities because this was his first homicide. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the techniques are the same.

For example, someone could have trained as a French teacher and learned all the techniques of classroom management, lesson preparation, lesson delivery, consolidation, assessment.... That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to adapt to teaching a different subject area. Sure there would be differences, but a lot of the training would still be relevant.

Also - there was another murder case in the US (quite a famous one I believe) where young women were going missing and there was a signature to the murders. The case was solved by a dedicated young rookie detective. I watched a documentary on the Crime channel about it some months ago but I have a poor memory for names so I forget the name of the perp and the victim whose murder led to the case being solved.

Sometimes young enthusiastic blood is better than older, experienced but jaded blood.I do not consider the fact that Thomas was new to homicide to be a fatal flaw, however I do consider his theory of what happened to be a increditably ignorant, fanciful theory of a crimewriter wannabe; his book is a testament to his lack of maturity and his lack of investigative intelligence. He kept trying to prove an increditably stupid theory, from the start, instead of following the evidence. His idea basically boiled down is that Patsy clubbed Jonbenet for wetting the bed, and then everything else, including the cruel stragulation was part of some bizarre cover-up by the Ramseys, which IMHO is a simpleton's theory.No one will ever know for sure what the FBI would have come up with had they been on the case at the start, we do know what Synthroid Stevie, the Tabloid Wonder, did come up with. ZERO, ZILCH, NOTTATHING!!!!! JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

Sharon, do you know what exactly is SIDS? Is there a cause? Or is it the way people say--the baby just drop dead without reason? I can not believe that a perfectly healthy baby can just die for nothing. So, if there is a real cause/reason, please fill me in!

BO, I will tell you that it is very real. You can do further research on the net if you want.
Basically it has to do with the baby stopping to breath in his sleep, and due to very unknown reasons, the baby does not wake himself up to take in air. They dont know why some babies can wake themselves up and others cant. Much research goes on. Here in Aust. we have a national SIDS day to try to raise money for the research that is still needed.

Some things that they know now that they didnt before, is not to let the baby get too warm or use coverings that the baby can get under.

We had a very expensive machine fitted to our baby`s cot that would go off if it detected that the baby had stopped breathing. So, yes it is a real thing that all parents are educated about now from the get go. As you could imagine, its very hard to moniter a sleeping baby 24/7, and even with education and technology, its still a problem. jmo

[bullmoose]

I have a question about Burke Ramsey. What's your take on this? He was awakened to a house in chaos and didn't ask what was going on? Is this true or is this false information? And was he out of the house or in? If the below facts are true, I find it odd that he would be more concerned about his video game than what was going on in his house.

The Ramseys had always maintained that Burke Ramsey slept through the entire grisly episode, until John Ramsey and Fleet White awakened him, several hours after the police arrived at the Ramsey residence. That was why the police allowed Burke to be taken away from the Ramsey house – to Fleet White's house – in mid-morning, after being "awakened." It's been reported that Burke walked past all the police, and assembled people, without asking what was going on. As he left, he took with him one of his Christmas presents, a Nintendo game. On the way to Fleet White's house, Burke talked about his Nintendo game.

However, when Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:51 a.m., Dec. 26, 1996, she failed to hang the phone up immediately.

The tape of that call had been sent to a California sound laboratory for enhancement. Patsy Ramsey is said to be heard saying, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus." Then she fumbled with the phone, trying to hang it up.

Prior to the phone being hung up, a voice in the background, described as Burke Ramsey's, is said to be heard, followed by John Ramsey saying, "We weren't speaking to you."

Burke Ramsey: "But what did you find?"



http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm I have never believed that any of what is claimed to be on that tape is real beyond the wishful thinking of those who claim it to be so. 911 tapes are reused over and over,a lot of sounds and words are taped over; other labs did not hear the claimed exchange. To me the so-called 911 tape is just as believable as the Kennedy Assasination Tape, supposedly proving the Second Gunman Theory based on a supposedly open mike on a motorcycle in the motorcade. I don't believe that one, either. JMHO

[Sharon]

I do not consider the fact that Thomas was new to homicide to be a fatal flaw, however I do consider his theory of what happened to be a increditably ignorant, fanciful theory of a crimewriter wannabe; his book is a testament to his lack of maturity and his lack of investigative intelligence. He kept trying to prove an increditably stupid theory, from the start, instead of following the evidence. His idea basically boiled down is that Patsy clubbed Jonbenet for wetting the bed, and then everything else, including the cruel stragulation was part of some bizarre cover-up by the Ramseys, which IMHO is a simpleton's theory.No one will ever know for sure what the FBI would have come up with had they been on the case at the start, we do know what Synthroid Stevie, the Tabloid Wonder, did come up with. ZERO, ZILCH, NOTTATHING!!!!! JMHO:biggrin:

Bullmoose, you are so right. I attribute so much of the bad wrap the R. got from that rediculous`bed wetting parential anger` theory. (It was the theory that I knew & believed from the media before I found this site). I personally attribute much of the negative public opinion of the case to that theory alone! I also think as more info. has emerged due to internet etc, the public has done a turn around as they become more aware of the facts. I think in the last 10 years many RDI`s have become IDI or SDI. I think the original expert opinion that it was a toilet rage killing & cover up gets very little following, except by a small fringe of the population.
I noticed that there was a huge turn out to PR funeral which does show alot of support from the public. imo

[bullmoose]

BO, I will tell you that it is very real. You can do further research on the net if you want.
Basically it has to do with the baby stopping to breath in his sleep, and due to very unknown reasons, the baby does not wake himself up to take in air. They dont know why some babies can wake themselves up and others cant. Much research goes on. Here in Aust. we have a national SIDS day to try to raise money for the research that is still needed.

Some things that they know now that they didnt before, is not to let the baby get too warm or use coverings that the baby can get under.

We had a very expensive machine fitted to our baby`s cot that would go off if it detected that the baby had stopped breathing. So, yes it is a real thing that all parents are educated about now from the get go. As you could imagine, its very hard to moniter a sleeping baby 24/7, and even with education and technology, its still a problem. jmo36 years ago, my nephew died of SIDS; he died during a nap at the age of ten months, it happened like Sharon described, he apparently rolled over and stopped breathing; as a result when my children were born, we got a good moniter and listened constantly. Did it make any difference, no, probably not, but it was at least something we could do; my wife lost a sister to SIDS, so we were acutely aware of the possibility; we felt a moniter was better than nothing. JMHO

[Louisadelmar]

I have a question about Burke Ramsey. What's your take on this? He was awakened to a house in chaos and didn't ask what was going on? Is this true or is this false information? And was he out of the house or in? If the below facts are true, I find it odd that he would be more concerned about his video game than what was going on in his house.

The Ramseys had always maintained that Burke Ramsey slept through the entire grisly episode, until John Ramsey and Fleet White awakened him, several hours after the police arrived at the Ramsey residence. That was why the police allowed Burke to be taken away from the Ramsey house – to Fleet White's house – in mid-morning, after being "awakened." It's been reported that Burke walked past all the police, and assembled people, without asking what was going on. As he left, he took with him one of his Christmas presents, a Nintendo game. On the way to Fleet White's house, Burke talked about his Nintendo game.

However, when Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:51 a.m., Dec. 26, 1996, she failed to hang the phone up immediately.

The tape of that call had been sent to a California sound laboratory for enhancement. Patsy Ramsey is said to be heard saying, "Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus." Then she fumbled with the phone, trying to hang it up.

Prior to the phone being hung up, a voice in the background, described as Burke Ramsey's, is said to be heard, followed by John Ramsey saying, "We weren't speaking to you."

Burke Ramsey: "But what did you find?"



http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm


Assuming the link works you can listen to it here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/patsy911-FFJ.mp3

Tricia of FFJ hired an expert (Paul Ginsberg) to see what hecould find regarding Burke's voice on the tape and he said he couldn't find anything. Nor did he find evidence of editing etc. He did hea Patsy saying 'Help me, Jesus' at the end.

So far I believe the only direct quotes saying Burke is on the tape come from or through Steve Thomas. PMPT by Schiller has some info and also mentions differing perceptions of what (if anything) is on the tape.

[Miss Marple]

Beautifully written!!! I like your style & ease of explaination.

Thanks. FWIW, it was the day after Christmas, not Christmas Day, that ransom note was found. Here's a "cheat sheet" for what was going on that day:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/December-26?
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

36 years ago, my nephew died of SIDS; he died during a nap at the age of ten months, it happened like Sharon described, he apparently rolled over and stopped breathing; as a result when my children were born, we got a good moniter and listened constantly. Did it make any difference, no, probably not, but it was at least something we could do; my wife lost a sister to SIDS, so we were acutely aware of the possibility; we felt a moniter was better than nothing. JMHO

Im sorry to hear of your loss, both your nephew & sister.

And, you are right, a moniter is a great tool, we used one too. I dont know why the baby doesnt catch himself when the breathing innitially stops. I think if there was intervention, the baby could be awoken, but it is such a silent thing. And who knows if it would happen again.

Apparently after one year, the chances are remote of dying from SIDS. It must have to do with the maturity of the lungs, or brain or something.
Its very sad. jmo

[Athena]

36 years ago, my nephew died of SIDS; he died during a nap at the age of ten months, it happened like Sharon described, he apparently rolled over and stopped breathing; as a result when my children were born, we got a good moniter and listened constantly. Did it make any difference, no, probably not, but it was at least something we could do; my wife lost a sister to SIDS, so we were acutely aware of the possibility; we felt a moniter was better than nothing. JMHO

Oh Bull .... Sorry to hear about the loss of your nephew and wife's sister. It is so sad to hear about a child dying no matter what the reason. :rose:

[Miss Marple]

Assuming the link works you can listen to it here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/patsy911-FFJ.mp3

Tricia of FFJ hired an expert (Paul Ginsberg) to see what hecould find regarding Burke's voice on the tape and he said he couldn't find anything. Nor did he find evidence of editing etc. He did hea Patsy saying 'Help me, Jesus' at the end.

So far I believe the only direct quotes saying Burke is on the tape come from or through Steve Thomas. PMPT by Schiller has some info and also mentions differing perceptions of what (if anything) is on the tape.

More details about the mystery of the 911 tape, including links to various recordings of it, are here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The-911-Call.
The issue of whether Burke's voice is actually on that tape is pretty much a Rorschach test on whether Ramseys Did It; to a lesser extent, so is the question of whether Geraldo ever played the "enhanced tape" on his show.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Zoey]

At the onsought there was no murder, the police were investigating a missing child. Why on earth would they take the parents to police headquarters? Even at that, I don't understand the advocates coming in. I've never heard of them coming in that soon after the report of a missing child. Unless they happen to be a Social Worker associated with the PD, I don't think they should have been on the scene that soon. Aren't they usually there to offer support to the family? An advocate is a person who 'stands in' for someone who isn't able to stand up for him/herself, right? Child advocate, I would understand... legal advocate I understand. But, what the heck were these people advocating at this stage? JB was missing, it was early when they arrived, right? Does anyone have any questions or answers about this? It seems they just descended and took over the kitchen and who knows were else they trodded in the house.
Am I being 'off the wall' about this?

Hope this answers your questions. I got this off of Wiki for you:

Time Unstated Advocates Brought Food. "Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee." (Glick et al. 1998).

[Sharon]

Thanks. FWIW, it was the day after Christmas, not Christmas Day, that ransom note was found. Here's a "cheat sheet" for what was going on that day:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/December-26?
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Many thanks.

[Athena]

More details about the mystery of the 911 tape, including links to various recordings of it, are here: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The-911-Call.
The issue of whether Burke's voice is actually on that tape is pretty much a Rorschach test on whether Ramseys Did It; to a lesser extent, so is the question of whether Geraldo ever played the "enhanced tape" on his show.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Amazing that even ST says the tape was not aired on any show and wants to know who these people are that claim to have heard it. What I find even more surprising is that he is not adamant about hearing Burke's voice on that tape. He uses the word "appears" which doesn't sound like he's too sure to me. Sounds like mass hysteria or they may have even heard background noise from the dispatcher's area. LOL

crimeADM: Did you hear the 911 tape personally; and if so, once and for all, was Burke on it?

stevethomas: I heard the 911 tape. repeatedly, as did the other detectives. the consensus was unanimous, as supported by the enhancement -- there is a 3rd voice on the tape, appears to be Burke (unless there was someone else present who has never been identified...)

crimeADM: A follow-up to the 911 question: Many people swear they heard the tape on one talk-show or another. Is there any possibility that this happened?

stevethomas: as far as i know, the only people who heard the tape were involved in the investigation -- da's office people, bpd personnel, engineers who enhanced it. if someone is out on the talk shows saying they heard it, who is this/these person(s)?



http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

[Sharon]

Hope this answers your questions. I got this off of Wiki for you:

Time Unstated Advocates Brought Food. "Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee." (Glick et al. 1998).

Well, that doesnt make sence. Were the police insane. It was a full house, no support from more people was needed so early????? Am I wrong to think this is totally insane???? jmo

[bullmoose]

Well, that doesnt make sence. Were the police insane. It was a full house, no support from more people was needed so early????? Am I wrong to think this is totally insane???? jmoThe term that I would use for the BPD that day is 'out of their depth' 'overwhelmed by circumstance' or even just 'unprepared'. The detective that was on-call wasn't called, they forgot to call him; a lot of the BPD was taking personal holidays so they were completely undermanned; that is why Linda Arndt was left alone in a house full of emotional family and friends. I don't excuse the BPD for much, as you might notice from my posts, but they weren't at fault for the situation that developed; however the fault lies with the BPD's brass for every mis-step made afterwards. JMHO

[shill]

The parents had to stay at the house no later then 10am to await the ransom call. And they didn't know for sure if it was 10am that day or the next so the parents should have stayed at the house for another day.

[Jayelles]

Look at this way; whoever did it knew his dummys[BPD}, that the Caped Crusader{ST} and his sidekicks would spend hundreds of manhours trying their best to somehow connect the Ramseys to the items, instead of wasting time on a real investigation; of course as everybody knows you can't pound that square peg through that round hole. Why plant DNA in the Ramsey home? I think maybe even the Colorado Murder Mystery Club[BPD] might have sniffed at the obviousness of that one; and as we all know, it wasn't needed to put the bloodhounds on the scent; the BPD figured they had it solved before they bothered collecting evidence, right??? JMHO:biggrin:

So you think the killer was a psychic? That he created a crime scene which would NOT point to the Ramseys but just *knew* the police would try to pin the crime to them anyway?

OK......

[bullmoose]

So you think the killer was a psychic? That he created a crime scene which would NOT point to the Ramseys but just *knew* the police would try to pin the crime to them anyway?

OK......No, I do not think the killer was psychic, he knew how the cops would instinctively react to the murder; they always look to the family first and rightly so, as about 90% of the time a family member is responsible. When I started studying this case, I was an RDI for quite awhile; as you know my views changed over the years, not the least factor being accused of a serious crime myself and seeing how the legal system works from the inside, as an accused suspect. The experience made me realize that once the investigators have their theory, they as far as I could see, don't give a damn about the actual truth. Only what supports their theory is evidence, opposing evidence is ignored. I'm speaking from my own experience here and my eyes were opened; in my experience, I think cops are at least as likely to lie as a criminal, perjuring themselves whenever the need arises. I think that the top cops in Boulder had decided the Ramseys were guilty hours before Jonbenet's body was found; unless you have a believable explanation as to why the Boulder cops would illegally question Burke Ramsey, parental permission was required but a facile lie was used by the cops, his grandmother gave permission[there was no grandmother] on the morning of 12/26/96; apparently the doltish cops thought they could solve it fast, even knowing they were breaking the law. No, I think the killer knew exactly how the BPD would react and got clean away, in plain sight and has been laughing at all that he has accomplished to destroy the Ramseys. JMHO

[Jayelles]

No, I do not think the killer was psychic, he knew how the cops would instinctively react to the murder; they always look to the family first and rightly so, as about 90% of the time a family member is responsible. When I started studying this case, I was an RDI for quite awhile; as you know my views changed over the years, not the least factor being accused of a serious crime myself and seeing how the legal system works from the inside, as an accused suspect. The experience made me realize that once the investigators have their theory, they as far as I could see, don't give a damn about the actual truth. Only what supports their theory is evidence, opposing evidence is ignored. I'm speaking from my own experience here and my eyes were opened; in my experience, I think cops are at least as likely to lie as a criminal, perjuring themselves whenever the need arises. I think that the top cops in Boulder had decided the Ramseys were guilty hours before Jonbenet's body was found; unless you have a believable explanation as to why the Boulder cops would illegally question Burke Ramsey, parental permission was required but a facile lie was used by the cops, his grandmother gave permission[there was no grandmother] on the morning of 12/26/96; apparently the doltish cops thought they could solve it fast, even knowing they were breaking the law. No, I think the killer knew exactly how the BPD would react and got clean away, in plain sight and has been laughing at all that he has accomplished to destroy the Ramseys. JMHO

Well I think you are assuming a lot.

Why pre-meditate a sophisticated, high-risk murder and yet fail to plant any simple evidence which would incriminate the parents? Surely if the perp really hated the Ramseys, he would want everyone else to hate them too? Why run the risk that the Ramseys would end being taken to the heart of an entire nation of people like the parents of so many other murdered children?

There are many ways he could have destroyed the family without sadistically killing the most vulnerable and innocent member. Plus he had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't handle it efficiently OR that the Ramseys would call half a dozen of their friends around and destroy the crime scene OR that the parents wouldn't demand polygraphs and camp out at the police station offering their unconditional help in finding the monster who took their baby's life.

Why would such an intruder commit the crime and then stage it in such a way as to make it look like it was an intruder who did it?

If he wanted to frame the parents why didn't he:-

1) Hide the tape and cord in the house?
2) If a stungun was used - hide it in the house too?
3) Better still - why didn't he use ONLY items which were found in the Ramsey household?

Also - why didn't he clean up his scuff marks and packing peanuts that Lou Smit says are proof of an intruder coming in?

Also - why didn't he make sure the basement window was closed and leave by a door so that it definitely looked like an inside job?

If someone wanted to destroy the Ramseys - why just kill their child? - why not go the whole hog and stage the crime so that there would be little doubt that the Ramseys killed their daughter?

This killer had already gone to a lot of bother to sneak out on the one day of the year when families tend to be together, he risked entering a house with no guarantee that the family would even come home, he risked moving a child around the house whilst her family slept nearby, we know he spent a considerable length of time in the house risking being heard and leaving forensic evience such as hairs, fibres, skin cells.... With very LITTLE additional effort, he could have ensured that the parents would be arrested straight away.

So why instead did he try to make it look like an intruder did it?

That is why I think the motive was not to destroy the Ramseys, but to get rid of Jonbenet.

[Sharon]

Well I think you are assuming a lot.

Why pre-meditate a sophisticated, high-risk murder and yet fail to plant any simple evidence which would incriminate the parents? Surely if the perp really hated the Ramseys, he would want everyone else to hate them too? Why run the risk that the Ramseys would end being taken to the heart of an entire nation of people like the parents of so many other murdered children?

There are many ways he could have destroyed the family without sadistically killing the most vulnerable and innocent member. Plus he had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't handle it efficiently OR that the Ramseys would call half a dozen of their friends around and destroy the crime scene OR that the parents wouldn't demand polygraphs and camp out at the police station offering their unconditional help in finding the monster who took their baby's life.

Why would such an intruder commit the crime and then stage it in such a way as to make it look like it was an intruder who did it?

If he wanted to frame the parents why didn't he:-

1) Hide the tape and cord in the house?
2) If a stungun was used - hide it in the house too?
3) Better still - why didn't he use ONLY items which were found in the Ramsey household?

Also - why didn't he clean up his scuff marks and packing peanuts that Lou Smit says are proof of an intruder coming in?

Also - why didn't he make sure the basement window was closed and leave by a door so that it definitely looked like an inside job?

If someone wanted to destroy the Ramseys - why just kill their child? - why not go the whole hog and stage the crime so that there would be little doubt that the Ramseys killed their daughter?

This killer had already gone to a lot of bother to sneak out on the one day of the year when families tend to be together, he risked entering a house with no guarantee that the family would even come home, he risked moving a child around the house whilst her family slept nearby, we know he spent a considerable length of time in the house risking being heard and leaving forensic evience such as hairs, fibres, skin cells.... With very LITTLE additional effort, he could have ensured that the parents would be arrested straight away.

So why instead did he try to make it look like an intruder did it?

That is why I think the motive was not to destroy the Ramseys, but to get rid of Jonbenet.

Its probably difficult to really destroy someone in a way that they `never recover`. I think killing someones child would come into that category.
Actually, I cant understand what you are debating here......jmo

[andU]

Sharon, do you know what exactly is SIDS? Is there a cause? Or is it the way people say--the baby just drop dead without reason? I can not believe that a perfectly healthy baby can just die for nothing. So, if there is a real cause/reason, please fill me in!

SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is the term given to an infant death that occurs when the infant is sleeping and breathing stops. Basically, they suffocate. It was a horrible experience to go and check on a sleeping baby only to find that he/she is not breathing and it is too late to do anything. I have found peace in her passing but it took years.

My apologies for distracting from the subject of the board. The intention was to relay experience from the loss of a child. There is an empty spot in my heart that will not be filled until we are reunited in Heaven (my belief).

[Jayelles]

Its probably difficult to really destroy someone in a way that they `never recover`. I think killing someones child would come into that category.
Actually, I cant understand what you are debating here......jmo

We are debating the killer's motive. I think the killer hated Jonbenet and was possibly obsessed with Patsy. It takes a very special kind of evil to strangle a child until she dies and I think anyone jealous of John's wealth and business success would not have taken it out on a beautiful innocent child. I think if someone hated John Ramsey enough to want to ruin him, then he would have been personally targeted.

[andU]

Hope this answers your questions. I got this off of Wiki for you:

Time Unstated Advocates Brought Food. "Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee." (Glick et al. 1998).

Thanks, Zoey. I appreciate that; I don't remember having read that before, but even the fines tuned machines (the human brain) may suffer from memory overload!

[andU]

Well I think you are assuming a lot.

Why pre-meditate a sophisticated, high-risk murder and yet fail to plant any simple evidence which would incriminate the parents? Surely if the perp really hated the Ramseys, he would want everyone else to hate them too? Why run the risk that the Ramseys would end being taken to the heart of an entire nation of people like the parents of so many other murdered children?

There are many ways he could have destroyed the family without sadistically killing the most vulnerable and innocent member. Plus he had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't handle it efficiently OR that the Ramseys would call half a dozen of their friends around and destroy the crime scene OR that the parents wouldn't demand polygraphs and camp out at the police station offering their unconditional help in finding the monster who took their baby's life.

Why would such an intruder commit the crime and then stage it in such a way as to make it look like it was an intruder who did it?

If he wanted to frame the parents why didn't he:-

1) Hide the tape and cord in the house?
2) If a stungun was used - hide it in the house too?
3) Better still - why didn't he use ONLY items which were found in the Ramsey household?

Also - why didn't he clean up his scuff marks and packing peanuts that Lou Smit says are proof of an intruder coming in?

Also - why didn't he make sure the basement window was closed and leave by a door so that it definitely looked like an inside job?

If someone wanted to destroy the Ramseys - why just kill their child? - why not go the whole hog and stage the crime so that there would be little doubt that the Ramseys killed their daughter?

This killer had already gone to a lot of bother to sneak out on the one day of the year when families tend to be together, he risked entering a house with no guarantee that the family would even come home, he risked moving a child around the house whilst her family slept nearby, we know he spent a considerable length of time in the house risking being heard and leaving forensic evience such as hairs, fibres, skin cells.... With very LITTLE additional effort, he could have ensured that the parents would be arrested straight away.

So why instead did he try to make it look like an intruder did it?

That is why I think the motive was not to destroy the Ramseys, but to get rid of Jonbenet.

Because he/they wanted to offer just enough doubt to keep the investigators going in circles. He/they are enjoying reading the boards, watching as nothing happens and the umbrella is still over John without an indictment.

[Sharon]

SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is the term given to an infant death that occurs when the infant is sleeping and breathing stops. Basically, they suffocate. It was a horrible experience to go and check on a sleeping baby only to find that he/she is not breathing and it is too late to do anything. I have found peace in her passing but it took years.

My apologies for distracting from the subject of the board. The intention was to relay experience from the loss of a child. There is an empty spot in my heart that will not be filled until we are reunited in Heaven (my belief).

Words cant describe how sad I am to hear your story. Thank you for sharing your innermost private details. You have cetainly touched my soul & I will definately be thinking of you & your daughter. How you describe it is very much how I imagined a loss like that to be.....sort of forever.:rose:

[Sharon]

We are debating the killer's motive. I think the killer hated Jonbenet and was possibly obsessed with Patsy. It takes a very special kind of evil to strangle a child until she dies and I think anyone jealous of John's wealth and business success would not have taken it out on a beautiful innocent child. I think if someone hated John Ramsey enough to want to ruin him, then he would have been personally targeted.

What reason(s) do you think he/they had to hate JBR?

Also, forgive me if this is too private but can I ask if you have children of your own? I ask because here I am thinking it goes without saying that the main way to get to someone is through their children, and you seem to think that this does not personally target JR, the parent.

Also, JR was ruined imo. Can you imagine how much he lost from having one of the most successful companies to nothing. Do you really think he did well out of this. He may not be poor, but he is nowhere near what his goals once were.

As an example, he might be a millionare, but before he probably was aiming to be a billionare. Im just guessing here, but surely we can all see that his real potensial was washed away after the murder. Even he admitted that he made very bad business decisions due to stress. He lost a major part of his fortune. imo.

But, I do agree with you that it takes a very evil person to strangle a little girl. I cant even comprehend the type of person who could follow through on something like that. This case is a real eye opener hey???? jmo

[Jayelles]

What reason(s) do you think he/they had to hate JBR?

Because she was a beautiful child who apparently had it all - including the undivided attention of her mother. Patsy's life revolved around Jonbenet and someone may have found that intolerable.

Also, forgive me if this is too private but can I ask if you have children of your own?

Three - two girls and a boy. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that someone who had no children would be unable to understand that a child's death is devastating for the parents? I have two female friends both of whom lost brothers in tragic road accidents (one was knocked down by a car, the other was in a car crash). Neither of my friends ever married or had children but they are both very fond of children and are deeply caring individuals who understand all too well what it is like for a parent to lose a child.

I ask because here I am thinking it goes without saying that the main way to get to someone is through their children, and you seem to think that this does not personally target JR, the parent

I think it targets Patsy more. JonBenet was Patsy's life whilst John concentratec on making his fortune.

Also, JR was ruined imo. Can you imagine how much he lost from having one of the most successful companies to nothing. Do you really think he did well out of this. He may not be poor, but he is nowhere near what his goals once were.

Yes but remember he DID go back to work and the main reason that the Ramseys became pariahs was because of their perceived lack of co-operation with the investigation. John might well have settled back into his job and continued to make millions. After all - he did after Beth's death. A killer trying to ruin John would have had no way of predicting that JonBenet's death would have ruined John Ramsey financially.


As an example, he might be a millionare, but before he probably was aiming to be a billionare. Im just guessing here, but surely we can all see that his real potensial was washed away after the murder. Even he admitted that he made very bad business decisions due to stress. He lost a major part of his fortune. imo.

But, I do agree with you that it takes a very evil person to strangle a little girl. I cant even comprehend the type of person who could follow through on something like that. This case is a real eye opener hey???? jmo

[Sharon]

[QUOTE=Jayelles;8827048]Because she was a beautiful child who apparently had it all - including the undivided attention of her mother. Patsy's life revolved around Jonbenet and someone may have found that intolerable.


Well, I think you have a unique angle on this ,but thats good, more aspects of the case to discuss.
jmo

[Miss Marple]

Amazing that even ST says the tape was not aired on any show and wants to know who these people are that claim to have heard it. What I find even more surprising is that he is not adamant about hearing Burke's voice on that tape. He uses the word "appears" which doesn't sound like he's too sure to me. Sounds like mass hysteria or they may have even heard background noise from the dispatcher's area. LOL

crimeADM: Did you hear the 911 tape personally; and if so, once and for all, was Burke on it?

stevethomas: I heard the 911 tape. repeatedly, as did the other detectives. the consensus was unanimous, as supported by the enhancement -- there is a 3rd voice on the tape, appears to be Burke (unless there was someone else present who has never been identified...)

crimeADM: A follow-up to the 911 question: Many people swear they heard the tape on one talk-show or another. Is there any possibility that this happened?

stevethomas: as far as i know, the only people who heard the tape were involved in the investigation -- da's office people, bpd personnel, engineers who enhanced it. if someone is out on the talk shows saying they heard it, who is this/these person(s)?



http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

Thanks for this. I've updated and cleaned up the 911 tape section to incorporate this material.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

We are debating the killer's motive. I think the killer hated Jonbenet and was possibly obsessed with Patsy. It takes a very special kind of evil to strangle a child until she dies and I think anyone jealous of John's wealth and business success would not have taken it out on a beautiful innocent child. I think if someone hated John Ramsey enough to want to ruin him, then he would have been personally targeted.

Let's accept your premise for a moment. If the killer were indeed motivated by a hatred of Patsy, how come the RN is full of vitriol for JOHN???? Do you think the killer was trying to hide their hatred for Patsy? Then why not just follow through on the foreign faction claim and launch into a rant against evil corporations that exploit "the people"? How does your theory explain those very personal comments directed at John? The principle of Occam's razor suggests we should take the evidence at face value and not try to make things more complicated than they seem.

The fact that deeply wounded people can and do function at a high level (Abraham Lincoln, widely viewed as our greatest president, also was wracked by depression and continued to lead the country even after enduring the loss
of a favorite son) doesn't mean they haven't been wounded. John did resume work and became even more successful after Beth's death, but I've seen more than one account of the psychological toll this took on him. The perp could not have been CERTAIN of this outcome, but in the aftermath of the brutal murder of a second daughter, John might well have plummeted psychologically and hence financially. I don't think our theory of motivation has to rest on the perp's being certain of this: as I indicated earlier, I think the perp could be certain that killing JBR would deeply HURT John for a very long time--presumably the rest of his life--regardless of whether it led to financial ruin. The target was John's heart, not his bank account.

Moreover, for a CEO in John's position, power affects one's sense of well-being. You can confirm this with your husband if you like, but anthropologically it is profoundly emasculating to be shown incapable of protecting your "women and children." For good or ill, men (possibly more so in America than elsewhere) are viewed as providers and protectors of their families. Thus, even John retained his formal position as CEO, he likely would have experienced a great deal of guilt and/or loss of self-respect over his failure to protect his most helpless child from harm's way.

C'mon, stop being so stubborn. Save some bandwidth and just admit you're wrong... :-)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

The forensic evidence doesn't support an accidental head-blow scenario. Elvislives has explained far more expertly than I ever could.
And how do you explain that Dr. Spitz, a renowned forensnic patholgist who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures, stated that there were blood clots on in JB 's brain? So there obviously were parts in her brain where the blood did have enough time to organize itself and create hemostasis, which casts doubt on EL's theory that the strangulation must have happened immediately after the head blow.
If you could cite JUST ONE known case in history where a wife has assisted her husband in covering up the sexual abuse AND KILLING of her own daughter, please do so.
Can't one read about cases like that in the paper quite often? Not only do there exist mothers who do not step in when realizing that their husband is molesting their daughter, but also cover up for him in case the child is killed.

but I think it far more likely that John covered up for Patsy than vice versa. I believe Patsy snapped and lost it with JB for a reason unconnected to sexual abuse issues.
But who knows, aside from that, maybe Patsy suspected John of having been being JB's sexual abuser, hence the 'personal attack' against John in the RN.

My problem with the scenario is this: Patsy was no meek, shrinking violet with dismal marital prospects were John to go to prison. What would motivate her to go along with assisting him in covering up, ESPECIALLY in a fashion most likely to point a finger back at her (her pad, her handwriting, her paintbrush)? How could the prospect of possibly joining John in prison for obstruction of justice (leaving her lone remaining child parentless) be appealing especially if she were uncertain about her own prospects for surviving cancer? I' m sure there exist cases like that. . But I don#t think John was he perp
Nor do I. The forensic and other circumstantial evidence points to Patsy as the main stager of the scene, and I think it was she who covered up for herself, with John helping her, probably more in a bystander's role. What Patsy wanted was what Patsy got in that marriage, and the same pattern continued even after such a tragic accident.

Imo Patsy could NEVER have lived with the public knowing she had killed her daughter, therefore she did not turn herself in to the police. So she took the plunge and staged a scene in a frantic effort to save her and her family's reputation.

So given a choice between these exceedingly remote (admittedly not IMPOSSIBLE) scenarios and a much more straightforward IDI scenario, the KISS principle/Occam's razor suggests IDI.
There exists no straight forward IDI scenario. Occam's razor points to Patsy, since one can't assume that the perp put on Patsy's jacket when handling the garrote. Or practised her handwriting to perfection.
I infer you are relatively young and probably unmarried. Wrong inference on your part: I'm not relatively young and also married.
But it's happened to me too, MM: for example, I remember having quite a few posting exchanges on a forum with someone who I was convinced must be an elderly lady. But then in one post this person suddenly started talking about his 'term papers', and it turned out this was a young male college student, lol. But I never told him I'd thought he sounded like an elderly lady, for he might have taken it the wrong way ...
I suggest you talk with 10 married women to get a more realistic perspective about how real married women--not those you imagine in your head--would react to the scenario I just described. Can they imagine themselves or even a single one of their friends facilitating in a cover-up, especially one that entailed "staging" a brutal murder and dumping the body in a dark basement room?
Since I don't think John was the perp, the question what so called "real married women" would do here does not raise itself for me in this case.
But just for the sake of the discussion:
You would be surprised what people are able to do when having their back up against the wall. Self-preservation is one of the most powerful motives, and the fear having to witness John's public disgrace, for an extremely status-conscious person like Patsy, could have led her to cover up for him. And don't forget Burke. For example, Patsy could have wanted to spare Burke the horrific realization that not only had his father been molesting his little sister. JB, but also killed her.

It was by no means CERTAIN what "tomorrow" meant in the RN.
Another indicator that the RN was bogus. For real kidnappers would have written the exact date. I can imagine Patsy sitting there at dead of night, composing the note, having 'tomorrow' in mind = when the night was over ...

[rashomon]

[Miss Marple]Did the POLICE make any comment about the missed deadline? Is THAT suspicious? I suppose they didn't say anything to the Ramseys but suppose they didn't say anything t's clear that no one took the RN completely at face value. The Ramseys did what most RN victims do in the face of admonitions not to alert LE: they called LE anyway. When LE arrived and read the actual note, their reaction wasn't "OMG, this note says they are monitoring the house! We need to get all these people out of here immediately, hide all the police vehicles and make our presence as invisible as possible." To all appearances, the RN was treated like any other in terms of how it was actually handled (yes, there are some accounts of SOME LE thinking the note seemed odd, but until Linda Arndt had her flash of insight after the body was found that perhaps John was involved, there's no indication she thought she was dealing with anything BUT an attempt to collect a ransom). If LE believed otherwise, why squander resources tapping the phone? Why give JR elaborate instructions for how to handle the incoming call?

Those small town cops were out of their league when dealing with the situation. How many ransom kidnappings had happened in Boulder in the past decades? Probably none.
In short, it's trivially easy to start with a theory and then "see" how all the evidence somehow fits the theory (it's especially easy when you can attribute to foresight and shrewd planning selected elements that "fit" your theory [e.g., some RDI theorists apparently believe that the Ramseys left behind evidence such as the remaining cord and duct tape fully confident that Pam would later be permitted to enter the house and take all that damning evidence away! If that's how this case actually went down, I'd have to say the Ramseys were STUNNING prescient and self-confident that LE would allow this in the first place or wouldn't have already found the inculpatory evidence before she arrived] and "explain away" puzzling lapses of judgment such as Patsy's overtly letting her anger towards John seep out in a note that was INTENDED to point AWAY from the parents!).
If Patsy's anger spilled out in the note, I think it was something she was not aware of.
I believe the Ramseys were self-confident enough, otherwise they would never have taken the plunge to stage a scene. The MO of the stager was not "what are people going to believe", but "what do I want them to believe".
But from this self-confidence one can't infer that the staging was directed by meticulous planning and logic. The opposite was the case. It was chaotic, the elements not fitting together.
Good point MM about the Ramseys not knowing Pam Paugh would be allowed to remove items from the home. But when Pam was in fact allowed to do it, they could have taken the chance.
BTW, nobody strip-searched the Ramseys. Theroetically, they could even have put the incriminating items in their pocket before leaving the crime scene.
The fact that everything played into the hands of the Ramseys was not the result of their brilliant criminal masterminds planning this thing, but the result of mistakes made at the crime scene coupled with a spineless DA's cowardice.

But to solve the case, good sleuths start with the evidence and then select theories based on how well they fit that evidence. I continue to believe the weight of the evidence in this particular case leans in the IDI direction. If you don't believe me, read a few Sherlock Holmes stories.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
You are soo right, Miss Marple. For example, had Sherlock Holmes been consulted on the case, the fiber evidence against Patsy would have sealed it for him, dont you think so? :)

Or just take your famous 'namesake', Miss Marple (I love her! I'm also an avid reader of crime fiction, and Dame Agatha is one of my favorites).
Can you imagine how Miss Marple would have commented on the Ramseys' suspicious behavior? You bet it would have raised a thousand red flags for her, who was so perceptive and astute. :)

[bullmoose]

Those small town cops were out of their league when dealing with the situation. How many ransom kidnappings had happened in Boulder in the past decades? Probably none.

If Patsy's anger spilled out in the note, I think it was something she was not aware of.
I believe the Ramseys were self-confident enough, otherwise they would never have taken the plunge to stage a scene. The MO of the stager was not "what are people going to believe", but "what do I want them to believe".
But from this self-confidence one can't infer that the staging was directed by meticulous planning and logic. The opposite was the case. It was chaotic, the elements not fitting together.
Good point MM about the Ramseys not knowing Pam Paugh would be allowed to remove items from the home. But when Pam was in fact allowed to do it, they could have taken the chance.
BTW, nobody strip-searched the Ramseys. Theroetically, they could even have put the incriminating items in their pocket before leaving the crime scene.
The fact that everything played into the hands of the Ramseys was not the result of their brilliant criminal masterminds planning this thing, but the result of mistakes made at the crime scene coupled with a spineless DA's cowardice.


You are soo right, Miss Marple. For example, had Sherlock Holmes been consulted on the case, the fiber evidence against Patsy would have sealed it for him, dont you think so? :)

Or just take your famous 'namesake', Miss Marple (I love her! I'm also an avid reader of crime fiction, and Dame Agatha is one of my favorites).
Can you imagine how Miss Marple would have commented on the Ramseys' suspicious behavior? You bet it would have raised a thousand red flags for her, who was so perceptive and astute. :)I think Sherlock Holmes would have been astounded to find that people had been taken in so thoroughly by Imaginary Evidence; personally I do not think that Synthroid Stevie should be compared to Scotland Yard's Lestrade; he was a literary invention, like the shirt fibers. Unfortunately for this case, the Twister is all too real. JMHO:biggrin:

[Jayelles]

Let's accept your premise for a moment. If the killer were indeed motivated by a hatred of Patsy, how come the RN is full of vitriol for JOHN???? Do you think the killer was trying to hide their hatred for Patsy?

You want ME to admit I'm wrong and yet it's you who can't get it right? I didn't say I thought the killer was motivated by hatred of Patsy. I said I thought the killer was motivated by hatred of JonBenet and possible an OBSESSION for Patsy. (My post herehttp://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8827026&postcount=379)

Please try harder Marple. You are so absorbed in trying to be clever with your shades of shades of grey analyses that you keep missing the essential points that are being made


Then why not just follow through on the foreign faction claim and launch into a rant against evil corporations that exploit "the people"? How does your theory explain those very personal comments directed at John? The principle of Occam's razor suggests we should take the evidence at face value and not try to make things more complicated than they seem.

The fact that deeply wounded people can and do function at a high level (Abraham Lincoln, widely viewed as our greatest president, also was wracked by depression and continued to lead the country even after enduring the loss
of a favorite son) doesn't mean they haven't been wounded. John did resume work and became even more successful after Beth's death, but I've seen more than one account of the psychological toll this took on him. The perp could not have been CERTAIN of this outcome, but in the aftermath of the brutal murder of a second daughter, John might well have plummeted psychologically and hence financially. I don't think our theory of motivation has to rest on the perp's being certain of this: as I indicated earlier, I think the perp could be certain that killing JBR would deeply HURT John for a very long time--presumably the rest of his life--regardless of whether it led to financial ruin. The target was John's heart, not his bank account.

Moreover, for a CEO in John's position, power affects one's sense of well-being. You can confirm this with your husband if you like, but anthropologically it is profoundly emasculating to be shown incapable of protecting your "women and children." For good or ill, men (possibly more so in America than elsewhere) are viewed as providers and protectors of their families. Thus, even John retained his formal position as CEO, he likely would have experienced a great deal of guilt and/or loss of self-respect over his failure to protect his most helpless child from harm's way.

C'mon, stop being so stubborn. Save some bandwidth and just admit you're wrong... :-)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

You want ME to admit I'm wrong and yet it's you who can't get it right? I didn't say I thought the killer was motivated by hatred of Patsy. I said I thought the killer was motivated by hatred of JonBenet and possible an OBSESSION for Patsy. (My post herehttp://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8827026&postcount=379)

Please try harder Marple. You are so absorbed in trying to be clever with your shades of shades of grey analyses that you keep missing the essential points that are being made

My apology for inadvertently mistating your position, but actually, I'm paying closer attention than you think. I would say that it is you who appear to be missing the forest from the trees here. This is now the second consecutive time you have ducked my question: given YOUR theory of motivation (and in this regard it really doesn't matter whether the perp hated JBR or Patsy), how do you explain all the vitriol directed towards JOHN in that note?

In American baseball, we have a 3 strikes and you're out rule. You're not exactly known for casually conceding a debating point when you have even a single arrow left in your quiver to defend your position. So if you fail to answer this question a third time, I will infer that you've recognized the flaw in your theory revealed by my question and have elected to be called out on strikes rather than risk swinging on a perfect pitch... :-)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

My apology for inadvertently mistating your position, but actually, I'm paying closer attention than you think. I would say that it is you who appear to be missing the forest from the trees here. This is now the second consecutive time you have ducked my question: given YOUR theory of motivation (and in this regard it really doesn't matter whether the perp hated JBR or Patsy), how do you explain all the vitriol directed towards JOHN in that note?

In American baseball, we have a 3 strikes and you're out rule. You're not exactly known for casually conceding a debating point when you have even a single arrow left in your quiver to defend your position. So if you fail to answer this question a third time, I will infer that you've recognized the flaw in your theory revealed by my question and have elected to be called out on strikes rather than risk swinging on a perfect pitch... :-)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Actually, I've not been ignoring the question. I've just been ignoring you.

[Jayelles]

If the killer had an obsession for Patsy, it would make sense that the killer might harbour a resentlment for John.

[Miss Marple]

And how do you explain that Dr. Spitz, a renowned forensnic patholgist who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures, stated that there were blood clots on in JB 's brain? So there obviously were parts in her brain where the blood did have enough time to organize itself and create hemostasis, which casts doubt on EL's theory that the strangulation must have happened immediately after the head blow.

Unless I have some evidence of malfeasance, I will take the eyes and report of a coroner who observes the actual body over someone who examines mere photos, just as I will prefer the opinion of handwriting experts who examine ORIGINALS of both a ransom note and exemplars when deciding whose opinion to believe regarding handwriting evidence. The autopsy report clearly states NO evidence of organization (not MINOR evidence etc.) AND NO INFLAMMATION. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Head%20Injuries

Can't one read about cases like that in the paper quite often? Not only do there exist mothers who do not step in when realizing that their husband is molesting their daughter, but also cover up for him in case the child is killed.
Good, since you believe these cases are in the paper quite often, it will be trivial for you to supply me with a single example, as requested. I can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate these cases exist. Remember I have stipulated that there ARE, tragically, numerous cases of the mom failing to confront the husband despite rampant evidence of sexual abuse. I'm asking for an example of a woman who not only did that but was actively complicit in staging the daughter's death to point away from the husband. It would be more convincing, of course, if you selected a woman of Patsy's means, age and physical appearance, since a woman of lesser means or marital prospects might well have felt trapped by circumstances into preserving the marriage no matter what the cost. Selecting such an individual would help drive home your counter-theory that a woman in such circumstances might go down this path simply to avoid social opprobrium.


but I think it far more likely that John covered up for Patsy than vice versa. I believe Patsy snapped and lost it with JB for a reason unconnected to sexual abuse issues.
But who knows, aside from that, maybe Patsy suspected John of having been being JB's sexual abuser, hence the 'personal attack' against John in the RN.
Well, Jayelles doesn't appear to adhere to a PDI theory, so I didn't raise this question, but your theory doesn't "compute" with the contents of the note.
Patsy killed her daughter, desperately begs John to assist in a cover-up, John mysteriously agrees to this outrageous proposition and yet Patsy, rather than being infinitely grateful to John, lets her venom towards him seep all over the RN? Wow!


Nor do I. The forensic and other circumstantial evidence points to Patsy as the main stager of the scene, and I think it was she who covered up for herself, with John helping her, probably more in a bystander's role.
Of course, for any of this to be true, Patsy must have written the RN, but as you well know, not a single handwriting examiner who looked at ORIGINALS reached that conclusion and these were expert that Darnay Hoffman's own expert conceded were absolutely at the top of their field.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Patsy%20Ramsey%20as%20RN%20Author
Any theory forced to completely ignore such expert findings is on very shaky ground.

What Patsy wanted was what Patsy got in that marriage, and the same pattern continued even after such a tragic accident.
I really wasn't aware the multi-millionaire CEO John Ramsey was such a milquetoast who let his wife wear the pants in that family. Evidence? Wasn't JOHN, not Patsy, who dragged the family away from family and friends in Atlanta?


Imo Patsy could NEVER have lived with the public knowing she had killed her daughter, therefore she did not turn herself in to the police. So she took the plunge and staged a scene in a frantic effort to save her and her family's reputation.
Your opinion is just that. IF Patsy killed her daughter, it was deliberate, not accidental (unless you want to cherry-pick the forensic evidence the way you appear to have done with the handwriting evidence). I've already offered reasons it's more plausible to believe IDI than that Patsy "snapped" out of the blue.


Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Here's part 2 of my reply. Sorry for the length, but evidence takes space.


There exists no straight forward IDI scenario. Occam's razor points to Patsy, since one can't assume that the perp put on Patsy's jacket when handling the garrote.
Sharon's question is the right one: if the fiber evidence truly were such a slam-dunk, the failure to get the indictment BPD was panting for is pretty incomprehensible.

Or practised her handwriting to perfection. "Richard Dusick of the U.S. Secret Service concluded that there was "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." http://tinyurl.com/3amkmb Gosh:
who to believe? Amateur sleuther rashomon or Richard Dusick, a handwriting expert with decades of experience who does this kind of work full-time for a living and who is SO good, he works for the agency that TRAINS handwriting experts to boot? I hope you won't feel offended if I stick with Dusick on this one.

Wrong inference on your part: I'm not relatively young and also married. But it's happened to me too, MM: for example, I remember having quite a few posting exchanges on a forum with someone who I was convinced must be an elderly lady. But then in one post this person suddenly started talking about his 'term papers', and it turned out this was a young male college student, lol. But I never told him I'd thought he sounded like an elderly lady, for he might have taken it the wrong way ...
Mea culpa: something in your extended exchanges with Delmar England made me think you might well have been a young college student. FWIW, I assume you know I'm a middle-aged male college professor so I'll warn you in advance that I'll take deep offense at being told I sound like an elderly lady... :-)


Since I don't think John was the perp, the question what so called "real married women" would do here does not raise itself for me in this case.
But just for the sake of the discussion:
You would be surprised what people are able to do when having their back up against the wall. Self-preservation is one of the most powerful motives, and the fear having to witness John's public disgrace, for an extremely status-conscious person like Patsy, could have led her to cover up for him. And don't forget Burke. For example, Patsy could have wanted to spare Burke the horrific realization that not only had his father been molesting his little sister. JB, but also killed her.
Just ONE example and you'll have me convinced of this possibility. Real behavior by real people is ever more persuasive than armchair speculations about how people might behave etc.


Another indicator that the RN was bogus. For real kidnappers would have written the exact date. I can imagine Patsy sitting there at dead of night, composing the note, having 'tomorrow' in mind = when the night was over ...
You have far too elevated an opinion of human behavior. Unless you believe the Lindbergh kidnapping was a hoax, here's a real live example of a ransom note: "Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes"
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Ransom%20Note#ComparisontoOtherFamousRNs
That date doesn't sound very exact to me. This is just one small illustration of how the behavior of real people will always trump the inexperienced speculations of amateurs (no offense: I'm just trying to differentiate between varying levels of reliability of different forms of evidence).

Let me give you another real life example: The kidnapper of infant Peter Weinberger was so nervous he "had given flawed instructions. In demanding that the money be left at Albemarle Road and Park Avenue, the kidnaper failed to recognize that Albemarle formed a semi-circle crossing Park at two distinct intersections. Thus, the detectives were obliged to prepare two ransom packages." This guy also botched more than one ransom money pick-up attempt. http://tinyurl.com/y2ggod

Likewise, 3-year old Clark Handa's kidnapper left a ransom note, but never returned to pick up the ransom. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/12/04/MN79938.DTL
I guess the cops were too stupid to realize that since the kidnapper never came back, the whole thing must have been a hoax from the get-go and that the parents really did it: after all, they were home when the perp snatched Clark from his bedroom.

In short, when perps don't measure up to your television- or movie-inspired visions of how "bad guys" behave, that isn't necessarily good cause to turn on the parents. The reality is that there are any number of intruders who could have a) entered the house with a key given the number of keys that had been given out; b) written a "personalized" RN either based on prior knowledge or information obtainable in the house for anyone spending an hour or so to do so; c) taken JBR from the bedroom without waking parents, as we've seen in repeated cases; d) killed her in the basement and dumped the body; and e) left the RN on the steps on the way out the butler door. The mere fact we haven't found one yet who fits the DNA evidence means virtually nothing. Read above how long and diligently police searched for Peter Weinberger's kidnapper before essentially "stumbling" on the right individual. No "out-of-character" behavior has to be postulated to believe the brief account I just described, nor would the perp have to have magical or superhuman powers to commit the crime as I have outlined it.

Do the following mental experiment. If BPD announced tomorrow they'd found a suspect whose DNA matched and who had confessed to the crime, what would your reaction be? Would your attitude be "finally, case closed, thank goodness" or would you instead be saying "this is completely bogus. I smell a rat. There is NO WAY this could be true. Someone obviously must have gotten paid a lot of money to take a fall here."

If you lean towards the latter reaction, may I respectfully suggest that your thinking on this matter appears to have severely distorted your vision? If so, I suggest you "recalibrate" and start with a fresher evidence-based look at what likely happened here.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

In short, when perps don't measure up to your television- or movie-inspired visions of how "bad guys" behave, that isn't necessarily good cause to turn on the parents. The reality is that there are any number of intruders who could have a) entered the house with a key given the number of keys that had been given out; b) written a "personalized" RN either based on prior knowledge or information obtainable in the house for anyone spending an hour or so to do so; c) taken JBR from the bedroom without waking parents, as we've seen in repeated cases; d) killed her in the basement and dumped the body; and e) left the RN on the steps on the way out the butler door. The mere fact we haven't found one yet who fits the DNA evidence means virtually nothing. Read above how long and diligently police searched for Peter Weinberger's kidnapper before essentially "stumbling" on the right individual. No "out-of-character" behavior has to be postulated to believe the brief account I just described, nor would the perp have to have magical or superhuman powers to commit the crime as I have outlined it.

Thats what Ive been trying to say. I get the feeling that some people here are so sure about how others are suposed to act and remember things that they are completely off the trail.
It doesnt take much research on other murders and abductions to realise that anything goes.

I dont even think the rn was sooooo long to be completely staged, especially when it is compared to other real rn (that also sound crazy).
jmo

[Zoey]

Miss Marple,

I don't know where you have been posting all this time, but thank you for taking the time to come to this forum. Your knowledge is astounding.
Already I have learned so much from what you have posted.

Zoey :beer:

[Athena]

I know I've said this before but who's to definitely say the ransom note wasn't real? Why can't it be taken at face value? Why couldn't the $118k amount just have been an amount a kiidnapper thought JR could get his hands on quickly? How do we know that it was not a kidnapping gone wrong? Why couldn't a scream from JBR scare the bejesus out of the perp so he bashes her head in, which was not a part of his original plan? Maybe the perp really believed JR and Patsy would adhere to his warnings and not call the police and hope they didn't find the body. How do we know the perp was not still there and heard Patsy making her way down the stairs not realizing they'd be up that early the day after a holiday? How do we know the perp did not come with his own backpack with duct tape, cord and flashlight which are very common tools of a kidnapper? They could have very well monitored the house and realized the police had been called and left. As it turns out if PR had not called the police they very well could have received the money. We just don't know.

[Zoey]

I know I've said this before but who's to definitely say the ransom note wasn't real? Why can't it be taken at face value? Why couldn't the $118k amount just have been an amount a kiidnapper thought JR could get his hands on quickly? How do we know that it was not a kidnapping gone wrong? Why couldn't a scream from JBR scare the bejesus out of the perp so he bashes her head in, which was not a part of his original plan? Maybe the perp really believed JR and Patsy would adhere to his warnings and not call the police and hope they didn't find the body. How do we know the perp was not still there and heard Patsy making her way down the stairs not realizing they'd be up that early the day after a holiday? How do we know the perp did not come with his own backpack with duct tape, cord and flashlight which are very common tools of a kidnapper? They could have very well monitored the house and realized the police had been called and left. As it turns out if PR had not called the police they very well could have received the money. We just don't know.


How do we know all the above things you posted are not the way it was? Because that's not what is in Steve Thomas' book, therefore it just can't be, right??!! :tongue:

[rashomon]

Unless I have some evidence of malfeasance, I will take the eyes and report of a coroner who observes the actual body over someone who examines mere photos, just as I will prefer the opinion of handwriting experts who examine ORIGINALS of both a ransom note and exemplars when deciding whose opinion to believe regarding handwriting evidence. The autopsy report clearly states NO evidence of organization (not MINOR evidence etc.) AND NO INFLAMMATION. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Head%20Injuries
But remember that the autopsy report does not list every blood found in JB's skull as having no evidence of organization/inflammation.

[QUOTE]Good, since you believe these cases are in the paper quite often, it will be trivial for you to supply me with a single example, as requested. I can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate these cases exist.
I never take notes but go entirely from memory. But just think about the cases where both parents take their almost dead child to the hospital, claiming their child had fallen down the stairs, etc. This is an attempt at staging too.
Remember I have stipulated that there ARE, tragically, numerous cases of the mom failing to confront the husband despite rampant evidence of sexual abuse. I'm asking for an example of a woman who not only did that but was actively complicit in staging the daughter's death to point away from the husband. It would be more convincing, of course, if you selected a woman of Patsy's means, age and physical appearance, since a woman of lesser means or marital prospects might well have felt trapped by circumstances into preserving the marriage no matter what the cost. Selecting such an individual would help drive home your counter-theory that a woman in such circumstances might go down this path simply to avoid social opprobrium.
Again, I think Burke comes into play here. For Burke's sake, Patsy could have agreed to help with the cover-up, wanting to spare her son the trauma of having his father exposed as a child molester and killer.

Patsy killed her daughter, desperately begs John to assist in a cover-up, John mysteriously agrees to this outrageous proposition and yet Patsy, rather than being infinitely grateful to John, lets her venom towards him seep all over the RN? Wow!
For the third time now, MM: I wrote that Patsy was in some kind of zombie mental state, may not even have been aware of how personal the note had become.

Of course, for any of this to be true, Patsy must have written the RN, but as you well know, not a single handwriting examiner who looked at ORIGINALS reached that conclusion and these were expert that Darnay Hoffman's own expert conceded were absolutely at the top of their field.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Patsy%20Ramsey%20as%20RN%20Author
Any theory forced to completely ignore such expert findings is on very shaky ground.
Nice try to muddy the waters, but I think you know the case well enough to interpret terms like "could not be eliminated" correctly. That you don't want to do so is another story.

I really wasn't aware the multi-millionaire CEO John Ramsey was such a milquetoast who let his wife wear the pants in that family. Evidence? Wasn't JOHN, not Patsy, who dragged the family away from family and friends in Atlanta?
Were there business reasons for that? If so, Patsy probably agreed because John was 'the goose who laid the golden eggs', as we say in German.
Patsy was denied nothing money-wise. This was important for her.
Nothing points to John playig the king of the castle at home, but everything to Patsy being the queen, with Nedra in the role of queen mother: "As long as John brings in the money, we're going to spend it", Nedra said.
I do think John was milksop at home and Patsy called the shots. For example, when John was asked why Patsy, and not he, had called the police, he said that this was the way things were done at home: Patsy handled the phone calls. So even in a life-and death situation, John did not take charge.
Your opinion is just that. IF Patsy killed her daughter, it was deliberate, not accidental (unless you want to cherry-pick the forensic evidence the way you appear to have done with the handwriting evidence). I've already offered reasons it's more plausible to believe IDI than that Patsy "snapped" out of the blue.
You cherrypick the forensic evidence by mentioning only that part of the blood in JB's brain which showed no evidence of organization. [/QUOTE

[shill]

Imo Patsy could NEVER have lived with the public knowing she had killed her daughter, therefore she did not turn herself in to the police. So she took the plunge and staged a scene in a frantic effort to save her and her family's reputation.
Boy that backfired on her. What was she thinking?

Good thing she valued her public reputation more then her daughter's life. It would be hard to strangle, and rape JB after killing her if she cared about her more then her public reputation.
What a brave women Patsy is to do what she had to to save her public reputation.

[bullmoose]

Boy that backfired on her. What was she thinking?

Good thing she valued her public reputation more then her daughter's life. It would be hard to strangle, and rape JB after killing her if she cared about her more then her public reputation.
What a brave women Patsy is to do what she had to to save her public reputation.Shill, you hit the nail on the head, the courage that Patsy showed by strangling and sexually abusing Jonbenet to preserve her public reputation should be a shining example to all of us of what can be made of a bad situation. How many of us would show the fortitude and moral courage to do what Rashie says she did?What a brave, selfless action on Patsy's part, right? Why, in the same situation, ordinary mortals might chicken out and do the right thing, calling 911 for an ambulance; but, according to Rashie, she held firm in her resolve to protect her public reputation. Bravo! Bravo! or as we have the saying in English: BULL****!
IMO, Rashie's theory is as lame as a two-legged dog. :biggrin:

[Louisadelmar]

You cherrypick the forensic evidence by mentioning only that part of the blood in JB's brain which showed no evidence of organization. [/QUOTE

Well that's easy to fix. Just show us the part of the autopsy where it mentions the blood organization.

[Miss Marple]

But remember that the autopsy report does not list every blood found in JB's skull as having no evidence of organization/inflammation.
# "Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area." (photo)
# "This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization."
You're right: I am referring exclusively to the MASSIVE hemorrhage associated with the MASSIVE head blow and it is THAT head blow I am claiming could not have preceded strangulation by very much time.


I never take notes but go entirely from memory. But just think about the cases where both parents take their almost dead child to the hospital, claiming their child had fallen down the stairs, etc. This is an attempt at staging too.
Just let us know when your Google skills get up to snuff. OR, since these events are SO frequent, just send us the URL of any future news you encounter of this sort. I think most posters would draw a rather large distinction between parents who bring their dead child to a hospital making a false claim and those who stage not only a strangulation but a completely needless (from the standpoint of covering up an accidental head-blow) sexual assault, leaving the body, by the way, in a dark cellar room for 12+ hours before being found. That's exactly my point: IF the Ramseys were covering this up in the fashion you describe, they were doing so in a way unprecedented (to my knowledge) in forensic history. As I say, if you think accidents-staged-as-murders, as opposed to accidents-staged-as-accidents are commonplace, just ONE real live case is all I'm asking for you to prove your point.

Again, I think Burke comes into play here. For Burke's sake, Patsy could have agreed to help with the cover-up, wanting to spare her son the trauma of having his father exposed as a child molester and killer.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda: this is all completely speculative. Convictions require evidence. Where's the EVIDENCE of the severely pathological behavior that we'd have expected to be apparent in the Ramseys if one were on the verge of "snapping" or another were engaged in on-going sexual abuse?


For the third time now, MM: I wrote that Patsy was in some kind of zombie mental state, may not even have been aware of how personal the note had become.
I see, clear-headed enough to organize and commandeer John in a massive staging and cover-up of high enough quality to have worked (i.e., GJ never indicted), clear-headed enough to write a 3-page RN, but apparently too muddle-headed to realize what she was writing. You're entitled to believe what you wish, but I hope you see how you're wanting to have it both ways: parents that at once are fiendishly clever in staying ahead of LE and yet simultaneously goofed in ways that nearly did them in.



Nice try to muddy the waters, but I think you know the case well enough to interpret terms like "could not be eliminated" correctly. That you don't want to do so is another story.
And I think YOU know the evidence well enough to know exactly how deceptive your statement above is. # "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]
# Odds "Very Low" Patsy Wrote Note. Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.).
Yes, technically, Patsy "could not be eliminated" meaning the chance she wrote the note was not ZERO. But that, of course, is very different from saying the likelihood she wrote the note was high. It wasn't, and you know it. Any impartial juror confronted with this evidence would have been forced to conclude there was WAY more than "reasonable doubt" Patsy authored the note. That to this day we hear posters asserting they are 100% certain she did is evidence of just how biased their assessment of the available evidence is.


Were there business reasons for that? If so, Patsy probably agreed because John was 'the goose who laid the golden eggs', as we say in German.
Patsy was denied nothing money-wise. This was important for her.
Nothing points to John playig the king of the castle at home, but everything to Patsy being the queen, with Nedra in the role of queen mother: "As long as John brings in the money, we're going to spend it", Nedra said.
I do think John was milksop at home and Patsy called the shots. For example, when John was asked why Patsy, and not he, had called the police, he said that this was the way things were done at home: Patsy handled the phone calls. So even in a life-and death situation, John did not take charge.
At the time of the killing, JR had a net worth of $6-$7 million. Had he gone to prison, I don't think Patsy would have been remotely lacking for material goods. If JR had been abusing his daughter, Patsy would have had him by the proverbial gonads. She could have pretended to go along with a cover-up all while feeding the police info to cook John's goose. It never happened.


You cherrypick the forensic evidence by mentioning only that part of the blood in JB's brain which showed no evidence of organization.
No, I select the evidence that is relevant, while you appear to prefer to muddy the water by introducing evidence that is not. There is no evidence of organization in the blood related to the hemorrhage stemming from the massive head blow. That's all that matters in terms of figuring out when that
blow was struck. We know 3 important things about this case:
1) The head blow was MASSIVE, suggesting a killer who did this with deliberation, not by accident.
2) There was no evidence of organization, suggesting that the head blow came close to the time of death.
3) BUT, the cause of death was strangulation, not the head blow, which again suggests a perp with deliberate intent and makes far less probable a parent trying to use strangulation as staging (since whoever did this would have had to ignore the petechiae created on the neck and face as this happened. Whether she was conscious or unconscious at this juncture, it could not have been a pretty sight).
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[bullmoose]

Bullmoose, tell me something-

Why would anyone who can plot such murder forget such minute details as bringing their own paper, or writing that ransom note before entering the home, or forget to enclose the note in an envelope?I have never believed for a second that the killer forgot anything, I think the house had been cased in advance, I also think that using the Ramseys pads and Sharpie was to put the BPD onto the Ramsey's scent. Nobody writes a three-page note with all the odd details that one had; IMO it was all effortlessly deliberate by the killer to help the hapless cops to start chasing their tails, and round and round they went; IMO they formulated their silly theory, got terminal tunnel vision and never followed the evidence, such as it was, to see where it might lead them. After a few days the trail, if there was one to follow, was colder than a stepmother's kiss. And thats basically, IMO, where we stand.:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

# "Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area." (photo)
# "This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization."
You're right: I am referring exclusively to the MASSIVE hemorrhage associated with the MASSIVE head blow and it is THAT head blow I am claiming could not have preceded strangulation by very much time.


Just let us know when your Google skills get up to snuff. OR, since these events are SO frequent, just send us the URL of any future news you encounter of this sort. I think most posters would draw a rather large distinction between parents who bring their dead child to a hospital making a false claim and those who stage not only a strangulation but a completely needless (from the standpoint of covering up an accidental head-blow) sexual assault, leaving the body, by the way, in a dark cellar room for 12+ hours before being found. That's exactly my point: IF the Ramseys were covering this up in the fashion you describe, they were doing so in a way unprecedented (to my knowledge) in forensic history. As I say, if you think accidents-staged-as-murders, as opposed to accidents-staged-as-accidents are commonplace, just ONE real live case is all I'm asking for you to prove your point.


Woulda, shoulda, coulda: this is all completely speculative. Convictions require evidence. Where's the EVIDENCE of the severely pathological behavior that we'd have expected to be apparent in the Ramseys if one were on the verge of "snapping" or another were engaged in on-going sexual abuse?


I see, clear-headed enough to organize and commandeer John in a massive staging and cover-up of high enough quality to have worked (i.e., GJ never indicted), clear-headed enough to write a 3-page RN, but apparently too muddle-headed to realize what she was writing. You're entitled to believe what you wish, but I hope you see how you're wanting to have it both ways: parents that at once are fiendishly clever in staying ahead of LE and yet simultaneously goofed in ways that nearly did them in.



And I think YOU know the evidence well enough to know exactly how deceptive your statement above is. # "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]
# Odds "Very Low" Patsy Wrote Note. Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.).
Yes, technically, Patsy "could not be eliminated" meaning the chance she wrote the note was not ZERO. But that, of course, is very different from saying the likelihood she wrote the note was high. It wasn't, and you know it. Any impartial juror confronted with this evidence would have been forced to conclude there was WAY more than "reasonable doubt" Patsy authored the note. That to this day we hear posters asserting they are 100% certain she did is evidence of just how biased their assessment of the available evidence is.


At the time of the killing, JR had a net worth of $6-$7 million. Had he gone to prison, I don't think Patsy would have been remotely lacking for material goods. If JR had been abusing his daughter, Patsy would have had him by the proverbial gonads. She could have pretended to go along with a cover-up all while feeding the police info to cook John's goose. It never happened.


No, I select the evidence that is relevant, while you appear to prefer to muddy the water by introducing evidence that is not. There is no evidence of organization in the blood related to the hemorrhage stemming from the massive head blow. That's all that matters in terms of figuring out when that
blow was struck. We know 3 important things about this case:
1) The head blow was MASSIVE, suggesting a killer who did this with deliberation, not by accident.
2) There was no evidence of organization, suggesting that the head blow came close to the time of death.
3) BUT, the cause of death was strangulation, not the head blow, which again suggests a perp with deliberate intent and makes far less probable a parent trying to use strangulation as staging (since whoever did this would have had to ignore the petechiae created on the neck and face as this happened. Whether she was conscious or unconscious at this juncture, it could not have been a pretty sight).
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

What need would there have been to strike her on the head if she was being strangled? How difficult do you think it would be to strangle a 6 year old? The evidence suggests that she did not put up a struggle.
If you say that she screamed while being strangled and he hit her to shut her up, I would ask you to explain to me how it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled.
If your intruder hit her on the head first, what need would he have had to strangle her? He could have just left her to die a slow death or hit her again for good measure.
Why the ransom note? Do you believe it was legitimate? If so, why did he kill her and leave her body? He would have no way of knowing that the Ramseys wouldn't have turned the house upside down looking for her.
What exactly is your theory, Miss M? or should I say Mr. M....

[Athena]

What need would there have been to strike her on the head if she was being strangled? How difficult do you think it would be to strangle a 6 year old? The evidence suggests that she did not put up a struggle.
If you say that she screamed while being strangled and he hit her to shut her up, I would ask you to explain to me how it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled.
If your intruder hit her on the head first, what need would he have had to strangle her? He could have just left her to die a slow death or hit her again for good measure.
Why the ransom note? Do you believe it was legitimate? If so, why did he kill her and leave her body? He would have no way of knowing that the Ramseys wouldn't have turned the house upside down looking for her.
What exactly is your theory, Miss M? or should I say Mr. M....

It is my belief that she was tortured so the perp would not just strangle her. If he loosened and tightened the cord she would have had an opportunity to scream.

The perp's intention could have been to kidnap her and it was thwarted possibly by the scream.

[Zoey]

What need would there have been to strike her on the head if she was being strangled? How difficult do you think it would be to strangle a 6 year old? The evidence suggests that she did not put up a struggle.
If you say that she screamed while being strangled and he hit her to shut her up, I would ask you to explain to me how it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled.
If your intruder hit her on the head first, what need would he have had to strangle her? He could have just left her to die a slow death or hit her again for good measure.
Why the ransom note? Do you believe it was legitimate? If so, why did he kill her and leave her body? He would have no way of knowing that the Ramseys wouldn't have turned the house upside down looking for her.
What exactly is your theory, Miss M? or should I say Mr. M....


I have not read anywhere but on this forum by a poster who left here and went to Websleuths that claims you cannot scream when you are being strangled, so IMO, I think it is really hard for any of us to say whether it is or is not possible to scream while being strangled.

If someone has anything besides that former posters opinion, please direct me in the right direction, because I truly would like to know. TIA.

[thewhitewitch1]

It is my belief that she was tortured so the perp would not just strangle her. If he loosened and tightened the cord she would have had an opportunity to scream.

The perp's intention could have been to kidnap her and it was thwarted possibly by the scream.

Athena, I have never been strangled, but even if he was loosening and tightening the cord, when the cord was loosened, don't you think she would be gasping for air and either unable to scream or any scream she could muster would be hoarse?
If his intent was to kidnap her then why was he screwing around risking getting caught by torturing her in her own home when he could be doing it somewhere safe from detection?

[Zoey]

You can not scream while being strangled. And if a person tries really hard to scream while being strangled it would burst the capillaries of their eyes. So if her capillaries weren't bursted, she did not even try to scream.


Would you please provide your source for this information that you have posted as fact? Thank you.

[Athena]

Athena, I have never been strangled, but even if he was loosening and tightening the cord, when the cord was loosened, don't you think she would be gasping for air and either unable to scream or any scream she could muster would be hoarse?
If his intent was to kidnap her then why was he screwing around risking getting caught by torturing her in her own home when he could be doing it somewhere safe from detection?

TWW: If the perp is not at that point attempting to kill JBR as it could have been a very slow motion (hope you can follow me here - not yet tightening the cord she could have screamed.

I can't copy from this document because it is a protected document but if you open it and scroll down to the second paragraph you will see where a 24 year old woman screamed while she was being strangled (Strangulation Case Presentation is the topic)

www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/uploads/wmj/ACF1BD.pdf

[Miss Marple]

What need would there have been to strike her on the head if she was being strangled?
Well, that's a doubly potent question for those who believe RDI. To all appearances, these parents treasured JBR: she was a charming little girl who brought daily pleasure to their lives. So imagining the parents resorting to such a savage blow even to cover up an "accidental" strangulation is a bit hard to fathom and I've already offered ample reasons why I don't think the head blow was accidental. So given the choices, it's far easier to imagine a stranger doing this and it would have been a particularly callous and cold-hearted stranger at that. It's precisely the gratuitousness of this violence that points to someone who might be deeply disturbed or at minimum deeply angry at John Ramsey.

How difficult do you think it would be to strangle a 6 year old? The evidence suggests that she did not put up a struggle.
I won't argue the struggle point: I think the evidence is mixed. If she didn't struggle, that suggests she was rendered unconscious by a savage blow (premeditated or occasioned by her screaming or struggling before he got to act out whatever fantasy he might have had). Or she may have screamed while he was getting the garrote in place and it caught her hair etc. The point is, it's way easier to imagine a savage blow quickly followed by strangulation in the case of an intruder than in the case of parents.

If you say that she screamed while being strangled and he hit her to shut her up, I would ask you to explain to me how it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled.
The fact that a blow of such savagery was delivered without creating an open wound suggests this may have been planned all along, that the perp was expert in doing this and that he might have brought exactly the instrument needed to accomplish this. So I personally don't think it necessarily occurred as a hasty measure to shut her up.

If your intruder hit her on the head first, what need would he have had to strangle her? He could have just left her to die a slow death or hit her again for good measure.
What "need" did Jeffrey Dahmer have to eat his victims. Killers aren't normal people, so I don't pretend to have insight into what made this particular perp tick, but in the annals of crime history, this was by no means some "outlier" crime in terms of its brutality or senselessness. He could have slashed her from head to toe, for example, or "displayed" her in some grotesque sexual position. Instead, he (I'm using he only because the force of the head blow is more consistent with a male than female perp) was content to just dump her in a dark room and leave a RN.

Why the ransom note? Do you believe it was legitimate? If so, why did he kill her and leave her body? He would have no way of knowing that the Ramseys wouldn't have turned the house upside down looking for her.
What exactly is your theory, Miss M? or should I say Mr. M....
I have argued that the mere fact the amount was odd and the perp never called in itself shouldn't be taken as evidence that the RN was "obviously" false. There have been other instances where the ransom amount was absurdly small (in the Weinberger case I cited earlier it was only $2000: admittedly this was 50 years ago, but even accounting for inflation, this is a very small amount) or the perp either never recontacted the parents or failed to pick up a ransom delivery http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Ransom%20Note#ComparisontoOtherFamousRNs

In my back-and-forth with Jayelles, I postulated a perp angry with or jealous of John Ramsey: I don't see how one can otherwise account for the contents of the RN: it sure doesn't sound as if it was crafted by a complete stranger to the family. So I think there was intent to "hurt" John or demonstrate power over him. That could have taken the form of taking $118,000 from him, but it's as easily possible the perp always planned to kill JBR regardless of whether the ransom was delivered. Again, the history of kidnappings is full of such instances. I don't think it's "clear" from the available evidence whether killing in the house was planned in advance or an unexpected turn of events. We don't know how the perp arrived at the house: if on foot, it might have been more difficult than expected to get her out of the house undetected. There was a party allegedly only half a block away that reportedly went until the wee hours of the morning, for example.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Stranger%20Intruder%20Theories#StrangerIntrudersAp parentlyIgnoredbyLawEnforcement
So perhaps the perp could hear the sounds of that party through the same vent that Melody Stanton heard the scream, or through the open train room window or maybe the perp actually DID get her into a suitcase and out the butler door only to realize outside that there were comings and goings on that street that made trying to take her away too risky.

As for turning the house upside, the perp apparently lucked out on that. The RN seems almost certainly motivated in part to send a message to John, but might also have been placed where it was to give the perp ample time to "get out of Dodge" so to speak (this would be especially important if the perp was on foot). If the perp was inexperienced, he might have thought the extremely severe threats issued in the RN (not many notes I know of allude to "beheading") would SURELY deter the Ramseys from contacting authorities, giving the perp a day or more to escape. Likewise, the perp might have reasoned that with a missing child and RN, it was "obvious" the child wouldn't still be in the house, so it would suffice to just stuff her out of obvious sight as opposed to resorting to either the risk of taking her from house or making a more concerted effort to stuff her in a basement crawl space, for example.
In reality, 2 people came preciously close to finding the body first thing in the morning, in which case an immediate all points bulletin possibly might have snared the killer. Who knows?
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

What need would there have been to strike her on the head if she was being strangled? How difficult do you think it would be to strangle a 6 year old? The evidence suggests that she did not put up a struggle.
If you say that she screamed while being strangled and he hit her to shut her up, I would ask you to explain to me how it is possible for a person to scream while they are being strangled.
If your intruder hit her on the head first, what need would he have had to strangle her? He could have just left her to die a slow death or hit her again for good measure.
Why the ransom note? Do you believe it was legitimate? If so, why did he kill her and leave her body? He would have no way of knowing that the Ramseys wouldn't have turned the house upside down looking for her.
What exactly is your theory, Miss M? or should I say Mr. M....

I dont think we are going to get to the bottom of this or any similar brutal murder by analysing needs. This is a crime by a sick perp. and there is no guarantee that anyone will ever know what really drove him/them to do this.
Clearly the head blow was unnecessary as a means of killing the victim. No doubt the cruel strangulation (causing bood vessels in her eyes to break) was enough to do the job. This is also confirmed by the autopsy.

I agree with you that JBR would have been unable to scream during this ordeal. And I really think that this is an understatment as she would have been fighting tooth & nail just to try to take in the next breath.

Perhaps there were more than one perp involved in this murder, thus the strangling & head bash close together ? Maybe one just wanted to end what they had started via the head bash. Maybe the perp. wanted to end his `fantasy` with a final blow (that was supurflous to the needs of the murder) just because he could, he had total ownership & control, maybe to him it symbolised the last act.

But one thing that interests me alot is that if you (universal you) think it unnecesay for a perp to both strangle & head bash JBR, then why does anyone thing the parents did both as a `staging` of a crime scene. Surely if PR did accidently kill her daughter, wouldnt it have been sufficient for her to just write the rn. Its not as if the stranging was `necessary` to make the crime more real. The strangling doesnt make it more likely to be a perp than if it was only a head bash. So why wouldnt the parents, remove the need for them to have to participate in a most grusome of acts (the garrot) and just write the rn?

I have purposly left out the vaginal jab because some believe it is to hide JR`s not proven molestation of JBR. But I will add that the jab is out of character for parents to have been involved, and it is unnessecary to prove an intruder.

jmo

[Sharon]

I know from my own experience that you can't scream while being strangled. I read online about the bursting of capillaries. I'll find the article. I was reading up on the murder of Destiny Wright, and the medical examiner stated that her capillaries were burst because she tried very hard to scream.

BO, I have to say you do come up with some surprising statments sometimes. The bursting of capillaries is from any sort of straining including but not limited to a bowel movement or having a baby. Straining to breath when you are being strangled would also cause capillaries with no connection to screaming or not!! jmo

[Sharon]

It is my belief that she was tortured so the perp would not just strangle her. If he loosened and tightened the cord she would have had an opportunity to scream.

The perp's intention could have been to kidnap her and it was thwarted possibly by the scream.


From what Ive read it is extreemly unlikely that a child would scream irl even when being carried off by a stranger in broad daylight. This has been the evidence in other intruder kidnapping or murder senarios. The child is too scared to scream. No doubt the perp would be telling them not to scream or else they will get it. The child just goes along and remains silent, probably knowing that they are outmatched by a mile. Maybe the state of being in terror cause the child to loose their voice (or judgment)jmo

[Zoey]

Well, that one article on the Destiny Wright article quoted the medical examiner saying her attempts to scream are what caused the capillaries to burst..But your statements actually says the same thing when you really think about it. Why do you say my statement was surprising? That's interesting. So you say a person's capillaries can burst in a bowel movement???????????? WHAT! Are they REALLY that easy to burst?? If so, we all should be dead already!!

BO, it really would be in your best interest to do a little bit of research before you post things.

Capillaries bursting in the eyes do not cause death. You can bust one putting in a contact, getting a shaving of metal in your eye, getting punched in the eye. It is usually a sign of high blood pressure as well.

[Sharon]

Well, that one article on the Destiny Wright article quoted the medical examiner saying her attempts to scream are what caused the capillaries to burst..But your statements actually says the same thing when you really think about it. Why do you say my statement was surprising? That's interesting. So you say a person's capillaries can burst in a bowel movement???????????? WHAT! Are they REALLY that easy to burst?? If so, we all should be dead already!!

Lucky you dont die from a burst capillary!! And, it would have to be a difficult bowel movement that required straining. Jmo

[Zoey]

I honestly don't know what capillaries are..I just know the word because of the Destiny Wright article..The way it was quoted in the article, well it seemed very deadly..Glad to know it's not a life threatening thing..


Like I stated before, it would be in your best interest to do a little research on things before you post them.

[shill]

So you say a person's capillaries can burst in a bowel movement???????????? If so, we all should be dead already!!
Nope, just Elvis Presely.

[Sharon]

Nope, just Elvis Presely.

Oh my!!!!!

[rashomon]

# "Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area." (photo)
# "This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization."
You're right: I am referring exclusively to the MASSIVE hemorrhage associated with the MASSIVE head blow and it is THAT head blow I am claiming could not have preceded strangulation by very much time.
Cool: for the first time we have an IDI (or leaning toward IDI) on a JBR forum actually admitting that the hemorrhage inside JB's brain was in fact MASSIVE. Thanks MM!
But there was also other hemorrhage in JB's 's brain aside from the scalp hemorrhage, which must have been a result from that head blow too, and this NOT listed as unorganized. So this blood did have enough time to organize itself?

"During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.)
What does 'SMF' and 'PSMF' stand for??
Just let us know when your Google skills get up to snuff. OR, since these events are SO frequent, just send us the URL of any future news you encounter of this sort. I think most posters would draw a rather large distinction between parents who bring their dead child to a hospital making a false claim and those who stage not only a strangulation but a completely needless (from the standpoint of covering up an accidental head-blow) sexual assault, leaving the body, by the way, in a dark cellar room for 12+ hours before being found. That's exactly my point: IF the Ramseys were covering this up in the fashion you describe, they were doing so in a way unprecedented (to my knowledge) in forensic history. As I say, if you think accidents-staged-as-murders, as opposed to accidents-staged-as-accidents are commonplace, just ONE real live case is all I'm asking for you to prove your point.
MM, when coming up with this argument, you forgot that it works both ways.
Let's sum it up:
- No parents have ever staged a scene that way - this is your point, right?
- Therefore you have the feeling the Ramseys didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the Ramseys, right?
Ok, let's turn tables:
- No intruder has ever committed a crime the way the Ramsey intruder did: murdered the child while the parents were present in the home, and then left a crime scene behind that way, with the body left in the house together with a ransom note?
- therefore you have the feeling that an intruder didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the intruder, right? :)

Therefore my question: why did you hope to achieve with your argumentation, since it would also work well for the RDIs?

Or have you (with your googling skills 'up to snuff' as opposed to mine) have been able to find a criminal case where an intruder behaved like that?

No, I select the evidence that is relevant, while you appear to prefer to muddy the water by introducing evidence that is not. There is no evidence of organization in the blood related to the hemorrhage stemming from the massive head blow. That's all that matters in terms of figuring out when that
blow was struck. We know 3 important things about this case:
1) The head blow was MASSIVE, suggesting a killer who did this with deliberation, not by accident.
2) There was no evidence of organization, suggesting that the head blow came close to the time of death.
3) BUT, the cause of death was strangulation, not the head blow, which again suggests a perp with deliberate intent and makes far less probable a parent trying to use strangulation as staging (since whoever did this would have had to ignore the petechiae created on the neck and face as this happened. Whether she was conscious or unconscious at this juncture, it could not have been a pretty sight).
1) Children have softer skulls than adults, and I suppose it doesn't take much force to crack a child's skull like an eggshell. Also, the term 'accident' is misleading here. A rage attack is not an accident.
2) What if JB was already in a deep coma from the head blow, with elements of the system already so weakened that the body was not able to kick into high gear anymore to produce hemostasis?
I'd like to find a reliable medical website which provides definite info on that. Pictures and medical reports about persons who survived a brain injury for quite some time would be enlightening here too. Where for example would you with your internet research skills look for such info?
3) The autopsy report says asphyxiation 'associated with' head trauma, and 'associated with' is no time line reference, it does not suggest which came first.
And do you really believe a panicked parent staging a scene in the basement would notice small petechiae?
JB was most likely unconscious when the ligature was tied around her neck, for the perfectly circumferential ligature points to it being applied on an inert and unresisting body. In short, it points to a STAGED scene.

[andU]

Rash, wasn't this part of your quote?:

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

If so, you must have read it wrong, it states no evidence of organization

[thewhitewitch1]

I dont think we are going to get to the bottom of this or any similar brutal murder by analysing needs. This is a crime by a sick perp. and there is no guarantee that anyone will ever know what really drove him/them to do this.
Clearly the head blow was unnecessary as a means of killing the victim. No doubt the cruel strangulation (causing bood vessels in her eyes to break) was enough to do the job. This is also confirmed by the autopsy.

I agree with you that JBR would have been unable to scream during this ordeal. And I really think that this is an understatment as she would have been fighting tooth & nail just to try to take in the next breath.

Perhaps there were more than one perp involved in this murder, thus the strangling & head bash close together ? Maybe one just wanted to end what they had started via the head bash. Maybe the perp. wanted to end his `fantasy` with a final blow (that was supurflous to the needs of the murder) just because he could, he had total ownership & control, maybe to him it symbolised the last act.

But one thing that interests me alot is that if you (universal you) think it unnecesay for a perp to both strangle & head bash JBR, then why does anyone thing the parents did both as a `staging` of a crime scene. Surely if PR did accidently kill her daughter, wouldnt it have been sufficient for her to just write the rn. Its not as if the stranging was `necessary` to make the crime more real. The strangling doesnt make it more likely to be a perp than if it was only a head bash. So why wouldnt the parents, remove the need for them to have to participate in a most grusome of acts (the garrot) and just write the rn?

I have purposly left out the vaginal jab because some believe it is to hide JR`s not proven molestation of JBR. But I will add that the jab is out of character for parents to have been involved, and it is unnessecary to prove an intruder.

jmo


Sharon, absolutely I believe that the garrote was used to point away from the parents. It certainly convinced IDIs that the parents couldn't have done it. As I said before, the RN wants us to believe it is a small "terrorist" group and a garrote would fit into that theme. IMO
I think the head blow without the garrote would certainly have made the parents more suspicious to LE.
I'd also like to note that even though the RN had "terrorist" implications, the Ramseys themselves seemed not to believe this, even during the early hours when they almost immediately mentioned LHP to the LE. Why were they so quick to disbelieve or dismiss who the author of the note claimed to be?
When you add this to the immediate call to 911 and the horde of friends with total disregard to the threats in the note, it certainly raises red flags to me. IMO

[rashomon]

I can speak of losing a child. Mine was an infant who passed due to SIDS. She would now be 43 yrs old. To me she is still my baby and I still yearn for her ... although hers was not a violent death, nor was she murdered. There was very little known about SIDS in 1965, in fact it was then being called sudden infant death syndrome, not the abbrievated version. A mother does not 'get over' losing a baby. I don't dwell on it, I know that she is in a far better place than this world; but, I think of her and wonder what she would be like as an adult; what she would have studied in college.....
AndU, I'm so verry sorry to hear about your loss. What a tragedy! Thanks so much for sharing. My heart goes out to you. May your daughter be embraced in God's eternal love.

[Louisadelmar]

Cool: for the first time we have an IDI (or leaning toward IDI) on a JBR forum actually admitting that the hemorrhage inside JB's brain was in fact MASSIVE. Thanks MM!
But there was also other hemorrhage in JB's 's brain aside from the scalp hemorrhage, which must have been a result from that head blow too, and this NOT listed as unorganized. So this blood did have enough time to organize itself?


What does 'SMF' and 'PSMF' stand for??

MM, when coming up with this argument, you forgot that it works both ways.
Let's sum it up:
- No parents have ever staged a scene that way - this is your point, right?
- Therefore you have the feeling the Ramseys didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the Ramseys, right?
Ok, let's turn tables:
- No intruder has ever committed a crime the way the Ramsey intruder did: murdered the child while the parents were present in the home, and then left a crime scene behind that way, with the body left in the house together with a ransom note?
- therefore you have the feeling that an intruder didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the intruder, right? :)

Therefore my question: why did you hope to achieve with your argumentation, since it would also work well for the RDIs?

Or have you (with your googling skills 'up to snuff' as opposed to mine) have been able to find a criminal case where an intruder behaved like that?


1) Children have softer skulls than adults, and I suppose it doesn't take much force to crack a child's skull like an eggshell. Also, the term 'accident' is misleading here. A rage attack is not an accident.
2) What if JB was already in a deep coma from the head blow, with elements of the system already so weakened that the body was not able to kick into high gear anymore to produce hemostasis?
I'd like to find a reliable medical website which provides definite info on that. Pictures and medical reports about persons who survived a brain injury for quite some time would be enlightening here too. Where for example would you with your internet research skills look for such info?
3) The autopsy report says asphyxiation 'associated with' head trauma, and 'associated with' is no time line reference, it does not suggest which came first.
And do you really believe a panicked parent staging a scene in the basement would notice small petechiae?
JB was most likely unconscious when the ligature was tied around her neck, for the perfectly circumferential ligature points to it being applied on an inert and unresisting body. In short, it points to a STAGED scene.

Regarding the "massive area" of hemorrhage the phrase "A mile wide and an inch deep" comes to mind.

Regarding your question: "2) What if JB was already in a deep coma from the head blow, with elements of the system already so weakened that the body was not able to kick into high gear anymore to produce hemostasis?
" My recollection is Elvislives went into some detail about this with you a while ago. The more slowly her body was functioning the more quickly the blood would clot. Therefore coma would not delay hemostasis but promote it.

[rashomon]

Rash, wasn't this part of your quote?:

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

If so, you must have read it wrong, it states no evidence of organization
I didn't read it wrong, for this was the scalp hemorrhage where there was indeed no evidence of organization.

BUT there was also subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage in JBs brain (which no doubt also came from the head blow), and here the autopsy report says nothing about this blood showing 'no evidence of organization'. So we can assume that the subdural and the subarachnoid hemorrhage was organized?

[rashomon]

The fact that a blow of such savagery was delivered without creating an open wound suggests this may have been planned all along, that the perp was expert in doing this and that he might have brought exactly the instrument needed to accomplish this. So I personally don't think it necessarily occurred as a hasty measure to shut her up.

According to info posted here by Elvislives, it it not at all unusual for children to suffer severe brain injuries from blunt force trauma without having an open scalp wound, since children have softer skulls than adults.

[rashomon]

Regarding the "massive area" of hemorrhage the phrase "A mile wide and an inch deep" comes to mind.

Regarding your question: "2) What if JB was already in a deep coma from the head blow, with elements of the system already so weakened that the body was not able to kick into high gear anymore to produce hemostasis?
" My recollection is Elvislives went into some detail about this with you a while ago. The more slowly her body was functioning the more quickly the blood would clot. Therefore coma would not delay hemostasis but promote it.
I remember EL writing about this, but would like to have it confirmed by a medical website. For why did none of the famous MDs consulted on the case ever bring this up? Maybe there exist variables to be taken into account?

And why did Dr. Spitz mention blood clots?

[Louisadelmar]

I remember EL writing about this, but would like to have it confirmed by a medical website. For why did none of the famous MDs consulted on the case ever bring this up? Maybe there exist variables to be taken into account?

And why did Dr. Spitz mention blood clots?

Since you say you don't understand the medical websites, here is a lay one:

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/tmpl/genPage.asp?p=/information/articles/library/labnotes/labnotes596.html
Regular physical activity increases plasma volume. An increase in plasma volume means that the blood is more dilute, or "thinner," with a lower hematocrit (red cell count) and fibrinogen level and, consequently, a reduced risk of clotting. Several studies have shown that vigorous exercise also reduces platelet aggregability and enhances fibrinolytic activity. These effects may help to explain why active people are at lower risk for heart disease and stroke. Like most of the beneficial effects of exercise, these changes are short-lived, disappearing after two or three days. Regular, lifelong physical activity is the type of exercise that reduces clotting risk. A sedentary lifestyle, on the other hand, leads to increased clotting risk; blood thickens as plasma volume decreases. Sedentary people have stickier blood platelets, which in conjunction with higher levels of fibrinogen, are more likely to form blood clots.
An application of these observations is seen in the advice given to people prone to blood clots: Avoid sitting for extended periods, such as long airplane flights or car rides. Inactivity creates sluggish circulation in the arms and legs, and gives clots a better chance to form.

Why don't you try and find an email address for Spitz and write and ask him yourself?

[rashomon]

Sharon's question is the right one: if the fiber evidence truly were such a slam-dunk, the failure to get the indictment BPD was panting for is pretty incomprehensible.
Just think of the O.J. Simpson case. Slam dunk evidence against him too, and he still got away with it.

FWIW, I assume you know I'm a middle-aged male college professor so I'll warn you in advance that I'll take deep offense at being told I sound like an elderly lady... :-)
Lol, no, you don't sound like an elderly lady - you sound exactly like a middle-aged person. I thought you were female though. But it was probably the poster name you chose which misled me (for I don't think it is possible to infer from someone's posting style if the writer is male or female), and you are quite an exception in choosing a female name, for while it happens that women chose male sounding nicks, men seem to be reluctant to choose female poster names.

You have far too elevated an opinion of human behavior. Unless you believe the Lindbergh kidnapping was a hoax, here's a real live example of a ransom note: "Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes"
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Ransom%20Note#ComparisontoOtherFamousRNs

That date doesn't sound very exact to me. This is just one small illustration of how the behavior of real people will always trump the inexperienced speculations of amateurs (no offense: I'm just trying to differentiate between varying levels of reliability of different forms of evidence).

Rememeber that the FBI's CASKU experts (who no doubt know how to analyze a ransom note) came to the conclusion that the note was bogus and an attemot by the perp to undo the crime in her own mind. This hits it dead center imo.

In short, when perps don't measure up to your television- or movie-inspired visions of how "bad guys" behave, that isn't necessarily good cause to turn on the parents.
I tink that it was precisely the ransom note author who had a movie-inspired vision of how bad guys behave.

The reality is that there are any number of intruders who could have a) entered the house with a key given the number of keys that had been given out; b) written a "personalized" RN either based on prior knowledge or information obtainable in the house for anyone spending an hour or so to do so; c) taken JBR from the bedroom without waking parents, as we've seen in repeated cases; d) killed her in the basement and dumped the body; and e) left the RN on the steps on the way out the butler door. The mere fact we haven't found one yet who fits the DNA evidence means virtually nothing. Read above how long and diligently police searched for Peter Weinberger's kidnapper before essentially "stumbling" on the right individual. No "out-of-character" behavior has to be postulated to believe the brief account I just described, nor would the perp have to have magical or superhuman powers to commit the crime as I have outlined it.T
The forensic and other circumstantial evidence implicates both Ramseys as the stagers of the scene, plain and simple. Therefore imagining "who could have entered the house and done what" is a fantasy game, nothing more. and doneundewThere is no way around that.

Do the following mental experiment. If BPD announced tomorrow they'd found a suspect whose DNA matched and who had confessed to the crime, what would your reaction be? Would your attitude be "finally, case closed, thank goodness" or would you instead be saying "this is completely bogus. I smell a rat. There is NO WAY this could be true. Someone obviously must have gotten paid a lot of money to take a fall here."
My reaction would be: hmm, then the Ramseys must have been in it together with this perp, since fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray, Johns shirt fibers were found on JB's outer genitals and in the crotch area of JB's panties and Patsy wrote the ransom note. :)

[rashomon]

Correction onmy prior post:
I couldn't get into editing my post further, sorry - that part should have read:
The forensic and other circumstantial evidence implicates both Ramseys as the stagers of the scene, plain and simple. Therefore imagining "who could have entered the house and done what" is a fantasy game, nothing more.

[andU]

AndU, I'm so verry sorry to hear about your loss. What a tragedy! Thanks so much for sharing. My heart goes out to you. May your daughter be embraced in God's eternal love.

Thank you. I know where she is and I will meet with her again one day.

[rashomon]

Why don't you try and find an email address for Spitz and write and ask him yourself?
I did try but couldn't find one. I also tried to locate Dr. Wright in 'physicians online' (remember EL wrote she contacted him), but couldn't find him there either. If anyone can dig up these doctors' e-mail addresses, it would be much appreciated if you could post them here or via PM.
I doubt Spitz and Wright would answer me though. They probably get hundreds of emails each day, and if they reply at all, I suppose they will only do so to people who are MDs themselves. But nevertheless I would try to contact them.

[Zoey]

I did try but couldn't find one. I also tried to locate Dr. Wright in 'physicians online' (remember EL wrote she contacted him), but couldn't find him there either. If anyone can dig up these Doctors' e-mail addresses, it would be much appreciated.
I doubt Sitze and Wright would answer me though. They probably get hundreds of emails each day, and if they reply at all, I suppose they will only do so to people who are MDs themselves. But nevertheless I would try to contact them.


Rashomon, understandable you said you don't have google experience, but perhaps now would be a good time for you to practice. You are asking everyone to do your leg work, when you are just as capable. If Elvislives could find the address, so can you. I don't mean any of this out of disrespect at all towards you. I am just saying, this would be a good learning experience for you; so you can see how it is done.

If you don't have google, any search engine will work, although I find google to be the best. It is easy to download; takes about 5 minutes if that. Then you can google away. :)

[Louisadelmar]

I did try but couldn't find one. I also tried to locate Dr. Wright in 'physicians online' (remember EL wrote she contacted him), but couldn't find him there either. If anyone can dig up these doctors' e-mail addresses, it would be much appreciated if you could post them here or via PM.
I doubt Spitz and Wright would answer me though. They probably get hundreds of emails each day, and if they reply at all, I suppose they will only do so to people who are MDs themselves. But nevertheless I would try to contact them.

Try this:
http://www.media.wayne.edu/expert.php?id=654
Werner Spitz
Medicine, Forensic Pathology

Area of Expertise
DNA specimens, gunfire injuries, child abuse, Macomb County medical examiner, former Wayne County medical examiner

Contact Information
Phone : (313) 577-1102
Email : aa2790@wayne.edu

But Zoey's right. Learn to do your own research. If the above doesn't work - write him a letter. You know where he works.

[rashomon]

Rashomon, understandable you said you don't have google experience, but perhaps now would be a good time for you to practice. You are asking everyone to do your leg work, when you are just as capable. If Elvislives could find the address, so can you. I don't mean any of this out of disrespect at all towards you. I am just saying, this would be a good learning experience for you; so you can see how it is done.

If you don't have google, any search engine will work, although I find google to be the best. It is easy to download; takes about 5 minutes if that. Then you can google away. :)
Zoey, I do have Google and use it all the time, but when it comes to doing specific research, I must be doing something wrong: I entered "e-mail address Dr. Spitz", but only got sites which mention him.

[rashomon]

Try this:
http://www.media.wayne.edu/expert.php?id=654
Werner Spitz
Medicine, Forensic Pathology

Area of Expertise
DNA specimens, gunfire injuries, child abuse, Macomb County medical examiner, former Wayne County medical examiner

Contact Information
Phone : (313) 577-1102
Email : aa2790@wayne.edu

But Zoey's right. Learn to do your own research. If the above doesn't work - write him a letter. You know where he works.
Thanks Louisa - I hope to contact him through this address, but like I said, I doubt if I'll get an answer, since he has more important things to do than replying to a medical layperson who is not even a native speaker of English. But should I get an answer, I'll post it here.

[Sharon]

Sharon, absolutely I believe that the garrote was used to point away from the parents. It certainly convinced IDIs that the parents couldn't have done it. As I said before, the RN wants us to believe it is a small "terrorist" group and a garrote would fit into that theme. IMO
I think the head blow without the garrote would certainly have made the parents more suspicious to LE.
I'd also like to note that even though the RN had "terrorist" implications, the Ramseys themselves seemed not to believe this, even during the early hours when they almost immediately mentioned LHP to the LE. Why were they so quick to disbelieve or dismiss who the author of the note claimed to be?
When you add this to the immediate call to 911 and the horde of friends with total disregard to the threats in the note, it certainly raises red flags to me. IMO

I think it raises redflags that they are stupid. But we dont know the culture in which they lived. Maybe when you have friends in very high places, you do enlist their help & involve them from the get go? Maybe you think they will be able to fix things. I havent actually heard why they say they called so many people. Maybe it was a reflex action since they had no family nearby. jmo

[Zoey]

I think it raises redflags that they are stupid. But we dont know the culture in which they lived. Maybe when you have friends in very high places, you do enlist their help & involve them from the get go? Maybe you think they will be able to fix things. I havent actually heard why they say they called so many people. Maybe it was a reflex action since they had no family nearby. jmo


I wouldn't go so far as to call them stupid. Panicked perhaps? Irrational? But not stupid.

On the other hand, what was LE's excuse for not abiding by the ransom note once they got their hands on it and calling in advocates to come on over?

[Miss Marple]

Cool: for the first time we have an IDI (or leaning toward IDI) on a JBR forum actually admitting that the hemorrhage inside JB's brain was in fact MASSIVE. Thanks MM!
But there was also other hemorrhage in JB's 's brain aside from the scalp hemorrhage, which must have been a result from that head blow too, and this NOT listed as unorganized. So this blood did have enough time to organize itself?
I'm not a medical examiner, but I would think that one can rely one what the coroner says IS there or IS NOT there and that trying to draw inferences from what ISN'T stated in the autopsy report likely is risky business. I've read the autopsy report very carefully and NOWHERE does it state that there was not an arrow in her head. I hope we can agree that it would be ludicrous to trot out arrow-in-the-head scenarios for failure of the coroner to point this out. Moreover, IF we were to draw inferences, one could as easily state that having established that the massive head blow show a hemmorhage with no evidence of organization, it would be superfluous to repeat the no evidence of organization since there'd be no plausible physiological way for organization to have occurred deeper in the brain while not being evident in the scalp injury caused by the identical blow. I state this as a non-medical person. If some medical person wishes to challenge this assertion, I prepare to be corrected.


What does 'SMF' and 'PSMF' stand for??
I'm surprised that a student of the case such as yourself hasn't read the Carnes opinion, which is permeated with SMF and PSMF. In the words of Judge Carnes: "The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") [67] and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" (PSMF 67 )". The defendants=Ramseys and plaintiff=Chris Wolf. Note that NONE of the statements I offered showing that Patsy wasn't likely to have written the note was tagged as (PDSMF) because these represented the Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Facts. If you haven't read it, the opinion is very lengthy (93 pages), but HUGELY informative:
http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/carnes-summary-judgment---wolf-v-ramsey-vt32-sanctuary2.html
Enjoy.


MM, when coming up with this argument, you forgot that it works both ways.
Let's sum it up:
- No parents have ever staged a scene that way - this is your point, right?
- Therefore you have the feeling the Ramseys didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the Ramseys, right?
Ok, let's turn tables:
- No intruder has ever committed a crime the way the Ramsey intruder did: murdered the child while the parents were present in the home, and then left a crime scene behind that way, with the body left in the house together with a ransom note?
- therefore you have the feeling that an intruder didn't do it, right?
- This would exonerate the intruder, right? :)

Therefore my question: why did you hope to achieve with your argumentation, since it would also work well for the RDIs?

Or have you (with your googling skills 'up to snuff' as opposed to mine) have been able to find a criminal case where an intruder behaved like that?

No crime is going to be EXACTLY like another. I asked for just one instance in which instead of an accident (or murder) being disguised as an ACCIDENT, parents had instead elected to disguise an accident as MURDER. I wasn't asking for an instance of staging using a garotte with a gratuitous sexual assault thrown in. In contrast, we have disturbingly numerous instances in which a) a RN was left by someone who already had killed the "kidnap" victim; b) ambiguous instructions were left in the RN about how ransom amount was to be delivered (even though one would suppose that a "serious" or "real" kidnapper intent on obtaining a ransom would get such details straight!); c) RN that are of the same length or longer than the so-called (and quite misleadingly-characterized) "War and Peace" of RNs; d) kidnappers have absconded undetected with children of JBR's age (as well as children both younger and older) while parents were in the same house; e) kidnappers have taken children without leaving obvious forensic evidence; and f) killers have left children murdered in their own houses. Thus, while I can't provide an identical configuration of elements a) through f) as an example (and in that regard CASKU's assessment is technically correct), each of these elements has appeared in prior cases.


1) Children have softer skulls than adults, and I suppose it doesn't take much force to crack a child's skull like an eggshell. Also, the term 'accident' is misleading here. A rage attack is not an accident.
2) What if JB was already in a deep coma from the head blow, with elements of the system already so weakened that the body was not able to kick into high gear anymore to produce hemostasis?
I'd like to find a reliable medical website which provides definite info on that. Pictures and medical reports about persons who survived a brain injury for quite some time would be enlightening here too. Where for example would you with your internet research skills look for such info?
My impression is that others answered some of these queries in subsequent replies, so I won't add my two cents.


3) The autopsy report says asphyxiation 'associated with' head trauma, and 'associated with' is no time line reference, it does not suggest which came first.
I agree that the autopsy makes no effort to deduce which came first.


And do you really believe a panicked parent staging a scene in the basement would notice small petechiae?
First, I find it difficult to picture any parent without some severe pathology resorting to strangling their own child: remember this was not just a matter of tying a "noose" around her neck for appearances. Take a look at how deeply embedded that ligature is in her neck and remember what the autopsy report said: she was ASPHYXIATED! Offhand, I can't even figure out which would be more callous: having her face-down as the ligature was applied or looking into her face while asphyxiating her. In either scenario, it could not have been a pretty sight. The killer wiped down her body but left bloody mucous running down her face: does that sound remotely like a parent to you?


JB was most likely unconscious when the ligature was tied around her neck, for the perfectly circumferential ligature points to it being applied on an inert and unresisting body. In short, it points to a STAGED scene.
She may well have been unconscious, but it is leaping to conclusions to infer from this that it was staged. Killers do all sorts of wierd stuff with victims. Hadden Clark both tried to have sex with his dead 6-year-old victim AND
"taste" her http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/clark/index_1.html
Having already delivered what itself likely would have been a fatal headblow, JBR's killer had no "need" to strangle her: he either could have left her to die or delivered additional head-blows to leave no chance she'd recover. The fact that this perp took the time to fashion (or brought along) a ligature strongly suggests an individual acting out some sort of fantasy. Binding her hands in a fashion she should have easily been able to escape likewise could be viewed as staging, but is equally consistent with acting out a fantasy etc. In short, you have a bad habit of leaping to the one conclusion that fits your theory and ignoring the other possibilities that might actually be higher probabilities.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

Why didn't you ever ask her to confirm that a child has a softer skull with a 'link' to a medical website for confirmation? It seems you take anything anyone says at face value as long as it "fits into your theory", including such experts as Super Dave and the Bonita papers.. HAAAA. But if anything does not fit into your theory you challenge it and say that it must be false and the experts must be wrong. Your a hypocrite. You cant have it both ways. It just makes you sound like an idiot
Back up the train bud: I myself knew about children having softer skulls than adults from my first-aid course.
But since I originally believed that JB had been hit with a golf club, I asked EL why the child's scalp hadn't been lacerated, and she answered me it must have been blunt force trauma for JB's scalp not to have torn. And since Elvislives' opinion was confirmed by every medical expert consulted on the case (for they all said it was blunt force trauma), there was no reason to ask further questions. Got it?
BTW, you had no reason whatsoever to sneer at EL here on the board. I never thought she was a fraud, I only sought (and am still looking for) further medical info on an issue where the medical experts seem to contradict each other.

And like your psychological twin when it comes to bad manners, Shill, you seem to need a little reminder that insults are against the TOS on this forum.

[Miss Marple]

According to info posted here by Elvislives, it it not at all unusual for children to suffer severe brain injuries from blunt force trauma without having an open scalp wound, since children have softer skulls than adults.
Thanks, I missed that post. Maybe the perp was just lucky, but I don't think the perp "wanted" lots of blood to deal with. If he'd wanted an extremely bloody scene, it would have been straightforward to produce it. The wiping down of body but not face has always puzzled me: if the perp was trying to remove forensic evidence, he appears to have failed. But I can't picture a parent who would wash their own child's body and then desist from cleaning up the face as well.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

Thanks, I missed that post. Maybe the perp was just lucky, but I don't think the perp "wanted" lots of blood to deal with. If he'd wanted an extremely bloody scene, it would have been straightforward to produce it. The wiping down of body but not face has always puzzled me: if the perp was trying to remove forensic evidence, he appears to have failed. But I can't picture a parent who would wash their own child's body and then desist from cleaning up the face as well.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Also, and this makes me very sad to write, JBR had a cold on the night of her murder. She was all mucasy and with a running nose. That could be why she had what looked like mucas on her face???

How many parents would be in a mad rage with a sick child and actually kill the child & then try to stage it, all around the Christmas celebrations. These parents would actually have to be the apitomy of evil, it is so far fetched.

The fact that JBR was sick leads me to guess that she would have been more tired & weaker than usual. jmo

[Miss Marple]

Just think of the O.J. Simpson case. Slam dunk evidence against him too, and he still got away with it.
My point was the Ramseys were never INDICTED. OJ was certainly INDICTED: he just didn't happen to be convicted. Not everyone who is indicted is convicted and as OJ shows, not every acquittal is necessarily proof of innocence. But as other posters have noted, we really don't KNOW what fiber evidence was actually found. We certainly know what was leaked to press and what was said during Ramsey interviews, but we also know from Trip DeMuth that fabrication/exaggeration is a COMMON investigative technique to elicit a confession. If the handwriting evidence and fiber evidence were as "slam dunk" as RDI theorists have characterized it, it's hard to understand why an indictment wasn't forthcoming.


Lol, no, you don't sound like an elderly lady - you sound exactly like a middle-aged person. I thought you were female though. But it was probably the poster name you chose which misled me (for I don't think it is possible to infer from someone's posting style if the writer is male or female), and you are quite an exception in choosing a female name, for while it happens that women chose male sounding nicks, men seem to be reluctant to choose female poster names.
Like you, I greatly admire the fictional Miss Marple (and my other favorite, Hercule Poirot, is claimed by someone else).


Rememeber that the FBI's CASKU experts (who no doubt know how to analyze a ransom note) came to the conclusion that the note was bogus and an attemot by the perp to undo the crime in her own mind. This hits it dead center imo.
I don't recall CASKU concluding that a "her" did it. Yes, they went with the 90% odds that a parent did it, and they may have been correct that the note wasn't "genuine" in the sense that there was no realistic chance of getting JBR back alive no matter what the parents did. But I've explained earlier why one can't rule out from the language or circumstances surrounding the RN that the perp actually DID wish to collect a ransom (just as I can't RULE OUT Patsy as note writer), but that doesn't means it's high odds. But even if the RN had a deceptive intent, one can easily imagine an intruder who resorted to RN-writing knowing they had no intention of seeking a ransom, but instead wishing to muddy the investigative waters.


I tink that it was precisely the ransom note author who had a movie-inspired vision of how bad guys behave.
I've conceded as much, but that in no way points exclusively to parents.


The forensic and other circumstantial evidence implicates both Ramseys as the stagers of the scene, plain and simple. Therefore imagining "who could have entered the house and done what" is a fantasy game, nothing more. and doneundewThere is no way around that.
More even-handed posters such as WWT have conceded this could have been RDI or IDI. I am automatically quite wary of posters who are highly certain of their conclusions in this case given how ambiguous so much of the evidence is. High certainty in the face of such ambiguous evidence suggests (doesn't PROVE) an individual who may have let other considerations--be they envy regarding the Ramsey's wealth, jealousy regarding their social position, or reverse class bigotry, plain and simple--cloud their assessment of what's true in this case. If you are not such an individual, I would expect you to have a bit more of an open mind than you appear to.


My reaction would be: hmm, then the Ramseys must have been in it together with this perp, since fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, on the duct tape and in the paint tray, Johns shirt fibers were found on JB's outer genitals and in the crotch area of JB's panties and Patsy wrote the ransom note. :)
Other posters have explained more than adequately why the fiber evidence might not be nearly as strong as you'd like it to be.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

No crime is going to be EXACTLY like another. I asked for just one instance in which instead of an accident (or murder) being disguised as an ACCIDENT, parents had instead elected to disguise an accident as MURDER. I wasn't asking for an instance of staging using a garotte with a gratuitous sexual assault thrown in. In contrast, we have disturbingly numerous instances in which a) a RN was left by someone who already had killed the "kidnap" victim; b) ambiguous instructions were left in the RN about how ransom amount was to be delivered (even though one would suppose that a "serious" or "real" kidnapper intent on obtaining a ransom would get such details straight!); c) RN that are of the same length or longer than the so-called (and quite misleadingly-characterized) "War and Peace" of RNs; d) kidnappers have absconded undetected with children of JBR's age (as well as children both younger and older) while parents were in the same house; e) kidnappers have taken children without leaving obvious forensic evidence; and f) killers have left children murdered in their own houses. Thus, while I can't provide an identical configuration of elements a) through f) as an example (and in that regard CASKU's assessment is technically correct), each of these elements has appeared in prior cases.


MM, I am glad that someone else has pointed out that the `War and Peace` label was wrong. This rn is no more bizare than any other rn written by a very sick individual.
Its unreal how you can show all the irl examples of sick peds who eat, kill & rape (no no particular order) children, take them from their own homes, write all manor of rn that dont make sense in the instructions. You can show many cases where the parents were deemed guilty and even sent to prison, when infact it was a freak weird perp who followed no rhyme & reason. You can show that these R. were normal parents who loved their daughter. And you still get people who are adiment that it is more likely to be a parent who (1) did something that is not consistant with the autopsy (2) did something that goes against everything we know to be true for how a parent does act and (3) did something with such a weak motive as to be almost rediculous. jmo

[rashomon]

I'm not a medical examiner, but I would think that one can rely one what the coroner says IS there or IS NOT there and that trying to draw inferences from what ISN'T stated in the autopsy report likely is risky business. I've read the autopsy report very carefully and NOWHERE does it state that there was not an arrow in her head. I hope we can agree that it would be ludicrous to trot out arrow-in-the-head scenarios for failure of the coroner to point this out. Moreover, IF we were to draw inferences, one could as easily state that having established that the massive head blow show a hemmorhage with no evidence of organization, it would be superfluous to repeat the no evidence of organization since there'd be no plausible physiological way for organization to have occurred deeper in the brain while not being evident in the scalp injury caused by the identical blow. I state this as a non-medical person. If some medical person wishes to challenge this assertion, I prepare to be corrected.
Don't try to fly away from the debate with that non-existent arrow, MM :) for the issue discussed is narrowly confined to blood inside JB's skull.
And when a world-renowned forensic pathologist like Dr. Spitz, who studied 100 autopsy photos (and in all probability an autopsy file which is much larger than the meager 9 pages which can be accessed online), stated that there were blood clots in JB's brain, this just can't be shrugged off imo.
Today I read through the autopsy report of one victim in a multiple murder case which I have studied thoroughly for many years: the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Although the victim (MacDonald's youngest daughter) had been stabbed 33 times and died as a result from bleeding to death, this autopsy report does not mention with one word blood organization in her body or lack thereof. Neither is mentioned.
So how do we know what an autopsy report has to include or not? Can we assume that Dr. Meyer's autopsy report was flawless?
The Coroner's notes for example have never been published. Another variable to be taken into account.
I'm surprised that a student of the case such as yourself hasn't read the Carnes opinion, which is permeated with SMF and PSMF. In the words of Judge Carnes: "The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" ("SMF") [67] and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts" (PSMF 67 )". The defendants=Ramseys and plaintiff=Chris Wolf. Note that NONE of the statements I offered showing that Patsy wasn't likely to have written the note was tagged as (PDSMF) because these represented the Plaintiff's Disputed Statement of Material Facts. If you haven't read it, the opinion is very lengthy (93 pages), but HUGELY informative:
http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/carnes-summary-judgment---wolf-v-ramsey-vt32-sanctuary2.html
Enjoy.
Ah, Judge Carnes. Whose ruling was based only on what was presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer Wood and Wolf and his lawyer D. Hoffman, and not on on a comprehensive review of investigators' 40,000 pages of evidence. How can a judge draw 'undisputed facts' in a criminal case from the presentation of two opposing lawyers representing their clients? Forget it.
RN that are of the same length or longer than the so-called (and quite misleadingly-characterized) "War and Peace" of RNs;
Could you post an example of a ransom note being as long as the Ramsey note?


First, I find it difficult to picture any parent without some severe pathology resorting to strangling their own child: remember this was not just a matter of tying a "noose" around her neck for appearances. Take a look at how deeply embedded that ligature is in her neck and remember what the autopsy report said: she was ASPHYXIATED! Offhand, I can't even figure out which would be more callous: having her face-down as the ligature was applied or looking into her face while asphyxiating her. In either scenario, it could not have been a pretty sight. The killer wiped down her body but left bloody mucous running down her face: does that sound remotely like a parent to you?
The deep embedding could have come from post-mortem swelling. The wiping down and redressing is perfectly consistent with a parent staging the scene. And I don't recall the autosy report stating that blody mucus was 'running down' her face. There seems to have been only little mucus if memory serves.
The fact that this perp took the time to fashion (or brought along) a ligature strongly suggests an individual acting out some sort of fantasy. Binding her hands in a fashion she should have easily been able to escape likewise could be viewed as staging, but is equally consistent with acting out a fantasy etc. In short, you have a bad habit of leaping to the one conclusion that fits your theory and ignoring the other possibilities that might actually be higher probabilities.
Again, your argumentation works both ways: remember that there exist also theories about Patsy Ramsey or John having acted out this kind of fantasy. It is not my theory, but since neither of the Ramseys have undergone psychiatric evaluation, we know next to nothing about what made them tick deep inside.

[Sharon]

Could you post an example of a ransom note being as long as the Ramsey note?

In the links to the other rn that have been posted, you can see for yourself that the rn in the R. case does dot stand out from the crowd. It may be words longer, but not any more converluted, crazy or ambiguous.

The deep embedding could have come from post-mortem swelling. The wiping down and redressing is perfectly consistent with a parent staging the scene. And I don't recall the autosy report stating that blody mucus was 'running down' her face. There seems to have been only little mucus if memory serves.

I believe this was addressed that it was not swelling, ie the body would not have swelled (remember this coming from EL).

Again, your argumentation works both ways: remember that there exist also theories about Patsy Ramsey or John having acted out this kind of fantasy. It is not my theory, but since neither of the Ramseys have undergone psychiatric evaluation, we know next to nothing about what made them tick deep inside.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I`ll give you this......if you can show that the R. acted in any way prior to the murder or in the 10 years after, in a way that shows they are violent or phsycotic......I will take your theory out of the `beyond impossible` category and also take the R. out of the normal parents category. jmo

[Athena]

This ransom note has exactly 40 more words than the Leopold/Loeb ransom note; so much for there never having been a long ransom note written before:

L/L

Words 313 / 353
Characters 1511 / 1583
Paragraphs 14 / 8
Sentences 18 / 29

[Athena]

Leopold/Loeb Note (was a typewritten note on two pages)

Dear Bing,

As you no doubt know by this time your son has been kidnapped. Allow me to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him provided you live up carefully to the following instructions, and such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you however, disobey any of our instructions even slightly, his death will be the penalty.

1. For obvious reasons, make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either the police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). This money must be composed entirely of OLD BILLS of the following denominations;

$2,000 in twenty dollar bills
$8,000 in fifty dollar bills
The money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.

3. The money should be placed in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible in a heavy cardboard box, SECURELY closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.

4. Have the money with you prepared as directed above and remain at home after six o’clock. P.M. See that the telephone is not in use.

You will receive a future communication instructing you as to your future course.

As a final word of warning, this is strictly a commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions. However should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that your son will be safely returned to you within six h ours of the receipt of the money.

Sincerely,

George J?????
GKB

[Sprocket]

The Ramsey fake ransom note was hand written on a pad found in the home, with a pen also found in the home.

The Leopold/Loeb typed note was clearly written in advance, and we know that that murder was planned.

The Ramsey fake ransom note is still longer.

[Sprocket]

ETA because I missed the edit timeline:

The Ramsey fake ransom note was hand written on a pad found in the home, with a pen also found in the home.

The Leopold/Loeb typed note was clearly written in advance, and we know that that murder was planned.

The Ramsey fake ransom note is still longer.

ETA: It wasn't a "real" ransom note either. Leopold and Loeb wrote it as a diversion, just like Patsy did her note. They had planned on killing their victim.

[Athena]

I will not be convinced that someone who murders their child will write a ransom note from a pad in their home with a pen that belonged to them and consider that a diversionary tactic. I believe someone bought a note with them and rewrote it there and it was planned. The sequence of events may not have played out as the perp envisioned but it was planned. Oh wow - yes it was longer by a mere 41 words. JMO

[bullmoose]

ETA because I missed the edit timeline:

The Ramsey fake ransom note was hand written on a pad found in the home, with a pen also found in the home.

The Leopold/Loeb typed note was clearly written in advance, and we know that that murder was planned.

The Ramsey fake ransom note is still longer.

ETA: It wasn't a "real" ransom note either. Leopold and Loeb wrote it as a diversion, just like Patsy did her note. They had planned on killing their victim.I don't for a minute think that it was a genuine note, or, of course, by Patsy, but actually a diversionary device to get the Keystone Kops of Kolorado to start chasing their tales, instead of actually investigating the crime and following the evidence, like Smit did when he was brought in later on. In my opinion it certainly worked, since the BPD started illegally interrogating Burke at Fleet Whites house hours before the discovery of her body, IMO,they already had their theory of what happened. But what intrigues me is why did the later breakfast buddies of Synthroid Stevie allow it; and since it happened at their home, why didn't the Twisters' buddies at the very least inform their "friends" the Ramseys. It make me wonder a lot about Breakfast Buddy Fleet, you know what I mean?

[Sharon]

The Ramsey fake ransom note was hand written on a pad found in the home, with a pen also found in the home.

The Leopold/Loeb typed note was clearly written in advance, and we know that that murder was planned.

The Ramsey fake ransom note is still longer.

But surley the similarities are not lost on you? You would find it quite a task to choose which is more `fake` or unlikely to be real.

The Leopold rn smacks of things a real perp. would never say, surely it was written by someone who was trying to sound like a perp etc (everything that is said about the R.).....but no, its real unfortunately, real enough to be penned by someone who was a murderer and who decided to step into the family`s life & take a precious child. jmo

I also think the R. rn was written before the crime took place, before the R. came home.
jmo

[Jayelles]

Also, and this makes me very sad to write, JBR had a cold on the night of her murder. She was all mucasy and with a running nose. That could be why she had what looked like mucas on her face???

How many parents would be in a mad rage with a sick child and actually kill the child & then try to stage it, all around the Christmas celebrations. These parents would actually have to be the apitomy of evil, it is so far fetched.

The fact that JBR was sick leads me to guess that she would have been more tired & weaker than usual. jmo


You are right - there was mucous all over her face but this raises a point to me.

1) We know she had a cold but she wasn't "ill" the day she died.

2) A child of JonBenet's age doesn't normally end up with mucous all over her face because she has acquired the ability to sniff and to wipe her nose.

3) However there was mucous all over her face - right down to her ear and in her hairline.

A young baby with a cold could end up with snot all over its face like this because they tend to cry more when they have a cold and crying causes the nose to run more and then the tears intermingle with the snot and it gets everywhere.

Bottom line - I think the fact that JonBenet had snot all over her face, ears and hair suggests that she was crying before she died. I find that heartbreaking.

[Sharon]

I don't for a minute think that it was a genuine note, or, of course, by Patsy, but actually a diversionary device to get the Keystone Kops of Kolorado to start chasing their tales, instead of actually investigating the crime and following the evidence, like Smit did when he was brought in later on. In my opinion it certainly worked, since the BPD started illegally interrogating Burke at Fleet Whites house hours before the discovery of her body, IMO,they already had their theory of what happened. But what intrigues me is why did the later breakfast buddies of Synthroid Stevie allow it; and since it happened at their home, why didn't the Twisters' buddies at the very least inform their "friends" the Ramseys. It make me wonder a lot about Breakfast Buddy Fleet, you know what I mean?

Ok, could you please reword this for people like me who dont know what Synthoid Stevie, breakfast buddies, Ketstone cops of Kolorado etc are.

It is very odd that they would interrogate B. at Fleets house without permission (before the body was found???). I guess that the illegal interview is locked up & inadmissable anyway, so why would they bother. The poor kid, must have been so scared in that situation.

What also bothers me is that there was never any publicity of other children who had been killed within the vicinity of Boulder around the time of JBR murder. It`s like the press wanted to withhold that sort of info to infer that JBR was a one off case, so the parents must have been involved. I believe that another girl from her dance class or pageant class? was also attacked in her own bedroom as the mum was asleep. The girl was digitally raped but the intruder ran off when he was interupted.
jmo

[Sharon]

You are right - there was mucous all over her face but this raises a point to me.

1) We know she had a cold but she wasn't "ill" the day she died.

2) A child of JonBenet's age doesn't normally end up with mucous all over her face because she has acquired the ability to sniff and to wipe her nose.

3) However there was mucous all over her face - right down to her ear and in her hairline.

A young baby with a cold could end up with snot all over its face like this because they tend to cry more when they have a cold and crying causes the nose to run more and then the tears intermingle with the snot and it gets everywhere.

Bottom line - I think the fact that JonBenet had snot all over her face, ears and hair suggests that she was crying before she died. I find that heartbreaking.

Yes, thats what I think too. She would have been all blocked up and crying with no one to help her. Its too much to take in isnt it?

In many ways its much easier to believe (for her sake) that it was an accident done by her parents rather than a monster killing her while she was fully aware of what was being done to her.
jmo

[Jayelles]

Yes, thats what I think too. She would have been all blocked up and crying with no one to help her. Its too much to take in isnt it?

In many ways its much easier to believe (for her sake) that it was an accident done by her parents rather than a monster killing her while she was fully aware of what was being done to her.
jmo


I agree with you. I can think of nothing worse than her being alone with a stranger and terrified. The very experience of being taken from her bed by a stranger would have been terrifying - that's before anything was even done to her.

[rashomon]

I will not be convinced that someone who murders their child will write a ransom note from a pad in their home with a pen that belonged to them and consider that a diversionary tactic. I believe someone bought a note with them and rewrote it there and it was planned. The sequence of events may not have played out as the perp envisioned but it was planned. Oh wow - yes it was longer by a mere 41 words. JMO
I think it was sheer panic - the Ramseys were pressed for time: what should they do? Printing out one on their home computer was certainly not an option - Ransom notes are usually written beforehand, not afterward. Hard to imagine an intruder sitting at the Ramsey computer in John' study and typing a ransom note at 2 am, lol. Not even the Keystone cops would have bought that scenario.

The Ramseys absolutely needed that note to explain JB "missing" from her bed. So they had no choice but to write one by hand.
And that the Ramseys had to run the high risk of the writer being identified indicates to me that what happened was NOT planned beforehand.

[nuisanceposter]

I agree. They had no choice but to write it with what they had - it's not like they could have run out to Staples and got new supplies. They needed the RN to provide someone to divert suspicion off them and explain the dead child in the basement. I also think it shows that this death was not something that had been planned.

[Louisadelmar]

Or an intruder with a superficial knowledge of forensic tehniques chose to use a pen and paper from inside the house so it couldn't be traced back to him.

[nuisanceposter]

That's true, too, but then how would an intruder pull off being able to mimic Patsy's style of speech and handwriting so well that she can't be eliminated as the author?

[Zoey]

That's true, too, but then how would an intruder pull off being able to mimic Patsy's style of speech and handwriting so well that she can't be eliminated as the author?

Style of speech? Where does it say anywhere that the rn was her style of speech?

[thewhitewitch1]

You are right - there was mucous all over her face but this raises a point to me.

1) We know she had a cold but she wasn't "ill" the day she died.

2) A child of JonBenet's age doesn't normally end up with mucous all over her face because she has acquired the ability to sniff and to wipe her nose.

3) However there was mucous all over her face - right down to her ear and in her hairline.

A young baby with a cold could end up with snot all over its face like this because they tend to cry more when they have a cold and crying causes the nose to run more and then the tears intermingle with the snot and it gets everywhere.

Bottom line - I think the fact that JonBenet had snot all over her face, ears and hair suggests that she was crying before she died. I find that heartbreaking.


I have thought the same thing myself, Jayelles. Wasn't there also mucous on the sleeve of her shirt? That indicates to me that she had wiped her nose on the sleeve of her shirt.
Does anyone think that JB would have had the time to cry and be able to freely wipe her nose on her shirt if an intruder had her? Wouldn't she have been restrained in some way so as not to alert the family? I guess the crying and mucous could also explain why the box of kleenex was on the table. IMO
Does anyone think the intruder brought a box of kleenex with him too? :eek:

[Zoey]

I have thought the same thing myself, Jayelles. Wasn't there also mucous on the sleeve of her shirt? That indicates to me that she had wiped her nose on the sleeve of her shirt.
Does anyone think that JB would have had the time to cry and be able to freely wipe her nose on her shirt if an intruder had her? Wouldn't she have been restrained in some way so as not to alert the family? I guess the crying and mucous could also explain why the box of kleenex was on the table. IMO
Does anyone think the intruder brought a box of kleenex with him too? :eek:

I never have understood why some find the box of Kleenex out on the table odd. It was winter, there were children in and out of the home, why wouldn't Kleenex be readily available? I have a box of Kleenex in both my bathrooms, my bedroom, my living room/dining room, because I have grandkids that come over and I can't stand them wiping it on their sleeve. I also hate sending them to the bathroom to get a Kleenex because they invariably wipe it on their sleeve on the way to the bathroom. IMO.

[rashomon]

YOU took a first aid course? I would think that you would no that when someone is delivered a lethel blow to the head that it would bleed more than just a teespoon or two--otherwise it woundn;t be lethel . Maybe thy didn't cover that in your first aid course..

Brain surgery is not part of a first-aid course, a least not on the one I took. The course was specifically about children and one chapter dealt with the possibility of them having severe head injuries (e. g. from a fall) without showing outer signs like scalp wounds.

You didn't grasp the implication of the head wound at all: for it WAS a lethal wound. Otherwise it would not be listed as the cause of death in the autopsy report.
And if your so well read on this crime why did you need EL to tell you that she had blunt force truama since every other doctor has said the same thing?
It was the rectangular piece of skull that had broken off which had initially led me to the wrong conclusion, for I thought it must have been some angular/pointed object which the attacker wielded at JB. EL said the head wound could not have been inflicted with a sharp and pointed object, since this would indeed have lacerated the scalp. Only blunt force trauma could explain that her scalp showed no signs of outer injury. I then recalled that several other doctors had mentioned this too, but I am no native speaker and had always had read 'blunt' force wrongly, as meaning 'vehement' force. But it actually means that the object itself was blunt, i. e. not pointed.
For example, JB could have been yanked around and slammed against the bathtub.
The rectangular piece of skull which was probably just the location of maximum impact from the blow, from which the force then spread and split her skull in two halves.

[Miss Marple]

It was the rectangular piece of skull that had broken off which had initially led me to the wrong conclusion, for I thought it must have been some angular/pointed object which the attacker wielded at JB. EL said the head wound could not have been inflicted with a sharp and pointed object, since this would indeed have lacerated the scalp. Only blunt force trauma could explain that her scalp showed no signs of outer injury. I then recalled that several other doctors had mentioned this too, but I am no native speaker and had always had read 'blunt' force wrongly, as meaning 'vehement' force. But it actually means that the object itself was blunt, i. e. not pointed.
For example, JB could have been yanked around and slammed against the bathtub.
The rectangular piece of skull which was probably just the location of maximum impact from the blow, from which the force then spread and split her skull in two halves.

Unfortunately, the scenario you describe is highly improbable based on the application of some simple laws of physics.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Head-Injuries?doneSave=1#SevereHeadBlow
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

You are right - there was mucous all over her face but this raises a point to me.

Bottom line - I think the fact that JonBenet had snot all over her face, ears and hair suggests that she was crying before she died. I find that heartbreaking.

It is heart-breaking, but pretty inconsistent with the picture of otherwise-loving parents who sought to cover up a completely out-of-character accidental death. This is what bothers me about RDI theories. An "accidental" death (implying unpremeditated even if it might have been caused by temporary "rage") is very different than a premeditated death.

If the death was pre-meditated, then I can see such a parental "monster" being completely oblivious to crying and the condition in which the body was left. Moreover, pre-meditation much better accounts for the savagery of the head blow and general "gratuitousness" of the violence entailed in both inflicting such a blow and adding strangulation to boot. I see very few RDI proponents who subscribe to this very extreme view, yet it is
actually far more consistent with the forensic evidence than the alternative hypothesis of an "accidental" death. That said, such a view is NOT consistent with what we know about family history/psychology of these parents. Absence evidence of pathology, speculation that one or both parents "might" have been undetected monsters simply doesn't cut it as evidence. No reasonable jury, for example, would convict on such raw speculation: there would have to be rather compelling psychological testimony to make such a case.

Most RDI proponents seem to adhere to the "accidental" killing theory, but fail to confront for how parents with such a motivation could have either overlooked the crying at death and/or failed to clean up the face even while taking steps to wipe down the body. In contrast, all the foregoing forensic evidence is far easier to explain with an IDI theory that involves a psychopath
whose savagery and indifference to the victim's plight is reflected in how the killing was accomplished, the lack of concern over the mucuous-smeared face and concomitant attention to wiping down the body (since the latter may well have been motivated by a desire to remove forensic evidence whereas wiping down the face would have accomplished no such objective).

I am responding to your post since you have conceded the extent of mucous on her face and offered a very sensible and straightforward explanation for it. I don't believe you are guilty of the "accidental death" logic/evidence flaws I describe above, so please do not misinterpret these comments as being directed at you personally. You continue to be my favorite IDI Theorist Who Won't Admit It etc.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

I have thought the same thing myself, Jayelles. Wasn't there also mucous on the sleeve of her shirt? That indicates to me that she had wiped her nose on the sleeve of her shirt.
Does anyone think that JB would have had the time to cry and be able to freely wipe her nose on her shirt if an intruder had her? Wouldn't she have been restrained in some way so as not to alert the family? I guess the crying and mucous could also explain why the box of kleenex was on the table. IMO
Does anyone think the intruder brought a box of kleenex with him too? :eek:

This gets back to pre-meditation vs. accident. If you believe Ramseys are monsters who murdered their daughter with pre-meditation, you have a HUGE burden of proof to demonstrate the pattern of prior pathology that would put them in the minuscule population of parents capable of such a horrific act. Observing that Patsy entered her child into the very same beauty/talent competitions that she to all appearances TREASURED participating in as a child doesn't exactly cut it even if YOU might regard such behavior as in some way "abusive."

Conversely, if you think that the Ramseys were basically good parents but that one may have "lost it" and accidentally killed their child in a very out-of-character moment of rage, then you have some obligation to explain the trigger. If the trigger truly were bed-wetting why would you allow her to be found in urine-soaked panties, for example? If the trigger were some power struggle over going to bed or what to wear the next day, wouldn't you think that a logical part of the staging/cover-up would be to remove the evidence of her crying from the body?

Please provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for why these crafty staging parents wiped down the body yet left their precious daughter's face flagrantly blood & mucous-stained. I can't think of one, but of course, I'm so lacking in imagination, I find it difficult to picture parents such as the Ramseys doing this to their daughter in the first place. Please enlighten me.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

You continue to be my favorite IDI Theorist Who Won't Admit It etc.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Sorry, Jayelles, I hadn't read your earlier reply on a different thread. You're now my favorite Closet IDI Theorist since my guess is that it would come as news to most at FFJ and WS that the formerly self-described fence-sitter actually leans IDI.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

Sorry, Jayelles, I hadn't read your earlier reply on a different thread. You're now my favorite Closet IDI Theorist since my guess is that it would come as news to most at FFJ and WS that the formerly self-described fence-sitter actually leans IDI.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Why don't you ask them? They know my theory.

Go on - ask them.

[rashomon]

I also read on your earlier post that you are married? My haert goes out to your husband.
He always seems to be pretty happy when in my company. :) And I in his.

Hmmm, but you DO think it's possible to discern whether or not the ransom note was written by a female...ass you are certain that it was written by Patsy since you are so sure it was a FEMALE writer..

Does your own hypocricy bother you or does it just bother everyone around you?
What hypocrisy?
No, I don't think it is possible to discern if the writer is male or female. But we know far more of Patsy Ramsey than we know of our fellow posters, which is why imo the note has Patsy Ramsey written all over it. This is only MY personal opinion, others may have a different opinion. What's your point?

[Jayelles]

He always seems to be pretty happy when in my company. :) And I in his.


What hypocrisy?
No, I don't think it is possible to discern if the writer is male or female. But we know far more of Patsy Ramsey than we know of our fellow posters, which is why imo the note has Patsy Ramsey written all over it. This is only MY personal opinion, others may have a different opinion. What's your point?

Rashomon - Don't rise to the bait sweetie :-)

[thewhitewitch1]

This gets back to pre-meditation vs. accident. If you believe Ramseys are monsters who murdered their daughter with pre-meditation, you have a HUGE burden of proof to demonstrate the pattern of prior pathology that would put them in the minuscule population of parents capable of such a horrific act. Observing that Patsy entered her child into the very same beauty/talent competitions that she to all appearances TREASURED participating in as a child doesn't exactly cut it even if YOU might regard such behavior as in some way "abusive."

Conversely, if you think that the Ramseys were basically good parents but that one may have "lost it" and accidentally killed their child in a very out-of-character moment of rage, then you have some obligation to explain the trigger. If the trigger truly were bed-wetting why would you allow her to be found in urine-soaked panties, for example? If the trigger were some power struggle over going to bed or what to wear the next day, wouldn't you think that a logical part of the staging/cover-up would be to remove the evidence of her crying from the body?

Please provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for why these crafty staging parents wiped down the body yet left their precious daughter's face flagrantly blood & mucous-stained. I can't think of one, but of course, I'm so lacking in imagination, I find it difficult to picture parents such as the Ramseys doing this to their daughter in the first place. Please enlighten me.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple


First of all, I have never said or implied one way or another how I feel about JBs beauty pageant participation. It is a non-issue with me.
Why would they allow JB to be found in urine soaked panties? Well, isn't it possible that the urine was released upon her death? Why would they have changed her out of them at that point? Why would they have wiped her face? I guess it must be difficult for you to envision yourself in a position like that...how panicked and horrified you would be feeling...how desperate. Why or how would you even think of these things?
I never said that they premeditated her murder. Why do I have an "obligation" to provide the "trigger"? Do IDIs have an obligation to provide the intruders motive? Sure, we can provide til the cows come home but we can't prove it.
The crying indicates an arguement or altercation of some sort. Maybe the crying was the trigger. Maybe the Rs (or more exactly PR) was tired and irritable and JB was on her last nerve.
All you have to go by about the Rs home life is what they tell you. Do you always act in public the way you act in private? How many times have you heard aquaintances and/or neighbors of a murderer act shocked at what the murderer has done? How many times have you heard of murderers described as "nice and quiet" ect? Too many to count. Nobody knows what goes on behind peoples closed doors.
Why would removing the "evidence" of her crying exhonerate them? It does nothing to prove who killed her in LEs eyes. Do you think they were going to charge the Rs with her murder just because there was evidence that she cried before she died?
As far as her body being "wiped", there is no way of knowing exactly when it was wiped or why. We can "assume" that it was wiped to remove traces of semen but we do not know that. If she had wet the bed, maybe it was at that point that she was wiped down.
You can go on all day long about how wonderful the Ramseys were but it proves nothing to me. You did not know them. I did not know them and no one, except the people who lived with them day to day really knows what went on in that house. IMO

[Miss Marple]

First of all, I have never said or implied one way or another how I feel about JBs beauty pageant participation. It is a non-issue with me.
No problem. I have only recently posted on these boards and don't know your views beyond getting the impression you are RDI. I was just offering an example of a common RDI argument that I believed wouldn't be sufficient to be convincing to establish the parents' dark characters etc.


Why would they allow JB to be found in urine soaked panties? Well, isn't it possible that the urine was released upon her death? Why would they have changed her out of them at that point? Why would they have wiped her face? I guess it must be difficult for you to envision yourself in a position like that...how panicked and horrified you would be feeling...how desperate. Why or how would you even think of these things?
All I was trying to call attention to was the "disconnect" between a perp who took the time to wipe her body but NOT her face. This "disconnect" in my view is much easier to explain/resolve if we postulate an intruder than a parent: I would think that if a parent thought or observed to do only one of these 2 things, it would be wiping off the face rather than the body.


I never said that they premeditated her murder. Why do I have an "obligation" to provide the "trigger"? Do IDIs have an obligation to provide the intruders motive? Sure, we can provide til the cows come home but we can't prove it.
If you re-read my comment, it was an "If-Then" statement. If you don't believe they pre-meditated the murder then I concur you have no obligation.
And I actually do believe that anyone who wishes to be credible in offering a theory of the case DOES have some obligation to suggest a plausible motive that assists in explaining the evidence at hand. An intruder angry with John for some reason helps "explain" the contents of the RN. An intruder ashamed of pedophilic feelings might "explain" why the the body was covered and left in a dark hidden room etc. If you postulate one motive to explain the evidence and then point to perp X for whom there is no evidence or plausible justification for that motive, it weakens your argument.


The crying indicates an arguement or altercation of some sort. Maybe the crying was the trigger. Maybe the Rs (or more exactly PR) was tired and irritable and JB was on her last nerve.
Right, but if someone is trying to cover up something, don't you think their first thoughts will run to the clues that point to what really happened? If this were a bed-wetting rage incident, wouldn't it behoove you to hide evidence she'd wet the bed and thereby diminish the odds that this cause would even occur to an investigator? If her crying precipitated an angry exchange that led to a killing, I would think that a parent would take the simple step of wiping away all evidence of the tears that some Columbo-like detective might cleverly use to infer what really happened.


All you have to go by about the Rs home life is what they tell you. Do you always act in public the way you act in private? How many times have you heard aquaintances and/or neighbors of a murderer act shocked at what the murderer has done? How many times have you heard of murderers described as "nice and quiet" ect? Too many to count. Nobody knows what goes on behind peoples closed doors.
But when you consider all the people who have gone on the record about the Ramseys, in books, newspaper articles, media interviews etc., the picture painted is not one of either of them being a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And we have these observations not only from close friends, fellow church members, Access Graphics employees, but also from grown children who have lived with them, household helpers who got to see them up close and personal etc. The Ramseys weren't perfect, but neither is the composite picture one of "well, we should have known from X, Y, Z weird behavior that should have been a clue that Patsy wasn't mentally stable etc." In contrast, with parents who kill children or weirdos like John Mark Karr, there generally is a pattern of behavior or a pretty obvious "triggering event."


Why would removing the "evidence" of her crying exhonerate them? It does nothing to prove who killed her in LEs eyes. Do you think they were going to charge the Rs with her murder just because there was evidence that she cried before she died?
As far as her body being "wiped", there is no way of knowing exactly when it was wiped or why. We can "assume" that it was wiped to remove traces of semen but we do not know that. If she had wet the bed, maybe it was at that point that she was wiped down.
You're right that we don't "know" the motivation, but we do "know" that the body was wiped down and the face was not. If BOTH had been wiped down or NEITHER, that would be less puzzling. As I said before, it's easier/more plausible to develop an IDI case for this difference than an RDI case. If you don't find my logic convincing, so be it.


You can go on all day long about how wonderful the Ramseys were but it proves nothing to me. You did not know them. I did not know them and no one, except the people who lived with them day to day really knows what went on in that house. IMO
Are the parents described in Schiller's book individuals you think are likely to either have a) murdered their own child (implying pre-meditation); or b) accidently killed their own child and then staged a murder/sexual assault to cover it up? Schiller's book isn't perfect, but unlike other books trying to promote a particular theory, he at least took a stab at being even-handed about the various theories of the case and I think it's fair to say he interviewed far more key players in the case (who were apparently willing to talk with him because of his reputation) than any other book author, so in that sense he was able to get a far more representative sample of the Ramseys, warts and all. He wasn't out either to exonerate the Ramseys nor to indict them: he simply reported what he found. In contrast, there are many other book authors who appear to have started with a "theory of the case" and then selectively presented the evidence most favorable to making that case even if this meant glossing over or entirely ignoring inconvenient details that didn't fit.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Why don't you ask them? They know my theory.

Go on - ask them.
Sadly, this would require trusting the FFJ/WS forum owner with personal details I don't care to share. Moreover, in the few instances FFJ has made available a public thread, my participation in it hasn't exactly been welcomed with open arms. "Vilified" wouldn't be too strong a word to describe how some posters responded to my challenging their pet theories or selected evidentiary claims (such as the 911 call); they made clear that unless I shared their RDI views, I wasn't particularly welcome at their picnic etc.

You would convince me if you opened a thread on either FFJ or WS or both titled What is Jayelles' Theory About Who Killed JonBenet? and invited fellow posters to guess who you believe killed JonBenet: e.g,
1. JDI
2. PDI
3. BDI
4. Other Ramsey Family Members
5. Friends
6. Immediate Neighbors
7. People Who Worked for Access Graphics
8. People Who Did Paid Work for Ramseys
9. Stranger Intruder (e.g., someone who randomly entered the house and didn't know anything about JBR or the family in advance)
10. Acquaintance Intruder (e.g., someone who perhaps became aware of JBR or family through news or otherwise was casually acquainted not through employment, but also not to the point of being considered a friend)

My guess is that people would be all over the map and that there wouldn't necessarily be zero votes for #1-#4. I myself am uncertain whether you'd select 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10. It's clear #9 wouldn't fit.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

Sadly, this would require trusting the FFJ/WS forum owner with personal details I don't care to share. Moreover, in the few instances FFJ has made available a public thread, my participation in it hasn't exactly been welcomed with open arms. "Vilified" wouldn't be too strong a word to describe how some posters responded to my challenging their pet theories or selected evidentiary claims (such as the 911 call); they made clear that unless I shared their RDI views, I wasn't particularly welcome at their picnic etc.

You would convince me if you opened a thread on either FFJ or WS or both titled What is Jayelles' Theory About Who Killed JonBenet? and invited fellow posters to guess who you believe killed JonBenet: e.g,
1. JDI
2. PDI
3. BDI
4. Other Ramsey Family Members
5. Friends
6. Immediate Neighbors
7. People Who Worked for Access Graphics
8. People Who Did Paid Work for Ramseys
9. Stranger Intruder (e.g., someone who randomly entered the house and didn't know anything about JBR or the family in advance)
10. Acquaintance Intruder (e.g., someone who perhaps became aware of JBR or family through news or otherwise was casually acquainted not through employment, but also not to the point of being considered a friend)

My guess is that people would be all over the map and that there wouldn't necessarily be zero votes for #1-#4. I myself am uncertain whether you'd select 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10. It's clear #9 wouldn't fit.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Don't you think that would be terribly pompous - to start threads/start a poll asking people what they think My theory is? My buddies at WS and FFJ know I'm not RDI and they would laugh at any suggestion that I've been lurking in some closet.

If you care to look for it, there's an old post here in the archives which was made by a moderator at WS which confirms what I have posted above. I've never been in any closet. I've always been honest about my opinion.

Good grief Marple. You and I have exchanged hunners of e-mails - what are you trying to prove here? Is this another game?

[Louisadelmar]

Why don't you ask them? They know my theory.

Go on - ask them.

Is this your Susan Stine theory?

[Jayelles]

Is this your Susan Stine theory?

I've never posted my theory on a public forum.

[rashomon]

Rashomon - Don't rise to the bait sweetie :-)
Jayelles - I'm fully aware that it is a bait, but I just love discussion and debate sweetie :-)

[rashomon]

My point was the Ramseys were never INDICTED. OJ was certainly INDICTED: he just didn't happen to be convicted. Not everyone who is indicted is convicted and as OJ shows, not every acquittal is necessarily proof of innocence. But as other posters have noted, we really don't KNOW what fiber evidence was actually found. We certainly know what was leaked to press and what was said during Ramsey interviews, but we also know from Trip DeMuth that fabrication/exaggeration is a COMMON investigative technique to elicit a confession. If the handwriting evidence and fiber evidence were as "slam dunk" as RDI theorists have characterized it, it's hard to understand why an indictment wasn't forthcoming.
Trip DeMuth has always been a die hard-IDI who once told Steve Thomas that he as a parent with two little daughters just 'knew' that parents could Do you not do such a thing to their child. ST drily suggested to DeMuth to look up the filicide statistics to refresh his memory on what parents are capable of doing to their children.
How DeMuth (who was a member of the DA's office!), can be that naive is beyond my comprehension. "De Myth" would be the more suitable name for him imo.

Like you, I greatly admire the fictional Miss Marple (and my other favorite, Hercule Poirot, is claimed by someone else).
They are both wonderful fictional characters. I love Hercule Poirot just as much as Miss Marple.
Both have a deep understanding of human nature, but their approach to solving cases is very different. Poirot is the superior mastermind (who does not miss an opportunity do point this out to others too, lol). Order, stringent logic and reasoning direct him in solving cases. He has put it together in his mind already while his friend Hastings (like the reader) is still stumbling along a false trail because he (like the reader) failed to recognize the red herring laid out by the perp. A.C. Doyle's Sherlock Holmes/Watson are Agatha Christie's Poirot/Hastings.
Now Miss Marple, as opposed to Poirot, she appears to be a muddle-headed old dear, which leads people to underestimate her sleuthing abilities.
But underneath that 'fluffy old-dear' surface lies an excellent brain every bit as sharp as Poirot's.
Miss Marple goes by her real-life observations. "Now this reminds me of Maud Miller, the fishmonger's wife, who once ...." would be a typical Miss Marple overture. And in the end she has solved the case brilliantly, her razor-sharp mind putting the pieces of the puzzle together .

I don't recall CASKU concluding that a "her" did it. Yes, they went with the 90% odds that a parent did it, and they may have been correct that the note wasn't "genuine" in the sense that there was no realistic chance of getting JBR back alive no matter what the parents did.
You're correct about CASKU not concluding that a "her" did it. In their opinion the note pointed to a parent having written it, and I personally am convinced that Patsy wrote it. She could never be ruled out as the author, and the dramatic and rambling style in the note just screams Patsy to me. I just can't imagine a close-mouthed cold-fish ype like John would pen such a note.

But even if the RN had a deceptive intent, one can easily imagine an intruder who resorted to RN-writing knowing they had no intention of seeking a ransom, but instead wishing to muddy the investigative waters.
MM, do you really think a sexual predator would be so naive to believe he could muddy the waters by leaving a ransom note behind without removing the bodyfrom the house?? A ransom note with which he would only leave behind incriminating evidence which might identify him, i. e. his handwriting?
AC's Miss Marple, sitting in her chair knitting some little wool socks for her grand-niece's baby, would probably frown and shake her head in disbelief here too. ... :)

I am automatically quite wary of posters who are highly certain of their conclusions in this case given how ambiguous so much of the evidence is. High certainty in the face of such ambiguous evidence suggests (doesn't PROVE) an individual who may have let other considerations--be they envy regarding the Ramsey's wealth, jealousy regarding their social position, or reverse class bigotry, plain and simple--cloud their assessment of what's true in this case. If you are not such an individual, I would expect you to have a bit more of an open mind than you appear to.
And I am automatically quite wary of posters who shut their eyes to unambiguous evidence by simply claiming it doesn't exist. Who claim that an intruder was there while both the forensic and circumstantial evidence points to no one else that the Ramseys as the perps.
Do IDIs really believe that respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq. and Mitch Morrissey Esq., together with detectives Tom Trujillo and Jane Harmer, (who all acted on behalf of the United States ), and Steve Thomas, were in criminal collusion with the CBI lab presenting fabricated fiber evidence to frame John and Patsy Ramsey?

[Louisadelmar]

I've never posted my theory on a public forum.

Funny, I have a recollection of you suggestng something at Websleuths about Susan Stine being jealous of JonBenet. Maybe a year or 2 ago? Oh well, perhaps it was someone else. WS has been down all day so I can't google it.

[Athena]

And I am automatically quite wary of posters who shut their eyes to unambiguous evidence by simply claiming it doesn't exist. Who claim that an intruder was there while both the forensic and circumstantial evidence points to no one else that the Ramseys as the perps.
Do IDIs really believe that respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq. and Mitch Morrissey Esq., together with detectives Tom Trujillo and Jane Harmer, (who all acted on behalf of the United States ), and Steve Thomas, were in criminal collusion with the CBI lab presenting fabricated fiber evidence to frame John and Patsy Ramsey?

Rash -- It is a fact, it is legal, it is done knowingly, it is part of training, that during interviews/interrogations they are ALLOWED to misrepresent the evidence; they can't do it in court but they can do it outside of court and hope that it causes a reaction in the suspect. Maybe Germany is different?

I for one am not saying the fiber does not exist but I can't say it does exist and neither can you. It has nothing to do with one's honesty, integrity, the US Laws uphold this method of interrogation. This is not an IDI speaking here OK -- this is just how it is. I don't know any other way to assure you that this is normal and routine. I've provided many links to the training methods and apparently you have not read them.

[Louisadelmar]

Funny, I have a recollection of you suggestng something at Websleuths about Susan Stine being jealous of JonBenet. Maybe a year or 2 ago? Oh well, perhaps it was someone else. WS has been down all day so I can't google it.

Maybe this is what I'm thinking of:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KPTDoz1_KLcJ:www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D950887%26mode%3Dthreaded+jaye lles+A+little+fairy+story+for+you&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - A little fairy story for you websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35480 - 72k - Supplemental Result -

It had Mary and Bert as John and Patsy. The rest of the pseudonyms are easy enough to figure out.

[rashomon]

Rash -- It is a fact, it is legal, it is done knowingly, it is part of training, that during interviews/interrogations they are ALLOWED to misrepresent the evidence; they can't do it in court but they can do it outside of court and hope that it causes a reaction in the suspect. Maybe Germany is different?

I for one am not saying the fiber does not exist but I can't say it does exist and neither can you. It has nothing to do with one's honesty, integrity, the US Laws uphold this method of interrogation. This is not an IDI speaking here OK -- this is just how it is. I don't know any other way to assure you that this is normal and routine. I've provided many links to the training methods and apparently you have not read them.
'They' is a very global stament. I know that the police are allowed to misrepresent the evidence during interviews/interrogations, but could you please provide a (credible) link where it is verbatim stated says that lawyers are allowed to do the same?

[bullmoose]

Maybe this is what I'm thinking of:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KPTDoz1_KLcJ:www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D950887%26mode%3Dthreaded+jaye lles+A+little+fairy+story+for+you&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - A little fairy story for you websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35480 - 72k - Supplemental Result -

It had Mary and Bert as John and Patsy. The rest of the pseudonyms are easy enough to figure out.This little fairy tale would seem to be in direct contradiction to jayelles post up above, doesn't it?

[thewhitewitch1]

Miss Marple QUOTE:

Right, but if someone is trying to cover up something, don't you think their first thoughts will run to the clues that point to what really happened? If this were a bed-wetting rage incident, wouldn't it behoove you to hide evidence she'd wet the bed and thereby diminish the odds that this cause would even occur to an investigator? If her crying precipitated an angry exchange that led to a killing, I would think that a parent would take the simple step of wiping away all evidence of the tears that some Columbo-like detective might cleverly use to infer what really happened. END QUOTE

If it were a bed-wetting rage accident, the sheets would have been changed and washed. We know that they had been changed since the housekeeper was last there 2 days prior to her death. There is some question as to whether JBs white blanket was on the bed that night, as it usually was unless she wet her bed and it was in the dryer. The release of bodily fluids after death would not be something that would have to be "covered up".
Personally, I believe that JR did most, if not all of the staging and I doubt that he would have thought to wipe her face. Again I ask...why would he? I don't think that was a detail that would strike someone who is panicking and desperate as a priority. The important thing would be to make it look like someone tried to kidnap her and attend to those details. IMO
Haven't you ever been so stressed that you don't think clearly? Placing a garrote around someones neck and tying their hands doesn't take a rocket scientist. Of course small details are going to be missed. If it was premeditated by the Rs, that would be a whole other story and more attention would have been paid to details since they would have had the time and rationality to think about them.
I would love to offer you a step by step theory on what I think happened but I do not have one. I only have what the evidence shows me. And the evidence leads me to strongly believe that the Ramseys know very well what happened that night. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

'They' is a very global stament. I know that the police are allowed to misrepresent the evidence during interviews/interrogations, but could you please provide a (credible) link where it is verbatim stated says that lawyers are allowed to do the same?

I think the operative word might be 'investigator.'

[Louisadelmar]

This little fairy tale would seem to be in direct contradiction to jayelles post up above, doesn't it?

Or perhaps she just likes to 'Run with the horses and hunt with the hounds'.

[Sprocket]

I think the operative word might be 'investigator.'

So, I take that as a "no."

[Louisadelmar]

So, I take that as a "no."

No. This was discussed here not too long ago. i think there were links in that discussion. Can't look them up now as we're getting ready to ride in a parade tomorrow and am focused on final preparations and packing.

[Zoey]

'They' is a very global stament. I know that the police are allowed to misrepresent the evidence during interviews/interrogations, but could you please provide a (credible) link where it is verbatim stated says that lawyers are allowed to do the same?


Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?

During the course of an investigation an investigator often must rely on duplicity and pretense in an effort to develop evidence against the guilty suspect. Common examples include the use of undercover operatives, hidden surveillance video or "baiting" a cash drawer with extra money. Provided these procedures do not entice a person to commit a crime (entrapment), they are generally acceptable practices. However, courts give greater scrutiny to situations when an investigator knowingly lies to a suspect in an effort to obtain evidence. The courts recognized that deception by law enforcement is often required to solve crimes but also prohibits the police from making false statements to a suspect under certain circumstances.



Shocking the conscience of the court or community



The landmark decision regulating false statements made to a suspect is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969. The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing. This lie persuaded the suspect to confess to the homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.




This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide confession.3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be perceived as actual evidence against the suspect.

[Zoey]

My first post was pointing out investigators are allowed to lie.

Second post is pointing out police are allowed to lie.

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand. Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave. Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.

[Zoey]

Third and final lawyers: I guess they word it a little different, as in this story did not come right out and say lawyers are allowed to lie, it says they are allowed to ask leading questions!

In real-life practice, of course, lawyers will ask leading questions during depositions even when they aren’t strictly permissible, waiting to see whether you object. When you are the examining lawyer, you can take the same approach—ask leading questions when you want unless and until the other side objects.

An objection to a leading questions is a form objection that is waived unless it is made at the time the question is asked. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(d)(3)(A) (“Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time”) (emphasis added).

[Jayelles]

Funny, I have a recollection of you suggestng something at Websleuths about Susan Stine being jealous of JonBenet. Maybe a year or 2 ago? Oh well, perhaps it was someone else. WS has been down all day so I can't google it.


I don't believe I have ever posted that Susan Stine was jealous of JonBenet. because IMO, there's not one shred of evidence that that.

I do think her post-murder behavious has been most bizarre though.

[Jayelles]

This little fairy tale would seem to be in direct contradiction to jayelles post up above, doesn't it?


That was just a fairy story - as advertised. Do you believe fairy stories?

[Jayelles]

Or perhaps she just likes to 'Run with the horses and hunt with the hounds'.

Nah, I don't know anything about horses and hounds Tipper. I've been led to believe that's more your scene.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles - I'm fully aware that it is a bait, but I just love discussion and debate sweetie :-)

So lange du spass dran hast!

[rashomon]

So lange du spass dran hast!
Den (Whiskey) kann ich einfach nicht ernst nehmen, lol.
Where did you learn German? In school?

[Jayelles]

Den (Whiskey) kann ich einfach nicht ernst nehmen, lol.
Where did you learn German? In school?

Ich habe viele Deutsche Freunde aber mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut.

[rashomon]

High certainty in the face of such ambiguous evidence suggests (doesn't PROVE) an individual who may have let other considerations--be they envy regarding the Ramsey's wealth, jealousy regarding their social position, or reverse class bigotry, plain and simple--cloud their assessment of what's true in this case. If you are not such an individual, I would expect you to have a bit more of an open mind than you appear to.
Miss Marple
Since imo the forensic and other circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys is very strong and therefore unambiguous, the question as to whether I am an individual who envies the Ramseys' wealth would be irrelevant.
One could change your post using your own argumentation:

"High certainty in the face of such unambiguous evidence against the Ramseys suggests (doesn't PROVE) an indidividual who may have let other considerations -- be they admiration regarding the Ramseys' wealth and social position, or their own upper class pride -- cloud their assessment of what's true in this case. If you are not such an indivdual, I would expect you to have a bit more of an open mind than you appear to."

Sure there exist individuals on both sides of the fence who either hate the Ramseys or admiringly elevate them on a pedestal. Neither attitude leads to the truth in this case - for the truth lies in the evidence. This is my approach in discussing criminal cases.

But still I'd like to reply in more detail to your suggestion since it touches a topic on which my interest is focused very much: what is really important in life? Can money buy you love and happines? Of course it can't.
Whether we are rich or poor, we all have basic emotional needs: to be accepted and loved.
Now what is interesting is that being born into great affluence is as much a risk factor for healthy emotional development as being born in destitution. Illustrative example: Just look at Paris Hilton smashing hotel rooms to pieces.
In her emotional make-up, Hilton may have more in common with the underdog perp sitting in jail because no one ever cared to teach him values and acted as a positive role model for him.

Rich people have more possibilities to numb their feelings than poorer people. A rich woman who feels inwardly emtpy and frustrated can go on an expensive shopping spree - an option not open to a poor woman. The monstrous shopping sprees of ultrarich celebrities speak volumes in that respect. But the 'high' from such a shopping spree is short-lived, just as the high from drugs. Substance abuse is also very common among both the ultrarich and the very poor, only that the poor have to drown their feelings of frustration in cheap booze instead of having Veuve Cliquot, or use cheap crack instead of expensive cocaine.

I neither hate nor envy the Ramseys. There are many moments when I feel very, very sorry for Patsy Ramsey: she had it all, it was as if the goddess Fortuna had showered a cornucopia of good gifts on her: beauty, brains, and adoring husband who denied her nothing money-wise, two healthy, intelligent and cute children - what more can a woman ask for in life?
Even when cancer cast the dark shadow of death on her life, Patsy was among the lucky ones, since she could buy herself the best medical treatment and finally conquered ovarian cancer, one of the deadliest cancers which exist.
This is the surface picture we have. But what do we know of her inner life? Her hopes, her fears? Very little. The Ramseys were never psychologically evaluated, so again all we can do is speculate.
Did moving around in the superficial world of beauty pageants really satisfy her inner needs? Hardly likely. Was she a woman who used her restless activity to run away from herself? I know quite a few people like that. Who was the real Patsy?

And then on that fatal night of Dec 25, in one such brief moment when she lost control and struck JonBenet, she realized that irreparable damage had been done.
This is an incredibly tragic case, for who can say with absolute certainty that this could not have happened to him or her too? No one can say that imo. Maybe this is the reason why so many people cling to the mantra that a parent could not have done this to her child, for if it happened to Patsy, it could have happened to anyone? I doesn't take much force to crack a child's skull, in addition, rage can multiply a person's strength.

We all have days when we are stressed-out and sleep-deprived, and even people who are known as paragons of patience can fly off the handle, given the circumstances.
Theoretically, even one push or shove can have deadly results.
And which parent could live with that afterward - knowing that her rage was the cause of her child's death? Committing suicide afterward was no option for Patsy, for there was Burke left to care for.
The social ostracism would have been unbearable. People are unforgiving where filicide is concerned. Patsy may not even have gone to prison, for the Ramseys' excellent lawyers would probably have done a very good job in defending her. But it is the living with it afterward which would have been sheer hell.
Every Greek tragedy pales in comparison to the real-life tragedy of a child who finds death at a parent's hands, and of the parent who has accidentally killed her child in a rage. Patsy could not live with such a guilt in public. The Ramseys staged a scene and lawyered up in a frantic hope to get away with it.
Did Patsy ask God for forgiveness? I think she did. We don't know where she is now. We don't know if there is a heaven or a hell, or if there is an afterlife. Does hating Patsy lead anywhere? Hate is a feeling which ties a person to the object of her hate.
You have such a wonderful saying in your English language: "Count your blessings". We don't have an equivalent in German.
Yes, we should be grateful for what we have. We take so much for granted: our health, that our children are alive and well, and many other things. But every day it can happen that some tragedy strikes and our life will never be the same.
We often forget to count our blessings, and tragic cases like the JonBenet Ramsey case bring this to mind.
There are many people who read these forum, but who never post.
And who knows, maybe reading about the Ramsey case has prevented some parents from striking out at their child in a rage.
The internet has kept this case alive. Nothing will bring poor JonBenet back but she at least deserves justice. For this little girl stands for all the children who have become victims of domestic violence, rich or poor.

[Athena]

That's true, too, but then how would an intruder pull off being able to mimic Patsy's style of speech and handwriting so well that she can't be eliminated as the author?

What style of speech was detected? Excerpts from lines from a movie? The use of the words "and hence" and "attache". Do a search on the internet with articles with the words "and hence"; there are thousands of them. The word "attache" is probably used in every single spy or kidnapping movie ever made. I would venture to guess that if each one of us on this board gave 5 samples of our printed handwriting there would be similarities found.

Patsy wasn't the only to not be excluded and that is what most RDI's fail to acknowledge. As a matter of fact, there were a few that could not be excluded due to handwriting that appeared to be closer to that of the note moreso than Patsy's. In addition to that the so-called experts who without a doubt said it was her handwriting did not analyze the original note or the original samples.

[Athena]

'They' is a very global stament. I know that the police are allowed to misrepresent the evidence during interviews/interrogations, but could you please provide a (credible) link where it is verbatim stated says that lawyers are allowed to do the same?

It is an interview. It is not done in a court of law. It is only considered prosecutorial misconduct if it is presented in court and is false. In this case Levin was an investigator. It also says that he was not hired to evaluate the evidence but hired to present it. PMPT

[Louisadelmar]

That was just a fairy story - as advertised. Do you believe fairy stories?

I must have just been confused because her name kept coming up in the threads related to your "Fairy Story." Did anyone ever email you any of Susan Stine's handwriting exemplars so you coulld forward them on to Cherokee? Never mind, it wouldn't have come up for 'just a fairy story.'

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=6648&page=1&pp=12
A little Fairy Story for you



http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=6678
Back to Jayelles' Fairy Tale (Kinda)

[Athena]

I must have just been confused because her name kept coming up in the threads related to your "Fairy Story." Did anyone ever email you any of Susan Stine's handwriting exemplars so you coulld forward them on to Cherokee? Never mind, it wouldn't have come up for 'just a fairy story.'

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=6648&page=1&pp=12
A little Fairy Story for you



http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=6678
Back to Jayelles' Fairy Tale (Kinda)

I read the fairy tale without even reading these other posts -- I just automatically thought it was Susan just based on the details. It's not??? :confused:

[Athena]

Third and final lawyers: I guess they word it a little different, as in this story did not come right out and say lawyers are allowed to lie, it says they are allowed to ask leading questions!

In real-life practice, of course, lawyers will ask leading questions during depositions even when they aren’t strictly permissible, waiting to see whether you object. When you are the examining lawyer, you can take the same approach—ask leading questions when you want unless and until the other side objects.

An objection to a leading questions is a form objection that is waived unless it is made at the time the question is asked. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(d)(3)(A) (“Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time”) (emphasis added).

Zoey -- alot of what I'm reading are related to a trial.

I am referring to interviews. Interviews are not interrogations (though I think I may have used that word in post; my error). Interviews are with non-custodial suspects meaning they have not been read Miranda rights and they have not been held on suspicion (custodial).

In interviews anything goes and what Levin conducted with the Ramseys were interviews which is the same reason that if they did have evidence they are not obligated to have shared it with Wood. However, it is not proof that the statements that Levin made are fact in that interview and there is no proof that those facts were not misrepresented.

The other question I have is all during this case it appears that evidence was shared with Wood -- why all of a sudden would the red fibers allegedly in the paint tray and garrote and the black fibers allegedly from John's shirt not be shared?

Also why was it allegedly said originally that the fibers were dark "cotton" fibers not black wool fibers?

[Jayelles]

I must have just been confused because her name kept coming up in the threads related to your "Fairy Story." Did anyone ever email you any of Susan Stine's handwriting exemplars so you coulld forward them on to Cherokee? Never mind, it wouldn't have come up for 'just a fairy story.'

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=6648&page=1&pp=12
A little Fairy Story for you



http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=6678
Back to Jayelles' Fairy Tale (Kinda)


I have NO particular perp in mind - only a profile of the kind of person whom I could believe being responsible. DonBradley posts about his little green men doing it but I'm sure you don't take HIM seriously. I would have thought that "Once upon a Time" and "FairyTale" would be clear enough - but obviously not. It was actually a rehash of an old post I made at WS 4/5 years ago when we decided to make up hypothetical theories. Rehashing it and reposting it generated a bit of discussion at a time when the forums were quiet.

I've probably discussed Susan Stine plenty of times with regard to her Beckner E-mails and I think she's a very odd character. I'd LOVE to know her motive for sending those e-mails. However, I don't think there's any evidence to link her to Jonbenet's murder. That really would be like a plot from a book.

Apart from anything, even if I did decide to suspect one of Patsy's circle of friends of Jonbenet's murder, that still wouldn't make me RDI....so I'm really not sure what your point is (other than very "innocently" trying to stir up some trouble on this board).

[Athena]

I have NO particular perp in mind - only a profile of the kind of person whom I could believe being responsible. DonBradley posts about his little green men doing it but I'm sure you don't take HIM seriously. I would have thought that "Once upon a Time" and "FairyTale" would be clear enough - but obviously not. It was actually a rehash of an old post I made at WS 4/5 years ago when we decided to make up hypothetical theories. Rehashing it and reposting it generated a bit of discussion at a time when the forums were quiet.

I've probably discussed Susan Stine plenty of times with regard to her Beckner E-mails and I think she's a very odd character. I'd LOVE to know her motive for sending those e-mails. However, I don't think there's any evidence to link her to Jonbenet's murder. That really would be like a plot from a book.

Apart from anything, even if I did decide to suspect one of Patsy's circle of friends of Jonbenet's murder, that still wouldn't make me RDI....so I'm really not sure what your point is (other than very "innocently" trying to stir up some trouble on this board).

In all fairness to Louisa when I read your fairy story Susan immediately came to mind. I believe if someone comes to this conclusion it is only because of the details within which basically describes her whether it is coincidental or not. I don't think you can deny this. But it doesn't matter anyway. It's only a theory; no big deal. Most of us have posted a theory as to who might have done it or if not who what may have happened.

[Zoey]

Zoey -- alot of what I'm reading are related to a trial.

I am referring to interviews. Interviews are not interrogations (though I think I may have used that word in post; my error). Interviews are with non-custodial suspects meaning they have not been read Miranda rights and they have not been held on suspicion (custodial).

In interviews anything goes and what Levin conducted with the Ramseys were interviews which is the same reason that if they did have evidence they are not obligated to have shared it with Wood. However, it is not proof that the statements that Levin made are fact in that interview and there is no proof that those facts were not misrepresented.

The other question I have is all during this case it appears that evidence was shared with Wood -- why all of a sudden would the red fibers allegedly in the paint tray and garrote and the black fibers allegedly from John's shirt not be shared?

Also why was it allegedly said originally that the fibers were dark "cotton" fibers not black wool fibers?


I saw depositions in this article and so I thought that is what they were referring to. I did not think the article was about trials. Sorry if I posted incorrect information.

[Athena]

I saw depositions in this article and so I thought that is what they were referring to. I did not think the article was about trials. Sorry if I posted incorrect information.

I'm sorry Zoey. I think I just tacked on to your post. I was just trying to explain what the differences were. You didn't post incorrect information because once a case goes to court (a deposition is a legal statement) it is no longer OK for a prosecutor to lie. If they do lie in a court of law they can be sanctioned or disbarred. What I found interesting though in doing research is even though a prosecutor is caught lying as long as the Judge feels it did not affect the Jury's verdict it is called a "harmless error". In all the research I've done I saw two prosecutors who were actually indicted but the charges were dismissed. Other than those two have seen none held responsible for their misconduct. No wonder they do it.

[Miss Marple]

I am referring to interviews. Interviews are not interrogations (though I think I may have used that word in post; my error). Interviews are with non-custodial suspects meaning they have not been read Miranda rights and they have not been held on suspicion (custodial).

In interviews anything goes and what Levin conducted with the Ramseys were interviews which is the same reason that if they did have evidence they are not obligated to have shared it with Wood. However, it is not proof that the statements that Levin made are fact in that interview and there is no proof that those facts were not misrepresented.

Are you a lawyer? I freely concede I am not, so defer to your judgment if you are.

While some argue that investigators deliberately falsely claimed to have found such fibers to see how John would react, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others "In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/John%20Ramsey#IncriminatingEvidenceRelatedtoJohnRa msey

This seems like pretty plain language pretty hard to misinterpret. Where am I going wrong? Is "In the course of representing a client" the escape hatch here? Levin doesn't represent a client: he represents the state, so isn't bound by this ethical obligation? If that's the case, I think many non-lawyers will be quite disturbed to hear this.

The irony is that if Levin isn't bound by this rule, but Lin Wood is, it would appear to create a bit of an unlevel playing field for those on the defense side of the equation.

TIA for any explanation you or another lawyer on the board can provide for why this rule of professional conduct would not apply to a lawyer like Levin regardless of whether the proceeding is an official "interrogation" or merely an "interview."
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Louisadelmar]

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Qp-NNaWkZjUJ:www.reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html%3Fserial%3D1086208648124137%26print%3D %255Bprint%255D+%2206/01/2004-Lying+to+a+Suspect:+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go? June 2004

During the course of an investigation an investigator often must rely on duplicity and pretense in an effort to develop evidence against the guilty suspect. [...]The courts recognized that deception by law enforcement is often required to solve crimes but also prohibits the police from making false statements to a suspect under certain circumstances.
Shocking the conscience of the court or community
The landmark decision regulating false statements made to a suspect is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969. The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing. This lie persuaded the suspect to confess to the homicide. The Supreme Court ruled that such use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.
Furthermore, the court offered examples of police conduct that would shock the conscience of the court or community. Such impermissible conduct includes an investigator lying about his identity and introducing himself as the suspect’s court appointed attorney. Similarly, an investigator who poses as a clergyman in an effort to obtain a confession under that guise would constitute behavior that shocks the conscience of the court or community. Over the last 35 years courts have upheld countless confessions even though the investigator lied to the suspect during an interview or interrogation. In most of these cases the investigator made false statements about being in possession of evidence that implicated the suspect in the crime e.g., eye-witness, fingerprint, DNA, etc.
On the other hand, courts have consistently prohibited investigators from lying to suspects about the possible consequences the suspect faces if he is guilty of committing a crime. An example of this would be if an investigator falsely tells a suspect that recent legislation allows the suspect to receive probation if he expresses remorse for his crime. Other instances of impermissible false statements include telling a suspect that if he confesses he can sleep in his own bed that night (when such is not the case), or that if the suspect does not confess her children will be taken from her and placed in a foster home.
A 1993 case draws a clear distinction between intrinsic lies (dealing with the current investigation) and extrinsic lies (relating to legal issues or the court system).1 That case holds that telling extrinsic lies to a suspect constitutes inherent coercion and, consequently, renders a confession inadmissible, per se. Other states have adopted a similar position. For example, a recent decision from Minnesota involved a case where the investigator told the suspect that if he acknowledged having sexual contact with the victim many years ago, that the suspect would not be charged with a more serious offense. The court suppressed the subsequent confession relying, in part, on the rationale that an investigator is prohibited from telling extrinsic lies during an interrogation.
An interesting application of Kalekolio is the permissibility of lying to a suspect about the purpose for an interview. As an example, consider that Frank is suspected of engaging in illegal gambling activity and investigators wish to talk to him about that. For fear that Frank will destroy evidence if told the true purpose for the interview, investigators lie and tell him that they would like to question him about a recent hit and run accident. Once Frank voluntarily presents himself to the interview room he is told the true purpose for the interview and subsequently confesses to illegal gambling activity. Lying to a non-custodial suspect about the purpose for an interview may be considered permissible if the investigator can establish a reasonable purpose for the deception and that the interview was voluntary. However, if Frank was arrested and taken into custody, it would be clearly improper and illegal to elicit a Miranda waiver under the false pretest of wanting to talk to him about a hit and run accident. Obtaining a valid waiver of constitutional rights is clearly extrinsic to the investigation and an investigator can not engage in trickery or deceit to obtain that goal.
False assertions vs. manufactured evidence
A Florida case offers further guidance with respect to making false statements to a suspect.2 In the Cayward case police created a fictitious crime lab report which indicated that Cayward’s DNA was found on the victim. After reading the report, Cayward confessed. At trial his confession was suppressed because of the court’s concern that such manufactured evidence may find its way into a court room and undermine the integrity of the evidential system. The significant language from Cayward is that a distinction must be made between, "Making false assertions and manufacturing evidence". The implication is that Cayward’s confession would have been upheld had the investigator only made the false statement, "We have a crime lab report and your DNA was found on the victim."
This same logic was applied in a recent New Jersey case to suppress a homicide confession.3 In preparation for the interrogation, investigators staged an audio-taped interview where a fellow investigator pretended to be an informant who witnessed the killing. Upon hearing the manufactured tape the suspect confessed. It should be made clear that the Cayward case does not prohibit an investigator from using visual props during an interrogation provided that the props would not reasonably be perceived as actual evidence against the suspect.
Conclusion
Many of the interrogations conducted at John E. Reid and Associates involve deception through duplicity and pretense to one degree or another. When we start out the interrogation by telling the suspect that all of the evidence indicates that he committed the crime, this is often an exaggeration. We may then compliment the suspect by saying that he appears to be a conscientious and caring individual. This, too, is often a lie. We continue on by expressing understanding and compassion toward the suspect’s criminal behavior and express sympathy toward the unfortunate situation that led to the decision to commit the crime. These false emotions of sympathy and expressions of confidence are often necessary to create an environment where the suspect feels comfortable telling the truth.
Only rarely do we lie about having evidence that implicates the suspect in the crime. In our experience, an investigator who lies about having such evidence risks the suspect either calling the investigator’s bluff, e.g., "Let me see that crime lab report!" or frightening the suspect into asking for an attorney. Procedurally, making false statements to a suspect during an interrogation is a risky proposition and should be reserved as a last ditch effort to overcome weak, but persistent denials.
When the decision is made to lie to a suspect, the investigator must be aware of case law and avoid any lies that relate to legal issues or the criminal justice system, e.g. leniency, lesser charges, reduced sentence. Further, lies made to a suspect should be limited to false verbal assertions. This does not preclude the investigator from using visual props such as a thick evidence folder or a blank VHS tape. However, it is unacceptable for an investigator to manufacture fictitious evidence against a suspect.

[Athena]

Miss Marple no I am not a lawyer; I am familiar with the Bar Associations Code of Conduct and that is not just applicable in CO but in many states. What it says and what one does are two different things. Basically I see the code as is to protect laymen such as ourselves with an outlet to charge a lawyer with advising us incorrectly especially if one is convicted of a crime because of what we are told by a lawyer. Just because a false statement is introduced during an anterview does not mean it will be presented in court but it can be thrown out there to get a reaction from the interviewee/non-custodial suspect. As long as that evidence is not misrepresented in court it is permissible. If this wasn't done I would concede but this happens every day by prosecutors and law enforcement.

From the same document (maybe misrepresentation should be replaced with the word conjecture?)

P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1983).
Test for determining relevancy of real evidence is that such evidence must only be connected in some manner with either the perpetrator, the victim, or the crime. People in Interest of R.G., 630 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Carlson, 677 P.2d 390 (Colo. App. 1983).

As a general rule, facts which logically tend to prove or disprove the fact in issue or which afford a reasonable inference or shed light upon the matter contested are relevant. However, facts collateral to or bearing so remotely upon the issue that they afford only conjectural inference should not be admitted in evidence. People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589 (Colo. 1981); People v. More, 668 P.2d 968 (Colo. App. 1983).
http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

[rashomon]

Also why was it allegedly said originally that the fibers were dark "cotton" fibers not black wool fibers?
Two types of fibers were found on JB:
- blue cotton fibers in her vaginal area which could ot be traced to any item in the household. That they came from John's bathrobe has not been officially confirmed.
- black wool fibers which the CBI lab found to be consistent with fibers from John's shirt, and it was about these fibers that Levin asked John about.

[rashomon]

I know from the Jeffrey MacDonald case that all the lab reports are online, for you have this great Freedom of Information Act in the USA.
Is it possible to access the CBI lab report via the FOIA? Must a criminal case be closed for those reports to be released?

[Athena]

Rash,

I also would like to view the lab reports if available. I know one thing is certain for me; if those black fibers indeed were true and proven to come from JRs shirt, I would change my mind re: JR in a heartbeat.

[Zoey]

I know from the Jeffrey MacDonald case that all the lab reports are online, for you have this great Freedom of Information Act in the USA.
Is it possible to access the CBI lab report via the FOIA? Must a criminal case be closed for those reports to be released?


I am not sure if this makes anything clearer or not. I know this has to do with being allowed in the lab and talks about the testing of the DNA, but perhaps the same applies to lab reports?

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0322jon.htm

[bullmoose]

Two types of fibers were found on JB:
- blue cotton fibers in her vaginal area which could ot be traced to any item in the household. That they came from John's bathrobe has not been officially confirmed.
- black wool fibers which the CBI lab found to be consistent with fibers from John's shirt, and it was about these fibers that Levin asked John about.That is horseplop; if you have a link to back up your claims, now is the time post it or to forever be branded a Tober:lol:

[bullmoose]

Two types of fibers were found on JB:
- blue cotton fibers in her vaginal area which could ot be traced to any item in the household. That they came from John's bathrobe has not been officially confirmed.
- black wool fibers which the CBI lab found to be consistent with fibers from John's shirt, and it was about these fibers that Levin asked John about.I smell a four-flusher trying to pass off a busted hand for a real one; my money stays on the Ramseys; there is no way Rashie can have the evidence that she claims ; IMO rashie is just another tinhorn gambler , like Tober, let tober/rashie show their cards.:chicken:

[rashomon]

I smell a four-flusher trying to pass off a busted hand for a real one; my money stays on the Ramseys; there is no way Rashie can have the evidence that she claims ; IMO rashie is just another tinhorn gambler , like Tober, let tober/rashie show their cards.:chicken:
My money stays on the truth.