Please explain RDI's

[createthis]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

[Zoey]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.


I'm not sure what you mean by fake a strangling. The cord was very deeply imbedded in JB's neck, so to me that is not fake; it is very real.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[createthis]

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote
KC

I can easliy answer. KC you ask " my fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychciatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as etc." that is all anyone on this board has to give is their opinion on to what has happened in this case. We don't have the evidence as LE does. Your statement detours and as I thought exactly cannot answer the questions that remained in my thread! Just what I thought. Yes-these questions are very fair because they cannot be answered and you ask me to answer questions to which I have posted? And the law reconizes what? The riddle to mental illness? I already gave you specific answers as to why the Ramsey's could have not done it. Stop spreading this case out all over the place and keep it simple. That is where the answers may be found...my "hypothetical situations cannot be ignored" the physical evidence is obvoiusly not solving this case so far. Don't blame me for trying KC. Don't start your reply with " without trying to start an argument" and intend to excuse your opinions to my thread in that manner. Please.

[createthis]

KC...Stop going around the questions in my thread and give your RDI to the answers in my thread.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I have reread your original post:

Please confirm to me that these are not purely opinions and conclusions on your part:

" I think about what if it was me"

"I still in a million years would not have been able to...

"It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic"

"You have to put yourself in the mind of a killer"

"Explain to me the malice and motive" -- and you say you are not asking others to arrive at psychiatric and legal conclusions. What do you call malice and motive?

Where is your objective evidence that they Ramseys could not have done this?

Now if you will kindly go to the Thread begun by LouisaDelmar about Parents Who Kill, where I have posted certain stresses of the holidays and dynamics of the JBR/PR relationship and the known medical conditions we have available to us, you will find that I have already listed, in a very objective fashion the indications of evidence of rage, which could very well be a motive. Rage, due to mental disease and defect, (scores of which exist if you study the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders - I will have to check that title...it has been years since I have done extensive research on such matters), created by many of the indications listed in my post has far more than once provided the defense of diminished capacity and legal insanity.

If you must know I am currently analyzing the cause-effect relationships of the age categories of children who are murdered by their parents and find some interesting deviations in the JBR/PR relationships from the norms established by the categories that may seriously increase the probabilities of a mother killing her daughter as a possible result of rage.

Now if you truly wish to be as one sided as you seem to be you can ignore the fact that there are more than twice as many indications of evidence of rage as there are contraindications of rage. How do you respond to such evidence without summarily dismissing twice as much evidence or unilaterally and summarily relying on your opinions, conclusions and logic as you believe? I challenge you to give me precise details, psychological and legal, as to why the indications of my list do not present the possible malice and motive that you so confidently assert does not exist. I have met your request..now please meet mine.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I am neither RDI nor IDI. That is an erroneous conclusion on your part.

KingCoyote

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, my thoughts are this:

I think JR did all of the staging. I do not believe Patsy could have done that part; with the exception of helping to write the RN.
John has been described by some who knew him as "a cold fish". He is businesslike and is used to taking charge of a situation. Yes, I can very well imagine him doing what needed to be done while keeping his emotions at bay. When your career, your other child and your "reputation" in your community is at stake, I can see how and why he/they would want to cover this up. I think the head blow came first. I think they knew she was dying or thought she was dead. They had to have heard her skull crack and she may have been convulsing. Perhaps her breathing was so shallow they thought she was dead. Remember, obviously JR doesn't recognize death even when rigor mortis has set in. :confused:
Just because this is something you can't concieve of doing does not mean that dictates what other people are capable of.
You weren't there. You don't know what took place and neither do I. To say that they couldn't have done it is just ridiculous.
I find the intruder theory ridiculous. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been one. I am not asking you to prove conclusively that there was one because you can't do it. I would like to know why, with all of the evidence (and some we don't even know about), all of the detectives on this case for the past 10 years, all of the hours spent and all of the money...why has no one even come close to solving this? Because they are looking for an intruder that doesn't exist. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[KingCoyote]

I am going to bed....I have to work tomorrow....

[createthis]

Createthis:

I have reread your original post:

Please confirm to me that these are not purely opinions and conclusions on your part:

" I think about what if it was me"

"I still in a million years would not have been able to...

"It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic"

"You have to put yourself in the mind of a killer"

"Explain to me the malice and motive" -- and you say you are not asking others to arrive at psychiatric and legal conclusions. What do you call malice and motive?

Where is your objective evidence that they Ramseys could not have done this?

Now if you will kindly go to the Thread begun by LouisaDelmar about Parents Who Kill, where I have posted certain stresses of the holidays and dynamics of the JBR/PR relationship and the known medical conditions we have available to us, you will find that I have already listed, in a very objective fashion the indications of evidence of rage, which could very well be a motive. Rage, due to mental disease and defect, (scores of which exist if you study the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders - I will have to check that title...it has been years since I have done extensive research on such matters), created by many of the indications listed in my post has far more than once provided the defense of diminished capacity and legal insanity.

If you must know I am currently analyzing the cause-effect relationships of the age categories of children who are murdered by their parents and find some interesting deviations in the JBR/PR relationships from the norms established by the categories that may seriously increase the probabilities of a mother killing her daughter as a possible result of rage.

Now if you truly wish to be as one sided as you seem to be you can ignore the fact that there are more than twice as many indications of evidence of rage as there are contraindications of rage. How do you respond to such evidence without summarily dismissing twice as much evidence or unilaterally and summarily relying on your opinions, conclusions and logic as you believe? I challenge you to give me precise details, psychological and legal, as to why the indications of my list do not present the possible malice and motive that you so confidently assert does not exist. I have met your request..now please meet mine.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC: You say I ingnore "twice" as many indications of rage. You know what follows anger in most people? (as I do not deny?) Remorse. There is no prior indication of Ramsey craziness. I will ask again...if the Ramsey's (one or both)accidentally killed JBR Xmas night, how did they bring themselves to stage or leave JBR in the condition she was left in? I have yet to hear a definitve explanation.

[rashomon]

KC: You say I ingnore "twice" as many indications of rage. You know what follows anger in most people? (as I do not deny?) Remorse. There is no prior indication of Ramsey craziness. I will ask again...if the Ramsey's (one or both)accidentally killed JBR Xmas night, how did they bring themselves to stage or leave JBR in the condition she was left in? I have yet to hear a definitve explanation.
But people with a sociopathic personality structure for example hardly ever feel remorse. And this lack of remorse has nothing to do with craziness either.
I agree with you that whoever staged this scene is not a normal person, but a sociopath.
A sociopath who I think chose self-preservation over the life of her child. A narcissistic sociopath who did not want to turn herself in to the police for what she had done, for then her whole facade would have crashed down in public. Sociopaths often wear a brilliant mask in public. There are enough illustrative examples in criminal history.
The damage had been done anyway, no one would ever bring JonBenet to life again, and so she tried to save what was left: herself.

And don't forget Burke's role in all this. Both Patsy and John (I believe he helped her) probably had Burke's fate in mind too, wanting him to spare the horribe truth that his mother had killed his little sister in a rage.

The IDIs take things too much at face value and refuse to look behind the Ramseys' facade.

[aussiesheila]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.I have to agree with you, createthis, I find this RDI belief "unbelievable and way beyond logic", but KingCoyote is correct in his reply to you I think, when he states "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief."

That is why I have given up arguing with the RDIs. From my point of view I feel I have spent far too much of my life on this case and have decided it is more constructive to discuss just the IDI theories. It took me a long time, but I finallyt realised I could never convert an RDI to an IDI (nor could I be converted to an RDI) on the evidence currently available. At least though, i can still try to work out the most logical (to me) IDI belief.

[rashomon]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.
I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

[Zoey]

I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

I understand the hyoid bone was not damaged in any way due to the garrote, but I do not believe for one minute that the deep imbeddment of the cord in her neck is due to swelling. I think someone just stopped short of damaging anything internal, whether they knew to do this or not, I could not say. That cord is in there deep by what I can see on the autopsy photos, IMO.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

First let me say that I did not say that you ignored anything. I said that given the fact that you appear to be one sided in this issue you can,[if you wish] choose to ignore all of what I previously posted as indications of evidence that could lead to rage. Both sides, IDI and RDI alike, have the tendency to ignore that which they wish not to address. If you have read any of my posts, which it appears as though you have not, I have stated elsewhere that I find no particular indications of evidence of rage from what I have previously posted. However, I will tell you that I am accumulating other analyses that may include a review of the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders that may provide evidence of a mental disorder in this case. There are some interesting deviations in the dynamics of PR/JBR relationship that do not coincide with the correlation/cause effect relationships established by the categories of children murdered by a family member. Also. it has been about 15+ years since I did any analysis of mental disorders so I have no idea what I will find. Therefore it would seem, from other posts of mine that since I have yet to find any evidence of rage I must agree with you that there is no prior "craziness" on the part of the Ramseys. At least no outward, overt appearances of "craziness" which I prefer to call mental disorders or diseases.

As to "staging" the scene as it was "staged" I can only provide you with my perceptions as opposed to "definitive explanations" as you so desire. I do not think there are any current "definitive explanations" for any part of this case, much less the case as a whole. I do note, without current analysis of my information, that the wrapping of the body in a blanket "papoose style" as I think JR called it, does seem to warrant analysis. I believe that is one of the things that the FBI noted as evidence of staging by a mother/parent. I also believe there are websites which may provide additional information about staging (Sam Shepard Case??) and I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them so you may engage in non confrontational discussion about the issue while at the same time being able to defend your position. I will do the same when I find time. (I am sorry but I found your original post to be not only quite, but unecessarily confrontational for the reasons listed in my first response.)

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

Let me also assure you that I am not RDI simply because I took up the banner to respond to your first post. I am merely an analyst...not even a FS. I was hoping that you would see that I was merely attempting to temper your questions with mediatory discussion. I find that extremely difficult to do, and quite unsuccessfully so in this case, with two sides so definitively drawn.

I will continue to analyze as objectively as possible to find all possible routes to a better explanation of this case. I will also consider any and all posts you make for possible information to assist me. I can tell you though, that the more objective you remain, the more I will be able to extract from your quotes that benefit the IDI side.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

KingCoyote
KC,
Imo not that Patsy snapped and lost it is the sociopathic element here (for I think this could happen to anyone, given the circumstances), but her subsequent attempts to save her hide, which even led her to such an extreme that she callously jabbed a paintbrush in her child's vagina for staging purposes.

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

Oh...now I see your point....you saw two separate aspects of the incident...OK...thanks for the clarification...Interesting idea.

KC

[bullmoose]

I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .Please tell me where you get your glasses so that I can be sure not to shop there; there seems to be an element of mental fog in your distorted RDI lenses. The only statement that you make that I agree with is that the whole scenario was staged; but I have to tell you that IMO not a single other one of your ideas or conclusions falls into place; IMO they are based on the mantra of "The evil Ramseys did it, The evil Ramseys did it,etc." This is just not convincing to me. When I tryed saying it my glasses fogged right over and I couldn't see anything clearly for ten minutes. Is this what happens to you?:biggrin:

[shill]

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .
The garrote and paint brush was what bondage people call a "Bikini" . It is fashioned that way to fulfill it's purpose. After it was used, the part of the paint brush handle that penetrated JB was broken off.
Why do you think the paintbrush handle was broken off?
The perp wanted a souvenir.

[bullmoose]

The garrote and paint brush was what bondage people call a "Bikini" . It is fashioned that way to fulfill it's purpose. After it was used, the part of the paint brush handle that penetrated JB was broken off.
Why do you think the paintbrush handle was broken off?
The perp wanted a souvenir.I agree totally with your post, although I have heard the word trophy used along with souvenir. The perp may keep the trophy/souvenir for the rest of his life, to gloat over and remind him of what he got clean away with.

[LindaA]

Shill & Bullmoose, we do know that a part of the paintbrush is unaccounted for, don't we? That would tend to back up your opinion. IMO.

[Zoey]

I hate to say it, but I wonder, being how inept the BPD was in handeling this case, if that broken part of the paintbrush was sitting out in plain view on someone's shelf (like a trophy) if they would have even noticed it? I just don't think they would have given it a second glance, but this is JMHO.

[LindaA]

Zoey, I think your question is a good one and applies to all the evidence or lack of it in this case. It is one reason why I cannot see anyone being so sure the RDI or and IDI. What evidence did the BPD -- and other investigators -- overlook? What evidence exists and was never examined -- in all those warehouses full that CK talked about? And what evidence exists and is known to LE, but not disclosed to the general public, in spite of what Mary Lacy said in her interview last summer? Unless we know the answers to those questions, IMO, no one can be sure they are right about who killed JBR. JMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?

[KingCoyote]

Could the missing piece of the paintbrush have been disposed of to destroy evidence?....There are so many options with so many pieces of evidence.

KC

[rashomon]

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?
Wasn't the paintbrush part with the bristles found in Patsy's paint tote? We talked about this some time ago (I think it was on WS), but I'm not quite sure if I recall it correctly.
Could the missing piece of the paintbrush have been disposed of to destroy evidence?....There are so many options with so many pieces of evidence.

KC
If there was in fact a missing piece, this is the most logical explanation imo.

[createthis]

Createthis:

First let me say that I did not say that you ignored anything. I said that given the fact that you appear to be one sided in this issue you can,[if you wish] choose to ignore all of what I previously posted as indications of evidence that could lead to rage. Both sides, IDI and RDI alike, have the tendency to ignore that which they wish not to address. If you have read any of my posts, which it appears as though you have not, I have stated elsewhere that I find no particular indications of evidence of rage from what I have previously posted. However, I will tell you that I am accumulating other analyses that may include a review of the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders that may provide evidence of a mental disorder in this case. There are some interesting deviations in the dynamics of PR/JBR relationship that do not coincide with the correlation/cause effect relationships established by the categories of children murdered by a family member. Also. it has been about 15+ years since I did any analysis of mental disorders so I have no idea what I will find. Therefore it would seem, from other posts of mine that since I have yet to find any evidence of rage I must agree with you that there is no prior "craziness" on the part of the Ramseys. At least no outward, overt appearances of "craziness" which I prefer to call mental disorders or diseases.

As to "staging" the scene as it was "staged" I can only provide you with my perceptions as opposed to "definitive explanations" as you so desire. I do not think there are any current "definitive explanations" for any part of this case, much less the case as a whole. I do note, without current analysis of my information, that the wrapping of the body in a blanket "papoose style" as I think JR called it, does seem to warrant analysis. I believe that is one of the things that the FBI noted as evidence of staging by a mother/parent. I also believe there are websites which may provide additional information about staging (Sam Shepard Case??) and I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them so you may engage in non confrontational discussion about the issue while at the same time being able to defend your position. I will do the same when I find time. (I am sorry but I found your original post to be not only quite, but unecessarily confrontational for the reasons listed in my first response.)

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

Let me also assure you that I am not RDI simply because I took up the banner to respond to your first post. I am merely an analyst...not even a FS. I was hoping that you would see that I was merely attempting to temper your questions with mediatory discussion. I find that extremely difficult to do, and quite unsuccessfully so in this case, with two sides so definitively drawn.

I will continue to analyze as objectively as possible to find all possible routes to a better explanation of this case. I will also consider any and all posts you make for possible information to assist me. I can tell you though, that the more objective you remain, the more I will be able to extract from your quotes that benefit the IDI side.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KingCoyote,
You said you find my oringinal post confrontational. I do not deny this one bit. You are not shedding light on something that was in the dark. The sensitvity level as to one's convictions on this board suprise me. It's like nobody wants to be in the wrong. Well, I am not afraid of that. I hope my post can spark the mind of the person who can put a strong chink in this case. I can't solve it for sure. I wish I could and that we all could. You wrote in your reply that I may need to familiarize myself with non-confrontational discussions as you suggested. I ask the tough questions. I want an opinion in theory. There is nothing wrong with that. I wan to read a descriptive analysis of how they brutally treated her after accidentally hurting her. From an opinion perspective! Nothing wrong with that KC. It just seems (no offense KC, that you dance around some questions with fancy words) You prove intelligent, though somewhat hidden behind your words as a protective machanism when you feel confronted. We are all trying to reach the same goal here.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I danced around your specific post for very specific reasons: First I temper my true thoughts through softer language in order to avoid confrontation which rarely proves anything and second I did not want to openly challenge you or your statements by pointing out the fact that I had already done substantially what your first post requested in my Post on Parents Who Kill. (You, in effect threw down a gauntlet to the whole forum when you declared that based upon your logic, opinions and conclusions, an explanation of motive and malice "can't be done.") My listed indications of evidence of rage, which were detailed and specific and sequenced to address the dynamics of this case, can quite easily be transformed into motive and malice via a mental disorder (once researched, which I am doing now, and established) which could then easily account for all events and activities that occurred however brutal and nasty they may be.

I take a much more scientific approach to this case than most people and scientific analysis relies heavily on very, very specific and technical terminology. But please do not ever think I use my command over the English language to dance around issues because I am not fully capable of addressing them thoroughly. That would be an very erroneous conclusion.

I am not overly sensitive to your convictions. I heartily encourage you to have convictions but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive when it is well known that there are two emotional sides to this case. Unless you just like to fight for the sake of fighting, which I don't, I try to remember the old saying ...you can catch a lot more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[createthis]

Createthis:

I danced around your specific post for very specific reasons: First I temper my true thoughts through softer language in order to avoid confrontation which rarely proves anything and second I did not want to openly challenge you or your statements by pointing out the fact that I had already done substantially what your first post requested in my Post on Parents Who Kill. (You, in effect threw down a gauntlet to the whole forum when you declared that based upon your logic, opinions and conclusions, an explanation of motive and malice "can't be done.") My listed indications of evidence of rage, which were detailed and specific and sequenced to address the dynamics of this case, can quite easily be transformed into motive and malice via a mental disorder (once researched, which I am doing now, and established) which could then easily account for all events and activities that occurred however brutal and nasty they may be.

I take a much more scientific approach to this case than most people and scientific analysis relies heavily on very, very specific and technical terminology. But please do not ever think I use my command over the English language to dance around issues because I am not fully capable of addressing them thoroughly. That would be an very erroneous conclusion.

I am not overly sensitive to your convictions. I heartily encourage you to have convictions but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive when it is well known that there are two emotional sides to this case. Unless you just like to fight for the sake of fighting, which I don't, I try to remember the old saying ...you can catch a lot more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote
"but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive" Please KC..do not tell me how to be or what to write. You don't know how it might affect the mind of someone in the solving of this case.
To the board: Simplicty at it's finest. Two marks on the side of JB's face. Two marks on her back. Not buying the loom or tiara theory. Please do better.

[shill]

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.

[bullmoose]

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.Exactly right;If there was any kind of intent to dispose of the evidence,then why leave the garrot behind, with the cord attached? It would have been easy to take them , ditto the duct tape. Then there would have been very little evidence; IMO only the end of the paintbrush was taken, as a trophy, as sociopaths will do; the rest was left to send the cops down the road to the hardware store that Patsy shopped at. Imo, it was not by coincidence, but to cast suspicion. And I think it worked, the BPD took the bait.

[LindaA]

FWIW I don't think Createthis was being confrontational. He was merely asking the RDIs to "give it their best shot" and explain how certain facts fit into their theories. Someone did that before you came to the forum, KC, but the mods changed the thread's title to ask for theories from both sides.

No one has come up with an explanation of the marks on JB that satisfies me either. I don't buy either the tiara, the loom, or Patsy's rings. That is what is at once so frustrating and fascinating about this case -- no one from either side can fully explain how all the eevidence fits into their idea of who killed JBR. Aussiesheila is the only one who has ever done that, and I'm not convinced of all the aspects of her scenario.

I have posted elsewhere about the evidence we don't know about. I believe the answer to this case lies there. I don't think a Ramsey did this, but I have always said that is not impossible for me to believe. I think it is improbable. Had they given her the head injury I think the most likely reaction on thier part -- as I've posted before -- would have been to throw her unconcsious body down a flight of stairs to make it look as if she had fallen while prowling in the middle of the night. That would have provided a reason for the head wound -- even if later LE could have determined that it wasn't. I don't see them doing all that was done, and I certainly don't see Patsy stopping for a cup of hot tea in the middle of it as Tober suggested.

I think the reason they could not answer some questions is simple -- they had no idea of the answers. But all this is just my opinion.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I am not telling you how to write...I am merely suggesting alternatives that might slow down some of the bickerings that exist on these forums.

LindaA:

As to Createthis "merely asking RDIs to give it their best shot"...we will have to agree to disagree on that but I will admit that is better use of the concept of euphemisms than I have shown.

KC

[createthis]

I don't want to do ya wrong KC. If it happens...it's not intentional. It can hard to read someone through their typed words sometimes, I think. Not trying to come off brash. I am just brutally blunt.

You suggested that I haven't read your posts and I have really tried, but most of the time I can't keep up with you. I don't understand a lot of what you are saying or write. But I know several people benefit from your posts and threads.

In general: I believe it to be ok to re-hash old ideas or things that may seem indignant to others. There are new people viewing the message boards every day. I would like to see some patience with "newbies" such as myself. I've studied the case for a year now, I have read PMPT & DOI, but I am new to the board and an amatuer.

I believe ALL ideas, thoughts, theories, and opinions from beginners to forum or case elders, could be viewed as helpful wether one is RDI or IDI or neither.

I wish we could figure out where those darn marks(side of face & back) came from!! Ahhh, I wish this case could catch a real break. It and JB deserve it.

[createthis]

I don't want to do ya wrong KC. If it happens...it's not intentional. It can hard to read someone through their typed words sometimes, I think. Not trying to come off brash. I am just brutally blunt.

You suggested that I haven't read your posts and I have really tried, but most of the time I can't keep up with you. I don't understand a lot of what you are saying or write. But I know several people benefit from your posts and threads.

In general: I believe it to be ok to re-hash old ideas or things that may seem indignant to others. There are new people viewing the message boards every day. I would like to see some patience with "newbies" such as myself. I've studied the case for a year now, I have read PMPT & DOI, but I am new to the board and an amatuer.

I believe ALL ideas, thoughts, theories, and opinions from beginners to forum or case elders, could be viewed as helpful wether one is RDI or IDI or neither.

I wish we could figure out where those darn marks(side of face & back) came from!! Ahhh, I wish this case could catch a real break. It and JB deserve it.

BTW-Does anyone know how to edit the title of a thread? I would like to change from "please explain RDI's" to something else. It just seems to be rubbing some people the wrong way...Geez.

[thewhitewitch1]

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.

Then why all of the IDI speculation of "where is the rest of the duct tape and cord"? If you believe there was a roll of tape and more cord, then the "intruder" must have taken that "evidence" with him, as well as the end of the paint brush.
As far as the paint brush goes, do we know conclusively which end was used to penetrate JB? No, we don't. It could have been the piece left in the paint tote or even the garrote "stick". Both could have been wiped off after the fact (or not). As we all know, there is evidence that the public doesn't know about. We also don't know for a fact that the paint brush wasn't already broken and the missing end tossed away long before the murder took place. The paint brush appeared to be older and well used.
We can speculate that it was taken for a "souvenier" but there is no proof of that, just as there is no proof that there was a roll of duct tape and more of the cord to be taken with the "intruder". IMO

[createthis]

FWIW I don't think Createthis was being confrontational. He was merely asking the RDIs to "give it their best shot" and explain how certain facts fit into their theories. Someone did that before you came to the forum, KC, but the mods changed the thread's title to ask for theories from both sides.

No one has come up with an explanation of the marks on JB that satisfies me either. I don't buy either the tiara, the loom, or Patsy's rings. That is what is at once so frustrating and fascinating about this case -- no one from either side can fully explain how all the eevidence fits into their idea of who killed JBR. Aussiesheila is the only one who has ever done that, and I'm not convinced of all the aspects of her scenario.

I have posted elsewhere about the evidence we don't know about. I believe the answer to this case lies there. I don't think a Ramsey did this, but I have always said that is not impossible for me to believe. I think it is improbable. Had they given her the head injury I think the most likely reaction on thier part -- as I've posted before -- would have been to throw her unconcsious body down a flight of stairs to make it look as if she had fallen while prowling in the middle of the night. That would have provided a reason for the head wound -- even if later LE could have determined that it wasn't. I don't see them doing all that was done, and I certainly don't see Patsy stopping for a cup of hot tea in the middle of it as Tober suggested.

I think the reason they could not answer some questions is simple -- they had no idea of the answers. But all this is just my opinion.

Oh yes-I do remember the mods changing that. I wish I could change the title of my thread. But I will stick by my posts and not budge. Thanks for writing that...I couldn't get my words across like you just did for me, so thanks.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I think we have more in common than either of us think. We are probably both going through "growing pains" since we are both relative newbies.

Later... because the early part of the week is my toughest and I only get meal breaks at wierd times and try to get a quick peek in.

KC

[createthis]

Createthis:

I think we have more in common than either of us think. We are probably both going through "growing pains" since we are both relative newbies.

Later... because the early part of the week is my toughest and I only get meal breaks at wierd times and try to get a quick peek in.

KC

You are probably right. Now let's get back to this case!
I only get to peek in and out today too. :seeya:

[elvislives]

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC, I usually agree with you, but disagree 100% with your answer here. I think Createthis's questions are absolutely valid and relevant. Neither Ramsey has a mental disease or defect that rises to the level of diminished capacity. IF they did it, the crime was covered up...that is absolute proof that they knew that what they did (kill JB) was wrong. In order to plead insanity in court, one has to prove that they did not know that their actions were wrong. This doesn't work in this case.
IF the Rs did it, they were legally sane, and createthis is asking how a sane person could do what was done to their own daughter. I think that is an excellent question. This forum is all about 'delving into the mind of the killer(s)'. I see it all the time on the board with people trying to interpret behavioural evidence. Why do you find createthis's question objectionable? Again, I think the question is excellent.

[elvislives]

I'm not sure what you mean by fake a strangling. The cord was very deeply imbedded in JB's neck, so to me that is not fake; it is very real.

It definitely wasnt fake. Cause of death was asphixia. The strangulation is what killed her.

[andU]

Just to comment regarding the marks on JB ... the first time I saw them I thought they looked like some kind of branding burn. I looks like a burn/bruise to me but it is difficult to tell from a photo. It is hard to tell if there is a blister or how deep they are, or if they had begun to heal. What are the opinions of others about these marks? I know it has been discussed and I am just at this point curious about first impressions about what could have caused them.

[bullmoose]

To me the two sets of marks looked to be consistant with taser burns; the did when I first saw them, and they still do, but that is just my opinion; to my way of thinking a taser would have been a good way to render Jonbenet unconcious or at least unable to resist her assailant/s.JMHO

[thewhitewitch1]

To me the two sets of marks looked to be consistant with taser burns; the did when I first saw them, and they still do, but that is just my opinion; to my way of thinking a taser would have been a good way to render Jonbenet unconcious or at least unable to resist her assailant/s.JMHO


Then why crack her over the head if the intent was to kidnap her? Just use the taser again to knock her out if she came around. Unless you think the intent was always to kill her.
What purpose was there in the duct tape then if she could be tasered to "shut her up"?
Using a taser is leaving a pretty strong piece of evidence, for someone that took the rest of his roll of duct tape and cord with him when he left, as he was trying not to leave evidence. If he was trying to "frame" the Ramseys, shouldn't he have known that they didn't have a taser?
I'd like to know for a fact that those marks were from a taser. I could then be swayed from my belief of the Ramseys guilt, I think. Too late for that now, though. JB should have been exhumed and re-examined years ago.

[createthis]

TTWW: What do you think those marks are from and why they might be in the places that they are on her body? If the marks are they same distance apart (I'm sure they are someone correct me if I'm wrong) What would do that? Curious.

[KingCoyote]

Elvislives:

I am curious how you state with such certainty that neither Ramsey had a mental disease or defect that rises to a level of diminished capacity. That conclusion is normally left to a judge or jury pursuant to expert psychiatric testimony. Without Patsy's complete medical record, which I don't believe has been released, there is no true way to tell - and I am, in no way asserting that anyone did or did not have a mental disease or defect. At best one can analyze all of the dynamics that existed in her life and with her relationship with JBR and see if they fit into a possible mental disease and defect that might have a cause effect relationship with child murders. That is all I intend to attempt. As to whether or not I am successful will, of course, be a different story since it has been years since I delved into such an analysis.

As to what I find objectionable in Createthis's original post is clearly included in my previous posts and I find no reason to readdress those statements at this point.

As to your definition of insanity, I am assuming you are pleading insanity as an affirmative defense and not necessarily pleading temporary insanity also known as the irresistible urge defense as a diminished capacity defense. One, insanity, vitiates the mens rea necessary to be proven as an element of a crime while the other, temporary insanity, is usually used as a diminished capacity defense. They can be totally different.

The general definition for insanity, which is purely and completely a legal concept and not a medical concept, whether you use the common law M'Naughten Rule or the general rule from the Model Penal Code is as follows: When as a result of a mental disease or defect you fail to appreciate the nature and consequences of your action you are generally considered insane. States vary as to whether this exculpates a defendant from guilt with a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict or extends such guilt through a guilty but insane verdict. As to whether or not "covering up" is a conclusive presumption of sanity or a rebuttable presumption of sanity after an insanity plea is offered is a specific issue I will have to research. Can you please state your source that covering up is "absolute proof" of sanity?

The temporary insanity rule also states, if my memory correctly serves me, that when as a result of a mental disease or defect you are unable to conform your conduct to the requirements of the law you have at least a diminished capacity defense to possibly, among other things, lower the degree of the crime for which you are guilty due to the inability to form specific intent. (As to whether or not the prosecutor would have the burden of proving sanity, i.e the Ramsey's were legally sane, of the defendant once the issue of insanity is raised is another procedural issue I will not address at this time.)

I will be the first to admit that it has been a long, long while since I have done such extensive research and I may need to refine my current comments at some time but I don't think I have forgotten that much.

To be honest with you elvislives I am not sure of all this is worth my efforts anymore. So many people in these forums have come to such certain unassailable conclusions based solely on their own opinions and personal logic, without any research, analysis, discussion or sourcing, that I just now think it would be best that I go on about my merry way and let everyone else keep digging in with their absolutely certain and unassailable opininated positions and spend their next ten years coming up with absolutely nothing new. So many times I see people tell me that all they want to do is solve the crime. How can one possibly say that when they have already made up their mind who did or did not commit the crime? My perception is that most, but not all, people are here solely to advance their own beliefs as to who did or didn't do it.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[shill]

To be honest with you elvislives I am not sure of all this is worth my efforts anymore. So many people in these forums have come to such certain unassailable conclusions based solely on their own opinions and personal logic, without any research, analysis, discussion or sourcing, that I just now think it would be best that I go on about my merry way and let everyone else keep digging in with their absolutely certain and unassailable opininated positions and spend their next ten years coming up with absolutely nothing new. So many times I see people tell me that all they want to do is solve the crime. How can one possibly say that when they have already made up their mind who did or did not commit the crime? My perception is that most, but not all, people are here solely to advance their own beliefs as to who did or didn't do it.

Respectfully,

KingCoyoteNow your getting some where!:patriot:

It's two camps; those who want to see the Ramseys fry, and those who think the crime is unsolved.
Those who want to fry the Ramseys just want to hear how behavior, proximity, and evidence points to the Ramseys and they do not consider eyewitness testimony as valid.

Those who think the crime is unsolved want to decipher the evidence, witness testimony, and chain of events, to find the killer and do not consider proximity as evidence of guilt.

[elvislives]

Elvislives:

I am curious how you state with such certainty that neither Ramsey had a mental disease or defect that rises to a level of diminished capacity. That conclusion is normally left to a judge or jury pursuant to expert psychiatric testimony. Without Patsy's complete medical record, which I don't believe has been released, there is no true way to tell - and I am, in no way asserting that anyone did or did not have a mental disease or defect. At best one can analyze all of the dynamics that existed in her life and with her relationship with JBR and see if they fit into a possible mental disease and defect that might have a cause effect relationship with child murders. That is all I intend to attempt. As to whether or not I am successful will, of course, be a different story since it has been years since I delved into such an analysis.

As to what I find objectionable in Createthis's original post is clearly included in my previous posts and I find no reason to readdress those statements at this point.

As to your definition of insanity, I am assuming you are pleading insanity as an affirmative defense and not necessarily pleading temporary insanity also known as the irresistible urge defense as a diminished capacity defense. One, insanity, vitiates the mens rea necessary to be proven as an element of a crime while the other, temporary insanity, is usually used as a diminished capacity defense. They can be totally different.

The general definition for insanity, which is purely and completely a legal concept and not a medical concept, whether you use the common law M'Naughten Rule or the general rule from the Model Penal Code is as follows: When as a result of a mental disease or defect you fail to appreciate the nature and consequences of your action you are generally considered insane. States vary as to whether this exculpates a defendant from guilt with a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict or extends such guilt through a guilty but insane verdict. As to whether or not "covering up" is a conclusive presumption of sanity or a rebuttable presumption of sanity after an insanity plea is offered is a specific issue I will have to research. Can you please state your source that covering up is "absolute proof" of sanity?

The temporary insanity rule also states, if my memory correctly serves me, that when as a result of a mental disease or defect you are unable to conform your conduct to the requirements of the law you have at least a diminished capacity defense to possibly, among other things, lower the degree of the crime for which you are guilty due to the inability to form specific intent. (As to whether or not the prosecutor would have the burden of proving sanity, i.e the Ramsey's were legally sane, of the defendant once the issue of insanity is raised is another procedural issue I will not address at this time.)

I will be the first to admit that it has been a long, long while since I have done such extensive research and I may need to refine my current comments at some time but I don't think I have forgotten that much.

To be honest with you elvislives I am not sure of all this is worth my efforts anymore. So many people in these forums have come to such certain unassailable conclusions based solely on their own opinions and personal logic, without any research, analysis, discussion or sourcing, that I just now think it would be best that I go on about my merry way and let everyone else keep digging in with their absolutely certain and unassailable opininated positions and spend their next ten years coming up with absolutely nothing new. So many times I see people tell me that all they want to do is solve the crime. How can one possibly say that when they have already made up their mind who did or did not commit the crime? My perception is that most, but not all, people are here solely to advance their own beliefs as to who did or didn't do it.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC- I saw this very topic discussed on Catherine Crier Live. The hypothetical was asked to the panel of attorneys ' Could the Ramseys plead not guilty by reason of insanity if they were charged with the murder? The panel (which consisted of Catherine Crier-a former DA I think, Alan Dershowitz (sp?), a defense advocate and a bunch of others, cant remember names). Anyway the panel unanimously said the Rs didnt have a chance in hell of pleading NGBRI.
Colorado is a M'Naughten state aka uses the right/wrong test according to Alan D. If the criminal did not know that their actions were wrong, criminal insanity may apply, but if they knew their actions were wrong, criminal insanity is out as a defense. (Obviously we're talking about the legal definition, it could certainly be argued that Patsy was nuts, just not legally).
The staging was given as the primary reason the statute wouldnt apply. The fake ransom note, the hiding of the body, the lying to police all showed consciousness of guilt. And according to Dershowitz, showed that the Rs knew their actions were wrong.
I will try and find a transcript of the show, or some other source to prove this to you.
As far of growing tired of this board, I'm right there with you. I am sure I will burn out before long.

[elvislives]

Then why crack her over the head if the intent was to kidnap her? Just use the taser again to knock her out if she came around. Unless you think the intent was always to kill her.
What purpose was there in the duct tape then if she could be tasered to "shut her up"?
Using a taser is leaving a pretty strong piece of evidence, for someone that took the rest of his roll of duct tape and cord with him when he left, as he was trying not to leave evidence. If he was trying to "frame" the Ramseys, shouldn't he have known that they didn't have a taser?
I'd like to know for a fact that those marks were from a taser. I could then be swayed from my belief of the Ramseys guilt, I think. Too late for that now, though. JB should have been exhumed and re-examined years ago.

Great questions. It doesn't make sense. As far as exhuming the body, I do not understand why the DA did not do that...or why the Rs did not insist the body was exhumed if, in fact, they thought those were stun gun or taser marks. Too late now, as you say.

[bullmoose]

I do not think that the issue of whether the marks were made by a taser or not came up that soon after her death, I agree with you ww1 on the idea that she should have been exhumed to check the marks. I have always thought that the blow to the head was to make sure she was dead, Ive never thought it was an actual kidnap plot. As to why a killer/s would have used the taser, if thats what those marks were[ I'm far from 100% convinced that what they were] then the killer/s used it figuring that it wouldn't be spotted. If this was a plot to frame the Ramseys, which I truly think it was, it has been fairly successful. IMO, mission accomplished.:(

[LindaA]

KC, in regards to post # 46, I hear you and coulnd't agree more. Shill said it best in his reply to you.

[KingCoyote]

KC- I saw this very topic discussed on Catherine Crier Live. The hypothetical was asked to the panel of attorneys ' Could the Ramseys plead not guilty by reason of insanity if they were charged with the murder? The panel (which consisted of Catherine Crier-a former DA I think, Alan Dershowitz (sp?), a defense advocate and a bunch of others, cant remember names). Anyway the panel unanimously said the Rs didnt have a chance in hell of pleading NGBRI.
Colorado is a M'Naughten state aka uses the right/wrong test according to Alan D. If the criminal did not know that their actions were wrong, criminal insanity may apply, but if they knew their actions were wrong, criminal insanity is out as a defense. (Obviously we're talking about the legal definition, it could certainly be argued that Patsy was nuts, just not legally).
The staging was given as the primary reason the statute wouldnt apply. The fake ransom note, the hiding of the body, the lying to police all showed consciousness of guilt. And according to Dershowitz, showed that the Rs knew their actions were wrong.
I will try and find a transcript of the show, or some other source to prove this to you.
As far of growing tired of this board, I'm right there with you. I am sure I will burn out before long.


ElvisLives:

First of all, I have never proposed that PR plead any type of insanity. It would be absolutely foolish. I am merely looking for the motive and malice that Createthis wanted in his original question and I believe an analysis of the dynamics in this case can, and eventually will, provide an explanation via mental disorder for its very convoluted facts. I am not looking for defenses. As usual our discussions wind into something they are not and never were intended to be.

(As an academic matter I would pose the question to A. Dershowitz that the actions of PR were one continuous event of murder and framing inclusive of the staging and not two events of murder and staging which allow for the staging to be within the insane act. I would also assert, purely as a hypothetical of course, that it would be possible that a second unamed person would have completed the staging and is therefore guilty of complicity which leaves PR with primarily the killing event to defend and that her later actions could utilize something similar to a post traumatic stress syndrome defense or a possible coercion defense. An attorney must zealously represent his/her client according to all legal and ethical standards I am aware of. That is purely academics though, and I really don't think that either theory would fly very long anyway, and I am not really interested in the transcript of the show because not even the best legal minds can discuss all of the nuances of such an issue in an hour. I am very well read as to Dershowitz's writings and find him to be of the highest caliber.)

Unfortunately for all IDI's is that implicit within A. Dershowitz's hypothetical conclusion that the defense of NGBRI wouldn't fly is that PR is as guilty as they come and if my memory serves me correctly, Dershowitz doesn't take cases unless he believes the defendant to be innocent.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[bullmoose]

ElvisLives:

First of all, I have never proposed that PR plead any type of insanity. It would be absolutely foolish. I am merely looking for the motive and malice that Createthis wanted in his original question and I believe an analysis of the dynamics in this case can, and eventually will, provide an explanation via mental disorder for its very convoluted facts. I am not looking for defenses. As usual our discussions wind into something they are not and never were intended to be.

(As an academic matter I would pose the question to A. Dershowitz that the actions of PR were one continuous event of murder and framing inclusive of the staging and not two events of murder and staging which allow for the staging to be within the insane act. I would also assert, purely as a hypothetical of course, that it would be possible that a second unamed person would have completed the staging and is therefore guilty of complicity which leaves PR with primarily the killing event to defend and that her later actions could utilize something similar to a post traumatic stress syndrome defense or a possible coercion defense. An attorney must zealously represent his/her client according to all legal and ethical standards I am aware of. That is purely academics though, and I really don't think that either theory would fly very long anyway, and I am not really interested in the transcript of the show because not even the best legal minds can discuss all of the nuances of such an issue in an hour. I am very well read as to Dershowitz's writings and find him to be of the highest caliber.)

Unfortunately for all IDI's is that implicit within A. Dershowitz's hypothetical conclusion that the defense of NGBRI wouldn't fly is that PR is as guilty as they come and if my memory serves me correctly, Dershowitz doesn't take cases unless he believes the defendant to be innocent.

Respectfully,

KingCoyoteThe time that I saw A. Dershwitz telling Steve Thomas that the case was in his opinion only a manslaughter case, I think he was was referring to the theory of the murder that Steve Thomas was postulating on the show.I do not think that he was talking about the case in its actual entirety, which of course I believe to be of a carefully planned first degree murder. IMO

[KingCoyote]

I just reread my post. I need to correct a mistake I made. I think it is a little premature for me to consider Dershowitz's comments as considering PR guilty as they come...I should really only say she would be guilty as they come if she tried to use a NGBRI as her main affirmative defense. There are other defenses to consider and other suspects to eliminate depending on hypothetical prosecution and defense approaches. I'll just keep working on those hypotheticals....Sorry...got a little carried away with that strong caffeine early in the morning trying to wash away the sleep when I had too early of a start this morning

KC

[bullmoose]

I just reread my post. I need to correct a mistake I made. I think it is a little premature for me to consider Dershowitz's comments as considering PR guilty as they come...I should really only say she would be guilty as they come if she tried to use a NGBRI as her main affirmative defense. There are other defenses to consider and other suspects to eliminate depending on hypothetical prosecution and defense approaches. I'll just keep working on those hypotheticals....Sorry...got a little carried away with that strong caffeine early in the morning trying to wash away the sleep when I had too early of a start this morning

KCActually I didn't think thats what you meant; I always thought that the Ramseys would have welcomed a trial instead of the insidious sniping that they were using their wealth to avoid justice; I absolutely believe their defense would have been that they were innocent. I do not think that Patsy or John ever considered any admission of responsibility in any way, shape or form. I am an IDI, I truly believe them innocent, so this is JMHO.

[sweetcharlotte]

Great questions. It doesn't make sense. As far as exhuming the body, I do not understand why the DA did not do that...or why the Rs did not insist the body was exhumed if, in fact, they thought those were stun gun or taser marks. Too late now, as you say.

With regard to "too late" I read an account that President Lincoln was exhumed in 1901 and the only difference in his appearance was that his skin was a trifle darker and there was a touch of mildew on his bowtie. (Don't have a link - just remember it from a Readers' Digest condensed book years ago.) So, if JonBenet is in an airtight vault - who knows? Maybe it wouldn't be too late. JMO

[KingCoyote]

Sweetcharlotte:

If I were an attorney, I would be having a cow if one my clients actually "welcomed" a trial or somehow said something like PR did about "bring it on" or whatever, because there is that old adage....be careful what you wish for...you might get it....and then...if anything can go wrong, it will...and at the worst possible time and....sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie...don't tempt fate....etc.,...etc.,... Maybe I am just a pessimist at heart....lol

But even though I am not IDI or for that matter RDI, I never really saw the Ramseys as using wealth to avoid justice....I just so absolutely agree that you don't have to talk to the police...you are entitled to an attorney...you are innocent until proven guilty (ideally) but..you do have to tolerate the court of public opinion no matter who you are if you get caught up in a situation like this....I just don't think they should have ever tried to enter the court of public opinion by going on TV or writing a book...I just think it hurt them more than helped them by giving people more to talk about. Another one of those maxims I tend to live by is that people can think or say what they want to about me, but only I know the truth...I admit I have never been in their situation, though.

I do try to judge by the information we have available and limit my review of so called inconsistent statements and even expert testimony... and especially avoid body language stuff....facial expressions, etc.....its just too vague and controvertible to be worth a darn...

I just wonder if everybody had kept their mouths shut, Ramseys, BPD, DA, witnesses, experts...whoever, and the media hadn't had so much fodder to work with, if things would be different or maybe even solved.

Just thinking out loud,

KingCoyote

[sweetcharlotte]

That was nice of you to direct a post to me, but I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve the honor.:)

[KingCoyote]

SweetCharlotte:

OOOPS...nothing personal....but it was meant as a response to BULLMOOSE.

Next time I will click on Quote instead of Quick Reply

[Embarrassed]

KingCoyote


PS:HEY BULLMOOSE....I meant for Post #58 to respond to your post #56.

Boy...what a day....lol

[bullmoose]

Sweetcharlotte:

If I were an attorney, I would be having a cow if one my clients actually "welcomed" a trial or somehow said something like PR did about "bring it on" or whatever, because there is that old adage....be careful what you wish for...you might get it....and then...if anything can go wrong, it will...and at the worst possible time and....sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie...don't tempt fate....etc.,...etc.,... Maybe I am just a pessimist at heart....lol

But even though I am not IDI or for that matter RDI, I never really saw the Ramseys as using wealth to avoid justice....I just so absolutely agree that you don't have to talk to the police...you are entitled to an attorney...you are innocent until proven guilty (ideally) but..you do have to tolerate the court of public opinion no matter who you are if you get caught up in a situation like this....I just don't think they should have ever tried to enter the court of public opinion by going on TV or writing a book...I just think it hurt them more than helped them by giving people more to talk about. Another one of those maxims I tend to live by is that people can think or say what they want to about me, but only I know the truth...I admit I have never been in their situation, though.

I do try to judge by the information we have available and limit my review of so called inconsistent statements and even expert testimony... and especially avoid body language stuff....facial expressions, etc.....its just too vague and controvertible to be worth a darn...

I just wonder if everybody had kept their mouths shut, Ramseys, BPD, DA, witnesses, experts...whoever, and the media hadn't had so much fodder to work with, if things would be different or maybe even solved.

Just thinking out loud,

KingCoyoteThis case was strange from the beginning; just keep in mind that it wasn't the Ramseys that started the ball rolling; locally in Boulder the cops[Eller comes readily to mind] told the local newspaper that there was nothing to worry about; there was no killer on the loose in Boulder[the Ramseys were in Atlanta]; then the mayor said the same thing in a TV interview; I think it was after that provocation that thr Ramseys appeared on CNN. Since the BPD was angry at the DA's lack of cooperation, they turned to the media to pressure the Ramseys. You know, the DA wouldn't arrest the Ramseys to try to sweat a confession out of them; they tryed to illegally hold the body; they had already illegally and secretly questioned Burke for hours at Fleet White's house. I agree it would have probably been better for the case to have been free of all the media pressure but IMO the BPD brought it on.

[bullmoose]

SweetCharlotte:

OOOPS...nothing personal....but it was meant as a response to BULLMOOSE.

Next time I will click on Quote instead of Quick Reply

[Embarrassed]

KingCoyote


PS:HEY BULLMOOSE....I meant for Post #58 to respond to your post #56.

Boy...what a day....lol No problem, pard, some days are just Mondays all day long.:beer:

[sweetcharlotte]

SweetCharlotte:

OOOPS...nothing personal....but it was meant as a response to BULLMOOSE.

Next time I will click on Quote instead of Quick Reply

[Embarrassed]

KingCoyote

<snip>





Not a problem. :)

[rashomon]

To be honest with you elvislives I am not sure of all this is worth my efforts anymore. So many people in these forums have come to such certain unassailable conclusions based solely on their own opinions and personal logic, without any research, analysis, discussion or sourcing, that I just now think it would be best that I go on about my merry way and let everyone else keep digging in with their absolutely certain and unassailable opininated positions and spend their next ten years coming up with absolutely nothing new. So many times I see people tell me that all they want to do is solve the crime. How can one possibly say that when they have already made up their mind who did or did not commit the crime? My perception is that most, but not all, people are here solely to advance their own beliefs as to who did or didn't do it.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote
KingCoyote. have you considered becoming a member on one of the excellent Ramsey forums, Websleuths for example? (with one 'b', for there is also another ('Webbsleuths'), run by a die-hard Ramsey supporter who lies ansd distorts the case facts).

But Websleuths is very good actually. It is neither RDI nor IDI, but consists of a motley crew of posters, most of which have done valid case research. The mods over there also don't permit posters to insult each other.
You make such great points in your posts, and your writings would be much appreciated over there, for they would make very good discussion points.
It would be a pity if you stopped posting altogether, and the JBR discussion would lose yet another great poster.

[andU]

But if you go to websleuths.com, you can't say anything against good ol' Fleet ... it won't be tolerated...
I have lurked there, IMO, they are RDI, for the most part. That's where you'll find Ames and ColoradoKares, too, I believe:shrug:

[KingCoyote]

Thanks Rashomon and Andu:

I try as hard as I can to be neutral and objective...and work merely from statements and other information. I am glad you like my posts Rashomon.

Thanks for the warning Andu. As to saying something bad about someone...I will try to show the good as well as the bad that my apply to anyone and let the readers decide for themselves. Unfortunately that puts me on no side...unless of course....chips start falling where they may strictly from information as opposed to me choosing a side and trying to defend it.

Later....

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

But if you go to websleuths.com, you can't say anything against good ol' Fleet ... it won't be tolerated...
I have lurked there, IMO, they are RDI, for the most part. That's where you'll find Ames and ColoradoKares, too, I believe:shrug:
It is a pity that the Crimelibrary has lost those excellent posters who have contributed so much to the discussion. But CL's loss is Websleuths' gain.

It's not about being RDI, FS or IDI, it's about maintaining balance in the discussion. I keep posting here because CL is a forum which has many viewers who don't post, and who may not know much about the case facts. If the IDIs chase off every RDI from here, not only will they end up stewing in their own juice (which will be boring!), but the lurkers will only get to read a totally biased IDI version.

In terms of "saying anything against good ol' Fleet": it is true that the WS moderators don't allow FW to be called derogatory names. There is a lot of discussion about FW over there, but you have got to back up your claims with the documented record, for otherwise you' ll be picked apart by people who have done intensive research. Which I think is okay, for otherwise you'll get posting exchanges which resemble more a religious war than a discussion or debate.

Another good thing about WS is that there is such a large number of posters there, and you get to see a wide range of (often very interesting) theories.

[nuisanceposter]

Rashomon, that is a perfect summary of the situation here and at WS, and I could not agree more.

[rashomon]

Just to comment regarding the marks on JB ... the first time I saw them I thought they looked like some kind of branding burn. I looks like a burn/bruise to me but it is difficult to tell from a photo. It is hard to tell if there is a blister or how deep they are, or if they had begun to heal. What are the opinions of others about these marks? I know it has been discussed and I am just at this point curious about first impressions about what could have caused them.
If memory serves, coroner Dr. Meyer who saw the wound called it 'abrasion', and I think Dr. Meyer would have called it a burn if it had been one.

[Louisadelmar]

It is a pity that the Crimelibrary has lost those excellent posters who have contributed so much to the discussion. But CL's loss is Websleuths' gain.

It's not about being RDI, FS or IDI, it's about maintaining balance in the discussion. I keep posting here because CL is a forum which has many viewers who don't post, and who may not know much about the case facts. If the IDIs chase off every RDI from here, not only will they end up stewing in their own juice (which will be boring!), but the lurkers will only get to read a totally biased IDI version.

In terms of "saying anything against good ol' Fleet": it is true that the WS moderators don't allow FW to be called derogatory names. There is a lot of discussion about FW over there, but you have got to back up your claims with the documented record, for otherwise you' ll be picked apart by people who have done intensive research. Which I think is okay, for otherwise you'll get posting exchanges which resemble more a religious war than a discussion or debate.

Another good thing about WS is that there is such a large number of posters there, and you get to see a wide range of (often very interesting) theories.

Rashomon - You didn't join WS until 12/2005. You didn't know it when it really was a great forum. When Tricia bought it and Maxi left, it accelerated a slow roll downhill to where it is now - FFJ-lite. Prior to Tricia's ownership posts on the case were rarely deleted, just moved to the Parking Lot where posters could continue their dispute. It didn't matter what your point of view was, Maxi treated everyone politely and with respect. The idea that the JonBenet forum at Websleuths is too big to have decent moderation is nonsense. But that is the excuse I got from JBRMod2. WS may have a large number of members but as far as the Ramsey forum goes you only see the same names over and over and over. I resigned in May 2006 when it became quite clear that IDI posters were not treated the same as RDI posters. There are very few active, experienced IDIs left there.

[bullmoose]

It is a pity that the Crimelibrary has lost those excellent posters who have contributed so much to the discussion. But CL's loss is Websleuths' gain.

It's not about being RDI, FS or IDI, it's about maintaining balance in the discussion. I keep posting here because CL is a forum which has many viewers who don't post, and who may not know much about the case facts. If the IDIs chase off every RDI from here, not only will they end up stewing in their own juice (which will be boring!), but the lurkers will only get to read a totally biased IDI version.

In terms of "saying anything against good ol' Fleet": it is true that the WS moderators don't allow FW to be called derogatory names. There is a lot of discussion about FW over there, but you have got to back up your claims with the documented record, for otherwise you' ll be picked apart by people who have done intensive research. Which I think is okay, for otherwise you'll get posting exchanges which resemble more a religious war than a discussion or debate.

Another good thing about WS is that there is such a large number of posters there, and you get to see a wide range of (often very interesting) theories.Darn, I only have one hanky on me to soak up the tears this post makes me weep; let me get my crying towel out------------hmm., thats a little better, now I can post without getting electrocuted from sniveling on my keyboard.:biggrin: I don't want to be negative about ColoradoKares; however whenever I asked for a link to back up her statements, the info was packed away and she couldn't find it; or in the one time she gave a link, it was to a story in the Enquirer from 1997, that quoted 'unnamed sources' to back its[Enquirer] claim up. When she left here I was sad, for I enjoyed her posts, but who is really ever truly gone? I think people who leave in a huff sometimes come back as ghosts[gheists, lurkers] or poltergheists[playful ghosts or posters under a new name]. Of course, thats JMHO.:biggrin:

[Zoey]

It is a pity that the Crimelibrary has lost those excellent posters who have contributed so much to the discussion. But CL's loss is Websleuths' gain.

It's not about being RDI, FS or IDI, it's about maintaining balance in the discussion. I keep posting here because CL is a forum which has many viewers who don't post, and who may not know much about the case facts. If the IDIs chase off every RDI from here, not only will they end up stewing in their own juice (which will be boring!), but the lurkers will only get to read a totally biased IDI version.

In terms of "saying anything against good ol' Fleet": it is true that the WS moderators don't allow FW to be called derogatory names. There is a lot of discussion about FW over there, but you have got to back up your claims with the documented record, for otherwise you' ll be picked apart by people who have done intensive research. Which I think is okay, for otherwise you'll get posting exchanges which resemble more a religious war than a discussion or debate.

Another good thing about WS is that there is such a large number of posters there, and you get to see a wide range of (often very interesting) theories.


Rosh, I have to disagree with just a couple of things in your post. I tried to post on Websleuths a few months back. I had a couple of questions about Fleet White. I was sent a PM stating we do not discuss FW on this forum or FFJ. My posts were then deleted. So I did not post there anymore.

Also, I do not see where there is a wide range of interesting theories. I believe there are a wide range of theories on how the Ramsey's murdered their little girl. I think Websleuths is just like FFJ, 100% RDI.

[shill]

KingCoyote. have you considered becoming a member on one of the excellent Ramsey forums, Websleuths for example? (with one 'b', for there is also another ('Webbsleuths'), run by a die-hard Ramsey supporter who lies ansd distorts the case facts).

But Websleuths is very good actually. It is neither RDI nor IDI, but consists of a motley crew of posters, most of which have done valid case research. The mods over there also don't permit posters to insult each other.
You make such great points in your posts, and your writings would be much appreciated over there, for they would make very good discussion points.
It would be a pity if you stopped posting altogether, and the JBR discussion would lose yet another great poster.
Now I know there is no way possible you have a unbiased bone in your body.
Websleuths is nothing but a gang of Ramsey hating wolves that pat each other on the back on how they agree that their blood lust for hate towards the Ramseys is justified because they all know the Ramseys are guilty before innocent.
Websleuths is nothing but a hate club.

As far as Ck, she's a total kook who notified LE about posters here that their post were harassing her, and she tattle tailed to the moderators here about everyone that she didn't like.
And Ames hates anyone born with a silver spoon in their mouth because she grew up ghetto and can't make a logical decision on this case if her life depended on it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Now I know there is no way possible you have a unbiased bone in your body.
Websleuths is nothing but a gang of Ramsey hating wolves that pat each other on the back on how they agree that their blood lust for hate towards the Ramseys is justified because they all know the Ramseys are guilty before innocent.
Websleuths is nothing but a hate club.

As far as Ck, she's a total kook who notified LE about posters here that their post were harassing her, and she tattle tailed to the moderators here about everyone that she didn't like.
And Ames hates anyone born with a silver spoon in their mouth because she grew up ghetto and can't make a logical decision on this case if her life depended on it.


Shill...better check yourself. You pretty much come off as a "hater" yourself.
I think you and everyone else needs to keep your comments about former posters to yourself. That's just bullsh*t.
I tend to agree with you about Websleuths and other forums. Most of them are biased one way or the other (RDI or IDI). I don't want to be in a forum where there is no discussion/debate. I think everyone needs to learn a little respect here before this forum becomes the same as the others. IMO

[rashomon]

Rosh, I have to disagree with just a couple of things in your post. I tried to post on Websleuths a few months back. I had a couple of questions about Fleet White. I was sent a PM stating we do not discuss FW on this forum or FFJ. My posts were then deleted. So I did not post there anymore.

Also, I do not see where there is a wide range of interesting theories. I believe there are a wide range of theories on how the Ramsey's murdered their little girl. I think Websleuths is just like FFJ, 100% RDI.
Fleet White is not discussed at WS? I just entered his name into the search engine and 500 posts showed up.

Websleuths is nothing but a hate club.
I have the impression that very, very few RDIs actually "hate" the Ramseys. They analyze them, try to find out what makes them tick and why they got away with the crime, but I can't see any hatred in most of the RDI posts.

[Zoey]

Fleet White is not discussed at WS? I just entered his name into the search engine and 500 posts showed up.


I have the impression that very, very few RDIs actually "hate" the Ramseys. They analyze them, try to find out what makes them tick and why they got away with the crime, but I can't see any hatred in most of the RDI posts.


Thank you for the information Rashomon. I am just saying what happened to me. I was told I could not ask questions about Fleet. I cannot help that others have been allowed to. Maybe it is because I was new on the board???:shrug:

I hope that you were not implying that I posted that about websleuths being a hate club, as this is not from my post.

[Louisadelmar]

Fleet White is not discussed at WS? I just entered his name into the search engine and 500 posts showed up.


I have the impression that very, very few RDIs actually "hate" the Ramseys. They analyze them, try to find out what makes them tick and why they got away with the crime, but I can't see any hatred in most of the RDI posts.

Is he discussed as a possible suspect? Is his strange post-crime behavior discussed? DId you look up Tricia's post where she said she would not allow him to be discussed as a suspect?

[rashomon]

I hope that you were not implying that I posted that about websleuths being a hate club, as this is not from my post.
No, Zoey, I was not implying that. I know that it wasn't you who posted that.

Is he discussed as a possible suspect? Is his strange post-crime behavior discussed? DId you look up Tricia's post where she said she would not allow him to be discussed as a suspect?
I didn't check through all those 500 posts, but I know that there have been a lot of questions asked, for example as to why, when Fleet was down in the basement and didn't see JB's body in there, then why could John 'see' JB's body then?
I'd like to read Tricia's post where she said that she would not allow Fleet to be discussed as a suspect. But hardly anyone on the JB forums I'm posting on (except this one here) actually suspects FW.
I believe the Whites were thrown under the bus as suspects by the Ramseys (along with a bunch of other people) to direct attention away from themselves.
Or does anyone seriously believe that FW sneaked into the Ramsey home at dead of night, snatched JB from her bed, played sex games with her, bashed her head in and then sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table to write a lengthy ransom note in Patsy's handwriting? Give me a break, but that's just plain crazy.

[andU]

No, Zoey, I was not implying that. I know that it wasn't you who posted that.


I didn't check through all those 500 posts, but I know that there have been a lot of questions asked, for example as to why, when Fleet was down in the basement and didn't see JB's body in there, then why could John 'see' JB's body then?
I'd like to read Tricia's post where she said that she would not allow Fleet to be discussed as a suspect. But hardly anyone on the JB forums I'm posting on (except this one here) actually suspects FW.
I believe the Whites were thrown under the bus as suspects by the Ramseys (along with a bunch of other people) to direct attention away from themselves.
Or does anyone seriously believe that FW sneaked into the Ramsey home at dead of night, snatched JB from her bed, played sex games with her, bashed her head in and then sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table to write a lengthy ransom note in Patsy's handwriting? Give me a break, but that's just plain crazy.

I think it is a possibility ...

[Zoey]

No, Zoey, I was not implying that. I know that it wasn't you who posted that.


I didn't check through all those 500 posts, but I know that there have been a lot of questions asked, for example as to why, when Fleet was down in the basement and didn't see JB's body in there, then why could John 'see' JB's body then?
I'd like to read Tricia's post where she said that she would not allow Fleet to be discussed as a suspect. But hardly anyone on the JB forums I'm posting on (except this one here) actually suspects FW.
I believe the Whites were thrown under the bus as suspects by the Ramseys (along with a bunch of other people) to direct attention away from themselves.
Or does anyone seriously believe that FW sneaked into the Ramsey home at dead of night, snatched JB from her bed, played sex games with her, bashed her head in and then sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table to write a lengthy ransom note in Patsy's handwriting? Give me a break, but that's just plain crazy.


Thanks Rashomon. Sometimes these quotes things confuse me and it looks like people are quoting the wrong person.

And, yes, I believe FW could have done just that, and IMO, it is no more crazy than thinking that John and Patsy Ramsey brutally murdered their own daughter.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
I'd like to read Tricia's post where she said that she would not allow Fleet to be discussed as a suspect. [...]

You're the one with the ability to do searches there. But if you want a quick demonstration open a thread titled "Evidence against Fleet" or "Fleet's strange post-crime behavior." or "Is Fleet hiding something?" and see how long it lasts.

[rashomon]

And, yes, I believe FW could have done just that, and IMO, it is no more crazy than thinking that John and Patsy Ramsey brutally murdered their own daughter.
I don't think the Ramseys murdered her. It most likely was manslaughter (rage attack on JB) followed by obstruction of justice, where they staged a sexual predator scene to misdirect the investigators.

[rashomon]

You're the one with the ability to do searches there. But if you want a quick demonstration open a thread titled "Evidence against Fleet" or "Fleet's strange post-crime behavior." or "Is Fleet hiding something?" and see how long it lasts.
I thought you had copied Tricia's post since you seem to be avid readers of WS.
Since none of these thread titles would represent my true opinion on FW, I won't play this kind of game for litmus test purposes.

[Sprocket]

I believe that's correct, that Trica who owns WS outright does not let anyone discuss theories that include FW as a perp.

It's her forum, her rules; she gets to do what she wants and I agree with that 100%. She's not obligated to provide a platform to discuss every theory floating out there. Whomever owns the sandbox gets to make the rules.

It could also be because she knows at least one individual who is very close friends of Fleet and Pricilla, has contacts with Boulder LE, and this individual posts on her forum FFJ.

[Sprocket]

Thanks Rashomon. Sometimes these quotes things confuse me and it looks like people are quoting the wrong person.

And, yes, I believe FW could have done just that, and IMO, it is no more crazy than thinking that John and Patsy Ramsey brutally murdered their own daughter.

The problem with this thinking is, it's not logical. It's not "crazy" to think that the parents were possibly involved in the death of their child. Dead child in home with both parents present. Hello? Good LE techniques require that you start with the closest people to the dead individual and then work outwards from that.

LE could not find one shred of evidence linking FW to this crime. However, these people were one of the first in a long line of friends that the Ramsey's threw under their bus. It's not surprising to me that they did this. They knew the Ramsey's quite well. They were outraged that John and Patsy did not cooperate with BPD. It made them suspicious, as well it should. On the other end of the spectrum, FW and Pricilla were more than willing to cooperate with BPD, and answer any questions they had. Quite a difference from John and Patsy.

FW was there when John found his daughter's body. We may never know everything that Fleet told Boulder PD about that event. But what we do know is that FW said he could not see JB's body from where he was standing when the door was opened, and in BPD's re-enactments of this event, they couldn't either.

[Jayelles]

I thought you had copied Tricia's post since you seem to be avid readers of WS.
Since none of these thread titles would represent my true opinion on FW, I won't play this kind of game for litmus test purposes.

Kudos Rashomon. It would be a silly game to play to prove a point. I can fully understand Tricia's desire to keep the group of people known as the "Fleet Bashers" off her forums. Their theories and accusations are based upon no more than malicious speculation and they destroy every forum they participate in.

[Louisadelmar]

I thought you had copied Tricia's post since you seem to be avid readers of WS.
Since none of these thread titles would represent my true opinion on FW, I won't play this kind of game for litmus test purposes.

No need to. Since you took part in this discussion

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/printthread.php?t=43107&page=2&pp=40

you appear to already be well aware of Tricia's ban on any negative talk about Fleet.

[bullmoose]

I believe that's correct, that Trica who owns WS outright does not let anyone discuss theories that include FW as a perp.

It's her forum, her rules; she gets to do what she wants and I agree with that 100%. She's not obligated to provide a platform to discuss every theory floating out there. Whomever owns the sandbox gets to make the rules.

It could also be because she knows at least one individual who is very close friends of Fleet and Pricilla, has contacts with Boulder LE, and this individual posts on her forum FFJ.Perhaps you refer to the Twister, who is a breakfast buddy of the Whites, used to be a BPD superhero, and who seems to have a proclivity to post on forums like these? Hmmm? Thats the one that comes first to mind, to me. Of course, Thats JMHO:biggrin:

[Sprocket]

Perhaps you refer to the Twister, who is a breakfast buddy of the Whites, used to be a BPD superhero, and who seems to have a proclivity to post on forums like these? Hmmm? Thats the one that comes first to mind, to me. Of course, Thats JMHO:biggrin:

I don't know who that hat name is. It's not one I recognize.

[shill]

Fleet White bashing BAD!
Ramsey bashing GOOD!

Fleet White and anyone else should not be off limit. You can't just close this case because you think the Ramseys did it.

[Sprocket]

Fleet White bashing BAD!
Ramsey bashing GOOD!

Fleet White and anyone else should not be off limit. You can't just close this case because you think the Ramseys did it.

Ramsey involvement based on....gee, what happened. Parents found in the home with a dead child, war & peace ransom note written in handwriting so similar to Patsy's she couldn't be ruled out as the author, and parents wait for FOUR months before they agree to be interviewed by police.

Fleet White involvement based on...gee, I think the planets were all aligned in his family house with Jupiter being retrograde.

I think I'll go with the theory that's based on evidence, behavior of the participants and probable cause vs wild unsubstantiated specualtion.

[shill]

Ramsey involvement based on....gee, what happened. Parents found in the home with a dead child, war & peace ransom note written in handwriting so similar to Patsy's she couldn't be ruled out as the author, and parents wait for FOUR months before they agree to be interviewed by police.

Fleet White involvement based on...gee, I think the planets were all aligned in his family house with Jupiter being retrograde.

I think I'll go with the theory that's based on evidence, behavior of the participants and probable cause vs wild unsubstantiated specualtion.
"behavior of the participants and probable cause" is no different for FW. FW didn't give DNA samples right away. Ramseys were interviewed that day. I already posted a list of reasons for FW as a suspect but I guess you missed that.

And how does a "War & Peace ransom note" prove the Ramseys are the only ones to suspect? Anyone who killed JB would have reason to write a ransom note to try and cover their tracks because they are guilty and don't want to get caught.

If your only logic to not pursuing other suspects like FW is because the Ramseys did it and it's a waste of time, then we should keep this forum to RDI and the RDDI(Ramseys Didn't Do It).
Funny how an IDI names a suspect and the RDI's response is the suspect isn't a Ramsey so they couldn't possibly have done it.

These forums will never change. They will always be about RDI.

[bullmoose]

Ramsey involvement based on....gee, what happened. Parents found in the home with a dead child, war & peace ransom note written in handwriting so similar to Patsy's she couldn't be ruled out as the author, and parents wait for FOUR months before they agree to be interviewed by police.

Fleet White involvement based on...gee, I think the planets were all aligned in his family house with Jupiter being retrograde.

I think I'll go with the theory that's based on evidence, behavior of the participants and probable cause vs wild unsubstantiated specualtion.

You can certainly go with your theory, although if the probable cause that you refer to is more than a 'will of the wisp' I think that there would have at least a couple arrests made, at least an indictment by the grand jury, who I think it can be safely said have seen more of the evidence than you or me. Without that vote of probable cause by the grand jury; IMHO all you have is your faith that what you believe to be unassailable evidence is, in fact, actually so. I am not a believer in the Fleet White involvement theory, my suspicion is that , like the Green River killer, it may turn out to be somebody completely off the radar. DNA got him, maybe that will happen yet;I'm not holding my breathe on it.

[andU]

I believe that's correct, that Trica who owns WS outright does not let anyone discuss theories that include FW as a perp.

It's her forum, her rules; she gets to do what she wants and I agree with that 100%. She's not obligated to provide a platform to discuss every theory floating out there. Whomever owns the sandbox gets to make the rules.

It could also be because she knows at least one individual who is very close friends of Fleet and Pricilla, has contacts with Boulder LE, and this individual posts on her forum FFJ.

Which is the very reason that I have no desire to become a member of that forum. If we can't post our viewpoint, if we must supress our true feelings about a subject, how can it be an honest forum? That's why I also became a member of a private forum.

[andU]

Kudos Rashomon. It would be a silly game to play to prove a point. I can fully understand Tricia's desire to keep the group of people known as the "Fleet Bashers" off her forums. Their theories and accusations are based upon no more than malicious speculation and they destroy every forum they participate in.

We don't bash anyone, we simply express our opinions about the overall crime. IMO, there are more than suspects than the Ramseys, and yes, Fleet and his lovely bride are on that list.

[Sprocket]

Ramseys were interviewed that day.
Where were they interviewed and for how long?

Were they interviewed individually or separately?

Where are copies of those interviews?

[Sprocket]

And how does a "War & Peace ransom note" prove the Ramseys are the only ones to suspect? Anyone who killed JB would have reason to write a ransom note to try and cover their tracks because they are guilty and don't want to get caught.

Duh. Give me examples of other dead children found in the home with both parents there where an intruder/kidnapper left a war and peace ransom note behind, or for that matter ANY type of ransom note behind....and...forgot to take the child's body with them.

Problem is, you won't be able to find another instance exactly like this and the FBI CASKU said so.

[elvislives]

Duh. Give me examples of other dead children found in the home with both parents there where an intruder/kidnapper left a war and peace ransom note behind, or for that matter ANY type of ransom note behind....and...forgot to take the child's body with them.

Problem is, you won't be able to find another instance exactly like this and the FBI CASKU said so.


No question its a very rare crime.
There was a guy named William Herrins who broke into a home in Chicago and snatched a six year old from her bed, took her to a neighbors basement where he killed and dismembered her, then went back into the childs home (both parents were asleep) and wrote a ransom note. His note was short and sweet---want 20M, dont call the fbi, etc. After he was caught he was asked why he wrote the bogus note (he never followed up on it) and replied that he wanted to confuse the police.
Also, I challenge you to give examples where a parent killed their child on Christmas, then tried to cover it up by molesting and strangling their child. And somehow got the other parent to help cover up. Whether IDI or RDI, this is a unique crime.

[Louisadelmar]

Duh. Give me examples of other dead children found in the home with both parents there where an intruder/kidnapper left a war and peace ransom note behind, or for that matter ANY type of ransom note behind....and...forgot to take the child's body with them.

Problem is, you won't be able to find another instance exactly like this and the FBI CASKU said so.

So give me an example where the same thiings were found and the parents did it.

[rashomon]

No question its a very rare crime.
There was a guy named William Herrins who broke into a home in Chicago and snatched a six year old from her bed, took her to a neighbors basement where he killed and dismembered her, then went back into the childs home (both parents were asleep) and wrote a ransom note. His note was short and sweet---want 20M, dont call the fbi, etc. After he was caught he was asked why he wrote the bogus note (he never followed up on it) and replied that he wanted to confuse the police.
Also, I challenge you to give examples where a parent killed their child on Christmas, then tried to cover it up by molesting and strangling their child. And somehow got the other parent to help cover up. Whether IDI or RDI, this is a unique crime.
But this was an abductor who did just what an abductor would do: he snatched the child from her own home and took her elsewhere.

But in the Ramsey case, it didn't make sense for a sexual predator to lead the police on a false trail with a ransom note, since he left the body behind in the house.

[elvislives]

But this was an abductor who did just what an abductor would do: he snatched the child from her own home and took her elsewhere.

But in the Ramsey case, it didn't make sense for a sexual predator to lead the police on a false trail with a ransom note, since he left the body behind in the house.

William Herrins snatched this little girl, then broke into the neighbor's home where he molested and killed her in the basement. I am pretty sure he dismembered her there too, then dropped her body parts into various sewers throughout the city. Then he went BACK to the girls bedroom and wrote a bogus ransom note demanding money and warning them not to call the police---but he never tried to collect the money.

No the crime is not exactly like the Ramsey crime. What I was trying to point out is that, often times people will say, 'well it HAD to be the parents because what criminal would leave a bogus ransom note? or what intruder would risk molesting and killing a child in another's home (with WH he was using the neighbors house, not the parents, but extremely high risk nonetheless).

The flip side of this point, of course, is that often times idi's say it COULDN'T be the parents, cause what parent would do this to their child?

The point I am trying to make is that there are weird intruders out there, who would do all the wierd stuff that was done to JB. And there are wierd parents out there who do horrible things to their kids.

P.S. William Herrins has the distinction of being the first maximum security inmate in Illinois to earn a college degree (in the 70s or 80s I think). Only in America...

[bullmoose]

William Herrins snatched this little girl, then broke into the neighbor's home where he molested and killed her in the basement. I am pretty sure he dismembered her there too, then dropped her body parts into various sewers throughout the city. Then he went BACK to the girls bedroom and wrote a bogus ransom note demanding money and warning them not to call the police---but he never tried to collect the money.

No the crime is not exactly like the Ramsey crime. What I was trying to point out is that, often times people will say, 'well it HAD to be the parents because what criminal would leave a bogus ransom note? or what intruder would risk molesting and killing a child in another's home (with WH he was using the neighbors house, not the parents, but extremely high risk nonetheless).

The flip side of this point, of course, is that often times idi's say it COULDN'T be the parents, cause what parent would do this to their child?

The point I am trying to make is that there are weird intruders out there, who would do all the wierd stuff that was done to JB. And there are wierd parents out there who do horrible things to their kids.

P.S. William Herrins has the distinction of being the first maximum security inmate in Illinois to earn a college degree (in the 70s or 80s I think). Only in America... A couple of years ago here in N. Idaho 35 miles from my house a sexual predater named Duncan came off the Interstate to steal two children for his perverted fantasies; killing four people ultimately in that family. In the six weeks before[miraculously] Shasta Groene was rescued the police and FBI gave the father and ex-husband a very bad time; yes he 'flunked' the FBI lie-detector test; they just knew he had knowledge of what happened, no matter how he protested. Then, of course, he was cleared, with the capture of Duncan. Oops! Hey, weird stuff happens, right?
Turns out that Duncan is a serial killer and child predater, with at least 20 dead victims around the country wherever he roamed while out of jail. It doesn't seem like anyone put all the murders together as connected all those years; how could the police around the country do it, they were only human. And as it turns out, Duncan is an inhuman monster that just looks like a human being. JMHO

[Sprocket]

So give me an example where the same thiings were found and the parents did it.

This is why the ransom note was easily recognized by the FBI as staging, that day at the crime scene.

[elvislives]

A couple of years ago here in N. Idaho 35 miles from my house a sexual predater named Duncan came off the Interstate to steal two children for his perverted fantasies; killing four people ultimately in that family. In the six weeks before[miraculously] Shasta Groene was rescued the police and FBI gave the father and ex-husband a very bad time; yes he 'flunked' the FBI lie-detector test; they just knew he had knowledge of what happened, no matter how he protested. Then, of course, he was cleared, with the capture of Duncan. Oops! Hey, weird stuff happens, right?
Turns out that Duncan is a serial killer and child predater, with at least 20 dead victims around the country wherever he roamed while out of jail. It doesn't seem like anyone put all the murders together as connected all those years; how could the police around the country do it, they were only human. And as it turns out, Duncan is an inhuman monster that just looks like a human being. JMHO


This case gets a lot of media attention here in California because Duncan has been linked to some unsolved homocides here.
And I remember when the Groene family was murdered and the 2 youngest children were missing. The police gave a press conference and said it did not look like a random attack. They claimed that there was 'overkill' which indicated an attacker with a tremendous amount of rage for the victims.
The biological father (I think his name was Steve Groene) made a statement to the effect of 'please let the children go, they didnt have anything to do with this".
Of course the media jumped all over him....'they didnt have anything to do with what? Obviously he knows something!!' Then of course he failed the polygraph which made him look even more suspicious. Thank God he hadn't worn the same outfit 2 days in a row....he'd probably be on death row...

[Sprocket]

In both of these other cases mentioned, the child(ren) was/were taken outside the home and killed elsewhere. No ransom notes involved.

[Tober]

And how does a "War & Peace ransom note" prove the Ramseys are the only ones to suspect? Anyone who killed JB would have reason to write a ransom note to try and cover their tracks because they are guilty and don't want to get caught.

All an intruder would need to do to "cover their tracks" is leave. Only someone residing in the home would "need" to write the ransom note to explain JonBenet's dead body and to point outside the home. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

All an intruder would need to do to "cover their tracks" is leave. Only someone residing in the home would "need" to write the ransom note to explain JonBenet's dead body and to point outside the home. This post is my opinion. All an intruder trying to throw suspicion onto the Ramseys would need to do is to write a 21/2 page ransom note and leave it on the stairs, because everybody knows intruders don't do that.JMHO

[shill]

A couple of years ago here in N. Idaho 35 miles from my house a sexual predater named Duncan came off the Interstate to steal two children for his perverted fantasies; killing four people ultimately in that family. In the six weeks before[miraculously] Shasta Groene was rescued the police and FBI gave the father and ex-husband a very bad time; yes he 'flunked' the FBI lie-detector test; they just knew he had knowledge of what happened, no matter how he protested. Then, of course, he was cleared, with the capture of Duncan. Oops! Hey, weird stuff happens, right?
Turns out that Duncan is a serial killer and child predater, with at least 20 dead victims around the country wherever he roamed while out of jail. It doesn't seem like anyone put all the murders together as connected all those years; how could the police around the country do it, they were only human. And as it turns out, Duncan is an inhuman monster that just looks like a human being. JMHO

I read Duncan's blog site and he described the people he was in sexual rehab with as way bigger monsters then he. They would plan out elaborate schemes to get their target, even if it meant killing their husband or boyfriend. They would stop at nothing to fulfill a fantasy.

IMO it takes a very very sick and twisted individual to commit this crime, and the Ramseys don't fit that profile.

[shill]

All an intruder would need to do to "cover their tracks" is leave. Only someone residing in the home would "need" to write the ransom note to explain JonBenet's dead body and to point outside the home. This post is my opinion.

The note buys time for the killer. It was Christmas and people are leaving Boulder after the holiday. If one had a flight to catch, one would want to make sure Boulder was not sealed off. Had they not found JB's hidden body, it would have been another day before a manhunt started. Maybe longer since the LE was pre-occupied with the Ramseys.

[LindaA]

The note buys time for the killer. It was Christmas and people are leaving Boulder after the holiday. If one had a flight to catch, one would want to make sure Boulder was not sealed off. Had they not found JB's hidden body, it would have been another day before a manhunt started. Maybe longer since the LE was pre-occupied with the Ramseys.

But if they thought she had been kidnapped, wouldn't they have sealed Boulder off? I wonder why they didn't.

[Jayelles]

All an intruder trying to throw suspicion onto the Ramseys would need to do is to write a 21/2 page ransom note and leave it on the stairs, because everybody knows intruders don't do that.JMHO


Why remove the duct tape and remaining cord from the house then?

[elvislives]

In both of these other cases mentioned, the child(ren) was/were taken outside the home and killed elsewhere. No ransom notes involved.

Maybe I wasn't clear, Sprocket, but William Herrins DID leave a bogus ransom note. He asked for $20,000 and warned the parents not to call the fbi or police. He never tried to collect the money and wrote the note after the ittle girl was already dead.
After his arrest he was asked why he left the bogus ransom note and answered that he "wanted to confuse the police'.

There was also a serial killer in the southeast (cant remember his name) who abducted and killed adult women and left bogus ransom notes. So it's rare, but not unheard of.

[aussiesheila]

To me the two sets of marks looked to be consistant with taser burns; the did when I first saw them, and they still do, but that is just my opinion; to my way of thinking a taser would have been a good way to render Jonbenet unconcious or at least unable to resist her assailant/s.JMHOI had never heard of stunguns before I started reading at these forums. I sometimes wonder whether, at the time of the autopsy Coroner Meyer hadn't heard of them either, and that was why he didn't immediately recognise the pairs of marks on her back and leg as having been made by one. How old was Meyer at the time of the murder and when did he do his training?

I'm not sure about the mark on her face, whether it was made by a stungun or not, it is only a single mark and much larger than the two sets. I am still puzzling over that single mark on her face.

I don't think stun guns render you unconcious, I think they just incapacitate you by discharging a low current high voltage charge that causes muscle spasms over the whole body, so if the victim is standing he/she falls to the ground. I think it was one of the pedophiles who came to abuse JonBenet that night who brought the stun gun. I think the idea was to try it out as a controlling technique, or maybe even just to try it out for the heck of it, to see what happened when it was used on some poor victim.

[aussiesheila]

KingCoyote. have you considered becoming a member on one of the excellent Ramsey forums, Websleuths for example? (with one 'b', for there is also another ('Webbsleuths'), run by a die-hard Ramsey supporter who lies ansd distorts the case facts).

But Websleuths is very good actually. It is neither RDI nor IDI, but consists of a motley crew of posters, most of which have done valid case research. The mods over there also don't permit posters to insult each other.
You make such great points in your posts, and your writings would be much appreciated over there, for they would make very good discussion points.
It would be a pity if you stopped posting altogether, and the JBR discussion would lose yet another great poster.Yes it was a great forum, that is, until Tricia, moderator and owner of the forum began deleting all posts that mentioned Fleet White in anything but the most glowing of terms. If you think there is anything at all suspicious about Fleet White post it here at courtTV where, at least to my knowledge, no censorship of posts has ever occurred.

[Jayelles]

Yes it was a great forum, that is, until Tricia, moderator and owner of the forum began deleting all posts that mentioned Fleet White in anything but the most glowing of terms. If you think there is anything at all suspicious about Fleet White post it here at courtTV where, at least to my knowledge, no censorship of posts has ever occurred.

As an interested observer of Ramsey Subculture, I can honestly say that to the best of my recollection, the odd little bunch of posters nicknamed the "Fleet Bashers" have never been at WS in the 7 years I've been a member (and Tricia has only owned/been involved with WS for 2/3 years). I applaud her stance in keeping them out because as I've said, every forum they have posted on has been destroyed. The fact is, there is not one shred of evidence to connect Fleet White to the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. Some posters claimed his DNA hadn't been tested/was inconclusive etc but screen captures from the most recent documentaries have proven this to be rubbish.

The vicious gossip about this poor man is absolutely appalling. I've even read a post which states that he should be executed. None of it is based on facts and evidence. It's all "hearsay" and speculation.

[aussiesheila]

In terms of "saying anything against good ol' Fleet": it is true that the WS moderators don't allow FW to be called derogatory names. There is a lot of discussion about FW over there, but you have got to back up your claims with the documented record, for otherwise you' ll be picked apart by people who have done intensive research. Which I think is okay, for otherwise you'll get posting exchanges which resemble more a religious war than a discussion or debate.

Another good thing about WS is that there is such a large number of posters there, and you get to see a wide range of (often very interesting) theories.rashomon, you know I respect you even though I always disagree with you, and here I go again. You may not be aware of this, but I began a thread at Websleuths with a post about Fleet White pulling Linda Arndt aside and telling her that he had previously been down to the cellar and looked inside and did not see JBR.

This was the post:

I think FW was operating under the"Get in first with your version of events" rule and was lying when he said he did not see JBR in the cellar. I think that he did, in fact see the body there and that he went to the cellar specifically for the purpose of checking that it was hidden there; because I think he was the mastermind of the coverup plan which was that JonBenet's body would not be found in the house at all, but in a remote location in the mountains, hopefully not for months later, as the victim of a kidnapping gone wrong. IMO John finding the body in the cellar totally stuffed up that plan. IMO FW's behaviour after the body was found in the house was that of a totally flustered, panicked and frightened person. I think when he told Arndt that he did not see JBR in the cellar he was trying to protect himself. Presumably he had previously told Arndt that he had searched the entire basement when he went down early in the morning and there was no sign of JonBenet. John finding the body in the cellar was disatrous for the kidnapping scenario coverup, IMO and FW had to frantically backtrack over all that he had said and done that morning and make sure that his actions and statements did not conflict with the new situation.


After allowing ten more posts trashing my post none of which were backed up by any documented record other than one of them referrring to the fact that the Whites had been cleared. Tricia then deleted the next two posts which were my polite replies to my critics immediately they were posted and the subsequently deleted the whole thread. This is censorship in my book and I don't think it has any place in a forum that sets itself out to be balanced and open to all points of view.



This was my post that caused her to close the thread :

I don't think FW put the body there, nor do I believe he was ever in the Ramsey house that night. I think he was contacted by telephone by the pedophiles who were there and he instructed them via telephone, to hide the body in the cellar, amongst other things. I think it was part of his plan that the police would never be called, so his plan began to unravel right from the start because Patsy obeyed John and called them. I think he raced down to the basement as soon as he could to check the cellar to see if they had done what he said. I think he did not dare move the body deeper into the corner for fear of leaving incriminating evidence.

That brings me to another point about the use of the telephone that night which I have never posted about before - I think the only calls made that night before the 911 call would have been between the pedophiles that were there at the murder and those involved in the coverup. So if any Ramsey phone records went missing I believe JE and FW were behind it and that they organized it because the records incriminated FW and the pedophiles. Did anyone check to see whether there were any phone records available for the W household? I'll bet there was one to JE at his private residence telling him that if a call about a suspected kidnapping of a 6 year old girl was to come in from a house on Fifteenth St, not to investigate it too closely.



And this was the reply to Nuisanceposter I was trying to post just as the whole thread was deleted (with quotes from Nuisanceposter omitted because I think I am obliged to under forum rules:

(quote omitted)
Nuisanceposter, I refer you to this passage from PMPT:
“…XXXXX XXXXX stormed into Koby's and then Hunter's office and demanded to be publically cleared as a suspect. Hunter said that he had never seen such anger. “We can clear the guy,” Pete Hofstrom suggested to Hunter. “And then later on, if we decide he's not clear, we'll unclear him.” Hunter talked to Koby about XXXXX………..
When Hunter saw a draft of the Boulder PD's intended public statement, however, he objected to the wording. The XXXXX's, he felt, should not be “cleared” of any suspicion, because XXXXX XXXXX's demeanor after JonBenet's murder was still open to interpretation. It mightbetter to use the words “are not suspects” rather that “cleared.” ”

If you take the time to read the actual press statement put out by BPD on April 16 you will find that Hunter's words were used in it and the Ws were only declared “not suspects” as opposed to “cleared” and even that, as you can see from the quote, it was because they demanded it.

(quote omitted)
Yes it was appalling wasn't it? A funeral for a brutally murdered 6 year old girl. And FW was angry!!!!!! What was so important to get angry about that he had to furiously confront the dead girl's grieving father!!!! And at the funeral!!! And in front of all those guests!!!! What possible excuse could there be for this heartless, ugly and disgraceful behaviour? Even if FW thought that the Ramseys should have stayed in Boulder and made themselves available for further questioning, and even if he didn't think they should have hired their own lawyers, did all that really warrant any more than a quiet chat or even a mild, yes even a heated argument with John after the funeral. But no, that was not the way it happened at all.

(quote omitted)
To you maybe, but not to me. To me it looks like the behaviour of a self obsesssed and very worried man. Worried I think, because his original plan for JonBenet's body to be found in the mountains as the victim of a failed kidnapping which would have worked a treat if only John hadn't gone to the cellar and ruined it, had been ruined. I think he was worried sick that John's lawyers would look elsewhere for the perpetrator(s). I think he was frantic that the Ramseys remain the exclusive 'property' of the BPD under Eller, who was the only one he could rely on to keep the investigation focussed on someone at Access Graphics who hated John or, failing that, on the Ramseys themselves.



I don't think any of these posts transgressed the rules of the forum. They were clearly presented as being my own theory, and although speculative, entirely compatible with the observed actions and behaviours exhibited by FW after the murder. Yet at Websleuths these posts were censored IMO, just because they did not present FW as a pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent maligned by those wicked Ramseys.

[bullmoose]

Why remove the duct tape and remaining cord from the house then?
Why not,? in my opinion it was brought in a kit or bag of things the killer/s took with them to do the job of killing Jonbenet and then taken out when they left. He/they wanted to leave as few real clues behind as possible so that the BPD would focus more strongly on the Ramseys. Which, of course, they did.

[aussiesheila]

Fleet White is not discussed at WS? I just entered his name into the search engine and 500 posts showed up.

And what proportion of the 500 is 'anti' Fleet, rashomon? A small and diminishing proportion I would guess and most would be on pages 27 and beyond, lost way downstream and not read by anyone much anymore.

I know Tricia has deleted the "Members' Theories" thread and given a most feeble reason for doing so. I'm wondering what the real reason is for the thread being deleted. It's just that my theory in which FW acts as the coverup mastermind was there and it had a reference to it in Wikipedia.

The thread couldn't have been deleted because of my theory which people who looked up the JonBenet case in Wikipedia could find the reference to it there, could it? It couldn't be that FW still has his finger in the pie, so to speak, could it?

[aussiesheila]

Or does anyone seriously believe that FW sneaked into the Ramsey home at dead of night, snatched JB from her bed, played sex games with her, bashed her head in and then sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table to write a lengthy ransom note in Patsy's handwriting? Give me a break, but that's just plain crazy.I have been around forums (courtTV and previously Websleuths) for almost 2 years and I have NEVER seen any such notion posted. Which makes me believe that no-one seriously believes that. Some of us however, do not believe he is a complete innocent in the whole affair. Most people can't decide just what it is that makes him suspicious, except for me.

I think he had previously sexually abused JonBenet at various times during the previous 3 years and that he masterminded a coverup for OTHER pedophiles who were there the night she was murdered.

[aussiesheila]

Looks like there are at least 2 who think that he might have. I would never have guessed.

[aussiesheila]

As an interested observer of Ramsey Subculture, I can honestly say that to the best of my recollection, the odd little bunch of posters nicknamed the "Fleet Bashers" have never been at WS in the 7 years I've been a member (and Tricia has only owned/been involved with WS for 2/3 years). I applaud her stance in keeping them out because as I've said, every forum they have posted on has been destroyed. The fact is, there is not one shred of evidence to connect Fleet White to the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. Some posters claimed his DNA hadn't been tested/was inconclusive etc but screen captures from the most recent documentaries have proven this to be rubbish.

The vicious gossip about this poor man is absolutely appalling. I've even read a post which states that he should be executed. None of it is based on facts and evidence. It's all "hearsay" and speculation.I don't know who these "Fleet Bashers" are, I've never heard of them and I never saw any evidence of their presence at WS. I suppose I am classed as one of them now. So be it.

Just about everyone who has had anything to do with this case has been the subject of vicious attacks, not least the parents. That's the way it goes when people become public property and the media gets their teeth into them. Perhaps Fleet might not have suffered so much if he had quietly receded into the background like John Fernie did.

I try not to bash but to interpret his post murder behaviour the way I see it, which everyone does also, even those like you who think him totally innocent. You (I mean pro Fleeters) see the same behaviour I do and explain it differently and post about it as well.

I don't care if his DNA or his handwriting were or weren't tested. I wouldn't have expected them to show anything because, if what I think about him is true, he was nowhere near the Ramseys' house at the time of the crime anyway.

[shill]

The vicious gossip about this poor man is absolutely appalling. I've even read a post which states that he should be executed. None of it is based on facts and evidence. It's all "hearsay" and speculation.
I swear when I read this it was a typo and you meant Ramseys instead of Fleet.
It appears the FW bashers are no different then the Ramsey bashers, except the Ramsey bashers are hypocrites.
This post is my twisted opinion.

[Jayelles]

I swear when I read this it was a typo and you meant Ramseys instead of Fleet.
It appears the FW bashers are no different then the Ramsey bashers, except the Ramsey bashers are hypocrites.
This post is my twisted opinion.

Not quite Shill. The difference is that there is NO evidence to link Fleet White to the crime. No evidence which places him in the house at the time of the murder. The Ramseys OTOH, cannot be excluded as suspects. They were in the house, the DNA doesn't exclude them since it may not be the killer's, Patsy cannot be excluded as the writer of the note, they refused interviews and polygraphs..... we all know that these are the reasons why many people (including LE) believe they are involved.

It's not the same. Lou Smit himself said that they had to get the Ramseys OUT of the "bucket", whereas, they'd actually have to try and place Fleet White IN the bucket first.

[Jayelles]

I don't know who these "Fleet Bashers" are, I've never heard of them and I never saw any evidence of their presence at WS. I suppose I am classed as one of them now. So be it.




That's wehat I'm saying - they've never been at WS in my recollection. To the best of my knowledge., WS has always been a Fleet Basher free zone :-) Perhaps that's why it made the essential reading list for university crime course.

[Louisadelmar]

I don't know who these "Fleet Bashers" are, I've never heard of them and I never saw any evidence of their presence at WS. I suppose I am classed as one of them now. So be it.

Just about everyone who has had anything to do with this case has been the subject of vicious attacks, not least the parents. That's the way it goes when people become public property and the media gets their teeth into them. Perhaps Fleet might not have suffered so much if he had quietly receded into the background like John Fernie did.

I try not to bash but to interpret his post murder behaviour the way I see it, which everyone does also, even those like you who think him totally innocent. You (I mean pro Fleeters) see the same behaviour I do and explain it differently and post about it as well.

I don't care if his DNA or his handwriting were or weren't tested. I wouldn't have expected them to show anything because, if what I think about him is true, he was nowhere near the Ramseys' house at the time of the crime anyway.

We also don't know whether their clothes from the night before were ever collected and tested. I suspect not since it took almost a year for BPD to request the Ramsey clothes.

[LindaA]

That's wehat I'm saying - they've never been at WS in my recollection. To the best of my knowledge., WS has always been a Fleet Basher free zone :-) Perhaps that's why it made the essential reading list for university crime course.

D'uh. Of course there are no FW bashers there if they aren't allowed and their posts are deleted.

[Louisadelmar]

D'uh. Of course there are no FW bashers there if they aren't allowed and their posts are deleted.

I think it's hypocritical to allow posters to discuss the idea that Beuf turned a blind eye to child molestation for social reasons or that Patsy's father molested her as a child, and then refuse to allow discussions of FW. There are a number of things he did that were out of the ordinary.

[Zoey]

I think it's hypocritical to allow posters to discuss the idea that Beuf turned a blind eye to child molestation for social reasons or that Patsy's father molested her as a child, and then refuse to allow discussions of FW. There are a number of things he did that were out of the ordinary.


I think Shill said it best:

Bashing Fleet White (or insert anyone that is not a Ramsey) = bad
Bashing Ramseys = good.

That is the reason I don't post on Websleuths. Some of the posters on websleuths and FFJ are just down right mean when it comes to what they have to say about the Ramseys, especially Patsy. I don't want to be a part of that.

[andU]

As an interested observer of Ramsey Subculture, I can honestly say that to the best of my recollection, the odd little bunch of posters nicknamed the "Fleet Bashers" have never been at WS in the 7 years I've been a member (and Tricia has only owned/been involved with WS for 2/3 years). I applaud her stance in keeping them out because as I've said, every forum they have posted on has been destroyed. The fact is, there is not one shred of evidence to connect Fleet White to the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. Some posters claimed his DNA hadn't been tested/was inconclusive etc but screen captures from the most recent documentaries have proven this to be rubbish.

The vicious gossip about this poor man is absolutely appalling. I've even read a post which states that he should be executed. None of it is based on facts and evidence. It's all "hearsay" and speculation.


Really? I have suspicion the reason his and hers interview/depos have been sealed, of course, he asked for it to be. He does have a pedofile hx.... and if the Ramsey's can be guilty until proven innocent, why can't dear old Fleet?

[Jayelles]

D'uh. Of course there are no FW bashers there if they aren't allowed and their posts are deleted.

(Duh). Perhaps you didn't read (or understand) my earlier post. Tricia has only owned WS for a couple of years. River had it for at least 5 years prior to that. I acknowledge that Tricia doesn't welcome the Fleet Bashers these days, but River had no particular stance that I am aware of and she didn't have to ban the FBs or delete their posts because they simply weren't there. Websleuths has always seemed to attract a superior quality of poster :-)

[Jayelles]

I think it's hypocritical to allow posters to discuss the idea that Beuf turned a blind eye to child molestation for social reasons or that Patsy's father molested her as a child, and then refuse to allow discussions of FW. There are a number of things he did that were out of the ordinary.


Deary me! Accusing someone of being incompetent at their job is hardly on the same scale as accusing someone of paedophilia and murder!

[LindaA]

(Duh). Websleuths has always seemed to attract a superior quality of poster :-)
Oh puh-leeze!! Give me a break!

[Jayelles]

Really? I have suspicion the reason his and hers interview/depos have been sealed, of course, he asked for it to be. He does have a pedofile hx.... and if the Ramsey's can be guilty until proven innocent, why can't dear old Fleet?


If you read the Ramsey interviews and depos, you will see that they too were of the understanding that their testimonies were to be sealed. I think the decision to unseal a depo is taken by a judge - not by the interviewee. I don't think Fleet White is on any sex offender list.

[LindaA]

If you read the Ramsey interviews and depos, you will see that they too were of the understanding that their testimonies were to be sealed. I think the decision to unseal a depo is taken by a judge - not by the interviewee. I don't think Fleet White is on any sex offender list.

He wouldn't be unless he had been convicted of same.

[Louisadelmar]

Deary me! Accusing someone of being incompetent at their job is hardly on the same scale as accusing someone of paedophilia and murder!

No, that woujd be accusing him of breaking the law as would accusing Patsy's father of child molestation.

[Louisadelmar]

If you read the Ramsey interviews and depos, you will see that they too were of the understanding that their testimonies were to be sealed. I think the decision to unseal a depo is taken by a judge - not by the interviewee. I don't think Fleet White is on any sex offender list.

I think it varies. As you will recall Thomas (the interviewee) fought to keep his depo sealed but, as you say, a judge ultimately decided to unseal most of it.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1965510,00.html

Thomas testified in a libel suit against the Ramseys, and he has fought to keep the deposition sealed. The presiding federal judge repeatedly refused requests to seal testimony related to Thomas' contact with journalists covering the case.

On the other hand Lou Smit's is still sealed. I wonder if anyone has asked recently to have any of these depos unsealed. It would have to be a newspaper or someone with deep pockets as it can get expensive.

[andU]

(Duh). Perhaps you didn't read (or understand) my earlier post. Tricia has only owned WS for a couple of years. River had it for at least 5 years prior to that. I acknowledge that Tricia doesn't welcome the Fleet Bashers these days, but River had no particular stance that I am aware of and she didn't have to ban the FBs or delete their posts because they simply weren't there. Websleuths has always seemed to attract a superior quality of poster :-)

IF they are RDI!

[Jayelles]

IF they are RDI!


Hardly. I'm not RDI and I've been a member there for 7 years. I like Websleuths because there is a good mix of posters and yet the atmosphere is non-threatening. There is seldom any nastiness and if there is, it is soon stopped.

WS also has a distinguished membership and readership.

[bullmoose]

Hardly. I'm not RDI and I've been a member there for 7 years. I like Websleuths because there is a good mix of posters and yet the atmosphere is non-threatening. There is seldom any nastiness and if there is, it is soon stopped.

WS also has a distinguished membership and readership.I don't want to sound too jaded, but IMO the post I just read sounds like a recruiting ad for Websleuths, I've been to the site, its okay but IMO an RDI haven; as to having a distinguished membership and readership; that IMO is a claim that smacks of self-adulation by the claimant. I would say of this site that it is distinguished by the variety of posters and[I suppose] readers; but thats all I'd claim.

[Jayelles]

I don't want to sound too jaded, but IMO the post I just read sounds like a recruiting ad for Websleuths, I've been to the site, its okay but IMO an RDI haven;

I never recruit (that would be jameson). No, my comment was in response to and defence of earlier derogatory comments against WS. However, there are a couple of learned and polite posters here who would fit in well at WS.

as to having a distinguished membership and readership; that IMO is a claim that smacks of self-adulation by the claimant.

Thank you, but I don't consider myself in the least distinguished. There are far bigger fish at WS than I.

[bullmoose]

I never recruit (that would be jameson). No, my comment was in response to and defence of earlier derogatory comments against WS. However, there are a couple of learned and polite posters here who would fit in well at WS.



Thank you, but I don't consider myself in the least distinguished. There are far bigger fish at WS than I.I didn't mean to imply that you were putting on any airs; far from it, I may or may not agree with your posts but I enjoy them as being valid opinions.

[shill]

To the best of my knowledge., WS has always been a Fleet Basher free zone :-)Perhaps that's why it made the essential reading list for university crime course.

I've been thinking about taking some courses about criminology and would be interested if you know the comic book that would have the Universities information?

[Jayelles]

I've been thinking about taking some courses about criminology and would be interested if you know the comic book that would have the Universities information?

I'm afraid you'll have to raise your reading level above comic books if you are serious about furthering your education.

[bullmoose]

I'm afraid you'll have to raise your reading level above comic books if you are serious about furthering your education.I don't think you understood the joke, Jayelles; you see extremely dubious 'university training' is very often advertised in comic books as a way to get a degree for a fee, here in the US. What I think shill was doing was to, in effect to infer that perhaps the distinguished posters over at WS had gotten their sheepskins[diplomas] from just such a mechinism and were perhaps not quite such quality.But this JMHO.:biggrin:

[Jayelles]

I don't think you understood the joke, Jayelles; you see extremely dubious 'university training' is very often advertised in comic books as a way to get a degree for a fee, here in the US. What I think shill was doing was to, in effect to infer that perhaps the distinguished posters over at WS had gotten their sheepskins[diplomas] from just such a mechinism and were perhaps not quite such quality.But this JMHO.:biggrin:

I think YOU didn't get the joke Bullmoose ;-)

[shill]

I think YOU didn't get the joke Bullmoose ;-)

That's because mine was funny and yours just made you sound like a nerdy dork!

[Jayelles]

That's because mine was funny and yours just made you sound like a nerdy dork!

Ooh! Name calling. We know what THAT says about a person!

[shill]

Ooh! Name calling. We know what THAT says about a person!

Yes we do, it says you're a nerdy dork! You are what you are.

If I knew you personally I might insult you to make my self feel better, but that's not the case.
I'm actually holding back from telling you what an idiot you are, but you already know that or you wouldn't be looking for validation on these blog sites.

[zippo]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

Createthis, I totally understand what you are saying here, but what you need to understand is that not everyone is like you.

I agree that the Ramseys appear normal, but imho they are wolves in sheep's clothing. You simply cannot judge a book by its cover. I remember first reading about the Ted Bundy crimes and how people were so incredulous that this handsome, intelligent law student could do anything so dispicable. :cuss: Why would he abduct and rape women? He could get any girl he wanted! But the reality is that he did commit horrible offences. No one seems to be able to understand why.

You cannot judge a criminal's acts based on what you would have done. I too find it hard to believe that many criminals do what they do. You simply can;t relate to it and that is probably because you are normal. Many of these people are not.


Z

[bullmoose]

Createthis, I totally understand what you are saying here, but what you need to understand is that not everyone is like you.

I agree that the Ramseys appear normal, but imho they are wolves in sheep's clothing. You simply cannot judge a book by its cover. I remember first reading about the Ted Bundy crimes and how people were so incredulous that this handsome, intelligent law student could do anything so dispicable. :cuss: Why would he abduct and rape women? He could get any girl he wanted! But the reality is that he did commit horrible offences. No one seems to be able to understand why.

You cannot judge a criminal's acts based on what you would have done. I too find it hard to believe that many criminals do what they do. You simply can;t relate to it and that is probably because you are normal. Many of these people are not.


ZTed Bundy is an interesting case, to me; one of his high school buddies was editor of my local paper some years back and wrote a few tortured editorials about Ted. He grew up with the guy;he had never seen a glimpse of the Sociopathic personality that inhabited Bundy. But, to me he just never looked for what is hard to spot for normal people; they look just like everybody else, thats how they hide. An interesting show was on cable last fall, called Dexter, about a serial killer; the writers got it right, he would have to search for facial expressions to fit different situations. Emotions,as you or I would know them, do not come natural to such creatures, its all a pose. Thats one reason Bundy was so interesting to me; the intelligent law student persona was just one of his many poses;he wasn't really all that smart, IQ wise and he was a failed student; but he played the part well. No one knows how high his body count was, I live near I-90, less than 400 miles from where he lived and I am certain he came out from Seattle this far; some of the missing women along this roadway through the middle seventies that have never been accounted for are probably his victims.The Ramseys never showed any sign of having sociopathic personalities, IMO. The BPD never turned up any signs of that, no pornography on their computers,nothing. Something I read to look for in a person thats a sociopath is that when photographed or filmed you can spot a condition called deadface, where the person has no expression of any kind; it was spooky when I read of it, but the next time I saw footage of Bundy, there it was. Or a funny smirky look thats out of context, which is what they show when they don't know what facial expression to put on. If you ever see the film clip of Oswalds murder by Ruby, Oswald had that expression right before he was shot. How I run on! Anyways, I never saw, in all the footage of John and Patsy I watched, any sign of deadface. Their story stayed the same. Anyhow, this is JMHO.

[thewhitewitch1]

Ted Bundy is an interesting case, to me; one of his high school buddies was editor of my local paper some years back and wrote a few tortured editorials about Ted. He grew up with the guy;he had never seen a glimpse of the Sociopathic personality that inhabited Bundy. But, to me he just never looked for what is hard to spot for normal people; they look just like everybody else, thats how they hide. An interesting show was on cable last fall, called Dexter, about a serial killer; the writers got it right, he would have to search for facial expressions to fit different situations. Emotions,as you or I would know them, do not come natural to such creatures, its all a pose. Thats one reason Bundy was so interesting to me; the intelligent law student persona was just one of his many poses;he wasn't really all that smart, IQ wise and he was a failed student; but he played the part well. No one knows how high his body count was, I live near I-90, less than 400 miles from where he lived and I am certain he came out from Seattle this far; some of the missing women along this roadway through the middle seventies that have never been accounted for are probably his victims.The Ramseys never showed any sign of having sociopathic personalities, IMO. The BPD never turned up any signs of that, no pornography on their computers,nothing. Something I read to look for in a person thats a sociopath is that when photographed or filmed you can spot a condition called deadface, where the person has no expression of any kind; it was spooky when I read of it, but the next time I saw footage of Bundy, there it was. Or a funny smirky look thats out of context, which is what they show when they don't know what facial expression to put on. If you ever see the film clip of Oswalds murder by Ruby, Oswald had that expression right before he was shot. How I run on! Anyways, I never saw, in all the footage of John and Patsy I watched, any sign of deadface. Their story stayed the same. Anyhow, this is JMHO.


I'm not sure if it is what you describe as a "smirky face" but John Ramsey often appears to have a smirk on his face. IMO

[bullmoose]

I'm not sure if it is what you describe as a "smirky face" but John Ramsey often appears to have a smirk on his face. IMOLOL!! No, its not the same thing. I knew as soon as I posted you were likely to tell me that. I'm sure that I can spot the phenomena quite well, but when I point out what I'm sure I'm spotting on TV, my wife suggests a visit to the optometrist is in order. So maybe my imagination is overactive on the subject, my wife has suggested at times that I'm suffering from terminal derangement and delusions of grandeur. She's wrong, I wear the Napoleonic hat because its comfortable.JMHO:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

LOL!! No, its not the same thing. I knew as soon as I posted you were likely to tell me that. I'm sure that I can spot the phenomena quite well, but when I point out what I'm sure I'm spotting on TV, my wife suggests a visit to the optometrist is in order. So maybe my imagination is overactive on the subject, my wife has suggested at times that I'm suffering from terminal derangement and delusions of grandeur. She's wrong, I wear the Napoleonic hat because its comfortable.JMHO:biggrin:


Bullmoose, sometimes you are a bit of a butthead but I really do enjoy your posts and your sense of humor. :D

[Sharon]

Ted Bundy is an interesting case, to me; one of his high school buddies was editor of my local paper some years back and wrote a few tortured editorials about Ted. He grew up with the guy;he had never seen a glimpse of the Sociopathic personality that inhabited Bundy. But, to me he just never looked for what is hard to spot for normal people; they look just like everybody else, thats how they hide. An interesting show was on cable last fall, called Dexter, about a serial killer; the writers got it right, he would have to search for facial expressions to fit different situations. Emotions,as you or I would know them, do not come natural to such creatures, its all a pose. Thats one reason Bundy was so interesting to me; the intelligent law student persona was just one of his many poses;he wasn't really all that smart, IQ wise and he was a failed student; but he played the part well. No one knows how high his body count was, I live near I-90, less than 400 miles from where he lived and I am certain he came out from Seattle this far; some of the missing women along this roadway through the middle seventies that have never been accounted for are probably his victims.The Ramseys never showed any sign of having sociopathic personalities, IMO. The BPD never turned up any signs of that, no pornography on their computers,nothing. Something I read to look for in a person thats a sociopath is that when photographed or filmed you can spot a condition called deadface, where the person has no expression of any kind; it was spooky when I read of it, but the next time I saw footage of Bundy, there it was. Or a funny smirky look thats out of context, which is what they show when they don't know what facial expression to put on. If you ever see the film clip of Oswalds murder by Ruby, Oswald had that expression right before he was shot. How I run on! Anyways, I never saw, in all the footage of John and Patsy I watched, any sign of deadface. Their story stayed the same. Anyhow, this is JMHO.

Thanks for writing this Bullmoose. I tend to agree with your analysis.

Im always thinking about how the R. could have done it and this theory can only make sense to me if they are off the planet phsycotic...and I mean a 10 out of 1-10.

To have actually garroted their own daughter and dont forget the forsefull head smash....well, it seems so opposite to what comes naturally to normal parents. It really defies all logic & imagination.

I know parents do commit such attrocities. But arent these types subsequently found to have reasons that explain it to the rest of society.I mean, dont the actions of parent murderers usually make sense when the individuals are studied & or interigated? (Well, make sense according to what we know about human nature).

If it came out that one or both parents fit into the phsycotic mould, then I will certainly find it easy to entertain the thought that they could do it. Otherwise this is too similar to the Lindsay Dingo case, where everyone believed that this normal mother had butchered her baby with no motive. She was wrongly convicted too & sent to jail. Maybe she didnt have the money to stay out of jail correctly!!!

[bullmoose]

Thanks for writing this Bullmoose. I tend to agree with your analysis.

Im always thinking about how the R. could have done it and this theory can only make sense to me if they are off the planet phsycotic...and I mean a 10 out of 1-10.

To have actually garroted their own daughter and dont forget the forsefull head smash....well, it seems so opposite to what comes naturally to normal parents. It really defies all logic & imagination.

I know parents do commit such attrocities. But arent these types subsequently found to have reasons that explain it to the rest of society.I mean, dont the actions of parent murderers usually make sense when the individuals are studied & or interigated? (Well, make sense according to what we know about human nature).

If it came out that one or both parents fit into the phsycotic mould, then I will certainly find it easy to entertain the thought that they could do it. Otherwise this is too similar to the Lindsay Dingo case, where everyone believed that this normal mother had butchered her baby with no motive. She was wrongly convicted too & sent to jail. Maybe she didnt have the money to stay out of jail correctly!!!I think I'm going to wax philosophically here, but it has always seemed to me in truly strange cases like this, that the cops latch onto the nearest person or people to the crime and try their best to pin it on them, rather than face the possibility that they have an Alien Abduction Case on their hands. I don't mean that literally, but it might as well be, so much of this case has been that strange and contradictory, from the start. If the parents of Jonbenet were in any way responsible for her fractured skull, which many RDI's think, it was an accident or whatever, but not murder. IMHO, to then go through with her strangulation and abuse would put her parents on a 10 on the sociopath scale; but even if they were, they were intelligent people; why in the world would they have called the BPD at ten to six, instead of disposing the body?. I don't buy it at all, in the intense scrutiny their lives then came under, some kind of pattern should have appeared, as it did with Ted Bundy. But it didn't; how could the Ramseys explain what had happened if they didn't know? The BPD, from the start was using the media to turn public opinion against the Ramseys, no doubt thinking the pressure would get someone to do a deal, or to snitch off on the other, but it didn't work. They were out of their league, they had made a conclusion on the case and tried to make the facts fit their conclusion, pounding that square peg, trying to make it fit. Did the BPD's gross incompetence make that much difference? I sort of doubt it, Bundy's game only started to collapse when stopped on a hunch by a cop in Utah, where he was supposedly going to law school, and burglary tools were found in his car.He had been on killing sprees in Oregon,Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado by then, but that's what was pretty well proven later. The college setting was a perfect hideout for him, both to live in and to seek victims from. CU was only a mile or two away in Boulder, I keep coming back to the idea of a college student, all that free time, especially at the holidays to look for places to hit or rob. And then in a college town, the invisibility factor, college students are nearly invisible to local people. I guess if I had to make a guess as to where the killer came from, thats where I'd pick. Everyone knows that most murder victims have some connection to their killers; but not always, and those are the cases that don't get solved; or worse, as is proven by DNA testing, innocent people are convicted and sent to prison or even death row. And because of my own experience with cops I have personal knowledge that they will lie under oath as easily as a fish breathes underwater,effortlessly and continuously. IMO, there are at least as many sociopathic cops in ratio to the general population as there are in the general population, maybe more.JMHO

[Athena]

Not quite Shill. The difference is that there is NO evidence to link Fleet White to the crime. No evidence which places him in the house at the time of the murder. The Ramseys OTOH, cannot be excluded as suspects. They were in the house, the DNA doesn't exclude them since it may not be the killer's, Patsy cannot be excluded as the writer of the note, they refused interviews and polygraphs..... we all know that these are the reasons why many people (including LE) believe they are involved.

It's not the same. Lou Smit himself said that they had to get the Ramseys OUT of the "bucket", whereas, they'd actually have to try and place Fleet White IN the bucket first.

There's no evidence to not link FW to the crime either. His records are sealed, his letters re: a special prosecutor ramble on just like the ransom note yet he gets slapped with contempt of court for the same disrespect he claims the DA had, he has meetings with ST where according to ST's own depo there are no notes, he moves broken glass from the floor, moves the suitcase and we don't know what else because that is the limited info from his depo. After JR comes up with JBRs body he goes back into the wine cellar and lifts up the duct tape and then lays it on the blanket. Why? Then 10 years later ST appears on Greta and says "I've never told anyone this before, but FW may have even open the window". His behavior was dispicable during the funeral. One who has issues with grieving parents could have at least waited until after the funeral was over - major disrespect no matter what the reason. FW wanted copies of his interview prior to the GJ and became very upset that he couldn't get them. We don't know anything about FW prior to his move to Boulder and still very little. In post below you say you "think" he was never on a sex offender list - but you don't "Know" that. None of us do.

If he didn't know anything more about the murder he plain as day IMO certainly let ST manipulate him.

I actually read on some investigator's website in England that he not only thought FW's handwriting and language from his letters matched the ransom note he even thought his wife was involved in the killing. I had posted links to his site months before so some from here may remember that from CTV but since then his website has totally been disbanded so I will have to say JMO. In one of the interviews, Wood mentions to one of the interrogators -- (will have to search to find which one), that he received a package of someone's handwriting and that is the last I heard about it.

If anyone wants to call that "Fleet" bashing be my guest. I see as the only facts that are available.

[rashomon]

I'm not sure if it is what you describe as a "smirky face" but John Ramsey often appears to have a smirk on his face. IMO
Absolutely! I remember posts where people have pointed out that he looks like the cat which just ate the canary ...

[Athena]

I'm not sure if it is what you describe as a "smirky face" but John Ramsey often appears to have a smirk on his face. IMO

Like President Bush.

[Jayelles]

There's no evidence to not link FW to the crime either. His records are sealed, his letters re: a special prosecutor ramble on just like the ransom note yet he gets slapped with contempt of court for the same disrespect he claims the DA had, he has meetings with ST where according to ST's own depo there are no notes, he moves broken glass from the floor, moves the suitcase and we don't know what else because that is the limited info from his depo. After JR comes up with JBRs body he goes back into the wine cellar and lifts up the duct tape and then lays it on the blanket. Why? Then 10 years later ST appears on Greta and says "I've never told anyone this before, but FW may have even open the window". His behavior was dispicable during the funeral. One who has issues with grieving parents could have at least waited until after the funeral was over - major disrespect no matter what the reason. FW wanted copies of his interview prior to the GJ and became very upset that he couldn't get them. We don't know anything about FW prior to his move to Boulder and still very little. In post below you say you "think" he was never on a sex offender list - but you don't "Know" that. None of us do.

If he didn't know anything more about the murder he plain as day IMO certainly let ST manipulate him.

I actually read on some investigator's website in England that he not only thought FW's handwriting and language from his letters matched the ransom note he even thought his wife was involved in the killing. I had posted links to his site months before so some from here may remember that from CTV but since then his website has totally been disbanded so I will have to say JMO. In one of the interviews, Wood mentions to one of the interrogators -- (will have to search to find which one), that he received a package of someone's handwriting and that is the last I heard about it.

If anyone wants to call that "Fleet" bashing be my guest. I see as the only facts that are available.

Well he might well seem like an odd duck but there certainly isn't a scrap of evidence which would convict him of any crimes! I prefer to work with real evidence. I'm glad the law works that way too.

The "detective" in England you are referring to isn't a detective at all - he's a flake. His credentials were completely false and he had no connections with Law Enforcement at all. The Metropolitan Police said they asked hm to remove those credentials from his website. Later, as you say, his website was taken down completely. He was also investigated for sending fraudulent e-mails pretending to be a lawyer (who was a real person).

You'll still find your "detective" on other websites though - there is one webpage showing how he discovered John Lennon's face on a stone wall.

Rumour has it that he may currently be working as a guide on tourist ghost walks but some people think that he is posting as Henrietta McPhee at Topix.

[bullmoose]

Well he might well seem like an odd duck but there certainly isn't a scrap of evidence which would convict him of any crimes! I prefer to work with real evidence. I'm glad the law works that way too.

The "detective" in England you are referring to isn't a detective at all - he's a flake. His credentials were completely false and he had no connections with Law Enforcement at all. The Metropolitan Police said they asked hm to remove those credentials from his website. Later, as you say, his website was taken down completely. He was also investigated for sending fraudulent e-mails pretending to be a lawyer (who was a real person).

You'll still find your "detective" on other websites though - there is one webpage showing how he discovered John Lennon's face on a stone wall.

Rumour has it that he may currently be working as a guide on tourist ghost walks but some people think that he is posting as Henrietta McPhee at Topix.I haven't seen any evidence to convict FW of any crimes; I haven't seen any evidence to convict a Ramsey of any crimes, either. They were all with Jonbenet the night she was killed and the morning she was found; however proximity does not equate to guilt, in any case. As you stated so well, the law works with evidence. That is why no one has been even indicted; there is a dearth of evidence linking anyone to the crime strongly enough even to indict, much less convict.JMHO

[Athena]

Well he might well seem like an odd duck but there certainly isn't a scrap of evidence which would convict him of any crimes! I prefer to work with real evidence. I'm glad the law works that way too.

The "detective" in England you are referring to isn't a detective at all - he's a flake. His credentials were completely false and he had no connections with Law Enforcement at all. The Metropolitan Police said they asked hm to remove those credentials from his website. Later, as you say, his website was taken down completely. He was also investigated for sending fraudulent e-mails pretending to be a lawyer (who was a real person).

You'll still find your "detective" on other websites though - there is one webpage showing how he discovered John Lennon's face on a stone wall.

Rumour has it that he may currently be working as a guide on tourist ghost walks but some people think that he is posting as Henrietta McPhee at Topix.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same site. This site was hosted by a investigative forensic scientist who also had other crimes on the site such as Jack The Ripper, Lizzie Borden and other unsolved crimes. Those remained but the JonBenet synopsis was removed shortly after 2001 but her name was still listed and under her name there was a statement that said due to an ongoing investigation this information has been removed. Now the entire website is gone. I am trying to find archived links but so far no luck but I know it was still up just a couple of months ago because I posted it at CTV. I just can't for the life of me remember what the heck his name was.

I understand what you are saying about real evidence but that is exactly how I feel about the Ramseys. They may have done it but the evidence does not prove this and FW has just as much chance of having done it as they do. There is not too much documentation available on FW so we don't know. However, beleiving in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, neither FW nor the Ramseys are guilty of any crime.

Funny how the Ramseys have been tried and convicted by the public primarily based upon their behavior and FW gets a free pass yet he exhibited the very behavior that one can call suspicios - and "me thinks he doth protesteth too much" JMO

[rashomon]

I haven't seen any evidence to convict FW of any crimes; I haven't seen any evidence to convict a Ramsey of any crimes, either. They were all with Jonbenet the night she was killed and the morning she was found; however proximity does not equate to guilt, in any case. As you stated so well, the law works with evidence. That is why no one has been even indicted; there is a dearth of evidence linking anyone to the crime strongly enough even to indict, much less convict.JMHO
Don't lump FW and the Ramseys together in the whole time line:
JB was that the Whites' party on that evening, but on the night JB was killed, while her whole family was present the home, FW was not there from the time they arrived home until they called him over.

[Sprocket]

You at least need to find some evidence that puts Fleet in the house, at the time of the murder. Ya haven't done that as far as I can see.

[andU]

Which puts us right back to the same answer to many RDI comments: We don't have access to all of the evidence nor do we have access to Fleet's depo... so, of course, we cannot provide it. Just as no one can provide enough evidence to convict the Ramsey's.

[Zoey]

You at least need to find some evidence that puts Fleet in the house, at the time of the murder. Ya haven't done that as far as I can see.


I don't think for even one minute that the public has been given information on all the evidence, so IMO, Fleet is just as suspicious as anyone else.

[bullmoose]

I don't think for even one minute that the public has been given information on all the evidence, so IMO, Fleet is just as suspicious as anyone else. I think it is safe to say that although his breakfast buddy, Synthroid Stevie, gave a green light to Fleet[what a pal!] and the BPD said he was cleared as a suspect that he remains in reality under that umbrella of suspician for the rest of his life if the case goes unsolved.No matter what anybody says, his presence at the crime scene and his behavior ever since is strange ;and I have to say it---suspicious. Like everyone else
involved in the case, he is IMO as good a suspect as everybody else.JMHO

[Jayelles]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same site. This site was hosted by a investigative forensic scientist who also had other crimes on the site such as Jack The Ripper, Lizzie Borden and other unsolved crimes. Those remained but the JonBenet synopsis was removed shortly after 2001 but her name was still listed and under her name there was a statement that said due to an ongoing investigation this information has been removed. Now the entire website is gone. I am trying to find archived links but so far no luck but I know it was still up just a couple of months ago because I posted it at CTV. I just can't for the life of me remember what the heck his name was.

I understand what you are saying about real evidence but that is exactly how I feel about the Ramseys. They may have done it but the evidence does not prove this and FW has just as much chance of having done it as they do. There is not too much documentation available on FW so we don't know. However, beleiving in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, neither FW nor the Ramseys are guilty of any crime.

Funny how the Ramseys have been tried and convicted by the public primarily based upon their behavior and FW gets a free pass yet he exhibited the very behavior that one can call suspicios - and "me thinks he doth protesteth too much" JMO

Yes, you have confirmed that we are talking about exactly the same site. There was no "investigative forensic scientist", just a fanciful amateur who specialised in the bizarre eg ghost stories, John Lennon's face on a wall... Someone whose cv has taken numerous twists and turns over the years. Not so much a distinguished detective than an armchair detective and one who got a considerable number of his facts wrong at that. When he was exposed as the charlatan he was, he wrote a letter to one of the boards pretending to be a respectable english lawyer, but someone checked it out (the address and phone number were "slightly" wrong, but the lawyer was tracked down nevertheless and surprise, surprise, he didn't know anything about it!).

Your "detective" has a colleague and he is what he claims to be - a supernatural detective. He investigates ghost stories, hosts a forum about the supernatural and he has written ghost story books too. He takes an occasional interest in crime, but the supernatural is his prime interest.

Interestingly, there is a news article online regarding someone of the same name as your detective. It describes how he was arrested for being a confidence trickster - he was pretending to be a duke or something. The detective however has simply disappeared. As I say, there are numerous people who believe that he is still following the case online under the hat Henrietta McPhee at Topix.

[Jayelles]

Yes, you have confirmed that we are talking about exactly the same site. There was no "investigative forensic scientist", just a fanciful amateur who specialised in the bizarre eg ghost stories, John Lennon's face on a wall... Someone whose cv has taken numerous twists and turns over the years. Not so much a distinguished detective than an armchair detective and one who got a considerable number of his facts wrong at that. When he was exposed as the charlatan he was, he wrote a letter to one of the boards pretending to be a respectable english lawyer, but someone checked it out (the address and phone number were "slightly" wrong, but the lawyer was tracked down nevertheless and surprise, surprise, he didn't know anything about it!).

Your "detective" has a colleague and he is what he claims to be - a supernatural detective. He investigates ghost stories, hosts a forum about the supernatural and he has written ghost story books too. He takes an occasional interest in crime, but the supernatural is his prime interest.

Interestingly, there is a news article online regarding someone of the same name as your detective. It describes how he was arrested for being a confidence trickster - he was pretending to be a duke or something. The detective however has simply disappeared. As I say, there are numerous people who believe that he is still following the case online under the hat Henrietta McPhee at Topix.

I should probably make a correction to my above post - we actually have no proof that it was the detective himself who wrote the letter pretending to be the respectable lawyer. I suppose it could have been an associate. What we do know is that the letter which claimed to be from the detective's lawyer was fake.

Not what you'd expect from a distinguished criminlogist or investigative foresensic scientist! Nor would you expect such an individual to display false credentials on his website or give the false impression that he had links to the FBI. Scotland Yard or the Metropolitan Police!

[Jayelles]

I understand what you are saying about real evidence but that is exactly how I feel about the Ramseys. They may have done it but the evidence does not prove this and FW has just as much chance of having done it as they do. There is not too much documentation available on FW so we don't know. However, beleiving in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, neither FW nor the Ramseys are guilty of any crime.

Funny how the Ramseys have been tried and convicted by the public primarily based upon their behavior and FW gets a free pass yet he exhibited the very behavior that one can call suspicios - and "me thinks he doth protesteth too much" JMO


You are wrong - there is not just as much chance of having done it as the Ramseys. The Ramseys were known to have been in the house which adds much more weight to them as suspects. You would have to place any other suspect IN the house - that is the most basic of necessities in solving the case. There is no evidence to place Fleet White in the house at the time of the murder.

I have your detective's Fleet White theory saved and it's the biggest load of garbage I've ever read. It claims that Fleet had a key cut for the Ramsey house months before the murder (no eveidence to back that up). It claims he purchased new clothes to wear whilst committing the murder (absolutely no evidence to back it up). It sums up with what he seems to think is the most damning evidence against Fleet White of all - john Ramsey being quoted as saying that Fleet knew how to tie knots.

Nuff said. No wonder the page was taken down! If you search on the Internet for information about your detective, the glowing reviews of his work all have the same familiar ring to them :-) I think he should stick to looking for John Lennon's face in unusual objects.

[Athena]

You are wrong - there is not just as much chance of having done it as the Ramseys. The Ramseys were known to have been in the house which adds much more weight to them as suspects. You would have to place any other suspect IN the house - that is the most basic of necessities in solving the case. There is no evidence to place Fleet White in the house at the time of the murder.

I have your detective's Fleet White theory saved and it's the biggest load of garbage I've ever read. It claims that Fleet had a key cut for the Ramsey house months before the murder (no eveidence to back that up). It claims he purchased new clothes to wear whilst committing the murder (absolutely no evidence to back it up). It sums up with what he seems to think is the most damning evidence against Fleet White of all - john Ramsey being quoted as saying that Fleet knew how to tie knots.

Nuff said. No wonder the page was taken down! If you search on the Internet for information about your detective, the glowing reviews of his work all have the same familiar ring to them :-) I think he should stick to looking for John Lennon's face in unusual objects.

I honestly do not remember anything about the site being supernatural especially being the skeptic I am. I also do not recall reading anything about what you quoted above. I did not see anything about John Lennon. His analysis was basically all about handwriting analysis and what he believed the language of FW's letter and the ransom note had in common and what role Paticia may have had in it. I also don't recall any links to a "partner" on the website supernatural or otherwise. And because I can't prove anything since the website is down I will have to put this to rest on my part. :confused:

[Jayelles]

I honestly do not remember anything about the site being supernatural especially being the skeptic I am. I also do not recall reading anything about what you quoted above. I did not see anything about John Lennon. His analysis was basically all about handwriting analysis and what he believed the language of FW's letter and the ransom note had in common and what role Paticia may have had in it. I also don't recall any links to a "partner" on the website supernatural or otherwise. And because I can't prove anything since the website is down I will have to put this to rest on my part. :confused:

Granted - there was nothing about the supernatural or about John Lennon's face on the website you described. They were on other sites owned by the same people. (which linked to the site you remember).

You said above that he investigated other cases such as Lizzie Borden and jack the Ripper m I have the webpage saved and you are describing it perfectly - including the dead link to the JonBenet case. Actually, that site didn't get deleted. It only moved. It's still online (minus the credentials which impressed the Fleet Bashers so much funnily enough :D)

The detective and/or his partner joined another forum and I think the hat that was used was Nemesis or something very similar (I'm an Agatha Christie fan and that name is sticking in my mind). It wasn't entirely clear whether Nemesis (?) was speaking in the first person singular, second person singular or first person plural. It was confusing. They/he announced that the Ramsey case had been solved and that they/he would be naming the killer on some other website.

I also found your previous post about the person here on Crimelibrary so I know we ARE talking about the same site Athena :-)

If you google his name along with John Lennon, you'll find his supernatural stuff. It's the kind of stuff we'd see in the Daily Star along with "Double Decker Bus found on Moon" and "I gave birth to an Alien".

I'm going to debunk his ridiculous and baseless theory at FFJ so you might be interested to look out for it there.

[Jayelles]

His webpage never contained an analysis of the note. He only said he HAD analysed the note and that he would reveal his analysis in court if Fleet White ever dared to meet him there.

Here's something for you to think about. Your "Detective" wrote his theory and published it on the web to the delight of the Fleet Bashers. However, it was so jammed packed full or glaring errors and fantastic suppositions as to be completely embarassing for any thinking person to read.

For instance, he claimed that the Whites lived at 733 15th Street. They didn't. They llived 5/6 minutes drive from the Ramseys according to John Ramsey.

Go to this website here:-

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?q=15th+St,+Boulder,+Colorado&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title

Type 755 15th St into the search box and see where the arrow points to. Then type 733 15th St into the search box and see how much the arrow moves, Had the Whites lived where the "detective" claimed they lived, the Ramseys would have walked to their home on Christmas Day. They wouldn't have bundled the kids into the car and stopped off at other friends' homes "en route" back from the Whites'.

[andU]

I think it is safe to say that although his breakfast buddy, Synthroid Stevie, gave a green light to Fleet[what a pal!] and the BPD said he was cleared as a suspect that he remains in reality under that umbrella of suspician for the rest of his life if the case goes unsolved.No matter what anybody says, his presence at the crime scene and his behavior ever since is strange ;and I have to say it---suspicious. Like everyone else
involved in the case, he is IMO as good a suspect as everybody else.JMHO


Here! Here! ... I don't drink, so I won't add the little icon, but I would surely shake your hand if I could reach ya!

[Athena]

Granted - there was nothing about the supernatural or about John Lennon's face on the website you described. They were on other sites owned by the same people. (which linked to the site you remember).

You said above that he investigated other cases such as Lizzie Borden and jack the Ripper m I have the webpage saved and you are describing it perfectly - including the dead link to the JonBenet case. Actually, that site didn't get deleted. It only moved. It's still online (minus the credentials which impressed the Fleet Bashers so much funnily enough :D)

The detective and/or his partner joined another forum and I think the hat that was used was Nemesis or something very similar (I'm an Agatha Christie fan and that name is sticking in my mind). It wasn't entirely clear whether Nemesis (?) was speaking in the first person singular, second person singular or first person plural. It was confusing. They/he announced that the Ramsey case had been solved and that they/he would be naming the killer on some other website.

I also found your previous post about the person here on Crimelibrary so I know we ARE talking about the same site Athena :-)

If you google his name along with John Lennon, you'll find his supernatural stuff. It's the kind of stuff we'd see in the Daily Star along with "Double Decker Bus found on Moon" and "I gave birth to an Alien".

I'm going to debunk his ridiculous and baseless theory at FFJ so you might be interested to look out for it there.

Why debunk it at FFJ -- I can't post there. Why not do it here and I've provided some ammunition for you:

I had not copied his whole synopsis from his site but here’s what was copied before it was removed:

KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase: 'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note: 'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."

http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/

He is also mentioned in this forum. He appears to be a real person.:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=30&page=6

Liverpool - The First One Thousand Years is an illustrated profile of Liverpool, sponsored by the University, and officially launched by the Vice-Chancellor, and it has since become a bestseller around the world. Moreover, the work of criminologist Keith Andrews is included in the book. Keith and Tom Slemen have been included in the book for their work on the Wallace Murder case of 1931, which was once said to be incapable of being solved by crime writers such as Raymond Chandler and Agatha Christie. The so-called Impossible Murder case has now been solved by Slemen and Andrews, says the book.

http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/historybook.html

http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ke/keith_andrews_(criminologist).htm

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Keith_Andrews_(criminologist)
New Theory on Jack the RipperAnd there's a Ripper of a story that seems to have eluded the national press. The Gloucester Echo is reporting on a new theory about the identity of one of the world's most infamous serial killers, Jack the Ripper. Crime writer Tom Slemen and criminologist Keith Andrews say they have found new evidence proving that Jack the Ripper was the renowned archaeologist Col. Claude Condor.
Warren later became head of London's Metropolitan Police, and thus investigated the Jack the Ripper murders. Slemen and Andrews suggest that Warren may have realized his longtime friend was the killer, but took this secret to the grave.
http://oea.shu.ru/millennium/news/01_may/10_britpress010510_1.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2749g2

[Jayelles]

Ah - I see you've remembered his sidekick (the ghosthunter) :-)

Oh I agree that he seems to be a real person - that doesn't mean he's what he claims to be. Anyone can create a wikipedia page. I could do one and claim to be a forensic pathologist with a law degree. Doesn't make it so.

He has a biography posted on numerous websites which do not guarantee the authenticity of their content. For example - the allexperts website is one where you volunteer to answer questions and they call their volunteers "experts"!

http://www.allexperts.com/central/expert.htm

Here's how picky they are:-

If you can SPECIFICALLY describe the kinds of questions you can answer, and send in an application without typos, showing you know how to give a professional presentation, you're almost certain to be accepted!

Here's the Detective with his John Lennon face in the wall:-

http://halloweensunseen.com/johnlennon.html

[Athena]

Ah - I see you've remembered his sidekick (the ghosthunter) :-)

Oh I agree that he seems to be a real person - that doesn't mean he's what he claims to be. Anyone can create a wikipedia page. I could do one and claim to be a forensic pathologist with a law degree. Doesn't make it so.

He has a biography posted on numerous websites which do not guarantee the authenticity of their content. For example - the allexperts website is one where you volunteer to answer questions and they call their volunteers "experts"!

http://www.allexperts.com/central/expert.htm

Here's how picky they are:-



Here's the Detective with his John Lennon face in the wall:-

http://halloweensunseen.com/johnlennon.html

I certainly included him because he is mentioned and I don't want to mislead anyone; however Tom Slemen is a well-known writer NOT a detective. He's a mystery writer in Britain much like our Stephen King.

[Jayelles]

Regarding the detective and his sidekick solving the Jack the Ripper case, they have been heavily criticised by professional ripperologists for bending some of the established facts to make them fit their theory.

For example, one of the famous "clues" in the JTR case is the writing on the wall "The JUWES are the men who will not be blamed for nothing"

Well these two ripperologists claimed that when the writer wrote JUWES... he actually meant "Toos" (meaning mantoos or manchoos). -- ???????

I have a great deal of difficulty taking people like this seriously.

[Athena]

Regarding the detective and his sidekick solving the Jack the Ripper case, they have been heavily criticised by professional ripperologists for bending some of the established facts to make them fit their theory.

For example, one of the famous "clues" in the JTR case is the writing on the wall "The JUWES are the men who will not be blamed for nothing"

Well these two ripperologists claimed that when the writer wrote JUWES... he actually meant "Toos" (meaning mantoos or manchoos). -- ???????

I have a great deal of difficulty taking people like this seriously.

Anyone who publishes work is subject to criticism not any different than the experts that interjected their comments on the JBR case. They all have theories; doesn't make it true. I also want to make it clear that I did not say I believed or agreed with his analysis of FW's handwriting. However, his analysis is no more or less accurate than other handwriting analyses given. I would have liked to have seen opinions on FW's handwriting and unfortunately that was the only one I found and made just as much sense as any other ransom note analyses I have read since I don't think it is a pure science and is very subjective. JMO

[Jayelles]

I certainly included him because he is mentioned and I don't want to mislead anyone; however Tom Slemen is a well-known writer NOT a detective. He's a mystery writer in Britain much like our Stephen King.

I hate to disillusion you but although I'm sure he'd be flattered, Tom Slemen would probably be the first person to express surprise at being compared to Stephen King.

Slemen is a local hero in Liverpool amongst fans of the supernatural. He has a column in a local evening newspaper and he's published half a dozen or so short paperbacks recanting tales of local ghost stories.

Our local library doesn't have any of his books and I seriously doubt many libraries outside of Liverpool would!

[Jayelles]

Anyone who publishes work is subject to criticism not any different than the experts that interjected their comments on the JBR case. They all have theories; doesn't make it true. I also want to make it clear that I did not say I believed or agreed with his analysis of FW's handwriting. However, his analysis is no more or less accurate than other handwriting analyses given. I would have liked to have seen opinions on FW's handwriting and unfortunately that was the only one I found and made just as much sense as any other ransom note analyses I have read since I don't think it is a pure science and is very subjective. JMO

Athena - he didn't publish his analysis of the handwriting!!!! He claimed to have analysed the handwriting but that he was NOT going to reveal his findings outside of a court of law! He's not a handwriting expert either - I really don't understand why anyone wold take this man seriously.

Fleet tore out a number of pages from that pad many days before, and, using samples of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to guide him, he writes the Ransom demand and practice note, but he made six glaring errors which prove he is the author. I will reveal these errors when I face Fleet in court - if he dares to show of course.

[Athena]

I've never checked for any of his books ever before so don't know if a local library would have them or not. However, Amazon.com does carry them and note this is the US site not the CA or UK site:

http://tinyurl.com/yok2eb

We are also getting off-track here as well since the post I made was not referring to Tom Slemen but to Keith Andrews who you said some think may be Henrietta McPhee yet I have not found anything where he does not appear to be a real criminologist. I also checked Topix.net's site and read some of the posts by this Henrietta McPhee (sp?) person and don't see the connection. I have to go out right now so will check in later. :)

[Athena]

Athena - he didn't publish his analysis of the handwriting!!!! He claimed to have analysed the handwriting but that he was NOT going to reveal his findings outside of a court of law! He's not a handwriting expert either - I really don't understand why anyone wold take this man seriously.

You must have been posting this while I was replying to your other post.

Anyway this is an excerpt from THAT site before it was removed. I certainly did NOT make this up and had it saved in my files. I don't know when he wrote what you say above because I never saw that. Because I couldn't remember his name I couldn't find it earlier as I said above:

KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase: 'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note: 'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."

http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/

[Jayelles]

I've never checked for any of his books ever before so don't know if a local library would have them or not. However, Amazon.com does carry them and note this is the US site not the CA or UK site:

http://tinyurl.com/yok2eb

We are also getting off-track here as well since the post I made was not referring to Tom Slemen but to Keith Andrews who you said some think may be Henrietta McPhee yet I have not found anything where he does not appear to be a real criminologist. I also checked Topix.net's site and read some of the posts by this Henrietta McPhee (sp?) person and don't see the connection. I have to go out right now so will check in later. :)

I was responding to your suggestion that Tom Slemen was in the same league as Stephen King. Also - Amazon.com lists most of the books which are on Amazaon.co.uk - and vice versa. It isn't recognistion of a fine or best selling book to be listed in both. The Reverend Walker's book is listed on both sites and he self-published. I am only aware of one person who bought his book!

Athena - there are missing the point I am making. He calls himself a criminologist and is listed as such on a dozen websites where ANYONE can upload information/false information about themselves.

He used to call himself a detective and he displayed numerous impressive credentials on his webpage. These were challenged and they mysteriously disppeared - as did his website. When it reappeared on another domain, the credentials were removed and he no longer calls himself a detective.

He is occasionally (but not always) listed as having an "LLB" which is a law degree. I'd be interested to know which university he obtained that from. There is a register for lawyers here and people can look it up to see if someone has a legitimate right to use the letters. I will arrange to have that checked out by someone close to me who has access to it already.

His current projects are also interesting. They sound like a veiled threat towards his critics.

I have posted my debunking thread at Websleuths where I see you are a member. I'm reluctant to post it here and have it attacked by people who claim to support the Ramseys here and yet accuse them of murdering their daughter as part of a satanic ritual elsewhere...

[Athena]

1) I am not a registered member at Websleuths. However I did look at your post and again I have never seen what you have posted on the site when the info about JBR was there. I also found the link you provided to discredit him interesting as it does not even appear to be about THIS Keith Andrews. There is nothing to in that article that says he was a criminologist. And he used another name, Marquis St Leger for the past 25 years so again I don't make the connection. The first link is the one you provided at WS. I've also posted more using the alias he allegedly uses and again nothing connects himto criminology. If you do a search on Keith Andrews there are hundreds of people out there with that name. I just cannot make the connection you think you have made to the criminologist. It says he was a Social Worker for 25 years!! The only thing in common IMO is that they share the same name and are two very different people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,216927,00.html (link you provided at WS)

In Swindon, England, in 1997 Keith Andrews, aged 51, attempted to pass himself off as The Marquis St. Leger. He totally deceived the upper classes with talk of his royal bloodline. He was eventually arrested after trying to secure a mortgage against his imaginary French Chateau. When police arrived at his home to question him he was at a loss to explain why he had christmas cards addressed to 'Uncle Keith'!

http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/2000/4/27/246967.html

A SOCIAL worker who posed for 25 years as a member of an ancient aristocratic family was convicted yesterday of an pounds 80,000 fraud.

Marc St Leger, 51, who drove a Rolls-Royce and bragged about meeting the Queen, conned friends and colleagues into believing he was the Marquis St Leger, 10th Viscount of Doneraile. The former publican, who was born Keith Alfred Andrews, was jailed at Bristol Crown Court for 18 months after being found guilty on three charges of obtaining money by deception, including nearly pounds 20,000 in benefit claims.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000413/ai_n14299972

[Jayelles]

1) I am not a registered member at Websleuths. However I did look at your post and again I have never seen what you have posted on the site when the info about JBR was there. I also found the link you provided to discredit him interesting as it does not even appear to be about THIS Keith Andrews. There is nothing to in that article that says he was a criminologist. And he used another name, Marquis St Leger for the past 25 years so again I don't make the connection. The first link is the one you provided at WS. I've also posted more using the alias he allegedly uses and again nothing connects himto criminology. If you do a search on Keith Andrews there are hundreds of people out there with that name. I just cannot make the connection you think you have made to the criminologist. It says he was a Social Worker for 25 years!! The only thing in common IMO is that they share the same name and are two very different people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,216927,00.html (link you provided at WS)

In Swindon, England, in 1997 Keith Andrews, aged 51, attempted to pass himself off as The Marquis St. Leger. He totally deceived the upper classes with talk of his royal bloodline. He was eventually arrested after trying to secure a mortgage against his imaginary French Chateau. When police arrived at his home to question him he was at a loss to explain why he had christmas cards addressed to 'Uncle Keith'!

http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/2000/4/27/246967.html

A SOCIAL worker who posed for 25 years as a member of an ancient aristocratic family was convicted yesterday of an pounds 80,000 fraud.

Marc St Leger, 51, who drove a Rolls-Royce and bragged about meeting the Queen, conned friends and colleagues into believing he was the Marquis St Leger, 10th Viscount of Doneraile. The former publican, who was born Keith Alfred Andrews, was jailed at Bristol Crown Court for 18 months after being found guilty on three charges of obtaining money by deception, including nearly pounds 20,000 in benefit claims.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000413/ai_n14299972

Athena - please check back to the post above where I made it very clear that the article was about someone "with the same name" as your detective. I don't know if it's the same person. I have never claimed that this was the same person. It's an interesting article about another person, of the same name and approximate age who lied about himself.

Now, if we could stick to the facts that we can substantiate - I DO know that your detective made false claims about his credentials and that following complaints, he removed them, In my book, that dosn't make someone very credible. I have big bells ringing "Truth alert!"

He put a wiki page up about himself and a dozen or so other websites have replicated the info (if you read the bottom of most of these pages, they cite Wikipdeia as the source). That doesn't make him a criminologist. It makes him someone who claims to be a criminologist. I have searched through dozens of websites and have yet to find one which I consider to be a reliable independent source.

His theory is so full of holes that anyone with a little knowledge about the case would be asking a LOT of questions. He had the WHites living in a house only yards from the Ramsey house when in reality, they lived a couple of miles away. He didn't explain the "stungun marks" or the injuries to her genitals. He has Fleet white wandering about the neighbourhood in the snow carrying a compliant Jonbenet whom he has just roused from her night's sleep. He claims that Fleet white brought the santa bear into the house so that if he was caught in the act taking JonBenet, he can simply say he had decided to bring her a santa bear in the middle of the night and that the Ramseys would accept this and think it was a "cute gesture". In fact, we know the santa bear was a pageant gift.

He has pieces of evidence materialising without any explanation at all. Andrews claimed that Fleet intended to phone the Ramsey house the following day and be "surprised" to find they weren't gone at all. Yet it doesn't seem to have occurred to him that it might be mighty suspicious if White called the Ramsey house when he knew they wouldn't be there.

It's a thorought ridiculous theory - written by someone with a scant grasp of case facts and without any attempt whatsoever to substantiate his outrageous claims of "fact".

[Jayelles]

On his website whose link you posted about, this is his link for DNA fingerprinting:-

http://www.biology.washington.edu/fingerprint/dnaintro.html

(note the page isn't currently working, but I recovered it from the web archive).

http://web.archive.org/web/20040810033913/protist.biology.washington.edu/fingerprint/dnaIntro.html


I ask, what reputable criminologist would cite a school project about DNA? Especially when it has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which says:-

This web site was a class project, written in May of 1994. We are not DNA experts; this site represents the sum of our knowledge on the subject. We welcome comments but please do not ask us for further help or information (we have none to offer).

[Athena]

Athena - please check back to the post above where I made it very clear that the article was about someone "with the same name" as your detective. I don't know if it's the same person. I have never claimed that this was the same person. It's an interesting article about another person, of the same name and approximate age who lied about himself.



Jayelles -- I am really surprised at you to say that you said this was a person with the same name and you don't know if he is the same - if you did not think this was the same person why would you end your entire thread with this quote and the link? Obviously it is an intent to mislead. You claimed you copied it prior to it disappearing and that could be true but I do not recall what you have posted as being on his website. I'm done with this discussion because what you have posted at WS again I have NEVER read when that website was up. Since it cannot be proven or disproven it is moot issue IMO however if you do a search on Keith Andrews criminologist you will find several people quote his findings re: crimes. I've copied a recent one below the WS post. If he's fake - so be it but it cannot be proven IMO. I can't debate something that is non-existent. "nuff said.


Jayelles is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
In Swindon, England, in 1997 Keith Andrews, aged 51, attempted to pass himself off as The Marquis St. Leger.
He totally deceived the upper classes with talk of his royal bloodline.
He was eventually arrested after trying to secure a mortgage against his imaginary French Chateau.
When police arrived at his home to question him he was at a loss to explain why he had christmas cards addressed to 'Uncle Keith'!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,216927,00.html (end quote/Jayelles)


Framed by a cop?
The Cameo murders - Part Two
By Gail Thomson

Criminologist Keith Andrews says, 'Balmer was determined to put Kelly in the frame for the murders, and I actually believe this corrupt policeman set the crime up. Balmer interviewed Hilda Kelly, a neighbour of George Kelly and his girlfriend Doris O'Malley - a woman Balmer was seeing behind George's back.

http://tinyurl.com/26bbqg

[Jayelles]

Jayelles -- I am really surprised at you to say that you said this was a person with the same name and you don't know if he is the same - if you did not think this was the same person why would you end your entire thread with this quote and the link? Obviously it is an intent to mislead. You claimed you copied it prior to it disappearing and that could be true but I do not recall what you have posted as being on his website. I'm done with this discussion because what you have posted at WS again I have NEVER read when that website was up. Since it cannot be proven or disproven it is moot issue IMO however if you do a search on Keith Andrews criminologist you will find several people quote his findings re: crimes. I've copied a recent one below the WS post. If he's fake - so be it but it cannot be proven IMO. I can't debate something that is non-existent. "nuff said.


Jayelles is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Caledonia
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
In Swindon, England, in 1997 Keith Andrews, aged 51, attempted to pass himself off as The Marquis St. Leger.
He totally deceived the upper classes with talk of his royal bloodline.
He was eventually arrested after trying to secure a mortgage against his imaginary French Chateau.
When police arrived at his home to question him he was at a loss to explain why he had christmas cards addressed to 'Uncle Keith'!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,216927,00.html (end quote/Jayelles)


Framed by a cop?
The Cameo murders - Part Two
By Gail Thomson

Criminologist Keith Andrews says, 'Balmer was determined to put Kelly in the frame for the murders, and I actually believe this corrupt policeman set the crime up. Balmer interviewed Hilda Kelly, a neighbour of George Kelly and his girlfriend Doris O'Malley - a woman Balmer was seeing behind George's back.

http://tinyurl.com/26bbqg

Well you can focus on the semantics of the marquis imposter story if you like but it won't detract from what we KNOW about Keith Andrews "criminologist" or as you called him "investigative forensic scientist".

I'd be interested in your comments about his theory - which is the real issue at hand.

Any comments? Or are you going to use the maybe related/maybe unrelated marquis article as an escape clause? I mean - how do you know Keith Andrews wasn't a social worker for 25 years. He's claimed to be just about everything else!

[Athena]

If that is his theory that you posted at WS I agree that alot of it is ridiculous. But again I never read that theory that is attributed to him by you and don't know that he said those things. The only thing I can recall is his handwriting analysis of FW's letters compared to the ransom note which is just as possible as any other handwriting analysis I've read which is in my very first post. I did think his handwriting analysis was interesting as I have compared FW's letters to the ransom note. Handwriting analysis is not an exact science -- it is just fascinating to me.

What started this whole thing other than that was because you claimed he was a fraud and I have found nothing to indicate that this is true or anything that connects him to that Social Worker not to mention he used the name Marquis for 25+ years as a Social Worker.

Every expert that commented on this case has a theory; some that may be possible and others that are way out there and since the case has not been solved no theory has been proven or disproven. Honestly -- no disrespect intended -- but I'm done with Keith Andrews. JMO

[Athena]

I missed the edit time - but meant to add this link. This is a form in Liverpool where members discuss Keith Andrews. I cannot imagine a forum right in Liverpool would not know this man was a fake if he was. I've also found that he contributed to a book called "Liverpool - The First 1,000 Years" written by Arabella McIntyre-Brown and Guy Woodland.

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2852

[Jayelles]

If that is his theory that you posted at WS I agree that alot of it is ridiculous. But again I never read that theory that is attributed to him by you and don't know that he said those things. The only thing I can recall is his handwriting analysis of FW's letters compared to the ransom note which is just as possible as any other handwriting analysis I've read which is in my very first post. I did think his handwriting analysis was interesting as I have compared FW's letters to the ransom note. Handwriting analysis is not an exact science -- it is just fascinating to me.

What started this whole thing other than that was because you claimed he was a fraud and I have found nothing to indicate that this is true or anything that connects him to that Social Worker not to mention he used the name Marquis for 25+ years as a Social Worker.

Every expert that commented on this case has a theory; some that may be possible and others that are way out there and since the case has not been solved no theory has been proven or disproven. Honestly -- no disrespect intended -- but I'm done with Keith Andrews. JMO

As I have said repeatedly, I have never claimed that the marquis was the same Keith Andrews and in my ONLY reference to it here, I merely stated that it was a person with the same name. I would thank you to stop using this to divert attention away from the real issue which is total lack of independent corroboration and false claims of credentials on his own website.

I have never seen his handwriting analysis - nor have I come across any discussion about it other than his own statement that he would not reveal it outside of a court. It will be easy enough to find out thought.

[Jayelles]

I missed the edit time - but meant to add this link. This is a form in Liverpool where members discuss Keith Andrews. I cannot imagine a forum right in Liverpool would not know this man was a fake if he was. I've also found that he contributed to a book called "Liverpool - The First 1,000 Years" written by Arabella McIntyre-Brown and Guy Woodland.

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2852

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no doubt he's a real person?

The book you have mebtioned twice now is a compendium of Liverpool. It covers a lot of liverpudlian trivia as well as matters of more important historical interest.

The website you linked to isn't discussing Keith Andrews. It mentions him. He has a website and he is interested in crime and matters of historical interest. If you look hard enough online you'll also discover that he's a regular contributor to the readers letters page of the local rag where he complains about the demolition of buildings and suggests that the councl build an underground tunnel for pedestrians - complete with rest rooms, cafe and cctv.

I've been published several times, but I don't call myself a writer. I've danced on a stage, but I don't call myself a dancer. I write on crime forums - that doesn't make me a criminologist.

Some people might understand the difference...

[shill]

O



I don't believe she was raped. I think it was a fake rape. Imagine how many men have gone falsely to prison for fake rapes.
Defense lawyers need to bring these fake rapes to the attention of the prosecutors so we don't have any more innocent men going to prison for their fake rapes.

[andU]

I believe any object (penis, handle, finger or whatever) forced into another person's body against his/her will is classified as rape. Fake rape, as I understand it, is when a rape was faked, or a person said it happened and it didn't.

[bullmoose]

I understand what you are saying..The reason I call it fake rape in Jonbenet case is because I don't think the attack was sexually motivated..I think after (Patsy) killed her, she forced an object in the baby to stage the crime to look like it was sexual..That's why I say fake rape..Of course, as you know, I do not think that Jonbenet's mother, father or siblings had anyhing to do with her murder; but that having been said, I wholeheartedly agree that what I would call the sexual assault on the child was pure staging by whoever murdered her. Fake rape as a term works for me, though. JMHO

[ralia]

I believe any object (penis, handle, finger or whatever) forced into another person's body against his/her will is classified as rape. Fake rape, as I understand it, is when a rape was faked, or a person said it happened and it didn't.

I guess andU is right here. Let's say things with their own name.

[Louisadelmar]

Of course, as you know, I do not think that Jonbenet's mother, father or siblings had anyhing to do with her murder; but that having been said, I wholeheartedly agree that what I would call the sexual assault on the child was pure staging by whoever murdered her. Fake rape as a term works for me, though. JMHO

Well it doesn't work for me. I have twice posted the CO definition of rape. What was done to her was rape. Should charges ever be filed rape will be among them.

There is enough trouble communicating on the boards without people making up their own little terms for things.

For the third time:

http://www.cbi.state.co.us/dr/cic/definitions.htm
Forcible Rape - Forcible rape is defined as any sexual penetration directed against another person (including oral, anal or by use of an object) against that person’s will, regardless of the victim’s age. (Colorado Uniform Crime Reporting Definition). Beginning in 1996, the definition of rape used by Colorado law enforcement agencies was changed to more closely match the Colorado Revised Statutes. As a result, the new definition is broader than the definition used by the FBI. Therefore, the total number of rape offenses may appear larger than the national average and the total number of Colorado statewide offenses reported in prior years.

[bullmoose]

I hate to dispute people's opinions..But tell me something--how do you explain Jonbenet being killed with the entire family in home, and nobody heard/saw anything? How is it that the police had already searched the house, then John pops up with the body? Bullmoose, again I hate to dispute but I just want to hear your opinion/theory on that..Hey, kiddo, this is a place just to dispute other people's opinion; that's why I'm here, to argue and post my ideas and learn from others not of my opinion. But to get to your thought: How indeed could Jonbenet be murdered in her own house without anybody hearing or seeing anything? Good question; my house in my little mining town is about 100 years old and has two floors, the acoustics in this old place are interesting, sound will travel down quite well but it doen't go upstairs at all, if Im downstairs watching television or reading, and my wife is upstairs, directly above me, she can call and I'll hear her, but if I call, it had better be on the cellphone or just climb the stairs to her, because the sound does not travel up in my house. The Ramsey house was old, I'm not sure how old, but I think the parents lived on the top floor, their children a floor down; Jonbenet was murdered presumably in the basement three floors below her parents. If it had happened in my houseon the ground floor, the sound wouldn't have made the second floor. That's why I have no problem with the idea they never heard a thing; in my house if you go out of the front room, through the parlor and into the kitchen you go out of range of talk. I think their house, being 5or 10 times the size, would dampen sound at least as well. The reason the initial cops on the scene didn't find her body was they didn't look in that room, not being familiar with the layout of the house, which had been enlarged over the years repeatedly. They just missed it. JMHO

[bullmoose]

Hmmm..I learn something new everyday..I was unaware of the Ramsey's room being 3 floors above the murder spot..That's new..So if an intruder did it, what do you think happened to that intruder since that day? We had a serial killer about 8 or 10 years ago caught in Spokane, Washington named Robert Yates that killed at least 15 or 20 women in and around Spokane in the couple years before he was caught. He was in his late 40's,in his plea- bargain with the state, he admitted to a few murders inthe mid-1970's also. Supposedly he killed no one for 15 years before starting again; which seems absurd, serial killers don't stop until they're caught, or so I've read, over and over in studies. Did he stop or just not get caught at it and nobody connected his murders as having a pattern down through the years? I think the second choice more likely; I think Jonbenet's killer has been out there enjoying the absolute power he wielded that night and still does, whether he has stopped or continued killing. Remember the BTK killer, some of his killings were not connected to him for 20 years later, when he sent in some of his trophies to the paper or cops. ID's, drivers license, stuff like that. JMHO

[Jayelles]

We had a serial killer about 8 or 10 years ago caught in Spokane, Washington named Robert Yates that killed at least 15 or 20 women in and around Spokane in the couple years before he was caught. He was in his late 40's,in his plea- bargain with the state, he admitted to a few murders inthe mid-1970's also. Supposedly he killed no one for 15 years before starting again; which seems absurd, serial killers don't stop until they're caught, or so I've read, over and over in studies. Did he stop or just not get caught at it and nobody connected his murders as having a pattern down through the years? I think the second choice more likely; I think Jonbenet's killer has been out there enjoying the absolute power he wielded that night and still does, whether he has stopped or continued killing. Remember the BTK killer, some of his killings were not connected to him for 20 years later, when he sent in some of his trophies to the paper or cops. ID's, drivers license, stuff like that. JMHO

Didn't the Green River killer stop for a while and start again (or are you talking about the same guy?)

I have posted about Arce Montez several times (I can never remember his name correctly). He was the monster who murdered little Caroline Dickinson and he certainly fitted the profile for the Ramsey killer. He was transient, being of independent means. He was known to travel to the US on occasions. He stalked his victims - often for many miles having seen them in a public place. He broke into their homes, sniffed around the homes finding out information about them and he was a very bold killer indeed. IN the case of Caroline, he broke into their youth hostel one night and frightened the girls but then ran off. However, he returned another night, came into the room where Caroline and her friends were sleeping, and killed Caroline whilst her friends lay just feet away.

I have been repeatedly dismissed for suggesting this man should be investigated for the Ramsey murder on the grounds that his other victims were older - Caroline was 13, but his last victim was a grown woman.

I suppose the strongest evidence against him would be the Ransom note. He is Spanish although it's true to say that I don't know how good his English is.

[Tober]

So if an intruder did it, what do you think happened to that intruder since that day?

After essentially disposing of JonBenet as if she were yesterday's trash, the "intruder" got on with their lives. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

So Tober, you think an intruder did it? I thought you were RDI for a minute.No, kiddo, Tober is RDI to the core, that was just a twisted attempt at humor, sarcasm if it had worked.Tober, keep making jokes or trying to, anyways. Even Leno and Letterman have to work hard at it to get a chuckle. JMHO:biggrin:

[shill]

I understand what you are saying..The reason I call it fake rape in Jonbenet case is because I don't think the attack was sexually motivated..I think after (Patsy) killed her, she forced an object in the baby to stage the crime to look like it was sexual..That's why I say fake rape..

Terrible choice of words!

If somebody penetrated my daughter with something and it was not consensual,
I'd give them a fake beating they wouldn't forget.
I'm appalled that you would choose those words as a women.
If someone stuck a paintbrush in you, would you just write it off as a "fake rape" and let it go?
Even if Patsy did this to stage a crime, It would still be consider rape.
And you wonder why people don't think a parent with out motive would kill their own child and rape her when she is dead!

Please find some other way of describing what you think happened with the paintbrush.

Now we see your true colors! No wonder you left a bad taste in other posters mouth. I'm starting to get that bad taste too.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by BeautifulOne
I understand what you are saying..The reason I call it fake rape in Jonbenet case is because I don't think the attack was sexually motivated..I think after (Patsy) killed her, she forced an object in the baby to stage the crime to look like it was sexual..That's why I say fake rape..

Terrible choice of words!

If somebody penetrated my daughter with something and it was not consensual,
I'd give them a fake beating they wouldn't forget.
I'm appalled that you would choose those words as a women.
If someone stuck a paintbrush in you, would you just write it off as a "fake rape" and let it go?
Even if Patsy did this to stage a crime, It would still be consider rape.
And you wonder why people don't think a parent with out motive would kill their own child and rape her when she is dead!

Please find some other way of describing what you think happened with the paintbrush.

Now we see your true colors! No wonder you left a bad taste in other posters mouth. I'm starting to get that bad taste too.

Shill, I'm surprised that you are so squeamish, feeling 'appalled' because this poster called it a 'fake rape' which means nothing else than that the crime scene was STAGED to look like a rape.
I'm appalled that you would choose those words as a women.
I (a woman) would use exactly the same words in that case: "fake rape" .
I think the stager of the scene wanted to make it look like a sex crime.
The stager of the scene may have thought that JB was alredy dead when inflicting the paintbrush injury. In that case it would not be rape.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
I (a woman) would use exactly the same words in that case: "fake rape" .
I think the stager of the scene wanted to make it look like a sex crime.
The stager of the scene may have thought that JB was alredy dead when inflicting the paintbrush injury. In that case it would not be rape.

I don't think you would get this from a corpse. A corpse doesn't increase the flow of blood to an injury location.

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly.The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented bya rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions.The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch.

[SnarkyCow]

Terrible choice of words!

If somebody penetrated my daughter with something and it was not consensual,
I'd give them a fake beating they wouldn't forget.
I'm appalled that you would choose those words as a women.
If someone stuck a paintbrush in you, would you just write it off as a "fake rape" and let it go?
Even if Patsy did this to stage a crime, It would still be consider rape.
And you wonder why people don't think a parent with out motive would kill their own child and rape her when she is dead!

Please find some other way of describing what you think happened with the paintbrush.

Now we see your true colors! No wonder you left a bad taste in other posters mouth. I'm starting to get that bad taste too.

Not saying I agree with BO, but I am curious Shill.... why is it not okay for BO to say what she said, but it is okay for you to refer to JonBenet as being "clubbed like a baby seal?" When I mentioned I thought the "seal" remark was flippant & disrespectful you jumped all over me. Why is it okay when you do it?

[rashomon]

[rashomon] I think the stager of the scene wanted to make it look like a sex crime.
The stager of the scene may have thought that JB was alredy dead when inflicting the paintbrush injury. In that case it would not be rape.
[QUOTE=Louisadelmar;8821621]I don't think you would get this from a corpse. A corpse doesn't increase the flow of blood to an injury location.
My point was that the stager of the scene thought JB was already dead when he/she inflicted the paint brush injury. JB may have still been alive (although in a coma), when this was done.

[Louisadelmar]

Legally and physically it was a rape. Whatever the perpetrator may have thought doesn't matter. If you aren't willing to call it a rape perhaps 'staged rape' would be more accurate and less offensive to those of us who don't see the damage done to her as fake; whatever the motive may have been.

[Sprocket]

Fact: JonBenet's vaginal vault was violated with the paint brush handle. The disagreement among members here is whether or not it was part of staging or a real assult on JB by a pedophile/kidnapper.

The other fact is, her vaginal area in no way looked like that of a normal 5-6 year old child. There was a visual comparison of photos of JonBenets vaginal area with that of a normal 5-6 year old child, and the differences were striking. The leading expert on sexual abuse McCann, gave his opinion that she had suffered chronic abuse (source: Bonita papers). This means, intruder theorists need some logical explaination for the chronic abuse (prior abuse to the night of the murder) that was clearly present on JB's body.

[Athena]

Fact: JonBenet's vaginal vault was violated with the paint brush handle. The disagreement among members here is whether or not it was part of staging or a real assult on JB by a pedophile/kidnapper.

The other fact is, her vaginal area in no way looked like that of a normal 5-6 year old child. There was a visual comparison of photos of JonBenets vaginal area with that of a normal 5-6 year old child, and the differences were striking. The leading expert on sexual abuse McCann, gave his opinion that she had suffered chronic abuse (source: Bonita papers). This means, intruder theorists need some logical explaination for the chronic abuse (prior abuse to the night of the murder) that was clearly present on JB's body.

Source: The Bonita Papers -- you mean the papers that have so much misinformation in them and too many errors in them to count? Please.......
:no:

[shill]

Thank you Rashomon. How could a person get pissy over something as simple as the term "Fake rape"? Must be a lonely, depressed person with no one at home to talk to..Maybe he/she needs a shoulder to lean on--that's not my fault..Should not come to this forum shouting at me because he/she feels unloved.
You disgust me.
You would think you would have some perspective on how insensitive your use of "fake rape" is since you claim your sister was raped. Either you have never been raped or you don't know anyone that has been raped or you wouldn't feel it is alright to use terms like that.
Your use of "fake rape" offends me for it's lack of compassion or caring for all those women who have been raped and your thinking that some rape is not rape. A lot of women, and some men are raped with inanimate objects and would not appreciate your ignorant made up terms to describe what happened to them as a "fake rape".
You're so getto I want to puke!

[shill]

Shill, I'm surprised that you are so squeamish, feeling 'appalled' because this poster called it a 'fake rape' which means nothing else than that the crime scene was STAGED to look like a rape.

I (a woman) would use exactly the same words in that case: "fake rape" .
I think the stager of the scene wanted to make it look like a sex crime.
The stager of the scene may have thought that JB was alredy dead when inflicting the paintbrush injury. In that case it would not be rape.

It's RAPE! Dead or alive it's RAPE. I doesn't matter why they did it, IT"S RAPE!
When it happens to you or your children let me know if you still feel the same way about the use of the term "fake rape".

[shill]

Not saying I agree with BO, but I am curious Shill.... why is it not okay for BO to say what she said, but it is okay for you to refer to JonBenet as being "clubbed like a baby seal?" When I mentioned I thought the "seal" remark was flippant & disrespectful you jumped all over me. Why is it okay when you do it?She was clubbed like a baby seal and raped!
It offends me when you candy coat these crimes when they are viscous self-serving acts by the perpetrator that you seem to think it's alright to do.

[shill]

The stager of the scene may have thought that JB was alredy dead when inflicting the paintbrush injury. In that case it would not be rape.
I'm sure that guy who went to prison for raping corpses in a funeral home wishes you had pointed that out to his defense attorney.

[rashomon]

I'm sure that guy who went to prison for raping corpses in a funeral home wishes you had pointed that out to his defense attorney.

In that case a necrophilic perp did this for sexual gratification, but suppose the Ramseys had been convicted of staging a rape scenario, believing JB was already dead, wouldn't this be treated differently in court?
Of course this would be a crime too, and even if they 'only' did it for staging purposes, their callousness in handling the body of their child woud be beyond imagination. This is is also the reason why so to many people it is inconceivable that the Ramseys did this.
They also don't believe that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, but a panel of top-flight experts medical experts almost unaninmously agreed that this had been the case.

Source: The Bonita Papers -- you mean the papers that have so much misinformation in them and too many errors in them to count? Please.......
This part of the Bonita papers reported what Dr. McCann and others stated (see ST's book and PMPT).
But if JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, the abuser most likely came from the family.

I believe that the attack on JB by a parent had far more sinister reasons that mere toilet rage.
The forensic evidence and other circumstantial links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, so whoever did this to JB, the spouse obviously covered up for him/her.

[ralia]

I'm sure that guy who went to prison for raping corpses in a funeral home wishes you had pointed that out to his defense attorney.

I guess and correct me if I'm wrong that noone under law can rape a corpse in the same meaning that he cannot have consensual sex with a corpse. It's a serious offence, though. It's called necrophilia and Insult of the Dead. Under the penal law of my country, at least but I don't think there might be much difference.

[Jayelles]

Source: The Bonita Papers -- you mean the papers that have so much misinformation in them and too many errors in them to count? Please.......
:no:

By "errors", do you mean typos? I know that the Bonita "papers" had typos in the same way as so many of the other transcripts have had typos.

Could you please give some specific examples of the misinformation? I am aware that much of what is in the Bonita Papers has been corroborated through the release of other transcripts and documents but that that the Bonita papers is the only source for other pieces of information which have no independent corroboration. If there is only one source for a piece of information then I agree that it should be "questionable" and that independent corroboration is essential for credibility (in the same way as I question the validity of Keith Andrews being a criminologist since every source I've found that describes him as a Criminologist can be traced back to him as the original source!). However, I'd be interested to know what parts of the Bonita Papers have definitely been proved to be misinformation via more credible sources.

I don't recall ever seeing a thread which actually debunked the Bonita Papers. I've seen thread where posters have trashed Bonita ro trashed what she has written and the methods by which she obtained her information, but nothing that actually took her file and countered specific pieces of misinformation with valid sources.

[bullmoose]

In that case a necrophilic perp did this for sexual gratification, but suppose the Ramseys had been convicted of staging a rape scenario, believing JB was already dead, wouldn't this be treated differently in court?
Of course this would be a crime too, and even if they 'only' did it for staging purposes, their callousness in handling the body of their child woud be beyond imagination. This is is also the reason why so to many people it is inconceivable that the Ramseys did this.
They also don't believe that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, but a panel of top-flight experts medical experts almost unaninmously agreed that this had been the case.


This part of the Bonita papers reported what Dr. McCann and others stated (see ST's book and PMPT).
But if JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, the abuser most likely came from the family.

I believe that the attack on JB by a parent had far more sinister reasons that mere toilet rage.
The forensic evidence and other circumstantial links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, so whoever did this to JB, the spouse obviously covered up for him/her. Of course, this panel of top-flight medical experts didn't include the man who actually did the autopsy or her personal pediatrician, so it couldn't have been exactly unanimous, but what did they know? If it was in the Twisterpiece, it cannot be questioned by any rightminded person. Synthroid Stevie's book was a gem of undisputed facts and uncanny vision and wisdom in understanding childkillers. It is odd though that even the Twister didn't make claims about the imaginary fibers that you seem to believe in as much as some do the shroud of Turin. :biggrin: His immense experience as a homicide investigator prepared him well to cut through all the lies and deception that TeamRamsey could throw at at this fearless Caped Crusader of Colorado. I am almost speechless with awe. JMHO

[andU]

No one has asked for my opinion but .... oh yeah! ... I'm giving it anyway...
The term 'fake rape' implies that the victim is lying about the rape. Of course I realize that JB isn't saying anything about any of it... she was raped with something.

[andU]

No one in any dictionary does it say that. There's no definition for that term--you can use it however you want. But may I ask--please drop that discussion. It is really irrelevant to the murder now..

First of all, I said "it implies"
Second, I was responding to your post, I didn't bring it up.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[bullmoose]

First of all, I said "it implies"
Second, I was responding to your post, I didn't bring it up.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.Can't we all just be friends? False and fake mean just about the same thing, to me a fake rape would be a staged one like with Jonbenet, a false rape would be one that was fictional that had been reported; but if you switch the two words false and fake, to me it still works just fine in both usages. I hope I didn't make you both mad at me; its JMHO:biggrin:

[andU]

Bullmoose, you didn't make me angry either. You are right. I guess it is a personal thing with the terminology. Sorry that I got my feathers ruffled.

[Sprocket]

didn't include the man who actually did the autopsy or her personal pediatrician, so it couldn't have been exactly unanimous, but what did they know?

Are you trying to imply that Linda Arndt, who witnessed the autopsy, was lying when Dr. Meyer said, during the autopsy that she had been abused?

It's been clearly documented that JonBenets pediatrician had not performed a physical examination of her vaginal area in months.

How does her pediatrician's lack of recent physical examination trump or invalidate an expert opinion?

[Athena]

By "errors", do you mean typos? I know that the Bonita "papers" had typos in the same way as so many of the other transcripts have had typos.

Could you please give some specific examples of the misinformation? I am aware that much of what is in the Bonita Papers has been corroborated through the release of other transcripts and documents but that that the Bonita papers is the only source for other pieces of information which have no independent corroboration. If there is only one source for a piece of information then I agree that it should be "questionable" and that independent corroboration is essential for credibility (in the same way as I question the validity of Keith Andrews being a criminologist since every source I've found that describes him as a Criminologist can be traced back to him as the original source!). However, I'd be interested to know what parts of the Bonita Papers have definitely been proved to be misinformation via more credible sources.

I don't recall ever seeing a thread which actually debunked the Bonita Papers. I've seen thread where posters have trashed Bonita ro trashed what she has written and the methods by which she obtained her information, but nothing that actually took her file and countered specific pieces of misinformation with valid sources.

LOL -- I am referring to content not typos.

Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of combing the document and making comparisons but there are several. I'll try to do them a little at a time and will start with this:

From the Bonita Papers:

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

From PMPT:

Dr. Richard Krugman; Dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March 1997 said that JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. He also added "I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse.

Dr. Richard Krugman believed that the injury to the hymen had been part of staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death.

[bullmoose]

Are you trying to imply that Linda Arndt, who witnessed the autopsy, was lying when Dr. Meyer said, during the autopsy that she had been abused?

It's been clearly documented that JonBenets pediatrician had not performed a physical examination of her vaginal area in months.

How does her pediatrician's lack of recent physical examination trump or invalidate an expert opinion? Are you saying that Linda Arndt states that she heard Dr. Meyer saying something that wasn't in the written report? If so, aren't we back on the 'try to prove a negative' subject again? I haven't read Linda Arndt's book yet; I'm eagerly awaiting its publishing date; I have no idea where your quote comes from, yet.And I'm not impressed by your reference to Donald Trump, either; how is he an expert?:biggrin: JMHO

[shill]

Let me tell you just how stupid you sound--I WAS raped--on several occasions by the same person..And that term would NOT offend me if used by someone else. It offends you because you're just a lonely, depressed soul who is mad at the world.


Don't you mean you were "fake raped"?

[shill]

Born in the ghetto, raised in the hood--and will die by their rules. So go ahead and puke, and swallow it all so you can choke.
And I suppose we are to believe you really care about this rich little spoiled white girl that had everything handed to her on a silver spoon?

[shill]

No one in any dictionary does it say that. There's no definition for that term--you can use it however you want. But may I ask--please drop that discussion. It is really irrelevant to the murder now..

Have you checked your Ebonics dictionary?

[shill]

You didn't make me angry at all..You're right--only some sadistic loners would make an argument or pick a fight of such small term. Be realistic--is it worth any rude or insulting comments? No it isn't..How do I put someone on ignore? I knew how to at one point but I can't seem to find my way back to the ignore button.

Edited to say: I've found the ignore option in my control panel. So disregard that question..

That's the ignorant button you keep clicking on, not the ignore button.

[shill]

No, fake rape is like in Jonbenet's case. I never said every rape was a fake one, so learn to read before you jump to conclusions. Better yet go get therapy to help you curve that depress attitude of yours.
JB was raped. You have not proven she wasn't.

One could question why someone would continue to call it rape if they continue to let it happen after the first time. I know that the person is a victim and wants it to stop but they can't stop it. But there are those who would think that the victim is letting this happen and is not being raped, and that she is really being "fake raped" because she wants it to happen. Those are ignorant people who need to be educated.

[shill]

I just received a private message from someone--I won't say who as they obviously did not want their message to be public...They asked me to ignore Shill's comments and they also stated that the reason he is using the words "ghetto" and "Ebonics" is because I'm black--true or false, I don't care..Doesn't matter to me..Well, to respect this person I will NOT respond to anymore of Shill's comments..I've placed Shill on ignore..

Apparently the person who PM has race issues. Ebonics was created for a reason, it's called communication. Ebonics is all about made up words or butchered pronunciations to aid in communication similar to someone wanting to using the term "fake rape" to communicate.

Had I said you were Ghetto-fabulous (which you're not), it would be because of your race. I wouldn't have called you ghetto if you weren't black.
If you were white, I would call you trailer trash.
It's not the color of your skin that makes you who you are, it's your ignorant, mindless, Ramsey hating post that make you who you are.

[rashomon]

Of course, this panel of top-flight medical experts didn't include the man who actually did the autopsy or her personal pediatrician, so it couldn't have been exactly unanimous, but what did they know? If it was in the Twisterpiece, it cannot be questioned by any rightminded person. Synthroid Stevie's book was a gem of undisputed facts and uncanny vision and wisdom in understanding childkillers. It is odd though that even the Twister didn't make claims about the imaginary fibers that you seem to believe in as much as some do the shroud of Turin. :biggrin: His immense experience as a homicide investigator prepared him well to cut through all the lies and deception that TeamRamsey could throw at at this fearless Caped Crusader of Colorado. I am almost speechless with awe. JMHO
Her personal pediatrician never performed a vaginal exam on JB, so how can he say anyting about her having been abused or not?
And unlike the panel of top flight medical experts consulted on the case (who studied enlarged autopsy pictures), Dr. Meyer was no medical expert on sexual child abuse. But he did note things like the chronic inflammation of the vagina, that the hymen was represented by rim of tissue etc.
There seems to have ben some insecurity on the part of Dr. Meyer re his findings in JB's genital area, for he returned to the autopsy room in the midde of the night together with Dr. Sirotnack to do a reexamination.

BTW, the info about Dr. McCann, Dr. Monteleone and others agreeing that the child had been the victim of prior vaginal trauma is not only in ST's book, but also in PMPT. No one has ever disputed that this meeting took place and what was said there. There are also other sources on the net which list the experts' findings.
Has any of these top medical experts ever come forward and stated: "No, I never stated this." Not to my knowledge.

[Sprocket]

Until someone can provide some verifiable sources that refute that the review by the panel of experts a)is in total conflict with the autopsy b)and/or never took place to begin with, I think the sources provided so far validate Dr. McCann's conclusions about JonBent experiencing prior sexual trauma before the night of her death.

[nuisanceposter]

not only in ST's book, but also in PMPT.

The list of experts can be found on page 437 of the hardback edition.

"Dr David Jones, Dr James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St Louis University School of Medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California at Davis, thought that the damage to JonBenet's hymen dated from an old injury. Another expert, Dr Richard Krugman, dean of the CU Health Services Center, suggested that the the injury to the hymen might have been part of the staging that took place after her death. Dr Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death."

Bullmoose, I believe all of these experts, who saw the autopsy and slides of tissue taken at the time of autopsy, were all way more qualified to judge on the matter of sexual abuse than Meyer, who wasn't trained to be a sexual abuse expert, and Beuf, who hadn't even seen JonBenet in quite some time before she died. Beuf never even did an internal exam on JonBenet, and even if he had, he still didn't have the same training as these experts did.

Any doctor who thinks a child with the toileting and recurring vaginal issues JonBenet had without suspecting something might be up and/or referring her to a specialist doesn't sound like a very astute doctor, IMO. He gave her 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6, and Patsy said she had frequent infections because her underwear were always wet. Hello....red flags in your face! What needs to happen to get this child to a pediatric urologist, someone other than a doctor who dismisses such curious symptoms as "normal", when most other girls do not have to endure 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6? There may very well have been a medical issue that needed to be addressed.

[Athena]

Another incident of things being twisted is Krugman's statement. What he means is that the assault to the vagina was done to make it look like it may have been a pedophile not that she had been sexually abused prior.

And Dr. Spitz believed it occured at the time of death -- not before.

And what exactly was an "old injury" to the hymen? It does not say sexual abuse and injuries to the hymen DO NOT have to be sexually related. Twist, twist, twist.

[Louisadelmar]

The list of experts can be found on page 437 of the hardback edition.

"Dr David Jones, Dr James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St Louis University School of Medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California at Davis, thought that the damage to JonBenet's hymen dated from an old injury. Another expert, Dr Richard Krugman, dean of the CU Health Services Center, suggested that the the injury to the hymen might have been part of the staging that took place after her death. Dr Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death."

Bullmoose, I believe all of these experts, who saw the autopsy and slides of tissue taken at the time of autopsy, were all way more qualified to judge on the matter of sexual abuse than Meyer, who wasn't trained to be a sexual abuse expert, and Beuf, who hadn't even seen JonBenet in quite some time before she died. Beuf never even did an internal exam on JonBenet, and even if he had, he still didn't have the same training as these experts did.

Any doctor who thinks a child with the toileting and recurring vaginal issues JonBenet had without suspecting something might be up and/or referring her to a specialist doesn't sound like a very astute doctor, IMO. He gave her 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6, and Patsy said she had frequent infections because her underwear were always wet. Hello....red flags in your face! What needs to happen to get this child to a pediatric urologist, someone other than a doctor who dismisses such curious symptoms as "normal", when most other girls do not have to endure 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6? There may very well have been a medical issue that needed to be addressed.


Rashomon says "Her personal pediatrician never performed a vaginal exam on JB, so how can he say anyting about her having been abused or not? " You say Beuf gave her 5 or 6. Rashomon is wrong and you are correct. But there is still nothing suspicious about it. Beuf says he did some of them as part of her routine exams. Do you have daughters? My daughter had routine physicals that included a check of the genitals and there was no "endure' about it. Get the kid in position, a quick look, see and they're done. Other pediatric experts were shown her records and saw nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in them.

Also, she came from a family of bedwetters. There was no reason I've heard to think it was anything she wouldn't outgrow as did her brothers and sisters. Beuf was an experienced pediatrician. He didn't see a need to send her to a specialist. Furthermore, it's mybelief that kids who wet the bed already feel bad enough without adults adding the suggestion (based on nothing we've heard of) that there is something "wrong" with them.

[Athena]

<snip>
Any doctor who thinks a child with the toileting and recurring vaginal issues JonBenet had without suspecting something might be up and/or referring her to a specialist doesn't sound like a very astute doctor, IMO. He gave her 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6, and Patsy said she had frequent infections because her underwear were always wet. Hello....red flags in your face! What needs to happen to get this child to a pediatric urologist, someone other than a doctor who dismisses such curious symptoms as "normal", when most other girls do not have to endure 5 or 6 vaginal exams between the ages of 3 and 6? There may very well have been a medical issue that needed to be addressed.

What I'd really like to know is where does this information come from? There is nothing I've seen from the list of visits she made to Dr. Beuf that she ever had vaginal exams; that she ever had all of these infections, etc. She had normal childhood visits.

1990
8-06: JonBenet Ramsey born at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia
1991
12-06: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for fever, cough and wheezing
1992
?
1993
1-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for ear infection
8-31: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf
9-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf (diarrhea)
11-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for cough and stuffy nose
1994
1-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for bad breath, cough, congestion
?: JonBenet Ramsey hit on cheek with golf club by brother Burke
2-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf, suggested by Nedra Paugh
4-?: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for pain during urination (advised no bubble baths for JonBenet Ramsey)
5-18: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for allergic rhinitis, earache
10-5: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for routine physical (notes bedwetting)
10-5: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for scar left by golf club
10-?: JonBenet Ramsey to plastic surgeon in Denver for scar
11-01: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for diarrhea and lethargy
1995
1-01: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for chickenpox
2-01: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for cough and temperature
2-01: JonBenet Ramsey seen by Dr. Beuf for abdominal pain and fever
4-?: JonBenet Ramsey had cough but refused examination
5-08: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for fall on nose at Alfalfa Food Mart
12-?: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for fall hitting head above left eye
1996
2-03: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Marilyn Dougherty for eyesight check
3-?: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for coughing
6-?: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for fall bending fingernail on left hand
8-27: JonBenet and Burke Ramsey routine physicals with Dr. Beuf
9-?: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for coughing
10-?: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for stuffy nose and bad breath
11-12: JonBenet Ramsey to Dr. Beuf for sinus infection
12-17: Patsy Ramsey called Dr. Beuf three times (reason unknown)

[rashomon]

Rashomon says "Her personal pediatrician never performed a vaginal exam on JB, so how can he say anyting about her having been abused or not? " You say Beuf gave her 5 or 6. Rashomon is wrong and you are correct.
Louisadelmar, I read on another forum that Beuf never performed a vaginal exam on JB. A check of the genitals is something else that a vaginal examination with a speculum. Could you give me a link to what exactly Beuf says he did? Thanks. Do you know if JB's medical records have been made public?

But there is still nothing suspicious about it. Beuf says he did some of them as part of her routine exams. Do you have daughters? My daughter had routine physicals that included a check of the genitals and there was no "endure' about it. Get the kid in position, a quick look, see and they're done. Other pediatric experts were shown her records and saw nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in them.
Did the doctor use a speculum? My daughter had routine examinations too but never with a speculum.

[shill]

Did the doctor use a speculum? My daughter had routine examinations too but never with a speculum.
Do they use that tool on little girls with their hymen intack?

[Louisadelmar]

Louisadelmar, I read on another forum that Beuf never performed a vaginal exam on JB. A check of the genitals is something else that a vaginal examination with a speculum. Could you give me a link to what exactly Beuf says he did? Thanks. Do you know if JB's medical records have been made public?


Did the doctor use a speculum? My daughter had routine examinations too but never with a speculum.

No he wouldn't use a speculum. Often if a little girl need to be axamined with a speculum they will anesthetize her.

If you read his interview with Diane Sawyer he goes into quite a bit of detail about her medical history. I'm surprised you haven't read it.

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

[Athena]

Her personal pediatrician never performed a vaginal exam on JB, so how can he say anyting about her having been abused or not?
And unlike the panel of top flight medical experts consulted on the case (who studied enlarged autopsy pictures), Dr. Meyer was no medical expert on sexual child abuse. But he did note things like the chronic inflammation of the vagina, that the hymen was represented by rim of tissue etc.
There seems to have ben some insecurity on the part of Dr. Meyer re his findings in JB's genital area, for he returned to the autopsy room in the midde of the night together with Dr. Sirotnack to do a reexamination.

BTW, the info about Dr. McCann, Dr. Monteleone and others agreeing that the child had been the victim of prior vaginal trauma is not only in ST's book, but also in PMPT. No one has ever disputed that this meeting took place and what was said there. There are also other sources on the net which list the experts' findings.
Has any of these top medical experts ever come forward and stated: "No, I never stated this." Not to my knowledge.

All Dr McCann said in PMPT is that he thought he might be an old injury. End of statement. He does not elaborate much like the opposite statement that Dr Sptiz made that he said he believes it happened at death. The only elaborate drawn out explanation is in the Bonita Papers which were written prior to all of the evidence that is out there now. They are exaggerated and some are outright lies written to promote a book.

And here's some more info re: hymen and vaginal size written from Dr. McCann's research papers:

Dr. Woodling acknowledged that "there is a significant variation in hymenal types ... we need to realize that hymens are like people's faces, there are lots of variations ... there are often times cuts or transections but they're not traumatic, they're just clefts that the child was born with ... and can in fact appear to the untrained eye as an old transection .. " (Woodling & Heger, 1985).

I have seen countless cases in which exactly these findings were said to be unequivocal evidence of molest. Likewise, to take another example, vaginal size may be cited as evidence of molest. A paper by Cantwell (1983) is still cited as support for the proposition that a vaginal opening size above four millimeters is supportive of molest. Woodling nonetheless acknowledged that this had "not held true in our experience" (Woodling & Heger, 1985).

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_1.htm

[aussiesheila]

Ah - I see you've remembered his sidekick (the ghosthunter) :-)

Oh I agree that he seems to be a real person - that doesn't mean he's what he claims to be. Anyone can create a wikipedia page. I could do one and claim to be a forensic pathologist with a law degree. Doesn't make it so.

He has a biography posted on numerous websites which do not guarantee the authenticity of their content. For example - the allexperts website is one where you volunteer to answer questions and they call their volunteers "experts"!

http://www.allexperts.com/central/expert.htm

Here's how picky they are:-



Here's the Detective with his John Lennon face in the wall:-

http://halloweensunseen.com/johnlennon.htmlYes, and IMO all the "experts" who have contributed to the JonBenet site are volunteers from Tricia's Websleuths and Forums for Justice forums if the truth be known.

So can we all agree not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of accurate information on the JonBenet case please?

[Jayelles]

Yes, and IMO all the "experts" who have contributed to the JonBenet site are volunteers from Tricia's Websleuths and Forums for Justice forums if the truth be known.

So can we all agree not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of accurate information on the JonBenet case please?

Actually, the JonBenet Wiki site is run by Miss Marple who is a staunch IDI and who co-runs the Starting Over forum with Margoo, Rainsong, Mame and One-Eyed Jack from jameson's.

Contributors come from both sides of the fence - I've added a little bit. Also, the beauty of a wiki is that anyone can update it. If you see something which is erroneous, you can correct it so technically speaking, Wiki's should be the most accurate source of information. The JonBenet wiki is also choc full of links to documents and sources.

[Jayelles]

Do they use that tool on little girls with their hymen intack?

I would consider the use of a speculum on a child to be tantamount to assault. It's a horrendous implement - unpleasant for an adult woman even if she has experienced childbirth.

[rashomon]

No he wouldn't use a speculum. Often if a little girl need to be axamined with a speculum they will anesthetize her.

If you read his interview with Diane Sawyer he goes into quite a bit of detail about her medical history. I'm surprised you haven't read it.

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html
Thanks for the link, Louisa. So Dr. Beuf did not use a speculum. This is what I meant when writing that he had never performed an vaginal exam on JB - I meant an internal gynecological exam using a speculum.
But then, how much could he 'see' in a vaginal exam without using one? How could he tell if there was sexual abuse or not when not using a speculum?
From the interview I get the impression that Dr. Beuf did not even look for signs of sexual abuse.

[Louisadelmar]

Thanks for the link, Louisa. So Dr. Beuf did not use a speculum. This is what I meant when writing that he had never performed an vaginal exam on JB - I meant an internal gynecological exam using a speculum.
But then, how much could he 'see' in a vaginal exam without using one? How could he tell if there was sexual abuse or not when not using a speculum?
From the interview I get the impression that Dr. Beuf did not even look for signs of sexual abuse.

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.

[AmyW]

I'm off to read the Bonita Papers so that I can participate here. I've been lurking since I joined and have been slowly-but-surely making my way through the many pages. Good debate so far. I look forward to jumping on the bandwagon. :read:

[andU]

Come on in, Amy .... get your feet wet! .. I, IMO, would not put a lot of faith in the Bonita papers, however. It could be used for background info, I suppose.

[AmyW]

Thanks for the tip and the welcome. :seeya:

[Athena]

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 agree Louisa. What really strkes me as ironic is that reference is made to Dr. Beuf because he only did external genitalia exams as most pediatricians would unless something is seen to be suspect, but then they believe experts who claim without a doubt that JBR was sexually abused from photos they have seen in the Globe. The experts who examined Dr. Meyers' slides disagreed there was prior sexual abuse. :confused:

[aussiesheila]

Actually, the JonBenet Wiki site is run by Miss Marple who is a staunch IDI and who co-runs the Starting Over forum with Margoo, Rainsong, Mame and One-Eyed Jack from jameson's.

Contributors come from both sides of the fence - I've added a little bit. Also, the beauty of a wiki is that anyone can update it. If you see something which is erroneous, you can correct it so technically speaking, Wiki's should be the most accurate source of information. The JonBenet wiki is also choc full of links to documents and sources.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.