Timelines & Crimelines

[SnarkyCow]

I have read that some people believe the assault started in JonBenet's bedroom. If anyone here feels that way I would greatly appreciate your throughts & opinions as to how it may have started in her bedroom & what evidence shows it may have started there.

The reason I am asking is this: It is hard to shuffle the few things we know about this case into a specific order. We know (approximately) when the Ramseys got home from the Whites, we know JonBenet was viciously murdered in her home during the night/early morning and we know what time Patsy called 911.

Everything in between this time is what keeps us all guessing and, as is obvious, is the information needed to solve this crime. I am just curious about narrowing down where the assault on JonBenet took place - from start to finish. Again it is obvious that if we had this information we'd be a lot closer to solving the murder, but I'm interested in hearing your theories on how and where, in the Ramsey home, the crime against JonBenet started.

If the crime started in JonBenet's bedroom it is my opinion that she ate the pineapple soon after arriving home from the Whites' - for what intruder would start a crime in a child's bedroom, move them to the dining room (without waking anyone) for a refreshing snack and then continue the assault of the child?

If the crime did not start in JonBenet's bedroom how would she have ended up downstairs, eating pineapple with her potential killer? I am speculating here, but wasn't it Nedra Paugh that stated JonBenet loathed being woken up & would have made a fuss? (Please correct me if I have my information wrong).

Also, even with a "surprise visit from Santa" to look forward to how many "zonked out" 6 year olds wake of their own accord in the middle of the night? If JonBenet wasn't able to wake up by herself to use the bathroom when nature called I have a hard time believing she'd wake, on her own accord, for a snack or to get ready for "Santa's Surprise Visit?"

If someone took her from her bed by incapacitating her she wouldn't be able to go eat pineapple as if nothing happened. This brings me back to thinking she ate the pineapple shortly after returning home from the Whites'.

**I realize I've mentioned the pineapple yet again on this thread, but only in the interest of establishing some sort of idea & theory regarding a timeline of when & where the assault started: I'd very much like to know how JonBenet got from her bed, ate the pineapple and end up murdered in the basement without anyone in the home hearing anything.

Also, if Burke was the one who got JonBenet a snack in the middle of the night what does that do to the timeline of events? How could an intruder be totally sure when Burke & JonBenet fell asleep as he/she watched them eat their snack and head back to bed?**

[SnarkyCow]

Your whole theory centers on your idea that she ate the pineapple AFTER she got home. Just because elvislive says it happens that way doesn't mean he is right! The experts disagree on everything in this case!

Okay, a few things. First - I do believe she ate pineapple after she got home from the Whites'. It has nothing to do with Elvis saying it - A LOT of people say it. It's what the evidence shows.

Second - this is like the 3rd thread on which I've seen you pop off about the pineapple. Why don't you try backing up your statements with sources?:rolleyes:

Thirdly - IF YOU READ my above post you'll see I was asking for others' opinions & theories regarding the TIMELINE of the crime. I brought up the pineapple in reference to that which I very clearly stated.

[shill]

Okay, a few things. First - I do believe she ate pineapple after she got home from the Whites'. It has nothing to do with Elvis saying it - A LOT of people say it. It's what the evidence shows.


All we know is she was killed 2-3hrs after she ate pineapple.
If she ate it right when she got home, like some would like to believe, then she died around Midnight to 1am.
How many people fall asleep for a few hours and wake up groggy and yet go off the handle over a bed wetting accident and strike someone dead. Usually you just want to go back to bed and are half asleep and placid.

[Tober]

How many people fall asleep for a few hours and wake up groggy and yet go off the handle over a bed wetting accident and strike someone dead.

How do you know Patsy was asleep prior to JonBenet being killed?

[SnarkyCow]

All we know is she was killed 2-3hrs after she ate pineapple.
If she ate it right when she got home, like some would like to believe, then she died around Midnight to 1am.
How many people fall asleep for a few hours and wake up groggy and yet go off the handle over a bed wetting accident and strike someone dead. Usually you just want to go back to bed and are half asleep and placid.

My fault for bringing up the pineapple again - sorry, I know there is an entire thread about this very thing. Focusing on the timeline as opposed to the pineapple ~ Where in the home do you believe the attack on JonBenet started? And why?

Tober ~ I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this as well.

Is there any evidence (I cannot remember any at this moment) stating where the investigators/police believe the crime started in the home? Where do you think she was first attacked? Her room? The basement?

Sorry to throw a crap-load of questions at you, but I am very curious about everyones' opinions on this.

[Tober]

I'd very much like to know how JonBenet got from her bed, ate the pineapple and end up murdered in the basement without anyone in the home hearing anything.


I don't think JonBenet went to bed at all that night. She was awake when they got home and consumed the pineapple shortly thereafter (I say that based on the position of the food in her digestive tract that she ate at the White's). Burke or Patsy got the pineapple for her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Her head injury was inflicted relatively shortly after she consumed the pineapple. I wonder if she was already in the basement and that's where she was bludgeoned in the head? This post is my opinion.

[aussiesheila]

I have read that some people believe the assault started in JonBenet's bedroom. If anyone here feels that way I would greatly appreciate your throughts & opinions as to how it may have started in her bedroom & what evidence shows it may have started there.

The reason I am asking is this: It is hard to shuffle the few things we know about this case into a specific order. We know (approximately) when the Ramseys got home from the Whites, we know JonBenet was viciously murdered in her home during the night/early morning and we know what time Patsy called 911.

Everything in between this time is what keeps us all guessing and, as is obvious, is the information needed to solve this crime. I am just curious about narrowing down where the assault on JonBenet took place - from start to finish. Again it is obvious that if we had this information we'd be a lot closer to solving the murder, but I'm interested in hearing your theories on how and where, in the Ramsey home, the crime against JonBenet started.

If the crime started in JonBenet's bedroom it is my opinion that she ate the pineapple soon after arriving home from the Whites' - for what intruder would start a crime in a child's bedroom, move them to the dining room (without waking anyone) for a refreshing snack and then continue the assault of the child?

If the crime did not start in JonBenet's bedroom how would she have ended up downstairs, eating pineapple with her potential killer? I am speculating here, but wasn't it Nedra Paugh that stated JonBenet loathed being woken up & would have made a fuss? (Please correct me if I have my information wrong).

Also, even with a "surprise visit from Santa" to look forward to how many "zonked out" 6 year olds wake of their own accord in the middle of the night? If JonBenet wasn't able to wake up by herself to use the bathroom when nature called I have a hard time believing she'd wake, on her own accord, for a snack or to get ready for "Santa's Surprise Visit?"

If someone took her from her bed by incapacitating her she wouldn't be able to go eat pineapple as if nothing happened. This brings me back to thinking she ate the pineapple shortly after returning home from the Whites'.

**I realize I've mentioned the pineapple yet again on this thread, but only in the interest of establishing some sort of idea & theory regarding a timeline of when & where the assault started: I'd very much like to know how JonBenet got from her bed, ate the pineapple and end up murdered in the basement without anyone in the home hearing anything.

Also, if Burke was the one who got JonBenet a snack in the middle of the night what does that do to the timeline of events? How could an intruder be totally sure when Burke & JonBenet fell asleep as he/she watched them eat their snack and head back to bed?**SnarkyCow, I think this is a good idea of yours to start at the beginning, so I'll take the opportunity and post my little bit.

At first I didn't think it started here, I thought it most likely that before Patsy fell asleep in the living room, she had gone upstairs to JonBenet's bedroom and brought her down to the kitchen where Santa was waiting.

But then I read in the Carnes report that fibres from the cord used to make the wrist ties and neck ligature were found in her bed. So assuming this was fact, I adapted my theory and proposed that Santa went up to JonBenet's bedroom once Patsy had fallen asleep in the living room.

I have posted all this before so don't read on if youv'e already heard all this. I think that Santa brought the cord with him as well as a red pen and some little stuffed toy animal the description of which escapes me for the moment, and while he was there with her in her bedroom encouraging her to wake up, he drew a little red heart on the palm of her left hand, whispering all kinds of sweet fantastical nothings in her ear as the part of a 'prepping' ritual for what was to follow. Once she was under his spell, I think he tied the end of one of the cord lengths around her left wrist (also part of the 'prepping') and led her downstairs for what he had promised would be something really exciting.

I think they stopped off in the kitchen, where Santa, whose excitement had given him a bit of a thirst, made himself a cup of tea. While sitting down sipping his tea, I think he pulled a sealed plastic bag containg cut pineapple out of his sack and emptied some of it into a bowl. I think he then took a spoonful of pineapple from the bowl with that large spoon and added 10 mls of a magic potion from a little bottle in his sack, to the spoonful of pineapple, promising JonBenet if she ate the spoonful of pinapple it would give her magical powers like him.

After he had drunk his tea and JonBenet had eaten her morsel of pineapple I think Santa proceeded to lead her down to the basement where he produced from his sack the promised surprise - a little dark haired baby rabbit in a shoebox, which JonBenet was allowed to kneel down on the floor of the boiler room and pat.

While JonBenet was thus occupied I think Santa phoned CG ( the person I think Joe Barnhill had seen the day before walking outside the Ramsey house) who was waiting outside somewhere in an alley behind the house. I think once Santa had told him it was safe to come in, he came in through the kitchen door using FW's key, so he would have been able to unlock the door and leave it open for others to follow. I think Santa then phoned the person who had driven him to the house and who was waiting in his car in the alleyway (CW) and he came in also.

Last to arrive I think, was the boarder from across the street (GM) who I think was waiting outside in amongst the bushes with his new stun gun looking in the basement toilet window, through which I think he was then signalled to come in.

At this point I think the 'prepping' rituals turned really nasty. I think that while JonBenet was in the corner on the floor patting the baby rabbit, one of them quickly strangled it in front of her eyes causing in her a flood of terror upon which she voided her bladder and became submissive to their will. Here is the end of the beginning as I see it, before the start of the horror.

[shill]

I don't think JonBenet went to bed at all that night. She was awake when they got home and consumed the pineapple shortly thereafter (I say that based on the position of the food in her digestive tract that she ate at the White's). Burke or Patsy got the pineapple for her, that's why their fingerprints were on the bowl. Her head injury was inflicted relatively shortly after she consumed the pineapple. I wonder if she was already in the basement and that's where she was bludgeoned in the head? This post is my opinion.

You sure about that Tober. Why was she already in the basement?
But aren't you forgetting that she died 2-3 hours after eating the pineapple? That's not "shortly after". Are you sure you don't want to retract this post?

[Tober]

You sure about that Tober. Why was she already in the basement?
But aren't you forgetting that she died 2-3 hours after eating the pineapple? That's not "shortly after". Are you sure you don't want to retract this post?

I said "I wonder" if she was already in the basement. I said "relatively shortly." She could have consumed the pineapple approximately 1.5 hours before death. This post is my opinion.

[Tober]

Why was she already in the basement?

I'm considering the possibility that JonBenet was already in the basement when she was bludgeoned in the head. I am of the opinion that the flashlight was the weapon that caused her head injury. I think the person who struck her with it already had it in their hand before she did something to anger or surprise them, and that's when the person struck her. In other words, I don't think the person who struck her became angry with or surprised by her, then picked up the flashlight, and then struck her. I think the person was already holding the flashlight in their hand, then became angry with or surprised by her, and then struck her. This post is my opinion.

[bullmoose]

I'm considering the possibility that JonBenet was already in the basement when she was bludgeoned in the head. I am of the opinion that the flashlight was the weapon that caused her head injury. I think the person who struck her with it already had it in their hand before she did something to anger or surprise them, and that's when the person struck her. In other words, I don't think the person who struck her became angry with or surprised by her, then picked up the flashlight, and then struck her. I think the person was already holding the flashlight in their hand, then became angry with or surprised by her, and then struck her. This post is my opinion.What length was the flashlight that was found in the kitchen,Tober? What kind of reenactment was done to show how how that flashlight could have caused a fatal skull fracture 8 inches long and 13/4 inches wide. Did the fracture show the same fluting for the lense as is typical on a maglite? You let on that you know all kinds of inside details, surely you must know these things, lrt us share in your vast knowledge. JMHO

[Tober]

Where do you think she was first attacked? Her room? The basement?

I think JonBenet was bludgeoned in the head while in the basement, or very shortly after coming up from the basement. I believe she may have gone down there after consuming the pineapple, which she ate shortly after their arrival home. A scenario I'm considering is this: They get home, JonBenet was awake and asks for a snack. Patsy gets out the bowl of pineapple and places it on the table or hands it to Burke and he places it on the table. Around this time Burke makes and drinks the glass of tea. JonBenet eats what she wants of the pineapple, probably with her fingers. They both go down to the basement, as Burke was actually working on his model down there, and not in the living room. JonBenet was helping him or just watching him, whatever. Some time goes by, it's getting late, they've got to be up early tomorrow. Patsy gets the flashlight and goes down to tell them it's time to go to bed. Burke heads up and goes to his room. For whatever reason, JonBenet and Patsy stay in the basement for a few moments. Perhaps JonBenet was being defiant and didn't want to go to bed, or whatever. She says and/or does something to anger Patsy (who still has the flashlight in hand), and in a moment of blind rage, Patsy strikes her in the head. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Wow Tober,
You’re actually having an original thought instead of regurgitating ST verbatim.

I believe it was a toy that needed assembly, not a model kit perse.

Some HO scale train cars need to have trucks and hooks put on and take a small amount of assembly. Maybe Burke woke up and went down to the train room to run his newly assembled train car.

[Kor]

I find it unlikely for either of Ramsey to grab their flashlight, which was placed in drawer of bar room then put some batteries in to sneak around their own basement, while their basement had ceiling lights. I believe the purpose of that flashlight was for the killer to find way around the house during darkness, evading being recognized, might as well used to strike on JB’s head too. So why either of Ramsey would needed a flashlight to find way around their own basement with ceiling lights? Also their kids had to go bed early to get up for the Michigan trip, so how come JB’s blanket from her bed was also found on JB’s body? If it was Patsy’s rage, I believe Patsy or John would call 911 or take JB to hospital; they would feel guilty and wanting to do something to help JB instead of staging. From what I have read, parents who killed their children usually confessed base on their rage, mental illness, or accident. Also Patsy was Christian; I learned about people who are Christian usually are programmed to confess to relieve their sins. They are just one of my reasons I find either of Ramsey’s profiles that doesn’t fit to this murder or the staging. JMO

[bullmoose]

I have to agree with you Kor, that IMO the Ramseys simply do not fit into the scenario the Tober presents. These were by all accounts loving parents with no history of violence that Tober presents as wacking Jonbenet in a fit of anger, then they horribly, cruelly and deliberately strangle their child to cover up the blow. In my mind this was a planned murder by whoever is responsible for it, IMO there is no element of a possible accidental blow that was covered over in a bizarre fashion. This was pre-meditated murder, and I do not believe the Ramseys in any way involved,beyond being victims. JMHO

[Sharon]

I have to agree with you Kor, that IMO the Ramseys simply do not fit into the scenario the Tober presents. These were by all accounts loving parents with no history of violence that Tober presents as wacking Jonbenet in a fit of anger, then they horribly, cruelly and deliberately strangle their child to cover up the blow. In my mind this was a planned murder by whoever is responsible for it, IMO there is no element of a possible accidental blow that was covered over in a bizarre fashion. This was pre-meditated murder, and I do not believe the Ramseys in any way involved,beyond being victims. JMHO

Also, wouldnt it be beyond cruelty to kill your child deliberately on christmas eve? Im not trying to be flippant, but wouldnt this be the one time that everything is done for your kids enjoyment? Werent they planning a knockout present the next day for JBR?

Im just reminding everyone of the timing of the murder. To me it is a time when you really want your kids to be totally happy. In my opinion it would be unfathemable to imagine normal loving parents deliberately murder their girl on Christmas Eve.

And, I believe without evidence of the opposite that she was much loved by her parents. And, short of that, she was P`s pride & joy. I cant imagine P. wanting to kill her beautiful showgirl, let alone her much loved daughter.

Lastly, someone having just fought off cancer would really value life maybe even more than the rest of us. I cant imagine P. wanting to take her daughters life when she had just looked death in the face herself.

This is just my opinion

[LindaA]

Sharon, these are all points we have brought up before. For those who believe PDI or JDI, they can be dismissed very easily. One detail, JBR was killed on Christmas night or early on the 26th, not Christmas Eve.

Kor, I also wondered why the Rs would use a flashlight in their own basement, and why Burke would be down there assembling his toy in the dark. Sorry, Tober, your story just doesn't add up.

Finally, both John and Patsy were/are devoted Christians.

[andU]

I believe it began in JB's bedroom. Perhaps it was someone JB knew or that he won favor by wearing a santa suit. The intruder used the flashlight to move about the house. The surprise turned into terror and death once in the basement where the other perp/perv was waiting for his accomplice and JB. I know my thoughts are sketchy and there isn't much detail. I'm just sharing my thoughts. My first cup of brew is in front of me.
Oh, yeah, I also believe that Christmas was a huge part of the plan, the timing was part of the holiday was involved.

[Tober]

Please point out something in Patsy's life that "indicates" she'd be incapable of lashing out at JonBenet in a moment of anger. And please don't tell me she was a Christian. The Bible is very clear that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is. There are wheat (those truly saved) and tares (those who claim to be saved, but aren't, and will end up in hell). The notion that "a parent couldn't have done this" is wishful thinking at best. JonBenet's head blow indicates a domestic incident in which she was bludgeoned in anger. Everything thereafter was staging. She was lovingly wrapped in a blanket, etc. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.

[User615]

According to reports, when the R's got home, JBR was taken straight to bed. PR got her ready to go to sleep, then went to bed herself. Only Burke and JR stayed up to finish working on his model garage. Then JR says he went to bed around 10:30, and PR was already asleep (calling her the "sleep queen"). We do not know if Burke was asleep or not, or whether he woke up JBR. I cannot fathom an intruder coming in and counting on finding a flashlight to use...in fact I cannot fathom one not bringing anything necessary for the crime, including a prewritten ransom note. From everything I have read, everything used was found in the home. For me to believe this was done by an intruder, someone has to "get me out of the house" for suspects.

[Louisadelmar]

According to reports, when the R's got home, JBR was taken straight to bed. PR got her ready to go to sleep, then went to bed herself. Only Burke and JR stayed up to finish working on his model garage. Then JR says he went to bed around 10:30, and PR was already asleep (calling her the "sleep queen"). We do not know if Burke was asleep or not, or whether he woke up JBR. I cannot fathom an intruder coming in and counting on finding a flashlight to use...in fact I cannot fathom one not bringing anything necessary for the crime, including a prewritten ransom note. From everything I have read, everything used was found in the home. For me to believe this was done by an intruder, someone has to "get me out of the house" for suspects.

The duct tape and rope weren't found in the home.

[Louisadelmar]

[..]. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.

I think anyone who had a connection that could be traced back to the Ramseys would have a reason to make this look like an outsider/pedophile committed the cime.

[Athena]

I think anyone who had a connection that could be traced back to the Ramseys would have a reason to make this look like an outsider/pedophile committed the cime.

I agree except the difference would be "framing" v "staging" but has the same elements. JMOI

[Kor]

According to reports, when the R's got home, JBR was taken straight to bed. PR got her ready to go to sleep, then went to bed herself. Only Burke and JR stayed up to finish working on his model garage. Then JR says he went to bed around 10:30, and PR was already asleep (calling her the "sleep queen"). We do not know if Burke was asleep or not, or whether he woke up JBR. I cannot fathom an intruder coming in and counting on finding a flashlight to use...in fact I cannot fathom one not bringing anything necessary for the crime, including a prewritten ransom note. From everything I have read, everything used was found in the home. For me to believe this was done by an intruder, someone has to "get me out of the house" for suspects.

Finding the flashlight is easy if it was the housekeeper, someone in her circle, or an acquaintance to Ramsey and house. During Ramsey’s visiting at Fleet White, intruder had plenty time finding things, even wrote the note. Think about it, how many people hanged around by the bar, where liquors were at, were able to notice a flashlight in one of drawers, tried finding a bottle opener or something, days to months before. I am still vague on whether if the murder was done by a pedophile or vengeance since pedophiles tend to stalk their victims with extremely method thoughts of planning. A fitting sense for an acquaintance to Ramsey rather than stranger, Ramsey planned leaving in morning for their flight to Michigan. So how many knew of Ramsey’s schedules? Their visiting at Fleet White and trip to Michigan? I bet one of them was that intruder & murder, can’t be completely stranger after the note told us in deeper details on how the writer knew the Ramsey very well. IMO

[ralia]

Hi everyone! This is my very first post to your forum and I'd like to share some thoughts.

No matter what the parents' good intentions were the child was a walking provocation for pedophiles.

According to the "piercing scream" allegedly heard by M.Standon between 12-2 from the basement, a scream that according to the accoustics of the house could have been heard from outside but not from the third floor, the child at that point was Not stungunned, Not ducttaped, Not hit on the head.

That tells me the attack didn't occur in her room, bathroom e.t.c. and the bed-wetting theory and rage (mother pushed her against bathtub e.g.) seems higly unlikely. (If she had fallen unconsious upstairs how would she have screamed and heard from the basement?)

She was discovered in full rigor mortis at 1 p.m. ( with an odor of discomposition), so the time frame (death:12-2 and discovery: 1 p.m.) seems to fit.

Assuming she was dead by 2 o'clock and knowing (in general) the rate of digestion ranges between 2-5 hours for the food to reach the small intestines, we can hypothesize she ate the famous pineapple somewhere around 11-12 o'clock. (I lean towards 12 because another witness allegedly stated he saw dim light in the kitchen area that night)

The question is, we have a time gap from 11-12 till 2 a.m. What was she doing all that time? Waiting for Santa's secret visit? Unlikely...She must have been exshausted from all day Christmas activities and excitement. Was she alone in the kitchen area? Her mother said she was afraid to come downstairs alone at night and she couldn't have reached for the bowl by her self. After all, her fingerprints weren't on the bowl... Patsy's and Burke's were...

Why the parents so strongly deny any knowledge of the pineapple thing? One can assume they simply didn't know but finding prints means latent prints (moistured) not smudged (something is mispelled here...)and they have two names on them.Maybe the parents wanted to firmly stick to their original story (hear nothing...see nothing...)and avoid all the unecessary questions (who fed who, for how long e.t.c.) And if a friendly intruder, the sweet Santa, wore gloves and helped with the pineapple, still we would have three presences in the kitcen that night. Poor Burke... He only drank tea...

Any suggestions about the time gap?

My opinion for the night in question is that all the residents of the house have some involvement in this drama, each one participating at some point unintentionally or not, playing a role so significant that in their minds nothing could have been done to udone the inevitable.

That's why in my mind all the evidence is so contradictory.

The note (the most ridiculous specimen of random notes) had the feminine touch in it...Get rested...attache....proper burial... proper salutations...Don't catch a cold...No, that's mine!

On the other hand, my guessing is that a male abused her or STAGED the abuse. What did he use this alleged pervert pedoplile? The first thing he saw on the tray...the paint brush...He didn't come prepared as a proper pedophile should have...With his own sex device, his own sex toys....Oh no! He remembered to bring with him the cord and the already cut duct tape but not the instruments of his pleasure.

Only a man could have improvise the garrotte to strangle her or STAGE the strangulation. I don't think awoman whould have had the guts, for the sake of a cover -up, to sexually abuse her own child and most of all, to improvise the garrotte device. That's a male's touch.

Yes, the Ramseys might have been caring parents. Yes, they might have intented the best for their clildren. But what happened that night was beyond belief and triggered a chain of reactions that have no coming back. IMO, the risked their lives on an unbiquous scenario and got away with it.

[ralia]

Hi everyone! This is my very first post to your forum and I'd like to share some thoughts.

No matter what the parents' good intentions were the child was a walking provocation for pedophiles.

According to the "piercing scream" allegedly heard by M.Standon between 12-2 from the basement, a scream that according to the accoustics of the house could have been heard from outside but not from the third floor, the child at that point was Not stungunned, Not ducttaped, Not hit on the head.

That tells me the attack didn't occur in her room, bathroom e.t.c. and the bed-wetting theory and rage (mother pushed her against bathtub e.g.) seems higly unlikely. (If she had fallen unconsious upstairs how would she have screamed and heard from the basement?)

She was discovered in full rigor mortis at 1 p.m. ( with an odor of discomposition), so the time frame (death:12-2 and discovery: 1 p.m.) seems to fit.

Assuming she was dead by 2 o'clock and knowing (in general) the rate of digestion ranges between 2-5 hours for the food to reach the small intestines, we can hypothesize she ate the famous pineapple somewhere around 11-12 o'clock. (I lean towards 12 because another witness allegedly stated he saw dim light in the kitchen area that night)

The question is, we have a time gap from 11-12 till 2 a.m. What was she doing all that time? Waiting for Santa's secret visit? Unlikely...She must have been exshausted from all day Christmas activities and excitement. Was she alone in the kitchen area? Her mother said she was afraid to come downstairs alone at night and she couldn't have reached for the bowl by her self. After all, her fingerprints weren't on the bowl... Patsy's and Burke's were...

Why the parents so strongly deny any knowledge of the pineapple thing? One can assume they simply didn't know but finding prints means latent prints (moistured) not smudged (something is mispelled here...)and they have two names on them.Maybe the parents wanted to firmly stick to their original story (hear nothing...see nothing...)and avoid all the unecessary questions (who fed who, for how long e.t.c.) And if a friendly intruder, the sweet Santa, wore gloves and helped with the pineapple, still we would have three presences in the kitcen that night. Poor Burke... He only drank tea...

Any suggestions about the time gap?

My opinion for the night in question is that all the residents of the house have some involvement in this drama, each one participating at some point unintentionally or not, playing a role so significant that in their minds nothing could have been done to udone the inevitable.

That's why in my mind all the evidence is so contradictory.

The note (the most ridiculous specimen of random notes) had the feminine touch in it...Get rested...attache....proper burial... proper salutations...Don't catch a cold...No, that's mine!

On the other hand, my guessing is that a male abused her or STAGED the abuse. What did he use this alleged pervert pedoplile? The first thing he saw on the tray...the paint brush...He didn't come prepared as a proper pedophile should have...With his own sex device, his own sex toys....Oh no! He remembered to bring with him the cord and the already cut duct tape but not the instruments of his pleasure.

Only a man could have improvise the garrotte to strangle her or STAGE the strangulation. I don't think awoman whould have had the guts, for the sake of a cover -up, to sexually abuse her own child and most of all, to improvise the garrotte device. That's a male's touch.

Yes, the Ramseys might have been caring parents. Yes, they might have intented the best for their clildren. But what happened that night was beyond belief and triggered a chain of reactions that have no coming back. IMO, the risked their lives on an unbiquous scenario and got away with it.

[Sharon]

Please point out something in Patsy's life that "indicates" she'd be incapable of lashing out at JonBenet in a moment of anger. And please don't tell me she was a Christian. The Bible is very clear that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is. There are wheat (those truly saved) and tares (those who claim to be saved, but aren't, and will end up in hell). The notion that "a parent couldn't have done this" is wishful thinking at best. JonBenet's head blow indicates a domestic incident in which she was bludgeoned in anger. Everything thereafter was staging. She was lovingly wrapped in a blanket, etc. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.

Really good question.
I personally base my opinion on the info. I have read that the blow could have killed a 300 pound man. Is this info true? If it is, then no way would a parent hit their kid so hard in the head by accident.

I am one of the politically incorrect parents who does hit my kids when they are naughty. And I am pretty strong. But, even in my worst anger, I know I would never cause serious skull cracking etc.
First, you know never to strike a childs head, especially with an object. Parents lashing out would hit around the bottom imo.

Also, I dont consider their religion to be a defence, but not for the resons you mention.

And lastly, their are cases of phsycotic murderers putting blankets over their victims.

[Louisadelmar]

I don't think the phrase "proper burial" has any masculine or feminine connotations. I can't begin to count how many times I have heard it this past week, from men and women, in reference to Anna Nicole Smith.

[Sharon]

Hi everyone! This is my very first post to your forum and I'd like to share some thoughts.

Welcome, hope you stay and look forward to your thoughts.
No matter what the parents' good intentions were the child was a walking provocation for pedophiles.

All children are actually provocation for pedophiles.

According to the "piercing scream" allegedly heard by M.Standon between 12-2 from the basement, a scream that according to the accoustics of the house could have been heard from outside but not from the third floor, the child at that point was Not stungunned, Not ducttaped, Not hit on the head.

The scream is not written in stone. The hearer subequently denied hearing the scream and or changed the date.
That tells me the attack didn't occur in her room, bathroom e.t.c. and the bed-wetting theory and rage (mother pushed her against bathtub e.g.) seems higly unlikely. (If she had fallen unconsious upstairs how would she have screamed and heard from the basement?)

She was discovered in full rigor mortis at 1 p.m. ( with an odor of discomposition), so the time frame (death:12-2 and discovery: 1 p.m.) seems to fit.

I believe its more complicated than that as the temp. and her age could have caused excellerated rigor mortis.
Assuming she was dead by 2 o'clock and knowing (in general) the rate of digestion ranges between 2-5 hours for the food to reach the small intestines, we can hypothesize she ate the famous pineapple somewhere around 11-12 o'clock. (I lean towards 12 because another witness allegedly stated he saw dim light in the kitchen area that night)

The question is, we have a time gap from 11-12 till 2 a.m. What was she doing all that time? Waiting for Santa's secret visit? Unlikely...She must have been exshausted from all day Christmas activities and excitement. Was she alone in the kitchen area? Her mother said she was afraid to come downstairs alone at night and she couldn't have reached for the bowl by her self. After all, her fingerprints weren't on the bowl... Patsy's and Burke's were...

Why the parents so strongly deny any knowledge of the pineapple thing? One can assume they simply didn't know but finding prints means latent prints (moistured) not smudged (something is mispelled here...)and they have two names on them.Maybe the parents wanted to firmly stick to their original story (hear nothing...see nothing...)and avoid all the unecessary questions (who fed who, for how long e.t.c.) And if a friendly intruder, the sweet Santa, wore gloves and helped with the pineapple, still we would have three presences in the kitcen that night. Poor Burke... He only drank tea...

Any suggestions about the time gap?

My opinion for the night in question is that all the residents of the house have some involvement in this drama, each one participating at some point unintentionally or not, playing a role so significant that in their minds nothing could have been done to udone the inevitable.

The involement we all have in our own dramas is that we are there when it happens. We participate in our lives, it is called living. We go out, come home, go to sleep etc. I cant see what you are saying here except that they played a role in this drama....yes they were there, it happened to them.

That's why in my mind all the evidence is so contradictory.

The note (the most ridiculous specimen of random notes) had the feminine touch in it...Get rested...attache....proper burial... proper salutations...Don't catch a cold...No, that's mine!

On the other hand, my guessing is that a male abused her or STAGED the abuse. What did he use this alleged pervert pedoplile? The first thing he saw on the tray...the paint brush...He didn't come prepared as a proper pedophile should have...With his own sex device, his own sex toys....Oh no! He remembered to bring with him the cord and the already cut duct tape but not the instruments of his pleasure.

Only a man could have improvise the garrotte to strangle her or STAGE the strangulation. I don't think awoman whould have had the guts, for the sake of a cover -up, to sexually abuse her own child and most of all, to improvise the garrotte device. That's a male's touch.

It seems that the strangulation was real and not staged. I wouldnt want the garrotte used on me for that reason.
Yes, the Ramseys might have been caring parents. Yes, they might have intented the best for their clildren. But what happened that night was beyond belief and triggered a chain of reactions that have no coming back. IMO, the risked their lives on an unbiquous scenario and got away with it.
They didnt get away with it, unless you dont count losing your daughter, your business, your family life, being hounded by the world at large etc.

Infact I would go as far as to say that if they did it....they lived the rest of their lives with punishment.

The above is just my opinion

[rashomon]

Assuming she was dead by 2 o'clock and knowing (in general) the rate of digestion ranges between 2-5 hours for the food to reach the small intestines, we can hypothesize she ate the famous pineapple somewhere around 11-12 o'clock. (I lean [B]towards 12 because another witness allegedly stated he saw dim light in the kitchen area that night)
I think that was when Patsy wrote the ransom note, with only the maglite providing light in the kitchen because she did not want to put the full lights on. Maybe this is why the maglite was found on the kitchen table.
Why the parents so strongly deny any knowledge of the pineapple thing? One can assume they simply didn't know but finding prints means latent prints (moistured) not smudged (something is mispelled here...)and they have two names on them.Maybe the parents wanted to firmly stick to their original story (hear nothing...see nothing...)and avoid all the unecessary questions (who fed who, for how long e.t.c.)
My thoughts exactly.
My opinion for the night in question is that all the residents of the house have some involvement in this drama, each one participating at some point unintentionally or not, playing a role so significant that in their minds nothing could have been done to udone the inevitable.
That's why in my mind all the evidence is so contradictory.
Very convincing argumentation.

The note (the most ridiculous specimen of random notes) had the feminine touch in it.
Definitely yes imo. The note is rambling, very emotional and addresses John in an extremely personal way toward the end, almost like like an angry wife insulting her husband ... the RN has Patsy written all over it.
Only a man could have improvise the garrotte to strangle her or STAGE the strangulation. I don't think awoman whould have had the guts, for the sake of a cover -up, to sexually abuse her own child and most of all, to improvise the garrotte device. That's a male's touch
But don't forget that this was a staged scene: therefore the person who put the wrist ligatures and garrote around JB's neck may have had exactly this in mind: to make it appear as if a male sexual predator had committed the crime, to point away from herown involvement in JB's death.
I don't think awoman whould have had the guts, for the sake of a cover -up, to sexually abuse her own child and most of all, to improvise the garrotte device. That's a male's touch.

Imo the staging of the scene had nothing to do with guts, but everything ot do with callousness in handling the body. For if Patsy had had guts, she would have turned herself in to the police after realizing hat she had fatally injured her child in a rage attack, and taken full responsibility for her action.
But instead, the coward Patsy wanted to save her hide. To accomplish this, she used JB's dead body to construct a red herring scenario.
This callousness in handling the body points to a sociopathic personality structure lacking empathy toward the victim - it has nothing to do with 'guts'.

The forensic evidence btw confirms Patsy's involvement in the improvisation of the garrote device: fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the tray where the paint brushes were kept and on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth.
The whole garrote construction was done very clumsily, pointing miles away from John who had been in the navy and owned a boat, and therefore would have known a thing or two about ropes and knots.

Ralia, welcome to the board - you brought up very interesting points!

[Athena]

I do not believe there were any red fibers found in the paint tray or on the garrotte. Just another teaser by the interrogators to make PR believe they had evidence.

The red fibers from her jacket could have very well been secondary transfer by JR when he removed the duct tape. JMO

[bullmoose]

Please point out something in Patsy's life that "indicates" she'd be incapable of lashing out at JonBenet in a moment of anger. And please don't tell me she was a Christian. The Bible is very clear that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is. There are wheat (those truly saved) and tares (those who claim to be saved, but aren't, and will end up in hell). The notion that "a parent couldn't have done this" is wishful thinking at best. JonBenet's head blow indicates a domestic incident in which she was bludgeoned in anger. Everything thereafter was staging. She was lovingly wrapped in a blanket, etc. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.I thank God you aren't in charge of separating the wheat and the tares, Tober, IMO you'd fry up a lot of wheat. IMO, whether the head blow came first or last, the strangulation of Jonbenet was inhumanly cruel and deliberate, not mere staging, as you state. I do not understand how you can conclude that the scene was staged in such a way as to try to focus attention away from the home and her head injury. To me, anyone responsible for that blow would certainly understand that the injury would be picked up in the inevitable autopsy; I think the scene was staged to throw suspicion onto the Ramseys, which is what happened. JMHO

[rashomon]

I do not believe there were any red fibers found in the paint tray or on the garrotte. Just another teaser by the interrogators to make PR believe they had evidence.

The red fibers from her jacket could have very well been secondary transfer by JR when he removed the duct tape. JMO

Athena, I'm a bit confused: in the first part of your post you write that you don't believe fibers from Patsy's jacket were found, and in the second part you theorize as to how they got there??? :shrug:

[Kor]

The note (the most ridiculous specimen of random notes) had the feminine touch in it...Get rested...attache....proper burial... proper salutations...Don't catch a cold...No, that's mine!


It not necessary that it was a female who wrote the note; there are males out there with feminine voice, attitudes, behaviors, even touches. John Mark Karr is one of those examples and he is male, at least he was before he want a sex change. During my mom's work trip to southeast, she noticed pedophile males wore some kinds of pink flamingo clothing, with such feminine styles around their wrists, collars, or legs chasing little girls or trying to be attractive for them around downtowns of big cities in Georgia, South Carolina, or Alabama. She even heard them using their feminine voices. Those were also similar things I noticed during my trip to some big cities in Mexico. However, that ransom note and murder of JB could be done by a male pedophile with feminine touches. If it was a vengeance, there were some women possible suspects such as Linda the housekeeper, Santa’s wife, Fleet’s wife, or whomever other women in Boulder that time. IMO

[shill]

The forensic evidence btw confirms Patsy's involvement in the improvisation of the garrote device: fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the tray where the paint brushes were kept and on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth.
The whole garrote construction was done very clumsily


IMO Your just flat out wrong about this and you will always have the wrong suspect because you're analogy of the crime scene isn't even close to what really happened, on top of you neglected to mention all the foreign un-matched fibers that point to an intruder found in the same places as Patsy's fibers and many more places then Patsy's fibers and in more quantity.

[bullmoose]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8817482]

I think that was when Patsy wrote the ransom note, with only the maglite providing light in the kitchen because she did not want to put the full lights on. Maybe this is why the maglite was found on the kitchen table.

My thoughts exactly.

Very convincing argumentation.


Definitely yes imo. The note is rambling, very emotional and addresses John in an extremely personal way toward the end, almost like like an angry wife insulting her husband ... the RN has Patsy written all over it.

But don't forget that this was a [B]staged scene: therefore the person who put the wrist ligatures and garrote around JB's neck may have had exactly this in mind: to make it appear as if a male sexual predator had committed the crime, to point away from herown involvement in JB's death.


Imo the staging of the scene had nothing to do with guts, but everything ot do with callousness in handling the body. For if Patsy had had guts, she would have turned herself in to the police after realizing hat she had fatally injured her child in a rage attack, and taken full responsibility for her action.
But instead, the coward Patsy wanted to save her hide. To accomplish this, she used JB's dead body to construct a red herring scenario.
This callousness in handling the body points to a sociopathic personality structure lacking empathy toward the victim - it has nothing to do with 'guts'.

The forensic evidence btw confirms Patsy's involvement in the improvisation of the garrote device: fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the tray where the paint brushes were kept and on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth.
The whole garrote construction was done very clumsily, pointing miles away from John who had been in the navy and owned a boat, and therefore would have known a thing or two about ropes and knots.

Ralia, welcome to the board - you brought up very interesting points![/QUOTE
There is only one thing in your post, Rashoman, that I agree with; the rest IMO is nonsense. You post under the name Rashoman.:biggrin:

[shill]

JonBenet's head blow indicates a domestic incident in which she was bludgeoned in anger. Everything thereafter was staging.Take this to WebSleuths, they love unsubstantiated RDI garbage like this. She was lovingly wrapped in a blanket, etc.More RDI garbage. She was laying on a blanket and the edges of it were folded over her to help conceal the body, which worked because Fleet White said he didn't see the body. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.
Now this is the most unintelligent theory to be conceived in this case. It lacks any logic what so ever and shows how unastute those who believe it really are. Just for posting this thought I have to put you on my "Totally Worthless Opinion List"
Please do us a favor and move to WebSleuths were they eat up your tripe.

[thewhitewitch1]

Take this to WebSleuths, they love unsubstantiated RDI garbage like this.More RDI garbage. She was laying on a blanket and the edges of it were folded over her to help conceal the body, which worked because Fleet White said he didn't see the body.
Now this is the most unintelligent theory to be conceived in this case. It lacks any logic what so ever and shows how unastute those who believe it really are. Just for posting this thought I have to put you on my "Totally Worthless Opinion List"
Please do us a favor and move to WebSleuths were they eat up your tripe.

Fleet White also didn't see any white blanket, which would have been easier to see than her body.
The blanket was wrapped around her body like a "pappoose". That indicates care. IMO Why would the killer have a need to cover her to conceal her body? If he intended to collect on the ransom note, he would have taken her body with him.

Just wondering something. I've been reading Dr. Henry Lees book "Cracking More Cases" and in it he states that the arguement FW had with JR while in Atlanta was because FW was, for one, outraged that the Rs were going to appear on CNN. I've read JR state over and over that it was FWs idea for them to go on it. I know I have also read somewhere else that FW objected to it but can't for the life of me recall where. Has anyone else read this? I don't want to take this as a fact unless there was more than one account of it. We all know most books about JB have certain facts wrong.
In this book, there is also mentioned FW being interviewed by the LE and what he told them. This may be out there somewhere already but he did mention seeing the suitcase under the window and that the window was closed. JR alledgedly went in the basement after FW did and stated that the window was open and that he closed it. Someone is not telling the truth here. The officer who did the original search of the house that morning did not see an open window either apparently, as it was not mentioned. The suitcase under the window alone would not be cause for suspicion but an open window with the suitcase under it would be. IMO

[bullmoose]

Fleet White also didn't see any white blanket, which would have been easier to see than her body.
The blanket was wrapped around her body like a "pappoose". That indicates care. IMO Why would the killer have a need to cover her to conceal her body? If he intended to collect on the ransom note, he would have taken her body with him.

Just wondering something. I've been reading Dr. Henry Lees book "Cracking More Cases" and in it he states that the arguement FW had with JR while in Atlanta was because FW was, for one, outraged that the Rs were going to appear on CNN. I've read JR state over and over that it was FWs idea for them to go on it. I know I have also read somewhere else that FW objected to it but can't for the life of me recall where. Has anyone else read this? I don't want to take this as a fact unless there was more than one account of it. We all know most books about JB have certain facts wrong.
In this book, there is also mentioned FW being interviewed by the LE and what he told them. This may be out there somewhere already but he did mention seeing the suitcase under the window and that the window was closed. JR alledgedly went in the basement after FW did and stated that the window was open and that he closed it. Someone is not telling the truth here. The officer who did the original search of the house that morning did not see an open window either apparently, as it was not mentioned. The suitcase under the window alone would not be cause for suspicion but an open window with the suitcase under it would be. IMOI believe they were both telling the truth as they perceived it; The window if unlatched, was ajar or open, but not wide open; from the pictures I've seen, the window would be swung back towards the ceiling to be wide open, so the window may just have been unlatched, not wide open, they would have to be propped up to stay wide open.Everybody may be, in fact telling the truth, but only the homeowner, JR, noticed the latch. JMHO

[andU]

Please point out something in Patsy's life that "indicates" she'd be incapable of lashing out at JonBenet in a moment of anger. And please don't tell me she was a Christian. The Bible is very clear that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is. There are wheat (those truly saved) and tares (those who claim to be saved, but aren't, and will end up in hell). The notion that "a parent couldn't have done this" is wishful thinking at best. JonBenet's head blow indicates a domestic incident in which she was bludgeoned in anger. Everything thereafter was staging. She was lovingly wrapped in a blanket, etc. Please tell me who, besides someone living in the home, would have the "need" to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from her head injury and away from the home. This post is my opinion.

The theory of an intruder staging has been explained to you repeatedly. You may backtrack and read or continue to refuse to accept the possibility. If you are looking for an auguement you won't get one from me.

[rashomon]

IMO Your just flat out wrong about this and you will always have the wrong suspect because you're analogy of the crime scene isn't even close to what really happened, on top of you neglected to mention all the foreign un-matched fibers that point to an intruder found in the same places as Patsy's fibers and many more places then Patsy's fibers and in more quantity.
What foreign unmatched fibers? Would you give the source please.
BTW, your own signature answers the fiber question really well: "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

[rashomon]

Ralia, don't get irritated by Bullmoose's #37 reply to me.
Bullmoose is a die-hard IDI (= Intruder Did It) and something like the resident "anti-RDI ranter" on this board. He is also firmly convinced that putting the clown icon at the end of his posts makes his (usually lame) jokes funny.

[ralia]

Don't worry R. I don't get irritated that easily but thanks for the thought.

What puzzles me in this case (which by the way I'll be most suprised if ever be solved) is the limitation of certain and undisputed facts.

The contamination of the crime scene and the fact that it was their own residence makes me not to rely on forensics too much. The DNA on the other hand was degraded and old. How could one know for sure it didn't create stutter bands during amplification procedure? If so, there is no certainty there was another DNA sample in her blood spot.

What elements can we take for granted here? The pineapple, the note , the blanket, the nightgown...

I find the oversized underwear quite interesting, though. As the perp, whatever had in his mind, opened the first drawer he saw and picked in ransom not knowing this particular item was meant for another much older child. This indicates (always in my opinion) that the perp might have gone upstairs again, circulated up and down without any fear of being caught, opened drawers, taking blanket and nightgown (probably from the drier, because the conforter on the bed seems obviously undisturbed), writting long notes, putting afterwards the pen in its original position... Too much comfort of movements for an intruder, unlucky kidnapper, sadistic pedophile...

[Louisadelmar]

[...]

The contamination of the crime scene and the fact that it was their own residence makes me not to rely on forensics too much. The DNA on the other hand was degraded and old. How could one know for sure it didn't create stutter bands during amplification procedure? If so, there is no certainty there was another DNA sample in her blood spot.

[...]


From another thread

I'm glad you brought this up, Shill because I have noticed on this board that the term 'degraded' is often misinterpreted.

DNA is a 'chain'. When you get dna from fresh blood it is always the complete chain. However, dna from skin cells, saliva, etc is often 'degraded'. All that means is that only part of the chain was collected. In other words, it is just a section of the chain. I could take a dna sample from your skin or saliva right now and may get a 'degraded' sample.

Degraded does not mean old when referencing dna. Incomplete would be a better description and would probably cause less confusion.

[Tober]

The theory of an intruder staging has been explained to you repeatedly. You may backtrack and read or continue to refuse to accept the possibility. If you are looking for an auguement you won't get one from me.

The perpetrator of the crime required a motive to cause JonBenet's head injury, a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from that head injury, and a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. In addition to having the means and opportunity to commit all three, Patsy also had the motives. Can you please tell me the motives for an intruder to have done those three things (all three)? This post is my opinion.

[ralia]

Thank you Louisadelmar for you clarifications about degraded and old DNA. Stiil I've read there are certain complications in the amplification procedure. If anyone have any sources "degraded DNA - ammplification" I'd appreciate it.

[nuisanceposter]

How do we know the DNA wasn't planted there by the RST? I certainly wouldn't put it beyond them. Who transported the underwear? Wasn't it Lou Smit, at one point?

[Louisadelmar]

How do we know the DNA wasn't planted there by the RST? I certainly wouldn't put it beyond them. Who transported the underwear? Wasn't it Lou Smit, at one point?

I don't think anyone has ever questioned that Lou Smit was an honorable man. When and why would he even be transporting evidence. He wasn't hired until March.

[Athena]

How do we know the DNA wasn't planted there by the RST? I certainly wouldn't put it beyond them. Who transported the underwear? Wasn't it Lou Smit, at one point?

I am actually surprised NP that you would make a comment like this.

First of all the DNA samples were collected at the autopsy and stored for testing. And I think you are confusing Lou Smit with the LAPD. :shrug:

[Athena]

Thank you Louisadelmar for you clarifications about degraded and old DNA. Stiil I've read there are certain complications in the amplification procedure. If anyone have any sources "degraded DNA - ammplification" I'd appreciate it.

Like anything else, funds are needed to advance DNA technology. Because of the WTC Disaster 9/11/01; scientists came together from around the world to collaborate on how to test degraded remains of the WTC victims. As a result funding was given and methods stepped up. What I found particularly interesting was the DNA backlog that we have in this country and that ONLY 23 states are required to submit offender samples:

February 14, 2007

Applied Biosystems Advances Forensic Science with the World’s First Commercial Chemistry for Analyzing Degraded DNA

The ability to analyze degraded DNA gives forensic scientists a powerful tool for getting better results from a broader range of DNA samples that have been impacted by either the environment or by time,” said Leonard Klevan, Ph.D, president for Applied Biosystems’ applied markets division. “We expect this advancement to help solve more crimes, reopen unsolved cold cases, exonerate the wrongly accused and help identify missing persons.”

http://eon.businesswire.com/releases/minifiler/applied/prweb504811.htm

Dr. Shaler’s laboratory, New York City’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (NYC OCME), is charged with identifying all of the remains by whatever means possible. He had heard me present some of our early research efforts in analyzing small regions of DNA at several scientific meetings. Dr. Lisa Forman from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice has funded our research efforts in human identity testing at NIST over the past several years, and she gave Dr. Shaler my contact information. I collaborated with Dr. Bruce McCord from Ohio University and one of his postdoctoral students, Yin Shen, throughout December 2001 and January 2002 to produce several new DNA assays, which we termed “miniSTRs” or “miniplexes”.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/newsfromnist_DNAinterview.htm


• Convicted Offender Backlogs: States are increasing the number of convicted offenders required to provide DNA samples. Currently, 23 states require all convicted felons to provide DNA samples. Preliminary estimates by NIJ place the number of collected, untested convicted offender samples at between 200,000 and 300,000. NIJ also estimates that there are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 convicted offender samples that are owed, but not yet collected. The initiative calls for $15 million in FY 2004 to help eliminate convicted offender backlogs over five years.

The Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Analysis Program is responsible for performing mtDNA analysis of forensic evidence containing small or degraded quantities of DNA on items of evidence submitted from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Mitochondrial DNA is a powerful tool available for investigating cases of kidnapping, missing persons, and skeletal remains where nuclear DNA is not present.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnapolicybook_solve_crimes.htm

[User615]

The perpetrator of the crime required a motive to cause JonBenet's head injury, a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from that head injury, and a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. In addition to having the means and opportunity to commit all three, Patsy also had the motives. Can you please tell me the motives for an intruder to have done those three things (all three)? This post is my opinion.

I believe the head injury was caused to keep her from screaming out more than she did. It was a panic thing. I still believe that an adult would have no problem controlling her, and this was fumbling. I also believe PR discovered this, and covered it up to save her family. Just my opinion, but I can't get away from it. Too many things point to a juvenile exploring and being clumsy. Did JBR make the first 911 call a few days earlier because of the same thing happening...then stopped when he did? As far as the rope and tape, I don't know how anyone could conclusively say it was not in the home somewhere.

[LindaA]

The perpetrator of the crime required a motive to cause JonBenet's head injury, a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from that head injury, and a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. In addition to having the means and opportunity to commit all three, Patsy also had the motives. Can you please tell me the motives for an intruder to have done those three things (all three)? This post is my opinion.
The answers to all your questions have been posted repeatedly. If you chosse not to rad them or believe them, that's fine. Please tell me what motive Patsy could have had to coldly strangle her daughter then finish her off with a head bash hard enough to fell a 300 lb man? She wouldn't eat her pineapple?

[nuisanceposter]

The answers to all your questions have been posted repeatedly. If you chosse not to rad them or believe them, that's fine. Please tell me what motive Patsy could have had to coldly strangle her daughter then finish her off with a head bash hard enough to fell a 300 lb man? She wouldn't eat her pineapple?

A lot of PDI believe Patsy had some mental issues, and what happened to JonBenet was the culmination of a lot more than a wet bed or a late night snack. It's hard for the IDI who don't see Patsy's issues to regard the crime from that point of view, but we don't know what Patsy's home life was really like, and how she developed mentally and emotionally from child into woman into wife and mother, or how her years of chemo may have affected her. I'd really love to have seen a psychological evaluation of Patsy Ramsey - several of her comments (and her paintings) alone are eyebrow-raising, I can't imagine what was really going on in that woman's head...the pageants and her need to lie about them is a good peek into her head. A few Sunday afternoons, my aching butt. I don't think what happened to JonBenet was something that surfaced on Christmas night and Christmas night alone, I think that was the night that Patsy had a breakdown and JonBenet, Patsy's alter ego, ended up dead as a result.

This avenue of theory is widely dismissed and rarely discussed between the IDI, who cling to Patsy's Christianity and image as a uber-capable mom as proof that she could never be the killer. Nobody knows what shadows lurk in the hearts of others, and Patsy Ramsey is no exception. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

I don't think anyone has ever questioned that Lou Smit was an honorable man. <snip>

Well, maybe not any IDI, but I know a lot of people, myself included, who question just how credible Smit is IRT to the JBR case and why he has specific things wrong and overlooks some very important aspects of the crime. I believe he has earned a reputation as an honorable man, but I don't think he's acted as honorably as he could and should in this case. I suspect he's outright lying at times, on purpose, to promote RST agenda. He was brought in by the DA to find proof of the intruder theory, and I question his honor in this case every time I hear or read something he's said.

[nuisanceposter]

I am actually surprised NP that you would make a comment like this. <snip>




Oh, I'm just full of surprises. I seriously would not put it past the RST to plant evidence, Athena, and that's the sad truth. I have seen them behave very unconscionably in this case, to where justice for a dead child means nothing compared to making sure her parents are seen as innocent victims, no matter whether they were involved or not. Why would you hire Pis not to find the killer, but to make sure you don't go to jail? Who's going to pull out all the stops and end this killer's freedom and ability to target small defenseless girls if not the entirely wealthy, affluent, and socially well-connected parents of the latest victim, who should have every interest in making this killer see justice in their daughter's stead?

I'm just so incredibly sick of the way the Rs have been lying all these years, to save their own miserable hides, and watching people eat it up and spit it back out. The bottom line is, there's forensic evidence of the Rs in the crime scene and on the body, there's not enough forensic evidence of a non-Ramsey to prove they weren't involved or that anyone else was and who it was, the officials and even the police were corrupt and inept, and the Ramseys have been caught lying over key elements in this crime throughout the entire investigation. I just don't think they'd lie like they have and hinder investigation like they did and there not be enough proof of in intruder if the Rs hadn't been involved in this crime. In my opinion, both John and Patsy Ramsey know exactly what happened to JonBenet and don't want that person caught because it was one of them. I'm horrified that their daughter means so much less to them than they mean to themselves. It's all about them...DOI is all about them. This investigation from their pov is all about them and their image and their facade of innocence and cooperation. Hire a PR firm within days of your daughter's murder...my god.

[Athena]

Well, maybe not any IDI, but I know a lot of people, myself included, who question just how credible Smit is IRT to the JBR case and why he has specific things wrong and overlooks some very important aspects of the crime. I believe he has earned a reputation as an honorable man, but I don't think he's acted as honorably as he could and should in this case. I suspect he's outright lying at times, on purpose, to promote RST agenda. He was brought in by the DA to find proof of the intruder theory, and I question his honor in this case every time I hear or read something he's said.

I question the validity of your statement that Smit was brought in to find proof the IDI theory. He actually believed RDI until he actually became involved.

[andU]

The perpetrator of the crime required a motive to cause JonBenet's head injury, a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from that head injury, and a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. In addition to having the means and opportunity to commit all three, Patsy also had the motives. Can you please tell me the motives for an intruder to have done those three things (all three)? This post is my opinion.

Again, I would encourage you to backtrack and read. No motive has been proven, as I'm sure you are aware of.... and probably won't be until/unless the perps/pervs are caught.

[Athena]

The perpetrator of the crime required a motive to cause JonBenet's head injury, a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from that head injury, and a motive to stage the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. In addition to having the means and opportunity to commit all three, Patsy also had the motives. Can you please tell me the motives for an intruder to have done those three things (all three)? This post is my opinion.

Where's the motive that it was RDI? Where's the proof that the head injury was accidental? In order to believe that a coverup occurred - you must believe the head injury came first. As far as I can tell the autopsy report leans towards the head blow being a deliberate blow rather than an accident and it certainly did not occur from a fall as noted about the rectangular shape depressed fracture. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Where's the motive that it was RDI? Where's the proof that the head injury was accidental? In order to believe that a coverup occurred - you must believe the head injury came first. As far as I can tell the autopsy report leans towards the head blow being a deliberate blow rather than an accident and it certainly did not occur from a fall as noted about the rectangular shape depressed fracture. JMO


Some RDI believe this murder was intentional, for a variety of reasons. Some RDI believe the strangulation came first, and that the head wound clearly indicates the killer meant to kill JonBenet.

[ralia]

Thank you Athena for your time and sources.

If any of you is willing to "sink" into DNA and see how complicated is for scientists to reach a conclusion after a "broken" old, degraded sample is amplified please spare sometime to:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/14/2807

My opinion is that neither the DNA sample is an absolute, determined factor in this case and since some expert believe it may have come from the manifacturer as well, that makes things even more complicated.

Is there anything in this story where ALL aggree to something?

[nuisanceposter]

I question the validity of your statement that Smit was brought in to find proof the IDI theory. He actually believed RDI until he actually became involved.

Well, that's what he says...but as I have stated, I do not believe every word out of Smit's mouth in relation to this case is the honest truth. He claims JonBenet fought her killer, and there is absolutely no proof of that.

[nuisanceposter]

Thank you Athena for your time and sources.

If any of you is willing to "sink" into DNA and see how complicated is for scientists to reach a conclusion after a "broken" old, degraded sample is amplified please spare sometime to:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/14/2807

My opinion is that neither the DNA sample is an absolute, determined factor in this case and since some expert believe it may have come from the manifacturer as well, that makes things even more complicated.

Is there anything in this story where ALL aggree to something?

Boulder DA Mary Lacy said the DNA may be artifact and unrelated to the murder. That was a big admission.

We all agree that JonBenet is a six year old child who was brutally murdered at Christmastime in her home with her parents and brother in the house. That's about it, though.

[rashomon]

Don't worry R. I don't get irritated that easily but thanks for the thought.

What puzzles me in this case (which by the way I'll be most suprised if ever be solved) is the limitation of certain and undisputed facts.

The contamination of the crime scene and the fact that it was their own residence makes me not to rely on forensics too much. The DNA on the other hand was degraded and old. How could one know for sure it didn't create stutter bands during amplification procedure? If so, there is no certainty there was another DNA sample in her blood spot.

What elements can we take for granted here? The pineapple, the note , the blanket, the nightgown...

I find the oversized underwear quite interesting, though. As the perp, whatever had in his mind, opened the first drawer he saw and picked in ransom not knowing this particular item was meant for another much older child. This indicates (always in my opinion) that the perp might have gone upstairs again, circulated up and down without any fear of being caught, opened drawers, taking blanket and nightgown (probably from the drier, because the conforter on the bed seems obviously undisturbed), writting long notes, putting afterwards the pen in its original position... Too much comfort of movements for an intruder, unlucky kidnapper, sadistic pedophile...
What is also crucial : fibers from John Ramsey's shirt were found in the crotch area of the oversized underwear. The forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.

[Athena]

Thank you Athena for your time and sources.

If any of you is willing to "sink" into DNA and see how complicated is for scientists to reach a conclusion after a "broken" old, degraded sample is amplified please spare sometime to:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/14/2807

My opinion is that neither the DNA sample is an absolute, determined factor in this case and since some expert believe it may have come from the manifacturer as well, that makes things even more complicated.

Is there anything in this story where ALL aggree to something?

ralia -- I do agree with some of what you say here especially considering the DNA can be artifact. However the article you linked to was written in 1996. There have been much advances in isolation of DNA and reducing stutter bands to get an accurate reading:

STR analysis is prone to several PCR artifacts that may influence the results. One of them is slippage of the Taq polymerase during amplification, a process that leads to the formation of so-called stutter peaks. There is a clear inverse relation between the size of the repeat unit and the formation of stutter peaks. With shorter repeat units, higher proportions of stutter peaks are generated (12). This is also clearly observed in our results, where stutter peaks are most prominently seen with the dinucleotide repeats, fewer stutter peaks are seen with trinucleotide repeats, and stutter repeat are almost absent with the tetranucleotide repeats. The occurrence of too many stutter peaks may complicate identification of the principle peak in a sample. For this reason, mononucleotide repeats, which often yield as many as 10 to 15 stutter peaks, were not taken into consideration. It has been suggested that addition of dimethyl sulfoxide to the amplification reactions or replacement of Taq DNA polymerase by other thermostable polymerases with higher processivities might reduce the formation of stutter peaks (12). Such adaptations were also evaluated, but none of them yielded improved results (data not shown). A basic understanding of potential PCR artifacts upon amplification and analysis of the STR sequences (as illustrated in Fig. 1D and E) is desired, but we conclude that the presence of stutter peaks will not influence the ability to identify the major peak in a sample when repeat units of three and above are used (i.e., at least trinucleotide repeats). This is a clear advantage over previously reported STR assays for A. fumigatus, where only dinucleotide repeats were analyzed (2).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1233892

[nuisanceposter]

What is also crucial : fibers from John Ramsey's shirt were found in the crotch area of the oversized underwear. The forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene.


It should also be noted that these underwear were brand new and unwashed, never worn by JonBenet until that night, and came from a package that the Rs themselves had in their personal possession for years after the murder.

My question is...why would the person who dressed JonBenet in these underwear chose those, when her drawers were filled with some 15 pairs of underwear that weren't in a package? Why would the Rs get that package of underwear from their house and keep it for years?

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe they were both telling the truth as they perceived it; The window if unlatched, was ajar or open, but not wide open; from the pictures I've seen, the window would be swung back towards the ceiling to be wide open, so the window may just have been unlatched, not wide open, they would have to be propped up to stay wide open.Everybody may be, in fact telling the truth, but only the homeowner, JR, noticed the latch. JMHO


No. FW said that the window was closed but not latched. JR said that the window was open and that he closed it. Big difference.

[Athena]

No. FW said that the window was closed but not latched. JR said that the window was open and that he closed it. Big difference.

Actually FW said nothing about the latch or whether or not the window was open or closed. He only says the window was broken:

The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF 23; PSMF 23.) Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room was opened. (SMF 25; PSMF 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.) He further testified that a window in the basement playroom was broken. (SMF 26; PSMF 26; White Dep. at 28, 152.)

Under the broken window, Mr. White states there was a suitcase, along with a broken shard of glass. (SMF 27; PSMF 27; White Dep. at 28-29, 156-59, & 265.) He does not, however, remember whether the window was opened or closed. 11 ( SMF 28 ; PSMF 28; White Dep. at 153.)

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Actually FW said nothing about the latch or whether or not the window was open or closed. He only says the window was broken:

The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF 23; PSMF 23.) Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room was opened. (SMF 25; PSMF 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.) He further testified that a window in the basement playroom was broken. (SMF 26; PSMF 26; White Dep. at 28, 152.)

Under the broken window, Mr. White states there was a suitcase, along with a broken shard of glass. (SMF 27; PSMF 27; White Dep. at 28-29, 156-59, & 265.) He does not, however, remember whether the window was opened or closed. 11 ( SMF 28 ; PSMF 28; White Dep. at 153.)

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

Athena...I was using Dr. Lees book "Cracking More Cases" as a reference. It's possible he got his facts wrong, though everything else you quoted is also what he quoted except that he says FW says the window was closed but not latched. If the window was open, why didn't the first officer to search the house notice it? He was, after all, looking for signs of a break-in.

[Athena]

Athena...I was using Dr. Lees book "Cracking More Cases" as a reference. It's possible he got his facts wrong, though everything else you quoted is also what he quoted except that he says FW says the window was closed but not latched. If the window was open, why didn't the first officer to search the house notice it? He was, after all, looking for signs of a break-in.

It's not the first error that Lee got wrong is his book. You must have noticed he also said that JAR was in Boulder that morning but he was in Atlanta. Lee should stick to forensics. What I quoted was from Fleet White's own depo what little has been publicized. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Oh, I'm just full of surprises. I seriously would not put it past the RST to plant evidence, Athena, and that's the sad truth. I have seen them behave very unconscionably in this case, to where justice for a dead child means nothing compared to making sure her parents are seen as innocent victims, no matter whether they were involved or not. Why would you hire Pis not to find the killer, but to make sure you don't go to jail? Who's going to pull out all the stops and end this killer's freedom and ability to target small defenseless girls if not the entirely wealthy, affluent, and socially well-connected parents of the latest victim, who should have every interest in making this killer see justice in their daughter's stead?

I'm just so incredibly sick of the way the Rs have been lying all these years, to save their own miserable hides, and watching people eat it up and spit it back out. The bottom line is, there's forensic evidence of the Rs in the crime scene and on the body, there's not enough forensic evidence of a non-Ramsey to prove they weren't involved or that anyone else was and who it was, the officials and even the police were corrupt and inept, and the Ramseys have been caught lying over key elements in this crime throughout the entire investigation. I just don't think they'd lie like they have and hinder investigation like they did and there not be enough proof of in intruder if the Rs hadn't been involved in this crime. In my opinion, both John and Patsy Ramsey know exactly what happened to JonBenet and don't want that person caught because it was one of them. I'm horrified that their daughter means so much less to them than they mean to themselves. It's all about them...DOI is all about them. This investigation from their pov is all about them and their image and their facade of innocence and cooperation. Hire a PR firm within days of your daughter's murder...my god.

WOW! It sounds as if "somebody got up on the wrong side of the rock"! ;) I just love those commercials!...but I am really surprised at you, nuisance. To even suggest that LS would taint evidence is akin to us suggesting ST would.....and I know you really have a lot of respect for ST...but I just couldn't believe either would do such a thing......what would LS gain? Sorry, I'm just at a loss here with this post and your previous ones :confused: :confused:

[Tober]

The theory of an intruder staging has been explained to you repeatedly. You may backtrack and read or continue to refuse to accept the possibility. If you are looking for an auguement you won't get one from me.

OK, some have offered the motive for an intruder (alleged) killing JonBenet as a crime of revenge against John Ramsey. That gives us a motive for an intruder killing her, but that still doesn't give us a motive for: 1) Staging of the body to focus attention away from JonBenet's head injury; and 2) Staging of the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. Why would an intruder, who'd already be from outside the home, need to focus attention away from the home? If an intruder's intention for the crime was to target John Ramsey, why would the intruder care about focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury? This post is my opinion.

[Athena]

OK, some have offered the motive for an intruder (alleged) killing JonBenet as a crime of revenge against John Ramsey. That gives us a motive for an intruder killing her, but that still doesn't give us a motive for: 1) Staging of the body to focus attention away from JonBenet's head injury; and 2) Staging of the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. Why would an intruder, who'd already be from outside the home, need to focus attention away from the home? If an intruder's intention for the crime was to target John Ramsey, why would the intruder care about focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury? This post is my opinion.

Ironic isn't it. What the crime scene did was actually focus attention ON THE HOME; away from the intruder. Clever huh? I for one have never said anything about focusing away from the head injury. That is only for one who believes the head injury came first. The perp started to strangle JBR, she screamed, the perp bashed her in the head in anger with the flashlight which he had used to enter the basement, and then finished strangling her.

[Sharon]

A lot of PDI believe Patsy had some mental issues, and what happened to JonBenet was the culmination of a lot more than a wet bed or a late night snack. It's hard for the IDI who don't see Patsy's issues to regard the crime from that point of view, but we don't know what Patsy's home life was really like, and how she developed mentally and emotionally from child into woman into wife and mother, or how her years of chemo may have affected her. I'd really love to have seen a psychological evaluation of Patsy Ramsey - several of her comments (and her paintings) alone are eyebrow-raising, I can't imagine what was really going on in that woman's head...the pageants and her need to lie about them is a good peek into her head. A few Sunday afternoons, my aching butt. I don't think what happened to JonBenet was something that surfaced on Christmas night and Christmas night alone, I think that was the night that Patsy had a breakdown and JonBenet, Patsy's alter ego, ended up dead as a result.

This avenue of theory is widely dismissed and rarely discussed between the IDI, who cling to Patsy's Christianity and image as a uber-capable mom as proof that she could never be the killer. Nobody knows what shadows lurk in the hearts of others, and Patsy Ramsey is no exception. IMO.

If it had to happen, your way is much preferable than to imagine an intruder torturing her with strangling for hours & the terror that she would have experienced.

I still cant believe that the mother did it. Would she be strong enough to deliver that blow? Could she go on for 10 years after doing it??

[thewhitewitch1]

It's not the first error that Lee got wrong is his book. You must have noticed he also said that JAR was in Boulder that morning but he was in Atlanta. Lee should stick to forensics. What I quoted was from Fleet White's own depo what little has been publicized. JMO

Yes, I did notice that bit about JAR being in Boulder.
It's irritating to read these books and find the facts so wrong. You really can't believe everything you read, especially about this case...not even from the Ramseys themselves in DOI.

[shill]

How do we know the DNA wasn't planted there by the RST? I certainly wouldn't put it beyond them. Who transported the underwear? Wasn't it Lou Smit, at one point?

O.K., I admit it, I planted the DNA on JB's panties.
And while I'm admitting things, I might as well tell you that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

[shill]

OK, some have offered the motive for an intruder (alleged) killing JonBenet as a crime of revenge against John Ramsey. That gives us a motive for an intruder killing her, but that still doesn't give us a motive for: 1) Staging of the body to focus attention away from JonBenet's head injury; and 2) Staging of the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. Why would an intruder, who'd already be from outside the home, need to focus attention away from the home? If an intruder's intention for the crime was to target John Ramsey, why would the intruder care about focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury? This post is my opinion.There is no;
1) Staging of the body to focus attention away from JonBenet's head injury; and 2) Staging of the crime scene to focus attention away from the home.

So no explanation is needed

[shill]

What foreign unmatched fibers? Would you give the source please.
BTW, your own signature answers the fiber question really well: "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

The simplest explanation is you're focusing on 4 of 3000 fibers they have in evidence and you don't seem to realize how insignificant that is but it's all you have to go on so you're taking it to the grave with you.

[shill]

Don't worry R. I don't get irritated that easily but thanks for the thought.

What puzzles me in this case (which by the way I'll be most suprised if ever be solved) is the limitation of certain and undisputed facts.

The contamination of the crime scene and the fact that it was their own residence makes me not to rely on forensics too much. The DNA on the other hand was degraded and old. How could one know for sure it didn't create stutter bands during amplification procedure? If so, there is no certainty there was another DNA sample in her blood spot.

What elements can we take for granted here? The pineapple, the note , the blanket, the nightgown...

I find the oversized underwear quite interesting, though. As the perp, whatever had in his mind, opened the first drawer he saw and picked in ransom not knowing this particular item was meant for another much older child. This indicates (always in my opinion) that the perp might have gone upstairs again, circulated up and down without any fear of being caught, opened drawers, taking blanket and nightgown (probably from the drier, because the conforter on the bed seems obviously undisturbed), writting long notes, putting afterwards the pen in its original position... Too much comfort of movements for an intruder, unlucky kidnapper, sadistic pedophile...There is no proof what so ever that the DNA is old or that her panties were changed after she was killed.
It's just your fictional opinion.

[Sharon]

Well, that's what he says...but as I have stated, I do not believe every word out of Smit's mouth in relation to this case is the honest truth. He claims JonBenet fought her killer, and there is absolutely no proof of that.

No offense nuisanceposter but you are slipping into merging your (strongly held & pasionate) opinions with what are unproven facts.

Im not going to go into every sentance that you have written but I just want to remind you of what you are doing. I have done the same too, as sometimes we loose grip on what are known proven facts. Emotions run high in discussing this case but at the end of the day I dont think any of us are 100% sure of what went down. And I mean really sure, where you would gamble your house or family`s life type of sure.

And when you say `there is absolutely no proof that she fought her killer`, that is not a fact, but is still hotly debated.

Just my opinion

[shill]

taking blanket and nightgown (probably from the drier, because the conforter on the bed seems obviously undisturbed)
Looks like someone slept in the bed to me.

Some times I get up in the middle of the night to pee. You know you loose a lot of stored heat after you pee and if it is a winter day, it gets cold in the house and you get a chill. Now if I'm hungry and I want to go down stairs for a snack, let's say pineapple, I might take the blanket off my bad and wrap it around me so I won't be cold.

But that's just me. I guess no one else in the world would do that, would they?

[Sharon]

OK, some have offered the motive for an intruder (alleged) killing JonBenet as a crime of revenge against John Ramsey. That gives us a motive for an intruder killing her, but that still doesn't give us a motive for: 1) Staging of the body to focus attention away from JonBenet's head injury; and 2) Staging of the crime scene to focus attention away from the home. Why would an intruder, who'd already be from outside the home, need to focus attention away from the home? If an intruder's intention for the crime was to target John Ramsey, why would the intruder care about focusing attention away from JonBenet's head injury? This post is my opinion.

Just for arguments sake consider that the body is not staged but was actually strangled, and the crime scene was not staged but was left as it was left. I dont think the intruder cared less about whether the garret took attension away from the head injury or whether the head injury took attension away from the strangling.

I really challenge everyone to read abit about the murders on this site. Some preditors get away with it for decades. In all that time, you can imagine all the false leads & innocent family & freinds who would be the only suspects. One guy, (Fish I think) basically kidnapped children & ate them. He was quite brazen & wrote his victim`s parents (once?) a lovely taunting note about every detail of their daughters death. He also once killed his neices friend in her own house because his neice was rude to him.

In these cases Im sure it would make more sense that the parents did it too!!!

[andU]

Just for arguments sake consider that the body is not staged but was actually strangled, and the crime scene was not staged but was left as it was left. I dont think the intruder cared less about whether the garret took attension away from the head injury or whether the head injury took attension away from the strangling.

I really challenge everyone to read abit about the murders on this site. Some preditors get away with it for decades. In all that time, you can imagine all the false leads & innocent family & freinds who would be the only suspects. One guy, (Fish I think) basically kidnapped children & ate them. He was quite brazen & wrote his victim`s parents (once?) a lovely taunting note about every detail of their daughters death. He also once killed his neices friend in her own house because his neice was rude to him.

In these cases Im sure it would make more sense that the parents did it too!!!

I didn't see the link to the site you encouraged everyone to read. None the less, theoritical thoughts cannot convict anyone in court. Evidence does. The parents in this case have not been convicted because there isn't evidence enough to charge them.

[shill]

A lot of PDI believe Patsy had some mental issues, and what happened to JonBenet was the culmination of a lot more than a wet bed or a late night snack. It's hard for the IDI who don't see Patsy's issues to regard the crime from that point of view, but we don't know what Patsy's home life was really like, and how she developed mentally and emotionally from child into woman into wife and mother, or how her years of chemo may have affected her. I'd really love to have seen a psychological evaluation of Patsy Ramsey - several of her comments (and her paintings) alone are eyebrow-raising, I can't imagine what was really going on in that woman's head...the pageants and her need to lie about them is a good peek into her head. A few Sunday afternoons, my aching butt. I don't think what happened to JonBenet was something that surfaced on Christmas night and Christmas night alone, I think that was the night that Patsy had a breakdown and JonBenet, Patsy's alter ego, ended up dead as a result.

This avenue of theory is widely dismissed and rarely discussed between the IDI, who cling to Patsy's Christianity and image as a uber-capable mom as proof that she could never be the killer. Nobody knows what shadows lurk in the hearts of others, and Patsy Ramsey is no exception. IMO. You've described a witch hunt.

[Sharon]

A lot of PDI believe Patsy had some mental issues, and what happened to JonBenet was the culmination of a lot more than a wet bed or a late night snack. It's hard for the IDI who don't see Patsy's issues to regard the crime from that point of view, but we don't know what Patsy's home life was really like, and how she developed mentally and emotionally from child into woman into wife and mother, or how her years of chemo may have affected her. I'd really love to have seen a psychological evaluation of Patsy Ramsey - several of her comments (and her paintings) alone are eyebrow-raising, I can't imagine what was really going on in that woman's head...the pageants and her need to lie about them is a good peek into her head. A few Sunday afternoons, my aching butt. I don't think what happened to JonBenet was something that surfaced on Christmas night and Christmas night alone, I think that was the night that Patsy had a breakdown and JonBenet, Patsy's alter ego, ended up dead as a result.

This avenue of theory is widely dismissed and rarely discussed between the IDI, who cling to Patsy's Christianity and image as a uber-capable mom as proof that she could never be the killer. Nobody knows what shadows lurk in the hearts of others, and Patsy Ramsey is no exception. IMO.

I dont think anyone believes PR was an uner capable mum....and Im sure she had her shortcomings. She was probably a really spoilt drama queen who always got her way & didnt have to think of anything except what color to redo her kitchen in. She probably wouldnt have looked at any of us twice irl. She probably fought with her husband about wanting a bigger house that didnt have stupid little staircases....who knows.....but thats a far cry from being a murderer!

And now that I think about it, most of the people I know have mental issues in addition to their shortcomings and almost never do things the right way. Everyone at my work is crazy, my family is beyond dysfunctional....and my friends, we have to turn a blind eye at everything they do.

I guess the shrinks in your neck of the woods are completely out of business!

Just my opinion.

ps. I am not saying she didnt have mental health issues, but without any evidence, it is quite unfair to try to link P to her daughters death. I mean do you have anything specific to say or is it just innuendo about whats going on in that womans head. (the term `that woman` is quite scathing and was uttered by an ex president to be very demeaning. jmo

[ralia]

Shill,

Maybe the term "degraded" DNA fits better?

Athena took a lot of her time to point out and explain to me a lot about the use of new technology on "broken" degraded DNA.

When do you think the oversezed underwear were put on?

And by the way... Don't we all express some subjectivity in our opinions here?

Based on some clues we perceive as facts theorize on what and what not has had happened.

[Sharon]

I didn't see the link to the site you encouraged everyone to read. None the less, theoritical thoughts cannot convict anyone in court. Evidence does. The parents in this case have not been convicted because there isn't evidence enough to charge them.


you missed my point. I meant that even in these grusome cases where it turns out a visious evil preditor was guilty, it may have seemed like the parents did it too as the perp. was not caught till much latter & even then it would have seemed very far fetched. ie little to no motive that could be established, far fetched that someone would just kill the children with no clues left behind, why would perp. write a taunting note to parents??

I didnt link because I dont know how, but its on this site...search for Fish.

jmo

[LadyFisher]

I dont think anyone believes PR was an uner capable mum....and Im sure she had her shortcomings. She was probably a really spoilt drama queen who always got her way & didnt have to think of anything except what color to redo her kitchen in. She probably wouldnt have looked at any of us twice irl. She probably fought with her husband about wanting a bigger house that didnt have stupid little staircases....who knows.....but thats a far cry from being a murderer!

And now that I think about it, most of the people I know have mental issues in addition to their shortcomings and almost never do things the right way. Everyone at my work is crazy, my family is beyond dysfunctional....and my friends, we have to turn a blind eye at everything they do.

I guess the shrinks in your neck of the woods are completely out of business!

Just my opinion.

ps. I am not saying she didnt have mental health issues, but without any evidence, it is quite unfair to try to link P to her daughters death. I mean do you have anything specific to say or is it just innuendo about whats going on in that womans head. (the term `that woman` is quite scathing and was uttered by an ex president to be very demeaning. jmo

I, too, think it is unfair to nk Patsy to JB's murder.....I don't think Patsy was such a spoiled drama queen as folks might think....she had just went through a battle for her life....and survived...she knew what was priority and what wasn't by that time...and any suggestion that she would kill her daughter over a bedwetting incident is imho just foolishness...I think Patsy was a kind, good woman...we have never heard anyone say she wasn't.....she was even going to give the housekeeper a lot of money simply because she told her she needed it for rent..that doesn't sound like a spoiled drama queen to me...I think she was attempting to live life to the fullest! jmho I believe what is upsetting so many folks is....there was DNA left at that crime scene which was not the Ramseys...it tells me there was someone else there....and no, I don't believe for a second someone planted it!

[LadyFisher]

O.K., I admit it, I planted the DNA on JB's panties.
And while I'm admitting things, I might as well tell you that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

:lol: I knew it!!!

[shill]

Shill,

Maybe the term "degraded" DNA fits better?

Athena took a lot of her time to point out and explain to me a lot about the use of new technology on "broken" degraded DNA.

When do you think the oversezed underwear were put on?

And by the way... Don't we all express some subjectivity in our opinions here?

Based on some clues we perceive as facts theorize on what and what not has had happened.
A fresh DNA sample can be degraded. DNA transferred the night of the killing can be classified as degraded. They have what they need with today’s technology to determine if a DNA sample from a suspect doesn't match.

I think she was wearing them when she was killed.

JB was a little princess and it seems little princesses do what they want, when they want, that's the privilege of a princess.
People paint a picture of her being a retard or something like she can't feed herself, pee and poop by herself, wipe herself, can't control her pee or poop, get up herself, dress herself, refuse to be in pageants if she doesn't like them.
How did this girl win pageants one has to wonder?

[Sharon]

I, too, think it is unfair to nk Patsy to JB's murder.....I don't think Patsy was such a spoiled drama queen as folks might think....she had just went through a battle for her life....and survived...she knew what was priority and what wasn't by that time...and any suggestion that she would kill her daughter over a bedwetting incident is imho just foolishness...I think Patsy was a kind, good woman...we have never heard anyone say she wasn't.....she was even going to give the housekeeper a lot of money simply because she told her she needed it for rent..that doesn't sound like a spoiled drama queen to me...I think she was attempting to live life to the fullest! jmho I believe what is upsetting so many folks is....there was DNA left at that crime scene which was not the Ramseys...it tells me there was someone else there....and no, I don't believe for a second someone planted it!

I agree totally, I was just pointing out that `even` if she was a spoilt b..ch, it is totally irrelevant to what happened. I detect lots of subtle jealousy here about PR lifestyle and some people think it gives them license to slander her name by picking her apart for her faults which we all have!
jmo

[SnarkyCow]

"I don't believe a parent could do something like this" is not a reasonable defense. It does not hold water at all. You (universal you) did not live in the Ramsey home, did not know what went on there & don't know what secrets that family kept. I've said it on several different threads, but I'll say it again because it is worth repeating: Perhaps the Ramseys' lives were reflected in their home. What I mean is their home was beautiful (if you like that kind of thing) and "just-so" where people could see, but was messy & unorganized behind the scenes. You can tell a lot about someone by where they live & how they present themselves to the public compared to how they are behind closed doors.

I don't have proof that Patsy is responsible for the death of her daughter or proof that she was a vicious killer or proof that she was mentally unstable, but I try to base my theories & ideas on tangibles ~ not on the opinion that "a parent couldn't do this to a child." NEWSFLASH: It happens all the time, maybe it doesn't get the coverage that this case gets, but it does happen. People snap, lose their sh*t, commit crimes of rage & passion ~ it happens. It happens to fathers, mothers, siblings, lovers, etc. It happens everyday.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion & theories, but I wish some of the people that do would have something more than "A parent just wouldn't/couldn't do this" as their defense. Just because you wouldn't do it does not mean it does not happen.

As for Patsy being a spoiled rich-b*tch.... so what?! None of these things make her a murderer. I believe she did have something to do with the death & the cover-up of JonBenet's murder, but NOT because she was wealthy or spoiled.

The only thing that seems to fit from what we know about Patsy is the "drama-queen" angle. She was into over-the-top planning (the "Gone With the Wind" party, the Christmas Home Tour, the meticulous planning for JonBenet's pagents). Elaborately staging the crime scene? An over-the-top ransom note? - Certainly it's worth questioning, because it seems to fit with Patsy's personality, as opposed to the irrational & idealistic defense of "Oh a mother wouldn't do that."

I may not be right, but my "straight-line theory" keeps it simple. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

John & Patsy Ramsey--------JonBenet Ramsey

For me it's not about twisting the details or scrambling facts to fit a theory - it is about taking what we know (which isn't much unfortunately) and trying to come up with the most logical, simple explanation. I do not see any evidence of an intruder. The evidence can only conclusively show there were four people in the house that night & all of them had the last name Ramsey.

Back to the original intent of the thread which was:

"What is your timeline of events the night JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in her home - where do you believe the crime started?"

[Sharon]

"I don't believe a parent could do something like this" is not a reasonable defense. It does not hold water at all. You (universal you) did not live in the Ramsey home, did not know what went on there & don't know what secrets that family kept. I've said it on several different threads, but I'll say it again because it is worth repeating: Perhaps the Ramseys' lives were reflected in their home. What I mean is their home was beautiful (if you like that kind of thing) and "just-so" where people could see, but was messy & unorganized behind the scenes. You can tell a lot about someone by where they live & how they present themselves to the public compared to how they are behind closed doors.

I don't have proof that Patsy is responsible for the death of her daughter or proof that she was a vicious killer or proof that she was mentally unstable, but I try to base my theories & ideas on tangibles ~ not on the opinion that "a parent couldn't do this to a child." NEWSFLASH: It happens all the time, maybe it doesn't get the coverage that this case gets, but it does happen. People snap, lose their sh*t, commit crimes of rage & passion ~ it happens. It happens to fathers, mothers, siblings, lovers, etc. It happens everyday.

I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion & theories, but I wish some of the people that do would have something more than "A parent just wouldn't/couldn't do this" as their defense. Just because you wouldn't do it does not mean it does not happen.

As for Patsy being a spoiled rich-b*tch.... so what?! None of these things make her a murderer. I believe she did have something to do with the death & the cover-up of JonBenet's murder, but NOT because she was wealthy or spoiled.

The only thing that seems to fit from what we know about Patsy is the "drama-queen" angle. She was into over-the-top planning (the "Gone With the Wind" party, the Christmas Home Tour, the meticulous planning for JonBenet's pagents). Elaborately staging the crime scene? An over-the-top ransom note? - Certainly it's worth questioning, because it seems to fit with Patsy's personality, as opposed to the irrational & idealistic defense of "Oh a mother wouldn't do that."

I may not be right, but my "straight-line theory" keeps it simple. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

John & Patsy Ramsey--------JonBenet Ramsey

For me it's not about twisting the details or scrambling facts to fit a theory - it is about taking what we know (which isn't much unfortunately) and trying to come up with the most logical, simple explanation. I do not see any evidence of an intruder. The evidence can only conclusively show there were four people in the house that night & all of them had the last name Ramsey.

Back to the original intent of the thread which was:

"What is your timeline of events the night JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in her home - where do you believe the crime started?"

Ok, I will keep this brief.
I dont believe that the IDI hold their views because they `dont think a mother could do something like this`. Reading this site in general is an eye opener to what goes on in homes all the time all over the world. Mothers are very much capible of murdering their children without a blink. One case on this site has a couple living in their house with their kids chopped up in barrels.....as if it didnt mean a thing. So, I agree that anyone using this as a defence is fairly naive to say the least.

The difference between a RDI and an IDI imo is that the former find the R. guilty until there is proof of an intruder, and possibly to have this intruder identified. Whereas the IDI take the stance that until someone is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt they will keep an open mind & give the R. benefit of the doubt.

Its not that anyone loves the R. Its more about the fact that there is doubt about their involvement. To be honest both sides dont have a trouble free explaination...both sides have holes in their arguments. Im sure there is much missing info. or info that we have wrong. Eitherway, IDI arent willing to convict parents who may be innocent....but if new info came out to prove otherwise, well, we would all be RDI no probs.

And I do know the type who keep the front of their house tidy & the rest not. And I also know the type who are into over the top planning for parties & functions (mostly, but not always its called unlimmited budget and too much spare time). My point is, you (universal) can talk of straight lines & reading personalities from a lifestyle....and you might be right, we might be surprised to learn that the parents did strangle & bash their kid to death....but until there is positive proof, I will be an IDI.

For me, the absense of many clues that an intruder did it is not conclusive. There are countless cases where the intruder leaves no clues & does get away with it.

this is just my opinion

[User615]

[QUOTE=SnarkyCow;8817874For me it's not about twisting the details or scrambling facts to fit a theory - it is about taking what we know (which isn't much unfortunately) and trying to come up with the most logical, simple explanation. I do not see any evidence of an intruder. The evidence can only conclusively show there were four people in the house that night & all of them had the last name Ramsey.

Back to the original intent of the thread which was:

"What is your timeline of events the night JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in her home - where do you believe the crime started?"[/QUOTE]



I am not trying to take sides here, but from everything I have read, I just cannot be convinced (yet) of an intruder theory. My theory has always involved Burke, and a cover up, and since this is about timelines, let's consider one more thing. If Burke (or the R's) were molesting JBR, their "window of opportunity" was closing for a while due to them leaving for an extended vacation...first to Michigan, then on the cruise. Their last chance to do this would have been the night before. They may have even tried to stall the trip with a fake kidnapping, but things went wrong. So the timing of this again keeps me "in the house" for suspects. I don't believe anyone forcefed her pineapple, or an intruder could have rambled around that house like that. I believe someone woke her up around 10:00 -11:00 and took her downstairs for a snack, then proceded to take things further. I am more than willing to listen to any evidence that can prove this didn't happen, and to prove this was not a cover up. JR admitted he broke the basement window at a previous time when he was locked out (but can anyone confirm this). A doll mysteriously arrives at his work a few days after the death. Items are collected from the household that aren't needed. Just too strange for me. This is just my opinion.

[SnarkyCow]

Ok, I will keep this brief.
I dont believe that the IDI hold their views because they `dont think a mother could do something like this`. Reading this site in general is an eye opener to what goes on in homes all the time all over the world. Mothers are very much capible of murdering their children without a blink. One case on this site has a couple living in their house with their kids chopped up in barrels.....as if it didnt mean a thing. So, I agree that anyone using this as a defence is fairly naive to say the least.

The difference between a RDI and an IDI imo is that the former find the R. guilty until there is proof of an intruder, and possibly to have this intruder identified. Whereas the IDI take the stance that until someone is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt they will keep an open mind & give the R. benefit of the doubt.

Its not that anyone loves the R. Its more about the fact that there is doubt about their involvement. To be honest both sides dont have a trouble free explaination...both sides have holes in their arguments. Im sure there is much missing info. or info that we have wrong. Eitherway, IDI arent willing to convict parents who may be innocent....but if new info came out to prove otherwise, well, we would all be RDI no probs.

And I do know the type who keep the front of their house tidy & the rest not. And I also know the type who are into over the top planning for parties & functions (mostly, but not always its called unlimmited budget and too much spare time). My point is, you (universal) can talk of straight lines & reading personalities from a lifestyle....and you might be right, we might be surprised to learn that the parents did strangle & bash their kid to death....but until there is positive proof, I will be an IDI.

For me, the absense of many clues that an intruder did it is not conclusive. There are countless cases where the intruder leaves no clues & does get away with it.

this is just my opinion

I do respect your opinion & I appreciate you replying. I was in no way saying that every IDI claims the Ramseys innocent because "A mother wouldn't do that," but there are some. I've seen it here, on this forum & on this thread.

My point was, strictly in my opinion, there are very few "facts" on this case. The gray areas are left up for interpretation. I try to (whether successful or not) to piece together an explanation from what is known & try to (whether successful or not) fit the facts into place using what is known. In other words I try not to fit square pieces of the puzzle into round holes.

I am not saying "Patsy did it because she was dramatic & the crime was dramatic" - I am merely saying it is one of those "gray, interpretive areas" that is worth looking into. Was she capable of an over-the-top ransom note & staging? Does it fit with what we know about her personalitly?

If it was so easy to clear the family they would not have stayed under the "umbrella of suspicion." There are so many things that family did from the beginning that make me go :confused: ~ of course everyone reacts & acts differently, hence the gray areas. I'm just trying to logically think about the gray areas.

What is the simplist explanation? What does the evidence show? A roving band of Christmas night pedophiles, a very confident, calm, rambling kidnapping-murderer or a family member who lost their sh*t to a devistating degree? It's all gray area, it's all open to interpretation.

On another note: What I don't understand is why people (not directed to anyone in particular) insist on making this case even more difficult than it already is by bringing up things there is absolutely no proof of. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if everyone just stopped, whether IDI or RDI, took a breath & looked at what we do know instead of what we don't without bias. (Won't happen, but a cow can dream :D).

[thewhitewitch1]

Looks like someone slept in the bed to me.

Some times I get up in the middle of the night to pee. You know you loose a lot of stored heat after you pee and if it is a winter day, it gets cold in the house and you get a chill. Now if I'm hungry and I want to go down stairs for a snack, let's say pineapple, I might take the blanket off my bad and wrap it around me so I won't be cold.

But that's just me. I guess no one else in the world would do that, would they?


If JB had done that, she would have dragged the comforter right off the bed, as the white blanket on her bed was an "oversized" blanket and was tucked in under the mattress (stated by Patsy). It probably would have pulled the comforter off even if it wasn't tucked in. I doubt JB went back and put the comforter back on the bed and folded it back, as it is shown in the crime scene photos. That's not something a 6 year old would do.
You can speculate on this all you want but the picture does not give any indication that she pulled her blanket off of the bed.

[Sharon]

I do respect your opinion & I appreciate you replying. I was in no way saying that every IDI claims the Ramseys innocent because "A mother wouldn't do that," but there are some. I've seen it here, on this forum & on this thread.

My point was, strictly in my opinion, there are very few "facts" on this case. The gray areas are left up for interpretation. I try to (whether successful or not) to piece together an explanation from what is known & try to (whether successful or not) fit the facts into place using what is known. In other words I try not to fit square pieces of the puzzle into round holes.

I am not saying "Patsy did it because she was dramatic & the crime was dramatic" - I am merely saying it is one of those "gray, interpretive areas" that is worth looking into. Was she capable of an over-the-top ransom note & staging? Does it fit with what we know about her personalitly?

If it was so easy to clear the family they would not have stayed under the "umbrella of suspicion." There are so many things that family did from the beginning that make me go :confused: ~ of course everyone reacts & acts differently, hence the gray areas. I'm just trying to logically think about the gray areas.

What is the simplist explanation? What does the evidence show? A roving band of Christmas night pedophiles, a very confident, calm, rambling kidnapping-murderer or a family member who lost their sh*t to a devistating degree? It's all gray area, it's all open to interpretation.

On another note: What I don't understand is why people (not directed to anyone in particular) insist on making this case even more difficult than it already is by bringing up things there is absolutely no proof of. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if everyone just stopped, whether IDI or RDI, took a breath & looked at what we do know instead of what we don't without bias. (Won't happen, but a cow can dream :D).

Well said! You make sense.

Im beginning to feel like this is a debate about does god exist. Its like everyone even disagrees on what has been proven, so there are no facts that stay still. Its like there are theories within theories...and much grey area.
imo

[LindaA]

O.K., I admit it, I planted the DNA on JB's panties.
And while I'm admitting things, I might as well tell you that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

You didn't fool me. I knew it all along! Oh, and you have Elvis and Marilyn and JFK stashed away somewhere as well, don't you? :biggrin:

[Athena]

In posts #95 and #97 excellent points are made both by Snarky Cow and Sharon. Good luck though in finding anyone to form opinions based on what is actually known. Too far gone me thinks! Way back when we were all still on CTV here we started an evidence only thread and I don't have to tell you what happened to it. What I will point out though is that someone conducted a poll re: IDI and RDI being willing to change their minds based on any new evidence that came up and most of the IDIs voted they would go RDI if there was hard evidence that RDI but most of the RDIs remained steadfast in their opinions that RDI no matter what. :)

[Athena]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shill
O.K., I admit it, I planted the DNA on JB's panties.
And while I'm admitting things, I might as well tell you that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

Originally Posted by LindaA
You didn't fool me. I knew it all along! Oh, and you have Elvis and Marilyn and JFK stashed away somewhere as well, don't you?

Too funny! :lol:

[SnarkyCow]

In posts #95 and #97 excellent points are made both by Snarky Cow and Sharon. Good luck though in finding anyone to form opinions based on what is actually known. Too far gone me thinks! Way back when we were all still on CTV here we started an evidence only thread and I don't have to tell you what happened to it. What I will point out though is that someone conducted a poll re: IDI and RDI being willing to change their minds based on any new evidence that came up and most of the IDIs voted they would go RDI if there was hard evidence that RDI but most of the RDIs remained steadfast in their opinions that RDI no matter what. :)

Firstly, thank you for your kind words. Secondly I am definitely an RDI who would change my mind if the evidence allowed for it. For me it is about solving a mystery & bringing justice to JonBenet ~ I would love to have her murderer caught and it be known, without a shadow of a doubt, that THIS is the person responsible for this dispicable, cruel act against a defensless, six year old girl. I don't necessarily want the Ramsey's to be guilty, but I think they are. Given the evidence we have I do not see any indication of an intruder being in the house that night.

I am not out to discredit the Ramseys ~ I don't care about their money, status, business, etc. (which I think some people may judge them on). All I care about is their little six year old girl who was murdered senselessly on Christmas night. Until there is evidence that shows, beyond a doubt, that an intruder did it I am RDI. My "straight-line" logic & "Keep it simple stupid" method of reasoning point only to someone who lived in the Ramsey home.

Thank you for listening ~ I love reading everyones' ideas, etc. whether IDI, RDI or FS. It's all food for thought.

Sincerely,

Snarky

[Athena]

SnarkyCow: Glad to know that you have an open mind. :) I am not 100% IDI and do allow for the fact that the RDI may have committed this cirime. However, I just have not been convinced. If I had to opt on which RDI though it would not be Patsy. If JR did do this I believe it was without Patsy's knowledge.

I have said before that I don't understand how anyone can be 100% anything. Too many holes in whichever theory you believe.

Every article I have read re: staging one of the major points in them is that the killer NEVER finds the body but allows someone else to find it. In addition to that most times staging is enacted to cover up an accident or suicide which JMO is just not the case here. This murder was no accident whether you choose to believe the head injury or strangling occurred first; both were deliberate and fatal and extremely violent. I also believe there is a possibility that there was more than one blow thus accounting for the comminuted fracture.

The ransom note IMO could have been written before, brought to the crime scene and copied over using pen and paper from the Ramseys home. Instead of pointing away from the Ramseys it pointed directly to them and I just find it hard to believe that JR would have used an amount so closely tied to the amount of his bonus. While I understand that staging done by an amateur or under duress would result in errors or parents can "lose it"; I do not see JR losing control so as to make a huge blunder like this. Even if PR "lost it" I absolutely cannot fathom PR writing such a long note after just killing her daughter and using words such as "beheaded" or stating that the body would be withheld for burial.

The crime scene IMO seems more framing than staging.

[SnarkyCow]

SnarkyCow: Glad to know that you have an open mind. :) I am not 100% IDI and do allow for the fact that the RDI may have committed this cirime. However, I just have not been convinced. If I had to opt on which RDI though it would not be Patsy. If JR did do this I believe it was without Patsy's knowledge.

I have said before that I don't understand how anyone can be 100% anything. Too many holes in whichever theory you believe.

Every article I have read re: staging one of the major points in them is that the killer NEVER finds the body but allows someone else to find it. In addition to that most times staging is enacted to cover up an accident or suicide which JMO is just not the case here. This murder was no accident whether you choose to believe the head injury or strangling occurred first; both were deliberate and fatal and extremely violent. I also believe there is a possibility that there was more than one blow thus accounting for the comminuted fracture.

The ransom note IMO could have been written before, brought to the crime scene and copied over using pen and paper from the Ramseys home. Instead of pointing away from the Ramseys it pointed directly to them and I just find it hard to believe that JR would have used an amount so closely tied to the amount of his bonus. While I understand that staging done by an amateur or under duress would result in errors or parents can "lose it"; I do not see JR losing control so as to make a huge blunder like this. Even if PR "lost it" I absolutely cannot fathom PR writing such a long note after just killing her daughter and using words such as "beheaded" or stating that the body would be withheld for burial.

The crime scene IMO seems more framing than staging.

You make some good, valid points. :) I think keeping an open mind is the only way to look at a case such as this otherwise people get all wrapped around their own ideas & cannot see beyond themselves.... and that's when the theory becomes more important than the crime itself.

What I wonder is (and these are rhetorical questions, not posed to anyone in particular): How far would a person go to distance themselves from a murder? How far would someone go to mentally "undo" what they did? How much effort would a person put in to protecting their family & avoiding prison? How far can someone go before they realize they cannot turn back? Again, it's a gray area, but who are we to say who would or wouldn't lose control?

I should think it'd be quite easy for someone who never committed a murder or staged a crime scene to have lapses in judgement & overlook important details regardless of how cool & calm they seem in their everyday lives. I am just driving my point home: We cannot claim to know what someone would or would not do.

[Athena]

<snip> Again, it's a gray area, but who are we to say who would or wouldn't lose control?

I should think it'd be quite easy for someone who never committed a murder or staged a crime scene to have lapses in judgement & overlook important details regardless of how cool & calm they seem in their everyday lives. I am just driving my point home: We cannot claim to know what someone would or would not do.

No argument here. I will admit MY biggest problem is "motive" and we may never know what that was by either RDI or IDI.

[SnarkyCow]

No argument here. I will admit MY biggest problem is "motive" and we may never know what that was by either RDI or IDI.

Absolutely. :beer:

[ralia]

Athena,

If the note was brought in, what's the purpose of the practice note then?

I have some thoughts to share about the first hours of that morning..

Let's fantasize for a while tha we wake up one morning and we find a 3 page novel of random notes on our feet. Surely we'll panic, scream for the husband, search the whole house to verify that our child is indeed missing, cry...yell...run up and down. But at some point, as parents we have to decide what to do, how to proceed. Not to call the police, as the note threatens and handle the situation our own? May be not a good idea..Our child is in real danger we can't take such a burden to jeopardize its safety. Let's call the police...They are expirienced, they should know what steps to follow to take our daughter back. We have no doubt at this point that our child has been kidnapped (the note says so and she is nowhere to be seen).

We frantically call the police and ask them, BEG them to handle the situation in utmost secrecy and discretion because the "beheaded" thing has stuck in our minds.

"Don't bring patrol cars and uniformed policemen over here" I would say, though they know what to do, they are experienced..that's why I called them.


What's the next step? Maybe we would read the note again and again until they arrive, thinking about how we collect the money...

Now tell me, which one of you, as your next step, would announce the event to you neibhour, close friend, minister, even your children in Atlanta and invite them to come over for your OWN emmotional support? You have no fear, for go's sake, not to follow the least of what the note is saying? The most obvious? Not to notify anybody, even for the money, until the police tell you what to do. That's why you called them, in the first place.

Don't ever cross your mind there was indeed even a chance to be "monitored" or closely watched? What if the kidnapper after watching the police officers politely opening the door, as butlers do, and welcoming the concerned visitors called as promised and told you:

"Hi, there! We are the small faction gang! After we saw all this commotion and realise John grew brain after all, we decided to send your girl's finger for a starter to have something to talk about in your nice gathering.

What you have done? I, for one, would not cry "kidnapping" to anyone may listen. Kidnapping is a major crisis situation and as a perent I wouldn't jeopardize my child's safety by making uneccesary and dangerous actions without even consulting the police first...At least...

Whould you?

[nuisanceposter]

Athena,

If the note was brought in, what's the purpose of the practice note then?

I have some thoughts to share about the first hours of that morning..

Let's fantasize for a while tha we wake up one morning and we find a 3 page novel of random notes on our feet. Surely we'll panic, scream for the husband, search the whole house to verify that our child is indeed missing, cry...yell...run up and down. But at some point, as parents we have to decide what to do, how to proceed. Not to call the police, as the note threatens and handle the situation our own? May be not a good idea..Our child is in real danger we can't take such a burden to jeopardize its safety. Let's call the police...They are expirienced, they should know what steps to follow to take our daughter back. We have no doubt at this point that our child has been kidnapped (the note says so and she is nowhere to be seen).

We frantically call the police and ask them, BEG them to handle the situation in utmost secrecy and discretion because the "beheaded" thing has stuck in our minds.

"Don't bring patrol cars and uniformed policemen over here" I would say, though they know what to do, they are experienced..that's why I called them.


What's the next step? Maybe we would read the note again and again until they arrive, thinking about how we collect the money...

Now tell me, which one of you, as your next step, would announce the event to you neibhour, close friend, minister, even your children in Atlanta and invite them to come over for your OWN emmotional support? You have no fear, for go's sake, not to follow the least of what the note is saying? The most obvious? Not to notify anybody, even for the money, until the police tell you what to do. That's why you called them, in the first place.

Don't ever cross your mind there was indeed even a chance to be "monitored" or closely watched? What if the kidnapper after watching the police officers politely opening the door, as butlers do, and welcoming the concerned visitors called as promised and told you:

"Hi, there! We are the small faction gang! After we saw all this commotion and realise John grew brain after all, we decided to send your girl's finger for a starter to have something to talk about in your nice gathering.

What you have done? I, for one, would not cry "kidnapping" to anyone may listen. Kidnapping is a major crisis situation and as a perent I wouldn't jeopardize my child's safety by making uneccesary and dangerous actions without even consulting the police first...At least...

Whould you?

This is one of my major issues with believing the Ramseys weren't involved and had no knowledge of what was going on. They behaved as if they knew there was no reason to adhere to the warnings in the note. They didn't see the need to warn police that their daughter's life had been threatened by them even calling the police and the need for discretion in responding, and they didn't see the risk in calling up friends to come over even though they'd been warned they were being watched and so much as talking to a stray dog will have their daughter beheaded. How could they disregard two very important issues like that...unless they knew the RN was a fake and there was no real need to act like there was a real threat. I don't believe they hadn't read the note all the way through - that RN is their only link to where their child is and how to get her back. Of course they're going to read every single line. When you add to it the fact that Patsy was never excluded as author and it happens to sound quite a bit like her style of speaking, things make you wonder...

On top of that, they sent Burke out of the house and their protective presence, knowing someone claims to be watching, and knowing that person claims to be holding JonBenet and has threatened to cut her head off if they don't follow his instructions. They didn't know that the kidnapper wouldn't grab Burke also, or cut JB's head off...or did they? They didn't even request a police escort to make sure he reached his destination, as if they knew he was perfectly safe from monitoring foreign faction kidnappers. That's awful big risk to take...that house was big enough and there were enough people there that Burke could have stayed in another room with someone playing his Nintendo or building Lego buildings or whatever, if they wanted him away from the commotion - why risk his safety by sending him somewhere where they can't be there to watch him personally? What parent would send their older child out of the house and out of their sight and personal protection when they've found their baby missing and a ransom note threatening her life?

And someone brought up on another board that when JR brought JonBenet upstairs, and called out that he'd found her and Patsy had to be led into the living room, it doesn't seem as though Patsy asked John any questions about finding her...such as "where was she?" or ""what room was she in?" or anything I would expect a mother to want to know about her child who has been missing and had been found in the basement. I know I'd be interrogating my husband as to every detail as soon as he announced that he'd found her. It's like she already knew all the details, IMO.

[andU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shill
O.K., I admit it, I planted the DNA on JB's panties.
And while I'm admitting things, I might as well tell you that I am the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

Shill:
The line for paternity DNA testing is getting longer and longer, you may be waiting in line long enough to retire and draw SS, or for the baby to if you are the lucky man!!! ;)

What a sad and very dysfunctional lady she was, not that she didn't have reason, but anyone of us can pull ourselves out of anything, if we want to badly enough. She chose to use her body instead of her brain. My prayers go out to that poor child (Yes! I said, "That poor child..."

[thewhitewitch1]

Athena,

If the note was brought in, what's the purpose of the practice note then?

I have some thoughts to share about the first hours of that morning..

Let's fantasize for a while tha we wake up one morning and we find a 3 page novel of random notes on our feet. Surely we'll panic, scream for the husband, search the whole house to verify that our child is indeed missing, cry...yell...run up and down. But at some point, as parents we have to decide what to do, how to proceed. Not to call the police, as the note threatens and handle the situation our own? May be not a good idea..Our child is in real danger we can't take such a burden to jeopardize its safety. Let's call the police...They are expirienced, they should know what steps to follow to take our daughter back. We have no doubt at this point that our child has been kidnapped (the note says so and she is nowhere to be seen).

We frantically call the police and ask them, BEG them to handle the situation in utmost secrecy and discretion because the "beheaded" thing has stuck in our minds.

"Don't bring patrol cars and uniformed policemen over here" I would say, though they know what to do, they are experienced..that's why I called them.


What's the next step? Maybe we would read the note again and again until they arrive, thinking about how we collect the money...

Now tell me, which one of you, as your next step, would announce the event to you neibhour, close friend, minister, even your children in Atlanta and invite them to come over for your OWN emmotional support? You have no fear, for go's sake, not to follow the least of what the note is saying? The most obvious? Not to notify anybody, even for the money, until the police tell you what to do. That's why you called them, in the first place.

Don't ever cross your mind there was indeed even a chance to be "monitored" or closely watched? What if the kidnapper after watching the police officers politely opening the door, as butlers do, and welcoming the concerned visitors called as promised and told you:

"Hi, there! We are the small faction gang! After we saw all this commotion and realise John grew brain after all, we decided to send your girl's finger for a starter to have something to talk about in your nice gathering.

What you have done? I, for one, would not cry "kidnapping" to anyone may listen. Kidnapping is a major crisis situation and as a perent I wouldn't jeopardize my child's safety by making uneccesary and dangerous actions without even consulting the police first...At least...

Whould you?


My thoughts exactly! IDIs will rationalize this, of course but as far as I can see, there is no rationalization for calling your friends over after you've been extensively warned about what will happen to your child if you tell anyone. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Ramseys knew that the RN was bogus, that there would be no consequences if the police or friends were called in and these things could only be if the Ramseys themselves wrote the note.
I believe the entire reason for the note was to explain JBs death and am pretty certain that they "broke all the rules" of the note to make it look as though she was killed because they didn't follow directions. I would even go as far as to say that perhaps with this "broken window" and suitcase issue, they staged it to look as though the killer was still in the house while the police were there, saw that they had disregarded the warnings and killed JB right then and there. Maybe this is the reason no one else saw an open window that morning...until JR went in the basement and later claimed that it was open. Of course, he would not have known about the digestion of the pineapple and how it would indicate the approximate time of her death.
Of course he's never come out and said or even implied that the killer was still in the house that morning but in order for the RN note and the calling in of friends and LE, that's how it would have had to have happened, unless the killer sneaked back in and dumped her body...but that doesn't go along with the threat of denying them a "proper burial".
Why did John finally "discover" her body? Well, he was told to search the house. If he had come back "empty handed" and the LE found her body later, that would be pretty incriminating.
Just some thoughts...

Also, as far as "staging a crime scene" and not being the one to find the body(s), Darlie Routier alledgedly staged the crime scene and "found the bodies" so there are always exceptions. A bogus kidnapping would definately be an exception. I still stand by the "accident" theory too. If this had been planned by John and/or Patsy, they would have planned it much better...and the body would not still be in the house. IMO

[Athena]

Athena,

If the note was brought in, what's the purpose of the practice note then?

I have some thoughts to share about the first hours of that morning..

Let's fantasize for a while tha we wake up one morning and we find a 3 page novel of random notes on our feet. Surely we'll panic, scream for the husband, search the whole house to verify that our child is indeed missing, cry...yell...run up and down. But at some point, as parents we have to decide what to do, how to proceed. Not to call the police, as the note threatens and handle the situation our own? May be not a good idea..Our child is in real danger we can't take such a burden to jeopardize its safety. Let's call the police...They are expirienced, they should know what steps to follow to take our daughter back. We have no doubt at this point that our child has been kidnapped (the note says so and she is nowhere to be seen).

We frantically call the police and ask them, BEG them to handle the situation in utmost secrecy and discretion because the "beheaded" thing has stuck in our minds.

"Don't bring patrol cars and uniformed policemen over here" I would say, though they know what to do, they are experienced..that's why I called them.


What's the next step? Maybe we would read the note again and again until they arrive, thinking about how we collect the money...

Now tell me, which one of you, as your next step, would announce the event to you neibhour, close friend, minister, even your children in Atlanta and invite them to come over for your OWN emmotional support? You have no fear, for go's sake, not to follow the least of what the note is saying? The most obvious? Not to notify anybody, even for the money, until the police tell you what to do. That's why you called them, in the first place.

Don't ever cross your mind there was indeed even a chance to be "monitored" or closely watched? What if the kidnapper after watching the police officers politely opening the door, as butlers do, and welcoming the concerned visitors called as promised and told you:

"Hi, there! We are the small faction gang! After we saw all this commotion and realise John grew brain after all, we decided to send your girl's finger for a starter to have something to talk about in your nice gathering.

What you have done? I, for one, would not cry "kidnapping" to anyone may listen. Kidnapping is a major crisis situation and as a perent I wouldn't jeopardize my child's safety by making uneccesary and dangerous actions without even consulting the police first...At least...

Whould you?

re: the ransom note (practice note) - the perp could have started to copy his letter and made a mistake by addressing it to both Ramseys and decided against it. But it is plausible that a note was brought in and copied. That does not affect the possibility.

The rest:

This is all comes back to what you think you would do under these circumstances. You don't know unless you've walked in their shoes. Re: them telling the dispatcher how they should handle their arrival is a joke. I'm sure you have heard many 911 calls and I have NEVER heard one where someone tells the Police how they should handle their arrival. A call usually describes the nature of the emergency and in most cases ends with "help, hurry!". It is the police who are experienced not the callers/victims as you even state in your post.

As far as them calling neighbors I can't speak for them as I am not in their head. I don't know what I would do in their case. Maybe it was for emotional support, maybe it was to have people around them to comfort them. I have VERY close friends and I cannot however honestly say one way or the other whether or not I would have called them. I just don't know. I do doubt that anyone would necessarily think straight under stress. People do dumb things for different reasons and only in hindsight do they realize how stupid their actions may have been.

IMO the police screwed up by driving up in police cars and uniforms in the first place. That certainly was through no fault of the Ramseys and the call should have been referred to the FBI IMMEDIATELY. The instructions were compromised either way. If someone had been watching at that moment they possibly fled realizing their plan was foiled and that someone would find JBR's body sooner than it was found.

Re: ransom - JR had made a phone call by 7AM to Rod Westmoreland to make arrangements to gather up the money.

[LindaA]

Ok, I will keep this brief.
I dont believe that the IDI hold their views because they `dont think a mother could do something like this`. Reading this site in general is an eye opener to what goes on in homes all the time all over the world. Mothers are very much capible of murdering their children without a blink. One case on this site has a couple living in their house with their kids chopped up in barrels.....as if it didnt mean a thing. So, I agree that anyone using this as a defence is fairly naive to say the least.

The difference between a RDI and an IDI imo is that the former find the R. guilty until there is proof of an intruder, and possibly to have this intruder identified. Whereas the IDI take the stance that until someone is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt they will keep an open mind & give the R. benefit of the doubt.

Its not that anyone loves the R. Its more about the fact that there is doubt about their involvement. To be honest both sides dont have a trouble free explaination...both sides have holes in their arguments. Im sure there is much missing info. or info that we have wrong. Eitherway, IDI arent willing to convict parents who may be innocent....but if new info came out to prove otherwise, well, we would all be RDI no probs.

And I do know the type who keep the front of their house tidy & the rest not. And I also know the type who are into over the top planning for parties & functions (mostly, but not always its called unlimmited budget and too much spare time). My point is, you (universal) can talk of straight lines & reading personalities from a lifestyle....and you might be right, we might be surprised to learn that the parents did strangle & bash their kid to death....but until there is positive proof, I will be an IDI.

For me, the absense of many clues that an intruder did it is not conclusive. There are countless cases where the intruder leaves no clues & does get away with it.

this is just my opinion

:beer: Spot on, Sharon!

[LindaA]

My impression was that PR read the beginning of the ransom note, did not finish it before calling JR and checking in JBR's bedroom. As John was reading it, she looked over his shoulder and skipped to the signature, even while she was talking to the dispatcher.

[Sharon]

This is one of my major issues with believing the Ramseys weren't involved and had no knowledge of what was going on. They behaved as if they knew there was no reason to adhere to the warnings in the note. They didn't see the need to warn police that their daughter's life had been threatened by them even calling the police and the need for discretion in responding, and they didn't see the risk in calling up friends to come over even though they'd been warned they were being watched and so much as talking to a stray dog will have their daughter beheaded. How could they disregard two very important issues like that...unless they knew the RN was a fake and there was no real need to act like there was a real threat. I don't believe they hadn't read the note all the way through - that RN is their only link to where their child is and how to get her back. Of course they're going to read every single line. When you add to it the fact that Patsy was never excluded as author and it happens to sound quite a bit like her style of speaking, things make you wonder...

On top of that, they sent Burke out of the house and their protective presence, knowing someone claims to be watching, and knowing that person claims to be holding JonBenet and has threatened to cut her head off if they don't follow his instructions. They didn't know that the kidnapper wouldn't grab Burke also, or cut JB's head off...or did they? They didn't even request a police escort to make sure he reached his destination, as if they knew he was perfectly safe from monitoring foreign faction kidnappers. That's awful big risk to take...that house was big enough and there were enough people there that Burke could have stayed in another room with someone playing his Nintendo or building Lego buildings or whatever, if they wanted him away from the commotion - why risk his safety by sending him somewhere where they can't be there to watch him personally? What parent would send their older child out of the house and out of their sight and personal protection when they've found their baby missing and a ransom note threatening her life?

And someone brought up on another board that when JR brought JonBenet upstairs, and called out that he'd found her and Patsy had to be led into the living room, it doesn't seem as though Patsy asked John any questions about finding her...such as "where was she?" or ""what room was she in?" or anything I would expect a mother to want to know about her child who has been missing and had been found in the basement. I know I'd be interrogating my husband as to every detail as soon as he announced that he'd found her. It's like she already knew all the details, IMO.

I do agree with you that parts come off as suspisious. But it has also been put forward that if they were guilty, why ring the police at all, or so early? As for their friends, do you think it possible that hey may have rung as a desperate measure as FW had seen them the night before. Maybe they rang to see if anything had happened there and to tell the bad news. Maybe if you had friends in very high places you sort of think they can help with any thing.

I personally find it very suspicious that FW and his partner and her sister could get there so quickly, especially FW. Could he have been waiting for that call? Did he invite himself over as in dont worry we`re coming now.

I do think that I would warn the emergency about the need for discretion though, if I had read that far. I also think I would be an hysterical mess.

But, remember that we are analysing words as if PR was reading a script. I think if we had seen & heard her we might have a different take on her actions. eg. in expecting that she should have asked all sorts of questions about where JBR was etc, we may be overlooking the fact that she was crying, screaming, inconsolable. Keep in mind that it was very obvious that the body was dead from the rigor mortis.

So, Im wondering if there are clues about how the parents acted that we are not picking up from their written words. I believe I read that P vomited. I think that sounds like she was inconsolable. A very different scenario than the cold blooded killer that just hours before wrote a ransom note with a value on her own baby`s head. Btw, it is notoriously difficult for parents to put a dollar figure on their childs life. They must have been physcotic to be able to pull this off.
jmo.

[elvislives]

It not necessary that it was a female who wrote the note; there are males out there with feminine voice, attitudes, behaviors, even touches. John Mark Karr is one of those examples and he is male, at least he was before he want a sex change. During my mom's work trip to southeast, she noticed pedophile males wore some kinds of pink flamingo clothing, with such feminine styles around their wrists, collars, or legs chasing little girls or trying to be attractive for them around downtowns of big cities in Georgia, South Carolina, or Alabama. She even heard them using their feminine voices. Those were also similar things I noticed during my trip to some big cities in Mexico. IMO

I couldnt agree more. I do not think you can draw conclusions from a bogus ransom note as to whether it was written by a male or female, a black or a white person, etc. WAY to speculative,

[rashomon]

I couldnt agree more. I do not think you can draw conclusions from a bogus ransom note as to whether it was written by a male or female, a black or a white person, etc. WAY to speculative,
But if the question is as to whether Patsy or John wrote it - I can't imagine a close close-mouthed and cold fish type like John writing such a hysterical, rambling and emotional ransom note.
Especially toward the end, the RN sounds like an angry wife insulting her husband.
Hadn't Patsy taken drama classes in high school/university?

[Athena]

But if the question is as to whether Patsy or John wrote it - I can't imagine a close close-mouthed and cold fish type like John writing such a hysterical, rambling and emotional ransom note.
Especially toward the end, the RN sounds like an angry wife insulting her husband.
Hadn't Patsy taken drama classes in high school/university?

Therein lies the issue. Choice between Patsy or John? This note was not written with any degree of intelligence so I don't understand what drama classes have to do with the note. Most of the note are lines taken out of movies even if not verbatim. The note could have been written by a 12 year old male or female. IMO

[shill]

ralia,
I guess you must be a novelist because your post #106 is longer then the ransom note you describe as a "3 page novel of random notes".

I'm curious, what do you mean by "random notes"?

[Sharon]

In posts #95 and #97 excellent points are made both by Snarky Cow and Sharon. Good luck though in finding anyone to form opinions based on what is actually known. Too far gone me thinks! Way back when we were all still on CTV here we started an evidence only thread and I don't have to tell you what happened to it. What I will point out though is that someone conducted a poll re: IDI and RDI being willing to change their minds based on any new evidence that came up and most of the IDIs voted they would go RDI if there was hard evidence that RDI but most of the RDIs remained steadfast in their opinions that RDI no matter what. :)

Interesting. Thanks for that!

[Sharon]

But if the question is as to whether Patsy or John wrote it - I can't imagine a close close-mouthed and cold fish type like John writing such a hysterical, rambling and emotional ransom note.
Especially toward the end, the RN sounds like an angry wife insulting her husband.
Hadn't Patsy taken drama classes in high school/university?

If I didnt know the case & just read the note it wouldnt strike me as an angry wife insulting her husband per say. It sounds like a cruel taunting person who really hates JR through & through. It actually reads to me as if that person/s became more gutsy as the note was being written. Maybe irl this person was subservient to J.??

Now the interesting thing about acting classes is that you learn how to cover up your own emotions which is all about control. You learn to portray a character.

This note reflects somebody emotionally unstable imo. The use of taunting in a rn shows to me that the writer was unable to keep their own feelings at bay. Instead of a to the point note, we get quite juvenile insults. The note is far from professional and quotes lines from movies. Parts of the note read as almost stupid...imo....and were written by someone who comes across as of low intelligence to me.

just my opinion

[thewhitewitch1]

If I didnt know the case & just read the note it wouldnt strike me as an angry wife insulting her husband per say. It sounds like a cruel taunting person who really hates JR through & through. It actually reads to me as if that person/s became more gutsy as the note was being written. Maybe irl this person was subservient to J.??

Now the interesting thing about acting classes is that you learn how to cover up your own emotions which is all about control. You learn to portray a character.

This note reflects somebody emotionally unstable imo. The use of taunting in a rn shows to me that the writer was unable to keep their own feelings at bay. Instead of a to the point note, we get quite juvenile insults. The note is far from professional and quotes lines from movies. Parts of the note read as almost stupid...imo....and were written by someone who comes across as of low intelligence to me.

just my opinion


Isn't it possible that the author of the note wanted to give false impressions of themselves? Well, of course they did.

[Kor]

If JB had done that, she would have dragged the comforter right off the bed, as the white blanket on her bed was an "oversized" blanket and was tucked in under the mattress (stated by Patsy). It probably would have pulled the comforter off even if it wasn't tucked in. I doubt JB went back and put the comforter back on the bed and folded it back, as it is shown in the crime scene photos. That's not something a 6 year old would do.
You can speculate on this all you want but the picture does not give any indication that she pulled her blanket off of the bed.


Do you know if that blanket was tucked in under the comforter or was covering it? Was that blanket made on JB's bed by Linda, the housekeeper? Or was it on another bed in JB's room? I thought the blanket was taken out from a dryer that night, I am assuming Patsy took it out to cover JB keeping her warm before both parents went to bed. See where I get confused is, when you said the blanket was suppose to be tucked in under the comforter but was the blanket suppose to be in the dryer. After Ramsey got home around 9 or so, JB was slept so they tucked her and I imaged one of parents took the blanket out of dryer and covered it on top of comforter to add warmth for JB. I don't think either of them bothered to remove the comforter to tuck that blanket in, then put comforter back on top after they got home tired and have to get up early for the Michigan trip. I guess it my theory.

Sometimes I have a blanket covering my comforter when it get cold, even my dog's blanket too so my comforter doesn't get stink.

[thewhitewitch1]

Do you know if that blanket was tucked in under the comforter or was covering it? Was that blanket made on JB's bed by Linda, the housekeeper? Or was it on another bed in JB's room? I thought the blanket was taken out from a dryer that night, I am assuming Patsy took it out to cover JB keeping her warm before both parents went to bed. See where I get confused is, when you said the blanket was suppose to be tucked in under the comforter but was the blanket suppose to be in the dryer. After Ramsey got home around 9 or so, JB was slept so they tucked her and I imaged one of parents took the blanket out of dryer and covered it on top of comforter to add warmth for JB. I don't think either of them bothered to remove the comforter to tuck that blanket in, then put comforter back on top after they got home tired and have to get up early for the Michigan trip. I guess it my theory.

Sometimes I have a blanket covering my comforter when it get cold, even my dog's blanket too so my comforter doesn't get stink.

You know, that's a good point. Usually the white blanket would have been under the comforter (as Patsy stated) but if it had been washed at some point they could have taken it out of the dryer and covered her with it.
The neatly folded back comforter suggests otherwise, though. I can't see a killer being mindful of how neatly he leaves a bed. Also odd is the pillow being at the foot of the bed, as well as the pjs she wore the night before laying on her bed almost where the pillow would be. It does not look to me like her bed was slept in, due to these things.
I think that the blanket was in the dryer and not on the bed that night because I (and many others) think that the Barbie nightgown found with her body was stuck to the blanket from static cling. If someone had removed the blanket from the dryer to cover her with in her bed, you'd think they would have noticed it. IMO
I am still disturbed over JRs statement that "That should not be there" regarding the nightgown.

[Athena]

You know, that's a good point. Usually the white blanket would have been under the comforter (as Patsy stated) but if it had been washed at some point they could have taken it out of the dryer and covered her with it.
The neatly folded back comforter suggests otherwise, though. I can't see a killer being mindful of how neatly he leaves a bed. Also odd is the pillow being at the foot of the bed, as well as the pjs she wore the night before laying on her bed almost where the pillow would be. It does not look to me like her bed was slept in, due to these things.
I think that the blanket was in the dryer and not on the bed that night because I (and many others) think that the Barbie nightgown found with her body was stuck to the blanket from static cling. If someone had removed the blanket from the dryer to cover her with in her bed, you'd think they would have noticed it. IMO
I am still disturbed over JRs statement that "That should not be there" regarding the nightgown.

I have to agree that I also believe the white blanket was not on the bed but in the dryer and the Barbie nightgown got stuck to it because of static cling. Linda Pugh also stated she had washed it before she left for the holidays and that she thought it was in the dryer as well. This is like deja vu - I'm sure we've said this before.

[shill]

Isn't it possible that the author of the note wanted to give false impressions of themselves? Well, of course they did.

Sure they wanted to give false impressions of themselves, they wanted LE to think they are smart so they wrote things that they had seen in movies and words like "attache".

And IMO, the only time I here the word "attache" used is in the movies, like a spy movie. There is always an "attache" case with secret info or microchip in it, hand cuffed to a secret agent.

IMO The note reflects the attitude of someone who felt they were treated like an idiot and is setting out to prove they are not.

[shill]

If JB had done that, she would have dragged the comforter right off the bed, as the white blanket on her bed was an "oversized" blanket and was tucked in under the mattress (stated by Patsy). It probably would have pulled the comforter off even if it wasn't tucked in. I doubt JB went back and put the comforter back on the bed and folded it back, as it is shown in the crime scene photos. That's not something a 6 year old would do.
You can speculate on this all you want but the picture does not give any indication that she pulled her blanket off of the bed.

So was the comforter taken from the bed or was it taken out of the dryer, because you say Patsy said it was on the bed?

If a pillow is lying on the blanket, and you pull the blanket out from the head of the bed as your lying in it, the pillow will roll down the blanket towards the foot of the bed and the comforter will pull towards you, just like the crime scene photo.

[SnarkyCow]

Why don't YOU show ME proof that she ate the pineapple that night? Where are YOUR sources? I don't even believe that Evlislives is a doctor, you just believe it because he comes here and says it. Well guess what? I'm a doctor too and she ate the pineapple the day before so it has NOTHING to do with the crime! There are lots of other doctors who belive that. You can believe what you want because it fits YOUR theory. That is the definition of total stupidity.

Okay, you obviously don't listen to anyone but yourself so I'll say this slow. I believe JonBenet ate the pineapple after she got home from the Whites'. I've believed that since I started reading about this case, before I was ever on this forum & before I ever read anything that Elvis has posted here.

In MY opinion (mine, see, mine - not yours, not Elvis's, not the Queen of England's - mine.) the most LOGICAL explanation for where the pineapple was found in her system is that she ate it after she came home from the Whites'.

How can you say that I believe what I want because it fits my theory - have you not been reading this thread? You've missed every single point that has been brought up on this thread, including mine.

You want to continue arguing when JB ate the pineapple? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? THAT is the definition of insanity.

Don't you dare insult my intelligence. I haven't seen you post anything here worth noting. All I see is you being threatened by Elvis's opinions & blowing a lot of smoke without backing it up with any fact.

[ralia]

ralia,
I guess you must be a novelist because your post #106 is longer then the ransom note you describe as a "3 page novel of random notes".

I'm curious, what do you mean by "random notes"?



Thank you Shill for reading carefully my posts. Indeed, there was a spelling error over ther

[thewhitewitch1]

So was the comforter taken from the bed or was it taken out of the dryer, because you say Patsy said it was on the bed?

If a pillow is lying on the blanket, and you pull the blanket out from the head of the bed as your lying in it, the pillow will roll down the blanket towards the foot of the bed and the comforter will pull towards you, just like the crime scene photo.


I meant that Patsy stated that the blanket was usually on the bed and under the comforter.
If someone is in bed sleeping, the pillow would not roll towards the foot of the bed when the covers are pulled back because the covers are over you and the pillow is under your head. I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say. It didn't make any sense to me.

[LadyFisher]

Fleet White also didn't see any white blanket, which would have been easier to see than her body.
The blanket was wrapped around her body like a "pappoose". That indicates care. IMO Why would the killer have a need to cover her to conceal her body? If he intended to collect on the ransom note, he would have taken her body with him.

Just wondering something. I've been reading Dr. Henry Lees book "Cracking More Cases" and in it he states that the arguement FW had with JR while in Atlanta was because FW was, for one, outraged that the Rs were going to appear on CNN. I've read JR state over and over that it was FWs idea for them to go on it. I know I have also read somewhere else that FW objected to it but can't for the life of me recall where. Has anyone else read this? I don't want to take this as a fact unless there was more than one account of it. We all know most books about JB have certain facts wrong.
In this book, there is also mentioned FW being interviewed by the LE and what he told them. This may be out there somewhere already but he did mention seeing the suitcase under the window and that the window was closed. JR alledgedly went in the basement after FW did and stated that the window was open and that he closed it. Someone is not telling the truth here. The officer who did the original search of the house that morning did not see an open window either apparently, as it was not mentioned. The suitcase under the window alone would not be cause for suspicion but an open window with the suitcase under it would be. IMO

No, the way in which JB's body was left in that blanket doesn't show care at all...John Douglas notes in his book...he found it interesting that ONLY JBs torso was wrapped, that did not appear to him to be propriety interest of a parent that just murdered their child....probably the perp was attempting to remove her from the home imo but something changed his plans at the last minute.......after John ran up stair with her body and Arndt told him she was dead, he covered her with another blanket, as if he was tucking her into bed before Patsy could get in the room...that is the reaction of a parent that loves their child...I wish folks would suggest that the way the body was left in the basement showed signs of caring, because it didn't! jmho Please excuse my spelling errors, I'm in a hurry to post and gotta run! :)

[nuisanceposter]

No, the way in which JB's body was left in that blanket doesn't show care at all...John Douglas notes in his book...he found it interesting that ONLY JBs torso was wrapped, that did not appear to him to be propriety interest of a parent that just murdered their child....probably the perp was attempting to remove her from the home imo but something changed his plans at the last minute.......after John ran up stair with her body and Arndt told him she was dead, he covered her with another blanket, as if he was tucking her into bed before Patsy could get in the room...that is the reaction of a parent that loves their child...I wish folks would suggest that the way the body was left in the basement showed signs of caring, because it didn't! jmho Please excuse my spelling errors, I'm in a hurry to post and gotta run! :)


Usually someone who attacks and kills a child, especially out of malice, won't bother to wipe down and redress the victim, and wrap them in anything. If this had been done in the spirit of revenge, I'd expect the killer would have left JonBenet lying naked and perhaps posed somewhere obvious, like under the Christmas tree, for the shock and pain it would cause her family. CASKU thought the state of JonBenet's body indicated that the person who left her cleaned up and dressed and wrapped in her favorite blanket cared for her. If the killer/kidnapper wanted her out of house, he'd have taken her right away, not stopped to play sick games in the basement and risk being caught. Why would an intruder who wants to brutalize JB to get revenge on her dad even care about a blanket around her at all, much less her favorite?

[LindaA]

I meant that Patsy stated that the blanket was usually on the bed and under the comforter.
If someone is in bed sleeping, the pillow would not roll towards the foot of the bed when the covers are pulled back because the covers are over you and the pillow is under your head. I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say. It didn't make any sense to me.

I was wondering the same thing.

[LindaA]

Usually someone who attacks and kills a child, especially out of malice, won't bother to wipe down and redress the victim, and wrap them in anything. If this had been done in the spirit of revenge, I'd expect the killer would have left JonBenet lying naked and perhaps posed somewhere obvious, like under the Christmas tree, for the shock and pain it would cause her family. CASKU thought the state of JonBenet's body indicated that the person who left her cleaned up and dressed and wrapped in her favorite blanket cared for her. If the killer/kidnapper wanted her out of house, he'd have taken her right away, not stopped to play sick games in the basement and risk being caught. Why would an intruder who wants to brutalize JB to get revenge on her dad even care about a blanket around her at all, much less her favorite?

ALl good questions, NP. I'd have to get inside the mind of the person who did this to answer them. IMO there is nothing "usual" about the way this crime was committed, no matter who you think did it. JMO.

[User615]

No, the way in which JB's body was left in that blanket doesn't show care at all...John Douglas notes in his book...he found it interesting that ONLY JBs torso was wrapped, that did not appear to him to be propriety interest of a parent that just murdered their child....probably the perp was attempting to remove her from the home imo but something changed his plans at the last minute.......after John ran up stair with her body and Arndt told him she was dead, he covered her with another blanket, as if he was tucking her into bed before Patsy could get in the room...that is the reaction of a parent that loves their child...I wish folks would suggest that the way the body was left in the basement showed signs of caring, because it didn't! jmho Please excuse my spelling errors, I'm in a hurry to post and gotta run! :)

JR said that she was wrapped "pappose" style.....with her head and feet sticking out. This is hardly the same as someone throwing a blanket around her. Someone took the time to do this, for whatever reason.

[LadyFisher]

Usually someone who attacks and kills a child, especially out of malice, won't bother to wipe down and redress the victim, and wrap them in anything. If this had been done in the spirit of revenge, I'd expect the killer would have left JonBenet lying naked and perhaps posed somewhere obvious, like under the Christmas tree, for the shock and pain it would cause her family. CASKU thought the state of JonBenet's body indicated that the person who left her cleaned up and dressed and wrapped in her favorite blanket cared for her. If the killer/kidnapper wanted her out of house, he'd have taken her right away, not stopped to play sick games in the basement and risk being caught. Why would an intruder who wants to brutalize JB to get revenge on her dad even care about a blanket around her at all, much less her favorite?

Are we certain she had been totally undressed during the assault? Sorry if this was addressed already in one of the books that I haven't read...I haven't read PMPT or STs, isn't it possible her long johns and pantys were just pulled down? I don't really know that's why I'm asking...nuisance, I firmly believe this perp was familiar with the home and the family...I think he was a pedophile, but he also had animosity for JR....What ever happened to the cloth that her body was wiped down with? Didn't the competent BPD ever find it, just like the remaining duct tape and cord.....yes, I'm being facetious here! I believe the perp probably used a stun gun in her bedroom thinking it would totally incapacitate her...he then carried her to the basement and decided to assault her there knowing he could not be heard by the parents up on the third floor, I think during this time she awoke and screamed, that's when I think he hit her head with something or against something.....the wiping down of the body could have been to remove his own saliva, sweat or whatever! I think he redressed her thinking he would remove the body and found it to be too cumbersom (sp?) he probably intended to remove her by the suitcase first, when he found out that wouldn't work, he might have given up and ran! I do believe this was an intruder, a mighty sick one at that! jmho

[shill]

JR said that she was wrapped "pappose" style.....with her head and feet sticking out. This is hardly the same as someone throwing a blanket around her. Someone took the time to do this, for whatever reason.

Her head and hands were sticking out, not her feet. And they probably would have covered her head and hands with the blanket if they had not been tied up above her head.

I take quick naps sometimes, and instead of crawling under the covers, I lie on top of the covers and grab the side of the covers by their edge and pull them over me, wrapping myself like a "papoose" in the blink of an eye.
It's quick and simple.
I guess they could have taken the time to yank the blanket out from under her and then spread it over top of her, but they didn't.

[LadyFisher]

Sure they wanted to give false impressions of themselves, they wanted LE to think they are smart so they wrote things that they had seen in movies and words like "attache".

And IMO, the only time I here the word "attache" used is in the movies, like a spy movie. There is always an "attache" case with secret info or microchip in it, hand cuffed to a secret agent.

IMO The note reflects the attitude of someone who felt they were treated like an idiot and is setting out to prove they are not.

I agree with you on this!

[Athena]

Sure they wanted to give false impressions of themselves, they wanted LE to think they are smart so they wrote things that they had seen in movies and words like "attache".

And IMO, the only time I here the word "attache" used is in the movies, like a spy movie. There is always an "attache" case with secret info or microchip in it, hand cuffed to a secret agent.

IMO The note reflects the attitude of someone who felt they were treated like an idiot and is setting out to prove they are not.

I still don't get why people think of the word attache as having to have been someone of intelligence. Like you said every spy movie uses the word -- especially ones with British actors aka James Bond. :shrug:

[aussiesheila]

Thank you Louisadelmar for you clarifications about degraded and old DNA. Stiil I've read there are certain complications in the amplification procedure. If anyone have any sources "degraded DNA - ammplification" I'd appreciate it.There are quite a few that come up when you google for degraded DNA amplification forensic, Ralia eg

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=131

Quotes from this article dated Feb/Mar 2007 which talks about an improved method of degraded DNA analysis:

“In particular, short tandem repeat (STR) analysis has made it possible to determine the source of DNA samples collected at a crime scene from a wide variety of materials. However, as powerful as current STR testing can be, it does have limits dictated by the quality and quantity of the biological evidence. For instance, in cases where a DNA sample is either highly-degraded, compromised by sample impurities, or present in trace amounts, STR analysis cannot be used to identify the contributor or to exclude those who may be falsely associated with the evidence.”

“Commercially available miniSTR kits will usher in a new era in forensic DNA science. Detecting DNA from trace samples, degraded samples, and/or samples that contain PCR inhibitors now can be analyzed where once such samples were thought to be of no forensic value. By providing forensic scientists a tool that obtains more genetic information from old or damaged DNA evidence, more cases will be solved. Using mini-STR technology, law enforcement can re-examine old cases that were previously closed. More profiles will be uploaded to DNA databases, more cases will be solved, and for many families, miniSTR technology will provide closure from loss of a loved one. MiniSTR technology is the latest progression in forensic DNA technology and will undoubtedly become mainstream in assisting in human identification.”



http://www.dna.gov/research/compromised_evidence/

A quote of the summary of research undertaken to Oct 2006:

“Biological samples collected from crime scenes, mass disasters, and missing persons cases may have been exposed to harsh environmental conditions such as heat, direct sunlight, and water that break down the chemical structure of DNA. Environmental exposure damages DNA by randomly breaking the molecules into smaller pieces. Inhibitors of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), such as some textile dyes, can also interfere with the ability to recover a full DNA profile from biological evidence. New DNA tests are being developed to recover information from smaller regions of DNA, which are more likely to be intact following DNA damage. These new DNA tests include miniSTRs (using PCR primers close to the STR repeat region) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Whole genome amplification and DNA repair methods are also being evaluated to determine the possibility of enriching PCR amplifiable material from limited or damaged DNA templates.”



This is a review article and more general

http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/maj4/JoblingGill04.NRG.Forensics.pdf



I’m not quite sure what you are looking for but here is a heap of information out there.

I don't think the DNA analysis done so far in this case has yielded particularly good results. If there is still sufficient original material left to work with, I think there is a good chance that with improved techniques there might eventually be some definitive results to come out.

[aussiesheila]

Please tell me what motive Patsy could have had to coldly strangle her daughter then finish her off with a head bash hard enough to fell a 300 lb man? She wouldn't eat her pineapple?If indeed Patsy, even an enraged, out of her mind and mentally deranged Patsy, was PHYSICALLY capable of inflicting a head bash hard enough to fell a 300 lb man.

[aussiesheila]

He was brought in by the DA to find proof of the intruder theory, .....I dispute this statment, it is my understanding from what I have read in Schiller that he was brought in by the DA because he had a reputation for solving very difficult cases. It is also my understanding that when he was first assigned to the case he actually believed the Ramseys to be guilty and it was only after having gone through all the police files that he began to doubt his original belief.

[aussiesheila]

Oh I see that Athena has already replied to this post of yours nuisanceposter and I have more or less repeated what she said. Sorry Athena.

[aussiesheila]

What is also crucial : fibers from John Ramsey's shirt were found in the crotch area of the oversized underwear.rashomon, if you actually read the replies to you and other posters who have stated this previously on this forum, and I assume you do, you would know that this is not a fact. So it really does surprise me that you have the gall to keep repeating this as though it was a fact. Over and over the argument has been presented in replies to you and others showing that it cannot be assumed that this is a fact. It is not a fact. BPD investigators might have attempted to present this is a fact while they were interviewing John in 2000 but Lin Wood challenged Levin as to the veracity of his their claims and Levin was forced to put his question to John thus:

"Mr Ramsey, it is our belief based on forensic testing that there are hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's underpants."

That is not consistent with what you stated in your post. What is the matter with you? I know we are not meant to get personal on these forums, but at times like this what else can we do? You just don't seem to take on board what other people have said. I mean I don't mind if you say I THINK the black fibres found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties came from John's black wool shirt, that's fine, I mean I say I THINK the black fibres found in the crotch area of JonBenet's panties came from the black wool balaclavas that the pedophiles wore and have posted it over and over again and no-one agrees with me and that's fine. But with the evidence as it stands it's just as likely to be true as them having come from John's shirt. It's not as though BPD went around collecting black balaclavas from people's homes around Boulder and comparing them with the black fibres on JonBenet's crotch area. If they had done that, it is my guess they would have found those fibres to be an even better match as those from John's shirt.

It is just not ethical for you to keep on posting your beliefs as facts, or even the BPD's beliefs as facts, it's not just you who does it, there are others as well, but I see you as the one most likely to see reason which is the reason I am pulling you up on this.

[aussiesheila]

Athena...I was using Dr. Lees book "Cracking More Cases" as a reference. It's possible he got his facts wrong, though everything else you quoted is also what he quoted except that he says FW says the window was closed but not latched. If the window was open, why didn't the first officer to search the house notice it? He was, after all, looking for signs of a break-in.Officer French didn't report the broken window either. Why didn't he notice that? He was, after all, looking for signs of a break-in.

[thewhitewitch1]

Officer French didn't report the broken window either. Why didn't he notice that? He was, after all, looking for signs of a break-in.


Very good question. Does anyone know how large the break in the window was? If the chair was in front of the train room door, maybe he didn't go into that room because the door was blocked off. (After all, why would an intruder pull the chair back in front of the door before he made his exit through the window.) Maybe French didn't view the window as an exit point because the window was closed? Was it even possible to close that window when exiting through it?
It would be nice to know the answer to these things.

[Athena]

All we know is she was killed 2-3hrs after she ate pineapple.
If she ate it right when she got home, like some would like to believe, then she died around Midnight to 1am.
How many people fall asleep for a few hours and wake up groggy and yet go off the handle over a bed wetting accident and strike someone dead. Usually you just want to go back to bed and are half asleep and placid.

Just a quick question. Who established that she had to be killed 2-3 hours after she ate the pineapple since the coroner did not establish time of death?