JonBenet Ramsey - Open Discussion

[DAFFODIL]

They have the killer"s DNA.
When they match it, JonBenet will have her justice and so will those who stayed IDI.


Its very sad that you view the murder of a little girl as some sort of competition between RDI and IDI,speaks volumes.Most people just want justice for a child who should have lived a full,happy and healthy life and was denied that chance not gloating they were right imo.

[Razrbladekiss]

Hi Everyone,

So glad I found this thread. Nice to see you all here on the JBR thread. :seeya:

[Eagle1]

You guys just won't accept that someone else killed JB no matter how much evidence is given to you all. Firstly did you see the heart, it looks very much like a heart drawn by someone just learning to draw with ill defined curves- actually just like my son used to draw for me when he was 5. Seems likely then that JB drew the heart there sometime that night most likely because her mum did draw them on her from time to time. Secondly the noose was actually very very effective. JB was rigid by the time she was found and that knot was still extremely embedded deep into her neck. For the type of knot used only certain types of rope could have acheived that effect and I don't think a panicking staging mum just happened to luck out there. Awfully helpful of someone to assist patsy by coming into her house that night and touching JB's pajamas on the sides where they would be pulled up or down and on her underpants(dna found is not that of anyone in the family) to throw the spotlight off the real perpetrator, loving mum Patsy(and there is no evidence to the contrary that I am aware of). Really I think someone in the RDI camp needs to satisfactorily explain that dna evidence before continuing to slander this poor woman and her family.

I agree, and would just like to add that I disagree with whoever jumped to the conclusion a couple of posts before yours that if there's a head wound and nothing else, evidencewise, it points to the parents.

[thewhitewitch1]

I agree, and would just like to add that I disagree with whoever jumped to the conclusion a couple of posts before yours that if there's a head wound and nothing else, evidencewise, it points to the parents.


Without the ransom note and with only a head wound, who do you think the police would suspect first? :confused: The mailman?

[cookiewench]

I agree, and would just like to add that I disagree with whoever jumped to the conclusion a couple of posts before yours that if there's a head wound and nothing else, evidencewise, it points to the parents.

That was me, and I didn't "jump to conclusions".

If a child is found dead in her bedroom with nothing disturbed on her body, but one serious head wound - while her parents and brother slept through they whole thing and there's no evidence of an intruder - of course it's going to point to one of the parents.

And the fact is that is usually IS one of the parents in that type of scenario.

Jonbenet's body was staged by someone who knew this (Patsy)!

And John knew what had happened within minutes (or seconds) of reading that ransom note, but decided to throw his lot in with Patsy.

[Evening2]

That was me, and I didn't "jump to conclusions".

If a child is found dead in her bedroom with nothing disturbed on her body, but one serious head wound - while her parents and brother slept through they whole thing and there's no evidence of an intruder - of course it's going to point to one of the parents.

And the fact is that is usually IS one of the parents in that type of scenario.

Jonbenet's body was staged by someone who knew this (Patsy)!

And John knew what had happened within minutes (or seconds) of reading that ransom note, but decided to throw his lot in with Patsy.

No, Cookie, you're incorrect.:no: In the scenario you describe and in the case of JonBenet's murder, at her age and having both biological parents with whom she lives, and the fact that's she not a first child to a young mother, it does NOT point to the parents. IN such a case, as a matter of fact, it is RARELY a parent!

[shill]

Its very sad that you view the murder of a little girl as some sort of competition between RDI and IDI,speaks volumes.Most people just want justice for a child who should have lived a full,happy and healthy life and was denied that chance not gloating they were right imo.
Who's gloating?

You sure read into that statement what you wanted to hear and not what I said.

I want justice for JonBenet and I want the guy who killed her to finally pay for his crimes against her.

How you turned that into a competition in your mind speaks volumes about your true intentions to attack posters with no regard for contributing anything to the discussion.

[shill]

Without the ransom note and with only a head wound, who do you think the police would suspect first? :confused: The mailman?What if JB had no head wound and was found strangled and molested and tied up in the basement with a Barbie Doll Nightgown like she was with no ransom note, would they suspect the parents or would they think a pedophile might have been involved?

[Jayelles]

By what authority can you claim that it would have been "a much longer amount of time" if Patsy had panicked and staged? How would you know how long it took, unless you were there?

On the other hand, would it take a shorter amount of time for an intruder to panick and then follow up with the garotte?

If it was an intruder, why wouldn't they just finish the job by hitting her in the head AGAIN?

And AGAIN if need be?

Patsy couldn't leave Jonbenet dead from a head blow, because it would point more to an anger/accident killing than a sexual one, so she had to follow up with the garrote, when an outside perpetrator would have just continued to bash until the victim was dead.

I watched a crime re-enactment on tv last night where the teenage victim was strangled and had a head wound. I know a teenager's skull would be different from a child's skull (someone once stated that a child's skull is harder but that person does not have a medical qualification so I don't know if this is true or not). Anyway, it was determined that the victim in the case I was watching was strangled in a rage and that she had grabbed her attacker's wrists to try and free herself. He had then shaken her from side to side and in doing so, her head struck a hard surface cracking it open.

JFI

[Eagle1]

Btw, anyone know who David Charles Brantley was and why the police asked Patsy about him in the Atlanta interview? When she asked them who he was they basically told her, never mind.

Glad you brought this up. I've been in the forums all these years and never heard this part.

[DAFFODIL]

Who's gloating?

You sure read into that statement what you wanted to hear and not what I said.

I want justice for JonBenet and I want the guy who killed her to finally pay for his crimes against her.

How you turned that into a competition in your mind speaks volumes about your true intentions to attack posters with no regard for contributing anything to the discussion.


No shrill,it was YOU who mentioned IDIs in your post :no: Spin until your dizzy but YOUR posts always contain digs at those who believe the Ramseys are guilty.Anyway I am going to follow the lead of wiser posters and put you on ignore :seeya:

[grneyes]

I thought dna/evidence had cleared the Ramseys...? If so why do so many still believe they did it? DNA doesn't lie.

:shrug:

[Jayelles]

I thought dna/evidence had cleared the Ramseys...? If so why do so many still believe they did it? DNA doesn't lie.

:shrug:

Perhaps not, but it can have different interpretations/explanations.

As I've said before, the Ramsey case seems to me like a jigsaw which not only has several pieces missing, but which also has several pieces which appear to be from another jigsaw altogether.

[sharlock]

Originally Posted by Bystander http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=9118268#post9118268)
Btw, anyone know who David Charles Brantley was and why the police asked Patsy about him in the Atlanta interview? When she asked them who he was they basically told her, never mind.
Glad you brought this up. I've been in the forums all these years and never heard this part.

You are absolutely right Eagle1. Everything else has been gone through ad infinitum but somehow this was overlooked, possibly because getting additional info is soooooooo hard to do.

[shill]

.Anyway I am going to follow the lead of wiser posters and put you on ignore :seeya:Please, put me on ignore like you have done with Logic and Reason.

Just because you want to believe the Ramseys are guilty is no reason for IDI's to give up hope that the male intruder who killed JonBenet will be caught and punished.

[Evening2]

Originally Posted by Bystander http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=9118268#post9118268)
Btw, anyone know who David Charles Brantley was and why the police asked Patsy about him in the Atlanta interview? When she asked them who he was they basically told her, never mind.


You are absolutely right Eagle1. Everything else has been gone through ad infinitum but somehow this was overlooked, possibly because getting additional info is soooooooo hard to do.

There's one who is a photographer, but I don't know if that's the right one.:shrug:

[LadyFisher]

I thought dna/evidence had cleared the Ramseys...? If so why do so many still believe they did it? DNA doesn't lie.

:shrug:It did!:)

[cookiewench]

I thought dna/evidence had cleared the Ramseys...? If so why do so many still believe they did it? DNA doesn't lie.

:shrug:DNA has not cleared the Ramsey's. The outgoing DA (a friend of the Ramseys) decided to "clear" Patsy as one of her last acts in office.

That doesn't mean that the investigators, LE, the FBI or the public has "cleared" her.

A teeny speck of DNA has not cleared anyone in this case.

You probably have more "strange" DNA on your body as you sit there today than Jonbenet had on her body when she was found.

[grneyes]

DNA has not cleared the Ramsey's. The outgoing DA (a friend of the Ramseys) decided to "clear" Patsy as one of her last acts in office.

That doesn't mean that the investigators, LE, the FBI or the public has "cleared" her.

A teeny speck of DNA has not cleared anyone in this case.

You probably have more "strange" DNA on your body as you sit there today than Jonbenet had on her body when she was found.

According to MSNBC.com
District Attorney Mary Lacy released a letter sent to the Ramsey family acknowledging that new DNA testing techniques had proved conclusively that an unidentified male unrelated to the family strangled JonBenet in her home.

ABC news

By SCOTT MICHELS
July 9, 2008
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Site/byline_abcnews.gif

John Ramsey and his late wife have been cleared of suspicion in the death of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenet more than 11 years ago, the Boulder County, Colo., District Attorney's Office said.

USA Today

By Kevin Johnson (http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=362), USA TODAY
The family of JonBenet Ramsey has been formally cleared of any role in the 6-year-old's 1996 murder, a Colorado prosecutor announced Wednesday, citing newly discovered DNA evidence.
The Christmastime slaying triggered a global news media frenzy and a controversial investigation that long focused on the child's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and JonBenet's brother, Burke.
Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Mary Lacy said in a statement on Wednesday that DNA evidence recovered from the child's clothing pointed to an "unexplained third party." Lacy apologized to the family for the suspicions that made their lives "an ongoing living hell."

So yes, they have been cleared. Some people just don't want to accept or believe that they didn't do it so no matter what the evidence says.

[Jayelles]

According to MSNBC.com


ABC news


USA Today


So yes, they have been cleared. Some people just don't want to accept or believe that they didn't do it so no matter what the evidence says.

Compelling though it may be, I think this DNA evidence still needs to be explained. We need to find the person whose DNA matches and place them at the scene of the crime. Then we need to prove that they actually committed the murder.

This is not a case of not "wanting" to accept evidence. There may be other explanations for the DNA and these need to be excluded. That is only right and proper.

[grneyes]

Compelling though it may be, I think this DNA evidence still needs to be explained. We need to find the person whose DNA matches and place them at the scene of the crime. Then we need to prove that they actually committed the murder.

This is not a case of not "wanting" to accept evidence. There may be other explanations for the DNA and these need to be excluded. That is only right and proper.

That I agree with totally! :beer:

[Eagle1]

Did everyone see the tipster introduced, who said he and his buddy were trolling for scrap metal along that road and saw a woman they believe was Casey coming out of the woods carrying a shovel and a bag?

[Eagle1]

This witness impressed Nancy Grace by giving so many details, and he does sound credible, imo.

[Eagle1]

An extremely-well-dressed man was waiting for the woman coming out of the woods alone. Did they say he was standing, by the car? I'm not sure.

Who in the world could he have been? Maybe someone from Baez' law firm?

Why had he not gone along with her into the woods to do the digging?

Maybe just in case he should ever have to take a lie detector test, and could truthfully say he doesn't know where the child is? Probably a bad guess but maybe it will give someone else an idea that's better.

[grneyes]

Ummm... I think you got your boards mixed up Eagle. ;-)

[cookiewench]

Patsy was guilty, and being "cleared" by her friend (who wasn't even in office during the investigation) won't change that.

[grneyes]

Patsy was guilty, and being "cleared" by her friend (who wasn't even in office during the investigation) won't change that.


And OJ is innocent. :rolleyes:

[SaraSidle]

And OJ is innocent. :rolleyes:

You are waaaay too funny. I wish you were one of my neighbors!!!!!!

[grneyes]

You are waaaay too funny. I wish you were one of my neighbors!!!!!!

:D I'll furnish the Coffee Crisp and you furnish the Bit O'Honey & Payday bars.

[SaraSidle]

:D I'll furnish the Coffee Crisp and you furnish the Bit O'Honey & Payday bars.

what a wonderful woman you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you see my Coment to you?

[grneyes]

what a wonderful woman you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!! did you see my Coment to you?

I just read it. :beer:

[SaraSidle]

I just read it. :beer:

Oh yeah honey oh yeah:beer:

[sharlock]

DNA has not cleared the Ramsey's. The outgoing DA (a friend of the Ramseys) decided to "clear" Patsy as one of her last acts in office.

That doesn't mean that the investigators, LE, the FBI or the public has "cleared" her.

A teeny speck of DNA has not cleared anyone in this case.

You probably have more "strange" DNA on your body as you sit there today than Jonbenet had on her body when she was found.

It frustrates me that people refer to this touch DNA in terms such as 'this teeny speck of DNA'. This dna was found mixed with JB's blood on her underpants and then located on either side of her longjohns where they would be touched to be pulled either down or up. The explanation that it could have been DNA from someone in another country who packaged the underpants is no longer valid as it does not explain how that same DNA could have gotten on a completely separate piece of clothing. The DNA found is not insignificant and there can only be a few explanations for why that males DNA was found all around the clothing of a dead child. If people still want to beleive that the Ramseys killed their child then it seems to me they need to account for this DNA. When this is done though, the theories that could accommodate this scenario become far wilder than any of those previously concocted. It is time to apply Ockham's Razor and with the DNA taken into account as it SHOULD be, that imo implies a male that was not part of the Ramseys family entered that house and killed JB that night.
Also the earlier implication that the theory 'the Ramsey's were guilty' was strengthened due to the amount of LE that also thought that to be the case, is not taking into consideration the lack of experience LE had. The most experienced policeman there, Lou Schmidt, believed that the Ramseys were innocent. I believe that a lot more evidence of an intruder would have been located if LE had not allowed family and friends to trample through the house destroying evidence the way they did.

This is jmho!

[Jayelles]

It frustrates me that people refer to this touch DNA in terms such as 'this teeny speck of DNA'.

The description of the quantity of DNA being so small came from an official source - Tom Bennett:-

"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2004/dec/21/ramsey-tv-blitz-rekindles-interest/?printer=1/

I am not arguing the significance of the DNA which is IMO pretty compelling but I'd want to identify its owner and place him at the scene before I go clearing anyone else.

[thewhitewitch1]

What if JB had no head wound and was found strangled and molested and tied up in the basement with a Barbie Doll Nightgown like she was with no ransom note, would they suspect the parents or would they think a pedophile might have been involved?

I think they still would have suspected the parents; probably even more so and probably from the very start.
First of all, the Ramseys couldn't have simply called 911 to report her missing without having searched the entire house. Imagine the call to 911 if they had "found" her and then called.
"We just found our daughter, bound, gagged and strangled in our basement." Then the police arrive and find little to no evidence of an intruder having been there. You don't think they would find that just a tad suspicious? With the RN, there is "evidence" of an intruder from the start. It gave LE something to focus on besides the Ramseys. Immediately putting LHP "out there" also gave LE another distraction.
While it's true that intruders do enter peoples homes while they are present, it isn't something that happens all that frequently and what happened to JB, what with the RN and all, is something that has never happened before or since. Her case stands alone and that's why it's foolish to make comparisons to other cases that are vaguely similar.
BTW, I don't believe the Barbie nightgown has anything at all to do with her murder. It was there by "accident." It was not laid out next to her because if it was, JR would have noticed it. You can see in the crime scene photo with the blanket that it was in/on the blanket; not laying next to it. It was not a "statement" or a "clue". It was a fluke. IMO

[Jayelles]

I think they still would have suspected the parents; probably even more so and probably from the very start.
First of all, the Ramseys couldn't have simply called 911 to report her missing without having searched the entire house. Imagine the call to 911 if they had "found" her and then called.
"We just found our daughter, bound, gagged and strangled in our basement." Then the police arrive and find little to no evidence of an intruder having been there. You don't think they would find that just a tad suspicious? With the RN, there is "evidence" of an intruder from the start. It gave LE something to focus on besides the Ramseys. Immediately putting LHP "out there" also gave LE another distraction.
While it's true that intruders do enter peoples homes while they are present, it isn't something that happens all that frequently and what happened to JB, what with the RN and all, is something that has never happened before or since. Her case stands alone and that's why it's foolish to make comparisons to other cases that are vaguely similar.
BTW, I don't believe the Barbie nightgown has anything at all to do with her murder. It was there by "accident." It was not laid out next to her because if it was, JR would have noticed it. You can see in the crime scene photo with the blanket that it was in/on the blanket; not laying next to it. It was not a "statement" or a "clue". It was a fluke. IMO

You raise an interesting point and one that I don't recall seeing discussed before. I've often though about what I'd do in that situation and I think that whilst I would have almost certainly called police, I don't think I'd have done it immediately and without consideration ESPECIALLY if the kidnapper was threatening to behead my child if I spoke to anyone. I think my husband and I would probably have had a hysterical exchange whilst we contemplated the options. However I do think we'd have called the police although I think I'd have been begging them to be discreet since the kidnappers claimed to be watching the house. The beheading threat would have terrified me.

However, what I have never contemplated before is the aspect of calling out emergency services for a practical joke and that my daughter might have been in the house all along - hiding or being hidden and that police would arrive, find her and we'd end up all looking silly. I imagine that discoving a ransom note in an unusual place, out of the blue would have at least an initial lack of reality and that the terror and realisation would descend only once I'd done my own "investigation" and I think that would include searching the house and quizing my other children. But as I've said before, we're all different and there could be cultural differences too.

I watched a documentary about the Lindbergh baby and hadn't realised that Charles Lindbergh had been a suspect owing to some of his actions. Apparently he'd once hidden the baby in a closet and claimed it had been kidnapped. Also, according to the documentary, when the nanny had discovered the baby missing, she'd gone to Charles Lindbergh and asked him if he'd hidden the baby again. So seemingly her first reaction was that of a practical joke.

We've discussed the possibility of it being a kidnapping gone wrong but has the possibility that this was a practical joke gone wrong ever been discussed? Sick joke I agree but then some people have a sick sense of humour.

[grneyes]

I watched a documentary about the Lindbergh baby and hadn't realised that Charles Lindbergh had been a suspect owing to some of his actions. Apparently he'd once hidden the baby in a closet and claimed it had been kidnapped. Also, according to the documentary, when the nanny had discovered the baby missing, she'd gone to Charles Lindbergh and asked him if he'd hidden the baby again. So seemingly her first reaction was that of a practical joke.

We've discussed the possibility of it being a kidnapping gone wrong but has the possibility that this was a practical joke gone wrong ever been discussed? Sick joke I agree but then some people have a sick sense of humour.

That's definitely an interesting scenerio Jayelles. Maybe it should be considered.

[shill]

Compelling though it may be, I think this DNA evidence still needs to be explained. We need to find the person whose DNA matches and place them at the scene of the crime. Then we need to prove that they actually committed the murder.

This is not a case of not "wanting" to accept evidence. There may be other explanations for the DNA and these need to be excluded. That is only right and proper.
You just don't get it.

The lack of any explanations, but one, for the presence of this male DNA on two different articles of clothing that clearly did not transfer from one to the other, is why the Ramseys and anyone not matching have been cleared.

Seems that only the people who can't comprehend the meaning of this new DNA evidence choose to ignorantly doubt it instead of trying to educate themselves to comprehend it.

It is the killers DNA, and when they do match it to him, we will have our killer.:patriot:

[shill]

The description of the quantity of DNA being so small came from an official source - Tom Bennett:-

The DNA certainly is much much larger then neutrons, electrons, and protons that it is made up of, all of which can be seen and counted by scientist.

It's like none of you who doubt the DNA evidence believe in science.

DNA is large on the molecular scale and only tiny in the minds of tiny minded people imo.

[One2Snoop]

Question and please don't slam me because I don't follow this case as closely as the rest of you.

Does anyone know if all of Burkes friends at the time of JBR's death had their DNA tested for a possible match? The more I think about how she was found the more it makes me think of someone who had a lovesick relationship with her - it still doesn't explain the ransom note though, which is something thats always bothered me - in particular the handwriting analysis.

~ crawling back to my fence post ~ :seeya:

[Jayelles]

Question and please don't slam me because I don't follow this case as closely as the rest of you.

Does anyone know if all of Burkes friends at the time of JBR's death had their DNA tested for a possible match?

We know that scores of people had their DNA tested and that it wasn't a match but we only know a handful of the names of those people. So it's possible that Burke and JonBenet's friends were tested but by no means certain I'm afraid. Mary Lacy chose to publicly exonerate the Ramseys and apologise to them and in the last few weeks she has also declared that the Whites are not suspects either but given the unique circumstances of this case and the fact that there has been so many leaks and speculation based upon rumour and misinformation, the decent thing for her to do IMO would be to put an end to this and release a list of people whom she is "clearing" as a result of the DNA. Not that I think she should be "clearing" anyone as a result of the DNA but it's in no way justice to apply one set of rules to the Ramseys and another to the numerous other "suspects" whose lives have been tainted by speculation about their involvement.

Had this foreign DNA been found on the murder weapon it would IMO be pretty slam dunk because the murderer is the person who pulled on that garotte and not necessarily the person who handled her clothing. That is what needs to be figured out.

[/quote]The more I think about how she was found the more it makes me think of someone who had a lovesick relationship with her - it still doesn't explain the ransom note though, which is something thats always bothered me - in particular the handwriting analysis.

~ crawling back to my fence post ~ :seeya:[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree that the murderer may have been lovesick - for either JonBenet or for her mother. I struggle to see John Ramsey evoking those sorts of emotions in anyone. As you say, the Ramsey note fired this case into a whole different league. Without it, it could have been a paedophile. Had there also been a robbery, it could have been an opportunist burglar.

I think rage was involved at *some* stage.

As you say, the ransom note makes little sense alongside a ransom intruder scenario. Why leave a piece of unnecessary evidence if your objective is NOT to get caught? I know other killers have done this when they've been taunting police but that doesn't seem to be the case here because the killer didn't use the ransom note to "sign" his handiwork but rather as an effort to detract from it.

This case needs a fresh set of eyes which will look at everything again in a totally professional and unbiased way.

[shill]

As you say, the Ramsey note fired this case into a whole different league. Without it, it could have been a paedophile. The "Ramsey note"?

Is this just your subliminal way of telling everybody that you have never been a fence sitter?

And just how does the Ransom note rule out a pedophile?

I have posed this dilemma to other posters who think the Ramseys did it. Why write a ransom note to confuse things when you have already staged the crime scene to look like the work of a pedophile that would explain everything?
No need to explain anything by the Ramseys, a pedophile broke in molested JB, and fled after killing her leaving her in a wine cellar where she was found by her parents, end of story.

Now if your a pedophile and you are cought, you will die. That is a unsaid given. You will die a horrible death in your prison cell.
So you need a clean escape. A fake kidnapping note would serve the purpose of tieing the hands of the police while you distance yourself from the crime scene and escape out of town to another state or country.

And what happened? Hours passed before anyone thought to go looking for a killer, plenty of time for the killer to be on a plane and out of the country.

[shill]

Why leave a piece of unnecessary evidence if your objective is NOT to get caught? Those who have taunted the police with notes didn't intend to get caught, that's why it is taunting.

This killer didn't intend to get caught either. But he does appear to have a bone to pick with John and didn't think the police could catch him based on the note, just like other killers who have sent notes to the police.

That ransom note was necessary for the killers escape from Boulder and to vent his anger with John. And he may have intended to kidnapped JonBenet if he hadn't killed her and the note would have had substance then. That is why it was written imo.

[thewhitewitch1]

The "Ramsey note"?

Is this just your subliminal way of telling everybody that you have never been a fence sitter?

And just how does the Ransom note rule out a pedophile?

I have posed this dilemma to other posters who think the Ramseys did it. Why write a ransom note to confuse things when you have already staged the crime scene to look like the work of a pedophile that would explain everything?
No need to explain anything by the Ramseys, a pedophile broke in molested JB, and fled after killing her leaving her in a wine cellar where she was found by her parents, end of story.

Now if your a pedophile and you are cought, you will die. That is a unsaid given. You will die a horrible death in your prison cell.
So you need a clean escape. A fake kidnapping note would serve the purpose of tieing the hands of the police while you distance yourself from the crime scene and escape out of town to another state or country.

And what happened? Hours passed before anyone thought to go looking for a killer, plenty of time for the killer to be on a plane and out of the country.


That doesn't work. Just because JB was molested, gagged, bound. strangled and found in her own basement does not point to a pedophile. Any police officer who made that assumption would be an idiot. The writer of the RN wanted NO assumptions made. They wanted to make it clear that someone else had been in their home. If that doesn't make any sense to you then I don't know what to tell you.

Again, since NO ONE had a clue who to look for, an intruder would have had no need to write a bogus ransom note; especially to "cover up the fact that he was a pedophile". It was revealed soon enough that she was sexually violated.
Your intruder had hours in which to "escape" town even before the RN was discovered. You've yet to explain why leaving town at any time would have been difficult. How were the police supposed to zero in on this person? Even if they put up road blocks, just how were they supposed to know exactly who they were looking for? It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Your explanation for why this intruder needed to write a bogus ransom note doesn't fly. The only ones who needed to write it as a distraction were the Ramseys. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Those who have taunted the police with notes didn't intend to get caught, that's why it is taunting.

This killer didn't intend to get caught either. But he does appear to have a bone to pick with John and didn't think the police could catch him based on the note, just like other killers who have sent notes to the police.

That ransom note was necessary for the killers escape from Boulder and to vent his anger with John. And he may have intended to kidnapped JonBenet if he hadn't killed her and the note would have had substance then. That is why it was written imo.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to leave a sample of your handwriting and to let John know the motive for killing his daughter. That's a great way to NOT get caught. :rolleyes:
Nothing like tossing out clues to your identity.
Whether JB was dead or not, the "intruder" still could have taken her and attempted to collect his ransom. The RN was NOT "real."
The RN was NOT necessary for the killer to escape from Boulder but I've already explained that in my previous post. IMO

[One2Snoop]

We know that scores of people had their DNA tested and that it wasn't a match but we only know a handful of the names of those people. So it's possible that Burke and JonBenet's friends were tested but by no means certain I'm afraid. Mary Lacy chose to publicly exonerate the Ramseys and apologise to them and in the last few weeks she has also declared that the Whites are not suspects either but given the unique circumstances of this case and the fact that there has been so many leaks and speculation based upon rumour and misinformation, the decent thing for her to do IMO would be to put an end to this and release a list of people whom she is "clearing" as a result of the DNA. Not that I think she should be "clearing" anyone as a result of the DNA but it's in no way justice to apply one set of rules to the Ramseys and another to the numerous other "suspects" whose lives have been tainted by speculation about their involvement.

Had this foreign DNA been found on the murder weapon it would IMO be pretty slam dunk because the murderer is the person who pulled on that garotte and not necessarily the person who handled her clothing. That is what needs to be figured out.

"The more I think about how she was found the more it makes me think of someone who had a lovesick relationship with her - it still doesn't explain the ransom note though, which is something thats always bothered me - in particular the handwriting analysis.

~ crawling back to my fence post ~ :seeya:"

I tend to agree that the murderer may have been lovesick - for either JonBenet or for her mother. I struggle to see John Ramsey evoking those sorts of emotions in anyone. As you say, the Ramsey note fired this case into a whole different league. Without it, it could have been a paedophile. Had there also been a robbery, it could have been an opportunist burglar.

I think rage was involved at *some* stage.

As you say, the ransom note makes little sense alongside a ransom intruder scenario. Why leave a piece of unnecessary evidence if your objective is NOT to get caught? I know other killers have done this when they've been taunting police but that doesn't seem to be the case here because the killer didn't use the ransom note to "sign" his handiwork but rather as an effort to detract from it.

This case needs a fresh set of eyes which will look at everything again in a totally professional and unbiased way.

:seeya: Thanks Jayelles for responding and I agree with you ~ This case needs a fresh set of eyes which will look at everything again in a totally professional and unbiased way.

[sharlock]

Those who have taunted the police with notes didn't intend to get caught, that's why it is taunting.

This killer didn't intend to get caught either. But he does appear to have a bone to pick with John and didn't think the police could catch him based on the note, just like other killers who have sent notes to the police.

That ransom note was necessary for the killers escape from Boulder and to vent his anger with John. And he may have intended to kidnapped JonBenet if he hadn't killed her and the note would have had substance then. That is why it was written imo.
I think this is a rational argument. I mean why would Patsy sit down and write a novel when she was supposed to have been so flustered that she didn't even think to change her clothes. IMO the officers said Patsy looked freshly made up so I think it is more likely that she did get up and do her makeup like she would on any other morning. I don't think it was strange at all for her to wear the same jackety again. It was a christmas outfit and she was trying to keep in the spirit of Christmas. I know many people who have done the same thing including myself.

[shill]

That doesn't work. Just because JB was molested, gagged, bound. strangled and found in her own basement does not point to a pedophile. Any police officer who made that assumption would be an idiot. The writer of the RN wanted NO assumptions made. They wanted to make it clear that someone else had been in their home. If that doesn't make any sense to you then I don't know what to tell you.

Well we totally disagree.
Because JB was molested, gagged, bound, strangled and found in her own basement does strongly point to a pedophile and it is an assumption any police officer should make upon finding that crime scene imo.

It's clear what you think was the motive for the note to be written if the Ramseys were the killer.

But you're saying they risked creating a piece of evidence that has a greater chance of connecting them to the murder, because the note was in their handwriting, and most likely would have tell tale expressions or writing styles because of it's excessive length, then to leave no note and not risk any more evidence that could connect them, and just go with the pedophile crime scene as it appears.

The ransom note contradicts the pedophile scenario, thus neutralizing it's purpose if it was staging imo.

So in your claim that the Ramseys are the author of the ransom note, you are claiming that they chose to create a kidnapping scenario after they created a pedophile scenario thus nullifying the purpose of staging the pedophile scene, which they left unexplained in the note, and that they took this risk of creating a new motive at the risk of creating more physical evidence that could connect them to the crime which contradicts you claim that they wrote it to distance them from the crime.

IMO there is no rational reason that would motivate the Ramseys to give up thier pedophile scene they allegedly staged and create a new one that would give more evidence aganst them then for them if they were the authors.

[shill]

Again, since NO ONE had a clue who to look for, an intruder would have had no need to write a bogus ransom note; especially to "cover up the fact that he was a pedophile". It was revealed soon enough that she was sexually violated.
Your intruder had hours in which to "escape" town even before the RN was discovered. You've yet to explain why leaving town at any time would have been difficult.He had to catch a plane that was leaving later that afternoon.

How were the police supposed to zero in on this person? Even if they put up road blocks, just how were they supposed to know exactly who they were looking for? It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.You are only looking for people who don't live in Boulder.
If they don't live in Boulder, you take their contact info and reason for being in Boulder, and check them out.

Remember, they should have been looking for a kidnapper, so they would also be checking cars for JonBenet.

Then they run the names of the people who left town past the Ramseys to see if they recognize anyone.


Your explanation for why this intruder needed to write a bogus ransom note doesn't fly. The only ones who needed to write it as a distraction were the Ramseys. IMOIt buys the intruder time to get on his plane and leave Boulder.
It buys him time before they discover he murdered JonBenet, which by then, he is long gone.

Theoretically, according to the note, he was buying over 24hrs of time before the police would give up on a call from the alleged kidnapper and go looking for JonBenet anywhere.
He would be home and in bed before the news of her kidnapping would have hit the press and, it could have been days before they found JonBenet in the basement and it became a murder investigation.

The motive for a pedophile killing their victim is quite often to not get caught, and if you don't belong in Boulder, but you are acquainted with the Ramseys, you don't want to get caught there after their daughter was murdered by what looks like a pedophile, and they recognize you.

[shill]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to leave a sample of your handwriting and to let John know the motive for killing his daughter. That's a great way to NOT get caught. :rolleyes:
Nothing like tossing out clues to your identity.
For the Ramseys to leave a ransom note with a sample of their handwriting is a great way to get caught.

The killer got away and it wasn't until that afternoon that they new they were looking for a killer and not a kidnapper, and it might have been another day before they reached that conclusion.
The note worked exactly as a described, it froze the police while the intruder got out of town.

The note did not work as you described was the purpose of the Ramseys writing it.
Instead it worked against them once the body was found, which they would have been fully aware would eventually happen.

I'm sorry WW1, I know you see everything from an RDI perspective and I from an IDI.


The ransom note and the idea that their daughter had been kidnapped worked against the Ramseys, but it did work for the killer.
So we see the note has caused a killer to walk about freely all this time as apposed to the alleged killer Parents who have been under suspicion by some all this time because of the note.
The note worked for the real killer and against the Ramseys.
So it was clever for the real killer to write and stupid for the Ramseys to write.

Why say your daughter was kidnapped?
That's quite a stretch just to create the illusion someone was in the house.
Why not pry a door open?

Why not leave a note that says I killed your dirty little *****, or I killed your precious baby you elitests, or I took your daughter because you don't deserve her.
Any note would have had the same effect as your claim that it was done to make it look like an intruder had been there.

But why the kidnapping ruse if they knew she wasn't kidnapped and was going to be found in the basement?

It can't be just to look like someone was in their house writing notes.

[Jayelles]

I think this is a rational argument. I mean why would Patsy sit down and write a novel when she was supposed to have been so flustered that she didn't even think to change her clothes. IMO the officers said Patsy looked freshly made up so I think it is more likely that she did get up and do her makeup like she would on any other morning. I don't think it was strange at all for her to wear the same jackety again. It was a christmas outfit and she was trying to keep in the spirit of Christmas. I know many people who have done the same thing including myself.

From the Ramsey and intruder perspectives, writing the note would have had two very different purposes.

An unknown intruder would have had no need to stage the crime because he would not be an obvious suspect. Therefore, he was merely running the risk of leaving forensics. And if he waned to "taunt", why leave a ransom note AND the body (which was foun as soon as a family member actually searched)? Surely if he'd wanted to taunt he'd just have left a note sayin "look what I did"?

The Ramseys OTOH were facing a desperate situation and desperate situations require desperate measures. The whole purpose of staging is to make a crime scene look like someone else did it and if they had a dead child on their hands, they'd have to explain it somehow. There is no doubt they had opportunity as they were in the building at the time of the murder.

However, I don't think the Ramseys were the only people who would have needed to stage the crime to point away from them. I believe that some people close to the Ramseys would have been compelled to stage too since it is widely known that most child murders are committed either by family or people very close to the family.

Finally, whether or not it seems believable that Patsy would have written a long ransom note, the fact remains that she cannot be excluded as the author (not even by her own experts).

[DAFFODIL]

I think this is a rational argument. I mean why would Patsy sit down and write a novel when she was supposed to have been so flustered that she didn't even think to change her clothes. IMO the officers said Patsy looked freshly made up so I think it is more likely that she did get up and do her makeup like she would on any other morning. I don't think it was strange at all for her to wear the same jackety again. It was a christmas outfit and she was trying to keep in the spirit of Christmas. I know many people who have done the same thing including myself.


I cant imagine Patsy only had one Christmas outfit though.

[shill]

An unknown intruder would have had no need to stage the crime because he would not be an obvious suspect. Therefore, he was merely running the risk of leaving forensics. And if he waned to "taunt", why leave a ransom note AND the body (which was foun as soon as a family member actually searched)? Surely if he'd wanted to taunt he'd just have left a note sayin "look what I did"?

An unknown intruder did not stage the crime scene.
He did create an actual crime scene.
It is what it is.

But he did stage his getaway with a bogus ransom note imo.

He threw the police off his trail, like a suspect being tracked by dogs that doubles back and throw them off his trail.

The taunting came out in the creation of the note that was suppose to throw them off his trail and give him time to escape, therefor the note ran longer then he needed it to be to achieve the necessary effect.
Maybe the taunting of John was to intimidate him from going to the police, or maybe it was a need to express his resentment of John.

When the killer is found, and found alive, much will be answered then.

[shill]

The Ramseys OTOH were facing a desperate situation and desperate situations require desperate measures. The whole purpose of staging is to make a crime scene look like someone else did it and if they had a dead child on their hands, they'd have to explain it somehow.
What desperate situation?
I mean really, desperate, why?

This as far as anyone has ever accused the Ramseys of killing their daughter has always been described as accidental and never premeditated murder.

So you call 911 and say you think you might have accidentally killed your daughter, please send an ambulance.
Now that is the desperate situation and you react instinctively as a parent and rush to the phone.

Now RDI want us to believe that none of that happened because Patsy thought only about her short time she had left after beating cancer once and feared spending her last few days in jail, so she left her child presumably dead, but put a rope around her neck and strangled her to make sure she was dead and couldn't testify against her later, and then went crazy creating this bizarre crime scene, all to cover up an accident that she would have most likely not gone to jail for.

So how often do parents create crazy crime scenes to cover up an accident as appose to sexual preditors leaving crazy crime scenes of their victims?

And let's not forget that some of those crazy parent/partner crime scenes covering up a murder are because the parent/partner was covering up their sexual crimne on the child.
I think the sexual preditor list is much much longer.

So unless John killed his daughter to cover up a sex crime he commited on her, the parents have no motive to create this bizzarre crime scene imo.

[shill]

I cant imagine Patsy only had one Christmas outfit though.How many times a year do you wear a Christmas outfit?

So how many Christmas outfits do you need a year?

And if you get a new Christmas outfit every year, when do you wear the old Christmas outfit again.

Maybe Patsy could have pulled a Christmas outfit out of the mothballs that morning so she could great the police with that fresh mothball smell everybody loves.:D

[sevenof9fl]

I haven't been here in a year; are some peope still on "The Ramseys Did It" kick?

*sad face*

[SaraSidle]

I haven't been here in a year; are some peope still on "The Ramseys Did It" kick?

*sad face*

believe it or not yes. amazing. I stay out of it but get ready to hold your ground if you still want to post. I saw you over at imdb. cool. Really glad you are here. what do you think of the perp being disfigured or handicapped? IMO sara

[Limaes]

I thought dna/evidence had cleared the Ramseys...? If so why do so many still believe they did it? DNA doesn't lie.

:shrug:

It may not lie, but it never tells the whole story. DNA is only part of a puzzle. It tells us who but not when, which in this case is a crucial detail.

What you also need to realise is that no foreign DNA was found on her body so if it is ever successfully matched (which is highly unlikely imo) they are going to have to link this person to the murder weapon, the ransom note and the Ramsey home.

To this day the BDA has never mentioned if tests have been carried out on both the ligature and the ransom note. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would want to know why and anyone that knows even an ounce about this case and the history of the BDA already knows why.

[sharlock]

believe it or not yes. amazing. I stay out of it but get ready to hold your ground if you still want to post. I saw you over at imdb. cool. Really glad you are here. what do you think of the perp being disfigured or handicapped? IMO sara
Hey Sara, I know your question was directed to someone else but I just wanted to ask where your suspicion the perp was disfigured or handicapped came from?

[Limaes]

You probably have more "strange" DNA on your body as you sit there today than Jonbenet had on her body when she was found.

So true. Considering she had spent approximately 5 hours at the Whites, it is very likely that she came into contact with certain things that other people did. Did she sit on their furniture?...did she use plates or utensils to eat?...didn't she sit on the floor with Daphne playing with her toys?

The fact that she had so little is very telling imo. Whoever wiped her down had no fear of being caught while doing it.

[Limaes]

And OJ is innocent. :rolleyes:

He is as innocent as the Ramseys imo. You may roll your eyes but CW is correct. Lacey IS a friend of the Ramseys. Susan Stine may as well have sent JR the exact same letter because it means the exact same thing...NOTHING!

One letter regarding DNA that noone knows the owner of or when and how it got there, does not erase the 12 years worth of evidence that is known for a fact to be related to the killing. Aren't you the least bit curious as to why Lacey and Co don't want to go there?

[Limaes]

You just don't get it.

The lack of any explanations, but one, for the presence of this male DNA on two different articles of clothing that clearly did not transfer from one to the other, is why the Ramseys and anyone not matching have been cleared.


Seems that only the people who can't comprehend the meaning of this new DNA evidence choose to ignorantly doubt it instead of trying to educate themselves to comprehend it.

It is the killers DNA, and when they do match it to him, we will have our killer.:patriot:

It seems as though it is you that is having problems comprehending the meaning of this "new" DNA.

A half-arsed explanation of this "new DNA" in her letter to JR might be sufficient enough for him and to people like you, but she is going to have to do a lot better than that to convince a jury and those of us that are fully aware of her behaviour in this case.

Speaking of ignorantly doubting evidence, what about the fibers from JR's shirt being found in the crotch of the underwear she was found in?

You can doubt it all you want but it won't make it go away. If this DNA truly does exist on the long john's then it could have been transferred by JR. If his shirt fiber was found in the same place as the original DNA, then there is a good chance that he did come into contact with it and then picked up the long johns by the waistband which resulted in this touch DNA on them.

[Limaes]

Why write a ransom note to confuse things when you have already staged the crime scene to look like the work of a pedophile that would explain everything?


Umm...LE didn't know that she was dead and violated when they got there. They thought she was kidnapped because there was a umm...ransom note telling them so and no sign of JBR. Hence, the reason why one was written. :punch:

How else would they explain to people that JB no longer existed?

[Jayelles]

It may not lie, but it never tells the whole story. DNA is only part of a puzzle. It tells us who but not when, which in this case is a crucial detail.

What you also need to realise is that no foreign DNA was found on her body so if it is ever successfully matched (which is highly unlikely imo) they are going to have to link this person to the murder weapon, the ransom note and the Ramsey home.

To this day the BDA has never mentioned if tests have been carried out on both the ligature and the ransom note. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would want to know why and anyone that knows even an ounce about this case and the history of the BDA already knows why.

Hi Limaes! (long time).

ITA. It warms my heart to see an honest-to-goodness and common sensical post like this.

Too much time and energy is wasted bickering over "sides" IMO. All to often this blurs the real issues.

Bottom line is - facts speak for themselves. If this case is anything, it's confusing and that's the reason it hasn't been solved. Practically all of the evidence has more than one possible explanation and there's no smoking gun. As you say, the DNA is only part of the puzzle but that's not to rule it out. It has to be explained. However, we owe it to Jonbenet NOT to take anything at face value.

That's why I'm a fencesitter :read:

[rashomon]

Finally, whether or not it seems believable that Patsy would have written a long ransom note, the fact remains that she cannot be excluded as the author (not even by her own experts).
I almost fell out of my chair when seeing side by side photos of Patsy's sample note and the orignal ransom note. They looked so similar that it was uncanny.
In addition, fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in locations at the crime scene directly connected to JonBenet's death.

jmo

[shill]

To this day the BDA has never mentioned if tests have been carried out on both the ligature and the ransom note. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would want to know why and anyone that knows even an ounce about this case and the history of the BDA already knows why.
Just because it has never been mentioned doesn't mean it has never been done.

And FYI, the ransom note turned up with no fingerprints from anyone on it and has been chemically tested so there is zero possibility it will yield any DNA evidence, so you can cross it off your wishful thinking list.

[shill]

So true. Considering she had spent approximately 5 hours at the Whites, it is very likely that she came into contact with certain things that other people did. ... Whoever wiped her down had no fear of being caught while doing it.
Well if that is true, then she must have been wearing those size 12 underwear at the Whites.

But she wasn't wearing the longjohns at the Whites, and the facts are that the DNA on the longjohns was not transferred, but deposited through direct contact, a fact that RDI seem to ignore to remain in denial.

[shill]

You can doubt it all you want but it won't make it go away. If this DNA truly does exist on the long john's then it could have been transferred by JR. If his shirt fiber was found in the same place as the original DNA, then there is a good chance that he did come into contact with it and then picked up the long johns by the waistband which resulted in this touch DNA on them.
First of all, there is no matching fibers from Johns shirt on JonBenets crotch.
Of course small minded people can't grasp the concept of a poker bluff that is used by investigators to try and flush out ones hand. So sad.

The DNA on the longjohns was not transferred from a secondary person or the underwear, that is a scientific fact.

Just because you can't understand the science of DNA, doesn't give you a license to make things up.

There is a reason the DNA evidence exonerated the Ramseys and the phony accusation of fibers from Johns shirt on JB's crotch area that would have convicted him of murder, didn't.

[shill]

Umm...LE didn't know that she was dead and violated when they got there. They thought she was kidnapped because there was a umm...ransom note telling them so and no sign of JBR. Hence, the reason why one was written. :punch:

How else would they explain to people that JB no longer existed?How else do you explain JB is still in your basement, not with a ransom note that claims she is not in your basement.

The ransom not did not explain why JB was in the basement, I repeat, it did not explain why JB was in the basement in any way.
It's a joke that RDI think that a ransom note explains her presence in the house.
It would only explain her presence not in the house.

But for an intruder, he needs to explain nothing. He does need a diversion though to get out of town.


LE didn't know that she was dead and violated when they got there. They thought she was kidnapped because there was a umm...ransom note telling them so and no sign of JBR.
Which is exactly what bought the Male intruder time to get away.

[shill]

Lacey IS a friend of the Ramseys. Talk about delusional. What makes you think Lacey is a friend of the Ramseys?

Do they go out for beers very weekend? Does she come for dinners, hang out at there Michigan home?

Has Lacey ever spent any alone time with the Ramseys what so ever?

I mean to be friends you should at least hang out once.

So why don't you show proof that Lacey was friends with the Ramseys, instead of spreading rumors so typical of RDI who believe in conspiracies to explain away the facts.

Lot's of people attend funerals of the dead that aren't their friends.

[DAFFODIL]

I almost fell out of my chair when seeing side by side photos of Patsy's sample note and the orignal ransom note. They looked so similar that it was uncanny.
In addition, fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in locations at the crime scene directly connected to JonBenet's death.

jmo


Indeed Rash,it was the writing that made me believe Patsy may have been involved.

[thewhitewitch1]

For the Ramseys to leave a ransom note with a sample of their handwriting is a great way to get caught.

Obviously not. What else were they supposed to do? If they felt the need to write the note to distract police from themselves, they didn't have much of a choice.


The killer got away and it wasn't until that afternoon that they new they were looking for a killer and not a kidnapper, and it might have been another day before they reached that conclusion.
The note worked exactly as a described, it froze the police while the intruder got out of town.


It worked exactly as described. It put the focus on a kidnapper/intruder instead of immediately making the police suspicious of the Ramseys. For the 100th time, the "intruder" didn't need to distract the police so he could leave town. He was as invisible then as he is today. (As in non-existent.)

The note did not work as you described was the purpose of the Ramseys writing it.
Instead it worked against them once the body was found, which they would have been fully aware would eventually happen.

You're wrong. Did they ever serve one minute in prison? No..I think not. I think the Ramseys were arrogant enough to believe that they could never be serious suspects. They've as much as said so themselves. Without the ransom note, the "intruder" farce would not have had a leg to stand on.

I'm sorry WW1, I know you see everything from an RDI perspective and I from an IDI.

I see it from the only perspective that makes sense to me. The intruder theory is weak and does not seem viable.

The ransom note and the idea that their daughter had been kidnapped worked against the Ramseys, but it did work for the killer.

It worked quite well for the Ramseys.

So we see the note has caused a killer to walk about freely all this time as apposed to the alleged killer Parents who have been under suspicion by some all this time because of the note.

They did not foresee that happening, obviously.

The note worked for the real killer and against the Ramseys.
So it was clever for the real killer to write and stupid for the Ramseys to write.

Not stupid at all. They got away with it, didn't they?

Why say your daughter was kidnapped?
That's quite a stretch just to create the illusion someone was in the house.
Why not pry a door open?

Why not, indeed? Claiming a window was open seemed to work just as well.

Why not leave a note that says I killed your dirty little *****, or I killed your precious baby you elitests, or I took your daughter because you don't deserve her.
Any note would have had the same effect as your claim that it was done to make it look like an intruder had been there.


Does it really matter what the ruse was?

But why the kidnapping ruse if they knew she wasn't kidnapped and was going to be found in the basement?

Maybe they didn't expect for the police to hang out there all day and intended on "getting rid" of her body later. Maybe they figured they'd cross that bridge when they came to it. It doesn't matter. Having a ransom note to explain her disappearance and later, her murder, was a lot better than NO note or explanation for why she was dead in their own home.

It can't be just to look like someone was in their house writing notes.

Why can't it be? There's no explanation for why a kidnapper would leave a ransom note AND his collateral. If the Ramseys writing the note for the reasons I gave make no sense, then neither does your kidnapper scenario.

You will never be able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why the Ramseys would call in a bunch of their friends when the RN threatened their daughters life if they did so. The only way they would do such a thing is if they knew that there was no kidnapper and that JB was already dead.
If anyone in here tells me that they would call ANYONE over (except the police) if their kid has been kidnapped and her life has been threatened if they tell anyone, I would either have to say that either they were morons or just plain lying.
You don't take risks like that when your kids life is at stake, unless you don't really care about your kid or are just plain stupid. Were the Ramseys stupid, did they not care if JB was killed due to their actions or did they already know she was dead? Take your pick. IMO

[Limaes]

Hi Limaes! (long time).

ITA. It warms my heart to see an honest-to-goodness and common sensical post like this.

Too much time and energy is wasted bickering over "sides" IMO. All to often this blurs the real issues.

Bottom line is - facts speak for themselves. If this case is anything, it's confusing and that's the reason it hasn't been solved. Practically all of the evidence has more than one possible explanation and there's no smoking gun. As you say, the DNA is only part of the puzzle but that's not to rule it out. It has to be explained. However, we owe it to Jonbenet NOT to take anything at face value.

That's why I'm a fencesitter :read:

Hi Jayelles,

You know what? Until an independent special prosecutor is assigned to this case, I won't be taking anything at face value. Especially when it comes from the BDA's office. Their history speaks for itself. When you look back at their actions, they themselves, are criminals. JMO

[Limaes]

Just because it has never been mentioned doesn't mean it has never been done.

So what does it mean then?

a) That it WAS tested and the same DNA was found but Lacey chose not to tell us that?

or

b) It WAS tested and the same DNA was NOT found but Lacey decided not to tell us that?

or

c) It WASN'T tested because she is afraid it would give her the smoking gun she has been avoiding for so many years?

And FYI, the ransom note turned up with no fingerprints from anyone on it and has been chemically tested so there is zero possibility it will yield any DNA evidence, so you can cross it off your wishful thinking list.

I wasn't saying the RN should be chemically tested for this Touch DNA - it has already been contaminated by everyone who handled it that morning including the lab tech whose fingerprint was found on it. This doesn't mean that it is no longer evidence. We still have the little matter with the handwriting that PR was NEVER cleared of.

[Limaes]

Well if that is true, then she must have been wearing those size 12 underwear at the Whites.

How so?

But she wasn't wearing the longjohns at the Whites, and the facts are that the DNA on the longjohns was not transferred, but deposited through direct contact, a fact that RDI seem to ignore to remain in denial.

Those are the facts huh? Then you won't mind providing a copy of the detailed log regarding the chain of custody for the longjohns from the 27th December 1996 until the time that this latest testing was done. Because you know, in court, thats what has to be done. Much different to writing exhoneration letters to persons living under an umbrella of suspicion for 11+ years.

[Limaes]

First of all, there is no matching fibers from Johns shirt on JonBenets crotch.
Of course small minded people can't grasp the concept of a poker bluff that is used by investigators to try and flush out ones hand. So sad.

This is where I get to point out your hypocrisy. You can't accuse others of ignoring evidence and claiming conspiracies, then turn around and do the same thing yourself.

The fibers do exist, it is on the record. JR was questioned about it. Defense attorneys also have their BS ways of bluffing as has been demonstrated by L.Wood continously. They wanted the report so they could strategise and work out how they would worm their way out but they were refused. So, Wood did what any good defense attorney would do. He pretended they didn't exist and that the investigators were lying.

The DNA on the longjohns was not transferred from a secondary person or the underwear, that is a scientific fact.

It is? Then you won't mind backing that up with a credible source.

Just because you can't understand the science of DNA, doesn't give you a license to make things up.

Well, I understand enough to know that it wasn't a 100% match and that she wasn't killed by DNA, she had her skull smashed and a ligature applied to her neck but Mary Lacey doesn't want to know. She prefers to focus on something that 1. Didn't kill her and 2. isn't even 100% related to the crime.

There is a reason the DNA evidence exonerated the Ramseys and the phony accusation of fibers from Johns shirt on JB's crotch area that would have convicted him of murder, didn't.

You're right. There IS a reason. They had the money AND the connections. That is what it all boils down to imo. From the moment JB became comatose, it stopped being about her and about her parents or the BPD and BDAs long standing bad relationship.

All imo.

[shill]

You will never be able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why the Ramseys would call in a bunch of their friends when the RN threatened their daughters life if they did so. The only way they would do such a thing is if they knew that there was no kidnapper and that JB was already dead.
If anyone in here tells me that they would call ANYONE over (except the police) if their kid has been kidnapped and her life has been threatened if they tell anyone, I would either have to say that either they were morons or just plain lying.
You don't take risks like that when your kids life is at stake, unless you don't really care about your kid or are just plain stupid. Were the Ramseys stupid, did they not care if JB was killed due to their actions or did they already know she was dead? Take your pick. IMOSo if the Ramseys wrote the ransom note as a cover up, why didn't they get rid of JonBnet's body to make it work?

I mean you have just made an argument that according to the ransom note, if they wrote it, they created their own alibi for why they didn't contact the police until the next day.
Let's not forget they had plenty of time to get rid of the body in the first place before calling police, and the ransom note gave them a whole additional day to do that.
All the Ramseys had to do was get rid of the body, wait until the next day, and then call the police and say the kidnapper never called like the note said and our daughter is missing.

You imply that the Ramseys wrote the note, and yet if they authored it, they certainly didn't utilize it.

It was engineered by someone who needed to stall for time, and the Ranmseys clearly showed by their actions that they did not stall for time, they took action by 6am, well before the ransom note dictated a course of action.

So what would make them call in the police in early after crafting a note that gave them a more then a day to get rid of the body and solidify their alibis?

[shill]

Hi Jayelles,

You know what? Until an independent special prosecutor is assigned to this case, I won't be taking anything at face value. Especially when it comes from the BDA's office. Their history speaks for itself. When you look back at their actions, they themselves, are criminals. JMO
Ya, that must be the explanation, couldn't be that there is nothing incriminating the Ramseys, so it must be a conspiracy, LMAO.

[shill]

So what does it mean then?

a) That it WAS tested and the same DNA was found but Lacey chose not to tell us that?

or

b) It WAS tested and the same DNA was NOT found but Lacey decided not to tell us that?

or

c) It WASN'T tested because she is afraid it would give her the smoking gun she has been avoiding for so many years?



We still have the little matter with the handwriting that PR was NEVER cleared of.
b) It WAS tested and DNA was NOT found but Lacey decided not to tell us that?



If the handwriting was such a convincing match, Patsy would have been convicted. Obviously her handwriting was not a convincing match to convict her of this crime, so it is worthless as evidence.

[shill]

Those are the facts huh? Then you won't mind providing a copy of the detailed log regarding the chain of custody for the longjohns from the 27th December 1996 until the time that this latest testing was done. Because you know, in court, thats what has to be done. Much different to writing exhoneration letters to persons living under an umbrella of suspicion for 11+ years.
I don't need to supply a copy of the log detailing a chain of custody.

They came to their conclusion by reviewing the log detailing a chain of custody, and everyone who was involved, their DNA was ruled not a match.

You ignorant people keep wanting to turn a blind eye to how they came to their conclusion that the DNA had to belong to the killer.

They checked the DNA of all the people involved in collecting and testing the DNA and none of them were a match.

The bottom line is they were left with only one explanation of how this male DNA came to be on JonBenet's underwear and longjohns, and that was that it was not from a male intruder, not a lab technician, not a forensic officer, and not a police officer or a factory worker.

It's the killer's DNA.

[Limaes]

How else do you explain JB is still in your basement, not with a ransom note that claims she is not in your basement.

You don't explain it. You call your pilot to get the plane ready so you can get the hell out of there. :biggrin:

The ransom not did not explain why JB was in the basement, I repeat, it did not explain why JB was in the basement in any way.
It's a joke that RDI think that a ransom note explains her presence in the house.
It would only explain her presence not in the house.

Then why leave one? Why not take it with him after she had passed so no evidence was left?

Why take the time to thoroughly wipe her down to remove evidence, but purposely leave a sample of his handwriting right where it would be seen? Did he suddenly run out of time?


But for an intruder, he needs to explain nothing.

But according to you, he did. Why?

He does need a diversion though to get out of town.

You mean like he had something important to do in Atlanta?


Which is exactly what bought the Male intruder time to get away.

So you're saying that a male intruder wrote a ransom note to give himself more time to get away?

[Limaes]

I don't need to supply a copy of the log detailing a chain of custody.

They came to their conclusion by reviewing the log detailing a chain of custody, and everyone who was involved, their DNA was ruled not a match.

You ignorant people keep wanting to turn a blind eye to how they came to their conclusion that the DNA had to belong to the killer.

They checked the DNA of all the people involved in collecting and testing the DNA and none of them were a match.

The bottom line is they were left with only one explanation of how this male DNA came to be on JonBenet's underwear and longjohns, and that was that it was not from a male intruder, not a lab technician, not a forensic officer, and not a police officer or a factory worker.

It's the killer's DNA.

Its not ignorance Shill. Its just keeping the focus on what is important instead of hedging everything on one aspect. Especially one that is dubious and can't even be 100% verified to be related to her death.

PR has never been 100% ruled out as the author of the RN. Even if every handwriting expert in the world opined that it was her, it isn't evidence that she killed her. They would need separate evidence for that (like the fibers). Same with the DNA. They would need separate evidence ( but they have none).

So at this moment they still have more incriminating evidence against the R's than they do against any unknown male and trying to get you to accept that is like trying to nail custard to a wall. Its fruitless.

[shill]

This is where I get to point out your hypocrisy. You can't accuse others of ignoring evidence and claiming conspiracies, then turn around and do the same thing yourself.What hypocrisy?
There is no official public proclamation that they have proof that they have a fiber match to John's shirt, there was only an accusation, but PROOF WAS NEVER SHOWN.

The touch DNA was a public proclamation of proof of its existence that has not been disputed by anyone in authority and only by ignorant posters like you who don't matter.

The fibers do exist, it is on the record. JR was questioned about it. Defense attorneys also have their BS ways of bluffing as has been demonstrated by L.Wood continously. They wanted the report so they could strategise and work out how they would worm their way out but they were refused. So, Wood did what any good defense attorney would do. He pretended they didn't exist and that the investigators were lying.There is absolutely zero proof of matching fibers shown.
Somehow you seem to think an accusation is proof, how foolish is that?

That accusation was challenged, and proof that it was true was NEVER brought forth, ever, end of story.



It is? Then you won't mind backing that up with a credible source.Lacey announced that the "touch DNA" matched the DNA on the underwear.

"Touch DNA" is defined as DNA that is deposited by forceful direct touch that causes the deposit of the toucher's skin cells.

It is not defined as DNA that is transferred by touching one thing and then another.

So the DA defining it as "Touch DNA" means only one thing, it was DNA deposited from skin cells during direct touch from the owner of the DNA, end of story.



Well, I understand enough to know that it wasn't a 100% match and that she wasn't killed by DNA, she had her skull smashed and a ligature applied to her neck but Mary Lacey doesn't want to know. She prefers to focus on something that 1. Didn't kill her and 2. isn't even 100% related to the crime.It was a 99.9% match because statistics don't allow for a 100% match, so your just being ignorant.

So you think the DNA got there by somebody just helping the Ramseys, but didn't do the killing and everything else? Then please explain why he didn't dump the body on his way out for the Ramseys and his motive for getting involved in such a heinous crime?



You're right. There IS a reason. They had the money AND the connections. That is what it all boils down to imo. From the moment JB became comatose, it stopped being about her and about her parents or the BPD and BDAs long standing bad relationship.

All imo. More conspiricy theories as a blanket explanation for all your ludicrous accusations.

[shill]

So you're saying that a male intruder wrote a ransom note to give himself more time to get away?
Wow, it sure takes a lot for you to finally get it.



Canceling a previously scheduled flight with your pilot because your daughter is dead and you can't make the trip is certainly not the same as premeditating the need to have a pilot standing by so you can escape out of town for a murder you were planning to commit that morning.

[shill]

PR has never been 100% ruled out as the author of the RN.

So at this moment they still have more incriminating evidence against the R's than they do against any unknown male and trying to get you to accept that is like trying to nail custard to a wall. Its fruitless.Your comparing matching handwriting to a note with matching DNA to DNA.
Handwriting analysis is totally interpretative, DNA is not.

You want to connect Patsy to the crime by someone's interpretation of her handwriting that isn't even 20% sure of a match by the most convincing analysis, to the connecting of a male to the crime by DNA that will be a scientifically proven to be a 99.9% match.

It's more like at this moment they lack more incriminating evidence against the Ramseys then they do a male intruder.

What's to accept? The Ramseys have never been arrested or tried of a crime, so obviously you are the one who does not accept the facts.

And why would anyone try and nail custard to a wall?
It makes about as much sense as being RDI.:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

So if the Ramseys wrote the ransom note as a cover up, why didn't they get rid of JonBnet's body to make it work?

I mean you have just made an argument that according to the ransom note, if they wrote it, they created their own alibi for why they didn't contact the police until the next day.
Let's not forget they had plenty of time to get rid of the body in the first place before calling police, and the ransom note gave them a whole additional day to do that.
All the Ramseys had to do was get rid of the body, wait until the next day, and then call the police and say the kidnapper never called like the note said and our daughter is missing.

You imply that the Ramseys wrote the note, and yet if they authored it, they certainly didn't utilize it.

It was engineered by someone who needed to stall for time, and the Ranmseys clearly showed by their actions that they did not stall for time, they took action by 6am, well before the ransom note dictated a course of action.

So what would make them call in the police in early after crafting a note that gave them a more then a day to get rid of the body and solidify their alibis?

It wasn't written to stall for time. It was written to explain why their child was dead.
You keep asking the same questions over and over, even though I (and others) have already answered them multiple times.
For the one millionth time, they didn't "get rid" of her body probably because it was too risky and they also probably wanted her to have a "proper burial." I hardly think they would want to dump her off in the woods and let her rot. Even if they did, forensic evidence found on her body, in the trunk of their car etc. could have eventually been traced back to them.
Use your noggin. There are plenty of reasons why the Ramseys would not have wanted to take the chance of removing her body from their home.
You've got them painted as hardboiled, cold hearted sophisticated killers and that's where your line of thinking is flawed. Your perspective is way off as far as what RDIs think about what happened to JB and the staging afterwards. IMO

[Limaes]

What hypocrisy?
There is no official public proclamation that they have proof that they have a fiber match to John's shirt, there was only an accusation, but PROOF WAS NEVER SHOWN.

The touch DNA was a public proclamation of proof of its existence that has not been disputed by anyone in authority and only by ignorant posters like you who don't matter.

It didn't have to be made public to make it true and it is ridiculous for you to make that claim. It is on the record so that makes it official whether you like it or not.

There is absolutely zero proof of matching fibers shown.
Somehow you seem to think an accusation is proof, how foolish is that?

There was no accusation. Never at anytime did the investigators accuse JR of anything. They told him what they knew and gave him the opportunity to explain how the fiber came to be there, innocent or otherwise. JR declined to offer such explanation.

That accusation was challenged, and proof that it was true was NEVER brought forth, ever, end of story.

The evidence was challenged, there was no accusation. You're just making that up. The Rs were never officially named as suspects so LE had no legal or moral obligation to hand over their evidence to the Rs. You can spin it as much as you like but the truth won't change.



Lacey announced that the "touch DNA" matched the DNA on the underwear.

"Touch DNA" is defined as DNA that is deposited by forceful direct touch that causes the deposit of the toucher's skin cells.

It is not defined as DNA that is transferred by touching one thing and then another.

So the DA defining it as "Touch DNA" means only one thing, it was DNA deposited from skin cells during direct touch from the owner of the DNA, end of story.

LOL okay...the DA said it is the killer's so it must be so. This is the same DA that caused a sensation by bringing JMK back to the States because it took him 4 years to make the world's longest confession. She already stated publically years ago that she was no longer pursuing evidence against the Rs. She is a desperate, unethical and rather stupid woman imo.



It was a 99.9% match because statistics don't allow for a 100% match, so your just being ignorant.

If the original panty DNA contained 10 markers (after scientific manipulation) and this touch DNA has 13...how can it be a 99.9% match? Don't forget to give your source.

So you think the DNA got there by somebody just helping the Ramseys, but didn't do the killing and everything else? Then please explain why he didn't dump the body on his way out for the Ramseys and his motive for getting involved in such a heinous crime?

You're confusing me with someone else. I never said that.



More conspiricy theories as a blanket explanation for all your ludicrous accusations.

It doesn't surprise me that you pass off anything you can't explain as just a conspiracy.

[Limaes]

Wow, it sure takes a lot for you to finally get it.
Writing a long ransom note plus a practice note and even taking the time to put the pen back in its rightful spot is hardly the actions of someone who is trying to buy time. LOLOLOL



Canceling a previously scheduled flight with your pilot because your daughter is dead and you can't make the trip is certainly not the same as premeditating the need to have a pilot standing by so you can escape out of town for a murder you were planning to commit that morning.

The previously scheduled flight was cancelled in the morning. JR was trying to organise another flight AFTER the body was found so they could nick off to Atlanta because he had "something important" to do.

Are you expecting me to believe that your intruder had his own pilot also?

[Limaes]

Your comparing matching handwriting to a note with matching DNA to DNA.
Handwriting analysis is totally interpretative, DNA is not.

In this case the DNA IS interpretive. It wasn't found on the body or the murder weapon. There are experts out there who disagree with Lacey's "interpretation" of the importance of the DNA in this case.

Dr. Michael Baden: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/11/unknown-man-in-ramsey-case-missing/

"I would be very skeptical from a scientific point of view. This doesn't make sense to exonerate anybody," said Dr. Michael Baden, a leading forensic scientist and host of the HBO documentary series "Autopsy," in an interview on KHOW-AM in Denver.

He said the DNA samples could have come from the clothing manufacturing process and could have been spread from one item to another. The DNA could have also come from medical or morgue personnel who were never tested.

Seems as though Baden doesn't agree with Lacey's interpretation of the significance of the DNA and how it got on the longjohns. And for good reason too.


You want to connect Patsy to the crime by someone's interpretation of her handwriting that isn't even 20% sure of a match by the most convincing analysis, to the connecting of a male to the crime by DNA that will be a scientifically proven to be a 99.9% match.

Your source?

It's more like at this moment they lack more incriminating evidence against the Ramseys then they do a male intruder.

Fiber evidence is not only incriminating but it gives us suspects who we know 100% were in the house when she was killed.

What's to accept? The Ramseys have never been arrested or tried of a crime, so obviously you are the one who does not accept the facts.

And why would anyone try and nail custard to a wall?
It makes about as much sense as being RDI.:biggrin:

Your intruder hasn't been arrested either so, using YOUR logic, he must be innocent.

[shill]

There are experts out there who disagree with Lacey's "interpretation" of the importance of the DNA in this case.

Dr. Michael Baden:
He said the DNA samples could have come from the clothing manufacturing process and could have been spread from one item to another. The DNA could have also come from medical or morgue personnel who were never tested.

Seems as though Baden doesn't agree with Lacey's interpretation of the significance of the DNA and how it got on the longjohns. And for good reason too.Obviously Dr. Baden is not familiar with the DNA findings in this case.
It is the very things Dr. Baden questioned that were ruled out and led to the exoneration of the Ramseys and the conclusion that the DNA is from the killer. That's why they went public with it.


Fiber evidence is not only incriminating but it gives us suspects who we know 100% were in the house when she was killed.There is NO FIBER EVIDENCE from John's shirt on JB's crotch area.
Proof of this fiber evidence existing was requested and none was ever supplied, ever. It does not exist in reality.



Your intruder hasn't been arrested either so, using YOUR logic, he must be innocent.Don't try and blame me for how stupid that assumption you made is.

[shill]

Writing a long ransom note plus a practice note and even taking the time to put the pen back in its rightful spot is hardly the actions of someone who is trying to buy time. LOLOLOLYou're right, if he hadn't put that pen away he could have been half way across the country!

You take 5 minutes to write a note and you tie the police up for hours, even days if the body isn't found.

Now writing a kidnapping note to try and explain why the daughter you killed is tied up and strangled in your basement is worth LOL about.





Are you expecting me to believe that your intruder had his own pilot also?No I'm not. I'm expecting you to believe he had a plane ticket out of Boulder for later that day.

[Eagle1]

"Operation Cross Country" has rescued a lot of children from 500 adult prostitutes and 73 pimps, according to an online news bulletin.

Wasn't there some similar news, from Boulder, early in this case in 1997? Wasn't it was Nancy Krebs talked about? I'm not sure that my memory about that is correct. It was worldwide?

[cookiewench]

Who could interpret John's call for a flight out of town right after finding his daughter's dead body as an innocent, normal grieving gesture?


Family members never leave the recently deceased, and especially don't leave behind a recently deceased child.

The natural protective mechanisms would still be there, to look out for that child.

Family members gather together at the place where the deceased is, always. They want to be near to the deceased, always.

When the death is a murder, this is even more so, because they want to be in constant contact with police and to be updated minute-by-minute about the investigation.

John wanted to get away from what he knew was his wife's guilt, and protecting himself and his wife was way more important that staying near to his child's body.

[cookiewench]

I think this is a rational argument. I mean why would Patsy sit down and write a novel when she was supposed to have been so flustered that she didn't even think to change her clothes. IMO the officers said Patsy looked freshly made up so I think it is more likely that she did get up and do her makeup like she would on any other morning. I don't think it was strange at all for her to wear the same jackety again. It was a christmas outfit and she was trying to keep in the spirit of Christmas. I know many people who have done the same thing including myself.

You know women who get up at 5:45 after not having a full 8-hour sleep who do the full makeup thing and even put on their jacket BEFORE they go into the kitchen and even make the coffee (let alone have a cup of it)?

Wow. I'm a woman and I've never known any woman who could do that.

As for it being a "Christmas outfite", Patsy had an extensive wardrobe and certainly would have had numerous Christmas outfits, unlike us mere mortals who might get one special outfit for Christmas.

Not to even mention that they were flying out to meet the children, not to go to a party. The festivities would have been later.

Also not to mention that a woman (especially a clothes horse like Patsy) would never wear the same type of outfit for a day get-together as would be worn for an evening party.

Patsy was still dessed from the night before, because by the time she got finished with all of the staging and note-writing, there was no need to get undressed and pretend she had been in bed. John was about to get up, and she knew that she would now be pretending to just find the "ransom note".

And she was just vain enough to not want all the police that she knew would be swarming the place to see her in a nightgown, with no makeup and ungroomed hair.

[rashomon]

You know women who get up at 5:45 after not having a full 8-hour sleep who do the full makeup thing and even put on their jacket BEFORE they go into the kitchen and even make the coffee (let alone have a cup of it)?

Wow. I'm a woman and I've never known any woman who could do that.
Ditto from me. Patsy's story defies common sense in many respects.
Who would put on her party clothes from the night before for a flight the next morning? Especially Patsy of all people, who had a dressing area in her home which was probably the size of other people's living rooms.
Patsy was still dessed from the night before, because by the time she got finished with all of the staging and note-writing, there was no need to get undressed and pretend she had been in bed. John was about to get up, and she knew that she would now be pretending to just find the "ransom note".

And she was just vain enough to not want all the police that she knew would be swarming the place to see her in a nightgown, with no makeup and ungroomed hair.
My thoughts exactly.

[Limaes]

You're right, if he hadn't put that pen away he could have been half way across the country!

You take 5 minutes to write a note and you tie the police up for hours, even days if the body isn't found.

So it only took 5 minutes to write the War & Peace of rn's?...alrighty then :rolleyes:

Now writing a kidnapping note to try and explain why the daughter you killed is tied up and strangled in your basement is worth LOL about.

Well they have to introduce some kind of evidence that someone from outside their dysfunctional family did this. They wanted to give LE someone other than themselves to look at.

[shill]

So it only took 5 minutes to write the War & Peace of rn's?...alrighty then :rolleyes:
"We have your daughter and want $115,000.00. We will call you tomorrow with instructions".


Wow, that took all of ten seconds to write.

The ransom note left is a short note, granted it is longer then the ten second ransom note that one might expect to be left, but it is no novel.
5-10 minutes to write, hours of time to escape from the confines of Boulder was the payoff.

Well they have to introduce some kind of evidence that someone from outside their dysfunctional family did this. They wanted to give LE someone other than themselves to look at.If they are not guilty, they need not do anything.
I've asked this many times, how does a ransom note written on their paper and pen, alleged by some to be Patsy's handwriting, make it look like they didn't do it if they did?
As RDI claim that Patsy wrote the ransom note, this would mean the Ramseys took the great risk of creating more physical evidence to connect them to the murder in the hopes to create an illusion that was already established with the crime scene, that an intruder did it.
There was no need to take the added risk of being connected to physical evidence with a ransom note. That would just be foolish for the Ramseys to do and only clever for a intruder to do.

A tied and molested body in the basement points to an intruder, the ransom note points away from the motive of a sexual preditor that the crime scene evidence reveals.


And since they are not a dysfunctional family, your reasoning that a "dysfunctional family did this", shows how inaccurate your assessment of the evidence is.

[cookiewench]

"The ransom note left is a short note, granted it is longer then the ten second ransom note that one might expect to be left, but it is no novel.
5-10 minutes to write, hours of time to escape from the confines of Boulder was the payoff."



It's not a short note as ransom notes go. In fact, it's the longest ransom note in history, and it sure didn't take 5-10 minutes to compose and write.

Not to even mention that the "kidnapper" didn't bother to bring his own paper and pen. That ransom note was part of Patsy's "staging".

.................................................. .................................................. ..

"Now writing a kidnapping note to try and explain why the daughter you killed is tied up and strangled in your basement is worth LOL about."


Interesting that you think that idea is something to LOL about, but the experienced profilers and invesigators didn't think it was something to LOL about.

It's especially not something to LOL about, because it worked: just enough people were thrown off by the note to buy the Ramseys time to head out of town, and to let them waffle for months and months when it came to actually sitting down and being interviewed.

In fact, it was the ONLY "explanation" available to Patsy for why her dead daughter was in the basement, and she took it.

Do you think she LOL'd when it worked - at least well enough to keep her out of prison?

But those involved in the investigation know better.........

[old_soul]

Hey all ~

Haven't been 'involved' in this case for a long time, but............

The person who wrote the ransom note is obviously not an intelligent person. I believe it was written to buy time, throw them off a home search, as it states that they HAD JB......

As to motive of said person , Good God, people are crazy, and it could be the most stupidist thing we ever heard.

But one thing, has stayed with me, and I could never get away from it....I will never believe that either Patsy or John Ramsey brought that little girl down to that room, broke that paintbrush in half, fashioned that garotte, and stood over her after tying her up and turned it while she was gasping and dying. Never. There is no proof JB ever even got a slap, ok. JB was an extension of who Patsy was 'a beauty queen, belle of the ball, a socialite who had everything ~ successful husband, 2 beautiful children'.

common sense dictates...they had no reason or motive to kill her.

MHO

[cookiewench]

[FONT="Century Gothic"]JB was an extension of who Patsy was

And that's exaxctly the kind of situation that can end with the parent lashing out in anger when their little "doll" doesn't follow the exact roll she's been taught to play.

Jonbenet WAS an extension of Patsy, and Patsy projected all her failed "Miss America" dreams onto her - whether Jonbenet wanted those dreams or not.

Patsy pushed and pushed and pushed to make everything be (or at least appear to be) "perfect", including her daughter. And so, in a moment of exhaustion and frustration, she pushed her or threw her, with deadly consequences.

She might have been forgiven if she'd been honest instead of trying to save face by staging a crime scene and then throwing all of her friends under the bus in an attempt to get the focus off of her, and to paint herself as victim rather than perpetrator.

[old_soul]

Lashing out in anger means you slap, yell or whack your kids butt. Lashing out in anger does not happen when your child is sleeping. Or, even IF your child pees the bed, lashing out does not mean you knock them out, drag them down to the dark corner of the basement, sexually molest them and continue to torture then garotte them.

Pushed her how? Threw her how? Forensics does not support that.

No.... You take away something that makes them understand the consequence
of their wrong actions.

You don't take way their Life.

One day, someday, the truth will come out ~~~somehow. A lot of people, by then, will only be able to shrug, and say "Well, I thought she/they really did it." A they won't give a crap about how they ruined this family's life by the public opinion forum......kinda reminds me of the 'burning of those evil witches' in Salem, Mass or the stoning during the Roman empire. Sad indeed.

[sharlock]

Lashing out in anger means you slap, yell or whack your kids butt. Lashing out in anger does not happen when your child is sleeping. Or, even IF your child pees the bed, lashing out does not mean you knock them out, drag them down to the dark corner of the basement, sexually molest them and continue to torture then garotte them.

Pushed her how? Threw her how? Forensics does not support that.

No.... You take away something that makes them understand the consequence
of their wrong actions.

You don't take way their Life.

One day, someday, the truth will come out ~~~somehow. A lot of people, by then, will only be able to shrug, and say "Well, I thought she/they really did it." A they won't give a crap about how they ruined this family's life by the public opinion forum......kinda reminds me of the 'burning of those evil witches' in Salem, Mass or the stoning during the Roman empire. Sad indeed.
ITA agree old_soul and like you I don't post much on this thread anymore since I saw the RDI's reaction to the DNA evidence. If it had vindicated their position and shown that Patsy had pulled down JB's pants and got dna on the inside of her panties in the drop of blood that was a result of JB's torture, they would have been the first to say well this is it, proof at last and you know what. I would have shut up, congratulated them on not being fooled and gone away wondering how I could have been so sure Patsy didn't do this. But now all I hear from the RDI camp is the same old arguments about how Patsy didn't act the way they felt a greiving Mum should have and they right the dna evidence off as inconsequential??? The man who left the DNA there had to have been involved in the abuse to have his dna in that blood droplet and also had to have pulled JB's pants down that night or else his dna would not have been where it was. she didn't wear those pants to the party and I assume they were clean pj's so how else could the dna have got there? To me it is a no-brainer but people have invested so many years refining and improving their arguments and reinforcing their belief systems I have come to understand that nothing short of the killer confessing to them personally would shake their current belief systems. I used to enjoy debating this when we had no definitive proof but now that that has come I realise we are no longer debating because a debate means you seriously consider the other sides points of view (which I had been doing) and also you are defending your viewpoint with an open mind which means in the face of better contradictory evidence you adjust your thinking to suit. From seeing the reaction to the touch dna I now realise that this does not and I think maybe cannot happen for some who are so entrenched in their beliefs, not one RDI said that it even MAYBE could have been the killers dna and to not even consider the possibility to me is a flaw, so why bother trying to debate? JMHO

[sharlock]

"Operation Cross Country" has rescued a lot of children from 500 adult prostitutes and 73 pimps, according to an online news bulletin.

Wasn't there some similar news, from Boulder, early in this case in 1997? Wasn't it was Nancy Krebs talked about? I'm not sure that my memory about that is correct. It was worldwide?
Yeah, here is a link to the article and a snippet realting to your question.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSSYD2212120080305

Australian police crack global pedophile ring


Wed Mar 5, 2008 8:50am EST

The United States was chosen as the base for operations as the majority of the sex offender network members were U.S. residents, said police.
"It was a significant enterprise with global reach. They had strict written security and some very sophisticated encryption," the FBI's Executive Assistant Director Stephen Tidwell told Australian television on Wednesday.
"We have terabytes of information that we are going to have to work on now to identify further victims."

[shill]

And that's exaxctly the kind of situation that can end with the parent lashing out in anger when their little "doll" doesn't follow the exact roll she's been taught to play.

Jonbenet WAS an extension of Patsy, and Patsy projected all her failed "Miss America" dreams onto her - whether Jonbenet wanted those dreams or not.

Patsy pushed and pushed and pushed to make everything be (or at least appear to be) "perfect", including her daughter. And so, in a moment of exhaustion and frustration, she pushed her or threw her, with deadly consequences.

She might have been forgiven if she'd been honest instead of trying to save face by staging a crime scene and then throwing all of her friends under the bus in an attempt to get the focus off of her, and to paint herself as victim rather than perpetrator.You know you sound like you're trying to pitch a ridiculous day time soap opera story that even as fiction is hard to swallow.

But the irony is that everything you are claiming happened because their little "doll" didn't meet expectations is PURE FICTION.

When are you RDI going to get it that investigations are based on facts and evidence and not fictional dramatizations?

[shill]

It's not a short note as ransom notes go. In fact, it's the longest ransom note in history, and it sure didn't take 5-10 minutes to compose and write.
Obviously you must be mentally handicapped if it takes you more then 5-10 minutes to write a short note of the length that the JB ransom note is.



That ransom note was part of Patsy's "staging".

If this was a crime committed by Patsy, then the staging of the body to look like the work of a sadistic pedophile was all she needed to do to sell it was an intruder.

Writing a ransom note negates the staging of a sex crime scenario and would be ridiculous for her to do, and it is ridicoulous for Patsy to create more evidence to connect her to a crime, that you are claiming she is trying to distance herself from.



Interesting that you think that idea is something to LOL about, but the experienced profilers and invesigators didn't think it was something to LOL about. Steve Thomas was as green as they come, his first homicide case ever. So I don't know who these experienced profilers and investigators are that you are refering to that believe Patsy did it.
Apparently these experts couldn't be found to testify at the Grand Jury.


It's especially not something to LOL about, because it worked: just enough people were thrown off by the note to buy the Ramseys time to head out of town, and to let them waffle for months and months when it came to actually sitting down and being interviewed.That wasn't because of the note. If anything the note made them look more suspicious.
It was the dead body found in their basement bound, gagged, tortured, raped, and with her head caved in that threw off the people who by default go with the parents first as suspects.


In fact, it was the ONLY "explanation" available to Patsy for why her dead daughter was in the basement, and she took it.How about a sadistic pedophile killed her, (no note) end of story?

Or how about she ditch the body outside the house instead of wasting all that time you claim she took to stage a crime scene.

Or how about they drop her down the spiral stairs, (no note) end of story?

Or how about they just call 911 after the "alleged accident" (no note) and suck it up?

It's not like they had to put the body in the basement, they had time and options before they called the police, options the intruder did not have.

Nothing explains a dead body in your house except the person who left it, suicide, or an accident.

Ironically, if you believe an intruder left the dead body in the house or the Ramseys, the ransom note does nothing to explain why an intruder would leave the body.


Do you think she LOL'd when it worked - at least well enough to keep her out of prison?Of course I don't think that because I don't think Patsy killed her daughter. I'd think by now you would have figured out I'm IDI, but then again you do seem to have trouble figuring many things out.
The note didn't keep Patsy out of prison, not killing her daughter is what kept her out of prison.

But those involved in the investigation know better.........Are you living in a cave? News flash, Ramseys never arrested, Ramseys never tried, Ramseys exonerated with DNA evidence.
So who involved in the investigation knows better?

[shill]

... not one RDI said that it even MAYBE could have been the killers dna and to not even consider the possibility to me is a flaw, so why bother trying to debate? JMHO
Sad but true.

[Jayelles]

ITA agree old_soul and like you I don't post much on this thread anymore since I saw the RDI's reaction to the DNA evidence. If it had vindicated their position and shown that Patsy had pulled down JB's pants and got dna on the inside of her panties in the drop of blood that was a result of JB's torture, they would have been the first to say well this is it, proof at last and you know what. I would have shut up, congratulated them on not being fooled and gone away wondering how I could have been so sure Patsy didn't do this. But now all I hear from the RDI camp is the same old arguments about how Patsy didn't act the way they felt a greiving Mum should have and they right the dna evidence off as inconsequential??? The man who left the DNA there had to have been involved in the abuse to have his dna in that blood droplet and also had to have pulled JB's pants down that night or else his dna would not have been where it was. she didn't wear those pants to the party and I assume they were clean pj's so how else could the dna have got there? To me it is a no-brainer but people have invested so many years refining and improving their arguments and reinforcing their belief systems I have come to understand that nothing short of the killer confessing to them personally would shake their current belief systems. I used to enjoy debating this when we had no definitive proof but now that that has come I realise we are no longer debating because a debate means you seriously consider the other sides points of view (which I had been doing) and also you are defending your viewpoint with an open mind which means in the face of better contradictory evidence you adjust your thinking to suit. From seeing the reaction to the touch dna I now realise that this does not and I think maybe cannot happen for some who are so entrenched in their beliefs, not one RDI said that it even MAYBE could have been the killers dna and to not even consider the possibility to me is a flaw, so why bother trying to debate? JMHO

Well I guess this means you guys don't *really* believe that I am an RDI because I HAVE posted that I think the touch DNA is compelling evidence and that they should consider the use of familial DNA to try and step up the search for the owner of this DNA.

Curiously, I only got lambasted for that!

:biggrin:

[old_soul]

Well, we can debate till the cows come home. What has been determined is that this deliberate killing was brutal, viscious, and done by a Pedophile with a perchant for SEXUAL SADISM. THIS is where the key to this case lies.........Not a parent who was pissed off for whatever assinine reason, who would be counting on LE to think 'They didn't do it because she was found downstairs, and not kidnapped'. ('oh, we'll fool them by leaving her here, since we really don't have the time to slip her out anyway. They would never believe we'd leave her in the basement...')

Have any studies of J & A's background, or psychological profile, show they are like this? Again, common sense would tell us any other suspect with a background in this behavior would be better suited to that profile.... A person that was in their house alone for many hours while they were out, going through everything in that house.

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, we can debate till the cows come home. What has been determined is that this deliberate killing was brutal, viscious, and done by a Pedophile with a perchant for SEXUAL SADISM. THIS is where the key to this case lies.........Not a parent who was pissed off for whatever assinine reason, who would be counting on LE to think 'They didn't do it because she was found downstairs, and not kidnapped'. ('oh, we'll fool them by leaving her here, since we really don't have the time to slip her out anyway. They would never believe we'd leave her in the basement...')

Have any studies of J & A's background, or psychological profile, show they are like this? Again, common sense would tell us any other suspect with a background in this behavior would be better suited to that profile.... A person that was in their house alone for many hours while they were out, going through everything in that house.

Where, when and by whom has that been determined? It's all just someones guess. That's all. There is no actual PROOF that makes this a FACT.
I don't believe that the Ramseys ever thought that they would become suspects. Who would or could ever believe that they did those horrible things to their own child? Exactly. And right there is a great explanation as to why they were done.
If you're trying to convince the police that an intruder was there, you would certainly want to do things to make it look like there was a sadistic child molesting intruder. A simple bash in the head wouldn't have sufficed as many parents harm their children in that manner. A blow to the head is just not convincing that someone else had killed her. Add a note with terrorist intones, create a garrote to support that terrorist theme, make it appear that kidnapping was the motive and then throw in a quick "sexual assault" for good measure to further detract from the parents as the killers because no parent could do that.
You'd want to do everything you can to make it look like something you wouldn't or couldn't have done because you are trying to keep yourself out of prison.
Create the story that the kid was asleep when you got home and that's all you know. Great tactic for eliminating too many questions.
Did it happen that way? Well, we don't know that anymore than we "know' that "this was a deliberate killing that was brutal, viscious, and done by a Pedophile with a perchant for SEXUAL SADISM." IMO

[old_soul]

Where, when and by whom has that been determined? It's all just someones guess. That's all. There is no actual PROOF that makes this a FACT.
I don't believe that the Ramseys ever thought that they would become suspects. Who would or could ever believe that they did those horrible things to their own child? Exactly. And right there is a great explanation as to why they were done
If you're trying to convince the police that an intruder was there, you would certainly want to do things to make it look like there was a sadistic child molesting intruder. A simple bash in the head wouldn't have sufficed as many parents harm their children in that manner. A blow to the head is just not convincing that someone else had killed her. Add a note with terrorist intones, create a garrote to support that terrorist theme, make it appear that kidnapping was the motive and then throw in a quick "sexual assault" for good measure to further detract from the parents as the killers because no parent could do that.
You'd want to do everything you can to make it look like something you wouldn't or couldn't have done because you are trying to keep yourself out of prison.
Create the story that the kid was asleep when you got home and that's all you know. Great tactic for eliminating too many questions.
Did it happen that way? Well, we don't know that anymore than we "know' that "this was a deliberate killing that was brutal, viscious, and done by a Pedophile with a perchant for SEXUAL SADISM." IMO

What is the motive? You are giving me an outageous scenario out of a paperback novel! Listen, if they were like any other psycho couple out to kill their child, there was no need to go through all this crap, ok.............Drown the damn kid in the bathtub, wrap her in a friggen rug, and slide her out the basement window. There would be no proof of the drowning, and you could have laid on the drama when your child wasn't there in the AM. Much easier. Or, if you were to say they hired someone to come in and finish the kid off for them, even THAT'S more believable. They weren't stupid people ~ there was definately a better and easier way to do it, kinda like the Elizabeth Smart case. Oh... but wait, her parents didn't do it, did they?

Fact of the matter remains,the touch DNA scraped from the waistband, when analyzed, matched the exact DNA/genetic material found in two other areas on her. It is male, and not either of the Ramsey's. It shows her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated. And the strangulation marks show two areas on her neck. Investigators believe she was 'strangled' twice. The killer strangled her slowly, and the form and fashion of the garotte was obviously done by someone with prior experience. A profile analysis provides clues to the personality of the offender..he eroticized the use of the garotte, as he then sexually molested her.

The Modus Oerandi of this crime, and the signature (ritualized) fullfill a fantasy, an emotional aspect to the killer....... You say these people went through all this to kill JonBenet and hide it?

So, again, what was their motive?

[shill]

Well I guess this means you guys don't *really* believe that I am an RDI because I HAVE posted that I think the touch DNA is compelling evidence and that they should consider the use of familial DNA to try and step up the search for the owner of this DNA.

Curiously, I only got lambasted for that!

:biggrin:Only totally mindless idiots don't see through your facade Jayelles. Your an RDI true and blue.
And your ridiculous underwear examples attest to that.
You don't even have matching receipts let alone underwear manufacturers in your distorted attempt to show a relevance in the size of underwear JonBenet was found in.

[shill]

I don't believe that the Ramseys ever thought that they would become suspects.
Really?
You RDI make the claim that they killed their daughter and left her in their own basement and now you are saying they thought they would be totally left off the suspect list.

The Ramseys would have ditched the body if they had killed their own daughter. They had all the time in the world and the motive if they were to eliminate themselves from the suspect list.


A dead daughter in the basement is not the doings of murderous parents who want to it to look like they didn't kill their daughter.

[One2Snoop]

Only totally mindless idiots don't see through your facade Jayelles. Your an RDI true and blue.
And your ridiculous underwear examples attest to that.
You don't even have matching receipts let alone underwear manufacturers in your distorted attempt to show a relevance in the size of underwear JonBenet was found in.

:no: Seriously, why must you be so rude all the time? :mad:

Jayelles is entitled to her opinion/thoughts/investigations just as everyone else is. Who the hell are you to tell her differently?
I've followed this case from the day of its inception but I refuse to get into the daily tit for tat that goes on.
What I'd really like to know Shill, WTF your problem is with differing opinions? Honestly I know you can't respond to anyone here without attacking them in your posts, so don't answer.
I'm certain you're one of the reasons the JBR forum was shut down here.
I know where you stand Shill, but I don't agree with the way you treat people, period.

FYI- I'm still on the fence, and think you're an ass Shill, even to this day. Not you, or anyone here or elsewhere has swayed me one way or another.

JMO.

[Eagle1]

Maybe we can "turn over a new leaf" when we turn the page.

And I should put a smiley here but can't decide which one. Okay, here ya go. :patriot:

[Limaes]

Lashing out in anger means you slap, yell or whack your kids butt. Lashing out in anger does not happen when your child is sleeping. Or, even IF your child pees the bed, lashing out does not mean you knock them out, drag them down to the dark corner of the basement, sexually molest them and continue to torture then garotte them.

Pushed her how? Threw her how? Forensics does not support that.

No.... You take away something that makes them understand the consequence
of their wrong actions.

You don't take way their Life.

One day, someday, the truth will come out ~~~somehow. A lot of people, by then, will only be able to shrug, and say "Well, I thought she/they really did it." A they won't give a crap about how they ruined this family's life by the public opinion forum......kinda reminds me of the 'burning of those evil witches' in Salem, Mass or the stoning during the Roman empire. Sad indeed.

Honestly, I have never read any RDI claim that JB was killed on purpose. In fact most opinions I have read believe that PR was not in full control of herself that night and was reckless with JB or that they feel that P caught J interferring with her and hit JB instead of J.

"Pushed her how? Threw her how? Forensics does not support that."

The injuries on JB's back, however minor, do support that.

And maybe someday, we will find out that it was in fact her parents and a lot of people will have to come to the realisation that domestic violence isn't just a problem in the poorer sector of society. It affects the wealthy as well.

[Limaes]

ITA agree old_soul and like you I don't post much on this thread anymore since I saw the RDI's reaction to the DNA evidence. If it had vindicated their position and shown that Patsy had pulled down JB's pants and got dna on the inside of her panties in the drop of blood that was a result of JB's torture, they would have been the first to say well this is it, proof at last and you know what. I would have shut up, congratulated them on not being fooled and gone away wondering how I could have been so sure Patsy didn't do this. But now all I hear from the RDI camp is the same old arguments about how Patsy didn't act the way they felt a greiving Mum should have and they right the dna evidence off as inconsequential??? The man who left the DNA there had to have been involved in the abuse to have his dna in that blood droplet and also had to have pulled JB's pants down that night or else his dna would not have been where it was. she didn't wear those pants to the party and I assume they were clean pj's so how else could the dna have got there? To me it is a no-brainer but people have invested so many years refining and improving their arguments and reinforcing their belief systems I have come to understand that nothing short of the killer confessing to them personally would shake their current belief systems. I used to enjoy debating this when we had no definitive proof but now that that has come I realise we are no longer debating because a debate means you seriously consider the other sides points of view (which I had been doing) and also you are defending your viewpoint with an open mind which means in the face of better contradictory evidence you adjust your thinking to suit. From seeing the reaction to the touch dna I now realise that this does not and I think maybe cannot happen for some who are so entrenched in their beliefs, not one RDI said that it even MAYBE could have been the killers dna and to not even consider the possibility to me is a flaw, so why bother trying to debate? JMHO

I won't debate the DNA with you because you have already made up your mind that it is "definitive proof" but in doing so, you have dismissed a lot of evidence directly relating to both the murder weapon and the crime scene.

[Limaes]

What has been determined is that this deliberate killing was brutal, viscious, and done by a Pedophile with a perchant for SEXUAL SADISM.

That is just your opinion (which you're entitled to)...it is not fact. It is very possible that the skull injury could have resulted from a reckless act rather than a murderous one.

JB's neck had no internal damage whatsoever which doesn't fit with your "brutal" and "viscious" description.

The FBI didn't believe that the vaginal penetration was for sexual gratification. What evidence suggests to you that it was?

Must be a sentimental sexual sadist to wrap her up afterwards like he did.

[old_soul]

The marks on JB's back have been widely interpretated. Dr. Doberson, the stun gun expert and neighboring coroner feels a stun gun was involved with certain marks found. Then Dr. Spitz, forensic pathologist feels the marks on her back were from a rock or pebble..even a snap from clothing she was laying on has been mentioned. Between them, there's like 75 years of experience....Now, who are we to believe? Neither mention being pushed or thrown from the marks found.

Whether she was killed on purpose is not the issue in this conversation. What was done to cover up (supposedly) is........which Will bring us back around to how it all happened. If we are to believe Patsy was the one, Patsy was mad, so she pushed her..then what? The crushing blow came After the first 'strangulation', after the 'second strangulation'. In between, how did we get her downstairs? When was the garotte fashioned? Why the decision to play this torture game, this molestation game, when we could have made it short and gotten rid of her body. Especially at that time of night (or morning)?!

And it doesn't dawn on anyone that many children are killed in this torturous fashion by sick homocidal pedophiles, as opposed to parents who are stressed out and had a bad day?
It also makes perfect sense , for one who is in a fantasy world to wrap up the victim afterwards...developmental failure in adolescence leads to fantasies and daydreams of molestation, inflicting pain, and arousal. It's a warped psychological, emotional thing.

Nope, I'm not buying that bridge.

BTW ~ I love your signature at the bottom of your posts!

[old_soul]

PS ~ you don't think a child clawing at the garotte that is strangling the life out of her is brutal or viscious? Her own DNA was found under her nails, and the marks are there. Look at the autopsy photos ...plain as day.

[Jayelles]

:no: Seriously, why must you be so rude all the time? :mad:

Jayelles is entitled to her opinion/thoughts/investigations just as everyone else is. Who the hell are you to tell her differently?
I've followed this case from the day of its inception but I refuse to get into the daily tit for tat that goes on.
What I'd really like to know Shill, WTF your problem is with differing opinions? Honestly I know you can't respond to anyone here without attacking them in your posts, so don't answer.
I'm certain you're one of the reasons the JBR forum was shut down here.
I know where you stand Shill, but I don't agree with the way you treat people, period.

FYI- I'm still on the fence, and think you're an ass Shill, even to this day. Not you, or anyone here or elsewhere has swayed me one way or another.

JMO.


I have Shill on "Ignore" for the very reasons you have observed. However, I do see his posts when someone else quotes him and I'd like to address a bizarre remark which he made for the record:-


Shill said:You don't even have matching receipts let alone underwear manufacturers in your distorted attempt to show a relevance in the size of underwear JonBenet was found in.

Eh? I don't have matching receipts or underwear manufacturers? Not sure whether Shill is suggesting that I faked the experiment or not ... but I suspect he MAY be referring to a post which Miss Marple made where he remarked about the TAG on the pack of 12-14 underwear and how I'd posted two different images of this tag. However, the two images were of the two sides of the same tag - front and reverse - OBVIOUSLY I could not photograph at the same time. When I pointed this out, Marple was man enough to apologise for his misunderstanding.

I have to say that I've had a variety of attacks on the Bloomies experiment over the years ranging from "She must have an unusualy skinny daughter" (nope, she is not unusually skinny - just average build) to "Maybe she used a different style of Bloomies to the ones JonBenet had" (nope, there is only one style).

However I've never been accused of faking the Bloomies/receipts before!

I suggest that if anyone thinks I did that then it should be easy to prove it by obtaining their own Bloomies from Bloomingdales and replicating my project (I have provided a detailed account of my methodology so this should be straightforward).

IMO, ALL information about a murdered child is relevant - especially when it is unusual or incongruous.

Bloomies are made for Bloomingdales by a company called St Eves. This has been a matter of record since long before I did my project. I now have the 8-10 Bloomies too but they are as yet unopened because I intend to photograph them too and want to photograph the seal unbroken as part of the storyboard.

PS - I don't have to distort anything to show the difference in the size of the Bloomies which would have fitted JonBenet compared to the massive ones she was wearing. The facts speak for themselves in that respect.

[Jayelles]

PS ~ you don't think a child clawing at the garotte that is strangling the life out of her is brutal or viscious? Her own DNA was found under her nails, and the marks are there. Look at the autopsy photos ...plain as day.

I am not convinced that she did claw at the garotte. We were told this years ago - that the little crescent moon shapes were made by her fingernails. However, if you look closely at the image then try to imaging how you would claw at a ligature on your neck, you will see that the angle and position of the crecent moons do not match the action.

i.e.

1) The crescent moons are below the cord. If she were clawing at a cord, her fingernails marks would be above it.

2) The crescent moons have a tilted angle which does not line up with the garotte.

OTOH, if you take the scenario where she was initialy strangled by someone twisting the neck of her top, then the crescent moons would be in the right position . The triangular abrasion is IMO consistent with the knuckles of someone twisting her neckband.

[old_soul]

I honestly can't remember if P or J was asked about this, but, MOO, the killer took the underwear she had been wearing and put on the Bloomies. Much like he wrapped her, he didn't want her to not have underwear on.

Thr petechial hemorrhaging/ marks above and below the ligature are not deep or dark, but in her weakened state, and with her own DNA under her own fingernails, she tried... also marks in the side, which have been said to possibly be bruises from the rope, or fingernail marks are 'opened 'marks', not like a bruise. The triangular bruise is definately from a knuckle , and seen on other victims of strangulation.

[Jayelles]

What is the motive? You are giving me an outageous scenario out of a paperback novel! Listen, if they were like any other psycho couple out to kill their child, there was no need to go through all this crap, ok.............Drown the damn kid in the bathtub, wrap her in a friggen rug, and slide her out the basement window. There would be no proof of the drowning, and you could have laid on the drama when your child wasn't there in the AM. Much easier. Or, if you were to say they hired someone to come in and finish the kid off for them, even THAT'S more believable. They weren't stupid people ~ there was definately a better and easier way to do it, kinda like the Elizabeth Smart case. Oh... but wait, her parents didn't do it, did they?

Fact of the matter remains,the touch DNA scraped from the waistband, when analyzed, matched the exact DNA/genetic material found in two other areas on her. It is male, and not either of the Ramsey's. It shows her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated. And the strangulation marks show two areas on her neck. Investigators believe she was 'strangled' twice. The killer strangled her slowly, and the form and fashion of the garotte was obviously done by someone with prior experience. A profile analysis provides clues to the personality of the offender..he eroticized the use of the garotte, as he then sexually molested her.

The Modus Oerandi of this crime, and the signature (ritualized) fullfill a fantasy, an emotional aspect to the killer....... You say these people went through all this to kill JonBenet and hide it?

So, again, what was their motive?


Limaes is correct when he says that RDIs don't think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet on purpose. I think I've only ever seen one RDI post that and perhaps incredibly, that was Shill when he posted on Websleuths (he theorised that John Ramsey had molested and murdered her as part of a satanic ritual). Every other RDI that I have seen believes that it was an accident followed by a cover up.

Apart from which, motive is not always present in crimes and does not have to be proved in order to convict. Means and opportunity do and the Ramseys had both - hence the fact that they were prime suspects.

[thewhitewitch1]

What is the motive? You are giving me an outageous scenario out of a paperback novel! Listen, if they were like any other psycho couple out to kill their child, there was no need to go through all this crap, ok.............Drown the damn kid in the bathtub, wrap her in a friggen rug, and slide her out the basement window. There would be no proof of the drowning, and you could have laid on the drama when your child wasn't there in the AM. Much easier. Or, if you were to say they hired someone to come in and finish the kid off for them, even THAT'S more believable. They weren't stupid people ~ there was definately a better and easier way to do it, kinda like the Elizabeth Smart case. Oh... but wait, her parents didn't do it, did they?

Fact of the matter remains,the touch DNA scraped from the waistband, when analyzed, matched the exact DNA/genetic material found in two other areas on her. It is male, and not either of the Ramsey's. It shows her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated. And the strangulation marks show two areas on her neck. Investigators believe she was 'strangled' twice. The killer strangled her slowly, and the form and fashion of the garotte was obviously done by someone with prior experience. A profile analysis provides clues to the personality of the offender..he eroticized the use of the garotte, as he then sexually molested her.

The Modus Oerandi of this crime, and the signature (ritualized) fullfill a fantasy, an emotional aspect to the killer....... You say these people went through all this to kill JonBenet and hide it?

So, again, what was their motive?

If I knew their motive, the murder would be solved. :punch:

Glad you know all about how everyones minds work. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about how to kill your kids and get away with it. Is there a handbook for that kind of thing? I guess the Ramseys didn't read it.

There is no real evidence of the things you claim (the erotic asphyxia)...NONE. She was jabbed with the paintbrush (or whatever) just before she died. She was jabbed one time. This does NOT indicate a sexual crime.

I know all about the DNA and I know pretty much everything about this murder. I've been discussing it on forums for years.
The fact is, the DNA does NOT exonerate the Ramseys. All it proves is that a third person may have been present. It certainly does not mean that the Ramseys have no knowledge or involvement in what took place that night.

Just so you know, all of the intruder theories read like bad paperback novels too and each one is as outrageous as you claim the Ramsey theories are.
Yes....a pedophile played sex games with JB for hours in her home while her family slept on and left a ransom note but also left his victim because he just knew that no one would thoroughly search the house and find her immediately. I guess he must have been a psychic psycho.
He brought his own tape and cord but I guess he couldn't find a stick at home so he had to hope that Patsy would have a paintbrush so he could make his garrote. :rolleyes:
John Ramsey could have easily have made that garrote. He knew about knots (even though he played dumb) and he'd have known about garrotes. He was stationed in the Philippians where garrotes were used as execution devices. If you want to believe that a 50+ yr. old man with his background knew nothing of such things as garrotes, that's your right. He certainly knew the slang for it when he called it a "twister."
How difficult do you think it is to wrap a cord around a stick?

I suppose you also think that the pineapple is "no big deal." Most IDIs think that. Can't think of many who believe an intruder fed it to her. No one has come up with a good explanation for how it got into JB just hours before her death or who got the bowl out for her. You all just go on believing that Patsys fingerprints got on it from taking it out of the dishwasher (because we all know how domestic she was) and that Burkes got on it because he and JB had a late night snack together but maybe you should think about why Burke has never revealed that little tidbit, if it is indeed what happened.
See, OldSoul, I may not know the motive but I have questions that I would like answered before I can believe the Ramseys are innocent. I'd like to know about that pineapple because what makes sense to me is that JB wasn't asleep as the Ramseys had claimed and that makes me wonder why they would lie and say that she was.
I'd like to know why they immediately called their friends over after receiving a note warning them not to tell anyone or their child will be beheaded.
That's just for starters...
But you just go on believing that if they did kill her, they would have followed the manual on how to kill your kid and stage a crime scene. We know that every parent who kills their kid always follows the same routine. :shrug:
As far as the motive; just because we don't know what it is, does not mean that they didn't have one. IMO

[shill]

I

Eh? I don't have matching receipts or underwear manufacturers? Not sure whether Shill is suggesting that I faked the experiment or not ...


Bloomies are made for Bloomingdales by a company called St Eves. Jayelles posted a photo of an underwear tag that shows "Large" but nothing about sizing as defined in numbers.

Is this tag from a large adults or children, only Jayelles knows?
And is the size large the same as 12-14,? Well that is what Jayelles claims.

And is the only underwear Bloomingdales carry for little girls made by St. Eves? Well that's what Jayelles claims.

And is St. Eves the only brand that Bloomingdale carried in 1996?
Well that is what Jayelles claims even though Jayelles bought her underwear seven years later, she claims that they are the same manufacturer and size without really knowing.

And it is a papermache maniquin she made and not her daughter wearing them, which is hardly an accurate representation.

If anything Jayelles recreation has taught us, it is that the underwear would not be falling down and would have hugged JonBenet tightly around the waist like her maniquin example.

[shill]

If I knew their motive, the murder would be solved. :punch:

If you knew their motive, then RDI might have a leg to stand on instead of some ridiculously lame accident cover up story that has zero credibility.

The fact is you don't know their motive because there is no motive.

[shill]

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about how to kill your kids and get away with it. Is there a handbook for that kind of thing? I guess the Ramseys didn't read it.


That's strange, seems like most RDI believe that Patsy did read a handbook on it and they claim that is where she got her ideas for staging it to look like a sadistic pedophile.

How else does someone create the crime scene that unfolded unless they are a sadistic criminal, or they have studied what a sadistic criminal would do to know how to replicate that?

Just how would Patsy know what to do?
How did she come up with the idea for a garrote or the vaginal penetration and such?

[shill]

There is no real evidence of the things you claim (the erotic asphyxia)...NONE. She was jabbed with the paintbrush (or whatever) just before she died. She was jabbed one time. This does NOT indicate a sexual crime.

How do you know she was jabbed "one time"? There is no evidence indicating that she was only penetrated one time.

JonBenet was asphyxiated, how do you know it was not erotic for the killer?

Why is this not a sexual crime? If someone tied you up and jabbed you with a stick, would you not report it as a sexual crime?

[sharlock]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1 http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=9138710#post9138710)

There is no real evidence of the things you claim (the erotic asphyxia)...NONE. She was jabbed with the paintbrush (or whatever) just before she died. She was jabbed one time. This does NOT indicate a sexual crime.
This is the one RDI statement that upsets up more than any other. It is though a child is not considered molested unless the y have a foreign object inserted into them a set amount of times? A sexual predator doesn't need to penetrate to have satisfaction, there is genital touching licking, having the child touch your genitals orally or otherwise etc. etc.

[Jayelles]

This is the one RDI statement that upsets up more than any other. It is though a child is not considered molested unless the y have a foreign object inserted into them a set amount of times? A sexual predator doesn't need to penetrate to have satisfaction, there is genital touching licking, having the child touch your genitals orally or otherwise etc. etc.

I agree with you that sexual assault takes many forms but the level of sexual interference in the Ramsey case was extremely minimal in comparison to other cases and in comparison to the other injuries inflicted upon her. This gives rise to the theory that it may have been "staging" conducted by someone who wanted to "sell" it as a sexually motivated crime but who actually found it distastful and difficult to do convincingly.

The level of violence inflicted in the sexual part of the crime is utterly incongruous with the level of violence and frenzy which would have been required to inflict her head wound and one hears of murders where the victim has sustained horrific internal injuries as a result of a violent sexual assault.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any degree of sexual assault on a child is "acceptable".

[thewhitewitch1]

That's strange, seems like most RDI believe that Patsy did read a handbook on it and they claim that is where she got her ideas for staging it to look like a sadistic pedophile.

How else does someone create the crime scene that unfolded unless they are a sadistic criminal, or they have studied what a sadistic criminal would do to know how to replicate that?

Just how would Patsy know what to do?
How did she come up with the idea for a garrote or the vaginal penetration and such?

You must have me confused with someone else. I never claimed that Patsy staged the crime scene. :punch:

[thewhitewitch1]

If you knew their motive, then RDI might have a leg to stand on instead of some ridiculously lame accident cover up story that has zero credibility.

The fact is you don't know their motive because there is no motive.

It is not unusual for a motive to be unknown until the crime is solved.

[thewhitewitch1]

This is the one RDI statement that upsets up more than any other. It is though a child is not considered molested unless the y have a foreign object inserted into them a set amount of times? A sexual predator doesn't need to penetrate to have satisfaction, there is genital touching licking, having the child touch your genitals orally or otherwise etc. etc.

And there is NO evidence that any of that ever happened. It is simply speculation on yours (and others) behalves.

[thewhitewitch1]

How do you know she was jabbed "one time"? There is no evidence indicating that she was only penetrated one time.

Read the autopsy report and read the experts analysis's.

JonBenet was asphyxiated, how do you know it was not erotic for the killer?

How do you know that it was?

Why is this not a sexual crime? If someone tied you up and jabbed you with a stick, would you not report it as a sexual crime?

I don't believe that her murder was sexually motived by an intruder. What I can believe is that she was "jabbed" in an attempt to cover up prior sexual abuse.
I also believe that if this "intruder" was a pedophile, he would have taken JB out of the house and kept her around for a while so he could take his time getting his jollies. In no way do I believe that anyone would stick around and do the things you have claimed he did and even if that were so, the RN just does not fit into your scenario.


IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

I agree with you that sexual assault takes many forms but the level of sexual interference in the Ramsey case was extremely minimal in comparison to other cases and in comparison to the other injuries inflicted upon her. This gives rise to the theory that it may have been "staging" conducted by someone who wanted to "sell" it as a sexually motivated crime but who actually found it distastful and difficult to do convincingly.

The level of violence inflicted in the sexual part of the crime is utterly incongruous with the level of violence and frenzy which would have been required to inflict her head wound and one hears of murders where the victim has sustained horrific internal injuries as a result of a violent sexual assault.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any degree of sexual assault on a child is "acceptable".

Well said, Jayelles. ITA

[Jayelles]

It has been suggested in a discussion elsewhere that the Bloomies which I used were LADIES size 12/14 and not child size 12/14.

I didn't post on that particular discussion but was contacted by someone who did to ask me about it. I replied that I didn't know whether Bloomies were made for adults or sold in the Ladies department of Bloomingdales because I didn't look for them there. I purchased my Bloomies in the childrens department which takes up a whole floor of Bloomingdales.

I posted a whole load of photos at the time showing the labels on the pack which said:-

L(12/14)

Plus the seals unbroken with the barcode and card labels still attached.

I suspect those who are suggesting that my photos must be "Ladies" size 12/14 are doing so because they simply cannot believe that JonBenet was wearing such massive underwear when she died. An IDI poster at the other forum said she would go to Bloomingdales and look to see if there were Ladies Bloomies, however that was almost 2 months ago and as far as I'm aware, she never reported back. Personally and although I didn't look in the Ladies department, I suspect that Bloomingdales do NOT sell Days of the week knickers in adult sizes. I don't even think they are particularly "cool" for 12-14 year olds but who knows? WHat I DO know is that mine are children's size12/14 and fortunately I can prove this.

The following image is a scan of the 12-14 Wednesday Bloomies showing the label which is inside the actual garment. It clearly stated that it is "Girls" above "St Eve" at the top of the label.

http://people.delphiforums.com/jayelles/Bloomies%20tag.jpg

[Jayelles]

This is a comparison of the 12/14 Bloomies and the 4/6 Bloomies. The biggest and most startling difference is in the size of the leg holes. The waist of the 12/14 Bloomies is 22 inches unstretched which wouldn't fall down past my daughter's 23 inch (at that time) hips. However they DID slip down to her hips and the crotch of the knickers reached her knees. The large size of the leg holes meant that they gaped horribly and IMO would have been exceedingly uncomfortable to wear.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1922&stc=1&d=1154447340

[Jayelles]

St Eve's company profile:-

Founded in 1976

Makers of NOVELTY underwear (I've said all along that this was a novelty/souvenir type item)

Customers include Bloomingdales, Macy's (I posted a few weeks ago that I'd seen days of the week knickers in Macy's).

http://www.portfolio.com/resources/company-profiles/Saint-Eve-Intl-582575

[thewhitewitch1]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmmmm...don't know if anyone has mentioned this to you, WW, but your condescending, insolent, sarcastic and downright disrespectful tone is Not endearing. Judging from what little I see of your personality, you couldn't give a rats a** either, but I'm sure you have sooooooo many friends, it doesn't matter, right?

Maybe you should re-read your first post to me and then try to figure out why my response back to you was "condescending, insolent, sarcastic and downright disrespectful". I only give respect when it is earned and you certainly haven't given me any reason to believe you should be respected thus far.

This is a Discussion forum, where others give their opinions and discuss the topic. It's not an Attack board, as you seem wont to do. Maybe you have been "discussing it" on too many forums for too many years.

Really? Is that why I felt "attacked" by you? How typically IDI of you.

You see, before I would perform my own experiments, I would speak to those who have experience in this field. I also have been interested in this case since that fateful night. Many times, I have had discussions with 3 close friends who Are CSI's in NYC. 2 are decorated for their expertise. They in turn, have spoken with Top profilers they have access to. While they are located in Manhattan, of course, there is nothing they can do because it is out their jurisdiction.

And that proves what? That they have opinions?

Most cases Are solved using common sense. Delving into every little nuance, as armchair detectives do, is as detrimental to a case as having tunnel vision. Boulder LE screwed up this case royally by not securing the crime scene, and from there, we can go on and on. Top profilers put themselves in the mind of the killer. Boulder LE had No experience with this, and later, it was too little, too late.

I've heard what John Douglas had to say but since he was hired by the Ramseys, I'm not inclined to believe him. He couldn't even get the facts straight in his book.
"Putting yourself in the mind of the killer" is NOT a science. How can anyone put themselves in ANYONE'S mind? No two people think alike. It's guessing, at best.

I am not saying I have answers to this case, but I am still open minded enough to say yes, Patsy could have taken the damn bowl out of the dishwasher. To say she was domestically challenged is questionable, even though I really couldn't see her making anyyone's bed. Everyone, including the divas of this world would take a bowl out of the dishwasher! The bowl could have been sitting on the counter all day, unused, for (Burke's) or someone's breakfast, due to lack of time that morning. Pineapples come in screw off plastic jars. My 6 year old did it. Who is to say JB did not get up on her own accord to get a goodie? My child, and many others have done it.

It was fresh pineapple. I don't believe fresh pineapple comes in "screw off plastic jars." Regardless, it would have been in the walk-in fridge, which according to JR, she couldn't open. (And yet he looked for her in the walk-in fridge. How contradictory)
Where was the container that the pineapple came from? It would appear that the pineapple was already in the bowl, so there goes that notion. JBs fingerprints were not on that bowl; which suggests that she did not get it out herself.
They had pancakes for breakfast. I don't eat pancakes out of a bowl. Do you? You are not applying logic here.
All you have to do is look at pictures of her house to know that Patsy was "domestically challenged" but that is really irrelevant when it comes to the scenario that you've proposed.

When my SIL woke up at 5:00 am to find my BIL paralyzed, (he also couldn't speak), she called us first. WE TOLD HER to call 911, and rushed over. So you see, That is a moot point.

You are comparing THIS to a ransom note that is threatening to behead your kid if you tell anyone about it? You're joking, right??

Tape are rope ARE brought to murder scenes all the time by the perps. They are called rape kits. The paint brush Could have been used as an opportunistic item, so don't roll your eyes at me.

Really? Can you buy one at WalMart? Seriously, the rope would have sufficed to strangle her. Why add the stick? Did the killer have a sudden artistic inspiration? Why were there "perfect lip prints" on the tape if it was applied while she was alive or conscious? Who puts tape over someone's mouth after they're dead or unconscious? Who gives their victim a chance to scream when they have brought tape specifically to silence them? Sorry but my eyes are rolling again...:rolleyes:

You and I could make a garotte ~ but it wouldn't look like the one that was attached to JB's neck.

And that means what? :shrug:

The murderer could have been aroused by just LOOKING at her prone body! There she was in the Flesh! ~ who says it needed to be a violent sexual thing. And, who told You it was put in Just Once??? We don't know that!!

The damage done to her vagina indicates that she was jabbed once. She was near death when it occurred. I thought you knew "everything" about this crime.

Lastly, the DNA is FOREIGN. PERIOD. Found intermingled with the blood, scraped off the waistband, whatever, it's not any of the Ramsey's. How is that so hard to understand?

It isn't so "hard to understand." It simply means that a third party may have been present. It does not mean that the Ramseys weren't involved. How could it? How could it prove that they weren't involved and/or have no knowledge of what took place? How can YOU not understand that? :confused:

So now I have poked considerable holes in all the questions that are bothering you so much....and this is my (and people who know better), take on aspects of this murder. NOTHING forensically shows anyone accidentally knocked that child against a wall, on the edge of the tub or anything remotely like that before she was brought to the basement.

:D

I don't see the holes that you poked. Are you hallucinating?
Did I ever SAY that she was knocked against a wall or the edge of the tub? Nope, don't recall that I did. Do I think it may have happened? Still think it's a possibility. NOTHING forensically shows that she wasn't. If someone is shoved with enough force, it could certainly happen. There is no FORENSIC evidence on any of the proposed weapons (flashlight, golf club) to prove that she was struck by either of these items. So the truth is, we just don't know how the head blow occurred. But to say that she couldn't have been shoved and hit her head against the bathtub is just absurd.
"Your people who know better" are entitled to their opinions. Other people in the same profession have also posted their opinions on these forums and do not agree with YOUR professional. Opinions prove nothing one way or the other. They're like assholes. Everybody has one. ;) IMO

[old_soul]

This will be a last post to you WW1, as you apparently have a problem playing well with others. I will not put you on ignore or anything silly like that...no, I'm rather amused as I watch less and less people posting to you, as you type away post after post, almost to yourself, correcting their opinions and comments!......It must be so frustrating, knowing you're the only one with all the 'right' answers and everyone else just not knowing what's going on. :cool:

I was going to quote some of the comments you have made, but you know, I really couldn't give s**t what your opinion is...as you said "opinions prove nothing one way or another. They're like assholes. Everybody has one." ;)

My final word on respect...........
"I only give respect when it is earned and you certainly haven't given me any reason to believe you should be respected thus far".Who are you? Nobody. A bitter, frustrated person sitting on a computer trying to make yourself sound important. Actually, in the scheme of things, YOUR opinion means s**t. :punch: There you go. Get a Life.

[sharlock]

And there is NO evidence that any of that ever happened. It is simply speculation on yours (and others) behalves.

There were dark fibers on her skin, in the vaginal area, that caused police to believe her body had been wiped down with a cloth; this suggests that the killer was concerned he had left dna (or saliva) there. There is nothing that you are saying that is not speculation either WW1 and my speculation is grounded in actual circumstances.

[Jayelles]

I don't see the holes that you poked. Are you hallucinating?
Did I ever SAY that she was knocked against a wall or the edge of the tub? Nope, don't recall that I did. Do I think it may have happened? Still think it's a possibility. NOTHING forensically shows that she wasn't. If someone is shoved with enough force, it could certainly happen. There is no FORENSIC evidence on any of the proposed weapons (flashlight, golf club) to prove that she was struck by either of these items. So the truth is, we just don't know how the head blow occurred. But to say that she couldn't have been shoved and hit her head against the bathtub is just absurd.
"Your people who know better" are entitled to their opinions. Other people in the same profession have also posted their opinions on these forums and do not agree with YOUR professional. Opinions prove nothing one way or the other. They're like assholes. Everybody has one. ;) IMO

There are a lot of bizarre injuries. I've know someone who sustained a leg fracture just from walking on vacation and a friend of ours broke his nose whilst asleep. He got a leg cramp, leapt out of bed, lost his balance and broke his nose when he fell against the wardrobe! Only then did he waken up...

It is said that JonBenet's head fracture was caused by a large man bringing a blunt object down upon it at force but I am sure that there might be at least a dozen other scenarios which might explain the head injury and which haven't been considered. Only the killer knows for sure.

[Jayelles]

The marks on JB's back have been widely interpretated. Dr. Doberson, the stun gun expert and neighboring coroner feels a stun gun was involved with certain marks found. Then Dr. Spitz, forensic pathologist feels the marks on her back were from a rock or pebble..even a snap from clothing she was laying on has been mentioned. Between them, there's like 75 years of experience....Now, who are we to believe? Neither mention being pushed or thrown from the marks found.

Whether she was killed on purpose is not the issue in this conversation. What was done to cover up (supposedly) is........which Will bring us back around to how it all happened. If we are to believe Patsy was the one, Patsy was mad, so she pushed her..then what? The crushing blow came After the first 'strangulation', after the 'second strangulation'. In between, how did we get her downstairs? When was the garotte fashioned? Why the decision to play this torture game, this molestation game, when we could have made it short and gotten rid of her body. Especially at that time of night (or morning)?!

And it doesn't dawn on anyone that many children are killed in this torturous fashion by sick homocidal pedophiles, as opposed to parents who are stressed out and had a bad day?
It also makes perfect sense , for one who is in a fantasy world to wrap up the victim afterwards...developmental failure in adolescence leads to fantasies and daydreams of molestation, inflicting pain, and arousal. It's a warped psychological, emotional thing.

Nope, I'm not buying that bridge.

BTW ~ I love your signature at the bottom of your posts!

Just for the record, Dr Boberson is not the definitive expert on stun guns. He famously FAILED to recognise stungun marks on the body of Gerald Boggs. The person who has done the most research and writing on the subject of stunguns is Dr Robert Stratbucker. He has been studying stunguns since the 1980s and he was invited to be Taser Corp's resident expert because of his world renowned expertise on the weapons.

Dr Stratbucker says the marks on JonBenet were NOT caused by a stungun. I would dearly have loved to hear Dr Stratbucker explain his opinion properly. He was deposed by Lin Wood on the subject but Wood continually interrupted him and wanted to focus on his business interests.

jameson has recently posted excerpts from Lou Smit's deposition in the Wolf case. Now I will not read her edited highlights because experience has taught me that she is not above omitting portions which don't serve her purpose, however I DID note that Lin Wood used a very different interview technique with Lou Smit than with Steve Thomas and Robert Stratbucker. Most significantly, Smit was allowed to finish his answers and to elaborate and explain if he wished. Neither Thomas nor Stratbucker were afforded this most crucial option in delivering important information and explanations. The overall effect was that Lin Wood manipulated what became a matter of record and as an ex-researcher, I find that utterly appalling. It is for this very reason that both sides have counsel in a court. Darnay Hoffman was useless against Lin Wood. Without a judge to moderate his behaviour, Wood walked all over him.

But back to Doberson - he has certainly done more research and work on stunguns SINCE the Ramsey case (I believe he was taught a lot by Robert Stratbucker) but he was certainly a non-expert at the time of the murder.

[Eagle1]

There are a lot of bizarre injuries. I've know someone who sustained a leg fracture just from walking on vacation and a friend of ours broke his nose whilst asleep. He got a leg cramp, leapt out of bed, lost his balance and broke his nose when he fell against the wardrobe! Only then did he waken up...

It is said that JonBenet's head fracture was caused by a large man bringing a blunt object down upon it at force but I am sure that there might be at least a dozen other scenarios which might explain the head injury and which haven't been considered. Only the killer knows for sure.

Re first paragraph, I know you see the slapstick comedy humor in that story, and again I had to laugh.

Why do we laugh at these things? I read somewhere one time that it's because of the unusualness. Don't know if that's it. :biggrin:

[Jayelles]

I don't see the holes that you poked. Are you hallucinating?
Did I ever SAY that she was knocked against a wall or the edge of the tub? Nope, don't recall that I did. Do I think it may have happened? Still think it's a possibility. NOTHING forensically shows that she wasn't. If someone is shoved with enough force, it could certainly happen. There is no FORENSIC evidence on any of the proposed weapons (flashlight, golf club) to prove that she was struck by either of these items. So the truth is, we just don't know how the head blow occurred. But to say that she couldn't have been shoved and hit her head against the bathtub is just absurd.[/B]
[B]"Your people who know better" are entitled to their opinions. Other people in the same profession have also posted their opinions on these forums and do not agree with YOUR professional. Opinions prove nothing one way or the other. They're like assholes. Everybody has one. ;) IMO

It was CookieWench who posted something about Patsy pushing Jonbenet. I think Old Soul has simply gotten confused between posts.

[old_soul]

Jayelles, ITA about Doberson...that is a part of the murder that really begs to be answered, because a stun gun would explain a lot of inconsistencies (how she was able to be brought downstairs with no noise, etc) if the intruder theory is to be believed, of course.

In my posts to WW1, a few comments were an 'aside' to posts that others brought up. I guess I should have just quoted hers as not to confuse the issue. I just did want to post seperately for the few outside comments.

My apologies to fellow posters who are caught in the middle of my posts to WW1.....
Typical of a narcissist, being devoid of empathy is a trait which will never change ~ so discussion or debate is a moot point, and I felt I ultimately needed to say what I posted to WW1.

Again, merci a tous de me corriger.

[thewhitewitch1]

This will be a last post to you WW1, as you apparently have a problem playing well with others. I will not put you on ignore or anything silly like that...no, I'm rather amused as I watch less and less people posting to you, as you type away post after post, almost to yourself, correcting their opinions and comments!......It must be so frustrating, knowing you're the only one with all the 'right' answers and everyone else just not knowing what's going on. :cool:

I was going to quote some of the comments you have made, but you know, I really couldn't give s**t what your opinion is...as you said "opinions prove nothing one way or another. They're like assholes. Everybody has one." ;)

My final word on respect...........
"I only give respect when it is earned and you certainly haven't given me any reason to believe you should be respected thus far".Who are you? Nobody. A bitter, frustrated person sitting on a computer trying to make yourself sound important. Actually, in the scheme of things, YOUR opinion means s**t. :punch: There you go. Get a Life.

Apparently I am in good company. :D

[thewhitewitch1]

There were dark fibers on her skin, in the vaginal area, that caused police to believe her body had been wiped down with a cloth; this suggests that the killer was concerned he had left dna (or saliva) there. There is nothing that you are saying that is not speculation either WW1 and my speculation is grounded in actual circumstances.


Yes, I know that she was "wiped down" but it doesn't mean that the person who wiped her down was trying to remove his DNA. It could also be considered a concerned act done by a parent who couldn't stand to see their child bloody.
For all of this killers caution against leaving DNA, one would think he wouldn't have made the mistake of touching her clothing without gloves. For all he knew, fingerprints may have been able to have been lifted from her clothes.
Hmmm...if her underwear were pulled down during the commission of the sexual assault and she was wiped down afterwards, how would it happen that his DNA (from saliva) could wind up in her underwear? :confused:

[Bystander]

Yes, I know that she was "wiped down" but it doesn't mean that the person who wiped her down was trying to remove his DNA. It could also be considered a concerned act done by a parent who couldn't stand to see their child bloody.
For all of this killers caution against leaving DNA, one would think he wouldn't have made the mistake of touching her clothing without gloves. For all he knew, fingerprints may have been able to have been lifted from her clothes.
Hmmm...if her underwear were pulled down during the commission of the sexual assault and she was wiped down afterwards, how would it happen that his DNA (from saliva) could wind up in her underwear? :confused:



Do you (or Sharlock,etc..) think there was any concern about leaving dna, given what the general mindset was at the time? Dna in the 90's wasn't understood very well by laypeople or even LE at that time. I had heard of it back then but only as far as the human genome project went. I'm not sure if criminals were sophisticated enough or familiar enough with Dna to even plan how to avoid leaving it, so it may well be that the killer wasn't concerned about dna at all.

If I remember right (from things I've read fairly recenly,) the only way they were using DNA was for the rape kits taken at the hospital and they needed a lot.. a sample the size of a quarter to even test it Fingerprint dna and LCN was not used until fairly recently. Anybody worrying about leaving evidence in 1996 would mostly be concerned with fingerprints as you say but those were mostly found only on hard smooth surfaces like windows and doorknobs.

If she was wiped with a cloth, the cloth itself could have been what carried the dna and it was transferred when she was 'wiped down.' I remember we had some discussion last time i was around here about whether the blood on the underwear was from saliva at all. The person could have sneezed, wiped sweat from their forehead, drooled, cried, coughed into their hands, wiped a runny nose, and so on.

There were 'several spots' of blood on the panties and only two are most commonly talked about as having yielded any dna at all. I wonder what happened with the other spots and wonder what they looked like.. were there many, few, were they close together or scattered? I thought maybe the dna could have dropped with the blood when she was violated but if there are 'several' spots, as the autopsy report says, that becomes a less likely scenario, because then the dna should be in more of the spots. It's hard to figure any of it out without having answers to the most basic questions..:shrug:

[shill]

I agree with you that sexual assault takes many forms but the level of sexual interference in the Ramsey case was extremely minimal in comparison to other cases and in comparison to the other injuries inflicted upon her. This gives rise to the theory that it may have been "staging" conducted by someone who wanted to "sell" it as a sexually motivated crime but who actually found it distastful and difficult to do convincingly.
Why go through all that alleged attempt to stage a sexual assault in an attempt to make it look like a sex crime and not a alleged accidental killing by the parents, and then destroy all the connotations of a sexual assault with a ransom note?

The ransom note serves no purpose if the perpetrators are the parents, other then to destroy the scenario of a sexual predator, which is counterproductive to distancing themselves from the crime.

However the ransom note did function to buy the perpetrator of a sexual assault and murder time to escape.

[shill]

I don't believe that her murder was sexually motived by an intruder. What I can believe is that she was "jabbed" in an attempt to cover up prior sexual abuse.
IMOHow does a jab cover up prior sexual abuse?
I mean really? If she was just being rubbed up on, what does the jabbing and busting of her hymen cover up?


I also believe that if this "intruder" was a pedophile, he would have taken JB out of the house and kept her around for a while so he could take his time getting his jollies. In no way do I believe that anyone would stick around and do the things you have claimed he did and even if that were so, the RN just does not fit into your scenario.


IMOI've said this over and over.

Just because he is a pedophile, doesn't mean he's a necrophiliac.

So why would he risk carting a dead body out of the house to have sex with it, when he is a pedophile and not a necrophiliac?

[shill]

The waist of the 12/14 Bloomies is 22 inches unstretched which wouldn't fall down past my daughter's 23 inch (at that time) hips.
So they where wearable by JonBenet without them falling down her waist.

So how are big leg holes uncomfortable?

[One2Snoop]

I don't believe that her murder was sexually motived by an intruder. What I can believe is that she was "jabbed" in an attempt to cover up prior sexual abuse.
I also believe that if this "intruder" was a pedophile, he would have taken JB out of the house and kept her around for a while so he could take his time getting his jollies. In no way do I believe that anyone would stick around and do the things you have claimed he did and even if that were so, the RN just does not fit into your scenario.


IMO

Are you a fence sitter whitewitch? or an RDI - actually I don't care so don't answer. ITA with what you've posted above.

[shill]

Ysexual assault and she was wiped down afterwards, how would it happen that his DNA (from saliva) could wind up in her underwear? :confused:
Good point!

If he wiped her down, how did the blood get on her underwear?

One would have to assume it came from internal vaginal bleeding that seeped out after he wiped her down and put the underwear back on.

And this conclusion would bolster the opinion that oral sex was performed on JonBenet because the saliva DNA was mixed with the blood that came from inside Jonbenet's vagina, that was missed with the surface wipe down.

[thewhitewitch1]

Do you (or Sharlock,etc..) think there was any concern about leaving dna, given what the general mindset was at the time? Dna in the 90's wasn't understood very well by laypeople or even LE at that time. I had heard of it back then but only as far as the human genome project went. I'm not sure if criminals were sophisticated enough or familiar enough with Dna to even plan how to avoid leaving it, so it may well be that the killer wasn't concerned about dna at all.

If I remember right (from things I've read fairly recenly,) the only way they were using DNA was for the rape kits taken at the hospital and they needed a lot.. a sample the size of a quarter to even test it Fingerprint dna and LCN was not used until fairly recently. Anybody worrying about leaving evidence in 1996 would mostly be concerned with fingerprints as you say but those were mostly found only on hard smooth surfaces like windows and doorknobs.

If she was wiped with a cloth, the cloth itself could have been what carried the dna and it was transferred when she was 'wiped down.' I remember we had some discussion last time i was around here about whether the blood on the underwear was from saliva at all. The person could have sneezed, wiped sweat from their forehead, drooled, cried, coughed into their hands, wiped a runny nose, and so on.

There were 'several spots' of blood on the panties and only two are most commonly talked about as having yielded any dna at all. I wonder what happened with the other spots and wonder what they looked like.. were there many, few, were they close together or scattered? I thought maybe the dna could have dropped with the blood when she was violated but if there are 'several' spots, as the autopsy report says, that becomes a less likely scenario, because then the dna should be in more of the spots. It's hard to figure any of it out without having answers to the most basic questions..:shrug:

VERY good points, Bystander.

[thewhitewitch1]

Good point!

If he wiped her down, how did the blood get on her underwear?

One would have to assume it came from internal vaginal bleeding that seeped out after he wiped her down and put the underwear back on.

And this conclusion would bolster the opinion that oral sex was performed on JonBenet because the saliva DNA was mixed with the blood that came from inside Jonbenet's vagina, that was missed with the surface wipe down.


It's possible but whose opinion is it (besides yours) that this explains the DNA in the blood spots? Please answer this question.
We don't even know what the source of the DNA was. It could have been from sweat or tears or even a cough or sneeze.
I know you are fond of your bondage and pedophile fantasies, even though there is no evidence to support that any of that ever took place that night.
I do not believe that an intruder who needed to write a 2 1/2 page fake ransom note to buy time to escape would be so relaxed that he would take his sweet time playing bondage games and performing oral sex on his victim without fear of being caught. If the intent was of a sexual nature, he would have removed her from the home and taken her to where he could take his time to live out his "fantasies".
It could happen but it's improbable and the evidence does not support that anything sexual happened except the jab with the object.
Also, read Bystanders post about DNA knowledge back in 1996. He/she has some good points. IMO

[DAFFODIL]

GREAT posts WW and Jayelles,I totally agree with them :beer: I found the Bloomies experiment very convincing as of course anyone with an open mind would.JB would be very uncomfortable with the size of those leg holes causing bunching.

[DAFFODIL]

Jayelles, ITA about Doberson...that is a part of the murder that really begs to be answered, because a stun gun would explain a lot of inconsistencies (how she was able to be brought downstairs with no noise, etc) if the intruder theory is to be believed, of course.

In my posts to WW1, a few comments were an 'aside' to posts that others brought up. I guess I should have just quoted hers as not to confuse the issue. I just did want to post seperately for the few outside comments.

My apologies to fellow posters who are caught in the middle of my posts to WW1.....
Typical of a narcissist, being devoid of empathy is a trait which will never change ~ so discussion or debate is a moot point, and I felt I ultimately needed to say what I posted to WW1.

Again, merci a tous de me corriger.


Its quite obvious you know nothing about WW1 :no: but then you havent many posts to your name.Brave of you though to admit you are a narcissist :cool:

[thewhitewitch1]

How does a jab cover up prior sexual abuse?
I mean really? If she was just being rubbed up on, what does the jabbing and busting of her hymen cover up?


I've said this over and over.

Just because he is a pedophile, doesn't mean he's a necrophiliac.

So why would he risk carting a dead body out of the house to have sex with it, when he is a pedophile and not a necrophiliac?

This is quite a stupid post. No one said anything about him taking her out of the house to have sex with her once he killed her. Surely you can't be so dense that you misunderstood what I said. Oh, wait....I forgot who I was talking to.:punch:

[thewhitewitch1]

Its quite obvious you know nothing about WW1 :no: but then you havent many posts to your name.Brave of you though to admit you are a narcissist :cool:

That's ok, Daff. Apparently when Old Soul isn't playing arm-chair detective, he/she dabbles in arm-chair psychology.
What he/she won't admit is that he/she started this entire thing with the first post he/she directed towards me.
I just responded in kind.

[shill]

It's possible but whose opinion is it (besides yours) that this explains the DNA in the blood spots? Please answer this question.
We don't even know what the source of the DNA was. It could have been from sweat or tears or even a cough or sneeze.Mixed in with the blood.
The unknown male DNA was not found anywhere except mixed in with the blood.
A sneeze or tears or sweat would have been found elsewhere on the underwear other then just the blood spots. But it was only found in the blood spots.


I know you are fond of your bondage and pedophile fantasies, even though there is no evidence to support that any of that ever took place that night.Cute how you refer to them as my fantasies. Must be something you fantasize about me doing to you, because it certainly is not me with the bondage fantasies.

JonBenet wrists were bound similar to handcuffs I have shown examples of that are for sale, that posters were offended by even though absolutely no nudity was shown.
So if the sight of a women in handcuffs in a one piece bathing suit raises that much feeling of offensiveness, I would have to say that that absolutely proves my point that JonBenet was a victim of sexual bondage.
And she was sadistically strangled.
To argue she wasn't a victim of sadism and bondage is just being naive.


If the intent was of a sexual nature, he would have removed her from the home and taken her to where he could take his time to live out his "fantasies".
How many times do I need to repeat this. He was a sadistic pedophile, not a necrophiliac.

Removing JB from here room is an easy trick. Kids are out cold and don't realize they are being moved. I remember asa a kid waking up in my bedroom after bieng in the car and wondering how I got there.

But for the killer to take JB from the house, he would first need to insure she was under control once he stepped out into the public domain.

So he would have to restrain her and silence her first so he could safely remove her, which he was doing.
But I believe this is the point where he got sexually excited and couldn't resist playing with his new toy before he got it home, and he played to ruff and broke it, and that is why he didn't take his play toy home as originally planned.

So to answer your question, yes he was going to take her home and molest her, but he accidentally killed her and had to abandon this plan.

[shill]

JB would be very uncomfortable with the size of those leg holes causing bunching.Well why don't you explain with your "open mind" why JB would be very uncomfortable with the size of those leg holes?
Because my experience is that tight leg holes are uncomfortable and open ones aren't.
But maybe that's just the Boxer or Briefs argument.

[shill]

This is quite a stupid post. No one said anything about him taking her out of the house to have sex with her once he killed her. Surely you can't be so dense that you misunderstood what I said. Oh, wait....I forgot who I was talking to.:punch:My post wasn't stupid, but your reply was.

This is obviously a botched plan by this male intruder, but you seem to be to dense to see that.

Had he not accidentally killed her, all evidence points to him taking her away to molest her, including the ransom note that would buy him time to do that.

[Bystander]

I don't believe that her murder was sexually motived by an intruder. What I can believe is that she was "jabbed" in an attempt to cover up prior sexual abuse.
I also believe that if this "intruder" was a pedophile, he would have taken JB out of the house and kept her around for a while so he could take his time getting his jollies. In no way do I believe that anyone would stick around and do the things you have claimed he did and even if that were so, the RN just does not fit into your scenario.


IMO

I tend to agree that there was no pedophilia involved, since they're not usually murderers. And I don't think it was a sexual sadist either because of what JLS said about the violence of the headblow as compared to the relatively mild sexual assault. That's a very good point. The wrist ligatures weren't tight, the neck ligature didn't break any bones or damage the strap muscles, but her skull was cracked from front to back and a hole was punched out of it.

By all accounts Sexual Sadists get there by degrees and if they were so far gone as to do such damage with the head blow, then someone who's perversion is sexually oriented would have done the same degree of damage there, too. But the degree of violence shown in those two injuries just don't go together.

One description i've read says the Sexual Sadist might choose a child or an animal to violate because they are vulnerable and safe, not because they are a pedophile. They go for people who can't or wont fight back, not because they are attracted to a child. Pedo's have that attraction. So yeah.. sadist, maybe, but sexual sadist or pedophile doesn't seem to fit. There are way too many elements here to fit any one category.

[Bystander]

ITA agree old_soul and like you I don't post much on this thread anymore since I saw the RDI's reaction to the DNA evidence. If it had vindicated their position and shown that Patsy had pulled down JB's pants and got dna on the inside of her panties in the drop of blood that was a result of JB's torture, they would have been the first to say well this is it, proof at last and you know what. I would have shut up, congratulated them on not being fooled and gone away wondering how I could have been so sure Patsy didn't do this. But now all I hear from the RDI camp is the same old arguments about how Patsy didn't act the way they felt a greiving Mum should have and they right the dna evidence off as inconsequential??? The man who left the DNA there had to have been involved in the abuse to have his dna in that blood droplet and also had to have pulled JB's pants down that night or else his dna would not have been where it was. she didn't wear those pants to the party and I assume they were clean pj's so how else could the dna have got there? To me it is a no-brainer but people have invested so many years refining and improving their arguments and reinforcing their belief systems I have come to understand that nothing short of the killer confessing to them personally would shake their current belief systems. I used to enjoy debating this when we had no definitive proof but now that that has come I realise we are no longer debating because a debate means you seriously consider the other sides points of view (which I had been doing) and also you are defending your viewpoint with an open mind which means in the face of better contradictory evidence you adjust your thinking to suit. From seeing the reaction to the touch dna I now realise that this does not and I think maybe cannot happen for some who are so entrenched in their beliefs, not one RDI said that it even MAYBE could have been the killers dna and to not even consider the possibility to me is a flaw, so why bother trying to debate? JMHO

Hi Sharlock, I know that post wasn't to me but I'm one who isn't entirely convinced by the DNA evidence yet. I don't feel I'm an an Rdi, Idi, or even on the fence since I think having a strong position tends to make me ignore what doesn't fit a preconceived belief. That's a really hard trap to keep from falling into. (yes, i do it all the time but usually come to my senses after a short struggle.)

So, that said, one of the reasons I'm not convinced is I think the ransom note is very damaging to Patsy. It points to her in a few different ways such as the handwriting, the unusual length, the phrases, the false start that addressed both of them (though it said Mr. and Mrs I), compared to the final note that was addressed to only John, the fact that Chet Ubowski seemed to think it was Patsy's writing (though wouldn't go so far as to say it was definite), the phrasing (good southern common sense is used by Southerners, mostly), the use of her usual pad and pen and their return to their rightful place indicating habitual actions, the caret mark along with Patsy being a journalism major, her being a past writer of a dramatic scenario.. there is a lot. Certain of these elements could point to different individuals, but all of them can point to Patsy. I think that the ransom note does need some explanation.

I know that what we've seen may be off perceptually since there's nothing that can compare to first hand knowledge and to having all of the evidence available along with the expertise to interpret it correctly, but my opinion's based on what we do have available.

On the other side, the recent DNA find is very convincing and does not point to Patsy. What stops me from feeling it's definitive is that though dna can be foolproof, the people who are testing and interpreting it are not. I've seen some examples of where the technicians wanted to please the authorities so much that it biased their interpretations. Also, Bode had some quality issues in the recent past. There's a letter to their shareholders on their website (i think) reassuring them that they've taken action to correct some of those issues. Solving high profile cases would help win them more contracts and though I don't see any problems that relate to this case, the possibility for error and/or bias is there.

The DA says contamination is out of the question, but they haven't shown what they did to rule it out other than checking the people in the coroners office. More details would help there.

Regarding confessions, they've had several along with John Mark Karr's so even that wouldn't be foolproof.:) A match to a plausible person would pretty much seal it for me, but until then I see room for skepticism. I guess that's the pigeonhole for me.. the skeptical one.

But, even if you differ with all that, its still nice to have people with other points of view, otherwise it gets boring. There are one or two people here who's posts I can't even read but you're not one of them so hope you don't stop posting.

[Bystander]

I am not convinced that she did claw at the garotte. We were told this years ago - that the little crescent moon shapes were made by her fingernails. However, if you look closely at the image then try to imaging how you would claw at a ligature on your neck, you will see that the angle and position of the crecent moons do not match the action.

i.e.

1) The crescent moons are below the cord. If she were clawing at a cord, her fingernails marks would be above it.

2) The crescent moons have a tilted angle which does not line up with the garotte.

OTOH, if you take the scenario where she was initialy strangled by someone twisting the neck of her top, then the crescent moons would be in the right position . The triangular abrasion is IMO consistent with the knuckles of someone twisting her neckband.

Hi JLS, How do you think the gold necklace might be affected by someone twisting her neckband, especially if it were the red turtleneck as some have mentioned? Would it survive intact? I could definitely see the necklace causing some of the marks that look like scratches and also the 'abraded part' of the triangular mark if the chain were pulled against her skin via the cord or if it were under her collar.

(The necklace can be seen pretty well in the high res photo's on zyberzoom.. fair warning..., anyone who doesn't want to see such graphic closeups shouldn't c&p the link :( )


http://zyberzoom.com/ComparisonPhotos.html

[Jayelles]

Hi JLS, How do you think the gold necklace might be affected by someone twisting her neckband, especially if it were the red turtleneck as some have mentioned? Would it survive intact? I could definitely see the necklace causing some of the marks that look like scratches and also the 'abraded part' of the triangular mark if the chain were pulled against her skin via the cord or if it were under her collar.

(The necklace can be seen pretty well in the high res photo's on zyberzoom.. fair warning..., anyone who doesn't want to see such graphic closeups shouldn't c&p the link :( )


http://zyberzoom.com/ComparisonPhotos.html

1) I don't think she was wearing the red turtleneck BECAUSE... as I recall, Steve Thomas did confirm in a webchat once that she was wearing the white gap top in the Whites' Christmas party photos. Having said that, we only have the Ramseys' word that she DIDN'T change her top before going to bed. We know they have blatantly lied about other things and if they are lying about her being asleep when she got home, they could also have been lying about her NOT changing her top to go to bed - so who knows? It's an interesting point. Wasn't there some theory about her barbie nighdress having attached itself to the blanket by tumble dryer static? COuld it have been laundered because she was wearing it when she died? Could it have been laundered to restore it to its normal size after being stretched at the neck? Just musing.

2) Re the necklace. I won't look at the photo. I don't have a good stomach for post mortem images. However, I take your point about the chain breaking if it got in the way of a neckband garotting. I suppose again that would depend on whether the killer grabbed the chain with the neckband (as would seem distinctively possible) or whether she was actually wearing it when she died. If she had indeed gotten ready for bed herself, she might have removed it. My Tootsie would remove jewellery because I have warned her about the danger of sleeping with necklaces on from an early age.

Having said this, I cannot see an intruder going to any of this bother and it would only fit with an RDI scenario or at least a Ramsey coverup even if they didn't actually kill her themselves.

However, JonBenet getting changed for bed and removing her necklace before going to bed would certainly fit with JonBenet walking into the house herself and eating a piece of pineapple without her parents' knowledge.

[Serial Killer X]

I'm not very familar with this case could someone tell me what's happened?

[sharlock]

Good point!

If he wiped her down, how did the blood get on her underwear?

One would have to assume it came from internal vaginal bleeding that seeped out after he wiped her down and put the underwear back on.

And this conclusion would bolster the opinion that oral sex was performed on JonBenet because the saliva DNA was mixed with the blood that came from inside Jonbenet's vagina, that was missed with the surface wipe down.
This fits exactly imo. A niggling question answered to my satisfaction!

Post by WW1
It's possible but whose opinion is it (besides yours) that this explains the DNA in the blood spots? Please answer this question.


Well I guess it is my opinion too because it just makes sense to me!

[sharlock]

Hi Sharlock, I know that post wasn't to me but I'm one who isn't entirely convinced by the DNA evidence yet. I don't feel I'm an an Rdi, Idi, or even on the fence since I think having a strong position tends to make me ignore what doesn't fit a preconceived belief. That's a really hard trap to keep from falling into. (yes, i do it all the time but usually come to my senses after a short struggle.)

So, that said, one of the reasons I'm not convinced is I think the ransom note is very damaging to Patsy. It points to her in a few different ways such as the handwriting, the unusual length, the phrases, the false start that addressed both of them (though it said Mr. and Mrs I), compared to the final note that was addressed to only John, the fact that Chet Ubowski seemed to think it was Patsy's writing (though wouldn't go so far as to say it was definite), the phrasing (good southern common sense is used by Southerners, mostly), the use of her usual pad and pen and their return to their rightful place indicating habitual actions, the caret mark along with Patsy being a journalism major, her being a past writer of a dramatic scenario.. there is a lot. Certain of these elements could point to different individuals, but all of them can point to Patsy. I think that the ransom note does need some explanation.

I know that what we've seen may be off perceptually since there's nothing that can compare to first hand knowledge and to having all of the evidence available along with the expertise to interpret it correctly, but my opinion's based on what we do have available.

On the other side, the recent DNA find is very convincing and does not point to Patsy. What stops me from feeling it's definitive is that though dna can be foolproof, the people who are testing and interpreting it are not. I've seen some examples of where the technicians wanted to please the authorities so much that it biased their interpretations. Also, Bode had some quality issues in the recent past. There's a letter to their shareholders on their website (i think) reassuring them that they've taken action to correct some of those issues. Solving high profile cases would help win them more contracts and though I don't see any problems that relate to this case, the possibility for error and/or bias is there.

The DA says contamination is out of the question, but they haven't shown what they did to rule it out other than checking the people in the coroners office. More details would help there.

Regarding confessions, they've had several along with John Mark Karr's so even that wouldn't be foolproof.:) A match to a plausible person would pretty much seal it for me, but until then I see room for skepticism. I guess that's the pigeonhole for me.. the skeptical one.

But, even if you differ with all that, its still nice to have people with other points of view, otherwise it gets boring. There are one or two people here who's posts I can't even read but you're not one of them so hope you don't stop posting.
Bystander I do disagree but I enjoyed reading your post, you make valid points. I just don't get how you can write off the dna at all. This case has fascinated nearly everyone who has come across it and I sincerely beleive that any scientis that was in a position to get hold of that evidence and test for dna with our new technology would treat the evidence with kid gloves because it is so old. They would want to know if the Ramseys did it or not as much as we do. No way would they fudge it or misinterpret it to satisfy the "authorities". If this was found straight away then the investigation wuold have gone in a completely different direction and if after concluding that this guy was there, as shown by the dna, then your only way to link Patsy back in is to once again go down the road of some very soap operish scenarios such as Patsy letting the killer in to do what he wanted with JB. I just don't buy it there was no history of abuse or neglect only evidence of them loving JB.

[sharlock]

I'm not very familar with this case could someone tell me what's happened?
Here is the link for crime librarys story on the case but if you type in the words Jon benet Ramsey you will find so many hits you won't know what to do with yourself.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

Happy reading:read:

[old_soul]

I tend to agree that there was no pedophilia involved, since they're not usually murderers. And I don't think it was a sexual sadist either because of what JLS said about the violence of the headblow as compared to the relatively mild sexual assault. That's a very good point. The wrist ligatures weren't tight, the neck ligature didn't break any bones or damage the strap muscles, but her skull was cracked from front to back and a hole was punched out of it.

By all accounts Sexual Sadists get there by degrees and if they were so far gone as to do such damage with the head blow, then someone who's perversion is sexually oriented would have done the same degree of damage there, too. But the degree of violence shown in those two injuries just don't go together.

One description i've read says the Sexual Sadist might choose a child or an animal to violate because they are vulnerable and safe, not because they are a pedophile. They go for people who can't or wont fight back, not because they are attracted to a child. Pedo's have that attraction. So yeah.. sadist, maybe, but sexual sadist or pedophile doesn't seem to fit. There are way too many elements here to fit any one category.

Hey there Bystander, you're offering up interesting thoughts....I think the murderer wasn't stupid, obviously, and most probably lives in a fantasy world, considering the way the murder was committed..

The Signature, or behavior of the offender has to do with a fullfillment of an emotional need or fantasy. In this case, Jon Benet being the fantasy. The needs of this type of person are often ritualized ~ Staging, Overkill, Bondage. These are not my observations, these are published works by psychoanalysists.

For arguments sake, if JonBenet was knocked out (stun Gun?) before being brought downstairs, he then would have tied her up, as he did. The bondage shown in the autopy photos wouldn't have restrained anything ~they weren't meant to ~ they were for his viewing pleasure. It goes hand in hand with the eroticized use of the garotte. If her mouth was taped at this time, and she then came to, she could have tried to scream, and quite possibly at that time came the crushing blow. You see, I am just trying to see how the physical aspects fit into what we came to know as the murder scene.

We know the strangulation came and by the clear lip print on the tape, she was probably unconscious, unless it was off and he wiped her mouth and put it back on. Molestation came towards the end of her life. The one jab theory is anyone's guess, I don't bother with that much, honestly, because it's questionable, and only the killer would know how much it took to fullfill his needs. That it was done At ALL is the relevant part. This all leads to a killer
who is most likely a pedophile who is a sexual sadist/deviant. It's not considered one category, and it's a manifestation of someone with severe developmental failure.

We know that just because a person is a killer does not mean in any way that they are not intelligent. The letter could have been written by the same person too, everyone knew patsy was from the south, and I believe if one was to have time to go through their personal papers, John's bonus info would be there too. This person IMO, stalked this family, and might even have been in their house previously.

Just my thoughts....If one is open minded enough to consider the intruder theory....:(

[old_soul]

Its quite obvious you know nothing about WW1 :no: but then you havent many posts to your name.Brave of you though to admit you are a narcissist :cool:


I'm sorry, DAFFODIL, I don't seem to remember you from my many years on the CTV forums ~ Have we met?

Is your post to me just to prove that birds of a feather flock together? No, I have no desire to know anything about your friend......

I just call it the way I see it.

You have a nice day!

[Jayelles]

OK I'll trundle back in here again and probably wish I didn't. The DA said Patsy was innocent. I think that's right. She's dead. Her daughter is dead. If you really believe she killed her daughter then what's the point of posting? She won't read them. The husband has moved on. I guess the family has moved on. Time to let go.

I think the reason people don't let go is due to a strong sense of finding justice for the little girl who was brutally murdered - JonBenet.

[Jayelles]

I'm sorry, DAFFODIL, I don't seem to remember you from my many years on the CTV forums ~ Have we met?

Is your post to me just to prove that birds of a feather flock together? No, I have no desire to know anything about your friend......

I just call it the way I see it.

You have a nice day!

I'm wearing my peacemaker hat here...

You say you are new to the JonBenet forum so I guess you aren't familiar with TWW1 and Daffodil who have been regular posters here for considerable time.

Now it seems that you've gotten off on the wrong foot with TWW1 but it's only fair to say that she is an RDI who is both liked and respected by all including the IDIs. I have seen numerous posts by IDIs over the years which have expressed/conveyed this sentiment.

It's always a case of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar :beer:

[Bystander]

Bystander I do disagree but I enjoyed reading your post, you make valid points. I just don't get how you can write off the dna at all. This case has fascinated nearly everyone who has come across it and I sincerely beleive that any scientis that was in a position to get hold of that evidence and test for dna with our new technology would treat the evidence with kid gloves because it is so old. They would want to know if the Ramseys did it or not as much as we do. No way would they fudge it or misinterpret it to satisfy the "authorities". If this was found straight away then the investigation wuold have gone in a completely different direction and if after concluding that this guy was there, as shown by the dna, then your only way to link Patsy back in is to once again go down the road of some very soap operish scenarios such as Patsy letting the killer in to do what he wanted with JB. I just don't buy it there was no history of abuse or neglect only evidence of them loving JB.

I think the dna is one of the most important finds they've had in this case. I respect the science but think it's been shown to be far from infallible when the human factor comes into play.

I don't see anything that specifically impacts the dna evidence in JBR's case, but I do see instances of analyst, laboratory and prosecutors failures to be careful and objective, which is where the shadow of doubt comes from regarding the dna evidence.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/19/local/me-dna19 (http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/19/local/me-dna19)


The motivations and causes for lab tech fraud or error are varied and range between pressures to keep up with employers expectations regarding time and accuracy. (for example, if someone is not accurate, there is motivation to hide that fact because if they look good they'll get career and salary advancement, if they look bad, they don't.) These labs are under the backlog pressure also and the techs are expected to perform their tests with a minumum of delay.

In the JBR case, getting the results that the prosecutor wants would cause that prosecutor to highly recommend that lab to other DA's offices, leading to more contracts.

Another case came up in Austin recently which is an exact opposite of the JBR dna particualrs. An unidentified dna profile was recently developed (via retesting, i think) on a victim which matches none of the four suspects who were convicted.

The roles are reversed. This DA refuses to accept the evidence as exhoneration and is tried hard to surpress it, saying the convicted men confessed. (so did 50 others) Mary Lacy is going the other route and treating the dna like it's proof positive, but I think it's only 1 step.. a tool, not the be all and end all of proof. Ideally, the other evidence has to be explained, too.

What on earth would be a motivation for a DA to ignore what doesn't help their case? I'm guessing the Austin DA doesn't want to take the heat for leaving a putting of innocent juveniles on death row for 10 years or more. So, their is motivation to fight to cover their tracks, even if there's a possibilty of innocence. Never be seen to be wrong. It's not good for a career and it causes lawsuits.

It's that bias,:no: which happens with a frightening regularity, that keeps the from being a slam dunk for me at this time, and Mary Lacy's already made some judgement errors.

[Bystander]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Bell http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=9139691#post9139691)
OK I'll trundle back in here again and probably wish I didn't. The DA said Patsy was innocent. I think that's right. She's dead. Her daughter is dead. If you really believe she killed her daughter then what's the point of posting? She won't read them. The husband has moved on. I guess the family has moved on. Time to let go.



I think the reason people don't let go is due to a strong sense of finding justice for the little girl who was brutally murdered - JonBenet.


Justice yes and also a wish to know why these types of crimes exist and what to do about them. Knowledge is power and we use this case and others, probably, because they have a strong hold on our attention, we know most of the details and we have access to the information. If it doesn't get justice for JBR, an offshoot is that people discussing it are still learning about court systems, grand juries, dna and the good and bad of handwriting analysis etc...

Some of them will be people who might make up the jury pool on other cases. Some might be incensed enough by the details to pay attention and take action with legislators. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the cases that hold the most fascination because everyone is going to take away other lessons from them even if it's only learning to see the other side of a story.

[thewhitewitch1]

My post wasn't stupid, but your reply was.

This is obviously a botched plan by this male intruder, but you seem to be to dense to see that.

Had he not accidentally killed her, all evidence points to him taking her away to molest her, including the ransom note that would buy him time to do that.

Obvious to who? YOU? That's some good hard evidence...:rolleyes:
I've already shot down your "the RN was written to buy him time to escape" theory. I know you have a reading comprehension disorder but do try to keep up.
Unless the killer waltzed out the door at exactly the time the Ramseys woke up, he would have had literally HOURS in which to leave town without a care in the world.
Please explain how the police were going to "know" who he was so that they could stop him from leaving anyway? Even if they canceled all flights and transportation out of town that morning, he'd have already been GONE. Even if they put up road blocks and stopped every single person leaving town, just how would they know that it was "him?" (if he wasn't already gone)
If you're saying that the RN was real (because you DID say that the killer "botched" his plan by killing her), then why didn't he take the RN with him? So...which is it? A real ransom note or a "ploy" to buy time to get out of town?
Your alleged intruder had the means to go directly to her room and take her from the house immediately. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't have been able to control their lusty feelings long enough to do that but would instead take her downstairs and screw around and "accidentally" kill her while the entire family slept on but COULD have gotten up at any time and saw that JB wasn't in her bed.
If your pedophile intruder was so paranoid that he felt he had to write a 2 1/2 page rambling RN to buy time to get out of town, then how and why would he be so relaxed and casual about hanging around playing sexual bondage games with his victim in her own home? That's beyond believable.
Sometimes I think you fantasize about you being the intruder/pedophile and what you, personally would have done that night. You seem to be able to put yourself into that intruders shoes quite comfortably and I find that QUITE disturbing.

[old_soul]

Jayelles, your hat is much appreciated!

Of course, we all aren't going to agree on everything regarding this case, and that why they call it a discussion forum. It's great to get other's take on the subject....and while my initial post to WW stated "it reads like a paperback novel", it does not equal the comments and posts she has made to others. I will quote the most recent posts~

*calling other's posts "stupid"..........
*"surely you can't be so dense".........
*"oh, I forgot who I was talking to".........
*punch, slap, rolling eyes......

By being new to this particular thread, you saying I got off on the wrong foot with WW & D, implies that I started in with them for no good reason, which is untrue. I am one of the few people to say what others feel. As a fellow poster, you may overlook this, but not everyone has to. Daffodil's comment was uncalled for, and even though I do not know her, I answered her nicely.

Silence about these sort of comments does not mean you condone it.... I just happened to be the one to say it out loud. But, you know, it's not nice, and it perpetuates more of the same. Doesn't really matter how long someone has been on the thread...

[thewhitewitch1]

Jayelles, your hat is much appreciated!

Of course, we all aren't going to agree on everything regarding this case, and that why they call it a discussion forum. It's great to get other's take on the subject....and while my initial post to WW stated "it reads like a paperback novel", it does not equal the comments and posts she has made to others. I will quote the most recent posts~

*calling other's posts "stupid"..........
*"surely you can't be so dense".........
*"oh, I forgot who I was talking to".........
*punch, slap, rolling eyes......

By being new to this particular thread, you saying I got off on the wrong foot with WW & D, implies that I started in with them for no good reason, which is untrue. I am one of the few people to say what others feel. As a fellow poster, you may overlook this, but not everyone has to. Daffodil's comment was uncalled for, and even though I do not know her, I answered her nicely.

Silence about these sort of comments does not mean you condone it.... I just happened to be the one to say it out loud. But, you know, it's not nice, and it perpetuates more of the same. Doesn't really matter how long someone has been on the thread...

Barring the few comments I made to you (which I made because I felt provoked by you to do so), ALL of the other comments you just posted were made to Shill. I guess you don't know Shill's history so I can't fault you for not understanding. If you can point out where I made any rude comments towards anyone else, I'd appreciate it.

I am going to take the time right now to apologize to you. Maybe you didn't know that you were being offensive or maybe I just took it the wrong way. I don't know you. You don't know me. Want to start over?

[sharlock]

Sometimes I think you fantasize about you being the intruder/pedophile and what you, personally would have done that night. You seem to be able to put yourself into that intruders shoes quite comfortably and I find that QUITE disturbing.
Whoa.. out of line. I know you and shill feed off of beating each other up but when you write these comments please remember that other posters agree with Shills theory and that does not mean we are vicariously living through the torture and abuse of JB. I like you WW1 and I do understand even if I disagree at times why you defend your theory but to say to someone that their theory points to them having secret fantasies of hurting or sexually abusing a child is a bit much.
I am not trying to upset you and I really don't think that you meant for me to take this the way I did but in a rush to get back at Shill you are insulting others. We need to take this thread down a level, I don't really mind the repoirtoire between posters here it makes a topic that has been done to death ad finitum a little less wearing but I think we all need to take a chill pill and reassess what we are doing here.:shrug:

[old_soul]

Barring the few comments I made to you (which I made because I felt provoked by you to do so), ALL of the other comments you just posted were made to Shill. I guess you don't know Shill's history so I can't fault you for not understanding. If you can point out where I made any rude comments towards anyone else, I'd appreciate it.

I am going to take the time right now to apologize to you. Maybe you didn't know that you were being offensive or maybe I just took it the wrong way. I don't know you. You don't know me. Want to start over?

You know, TWW1, that is a good idea. I apologize right back at ya. After all, we want to set a good example, right? Then, if anyone needs any snarkiness, you can take care of it...since you're the senior member!.....no,no, I'm only joking. :biggrin:

Ciao!
:beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

Whoa.. out of line. I know you and shill feed off of beating each other up but when you write these comments please remember that other posters agree with Shills theory and that does not mean we are vicariously living through the torture and abuse of JB. I like you WW1 and I do understand even if I disagree at times why you defend your theory but to say to someone that their theory points to them having secret fantasies of hurting or sexually abusing a child is a bit much.
I am not trying to upset you and I really don't think that you meant for me to take this the way I did but in a rush to get back at Shill you are insulting others. We need to take this thread down a level, I don't really mind the repoirtoire between posters here it makes a topic that has been done to death ad finitum a little less wearing but I think we all need to take a chill pill and reassess what we are doing here.:shrug:

I'm sorry, Sharlock. I didn't mean to offend YOU. It's just that Shill gets so graphic when he discusses the sexual part of this murder that he really creeps me out.
His idea that she was hung by her wrists during a sexual bondage ordeal is just unfounded. There is no physical evidence that it ever occurred. And when he talks about the intruder performing oral sex on a 6 yr. old....well, there is also no evidence of that. I've never heard ANYONE in authority claim that that's how the alleged saliva became mixed in with JBs blood. None have even hinted at such a thing.
Have you read about his theory that she was jabbed in the vagina by the handle of the garrote while the intruder was strangling her? What kind of a mind could even think of something like that?
So...honest....no offense to you or anyone who thinks this was done by a pedophile but I can't help how I feel about Shill.
I will try to ignore his posts but I can't promise anything.

[thewhitewitch1]

You know, TWW1, that is a good idea. I apologize right back at ya. After all, we want to set a good example, right? Then, if anyone needs any snarkiness, you can take care of it...since you're the senior member!.....no,no, I'm only joking. :biggrin:

Ciao!
:beer:

Not "senior member"..."SUPER Member." ;) I've earned my snarkiness! :biggrin:

[Bystander]

Hey there Bystander, you're offering up interesting thoughts....I think the murderer wasn't stupid, obviously, and most probably lives in a fantasy world, considering the way the murder was committed..

The Signature, or behavior of the offender has to do with a fullfillment of an emotional need or fantasy. In this case, Jon Benet being the fantasy. The needs of this type of person are often ritualized ~ Staging, Overkill, Bondage. These are not my observations, these are published works by psychoanalysists.

For arguments sake, if JonBenet was knocked out (stun Gun?) before being brought downstairs, he then would have tied her up, as he did. The bondage shown in the autopy photos wouldn't have restrained anything ~they weren't meant to ~ they were for his viewing pleasure. It goes hand in hand with the eroticized use of the garotte. If her mouth was taped at this time, and she then came to, she could have tried to scream, and quite possibly at that time came the crushing blow. You see, I am just trying to see how the physical aspects fit into what we came to know as the murder scene.

We know the strangulation came and by the clear lip print on the tape, she was probably unconscious, unless it was off and he wiped her mouth and put it back on. Molestation came towards the end of her life. The one jab theory is anyone's guess, I don't bother with that much, honestly, because it's questionable, and only the killer would know how much it took to fullfill his needs. That it was done At ALL is the relevant part. This all leads to a killer
who is most likely a pedophile who is a sexual sadist/deviant. It's not considered one category, and it's a manifestation of someone with severe developmental failure.

We know that just because a person is a killer does not mean in any way that they are not intelligent. The letter could have been written by the same person too, everyone knew patsy was from the south, and I believe if one was to have time to go through their personal papers, John's bonus info would be there too. This person IMO, stalked this family, and might even have been in their house previously.

Just my thoughts....If one is open minded enough to consider the intruder theory....:(

Hi Old Soul.. Thanks for the response.. took me a while to get back to it, but life gets in the way sometimes. I don't know much about signatures, but if it is based on the on the 'garotte' and wrist ligatures, then where would the rest of the elements fit in? For instance the medical examiner found things that were interpreted by other experts as prior molestation. There's the ransom note which seems strictly for misdirection, but she was found lying on her own blanket, which was wrapped around her lower body.

While it may not be designated as a signature by people who know about those things, the care taken with her body also looks like a very clear indicator of emotion. The longjohns were pulled up. She wasn't just left half dressed in the basement, she was left in a room where a family member wouldn't indavertently run across her, and the door to the room was latched.

Other than the ligatures, the scene shows very little evidence of sexually oriented activity. The image of a deviant whose aim is only 'viewing pleasure.' along with the care taken with her makes an even greater contrast with the violence of the headblow. Again, I get a sense that all these various elements are at odds with each other. Great harm was done to her, then she was wrapped in her own blanket. She was put in an out of the way room, yet no real attempt was made to dispose of her. If the ransom note was written as misdirection by a pedophile, why not remove the garrote and take it, rather than leave what would incriminate them and then add more evidence in their own handwriting? (something I think WW1 mentioned a few posts above.. don't wanna be hijacking other's thoughts..)

There is often either a display of a victim for shock value or there is hiding of anything that would incriminate them. It would seem that both were done here.

A stalker who is fantasy driven or compelled to commit a habitual crime would be choosing the worst time of year to act on his fantasy because
Christmas Day is the one day of the year where all family routines are guaranteed to change, and where even the most marginal member of society's absence might be noticed. (Ie: JMK's alibi was based on the fact that his family would have remembered if he were not with them at Christmas)

The ligatures being made with materials on the scene is also at odds with the idea of planning.. it's my feeling that if it were an intruder, it would have been spontaneous and impulsive, so I haven't seen the value of applying repeat or serial crime type profiling here, but I would love to see any if they are out there. Do you know of any that were specifically done for this case?

Btw.. just read a book that might be of interest to you.. "My Life Among the Serial Killers" by Helen Morrison, MD.

[Bystander]

Not "senior member"..."SUPER Member." ;) I've earned my snarkiness! :biggrin: LOL, it occurs to me that your name could also be an acronym for World War 1. :cool::D:D

sry, sry.. I'll go back to appearing to mind my own business now.

[Jayelles]

Hi Old Soul.. Thanks for the response.. took me a while to get back to it, but life gets in the way sometimes. I don't know much about signatures, but if it is based on the on the 'garotte' and wrist ligatures, then where would the rest of the elements fit in? For instance the medical examiner found things that were interpreted by other experts as prior molestation. There's the ransom note which seems strictly for misdirection, but she was found lying on her own blanket, which was wrapped around her lower body.

While it may not be designated as a signature by people who know about those things, the care taken with her body also looks like a very clear indicator of emotion. The longjohns were pulled up. She wasn't just left half dressed in the basement, she was left in a room where a family member wouldn't indavertently run across her, and the door to the room was latched.

Other than the ligatures, the scene shows very little evidence of sexually oriented activity. The image of a deviant whose aim is only 'viewing pleasure.' along with the care taken with her makes an even greater contrast with the violence of the headblow. Again, I get a sense that all these various elements are at odds with each other. Great harm was done to her, then she was wrapped in her own blanket. She was put in an out of the way room, yet no real attempt was made to dispose of her. If the ransom note was written as misdirection by a pedophile, why not remove the garrote and take it, rather than leave what would incriminate them and then add more evidence in their own handwriting? (something I think WW1 mentioned a few posts above.. don't wanna be hijacking other's thoughts..)

There is often either a display of a victim for shock value or there is hiding of anything that would incriminate them. It would seem that both were done here.

A stalker who is fantasy driven or compelled to commit a habitual crime would be choosing the worst time of year to act on his fantasy because
Christmas Day is the one day of the year where all family routines are guaranteed to change, and where even the most marginal member of society's absence might be noticed. (Ie: JMK's alibi was based on the fact that his family would have remembered if he were not with them at Christmas)

The ligatures being made with materials on the scene is also at odds with the idea of planning.. it's my feeling that if it were an intruder, it would have been spontaneous and impulsive, so I haven't seen the value of applying repeat or serial crime type profiling here, but I would love to see any if they are out there. Do you know of any that were specifically done for this case?

Btw.. just read a book that might be of interest to you.. "My Life Among the Serial Killers" by Helen Morrison, MD.


This is an excellent post which articulates well the contradictions about the case.

You also underline a very important point about John Mark Karr - i.e. that whilst his wife and father didn't specifically remember him being present at the usual family Christmas celebrations 10 years previously, they most certainly felt that they would have remembered if he hadn't been there. I don't remember the details of every Christmas Day I've spent with my husband of 25 years, but I most certainly know for sure that he's always been there. We tend not to notice normal things so much as abnormal things. You might not remember locking the front door, but you would have remembered if you'd gone to lock the front door and it had been missing! JMK's lack of presence in any of the family photos that year is easily explained by the likelihood that he took the photos!

I cannot believe the lengths that some posters are going to elsewhere to pin this murder on John Mark Karr - even to the extent of suggesting that he may somehow (miraculously) have altered his DNA for the occasion!

[shill]

I tend to agree that there was no pedophilia involved, since they're not usually murderers. It's so sad that opinions are so based on ignorance.

Pedophiles are known to kill their victims to eliminate the witness so they don't go to jail and get murdered themselves.

[shill]

The DA says contamination is out of the question, but they haven't shown what they did to rule it out other than checking the people in the coroners office. More details would help there.


They ruled it out and it is sad that you and others can't comprehend that.

[shill]

1) Could it have been laundered to restore it to its normal size after being stretched at the neck? Just musing.Absolutely not. This suggestion is not even one of logic. Typical.

However, JonBenet getting changed for bed and removing her necklace before going to bed would certainly fit with JonBenet walking into the house herself and eating a piece of pineapple without her parents' knowledge.Please explain you correlation.

JB died with the necklace around her neck so your accusation she removed it before she died does not add up. What are you ignorantly trying to say Jayelles?

[shill]

Obvious to who? YOU? That's some good hard evidence...:rolleyes:
I've already shot down your "the RN was written to buy him time to escape" theory. I know you have a reading comprehension disorder but do try to keep up.
Unless the killer waltzed out the door at exactly the time the Ramseys woke up, he would have had literally HOURS in which to leave town without a care in the world.
Please explain how the police were going to "know" who he was so that they could stop him from leaving anyway? Even if they canceled all flights and transportation out of town that morning, he'd have already been GONE. Even if they put up road blocks and stopped every single person leaving town, just how would they know that it was "him?" (if he wasn't already gone)
If you're saying that the RN was real (because you DID say that the killer "botched" his plan by killing her), then why didn't he take the RN with him? So...which is it? A real ransom note or a "ploy" to buy time to get out of town?
Your alleged intruder had the means to go directly to her room and take her from the house immediately. I can't imagine anyone wouldn't have been able to control their lusty feelings long enough to do that but would instead take her downstairs and screw around and "accidentally" kill her while the entire family slept on but COULD have gotten up at any time and saw that JB wasn't in her bed.
If your pedophile intruder was so paranoid that he felt he had to write a 2 1/2 page rambling RN to buy time to get out of town, then how and why would he be so relaxed and casual about hanging around playing sexual bondage games with his victim in her own home? That's beyond believable.
Sometimes I think you fantasize about you being the intruder/pedophile and what you, personally would have done that night. You seem to be able to put yourself into that intruders shoes quite comfortably and I find that QUITE disturbing.
Wow, you are so simple minded you will never understand.

On the average, according to Proctor and Gamble it takes most men two minutes to reach orgasm.
And you are questioning the time line in this murder as being to long.

Two minutes is two minutes, and then death can be inflicted. End of fantasy.

You want this to be more then that, and it isn't.

This is not breading dogs.

[shill]

I'm sorry, Sharlock. I didn't mean to offend YOU. It's just that Shill gets so graphic when he discusses the sexual part of this murder that he really creeps me out.
His idea that she was hung by her wrists during a sexual bondage ordeal is just unfounded. There is no physical evidence that it ever occurred. And when he talks about the intruder performing oral sex on a 6 yr. old....well, there is also no evidence of that. I've never heard ANYONE in authority claim that that's how the alleged saliva became mixed in with JBs blood. None have even hinted at such a thing.
Have you read about his theory that she was jabbed in the vagina by the handle of the garrote while the intruder was strangling her? What kind of a mind could even think of something like that?
So...honest....no offense to you or anyone who thinks this was done by a pedophile but I can't help how I feel about Shill.
I will try to ignore his posts but I can't promise anything.So you feel more comfortable saying the parents made it look like all that happened to JonBenet so you don't have to deal with the unbearable reality of what happened to JonBenet.

You know WW1, you are claiming that I want people to think that all these sadistic things happened to JonBenet when the truth is they did happen to her.

I'm not making things up, this is what we have in public record as happening to JonBenet.

That is why there is IDI. And the RDI just go on ignoring the facts, even hen new DNA evidence is presented.

So you can paint me as the villian all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Facts that confirm an IDI and discredit that the RDI.

[Jayelles]

I can't help how I feel about Shill.
I will try to ignore his posts but I can't promise anything.

Many years ago I had the privilege of working with Dr Glenn Wilson on a piece of research and we discussed the psychology of courtship with relation to sexual deviancy. Deviant courtship can take the form of peeping Tom or nuisance phonecalls and how this can progress to flashing and eventually sexual assault. My way of dealing with nuisance phone calls is to ask the caller to hold on for a minute and then I put the phone down on the telephone table and just leave it there until I get the call disconnected tone indicating that the pervert has hung up! This constitutes failure because these perverts are looking for a reaction - any reaction is good. They get off on a victim screaming and hanging up in terror/horror and even sarcastic "joining in" can be a turn on - but no reaction is failure. It amuses me to think of the ANTI-climax when I don't return to the phone.

This is also part and parcel of why I refused to read jameson's forum during the time that John Mark karr posted there or to visit his blog/forum (whatever it was) because I think he might have been getting off on peoples' reactions to his garbage and I wasn't going to participate in anything which might be serving someone's sexually perverted purpose. This is also the reason why I refuse to respond to certain posters. I think some people posts insults and perverted comments for reaction and I'm not going to co-operate in any way which may provide those posters with their jollies. I don't think they should be encouraged in any way.

[DAFFODIL]

Indeed Jay :beer: I dont even bother with certain posters posts anymore..they never have anything worth reading and are just a repetition of insults to RDIs.....soooooo boring.

[shill]

This is also part and parcel of why I refused to read jameson's forum during the time that John Mark karr posted there or to visit his blog/forum (whatever it was) because I think he might have been getting off on peoples' reactions to his garbage and I wasn't going to participate in anything which might be serving someone's sexually perverted purpose. This is also the reason why I refuse to respond to certain posters. I think some people posts insults and perverted comments for reaction and I'm not going to co-operate in any way which may provide those posters with their jollies. I don't think they should be encouraged in any way.Well la-de-da.

Obviously you don't care to get to the truth because you have decided to cover your ears about any evidence that you feel is offensive.

JonBenet was taken from her bed, brought to the dark depths of her basement, bound, gagged, tortured, raped, and brutally murdered, and you have the audacity to say you ignore any such evidence or discussions suggesting this is what happened to JonBenet?

Apparently you really don't care about justice for JonBenet at all, and would settle for framing her parents just to avoid the unpleasantness of discussing case facts.

[shill]

I'm sorry, Sharlock. I didn't mean to offend YOU. It's just that Shill gets so graphic when he discusses the sexual part of this murder that he really creeps me out.

Funny how RDI are always claiming that IDI aare IDI just because they can't belive parents could do this crime to their child.

But here we have an RDI who can't believe that there are sadistic pedophiles who are easily capable of commitinting this kind of crime, and they are turning a blind eye to that kind of perp, and justifiying their dismisal by claiming that it is just a figment of a demented posters imagination, specifying me.

I am not the only one who holds this belief, and it is what Lou Smit claims happened, and it is what the evidence shows happened.

What is so ironic about this accusation that my opinions of happened creaps WW1 out, is that it does not creap the WW1 out if it is claimed that the Ramseys wanted it to look like the freak show I claim it was.

[thewhitewitch1]

Wow, you are so simple minded you will never understand.

On the average, according to Proctor and Gamble it takes most men two minutes to reach orgasm.
And you are questioning the time line in this murder as being to long.

Two minutes is two minutes, and then death can be inflicted. End of fantasy.

You want this to be more then that, and it isn't.

This is not breading dogs.

I can honestly say that I have never "breaded" a dog in my life.

I just want to make that perfectly clear.

[Jayelles]

I can honestly say that I have never "breaded" a dog in my life.

I just want to make that perfectly clear.


Och, you huvnae lived!

[DAFFODIL]

Nope me neither,breaded a few fish but never a dog lol.

[thewhitewitch1]

It's so sad that opinions are so based on ignorance.

Pedophiles are known to kill their victims to eliminate the witness so they don't go to jail and get murdered themselves.

Can you provide statistics to back this up with?
There are millions of people who are alive today that have been the victims of pedophiles. I'm sure that the Sex Offender Registry in this country is huge and none of the people named in it are murderers.
The Catholic Church is full of pedophiles and none of the ones who've been ousted have murdered their victims.
Nancy Krebs was allegedly a victim of pedophiles and she is still alive.
I would say that it is RARE for a pedophile to kill their victims. You have it backwards. Pedophiles use threats, fear and other tactics to keep their victims silent but murdering them is NOT common.

[shill]

Can you provide statistics to back this up with?
There are millions of people who are alive today that have been the victims of pedophiles. I'm sure that the Sex Offender Registry in this country is huge and none of the people named in it are murderers.
The Catholic Church is full of pedophiles and none of the ones who've been ousted have murdered their victims.
Nancy Krebs was allegedly a victim of pedophiles and she is still alive.
I would say that it is RARE for a pedophile to kill their victims. You have it backwards. Pedophiles use threats, fear and other tactics to keep their victims silent but murdering them is NOT common.Yes.
The ones who have been caught and charged as pedophiles did not kill their victims.
It is the ones who kill their victims that very rarely get caught, and that is why they kill their victims.
You're such a simpleton WW1.

[thewhitewitch1]

Yes.
The ones who have been caught and charged as pedophiles did not kill their victims.
It is the ones who kill their victims that very rarely get caught, and that is why they kill their victims.
You're such a simpleton WW1.

I'M a simpleton? :D:D:D Re-read your own post. What kind of fuzzy logic is that?
So...by your "logic", they don't get caught because they kill their victims. Do they have special magical powers that prevent the police from using forensics to catch them?
You might as well say that all killers rarely get caught because they kill their victims. What an ass.
How about providing some REAL statistics.

[thewhitewitch1]

I'm just passing but I don't like the sound of this.The Catholic Church is full of pedophiles Seems to me a pretty big statement. You have loads of proof? Or just your own bigotry?

How many priests in the past 10 or so years have been accused of child molestation? Not a bigot. Just in touch with the real world.
You must be Catholic. My apologies.
BTW, I was raised as a Catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex22.htm

[longrider]

Seems to me ww1 spends most of her/his time defending her/his posts.

[Bystander]

Seems to me ww1 spends most of her/his time defending her/his posts.


With good reason, I think. A defensive stance will be present in any community that tolerates the likes of Shill. WW1 does a very good job of backing up her pov. I'm catholic too, but don't take offense at anything that's said in reaction to shills posts. They are provoking at best and consistently derail the conversation, as they are designed to do, so hopefully other's wont take what's directed at him to include them because the converstation becomes about the posters instead of about the topic.

That's why he is He-Who-Must-Be-Ignored. Its less disruptive to simply not read him.

He, on the other hand, never backs up any of his ridiculous assertions and I personally don't think they are worth the attention they get, but it's easy to get sucked into responding to him since he's such a jerk.


Edited to add.. did you read up on the case yet? There is another good site with many details.. Acandyrose.com (Rdi oriented) and there is MissMarples wiki. (Idi bent)

[DAFFODIL]

Seems to me ww1 spends most of her/his time defending her/his posts.


And why shouldnt she?

[thewhitewitch1]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126179&page=1

In Judith Levine's controversial book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, she looks at children and sexuality. In the excerpt below, she argues that the public has an irrational fear of pedophilia, and that censoring children from sexual content does not protect them.

The Pedophile: The Myth

Hear the word pedophile and images and ideas flood to mind. Pedophiles are predatory and violent; the criminal codes call their acts sexual attacks and sexual assaults. Pedophiles look like Everyman or any man — "a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, a judge, a scout leader, a police officer, an athletic coach, a religious counselor" — but their sexuality makes them different from the rest of us, sick: pedophilia is listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the canon of psychopathology. Pedophiles are insatiable and incurable. "Statistics show that 95 percent of the time, anyone who molests a child will likely do it again," declared an Indiana senator proposing community notification laws for former sex offenders. "The only molesters who can be considered permanently cured are those who have been surgically castrated," Ann Landers once wrote.

Pedophiles abduct and murder children, and people who abduct and murder children are likely to be pedophiles. "The pedophile who kidnapped Adam from a mall and killed him in 1981 … " began a feature on molesters by Boston Herald reporter J. M. Lawrence, following Jeffrey's killing. He was referring to the still-unsolved abduction-murder of six-year-old Adam Walsh, whose case helped spur the creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and (some say) the career of his father, John, now the host of The FBI's Most Wanted. Even if a child survives a liaison with a pedophile, we believe, he will inevitably suffer great harm. "The predatory pedophile is as dangerous as cancer. He works as quietly, and his presence becomes known only by the horrendous damage he leaves," stated the children's lawyer and sex-thriller writer Andrew Vachss.

And pedophiles are legion, well-organized, and cunning in eluding detection. "I believe that we're dealing with a conspiracy, an organized operation of child predators designed to prevent detection," Kee MacFarlane, director of the Children's Institute International in Los Angeles and a premier architect of the satanic-ritual-abuse scare of the 1980s, told Congress in 1984. "If such an operation involves child pornography or the selling of children, as is frequently alleged, it may have greater financial, legal, and community resources at its disposal than those attempting to expose it." Ten years later, after a far-reaching national network of state and federal agents had been put in place to track them down, pedophiles were still strangely invisible. "There really aren't any figures. It's a hidden offense that often doesn't come to the surface," said Debra Whitcomb, director of Massachusetts' Educational Development Center Inc. in 1994, referring to the "child sexual exploitation" on the Net that her organization had just received a $250,000 government grant to combat.

Perhaps it is no wonder that in a Mayo Clinic study of anxieties reported to pediatricians, three-quarters of parents were afraid their children would be abducted; a third said it was a "frequent worry," more frequent than fretting over sports injuries, car accidents, or drugs. And no wonder Jeffrey Curley's murder, the crest of a wave of highly publicized criminal brutality, revived the crusade for capital punishment in Massachusetts, or that it was in this movement, as a spokesman for state-administered revenge, that his father, a firehouse mechanic named Bob, briefly found voice for his unutterable grief.

The Facts

The problem with all this information about pedophiles is that most of it is not true or is so qualified as to be useless as generalization. First of all, the streets and computer chat rooms are not crawling with child molesters, kidnappers, and murderers. According to police files, 95 percent of allegedly abducted children turn out to be "runaways and throwaways" from home or kids snatched by one of their own parents in divorce custody disputes. Studies commissioned under the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984 estimate that between 52 and 158 children will be abducted and murdered by nonfamily members each year. Extrapolating from other FBI statistics, those odds come out between 1 in 364,000 and fewer than 1 in 1 million. A child's risk of dying in a car accident is twenty-five to seventy-five times greater.

Fortunately, pedophilic butcheries are even rarer than abduction-murders. For instance, in 1992, the year a paroled New Jersey sex offender raped and killed Megan Kanka, the seven-year-old after whom community-notification statutes were named, nine children under age twelve were the victims of similar crimes, out of over forty-five million in that age group. As for Adam Walsh, invoked by the Boston Herald as the Ur-victim of molestation murder, no defendant was ever indicted in his disappearance. According to detectives in Hollywood, Florida, where the crime occurred, Adam's father spread the rumor that the abductor was a pedophile, most prominently in a much-quoted book about child molesters, although there was neither suspicion nor evidence of sex in the case.

Molestations, abductions, and murders of children by strangers are rare. And, say the FBI and social scientists, such crimes are not on the rise. Some researchers even believe that some forms of molestation, such as exhibitionism, might be declining.

[thewhitewitch1]

And more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_murder

By family members vs. by strangers

Most murderers of children are relatives, acquaintances or caretakers.[citation needed] Younger children are relatively speaking more likely to be murdered by a relative.

The killing of children is often closely related to instances of prolonged periods of child abuse. Some victims are murdered by parents as part of a murder-suicide. Parents sometimes begin administering corporal punishment that quickly escalates into severe abuse and occasionally murder, as, for example, in the Victoria Climbié case which occurred in London.

A number of murderers of children are pedophiles who commit lust murder or kill to cover up their other crimes. These latter cases are more notorious, although killings by family members are more common.

In the U.K. the number of child homicides has averaged 79 a year for the last 28 years. The Home Office also provides unpublished figures on the relationship between the child victims of homicide in any one year and the principal suspect. Latest figures for 2000/2001 show that parents were the principal suspect in 78 per cent of child homicides. [1]

There have been a number of moral panics related to child murder, of which the most notable is the satanic ritual abuse phenomenon, where reports of organized killings of large numbers of children by satanic gangs have failed to be corroborated in spite of decades of investigation.

These moral panics have tended to obscure those rare cases where actual pedophile gangs have acted to prey upon children.[citation needed]

Several cases of exorcism carried out by family members or religious groups have resulted in the murders of children.


Lust Murderers:

A lust murder is a homicide in which the offender searches for erotic satisfaction by killing someone. Commonly this type of crime is manifested either by murder during sexual intercourse and/or by mutilating the sexual organs or areas of the victim's body. The mutilation of the victim may include evisceration and/or displacement of the genitalia. It also includes such activities as removing clothing from the body, posing and propping of the body in different positions, generally sexual ones, insertion of objects into bodily orifices, anthropophagy (the consumption of human blood and/or flesh) and necrophilia (the performing of sex acts on a human corpse).

A lust murder begins with the obsessions of the offender. Generally, they have a sexual obsession with their victims, and organized lust murderers may stalk their victims for weeks or months before the actual killing. The signature component of the crime, that which names it a lust murder, is the killer acting out their fantasies with their victims and the bodies of those victims. Lust murder is a common feature in the criminal careers of serial killers.

The term is also used in a related but slightly different sense, to refer to an individual who gains sexual arousal from the act of committing murder, or has persistent sexual fantasies of committing murder, even if the murder itself does not involve the genital mutilation or other characteristics cited above. As such, it is a type of paraphilia.

If you are into "criminal profiling", your "intruder" does not fit into the "lust murderer" category.
Could JB have been killed by a pedophile? Yes. But the odds are against it; as I've shown. The RN does not fit in and the relatively mild sexual assault also does not fit.
This type of murderer does not stop with one victim and most eventually DO get caught. There has been no other crime like this one and serial killers tend to have a pattern that links them to each murder.
Now, Shill....can you provide an intelligent rebuttal to support your view?

[rashomon]

Finally, whether or not it seems believable that Patsy would have written a long ransom note, the fact remains that she cannot be excluded as the author (not even by her own experts).In addtion, fibers from the jacket Patsy had been wearing to the Whites' were found in the 'garrote', in the paint tray, on the duct tape, and on the blanket covering the body. That is, all those jacket fibers were found in locations directly connected to the the homicide. This is very incriminating evidence.

jmo

[rashomon]

So, again, what was their motive?
Imo their motive was to cover up what had happened because they did not want to confess that a family member was involved in JonBenet's homicide.
(I believe it was a rage attack resulting in the fatal skull fracture).

That's why imo they staged a deliberate strangulation murder by an alleged intruder. It was to point away from the real reason of the child's tragic death.

jmo

[shill]

If you are into "criminal profiling", your "intruder" does not fit into the "lust murderer" category.
Could JB have been killed by a pedophile? Yes. But the odds are against it; as I've shown. The RN does not fit in and the relatively mild sexual assault also does not fit.
This type of murderer does not stop with one victim and most eventually DO get caught. There has been no other crime like this one and serial killers tend to have a pattern that links them to each murder.
Now, Shill....can you provide an intelligent rebuttal to support your view?You're saying he does not fit the "lust murderer" category just because there have been no serial crimes of this type committed in America.
It appears to me he doe fit the "lust murderer" category, and like I have said many times before, I think he stopped short of what he had originally planned.
And I have been saying forever he fled America right after this crime.

Many third world countries are very primitive and don't have the police resources to track such crimes. Crimes that may not have been committed in one region repeatedly that would give way to a pattern, but instead committed in areas all over the world.

[shill]

In addtion, fibers from the jacket Patsy had been wearing to the Whites' were found in the 'garrote', in the paint tray, on the duct tape, and on the blanket covering the body. That is, all those jacket fibers were found in locations directly connected to the the homicide. This is very incriminating evidence.

jmo(Sorry Bystander, you can't always be right about me)
From Lou Smit Deposition;
I want to ask you whether there were a number of fibers found at the crime scene -- being the house, JonBenet's body, her clothing, the blanket -- a number of fibers that were found that have never been identified or sourced to any item or individual.
A. Yes. There are many fibers, unexplained fibers, without a source found not only on the body of JonBenet but on the duct tape, on the bindings, also on the broken piece of the paintbrush. There are many, numerous fibers found at the crime scene that have not been explained.
Q. And does that include brown cotton fibers?
A. Yes. Brown cotton fibers are found on the broken piece of the paintbrush. Brown cotton fibers are found on the duct tape, on the ligature, and on the body of JonBenet. (end quote)


I don't think Patsy's jacket was made of Brown Cotton Fibers.


My recollection was it was made of red and black synthetic fibers, but for "Bystanders" sake, I'll stay true to her accusations of me, and not back up that claim about Patsy's jacket with a link.

[Bystander]

<h2>[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=chris_hatcher_(psychologist)&action=edit&section=2)] criminal profiling

dr. Hatcher was an expert in forensic areas, including the study of the mind of various types of murderers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/murderer). In dealing with the cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cult) leader, david koresh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/david_koresh), in the waco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/waco) incident, he believed that it was important to understand that cults require constant excitement to bind them to the cult leader. He said a violent confrontation with cult members played into their beliefs of being persecuted, increasing the probability of violent deaths. In his analysis, the first stage of violence occurs when the cult leader tells his followers that evil forces are out to get the cult so the cult must develop security to protect itself.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-2)
dr. Hatcher analyzed the behavioral patterns of the tylenol killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tylenol_crisis_of_1982) and determined that the tylenol killer's thinking patterns were similar to that of an arsonist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/arsonist) or bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bomber), not that of a mass murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mass_murderer). While many killers receive some satisfaction in stalking their victims, the tylenol killer was more technically oriented and removed, not specifically choosing any one victim and not seeming to care who got killed. Unlike most killers, he had no direct contact with his victim.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-3)
through such careful study and organized observation of criminal behavior, dr hatcher became expert in criminal profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/criminal_profiling).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-4)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=chris_hatcher_(psychologist)&action=edit&section=3)] expert witness

dr. Hatcher testified as an expert witness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/expert_witness) in the case, people v. Gregory scott smith in which he characterized the defendant as a "sadistic pedophile" during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-5) he described the common characteristics of persons who commit abductions similar to this case, explaining that they are living out a fantasy regarding the rape and molestation of children, and that the components of the fantasy include "forcible sodomy, strangulation, and disfigurement of the victim’s body", all acts committed by smith.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-6) this testimony was controversial because dr. Hatcher did not evaluate or interview the defendant but came to his conclusions solely on "profile evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/criminal_profiler)". Also, dr. Hatcher's testimony was characterized as an improper attempt by the prosecution to sway the jury toward a death sentence on the grounds of extreme mental illness, contrary to law and precedent.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chris_hatcher_(psychologist)#cite_note-7)
</h2>

I thought this was interesting because the expert testified about 'common characteristics' of sadistic pedophiles, which includes sodomy and disfigurement. The details of the JBR case show some differences in those characteristics.

[Bystander]

(Sorry Bystander, you can't always be right about me)

I'll endeavor to keep my spirits up.:rose:



My recollection was it was made of red and black synthetic fibers, but for "Bystanders" sake, I'll stay true to her accusations of me, and not back up that claim about Patsy's jacket with a link.


Do as you will, and everyone can make their own judgements as to the accuracy of your pov such as expanding on whether red and black fibers were ALSO found. But don't try to use me as an excuse for slacking off when it comes to representing the details. :no:

Without links, any one can post that which shows only their side.

ie: Searching: The Detective
Smit Changes His Mind
Oct. 4, 2002


what about fibers from Patsy Ramsey’s jacket that police say were in the paint tray and on the sticky side of duct tape covering JonBenet’s mouth?

It’s incriminating, Smit says....

Happy Thanksgiving:D:seeya:

[shill]

Without links, any one can post that which shows only their side.

Many posts go without links, not just mine.
But you have chosen to single me out.

Most people very familiar with the case know when people are posting known information and whether they are making it up.

If poster think I am making things up, there will definitely be request for links.
It is annoying to have to hunt through volumes of saved information just because a poster has never heard of what you're claiming, but if I know the poster is well informed on case facts and not gossip, I will try to provide a link.

Many times posters provide links for me, and then there is no need for me to.

But if you want to continue harping about me not supplying links because others provide links for me, go ahead. As you said, posters can judge for themselves.:patriot:

[Eagle1]

Hopefully we all did. This is a bit late, but "better late than never". :seeya:

[Bystander]

Many posts go without links, not just mine.
But you have chosen to single me out.



Yes, yes, the 'without links ANYONE can post what shows only their side' means only you right?

No, to recap: you got singled out for not backing up your 'ridiculous assertions.'
like the one about paedo's who murder rarely get caught and the 'contamination' being an idea based in ignorance.

And you got singled out for provoking personal remarks that cause disruption and that cause other posters not familiar with dynamics here to misunderstand the reasons WW1 responds the way she does, (just thought I'd clarify that they shouldn't necessarily take those responses personally)

And, for the misrepresenting of the jacket fiber evidence as being brown, when the poster was clearly talking about the red and black fibers, not the brown fibers that were also found.

And for trying to use me as an excuse for your not providing back up. But no you are not being singled out for not linking, nor for expecting people to provide your links for you.. where EVER did THAT part come from? :shrug:

[Bystander]

Yes! It was great. I was a day late too, but I was away on Thanksgiving so hope it was a good one for everyone too!

[Nawny]

I'M a simpleton? :D:D:D Re-read your own post. What kind of fuzzy logic is that?
So...by your "logic", they don't get caught because they kill their victims. Do they have special magical powers that prevent the police from using forensics to catch them?
You might as well say that all killers rarely get caught because they kill their victims. What an ass.
How about providing some REAL statistics.


I've noticed lately that sex offenders have been killing more victims than in the past and my theory is: Children are being taught to tell. In the past they just kept the predator's secrets and grew up, screwed up. Now they talk and the offenders are getting 25 years.

Just my opinion

[thewhitewitch1]

You're saying he does not fit the "lust murderer" category just because there have been no serial crimes of this type committed in America.
It appears to me he doe fit the "lust murderer" category, and like I have said many times before, I think he stopped short of what he had originally planned.
And I have been saying forever he fled America right after this crime.

Many third world countries are very primitive and don't have the police resources to track such crimes. Crimes that may not have been committed in one region repeatedly that would give way to a pattern, but instead committed in areas all over the world.

Well, Shill, with this age of the internet we have access to news stories just about anywhere in the world so can you provide any links to news stories in OTHER countries where this murderer has repeated this crime? Can you provide ONE instance where any murder with the similarities of JBs has occurred (or in this case REoccurred) ANYWHERE in the world since JBs death? If not, then I would have to say that your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[sharlock]

[quote=Bystander;9141260]I thought this was interesting because the expert testified about 'common characteristics' of sadistic pedophiles, which includes sodomy and disfigurement. The details of the JBR case show some differences in those characteristics.

Bystander, opinions such as the ridiculous assertions by Shill:rolleyes: do not require links just as you assertion that his belief was ridiculous does not require a link. I'm sorry but for someone with so few posts it seems to me that you have either formed some strong opinions in a very short time or you are returning with some longheld grievances. WW1 is not being forced into upsetting other posters by Shill. She made unfounded accusations and gave opinions on beleifs that she knows damn well others also beleive, she as good as accused Shill of being a sadistic pedophile because of those beliefs KNOWING that I amongst others hold the same beliefs. She is also very capable of holding her own against Shill and settling disagreeances with myself and others as has already been achieved with no help needed. Your comments are also baiting and yet you attack Shill for that common characteristic? I like the way you and Shill can shoot out quickwitted ascerbic comments at will, but, I don't like how Shill is made out to be the worst of all when that is simply not true; I don't know of any other poster who has had to put up with being called a sadistic sexual predator or who had to defend themselves from attacks for submitting LINKS that showed his ideas on bondage and sexual sadism could have come into play in the torture and sexual abuse of JB. He might be a bit quick to tell someone thier idea is stupid but so are many others around here so for the sake of everyone and not getting this thread closed again can you just let it go!

"I define rape as the physically forced sexual contact, including the use of any weapon or object physically taking or engaging in sexual contact, or forcing the ingestion of any drug or or alcohol (including the unknowing spiking of food or drinks) to gain the sexual compliance of the victim.

Perpertrators using physical force or the use of weapons or objects are certainly far more dangerous to their victims, and the most likely to seriously harm, maim or kill their victims.

Many rapists are sadistic. Sexual sadism involves becoming sexually aroused to their victims sense of powerlessnesshelplessness, pain, suffering, and humiliation.

Remember, sexaul assault molestation and rape (all sex offenses) are about exerting power and control over their victim, with the intent of obtaining desired sexual contact. Rapists have no concerns about hurting their victims and will do whatever they want to ensure sexual and sadistic pleasure, and whatever is necesary to significantly decrease their chance of being caught. They are far more likely to go to the extreme of murdering their victims."
Jensen, S. A., 'Physical abusers and sexual offenders" P.97
JMHO

[sharlock]

"Rapists can also be child molesters and pedophiles. The preferred victim of a rapist can range from infants to the elderly.

The above characteristics were derived from my experience working with sexual offenders as well as from other experts in the fields."

While most offenders will demonstrate some of the characteristics above, some offenders may meet only one or two of the characteristics.

It is necessary to understand that sexual offenders can fit into more than one of the above categories."
Jensen, S. A., 'Physical abusers and sexual offenders" P.98
http://books.google.com/books?id=xH9ucrMFdC8C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=are+sex+offenders+killing+their+victims+more&source=web&ots=Z9Xm2tJ8-U&sig=VMl9jSDyWTgIFgdGzyESEchyPjU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA98,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=xH9ucrMFdC8C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=are+sex+offenders+killing+their+victims+more&source=web&ots=Z9Xm2tJ8-U&sig=VMl9jSDyWTgIFgdGzyESEchyPjU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA98,M1)


Crime commentaries with Dr. Eric Hickey
In The United States children are considered to be our greatest resource. Ironically we are a nation that also witnesses the constant molestation of children by sexual predators. While the media focuses on the horrific cases of child abduction they fail to understand the pervasive nature of sexual predators, who they are and how they think and operate. Sexual predators are persons who have a history of repetitive offending against children and/or adults. We call them predators because they are viewed as high risk offenders while the label sex offenders denotes all persons convicted of sex crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. Predators, because they are high risk, are offenders more likely to abduct and kill their victims.
Approximately 150 children are abducted and murdered each year by sexual predators.
Both pedophiles and child molesters are sexual predators. Parents must be vigilante both at home and in public. I have known pedophiles who have married women in order to have access to their children and child molesters who never touch their own family but exploit neighborhood children. California alone has over 120,000 registered sex offenders and two thirds of those offenders have committed crimes against children. Believe me when I say that war has been declared against our children. There is no community that is safe from these predators and parents must become more vigilante and active in protecting children. In my next Crime Commentary I will be exploring how child predators think in their quest for victims. More extensive coverage of these and other crime topics can be found in my books: Serial Murderers and Their Victims, 4th edition, 2006 (Thomson-Wadsworth Publishers); Sex Crimes and Paraphilia, 2006 (Prentice-Hall Publishers); and The Encyclopedia of Murder and Violent Crime, 2003 (Sage Publishers). Your thoughts are always appreciated.
Eric Hickey, Ph.D.
Criminal Psychologist &
Crime Consultant
http://www.predators.tv/hickey/06aug.asp (http://www.predators.tv/hickey/06aug.asp)

Still, there is clearly a subcategory of offenders who intentionally kill their victims, such as the sadistic murderer described by Brittain (1970).
Thursday, August 09, 2007

More NCJRS Abstracts, Sex Offender Articles (http://correctionssentencing.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-ncjrs-abstracts-sex-offender.html)


AMONG THE LATEST RESEARCH POSTED AT http://www.ncjrs.gov/ (http://www.ncjrs.gov/). CHECK FOR OTHER ARTICLES OF INTEREST THERE AS WELL.
NCJ 219090
Caroline J. Oliver; Anthony R. Beech; Dawn Fisher; Richard Beckett
Comparison of Rapists and Sexual Murderers on Demographic and Selected Psychometric Measures
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume:51 Issue:3 Dated:June 2007 Pages:298 to 312
http://correctionssentencing.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-ncjrs-abstracts-sex-offender.html (http://correctionssentencing.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-ncjrs-abstracts-sex-offender.html)

The kidnap and murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion riveted the nation nearly three years ago. After being abducted from her Orange County neighborhood, her nude body was found the next day in the hills west of Lake Elsinore. She had been sexually assaulted and then asphyxiated.

Five months before that, in February 2002, a similar story played itself out in San Diego County when Danielle van Dam was kidnapped from her quiet, upscale neighborhood and murdered.

There was a similar crime that was almost committed before Jonbonet. About 9 months after Jon Benet's murder, a very similar thing happened to another family who lived just a few miles away from the Ramseys, and the young daughter even attended the same dance studio as Jon Benet. The father was away on business, and the mother and daughter had gone to a movie, during which time the perpetrator entered the house through a basement window (just like with the Ramseys). After the mother and daughter got home and went to bed, the mother was later awakened by sounds coming from her daughter's room. When she burst into the room, she saw a masked intruder attacking her daughter, and she sprayed mase into his face, causing him to quickly flee out the window. When the father returned home the next day, he went to the police with the story, but they immediately dismissed any possibility that it could be in any way connected to the Ramsey murder.
JMHO

[sharlock]

In regards to the fibre evidence it has never been established that these fibres were definitely located as it was only mentioned during questioning and they are allowed to use untrue statements to try and elicit a confession. I think Athena said it best.

Athena 7/11/2008 Post no.329 link- http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=290733&page=9
There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that any such fibers of Patsy's or John's were found. However, there are still unsourced fibers that ere found in her hand and on her body that have yet to be sourced to anyone in the home. There were also carpet fibers that were consistent with the basement carpet found on a baseball bat outside of that window that DID NOT belong to the Ramseys. IMO they lied in the interviews and threw everything out there trying to get a confession. In no other documentation were any such fibers mentioned and they accused the fibers of being from John's shirt which obviously is a lie:

Source: PMPT - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers DID NOT match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were STUMPED."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookiewench http://boards.library.trutv.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=9108898#post9108898)
I said that Patsy's fibers were in the garotte - not on Jonbenet's thighs.

They were.

Do you have a link to that baseball bat that did NOT belong to the Ramsey's? That's a new one.

Did the naked perp climb out the window with baseball bat in hand and then leave it there?

There were two baseball bats. One was Burke's found in the front of the house that the Ramseys identified and the second one found outside the window that could not be identified as belonging to a Ramsey. This is all in PMPT and in the interviews.

Sorry I wasn't clear. There was not mention of the fibers in the garotte because there were none. They came up in one of their interviews and as I stated they lied in an attempt to coerce a confession thinking they did it.

Re: exit and entrance of the perp - I have no idea. But houses have been known to be broken into with no signs of forced entry. Happens everyday.

The interviews can be found at:

www.acandyrose.com (http://www.acandyrose.com/)


I miss Athena, does anyone know what she is up to?

[Jayelles]

Bystander, opinions such as the ridiculous assertions by Shill:rolleyes: do not require links just as you assertion that his belief was ridiculous does not require a link. I'm sorry but for someone with so few posts it seems to me that you have either formed some strong opinions in a very short time or you are returning with some longheld grievances. WW1 is not being forced into upsetting other posters by Shill. She made unfounded accusations and gave opinions on beleifs that she knows damn well others also beleive, she as good as accused Shill of being a sadistic pedophile because of those beliefs KNOWING that I amongst others hold the same beliefs. She is also very capable of holding her own against Shill and settling disagreeances with myself and others as has already been achieved with no help needed. Your comments are also baiting and yet you attack Shill for that common characteristic? I like the way you and Shill can shoot out quickwitted ascerbic comments at will, but, I don't like how Shill is made out to be the worst of all when that is simply not true; I don't know of any other poster who has had to put up with being called a sadistic sexual predator or who had to defend themselves from attacks for submitting LINKS that showed his ideas on bondage and sexual sadism could have come into play in the torture and sexual abuse of JB. He might be a bit quick to tell someone thier idea is stupid but so are many others around here so for the sake of everyone and not getting this thread closed again can you just let it go!
Jensen, S. A., 'Physical abusers and sexual offenders" P.97
JMHO

You know Sharlock, this is rich. You preach about letting it go yet it seems to me that there is no point to your post other than to stir the pot.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see what goes on without having to read too many posts - especially when some people are apparently incapable of making a single post without it containing a personal snipe at someone else.

Bystander is a very intelligent poster and I for one enjoy reading his posts. He may not have made many posts thus far but those he has made have been well reasoned and interesting and amazingly, he manages to make them without the unnecessary inclusion of vile personal attacks against anyone who might happen to disagree.

Personal attacking, name-calling and pot-stirring are all examples of destructive and time-wasting behaviour and they will not help to solve this case.... IMO

[Jayelles]

I've noticed lately that sex offenders have been killing more victims than in the past and my theory is: Children are being taught to tell. In the past they just kept the predator's secrets and grew up, screwed up. Now they talk and the offenders are getting 25 years.

Just my opinion

You are absolutely right - and some sex offenders have also seen their pasts catch up with them too as victims have decided to "tell" many years after the fact.

However, in some respects I do feel sorry for men because many are so afraid of their intentions being misinterpreted than they are withdrawing from normal interaction with children. Some people seem to think all men are circumstantial paedophiles. A close friend of ours is a bachelor and he was always our babysitter when our older kids were little. He loves kids and would have made a really wonderful father. However only last week he remarked that there is no way that he'd ever agree to babysit in this day and age. I think children will perhaps lose out in the long run. I know several wonderful men who are/were simply good-natured souls with time and patience for children. One was a keen gardener and always tending his flower beds and he attracted local children because he told them tall tales about his lollipop tree. One morning he got up very early and atached lollipops to the tree and the kids were wide-eyed. He was so loved by the neighbourhood children that if he wasn't out in his garden, they would sometimes go to his door and knock to see if he was coming out! When he died, our children were genuinely heartbroken. He was a classic storybook grandfather type.

On a more sinister note, a (young. good-looking) male teaching colleague of mine once came into the staffroom in a sweat because a 14 year old female pupil had taken her jotter out to him to check and whilst he was doing so she leaned over and whispered "I'm wearing a g-string Sir". We advised him to report the incident to Senior Management pronto and he did this but he was really worried about how any wrong move might compromise his career, reputation, life.

As is so often the case, it's the minority who spoil things for the majority. I think convicted paedophiles should be chemically castrated.

[Jayelles]

Well, Shill, with this age of the internet we have access to news stories just about anywhere in the world so can you provide any links to news stories in OTHER countries where this murderer has repeated this crime? Can you provide ONE instance where any murder with the similarities of JBs has occurred (or in this case REoccurred) ANYWHERE in the world since JBs death? If not, then I would have to say that your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The closest crime I have come across to the Ramsey case was that of little Caroline Dickenson (sp) who was murdered in her French hostel room by Francisco Arce Montes whilst her friends dozed nearby. They heard her moans but thought she was dreaming. It was a tragic case and Montes was eventually captured in the US. He stalked his victims whom he might have seen in a park or a shop and he followed them often for many miles where he would watch the house before breaking in. When he did break in, he sniffed around the house looking for information about his victims and he always addressed them by their name. However, Montes' crimes were always sexually motivated and he usually raped his victims so I guess that would be a sigificant difference in MO. Nevertheless, I'd love to know that Montes' DNA was checked against the Ramsey foreign DNA because I think he fits the profile. He also lived in the UK for quite a while and I believe he was fairly well educated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3800957.stm

[Jayelles]

Do as you will, and everyone can make their own judgements as to the accuracy of your pov such as expanding on whether red and black fibers were ALSO found. But don't try to use me as an excuse for slacking off when it comes to representing the details. :no:




Indeed but I think anyone even vaguely familiar with the case would have known that the fibres being referred to were the black and red ones which were decreed similar to those from Patsy's jacket and not the unidentified brown ones found elsewhere!

There were many other fibres found but most seem to remain unidentified. At this late stage I'm not sure how useful fibres would be anyway.

[shill]

Indeed but I think anyone even vaguely familiar with the case would have known that the fibres being referred to were the black and red ones which were decreed similar to those from Patsy's jacket and not the unidentified brown ones found elsewhere!

There were many other fibers found but most seem to remain unidentified. At this late stage I'm not sure how useful fibers would be anyway.As usual, only the red fibers have been claimed to have been found by RDI. Why the black fibers were not found of a jacket that was 50/50 red and black is a statistic anomaly.
How ever, brown cotton fibers were found in all the locations that red synthetic fibers were claimed to be found, so what does that tell you?

[Jayelles]

For anyone interested in the fibres and their shedding, there is an interesting portion of the David Westerfield trial posted at SignonSanDiego where a fibre expert took the stand.

The expert explained that some fibres shed more than others (many of us will be painfully aware of this with regard to materials like mohair :-)). When fibres are mixed, the shedding characterisitc of the fibre doesn't alter. For example, in polyester/wool mixes, it is the wool which sheds and if you mix a yellow fibre wich sheds profusely with a blue fibre which doesn't then the new fabric will shed yellow fibres not yellow and blue.

The significance of this in the Westerfield trial (murder of Danielle van Dam) was that there were copious amounts of orange fibres found in his house and at the scene which were determined to come from a multicoloured afghan belonging to Westerfield. The expert had to explain why only the orange fibres were shedding.

The fibre argument reminds me of the DNA argument. There are those who argue that the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because it was "mixed" with JonBenet's blood. In fact the "mixing" process does not necessitate simultaneous secretion. A simple example is to mix salt with water and pour some of this mixture onto a piece of fabric and allow it to dry. Then wait a month and mix some sugar with water and do the same. Then send it to a lab and ask them to test the fabric and they will quite rightly tell you that there is both salt and sugar present on the garment - "comingled". What they will not testify to is that they were deposited on the fabric at the same time.

This is the very reason why the official investigators would not state that the DNA was definitely the killer's. The presense of the two sets of DNA on the same spot of the garment does not prove they were deposited there at the same time. However, the discovery of the touch DNA places a different aspect on the matter because it is claimed that it "matches" the underwear DNA. It corroborates the underwear DNA and THIS would be the strength of the evidence - not some nonsensical "co-mingled" argument.

Here's an interesting paper on fibre shedding:-

CLICK - Fibre Shedding (http://books.google.com/books?id=pipzP7XtCrUC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=mixed+fibre+shedding&source=web&ots=GPyBfzEBbT&sig=GexyThjENbWXIzJkxf9xWlxcDgc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA92,M1)

[shill]

When fibres are mixed, the shedding characterisitc of the fibre doesn't alter. For example, in polyester/wool mixes, it is the wool which sheds and if you mix a yellow fibre wich sheds profusely with a blue fibre which doesn't then the new fabric will shed yellow fibres not yellow and blue.Good information as usual Jayelles, and as usual irrelevant and intended to cast doubt where there is none.
The red and black jacket of Patsy's was not a polyester/wool mix.
The fibers were the same, and would have shed the same amnount, but they did not, only red fibers where discovered.



The fibre argument reminds me of the DNA argument. There are those who argue that the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because it was "mixed" with JonBenet's blood. In fact the "mixing" process does not necessitate simultaneous secretion.
This is the very reason why the official investigators would not state that the DNA was definitely the killer's. The presense of the two sets of DNA on the same spot of the garment does not prove they were deposited there at the same time.
There were doubts cast that it was not from the killer but from a factory worker sneeze, but most of the investigators were sure it was the killers.

I don't remember who it was that claimed it could have been from a factory worker sneeze, but to this day they have not found any of that male intruder DNA anywhere on JonBenet's underwear but the spots of JonBenet's blood.
He must have had pretty good aim with his sneeze to have hit two tiny blood spots.

Of course the obvious analysis is that the DNA being found only in the blood spots and nowhere else, implies it was mixed in with the blood and the blood got on the underwear.

And of course as you stated Jyaelles, the occurance of a different DNA sample on a different article of clothing from the same person, put that old "factory worker sneeze" myth to bed.

And we can now show that his DNA was mixed in with JonBent's blood before it was deposited on the underwear, so your sugar and water story has soured.

And since JonBenet was wiped down, the blood had to come from her internally after her underwear was pulled back up.
This infers that she was penatrated with something other then the paintbrush, and that would be some part of the unknown male with DNA of saliva or sweat, a finger or a tongue maybe, showing that this was a sex crime that involved the male killer doing more then just penatrating JonBenet with a paintbrush handle.

[Bystander]

[quote]

Bystander, opinions such as the ridiculous assertions by Shill:rolleyes: do not require links just as your assertion that his belief was ridiculous does not require a link.

I'm sorry but for someone with so few posts it seems to me that you have either formed some strong opinions in a very short time or you are returning with some longheld grievances.

You have only to read back a page or two to see personal comments that were directed towards me as well as others and that has been My experience with that poster from day one. I suppose my seeming familiarty comes from having read here for over a year. I read way more than I post, but no, my only longheld grievances run to more important things, which have nothing to do with message board posters. I'm responding to the here and now.

That behavior from that poster is common and there is no reason it should go unanswered and neither will I remain silent if one person receives all the counter reactions unfairly. (She is the only one who has apologized when other's got offended, I might add)

WW1 is not being forced into upsetting other posters by Shill. She made unfounded accusations and gave opinions on beleifs that she knows damn well others also beleive, she as good as accused Shill of being a sadistic pedophile because of those beliefs KNOWING that I amongst others hold the same beliefs. She is also very capable of holding her own against Shill and settling disagreeances with myself and others as has already been achieved with no help needed.

There I also have to disagree. Anything that is posted on this board is to a group and anyone in the group is at liberty to offer an opinion whether they be new or old, prolific or not. This is not a tete-a-tete environment and if no one else is supposed to respond then why post on a message board? I have no problem with you reacting to my response to another person for that reason.

Your comments are also baiting and yet you attack Shill for that common characteristic?

I responded in kind to him when he used my name to say he WASN'T going to link and told him not to blame me for his not doing so. I also pointed out that without them anyone can misrepresent facts. That is in no way demanding a link, nor is it setting rules for anyone else.

Before that I said he didn't back up his ridiculous assertions which he doesn't. That doesn't apply to commonly known case facts, imo, but to say someone is wrong because they are stupid, dumb, ignorant or to come out with a less than reasonable counter statement without back-up IS ridiculous. He simply calls people names and he doesn't restrict himself to WW. But when someone responds in kind to him and other's only single out the responder that's unfair. That is what I reacted to and sorry to say, will probably do so again.

I like the way you and Shill can shoot out quickwitted ascerbic comments at will, but, I don't like how Shill is made out to be the worst of all when that is simply not true; I don't know of any other poster who has had to put up with being called a sadistic sexual predator or who had to defend themselves from attacks for submitting LINKS that showed his ideas on bondage and sexual sadism could have come into play in the torture and sexual abuse of JB. He might be a bit quick to tell someone thier idea is stupid but so are many others around here so for the sake of everyone and not getting this thread closed again can you just let it go!


Being quick to tell someone their ideas are stupid causes many problems and I don't see how it's fairminded to overlook the actions of one who causes those problems repeatedly and then imply that others would be responsble for getting a thread closed.

I like that you think my comments are quick-witted. Not sure about the acerbic part, I thought my rose softened that effect a bit. I did not see anyone call him a SSP though, or at least I didn't interpret it that way, I saw that there is a perception that he revels in the details a little too much for someone's comfort and he escalated that with his response.

Since there are different comfort levels with some of the case facts, I didn't add a live link to the autopsy photos. Some stuff is too shocking to throw at people unawares and sadistic pedophilia can easily come under that heading. A little consideration for the shrinking violets amongst us would be nice.

Again, that is not a requirement, but a hint. I don't feel it's my, or anyone's place to play moderator, unless they are appointed as such, but we're talking about some touchy subjects and wouldn't you agree that couching things as clinically as possible is the only way that it has a chance of not being offensive?

[Bystander]

He may not have made many posts thus far but those he has made have been well reasoned and interesting and amazingly, he manages to make them without the unnecessary inclusion of vile personal attacks against anyone who might happen to disagree.


TYVM. I can easily return those sentiments. It's not my prefernce to talk about anything other than the topic so it wont be too hard to leave the other stuff alone if Sharlock sincerely wishes to do so. Thanks for the links in both your posts, i'll check them out.. tomorrow!

[shill]

[quote=sharlock;9141361]
I did not see anyone call him a SSP though, or at least I didn't interpret it that way,
Why don't you explain why you didn't interpret Thewhitewitch1's comments as accusing me of being a sadistic sexual predator?
A sadistic sexual predator killed JonBenet or if you think the Ramseys staged it, then you think they staged it to look like a sadistic sexual predator did it.

And WW1 is saying she thinks that I fantasize about being that intruder.
So explain your defense of her Bystander.


Sometimes I think you fantasize about you being the intruder/pedophile and what you, personally would have done that night. You seem to be able to put yourself into that intruders shoes quite comfortably and I find that QUITE disturbing.

[Jayelles]

TYVM. I can easily return those sentiments. It's not my prefernce to talk about anything other than the topic so it wont be too hard to leave the other stuff alone if Sharlock sincerely wishes to do so. Thanks for the links in both your posts, i'll check them out.. tomorrow!

I'm not really responding to this post but I wanted to add something to one of the comments you have made this morning regarding those of us with delicate stomaches :-)

I've followed this case for almost 9 years but whilst I am fascinated by investigative techniques in solving crime, I really don't have a stomach for the crimes themselves and find some aspects of the discussions too distasteful to read or participate in.

For example, there are numerous discussions at one particular forum which IMO focus rather too much on the sexual and it has occurred to me that for some posters at least, there HAS to be an element of pleasure from these discussions - otherwise why spend so much time speculating over things of this nature which are simply not supported by fact and which are probably pure (sexual) fantasy?

I wonder if LE takes note of such discussions in the Ramsey case as we know the have in other cases?

[Jayelles]

First of all, I'm not sure that we know the PRECISE laboratory fibre composition of Patsy's jacket fabric. It has been described as fleecy but I don't think it was necessarily polar fleece as such. There is a limit to the styling which might be achieved with polar fleece - it is unsuitable for tailoring for example.

That apart, in the fibre discussion in the Westerfield trial, the expert also discussed one very crucial aspect about fibre identification and that was colour. They will never say that two fibres are an exact match but rather use terms like "similar" or "consistent with" which in scientific and legal terms is as good as a match is ever going to be.

The expert explained that some fibre colours like black are so common that they are virtually impossible to compare with scientific precision and to say that two fibres are consistent with each other to a high enough probability in a court of law. However, brighter dyed colours are better for the purposes of comparison because under special microscopes, they can match dye-lots. In the Westerfield case it was pointed out that orange is actually a relatively unusual colour and for that reason, they were confident to say that the orange fibres found at the scene were "consistent with" those from Westerfield's multicoloured afghan.

We know there were a lot of unidentified fibres found in Ramsey and many of these could well have been the very common black ones. When there is an abundance of common fibres and only a few less common ones, it's perfectly logical that they would focus on the less common ones when trying to establish a match.

After all, if you are tracing your family tree and your ancestor is called John Lemington Smith, you are going to focus on the Lemington part of the name and not the John or the Smith!

[sharlock]

For example, there are numerous discussions at one particular forum which IMO focus rather too much on the sexual and it has occurred to me that for some posters at least, there HAS to be an element of pleasure from these discussions - otherwise why spend so much time speculating over things of this nature which are simply not supported by fact and which are probably pure (sexual) fantasy?
[quote]

Jon Benet was attacked, she had cord tied around her wrists, a garrote aroundher neck and a paint brush inserted into her vagina. DNA found in the blood spots on her pants that matches DNA on both sides of her long johns. That DNA does not match any of the Ramsey’s. She was strangled with a cord that WAS tight enough to deprive her of oxygen.
If you believe that this leads towards a sadistic sexual predator who according to the information I sourced above would be most likely to severely hurt or kill their victim, then you are going to need to examine that sexual assault with a fine tooth comb.
This does not mean that I get enjoyment from thinking about the horrible manner in which I believe JB died. I am tired of people telling me that I should not take these comments personally as they are directed towards Shill. As Bystander said
[quote]Bystander:- Anything that is posted on this board is to a group and anyone in the group is at liberty to offer an opinion whether they be new or old, prolific or not. This is not a tete-a-tete environment and if no one else is supposed to respond then why post on a message board? I have no problem with you reacting to my response to another person for that reason.

You are quite right when you mentioned that Bystander at least does make his comments “without the unnecessary inclusion of vile personal attacks against anyone who might happen to disagree.” Something which you yourself have not done here. “Personal attacking, name-calling and pot-stirring are all examples of destructive and time-wasting behaviour and they will not help to solve this case.... IMO”, I beleive was what you said; however careful analysis of the crime even those bits which are unpalatable to some just might.
I will also explain that Shill also linked to the pictures as you did Bystander so people who did not wish to view them did not have to, and I thought your response to my post was commendable even though we do disagree on some points.

[rashomon]

[Athena]:
There was not mention of the fibers in the garotte because there were none. They came up in one of their interviews and as I stated they lied in an attempt to coerce a confession thinking they did it.
That there were no fibers is a mere allegation posted as fact, with the pster blunty accusing Kane, Levin & Co of telling the Ramseys bold-face lies.
Judging from the way the interviews were conducted, imo NOTHING points to Kane & Co trying to "coerce" a confession out of the Ramseys.
On the contrary, the Ramseys were being treated very politely (almost deferentially), and not once did the the interviewers even try to get them with their back up against the wall. They actually missed many opportunities to do this.

jmo

[DAFFODIL]

Excellent post bystander.

Returning to the DNA for a moment I simply do not get,why,if it supposedly "clears" the Ramseys it doesnt do the same for eg the Whites and the McReynolds yet their names are still bandied about as suspects.:shrug:

[sharlock]

[quote=Bystander;9141426]
Why don't you explain why you didn't interpret Thewhitewitch1's comments as accusing me of being a sadistic sexual predator?
A sadistic sexual predator killed JonBenet or if you think the Ramseys staged it, then you think they staged it to look like a sadistic sexual predator did it.

And WW1 is saying she thinks that I fantasize about being that intruder.
So explain your defense of her Bystander.

Shill it seems that perhaps we may be the only ones on this board who are willing to discuss this part of the case indepth so I guess that writes us off as decent human beings :D.
Do you think the predator could have been the same one that was responsible for the attack on the other little girl, because that would seem to indicate someone local being the perp. I have always found the children murdered in surrounding areas at the time as an indicator that could have been the case? I have tried to find my old post where I linked to those crimes but can't at the moment. I guess if those crimes stopped soon after JB then it could indicate this guy went overseas or left town but I need to check the dates when I can find them. I doubt this guy stopped at JB just got better at what he does. Guess I will keep looking.

[Bystander]

I'm not really responding to this post but I wanted to add something to one of the comments you have made this morning regarding those of us with delicate stomaches :-)

I've followed this case for almost 9 years but whilst I am fascinated by investigative techniques in solving crime, I really don't have a stomach for the crimes themselves and find some aspects of the discussions too distasteful to read or participate in.

For example, there are numerous discussions at one particular forum which IMO focus rather too much on the sexual and it has occurred to me that for some posters at least, there HAS to be an element of pleasure from these discussions - otherwise why spend so much time speculating over things of this nature which are simply not supported by fact and which are probably pure (sexual) fantasy?

I wonder if LE takes note of such discussions in the Ramsey case as we know the have in other cases?

I can read easier when things are couched as they are in the autopsy report. The autopsy photos were hard to click open, but not so much anymore. I remember feeling outraged along with everyone else when they were first published.

I think it's possible LE would take note of stuff if there were something that grabbed their attention but doubt if they could have enough resources to monitor the volumes of stuff posted everywhere.

I recently read about LE looking at KC Anthony's surfing and finding stuff that doesn't look good for her. That's where people could find themselves in real trouble... having some of these seaches in their history trails if there was ever cause to look. If JR had been a frequenter of true crime forums before the murder, could you imagine what a position he would have been in?

RE: investigative techniques, there's an investigative guideline on Brent T's site that's pretty interesting. Have you seen it? I'm not sure where exactly, but I'll post it if I find it again..

[Bystander]

There was a similar crime that was almost committed before Jonbonet. About 9 months after Jon Benet's murder, a very similar thing happened to another family who lived just a few miles away from the Ramseys, and the young daughter even attended the same dance studio as Jon Benet. The father was away on business, and the mother and daughter had gone to a movie, during which time the perpetrator entered the house through a basement window (just like with the Ramseys). After the mother and daughter got home and went to bed, the mother was later awakened by sounds coming from her daughter's room. When she burst into the room, she saw a masked intruder attacking her daughter, and she sprayed mase into his face, causing him to quickly flee out the window. When the father returned home the next day, he went to the police with the story, but they immediately dismissed any possibility that it could be in any way connected to the Ramsey murder.
JMHO

Here's something that expands on that

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0802ramse.shtml



The kidnap and murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion riveted the nation nearly three years ago. After being abducted from her Orange County neighborhood, her nude body was found the next day in the hills west of Lake Elsinore. She had been sexually assaulted and then asphyxiated.


Though I see where many people find the sexual predator characteristics to be a convincing possibility, and the point about some offenders not always showing every characteristic is well taken, the above illustrates one of the things that says 'callous predator' loud and clear. This little girl was found outside the home, abducted and taken away, and she was disposed of. There was nothing to mitagate the condition in which she was found, such as covering or redressing her, she was simply left there. I haven't seen any instances where care was taken unless it was a family member, though they may be out there.

Many times the offender is noticed while in the home. Elizabeth Smart's sister woke up and saw her kidnapper but was too afraid to do anything. The case Jayelles (I think?) posted.. the people around the victim heard sounds but didn't realize the significance until later and thought she was dreaming. The 14 year old girl's mother heard whispering and went to check on her. There 's a recent one, I think you might have posted a link to it, where the father caught an attacker about to enter his daughters room, wrestled with him and the guy died. In most cases there is a clear indication of what kind of crime was committed but in JBR's instance, there is so much that is contradictory.

[Bystander]

[quote=Bystander;9141426]
Why don't you explain why you didn't interpret Thewhitewitch1's comments as accusing me of being a sadistic sexual predator?
A sadistic sexual predator killed JonBenet or if you think the Ramseys staged it, then you think they staged it to look like a sadistic sexual predator did it.

And WW1 is saying she thinks that I fantasize about being that intruder.
So explain your defense of her Bystander.

Really, in light of your own earlier replies to the op, if that is righteous indignation I see, it falls a little flat. When you trade insults like that they kind of have the effect of cancelling each other out.

I don't see anything there that changes my mind about what I've already posted and your options don't do a good job of representing what I think at all. P'raps that's how we've ended up with different interpretations, no?

[Jayelles]

Really, in light of your own earlier replies to the op, if that is righteous indignation I see, it falls a little flat. When you trade insults like that they kind of have the effect of cancelling each other out.

I don't see anything there that changes my mind about what I've already posted and your options don't do a good job of representing what I think at all. P'raps that's how we've ended up with different interpretations, no?

Different interpretations is the key I think. I was never a fan of Freud who saw sexual motivation and mother complexes in everything. :D

I really don't think the Ramsey case was committed by a sexual sadist. I see neither sadism nor sexual in any of it. She wasn't posed for example - she was hidden away. IMO a sadist would have posed her in the cruellest way possible and given the time of year, there were many options. Plus the ransom note had absolutely no sexual references whatsoever and I don't think a sexual pervert would have been able to resist doing that at some point in the space of three pages.

A garotte could be sexual I agree, but it could also be considered a murder implement which distanced the killer from the victim - i.e. the killer didn't have to look her in the face nor even touch her neck whilst strangling her. Or it could have been used to cover the marks of an earlier strangulation or attempt at strangulation. The sexual interference was minimal with certainly no evidence of frenzy which surely would have been present in a sexually sadistic assault?

These are the reasons why I do NOT think the murder was sexually motivated and I know many others agree with me. I think the case has most chance of being solved by focusing on the real evidence - i.e. the DNA, handwriting, footsoldier enquiries etc and not through detailed analysis of the various techniques of sexual sadism. I'm sure there are forums which specialise in that sort of stuff for those with a special interest in it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Shill it seems that perhaps we may be the only ones on this board who are willing to discuss this part of the case indepth so I guess that writes us off as decent human beings :D.
Do you think the predator could have been the same one that was responsible for the attack on the other little girl, because that would seem to indicate someone local being the perp. I have always found the children murdered in surrounding areas at the time as an indicator that could have been the case? I have tried to find my old post where I linked to those crimes but can't at the moment. I guess if those crimes stopped soon after JB then it could indicate this guy went overseas or left town but I need to check the dates when I can find them. I doubt this guy stopped at JB just got better at what he does. Guess I will keep looking.

The girl you are referring to that was attacked in her home was 14 years old. There is a huge difference between a 14 yr. old and a 6 yr. old. Had the girl had been more around JBs age, I would tend to think the crimes may have been connected. Besides the girl being attacked in her home there are NO other similarities except the dance class connection.
Also, I believe you stated that the attack on the second girl occurred before JBs murder, when, in fact, it occurred after. So much for Shills theory that the killer left the country, IF the two were connected. I don't happen to believe that they were. Copy-cat crimes are fairly common and look at all of the weirdos that came out of the woodwork after JBs death.
BTW, I don't have a problem with your opinion that a sexual sadist/pedophile killed JB. I don't agree with it but you have a right to your opinion. What I object to is Shills graphic sick unfounded scenarios that he has posted in the past. Perhaps you missed some of them. I won't repeat them - sorry.
And just for the record, when Shills says this:
"And WW1 is saying she thinks that I fantasize about being that intruder."
He is absolutely right. That's exactly what I meant. If that offended YOU, I'm sorry, though I don't know why it would.
I am not the only person who holds that opinion of Shill. I'm just perhaps the only one here who has said it "out loud". IMO

[DAFFODIL]

You are right WW I hold the same opinion,however,I have long since had shrill on ignore...life is much pleasanter that way ;)

[Jayelles]

TWW1:-

Your dog is a beautiful colour!

[thewhitewitch1]

TWW1:-

Your dog is a beautiful colour!

Thanks, Jayelles.:) That was a puppy picture and she has changed colors a bit since then. She's almost 4 now.

[thewhitewitch1]

You are right WW I hold the same opinion,however,I have long since had shrill on ignore...life is much pleasanter that way ;)

Thanks for speaking up about your opinion of Shill. I knew I couldn't be the only one.
I just wish that people wouldn't take my distaste for Shill so personally. It isn't his theory that I find disgusting...it's HIM.
I've already apologized to those who took my comments to Shill personally. I don't know what else they expect me to do. :shrug:

[Bystander]

Returning to the DNA for a moment I simply do not get,why,if it supposedly "clears" the Ramseys it doesnt do the same for eg the Whites and the McReynolds yet their names are still bandied about as suspects.:shrug:


I think people tend to accept what falls into line with their position, and question what doesn't fit. :( I know I do it, but I had to laugh when I came across this yesterday. Even the professionals are subject to it.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/01aboot.html

by By Christopher Anderson, Daily Camera, Titled, "Boots' owner was tested by police," - September 1, 2000, "A pair of Hi-Tec boots being examined as part of the JonBenét Ramsey investigation belong to a man who committed suicide in 1997, police said Thursday. Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said detectives took DNA samples from the person in 1997 and learned it does not match DNA found at the Ramsey crime scene. Although police said they do not think the man was involved in the December 1996 killing of JonBenét, Beckner ordered the size 8˝ boots tested this month just to be "thorough." Gray, who obtained the boots in July, said police never told him they ruled the person out through DNA. He questions which DNA samples from the Ramsey crime scene they used to do the comparison and how thorough their examination was.



That also reminded me of a question about the blood spots. There were several, per the autopsy report, and I wondered how they were patterned, not because of the dna, but about how and when it got there. If someone were standing it would look different than it would if someone were prone? So what position was she in when the part of the attack that caused the bleeding happened?

[shill]

We know there were a lot of unidentified fibres found in Ramsey and many of these could well have been the very common black ones. When there is an abundance of common fibres and only a few less common ones, it's perfectly logical that they would focus on the less common ones when trying to establish a match.

Yes Jayelles, once again you provide good but useless information in an attempt to point guilt at the Ramseys.

So basically you are saying the investigators claimed finding red fibers from Patsy's coat, but you are claiming they completely ignored the black fibers from her coat on purpose, because most synthetic black fibers would match?

Don't you think investigators interviewing Patsy would have told Patsy that they matched both red and black fibers from her coat to sweat a confession out of her?
Because according to you, the black fibers should have matched even if they weren't from the same source, because it is hard to prove other wise?