JonBenet Ramsey - Open Discussion

[shill]

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.

jmoYou're right rash, Lou Smit clearly states there were brown cotton fibers found on it.

[shill]

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:
Oh Daffadil, it is so hard to understand things and so easy to just agree with those you want to agree with.

The DNA clears the Whites and the McReynolds if they sampled the McReynolds.

That's why they have not been arrested since the new DNA was unraveled.
Just like the Ramseys, they are not guilty.

What I don't get is why you think the Whites and the McReynolds could still be guilty?

[shill]

[quote=shill;9141446]

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.I think he left the country the next day, or before 8-10am the 27th, when the note says he would call.

Copycat murders are very common and maybe a pedophile deducted how easy it was to get in to a house and grab a child after seeing the JB incident and tried it himself.

[shill]

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:Daffodil is nothing but a cheerleader who would agree with any RDI.
Do you really need her to affirm your beliefs?

I've seen how you have taken an act of kindness and used it as a weapon.
That is truly disturbing. Even dogs don't do that.

However you persecute me for bluntly disusing a murder case that is truly about a sick and disturbing murder, and some how you want to believe that I am a deviate for seeking the truth instead of rolling over for some candy coated accusations that point to a parent covering up a boo-boo.

I find it disturbing that posters discussing a sadistic brutal murder of a little girl won't face facts and make horrible accusations about those who do, just so they can continue to live in their world of denial.

[Jayelles]

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.



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?

Interesting question and one which I've never seen raised before. I've always assumed that they were transferred to her underwear upon contact of being pulled up.

It's only 3 weeks till it will be 12 years. Last night I watched a documentary on time travel on the National Geographic channel which was very interesting. I thought that if only time travel were possible, how many cold cases could be solved :-)

[rashomon]

OK. I know I'm going to really regret this. But what the hell. It's an open discussion. Patsy Ramsey is dead. She's gone. The local LE in Colorado said that she didn't kill her daughter. I don't care one way or the other. But it's done. It's finished. As far as LE is concerned. Unless any of you have ground breaking, earth shattering evidence. Then bring it on. To LE.
You don't seem to want people to dig deeper into this unsolved case. Interesting. But I'm afraid it's none of your business to tell the posters what to do.

Let see if the new DA has the courage to thoroughly reinvestigate this case and is not afraid to open the many cans of worms this will involve.

jmo

[rashomon]

You're right rash, Lou Smit clearly states there were brown cotton fibers found on it.

The brown cotton fibers dont erase the significance of the sourced black fibers form John's shirt in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear. Which indicates that John Ramsey handled this garment.
As for the brown fibers - we don't know how many of the Ramseys' clothes (or pieces of cloth, rags) etc. LE did NOT test.
For example, LE could not even find the remaining set of the size 12 Bloomies in the house, so the Ramseys either smuggled the set out of the house or were able to hide it in the home. The same could apply for a brown cotton cloth used to clean the victim - they could either have smuggled it out or hid it.
IIRC, we don't even know if any of the clothes Pam Paugh removed from the home was tested for fibers (others please correct me if I'm wrong).

jmo

[shill]

The brown cotton fibers dont erase the significance of the sourced black fibers form John's shirt in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear. Which indicates that John Ramsey handled this garment.
There's a big difference between sworn in court recorded testimony stating the existence of brown fibers and an investigator who is not sworn in, or in a court of law, or legally obligated by the laws of the United States of America to tell the truth when questioning a witness, who makes the accusation of the existence of black fibers.

Until those black fibers get entered into a court of law as evidence like the brown fibers, their existance is only hearsay, mentioned once in an attempt to spook a confession that did not materlize, and then never mentioned again.

[sharlock]

The brown cotton fibers dont erase the significance of the sourced black fibers form John's shirt in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear. Which indicates that John Ramsey handled this garment.
As for the brown fibers - we don't know how many of the Ramseys' clothes (or pieces of cloth, rags) etc. LE did NOT test.
For example, LE could not even find the remaining set of the size 12 Bloomies in the house, so the Ramseys either smuggled the set out of the house or were able to hide it in the home. The same could apply for a brown cotton cloth used to clean the victim - they could either have smuggled it out or hid it.
IIRC, we don't even know if any of the clothes Pam Paugh removed from the home was tested for fibers (others please correct me if I'm wrong).

jmo
You base this on information that I am not even sure is real. But, just supposing that it was more than LE trying to elicit a confession from a hostile witness (hostile in the sense that he wasn't prepared to say he did it). If he had handled the garments why is it someone else's DNA found and not John or Patsey's? Oh and the person who killed JB could have smuggled it out of the house too! You are only dealing in what ifs here; I prefer to look at the evidence that can be seen to be real.

[Limaes]

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?

That they wore brown cotton gloves whilst staging the scene after she was seriously wounded from the head blow. Gardening gloves, golfing gloves just to name a few possibilities.

[Limaes]

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



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!


Two great posts Jayelles, very informative.

I remember watching a show about a case some years ago, I don't recall the victim's name atm, but it was a 5/6 yr-old girl who attended a work christmas party with her mum and was abducted shortly before they were to leave for home.

She was wearing a jumper and skirt set that her mother purchased from a catalogue. With help from the manufacturer, LE was able to prove that fibers from the suspect's car matched those of the victim's clothing which, along with other evidence, led to his conviction.

In the Ramsey case, they have red and black fibers. There are several different shades of red which would make the possibilty of matching it to a particular garment greater.

If the experts believed that the red fibers were "similar" or "consistent" to PR's jacket, then the possibilty of an intruder entering the home wearing clothing that matched both in colour and fabric as PR is highly unlikely in my opinion.

Although JR's shirt was black, which would make it harder to match the dye, the actual fiber wasn't all that common.

If the BDA wants the R's cleared, then why don't they release the reports on the fiber evidence?

[Limaes]

Until those black fibers get entered into a court of law as evidence like the brown fibers, their existance is only hearsay, mentioned once in an attempt to spook a confession that did not materlize, and then never mentioned again.

So once again using YOUR logic, that would mean that until the touch DNA from the longjohns gets entered into a court of law as evidence, its existence is only hearsay by a DA office bent on clearing the R's.

You can't have it both ways.

[Limaes]

I really don't think the Ramsey case was committed by a sexual sadist. I see neither sadism nor sexual in any of it.

For the most part, neither do I. I don't rule out the possibility entirely though because she did have vaginal injuries, even prior to that night.

Everything I have read about this case, which like so many other people is alot, I don't think that there was anybody else in this world that was more obsessed with JB than her mother.

She is the only one, known for a fact, by her own admission, to have come into contact with JB's private area just "days" before she died. She claims that she administered Desitin cream but when asked if she had gotten internal cream off Dr.B, she couldn't remember that.

Patsy 98 interview:

8 TOM HANEY: Okay. And did JonBenet

9 have on more than one occasion some vaginitis or

10 infection or--

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she would,

12 like we talked about earlier, you know, her

13 wiping habits weren't terrific. And so she had

14 urinated, maybe she wouldn't wipe properly and

15 her panties would get wet, a little damp, which

16 would cause a little irritation, you know, kind

17 of like diaper rash and the same with you know,

18 bowel movements. You know.

19 So I would use -- a lot of time I

20 used Desitin or something, she had some redness,

21 you know, so I used Desitin.

22 TOM HANEY: Is that something that

23 the doctor prescribed?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: No, it's not

25 prescription. Desitin is for diaper rash.

0576

1 TOM HANEY: Okay. Did he ever

2 prescribe anything?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

4 TOM HANEY: Was it ever so bad

5 that, you know, I mean it was a real--

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

7 TOM HANEY: -- real problem for

8 her?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

10 TOM HANEY: Okay. And you said

11 that you would use this Desitin?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

13 TOM HANEY: You know, how often?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: You know, I don't

15 know. I just kept the tube in her bathroom

16 drawer there. If she complained that her bottom

17 was hurting I would take a little on a tissue,

18 you know, and put it on there. Not very often.

19 TOM HANEY: Okay. Did you ever

20 apply any other ointment or lotion or

21 prescription salve or anything like that?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

23 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you remember

24 the last -- I am sorry.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: What about when she

0577

1 had chicken pox?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Chicken pox? We

3 used -- took this oatmeal bath, Aveeno, and I

4 think caladryl or something like that. What did

5 we use for chicken pox, pink, drying stuff.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: Did she have chicken

7 pox in her vaginal area?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: I know she had a

9 great big one on her fanny. I think she had a

10 little scar from that. Burke had one on his eye

11 right there. I don't remember it being

12 (INAUDIBLE).

13 TRIP DeMUTH: Did you get an

14 ointment from Dr. Buff?

15 PATSY RAMSEY: For the chicken

16 pox?

17 TRIP DeMUTH: In her vaginal area?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

19 I don't remember getting that.

20 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

21 Do you recall the last time that

22 you had applied the Desitin?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: The Desitin? No.

24 TRIP DeMUTH: Would it have been

25 days, weeks, months, you know?

0578

1 PATSY RAMSEY: Maybe within days.

2 I mean maybe once every couple of weeks she

3 might complain of a little irritation.

P's "I don't remember" answers are frustrating. Just like she says she doesn't remember calling Dr. B 3 times in the space of an hour on Dec.7.

It is very obvious to me that this woman knows what happened to her daughter and is determined not to help those that tried to find out. :flamemad:

[Bystander]

Two great posts Jayelles, very informative...,


In the Ramsey case, they have red and black fibers. There are several different shades of red which would make the possibilty of matching it to a particular garment greater.

If the experts believed that the red fibers were "similar" or "consistent" to PR's jacket, then the possibilty of an intruder entering the home wearing clothing that matched both in colour and fabric as PR is highly unlikely in my opinion.(...,)

If the BDA wants the R's cleared, then why don't they release the reports on the fiber evidence?

That would be helpful. The jacket was red, black and gray wasn't it? It seems a possibility that the fiber's themselves could have been multi colored when looked at under a microscope and that is what matches color wise. When you have paints mixed, even white has a squirt of black added to make it darker and the same thing would happen with a fabric that is dyed red.

Without seeing the actual reports it's mostly guess work but for example, when an image is enlarged on a computer, the pixels can be seen and they are composed of a lot of different colors, not just the color that it appears under smaller magnification.

http://webstyleguide.com/graphics/displays.html (scroll down to the birds.. the different colors in the pixels are shown.)

I've seen yarns that are multi colored so it occurs to me that different colors could be woven into the fabric with the result being that a red fiber may show different colors under magnification. A darker red shade would have more black or gray 'pixels' than a lighter one and that may be one of the things they use to decide if a particular fiber is consistent or not.

[shill]

Although JR's shirt was black, which would make it harder to match the dye, the actual fiber wasn't all that common.

If the BDA wants the R's cleared, then why don't they release the reports on the fiber evidence?Since when is cotton from Israel a common fiber?

They should release the reports on the fiber evidence to expose how much of it claimed by interviewers was just a bluff to try and get the Ramseys to confess to something.

In his dep, Lou Smit talks about brown cotton fibers found in the areas that interviewers claimed red synthetic fibers from Patsy's jacket were found.
Like the claim that black fibers from John's shirt were found on JB's crotch area, I believe the red fibers was another bluff by investigators, that is not backed with reports on the fiber evidence.

[shill]

So once again using YOUR logic, that would mean that until the touch DNA from the longjohns gets entered into a court of law as evidence, its existence is only hearsay by a DA office bent on clearing the R's.

You can't have it both ways.
Since when did the DA publicly announce that black fibers from Johns shirt were found on JB's crotch area?

Since when did the DA publicly announce that red fibers from Patsy's jacket were found on the garrote, tape, or paintbrush handle?

What is claimed and said in an interview to get a reaction from a suspect can be a outright lie according to United States law.

If you think the DA was lying about the touch DNA evidence, then you are a believer in conspiracies.

Investigators lying and making things up in an interview is common and accepted by law and can not be used as a dependable source of evidence.
However evidence admitted in court can be.

As far as suggesting the DA is lying, believe what you want, but I'll take their word as truthful.

[rashomon]

P's "I don't remember" answers are frustrating. Just like she says she doesn't remember calling Dr. B 3 times in the space of an hour on Dec.7.

It is very obvious to me that this woman knows what happened to her daughter and is determined not to help those that tried to find out. :flamemad:
Quite often in interrogations, guilty suspects use the phrase "I can't remember", when they actually do remember very well but want to keep this hidden from the investigators.

jmo

[rashomon]

Since when did the DA publicly announce that black fibers from Johns shirt were found on JB's crotch area?

As far as suggesting the DA is lying, believe what you want, but I'll take their word as truthful.
First of all, we have no idea of how throroughly Lacy has studied the case file. One gets the impression that she largely based her belief in Ramsey innocence on judge Carnes' 'Carnival of Errors' ruling.

Secondly, in an ongoing investigation, the DA needn't "publicly announce" such info. Would be quite stupid to do so actually. You keep those trump cards for later.
Also don't forget that if Jameson hadn't sold the interviews with the Ramseys to the NE, we would not know anything about this confidential case info either.

jmo

[rashomon]

Since when is cotton from Israel a common fiber?

They should release the reports on the fiber evidence to expose how much of it claimed by interviewers was just a bluff to try and get the Ramseys to confess to something.

In his dep, Lou Smit talks about brown cotton fibers found in the areas that interviewers claimed red synthetic fibers from Patsy's jacket were found.
Like the claim that black fibers from John's shirt were found on JB's crotch area, I believe the red fibers was another bluff by investigators, that is not backed with reports on the fiber evidence.
Suppose you could read the lab report on the fiber evidence and find out Michael Kane told the truth, what would you say then?

jmo

[rashomon]

You base this on information that I am not even sure is real. But, just supposing that it was more than LE trying to elicit a confession from a hostile witness (hostile in the sense that he wasn't prepared to say he did it). If he had handled the garments why is it someone else's DNA found and not John or Patsey's?
Oh and the person who killed JB could have smuggled it out of the house too! You are only dealing in what ifs here; I prefer to look at the evidence that can be seen to be real.
No I'm not dealing with what ifs when it comes to the size 12 Bloomies. It is a fact that the Ramseys later handed in a size 12 Bloomies set, claiming they had "found" it in one of the boxes with clothing when they moved.
Didn't you know that?
This Ramsey story excludes a "the intruder took the Bloomies out of the house" scenario, don't you think so?

jmo

[shill]

Suppose you could read the lab report on the fiber evidence and find out Michael Kane told the truth, what would you say then?

jmoAs if you don't know what I would say.
I've said this all along, if the fibers from John's Israel black cotton shirt were on JonBenet's crotch area, they would have to arrest him and try him in court.
But they didn't, did they?

[shill]

..., in an ongoing investigation, the DA needn't "publicly announce" such info. Would be quite stupid to do so actually. You keep those trump cards for later.

jmoBut the DA did publicly announce the DNA findings.
So why would they hold back info on the red fibers and the black fibers all these years?

[thewhitewitch1]

As if you don't know what I would say.
I've said this all along, if the fibers from John's Israel black cotton shirt were on JonBenet's crotch area, they would have to arrest him and try him in court.
But they didn't, did they?

I highly doubt that that would have been grounds to arrest him and it wouldn't have been enough to have him convicted in court. A good lawyer would have been able to make a convincing argument for how his fibers could have gotten there. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

But the DA did publicly announce the DNA findings.
So why would they hold back info on the red fibers and the black fibers all these years?

My guess would be that they were "swept under the rug"; along with the Bloomies and the pineapple.

[shill]

My guess would be that they were "swept under the rug"; along with the Bloomies and the pineapple.
"swept under the rug"?
Just admit it WW1, you believe it's a conspiracy to protect the Ramseys and that is the only way you RDI can explain away the obvious evidence.

[thewhitewitch1]

"swept under the rug"?
Just admit it WW1, you believe it's a conspiracy to protect the Ramseys and that is the only way you RDI can explain away the obvious evidence.

Money talks. That's the bottom line. The Ramseys had money; and with that comes power and intimidation.
The "obvious evidence" (meaning the DNA) does NOT prove that the Ramseys were not involved. Only an idiot could ever reach that conclusion. Some have suggested that even though the DNA doesn't match any of the known suspects, they still could be involved but yet when it comes to the Ramseys, that same logic just doesn't apply.
My thoughts are that something is "hinky" about this "DNA evidence " anyway. Can't explain why and it doesn't mean that I'm right but it's just a gut feeling.
I don't think this case will ever be solved.

[shill]

The "obvious evidence" (meaning the DNA) does NOT prove that the Ramseys were not involved. Only an idiot could ever reach that conclusion. Some have suggested that even though the DNA doesn't match any of the known suspects, they still could be involved but yet when it comes to the Ramseys, that same logic just doesn't apply.
Sorry that's not me. The DNA imo proves that all those who don't match it, aren't involved, since I have not read a credible reason for the part of the unknown strangers involvement, other then he is the killer.

[shill]

I believe the intention of the unknown male killer was to abduct JonBenet for sexual purposes and he aborted his plan after a knee jerk reaction in which he struck out at her, killing her prematurely.

So I found this passage in the department of justice FBI publication NC65 "Child Molesters Who Abduct" which would explain the reason for a ransom note.

Pg.21Some offenders may not even realize
their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small
ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince
others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender.

[Limaes]

Money talks. That's the bottom line.

Ain't that the truth. Unfortunately this isn't a one off case either. What T.Cullen Davis got away with was unbelievable. A 12 yr-old girl was brutally murdered and the jury were more interested in partying with her murderer...disgraceful.


My thoughts are that something is "hinky" about this "DNA evidence " anyway. Can't explain why and it doesn't mean that I'm right but it's just a gut feeling.
I don't think this case will ever be solved.

They're my thoughts too.

[sharlock]

I believe the intention of the unknown male killer was to abduct JonBenet for sexual purposes and he aborted his plan after a knee jerk reaction in which he struck out at her, killing her prematurely.

So I found this passage in the department of justice FBI publication NC65 "Child Molesters Who Abduct" which would explain the reason for a ransom note.

Pg.21Some offenders may not even realize
their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small
ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince
others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender.
Wow, what a find, pretty compelling imo.

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe the intention of the unknown male killer was to abduct JonBenet for sexual purposes and he aborted his plan after a knee jerk reaction in which he struck out at her, killing her prematurely.

So I found this passage in the department of justice FBI publication NC65 "Child Molesters Who Abduct" which would explain the reason for a ransom note.

Pg.21Some offenders may not even realize
their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small
ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince
others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender.

"An offender may EVENTUALLY request a ridiculously small ransom for a child HE HAD ABDUCTED...."

She was NOT abducted. This does not apply to JBs situation. Nice try, though.

[thewhitewitch1]

Wow, what a find, pretty compelling imo.

No, it isn't. The writer was speaking of molesters who already had the children in their possession (OUT of their homes). Note the usage of the word "eventually." This does not apply to JBs case. Most of you IDIs believe the RN was written before she was killed so it just doesn't fit. IMO

[Limaes]

Pg.21Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small
ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender.

Then what did your intruder think he was doing while climbing through the basement window like a 4ft gymnast carrying rope, duct tape, pineapple, box of Kleenex, stun gun. Surely he realised his own motive while sitting down writing out a long and rambling RN while the Ramseys were at the White's.

He doesn't like to think of himself as a sex offender, but he is okay with being a murderer. This passsage makes no sense as far as this case goes. :shrug:

[sharlock]

No, it isn't. The writer was speaking of molesters who already had the children in their possession (OUT of their homes). Note the usage of the word "eventually." This does not apply to JBs case. Most of you IDIs believe the RN was written before she was killed so it just doesn't fit. IMO
The implication is that they don't want to admit to themselves or others what they truly are so they will divert attention such as a kidnapping ransom scenario, even though the true intention is child molestation, the word eventually does not make it irrelevant.

[shill]

[/b]

"An offender may EVENTUALLY request a ridiculously small ransom for a child HE HAD ABDUCTED...."

She was NOT abducted. This does not apply to JBs situation. Nice try, though.She was abducted from her room and taken to the basement and molested. That fits the FBI profile claim.

Your turning into Rashomon with your "it has to be exactly the same or it's not true" counter remarks.

And like all RDI, you think that everything this IDI must have done, was exactly as his original plan.
And I have always said his plan went South and he didn't fully execute it.
This was originally going to be an abduction imo.

Interesting the FBI report also talks about the use of a weapon on their victim by child molesters who intend to abduct, as apposed to those who lure victims don't use weapons.

[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. And from the same FBI document that also answer my claim child molesters kill to get away with murder.

(Warning: the FBI claims in this document child molesters use sexual sadism, bondage, and torture on their victims and I know how that creeps you out, so be prepared to be creeped out by the FBI.)

pg.27 (it's not letting me post this quote, sorry)

[shill]

Pg 27 Preferential child molesters with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection.

[shill]

The “intentional” category is the most varied. It includes offenders who kill their victims to avoid detection ( probably the largest category of ------ homicides of children)

[shill]

Looks like posters got the word "xes" banned from any kind of use, so I had to leave blanks where it appears.

[shill]

Pg.27 Evidence of a preferential interest in children or hetual hadism (e.g., victim
xorxured while kept conscious and alive, hetual bondage) would change
this suspect focus. Preferential child molesxers with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection. hetual hadists are likely to abduct and usually have good interpersonal skills.
The “intentional” category is the most varied. It includes het offenders
who kill their victims to avoid detection (probably the largest category of
hetual homicides of children), hadists and serial killers who hurt and kill for
hetual pleasure, pedophiles who kill because of misguided “love” or ambivalent
hate, and extreme inadequates who are intimidated by interpersonal contact.

Well I had to change "s to h" and "x to t" to get it to accept the full context of the quote, but the quote backs my claims about child molesters.

[sharlock]

She was abducted from her room and taken to the basement and molested. That fits the FBI profile claim.

Your turning into Rashomon with your "it has to be exactly the same or it's not true" counter remarks.

And like all RDI, you think that everything this IDI must have done, was exactly as his original plan.
And I have always said his plan went South and he didn't fully execute it.
This was originally going to be an abduction imo.

Interesting the FBI report also talks about the use of a weapon on their victim by child molesters who intend to abduct, as apposed to those who lure victims don't use weapons.
And from the same FBI document that also answer my claim child molesters kill to get away with murder.

(Warning: the FBI claims in this document child molesters use sexual sadism, bondage, and torture on their victims and I know how that creeps you out, so be prepared to be creeped out by the FBI.)

pg.27 (it's not letting me post this quote, sorry)

Pg 27 Preferential child molesters with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection.
Looks like posters got the word "xes" banned from any kind of use, so I had to leave blanks where it appears.
Pg.27 Evidence of a preferential interest in children or hetual hadism (e.g., victim
xorxured while kept conscious and alive, hetual bondage) would change
this suspect focus. Preferential child molesxers with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection. hetual hadists are likely to abduct and usually have good interpersonal skills.
The “intentional” category is the most varied. It includes het offenders
who kill their victims to avoid detection (probably the largest category of
hetual homicides of children), hadists and serial killers who hurt and kill for
hetual pleasure, pedophiles who kill because of misguided “love” or ambivalent
hate, and extreme inadequates who are intimidated by interpersonal contact.

Well I had to change "s to h" and "x to t" to get it to accept the full context of the quote, but the quote backs my claims about child molesters.

Thankyou Shill.

[shill]

Thankyou Shill.No, thank you for comprehending and appreciating the relevance of the information I presented.

[Jack7]

OK Mikey:
What does SBTC Mean?
Jack

[Jack7]

I know what SBTC means and will tell the first lucky investigator (who then can solve the JBR puzzle) for $ 50,000.

[cookiewench]

She was abducted from her room and taken to the basement and molested. That fits the FBI profile claim.

Your turning into Rashomon with your "it has to be exactly the same or it's not true" counter remarks.

And like all RDI, you think that everything this IDI must have done, was exactly as his original plan.
And I have always said his plan went South and he didn't fully execute it.
This was originally going to be an abduction imo.

Interesting the FBI report also talks about the use of a weapon on their victim by child molesters who intend to abduct, as apposed to those who lure victims don't use weapons.

And what do your FBI statistics tell you about what these predators actually DO to the children they abduct and kill?

The rape them. They rape them in horrible ways. They don't simply "molest" them. They also don't redress their victims and wrap them in a blanket (which are indications of a family member/close friend murder).

Jonbenet's vaginal injuries were so slight that some experts have argued that they weren't even the result of molestation (let alone rape).

Personally - from all of the information we have, the circumstances, the staging, and the note - I don't believe that anyone but Patsy was involved, and that she was staging a crime after an accidental killing.

John most likely realized what was going on the minute he read the ransom note, but decided for his own reasons to keep that to himself.


Merry Christmas, Jonbenet. You will never be forgotten.

[Lodi]

And what do your FBI statistics tell you about what these predators actually DO to the children they abduct and kill?

The rape them. They rape them in horrible ways. They don't simply "molest" them. They also don't redress their victims and wrap them in a blanket (which are indications of a family member/close friend murder).

Jonbenet's vaginal injuries were so slight that some experts have argued that they weren't even the result of molestation (let alone rape).

Personally - from all of the information we have, the circumstances, the staging, and the note - I don't believe that anyone but Patsy was involved, and that she was staging a crime after an accidental killing.

John most likely realized what was going on the minute he read the ransom note, but decided for his own reasons to keep that to himself.


Merry Christmas, Jonbenet. You will never be forgotten.

I have always thought that JonBenet may have been killed accidentally by a family member. If that happened, I have always wondered why they didn't stage an accident. Lay her body at the foot of the stairs with a flashlight next to her. Keep it simple.

[cookiewench]

I have always thought that JonBenet may have been killed accidentally by a family member. If that happened, I have always wondered why they didn't stage an accident. Lay her body at the foot of the stairs with a flashlight next to her. Keep it simple.

Maybe Patsy knew that an accident would be very hard to stage. An autopsy would have shown that the head injury was from a blunt object and couldn't have been caused by a fall. A person would probably have to fall from a 5-story building onto concrete to get that kind of injury.

Also, Patsy was given to dramatics and "big shows". A murder got her the kind of attention that an accident wouldn't have.


Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, all.

[Lodi]

Maybe Patsy knew that an accident would be very hard to stage. An autopsy would have shown that the head injury was from a blunt object and couldn't have been caused by a fall. A person would probably have to fall from a 5-story building onto concrete to get that kind of injury.

Also, Patsy was given to dramatics and "big shows". A murder got her the kind of attention that an accident wouldn't have.


Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, all.

If that's what happened, Patsy must have known more than I would have guessed. I thought a child the age of JonBenet had a skull that was still growing and was made up of segments that had not yet fused together.
Due to this, I could picture JonBenet going up the stairs with a flashlight in her hand. She loses her balance, falls backwards and hits her head on the flashlight, causing massive damage. I guess I would have been arrested right off the bat whereas Patsy may have gotten away with it.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[One2Snoop]

If that's what happened, Patsy must have known more than I would have guessed. I thought a child the age of JonBenet had a skull that was still growing and was made up of segments that had not yet fused together.
Due to this, I could picture JonBenet going up the stairs with a flashlight in her hand. She loses her balance, falls backwards and hits her head on the flashlight, causing massive damage. I guess I would have been arrested right off the bat whereas Patsy may have gotten away with it.

Merry Christmas everyone.

OMG! :eek: You mean you haven't been arrested in the disappearance of Tara Grinstead yet? :rolleyes:

[shill]

Maybe Patsy knew that an accident would be very hard to stage.What? So you think the crime scene you claim she did stage was easy or easier to stage?
Logic just seems to elude you!


An autopsy would have shown that the head injury was from a blunt object and couldn't have been caused by a fall. A person would probably have to fall from a 5-story building onto concrete to get that kind of injury.

Might I remind you that no one knew JonBenet even had a head injury until she was at the coroners and they removed her skull.
And you think Patsy could know what an autopsy of the unseen damage would reveal and conclude that the non-visible head injury would not pass as an injury from a head fall when discovered during an autopsy?
Once again, logic just seems to elude you.:shrug:

[Lodi]

Back in with my 2 cents worth. Will regret, but WTH. It's Boxing Day, I can have my say.

JB was murdered by the ligature being twisted. The handle was found to be one of Patsy's paint brushes. To me, this suggests premeditation. He/she knew there were brushes down there to use. Get the rope, bring the rope, there you go. The basement windows when opened were certainly large enough to allow a man inside.

I have no idea who killed JonBenet. But the initial police investigation was not professional, nor was the subsequent police and DA relationship. Nor did the Ramseys, IMHO, help themselves with refusing to talk to the police or the DA, instead talking to media outlets. Nor did the DA's and police chiefs benefit from talking to the media.

I don't know who killed JonBenet.

The amount demanded in the ransom note, (don't remember exactly how much) was reportedly the same as a bonus that Mr. Ramsey had recently received. Who all would know that amount and decide to ask for exactly that much? It seems very immature, possibly childish. This one clue should have narrowed down the suspects greatly.

[Lodi]

I'm pretty certain his bonus and the amount requested in the ransom note were $118 000. Which I must admit appears to be a very specific amount of money. I have no ulterior motive I say this now. The Ramseys did it, they didn't do it. Makes no difference to my life if they did or didn't.

But the murderer used the paint brush handle that he found inside the basement to kill JonBenet. That ligature IMO was pretty specific. And the amount of money.

I understand the conflict in beliefs of who murdered JonBenet. If the murderer was not part of the family, the thought of this person crawling into the basement, going up to JonBenet's room, writing the ranson note, taking her to the basement and killing her, knowing the chance of being discovered...all seem too weird to be true. But, I have heard that these actions can be the whole motive behind a person doing it. The danger of being caught in the act. If this is the case, it doesn't answer the reason behind the ransom note. It's as if the killer had several purposes for doing this deed.

[sharlock]

And what do your FBI statistics tell you about what these predators actually DO to the children they abduct and kill?

The rape them. They rape them in horrible ways. They don't simply "molest" them. They also don't redress their victims and wrap them in a blanket (which are indications of a family member/close friend murder).

Jonbenet's vaginal injuries were so slight that some experts have argued that they weren't even the result of molestation (let alone rape).

Personally - from all of the information we have, the circumstances, the staging, and the note - I don't believe that anyone but Patsy was involved, and that she was staging a crime after an accidental killing.

John most likely realized what was going on the minute he read the ransom note, but decided for his own reasons to keep that to himself.


Merry Christmas, Jonbenet. You will never be forgotten.

Well let's see what the Fbi have to tell us about the type of people who abduct children?
Pg 27 Preferential child molesters with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection.
Oh, okay the FBI called them child molesters I guess they think that they will molest them then and that may or may not include disgustingly violent rape. It might be that they sometimes do just molest them as implied by thier title!!!! Once again I will repeat myself and reiterate the frustration and unease I feel when reading that people do not think that JB was tortured enough for someone outside of the family to have been responsible.
She was tortured, she would have been petrified and he would have been empowered. He would have had complete control of her, his adrenaline would have been pumping as he bound her and posed her, touched and fondled her, inserted objects into her vagina perhaps smelt her, licked and then wiped her down. Somewhere in all of this obscenity she cried out. He hit her, he hit her hard and he broke her. He had lusted after her and fantasized about her, he had probably imagined this for a very long time. He may not have been capable of even ejeculating without watching her little body go limp after the head blow and strangulation but that didn't stop him from molesting her and enjoying every minute of it. So yes he was a violent enough predator to warrant his title given to him by the FBI of child molestor and he most certainly did violently assault JB.
I apologise for being so graphic but it seems to me that people refuse to acknowledge the violence implicit in an assault like this unless there was direct sexual penetration and I am tired of people saying something that is so untrue. You can beleive that the Ramsey's killed her that does not bother me, but it is an insult to all of the children who have been violently assaulted and molested to minimalise in any way the the violence on the basis of whther there was sexual penetration alone imo.

[One2Snoop]

Latest news update...

Maybe I missed this before but just saw a news article today about a new prosecuter looking into the JBR case? I couldn't find this posted in this thread anywhere.. :shrug:

New Prosecutor Takes Fresh Look at JonBenet Ramsey Case
Friday, December 26, 2008
...

BOULDER, Colo. — A new Boulder County district attorney plans to take a new look at one of the country's most high-profile cold cases — the slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

Incoming District Attorney Stan Garnett said he'll decide what to do with the investigation in his first 30 days on the job, which he starts Jan. 13. His predecessor, Mary Lacy, publicly exonerated the Ramsey family this year in the Dec. 26, 1996, murder.

"I want to look very closely at the resources of the DA's Office and make a careful decision about what resources to continue to expend on the case," Garnett said.

He said he is thinking of sending the case back to the police. The DA's office took over the investigation in 2002 because of concerns about the police department's handling of it.

Garnett said the police department likely has more resources now and is better equipped to handle the investigation.

JonBenet was a 6-year-old beauty queen when she was found bludgeoned and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home just after Christmas in 1996. The case has taken many twists and turns, starting with former DA Alex Hunter declaring soon after the murder that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were under "an umbrella of suspicion."

A grand jury was convened in 1998 to consider the case but adjourned a year later without issuing any indictments. Hunter decided not to run again and left office in 2001.

Lacy was elected to replace Hunter, and in 2002 her office took over the investigation from the police, promising to take a fresh look. She agreed with a federal judge in a defamation lawsuit involving the Ramseys that the evidence was more consistent with the theory that an intruder killed JonBenet.

Three years later, months after Patsy Ramsey died from cancer, the case made international news when John Mark Karr, an American teacher in Thailand, made a bizarre confession to the slaying.

He was whisked from Thailand to Colorado but was released after prosecutors concluded he couldn't have killed her.

Last July, Lacy cleared the Ramseys in the slaying and said new DNA tests pointed to an unknown outsider. Investigators hope to one day match crime scene DNA to a suspect in a growing national DNA registry.

Lacy couldn't run again because of term limits.

Denver defense attorney Larry Pozner said he believes turning the investigation back to the Boulder police is a bad idea.

"The Boulder police were neither fair, nor accurate, in their initial investigation, and there's no reason to think they should be trusted again," said Pozner, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Scott Robinson, a Denver defense attorney who has followed the case, said the Boulder Police Department is far different from more than a decade ago.

Robinson, though, said he's not sure there's much anyone can do in the absence of new DNA evidence or a verifiable confession from the killer.

"The case is as cold as cold can be," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473097,00.html

[cookiewench]

And you think Patsy could know what an autopsy of the unseen damage would reveal and conclude that the non-visible head injury would not pass as an injury from a head fall when discovered during an autopsy?
Once again, logic just seems to elude you.:shrug:


Oh, really?

If Patsy even marginally followed crime stories (and we know that murder novels/legal thrillers were found in the house), she would know that it would be extremely rare for a child to be killed from a fall down the steps. A child just doesn't weigh enough to fall with that kind of force.

Not to even mention that I also posted that Patsy had a flair for the dramatic, and wouldn't have gotten the attention from a child who died accidently than she did from a child who was a murder victim.

She also assumed (rightly so), that she or Burke could have been accused of pushing or throwing Jonbenet down the stairs.

When's the last time you heard of a child dying from falling down the stairs? A broken arm, swollen ankle, even a mild concussion - but Jonbenet was at death's door when Patsy put that garotte around her neck.


And it never ceases to amaze me how some people can project on to others what THEY would have done in a particular situation, and assume that a perfect stranger would behave in the same way.

It makes me think of all the people who would defend Scott Peterson by saying that he would have put Laci's body in a closer body of water if he wanted to make her disappear. No, dear - that's what YOU would have done. He did something different.

Not doing what YOU think would be more rational doesn't make a person innocent.

[cookiewench]

Well let's see what the Fbi have to tell us about the type of people who abduct children?
Pg 27 Preferential child molesters with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection.
Oh, okay the FBI called them child molesters I guess they think that they will molest them then and that may or may not include disgustingly violent rape. It might be that they sometimes do just molest them as implied by thier title!!!! Once again I will repeat myself and reiterate the frustration and unease I feel when reading that people do not think that JB was tortured enough for someone outside of the family to have been responsible.
She was tortured, she would have been petrified and he would have been empowered. He would have had complete control of her, his adrenaline would have been pumping as he bound her and posed her, touched and fondled her, inserted objects into her vagina perhaps smelt her, licked and then wiped her down. Somewhere in all of this obscenity she cried out. He hit her, he hit her hard and he broke her. He had lusted after her and fantasized about her, he had probably imagined this for a very long time. He may not have been capable of even ejeculating without watching her little body go limp after the head blow and strangulation but that didn't stop him from molesting her and enjoying every minute of it. So yes he was a violent enough predator to warrant his title given to him by the FBI of child molestor and he most certainly did violently assault JB.
I apologise for being so graphic but it seems to me that people refuse to acknowledge the violence implicit in an assault like this unless there was direct sexual penetration and I am tired of people saying something that is so untrue. You can beleive that the Ramsey's killed her that does not bother me, but it is an insult to all of the children who have been violently assaulted and molested to minimalise in any way the the violence on the basis of whther there was sexual penetration alone imo.


Interesting little fantasy you have going on there.

Now find one of those molester/murderers who did all that within the victim's house, cleaned and redressed the victim, wrote a long ransom note and then escaped not only without being heard by any of the three family members in the house, but did so without leaving numerous fibers, enough DNA for a positive identification, knew their way around an extremely large house and even where an obscure basement room was - and also had a victim's mother who's fully dressed in last night's clothing at 5:45 am (including a blazer), with full makeup and hair done - and who doesn't even wait by the phone for the "kidnappers" to make the call they say they're going to make...................etc. etc. etc.

[cookiewench]

Oh! And who can climb in and out of a small basement window in the dark without leaving numerous clothing fibers, hair, and other evidence.

[shill]

Pg 27 Preferential child molesters with a demonstrated ability to nonviolently seduce and control children rarely abduct them, but they may kill them to avoid detection.


I apologise for being so graphic but it seems to me that people refuse to acknowledge the violence implicit in an assault like this unless there was direct sexual penetration and I am tired of people saying something that is so untrue. You can beleive that the Ramsey's killed her that does not bother me, but it is an insult to all of the children who have been violently assaulted and molested to minimalise in any way the the violence on the basis of whther there was sexual penetration alone imo.
It's so ironic that the RDI battle cry is that IDI can't accept that parents are capable of covering up an accidental death with such horrific actions to JonBenet, but when you point out that those horrific actions are real and not staged, RDI can not accept the fact that anyone is actually sadistic enough to really do that to a little girl.

[shill]

Oh, really?

If Patsy even marginally followed crime stories (and we know that murder novels/legal thrillers were found in the house), she would know that it would be extremely rare for a child to be killed from a fall down the steps. A child just doesn't weigh enough to fall with that kind of force.

Not to even mention that I also posted that Patsy had a flair for the dramatic, and wouldn't have gotten the attention from a child who died accidently than she did from a child who was a murder victim.

She also assumed (rightly so), that she or Burke could have been accused of pushing or throwing Jonbenet down the stairs.

When's the last time you heard of a child dying from falling down the stairs?


Like I've said before, reality totally eludes you cookiewench.

And for God's sake stop making things up.
At no time in the history of this case Patsy has made a statement eluding she assumed, "that she or Burke could have been accused of pushing or throwing Jonbenet down the stairs."

Your just another RDI nut job as usual cookiewench.

1,307 Deaths in the U.S.A. from falls down stairs in the year 2000.
Most Common Causes of Death Due to Injury in the US (http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm)

Man dies after falling down stairs - ABC News (Australian ... (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/23/2454143.htm)


Ohio Congressman's Death In Arlington Ruled Accidental ... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702384.html)


Girl (18) died after falling down stairs - Local & National, News ... (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/girl-18-died-after-falling-down-stairs-13876387.html)


Recovering alcoholic dies after falling down stairs (http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/southcroydon/Recovering-alcoholic-dies-falling-stairsarticle-322318-details/article.html)


macho is a leading cause of death… « falling down stairs (http://hickey074.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/macho-is-a-leading-cause-of-death/)

[shill]

Interesting little fantasy you have going on there.


It is you who thinks this possible reality is just a fantasy.
The person Sharlock descried is the person that law enforcement is hunting for, not the Ramseys.

It seems like every RDI that has ever posted about this case is totally clueless about child molesters and what they do.

Funny how you post that just because someone thinks something would be done a certain way, doesn't mean that's how they did it, and then you post that this scenario of Sharlock's is a fantasy because you don't think sadistic pedophiles would have done it that way.

[sharlock]

Originally Posted by cookiewench http://boards.crimelibrary.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=9149277#post9149277)
Interesting little fantasy you have going on there.


It is you who thinks this possible reality is just a fantasy.
The person Sharlock descried is the person that law enforcement is hunting for, not the Ramseys.

It seems like every RDI that has ever posted about this case is totally clueless about child molesters and what they do.

Funny how you post that just because someone thinks something would be done a certain way, doesn't mean that's how they did it, and then you post that this scenario of Sharlock's is a fantasy because you don't think sadistic pedophiles would have done it that way.

I have difficulty understanding why the reply to me was started in such a way. There is plenty of evidence to support my theory and the fact taht Patsy was dressed when the police arrived and was too distraught to stand by a phone is not condemning. I know this comment will be followed by a barrage of other details that people find innappropriate about the Ramseys behavious but in Australia we learnt the hard way in the case of Lindy Chamberlain accused of killing her daughter; about convicting parents on the basis of how they reacted to the death of a child.
I notice that there is no response to the numerous examples of people dying by falling down stairs posted by Shill either. That is on second thoughts a good thing because it would seem redundant to keep that point going now anyway. Each and every criminal is different as are their spychological profiles so to say give me an example of a case that is exactly the same and done in exactly the same manner seems as useless to me as me asking for you to provide an example of parents who reacted in the same way as the Ramseys and were found to be guilty of killing their child and then staging in such a graphic way leaving rnasom notes etc. etc. and then refusing to listen to your point unless they were the same down to the finest detail!?:shrug:

[rashomon]

Back in with my 2 cents worth. Will regret, but WTH. It's Boxing Day, I can have my say.

JB was murdered by the ligature being twisted.
The tied neck knot contradicts any twisting action. That thandle clearly was a stage prop.

The handle was found to be one of Patsy's paint brushes. To me, this suggests premeditation. He/she knew there were brushes down there to use.
Hmm, now which person knew Patsy's brushes were down there to use? My guess is it was the person whose jacket fibers were found in the paint tray. Keep it simple, folks. Patsy was involved up to her neck in the staging of the scene. That's what the evidence tells us.

I have no idea who killed JonBenet. But the initial police investigation was not professional, nor was the subsequent police and DA relationship. Nor did the Ramseys, IMHO, help themselves with refusing to talk to the police or the DA, instead talking to media outlets. Nor did the DA's and police chiefs benefit from talking to the media.

I don't know who killed JonBenet.When a few days after the homicide, the Ramseys were on TV instead of being questioned by the police, this raised a red flag among many people, and rightly so .
All that "There is a killer out there" nonsense - Patsy's acting performance was soo lousy. :rolleyes:
The truth is "There were two fakers out there" - John and Patsy Ramsey, trying to deceive the public.

jmo

[DAFFODIL]

I have difficulty understanding why the reply to me was started in such a way. There is plenty of evidence to support my theory and the fact taht Patsy was dressed when the police arrived and was too distraught to stand by a phone is not condemning. I know this comment will be followed by a barrage of other details that people find innappropriate about the Ramseys behavious but in Australia we learnt the hard way in the case of Lindy Chamberlain accused of killing her daughter; about convicting parents on the basis of how they reacted to the death of a child.
I notice that there is no response to the numerous examples of people dying by falling down stairs posted by Shill either. That is on second thoughts a good thing because it would seem redundant to keep that point going now anyway. Each and every criminal is different as are their spychological profiles so to say give me an example of a case that is exactly the same and done in exactly the same manner seems as useless to me as me asking for you to provide an example of parents who reacted in the same way as the Ramseys and were found to be guilty of killing their child and then staging in such a graphic way leaving rnasom notes etc. etc. and then refusing to listen to your point unless they were the same down to the finest detail!?:shrug:


A few people have shill on ignore.

[longrider]

Oh, really?

If Patsy even marginally followed crime stories (and we know that murder novels/legal thrillers were found in the house), she would know that it would be extremely rare for a child to be killed from a fall down the steps. A child just doesn't weigh enough to fall with that kind of force.

Not to even mention that I also posted that Patsy had a flair for the dramatic, and wouldn't have gotten the attention from a child who died accidently than she did from a child who was a murder victim.

She also assumed (rightly so), that she or Burke could have been accused of pushing or throwing Jonbenet down the stairs.

When's the last time you heard of a child dying from falling down the stairs? A broken arm, swollen ankle, even a mild concussion - but Jonbenet was at death's door when Patsy put that garotte around her neck.


And it never ceases to amaze me how some people can project on to others what THEY would have done in a particular situation, and assume that a perfect stranger would behave in the same way.

It makes me think of all the people who would defend Scott Peterson by saying that he would have put Laci's body in a closer body of water if he wanted to make her disappear. No, dear - that's what YOU would have done. He did something different.

Not doing what YOU think would be more rational doesn't make a person innocent.

So now you know without a doubt Patsy is the killer. Maybe you need to go to the District Attorney and Boulder Police with your knowledge and evidence.

[wonderingaloud]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?

[Lodi]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?

I think you have solved it! Seriously.

[DAFFODIL]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?


Burke was 10 years old at the time and I would guess quite sheltered.How would he even be on his own to approach this person? Why would this person take a little kid seriously to risk all with no guarantee he would get paid? Michael Helgoth was the name of the guy btw and I would guess his DNA has been tested and found not to be a match.:shrug:

[SaraSidle]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?

I find this very interesting and have thought about it a lot in the past. Wondered if the suspect got in touch with burke first. Also thought Patsy and John knew and wrote the ransom note.Anyone can see why Burke can be jjealous. IMO

[sharlock]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?
Hey Wonderingaloud,
I am not going to crucify you lol! I remember when I first read about this case a few years back and wondered if the parents could have covered for the child but I have discounted that theory sometime ago as well. Imo he was only 10 and there is no way he organised a hit through someone who was a stranger to the family because he was so cunning that he saw in that person they had the ability to kill a child; especially when noone else at the time seemed to think so. I think that the police were 100% right when they ruled him out as a suspect right from the start.
Welcome to the board.:seeya:

[wonderingaloud]

OK, let's forget all the "what was Mrs. R wearing...again" and that the note was written on Patsy's stationery/pad and some other things we could ask forever. Here's what really puzzles me: The Note including the amount of $118,000 (flat, no misc dollars or cents)..pretty darn close to Mr. R's bonus and then the use of the "movie lines" in the note (Remeber Patsy was a beauty queen..kind of hard to think she would even think, even subconsciously, to use those terms), and also the end of the note being signed "Victory.....S.B.T.C.". John went to some military training camp in a foreign country way back when and the initials were/are SBTC.
So, I'm thinking, someone knew about the bonus (most people don't go around spouting off about their bonuses, especially an exec of a firm), someone knew to use the term SBTC (maybe the knew John went there, IF that is the true use of the term)...Hard to think that John (or Patsy) would be so stupid (and I mean really stupid) to set themselves up like this. BUT, maybe someone else was trying to set them up to take the fall by using the bonus $ and the SBTC terms. The movie lines still don't add up. Just wondering aloud. I think the ransom note was an afterthought. I am not able to put the pieces together to think this note REALLY has anything to do with the actual killing, but rather a way to distract police and throw off any leads to an intruder, even though there did seem to be some good evidence supporting an intruder theory. The note has everyone a little bumfuzzled.

[shill]

Don't forget that a lot of activity went on in the bedroom before she was taken to the basement. There was the washing, wiping down, changing clothes. This is stuff that would have been difficult to do without turning the lights on, and without making any noise.

Do you have any proof to back this claim?
You need to state that this is just your opinion and certainly has never been shown to be a fact.

[Jayelles]

OK, I'm new and I'm no sleuth. Not even legally blonde! However, here's what I'm thinking out loud. Lou Smit (who some have written off as a retired kook, but his history speaks for itself) had given an interview in which he showed that a neighboring young man (I think he worked at an auto repair place), dressed up like a ninja regularly, owned a stun gun, did some window peeping around town, and had the same style of boots (like the print in the dust in the wine cellar) and also killed himself the day after the FBI (or some law agency) said on television that the agency was narrowing it down its suspects to the killer. And for some odd reason, I've always thought Burke was involved. Don't ask me why, I just think that JB got so much attention it would be easy for a sibling to get the shaft in the love and attention dept. So here's my theory, as lame as it may seem: Burke was super jealous (remember 10 year olds have committed some really heinous crimes) and he also knew this ninja guy (how, I don't know, but 10 year old boys can be clever and sneaky), so Burke hires the guy to knock off his sister for $118,000 (not really too odd cuz he could have heard his parents talking about the amount of bonus his dad got and even though it was $118,117.50 people generally talk in round figures, so it could have been a flat $118k in conversations). The ninja fella probably had snuck into the house before through that windown downstairs and knew his way around. How JB got downstairs is anyone's guess. Burke could have stunned her with the stun gun and dragged her downstairs and then the ninja guy killed her. Doesn't it seem really odd that someone as intelligent as Patsy (or John) would be dumb enough to write $118k in a ransom note? But a 10 year old who knew his parents had that much cash and doesn't think too far past the end of his nose, MIGHT have jotted it down. Plus, I've read the note and, frankly, the lines in it sound like lines from movie scripts ("fat cat", "so much as talking to a stray dog", etc.) and I'm just thinking that Patsy wouldn't have used those phrases, but a 10 year old might or the 19 year old ninja guy (they all sound like lines from killer/robber/bad guy movies). So, now John and Patsy have lost their daughter and, IF Burke did somehow plot this with the other guy, JR and PR have another child to lose, which would be enough to cause a parent(s) to go crazy. So, they protect Burke, the ninja guy kills himself cuz now he doesn't know if he's been told on or not, Patsy dies taking a secret to her grave, just not the one so many thought she did. I know it sounds far out, but there are some very weird things about this case that definitely got ignored by the police. So, crucify me if you like (sometimes you guys get really ugly on this site), but I think it COULD have happened like this. Thoughts?

I'm not sure whether your theory is serious or not but if it IS serious, I think you are referring to Michael Helgoth (he has been named publicly and it's OK to refer to him by name). Much has been made about the fact that he committed suicide the day after Hunter made his "We know who you are...matter of time..." speech. However it is also a fact that Helgoth had recently split from his girlfriend and was said by his friends to be devastated about this. It was by all accounts an ugly break-up (one of his pals used to post at Websleuths). Hunter made his speech on Valentine's Day so lookiing at it this way, "heartbroken Helgoth" took his own life the day after Valentine's day. We don't know if Helgoth saw Hunter's speech or not.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to link Helgoth to the Ramsey murder or even the Ramseys. Just a lot of speculation.

[Eagle1]

FWIW, there's been speculation about the angle of the shot and Helgoth's handedness, that he could have known something, the romantic breakup just a coincidence. Something about his friend Kenady. It's been so long I forget the details. Someone here might remember.

[Evening2]

I don't think those dates upthread are correct. I'm thinking Hunter gave that speech on Feb 13th and Helgoth committed suicide on Valentine's Day, Feb 14th. JMO

[wonderingaloud]

OK, I went back and re-read several articles. This is still quite fascinating to me. Helgoth committed suicide (according to the police), BUT it was also known a pillow was used to buffer the gun noise when he shot himself and he was right-handed, but was shot in the left side of his head. Now, I'm no genius, but this sounds A LITTLE ODD and maybe a contortionist could wrap his arm around himself and hold a pillow against his head and shoot himself, but this guy? Over the breakup of a girlfriend? His buddy Kenady, who he rented a room from (garage apartment type) said Helgoth liked killing cats by shooting them and that he would even shoot bullets past the heads of friends just being a goofoff and scare the daylights out of them. Kenady said the guy was very odd, but likable (go figure--doesn't sound like someone I would want in my circle of friends). Helgoth was cleared of DNA, just as the Ramseys were (including Burke). BUT the DNA results were pretty skewed in that the samples were small and I never read that the DNA that was on JonBenet was semen. The reports mentioned blood drops, possible saliva. So could the DNA sample have been planted to throw off police? I'm not insisting that Helgoth is "the one", but there are some real suspcious happenings around this guy and that neighborhood. The police discovered that there were a group of young men, who would sneak into houses just to prove the could, but not disturb anything. That's weird. The guy that molested the 14 year old girl in a nearby neighborhood never did get caught, but the mother was the one who caught him in her daughter's bedroom and he ran out of their house (how'd he get in?--there was no forced entry). Just keeping on thinkin.

[wonderingaloud]

Burke was 10 years old at the time and I would guess quite sheltered.How would he even be on his own to approach this person? Why would this person take a little kid seriously to risk all with no guarantee he would get paid? Michael Helgoth was the name of the guy btw and I would guess his DNA has been tested and found not to be a match.
__________________
The above is my opinion based on a logical assessment of the evidence.

My Beloved Holly.1989-2007.Always in my Heart x

SOMEONE Did It!

Daffodil---

I appreciate your response. However, my two 13-year-old nephews, who have been fairly sheltered, blew up my mother's toilet on New Year's Eve this year. WHILE WE ALL WERE IN THE HOUSE! It's funny, but it was pretty sneaky and definitely mischievous. Also, read the news over the last 10 years and you'll find loads of articles of kids killing their parents, the siblings, their friends, their teachers, and so on. And some of these kids were VERY young...remember the two young boys in England who took a 2 year old boy out and bashed his head with a brick until he died? They were 8 and 9. Last week I read that a 4 year old shot his babysitter with a shotgun (how did he lift the thing?), but just because he as mad at her. I'm just speculating that the 10 year old boy in a very wealthy home, who may have been sheltered (or not) certainly is capable of doing something to a sister who gets loads of attention and much money spent on her for pageants, public appearances, etc.

[wonderingaloud]

[QUOTE=sharlock;9151698]Hey Wonderingaloud,
I am not going to crucify you lol! I remember when I first read about this case a few years back and wondered if the parents could have covered for the child but I have discounted that theory sometime ago as well. Imo he was only 10 and there is no way he organised a hit through someone who was a stranger to the family because he was so cunning that he saw in that person they had the ability to kill a child; especially when noone else at the time seemed to think so. I think that the police were 100% right when they ruled him out as a suspect right from the start.
Welcome to the board.:seeya:[/QUOTE

Sharlock--I've thought about what you said and almost buy it, BUT let's look at this.....maybe Burke was only involved in getting his sister kidnapped (or planned kidnapping), but after his part was done, something went wrong and the kidnapper decided to go further and ended up killing her. This way, you still have someone knowing about the $118k, writing a really goofy sounding, movie line threaded letter and helping get her down to the basement so someone could take her (thinking they would bring her back when they got their $$). Not impossible?

[Evening2]

I don't think those dates upthread are correct. I'm thinking Hunter gave that speech on Feb 13th and Helgoth committed suicide on Valentine's Day, Feb 14th. JMO

Jayelles, get your facts straight: :biggrin:
Exculpatory Evidence Favoring Helgoth


No DNA Match. Michael Helgoth's (http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID37/621.html) DNA was not a match with DNA collected at the crime scene.
Suicide Appears Genuine. Internet poster Michael Cook, who claims to have been an acquaintance of Helgoth's for 1-2 years, has written (http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/f-36/t-22395) "I was at Mike's funeral, and it was discussed among friends there that He had committed suicide because of a failed relationship with a girlfreind." sic (http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/sic)The suicide admittedly occurred the day right after Hunter's warning to the killer, but it also occurred on Valentine's Day, which Cook believes is noteworthy as a signal of Helgoth's true motivations.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Acquaintance+Sexual+Predators

[Jayelles]

I don't think those dates upthread are correct. I'm thinking Hunter gave that speech on Feb 13th and Helgoth committed suicide on Valentine's Day, Feb 14th. JMO

Yes that sounds correct. I think it was the night of the 14th that he committed suicide.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, get your facts straight: :biggrin:
Exculpatory Evidence Favoring Helgoth


No DNA Match. Michael Helgoth's (http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID37/621.html) DNA was not a match with DNA collected at the crime scene.
Suicide Appears Genuine. Internet poster Michael Cook, who claims to have been an acquaintance of Helgoth's for 1-2 years, has written (http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/f-36/t-22395) "I was at Mike's funeral, and it was discussed among friends there that He had committed suicide because of a failed relationship with a girlfreind." sic (http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/sic)The suicide admittedly occurred the day right after Hunter's warning to the killer, but it also occurred on Valentine's Day, which Cook believes is noteworthy as a signal of Helgoth's true motivations.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Acquaintance+Sexual+Predators

I don't know what your problem is. I am not disagreeing with this. Helgoth's friend posted Cook about this at Websleuths and nothing he posted contradicted the facts as we know them. According to Cook, Helgoth was distraught about the break-up of his relationship. It's a very common reason for suicides/attempted suicides.

There is nothing to connect Helgoth to JonBenet Ramsey's murder OR to the Ramsey family so the precise time of his suicide is really of little consequence.

[wonderingaloud]

OK, I could be changing my mind....somewhat. I got on another site and read some stuff and there are some weird characters related to this JonBenet murder from all sides. What does anyone really know about Santa Bill McReynolds (leave out the excluded by DNA stuff)? Also, someone surmised that S.B.T.C stood for Southwestern Bell Telehpone Company and there was a hat that supposedly was found in Helgoth's apartment. Don't know about the hat, but Ma Bell didn't become SWBT until 2005, so this really doesn't give good credence to the acronym. hmmmmmm.

[Lodi]

OK, I could be changing my mind....somewhat. I got on another site and read some stuff and there are some weird characters related to this JonBenet murder from all sides. What does anyone really know about Santa Bill McReynolds (leave out the excluded by DNA stuff)? Also, someone surmised that S.B.T.C stood for Southwestern Bell Telehpone Company and there was a hat that supposedly was found in Helgoth's apartment. Don't know about the hat, but Ma Bell didn't become SWBT until 2005, so this really doesn't give good credence to the acronym. hmmmmmm.

Another story was that SBTC stood for Santa Barbara Tennis Club. There is a Tennis Club in Santa Barbara, California but it's logo has the letters TCSB which stand for Tennis Club of Santa Barbara.

[sharlock]

[quote=wonderingaloud;9153441]OK, I could be changing my mind....somewhat. I got on another site and read some stuff and there are some weird characters related to this JonBenet murder from all sides. What does anyone really know about Santa Bill McReynolds (leave out the excluded by DNA stuff)? Also, someone surmised that S.B.T.C stood for Southwestern Bell Telehpone Company and there was a hat that supposedly was found in Helgoth's apartment. Don't know about the hat, but Ma Bell didn't become SWBT until 2005, so this really doesn't give good credence to the acronym. hmmmmmm.
McReynolds has been discussed as a possible suspect extensively in past threads and I still haven't ruled him out but I have to say that the chances of a 10yr old organising even just the kidnapping of his sister is bizarre and too far fetched to be given too much attention imo; McReynolds on the other hand acted very strangely throughout the investigation his own daughter and her friend were abducted on the same date some years earlier and they were only released because his daughter refused to get out of the car when told to. He has mentioned to a reporter that he has a harp on which he had some special children's names and was saving a space for JB's. JB told someone (I can't remember offhand) that she was expecting a surprise visit from Santa Claus (red fibres found at the scene). Bill was the santa at the Ramseys Christmas party. He was obsessed with JB because she was the only child who didn't ask for a present for herself. He claimed to know her very well when he only had limited contact with her. He was obsessed with Christmas and he wrote a weird short story about a Christmas tree. I can't remember the whole story but once the tree had passed a certain age he was corrupted by the world and forgot abut Santa. His wife wrote a play called Hey Rube where a little girl is sexually assaulted, murdered and murdered then found in a basement. It goes on and on.. So yes I find him very interesting.

[Eagle1]

Hey Wonderingaloud,
I am not going to crucify you lol! I remember when I first read about this case a few years back and wondered if the parents could have covered for the child but I have discounted that theory sometime ago as well. Imo he was only 10 and there is no way he organised a hit through someone who was a stranger to the family because he was so cunning that he saw in that person they had the ability to kill a child; especially when noone else at the time seemed to think so. I think that the police were 100% right when they ruled him out as a suspect right from the start.
Welcome to the board.:seeya:

Have to agree. No way could/would Burke organize a hit. And whoever did it had some devilish jealousies, not childish sibling rivalry ones.

[old_soul]

Latest news update...

Maybe I missed this before but just saw a news article today about a new prosecuter looking into the JBR case? I couldn't find this posted in this thread anywhere.. :shrug:

New Prosecutor Takes Fresh Look at JonBenet Ramsey Case
Friday, December 26, 2008
...

BOULDER, Colo. — A new Boulder County district attorney plans to take a new look at one of the country's most high-profile cold cases — the slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey.

Incoming District Attorney Stan Garnett said he'll decide what to do with the investigation in his first 30 days on the job, which he starts Jan. 13. His predecessor, Mary Lacy, publicly exonerated the Ramsey family this year in the Dec. 26, 1996, murder.

"I want to look very closely at the resources of the DA's Office and make a careful decision about what resources to continue to expend on the case," Garnett said.

He said he is thinking of sending the case back to the police. The DA's office took over the investigation in 2002 because of concerns about the police department's handling of it.

Garnett said the police department likely has more resources now and is better equipped to handle the investigation.

JonBenet was a 6-year-old beauty queen when she was found bludgeoned and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home just after Christmas in 1996. The case has taken many twists and turns, starting with former DA Alex Hunter declaring soon after the murder that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were under "an umbrella of suspicion."

A grand jury was convened in 1998 to consider the case but adjourned a year later without issuing any indictments. Hunter decided not to run again and left office in 2001.

Lacy was elected to replace Hunter, and in 2002 her office took over the investigation from the police, promising to take a fresh look. She agreed with a federal judge in a defamation lawsuit involving the Ramseys that the evidence was more consistent with the theory that an intruder killed JonBenet.

Three years later, months after Patsy Ramsey died from cancer, the case made international news when John Mark Karr, an American teacher in Thailand, made a bizarre confession to the slaying.

He was whisked from Thailand to Colorado but was released after prosecutors concluded he couldn't have killed her.

Last July, Lacy cleared the Ramseys in the slaying and said new DNA tests pointed to an unknown outsider. Investigators hope to one day match crime scene DNA to a suspect in a growing national DNA registry.

Lacy couldn't run again because of term limits.

Denver defense attorney Larry Pozner said he believes turning the investigation back to the Boulder police is a bad idea.

"The Boulder police were neither fair, nor accurate, in their initial investigation, and there's no reason to think they should be trusted again," said Pozner, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Scott Robinson, a Denver defense attorney who has followed the case, said the Boulder Police Department is far different from more than a decade ago.

Robinson, though, said he's not sure there's much anyone can do in the absence of new DNA evidence or a verifiable confession from the killer.

"The case is as cold as cold can be," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473097,00.html

Thanks for this info One2 ~ hadn't heard this before... a fresh set of eyes looking outside the box is just what this case needed. Let's hope it's not too cold, but then again, it wouldn't be the first case that can be solved many years later. Interesting to see what will happen now!

[Eagle1]

The end of his first 30 days should be around Valentine's Day. Let's hope he uncovers SOMETHING.

[One2Snoop]

INSIDE STORY: New DA in JonBenét Case Proceeding Carefully

By Vickie Bane
Originally posted Sunday March 08, 2009 05:30 PM EDT

Call him Mr. Cautious. Boulder, Colo., District Attorney Stan Garnett isn't about to make the same mistakes as his two predecessors by opening or closing the umbrella of suspicion on any suspects in the unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey.

In a recent interview, Garnett tells PEOPLE the Boulder Police Department's task force met for the first time last week, and it's "a very impressive group." He says it was "a worthwhile couple of days," but when it comes to making promises on what comes next, Garnett goes back to what constituents told him back on the campaign trail: "Don't talk about the case unless you solve it."

Still one of the nation's most notorious murder mysteries, JonBenét's body – bludgeoned and strangled – was discovered in the basement of her parent's upscale Boulder home the day after Christmas 1996, hours after her mother called 911 to report a kidnapping. A rambling, three-page ransom note was also left at the scene. The child's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, quickly came under suspicion, although a grand jury convened in October of 1999 failed to indict anyone.

Past Mistakes
In December 2002, newly elected Boulder DA Mary Keenan Lacy took over the investigation from police. Lacy, who believed the evidence was "more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét," went on to arrest John Mark Karr in August 2006. The case against Karr was dropped 12 days later.

Then, six months before leaving office, Lacy sent a letter of apology to John Ramsey (Patsy had died in 2006 after a long battle with ovarian cancer), saying that said she no longer considered any Ramsey family members to be suspects.

Garnett, 52, who took over the DA's office on Jan. 13 of this year, immediately gave the case back to the Boulder Police Department after a span of nearly six years. He thinks the Boulder PD has been "unfairly maligned in connection with the Ramsey's." Garnett says he looked into the department quite carefully "because I didn't want to give it back to an agency I didn't think could handle it."

New Task Force
On Feb. 2, Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner held a press conference to announce the formation of a cold case task force made up of veteran law enforcement members from a variety of agencies including the FBI to review evidence and explore theories. Beckner said at the time that he believed the murder could be solved because of the advances in both DNA and linguistics technology.

Garnett, a former Denver prosecutor who has been trying cases for nearly 27 years, won't comment on what Beckner might test. Instead, he remembers where he was the day JonBenét's body was discovered: skiing with his two teenage sons. He says he didn't jump to conclusions then and he won't now. "The evidence," he says, "will define what happens in this case."

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20263921,00.html?cnn=yes

[Eagle1]

It's been a couple of weeks. We seem to be having a bit of a lull, which I guess is to be expected in such an old case.

[sharlock]

It's been a couple of weeks. We seem to be having a bit of a lull, which I guess is to be expected in such an old case.
True Eagle, a guy in our town got charged today with a 20yr old murder and it was because after all these years his dna finally got taken for some other crime. That is the one thing I really hold out hope for happening in this case too.

[Eagle1]

That's an encouraging thought, Sharlock, that sometimes a killer's DNA gets taken 20 yrs later for some other crime and he gets caught.

I haven't read the article but one of the tabloids this week has had on their cover JonBenet's killer strikes again. I think it's just that another child has been taken from the same school.

Happy Easter, Everyone. It's Good Friday.

[bullmoose]

I am back online, after a bout of illness, and hope to catch up on the dicussion; I have missed everyone but MS waits for no-one, I think I'm a bit better again. But I've made it back with my magnifying glass. Ill try to wade through the comments I've missed these last months. But Howdy from Wallace anyways; I've missed the discussion.

[Eagle1]

It's always very good to see you back. :biggrin:

Hope everyone had a Happy Easter, I'm editing to add.

One of the tabloids points out that there were fingerprints and a palm print left when the 14-yr old girl from JonBenet's school had an intruder, that her mom scared off with pepper spray. The prints aren't matched up yet, there's still such a backlog, but maybe one day.

[One2Snoop]

I just noticed the JBR forum is back under the read only archive if anyone's interested. Thanks DW!

http://boards.library.trutv.com/forumdisplay.php?f=305

[Eagle1]

Thanks for that link, Snoop.

It's in red, Everyone which you might not notice because it's not underlined but it works. Looks like this is still open too. :seeya:

[Eagle1]

Happy Mothers' Day, Everyone.

Things are tough all over right now but .....

Entertainers have Agents, who charge approximately 40% of what a job pays. Are there any kind of agents for John Ramsey's and similar peoples' kind of work?

[bullmoose]

Happy Mothers' Day, Everyone.

Things are tough all over right now but .....

Entertainers have Agents, who charge approximately 40% of what a job pays. Are there any kind of agents for John Ramsey's and similar peoples' kind of work?
You know, that is a good question; surely JR, Beth H. and others have people that schedule and help arrange travel, lodging, etc when they go places; however they do not get paid as do entertainers or atheletes, etc. So they probably just have travel agents, or unpaid PR people that arrange and schedule for them; at least that is my humble opinion.

[Eagle1]

You know, that is a good question; surely JR, Beth H. and others have people that schedule and help arrange travel, lodging, etc when they go places; however they do not get paid as do entertainers or atheletes, etc. So they probably just have travel agents, or unpaid PR people that arrange and schedule for them; at least that is my humble opinion.

Good answer, and we both forgot about EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.

Are they doing a booming business right now? We never hear anything about them. Why not?

Does anyone know if John Ramsey has tried employment agencies?

[Eagle1]

Are we all busy doing yard work like myself while there seems to be no new news? Just dropping in to say hello.

[sunlover518]

in the Bonita papers for the Ramsey case I noticed that they had patsy's birthday wrong; she was born in 1956 not 1966. makes you wonder how many other facts they screwed up.

[Marian Paroo]

Just returned from overseas, two weeks no boards or even American news -- what are these "Bonita papers"?

[One2Snoop]

Just returned from overseas, two weeks no boards or even American news -- what are these "Bonita papers"?


:seeya: Hi there Marian - you can read about the Bonita Papers here...

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=280821