JonBenet Ramsey - Open Discussion

[Evening2]

After discussing this with a few senior members here, I've decided to begin a General Discussion thread on the JonBenet Ramsey case. All POVs are encouraged and all topics will be allowed providing they are in accordance with the TOS of CL. This thread will be similar to the time when we only had one thread on the Ramsey case at CL. We seemed to do okay with it then and we should do as well now. Welcome back to any and all "old" CL posters and a warm welcome to any and all new members. :)

[FDInLaw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/485000/images/_489720_face300.jpg

:rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose:

[LindaA]

Evening2, thanks for starting this thread. I have certainly missed having a JBR thread here at CL.

Let's make a pact here to treat everyone with respect, no matter their POV.

[Evening2]

Evening2, thanks for starting this thread. I have certainly missed having a JBR thread here at CL.

Let's make a pact here to treat everyone with respect, no matter their POV.

I join you in that pact, LindaA. Having said that (and thank you for starting the pact), hopefully we'll need little, if any, moderating.

FDInLaw, thank you for the beautiful photo of JonBenet.

It's great to "see" both of you on this thread.

[FDInLaw]

Evening2, thanks for starting this thread. I have certainly missed having a JBR thread here at CL.

Let's make a pact here to treat everyone with respect, no matter their POV.

I join you in that pact, LindaA. Having said that (and thank you for starting the pact), hopefully we'll need little, if any, moderating.

FDInLaw, thank you for the beautiful photo of JonBenet.

It's great to "see" both of you on this thread.Joining the pact as well. :patriot:

Anything news worthy in this case as of late? :shrug:

[LindaA]

Unfortunately, FDinlaw, there is nothing new. THe boards that discuss this case just re-hash the same old stuff, argue the same old points.

[FDInLaw]

Unfortunately, FDinlaw, there is nothing new. THe boards that discuss this case just re-hash the same old stuff, argue the same old points.That's what I was afraid of. :(

With this new thread in place, let's hope that there will be a new break in the case to discuss! :rose:

[The R]

guess i should study up a bit on this case. I've never understood much about it at all other than how sad it is that this poor child is gone and her killer is unarrested.


ALLMO,
R

[Evening2]

That's what I was afraid of. :(

With this new thread in place, let's hope that there will be a new break in the case to discuss! :rose:

I too am hoping for a break in the case. With new technology, maybe the DNA will be that break the case needs. Of course, I still worry that the DNA IS nothing more than artifact. If that's the case, where do we go from there in identifying the killer/s?

[Mikie]

I consider my anagram studies and stun marks studies "breaks in the case", although nobody else seems to agree. Let me know if anyone is interested in details.

[Evening2]

I consider my anagram studies and stun marks studies "breaks in the case", although nobody else seems to agree. Let me know if anyone is interested in details.

Ever since I began to research the occult, magic, etc., and the use of anagrams in those practices, your anagram studies have become much more important to my research. I think you should post your information and perhaps post information on sigils, etc., and anagrams used by "practitioners" so we can understand how all of this might just tie together. I also believe that Burroughs "taught" (worked with though not involved himself) some involved in this case. I DO have a problem with the other stun gun marks you see, but that's okay. Not everything has to fit together for a theory to make sense. BTW, welcome back to CL. Good to see you here.

[FDInLaw]

I consider my anagram studies and stun marks studies "breaks in the case", although nobody else seems to agree. Let me know if anyone is interested in details.
Post away. . . we need something to discuss! :seeya:

[Evening2]

guess i should study up a bit on this case. I've never understood much about it at all other than how sad it is that this poor child is gone and her killer is unarrested.


ALLMO,
R

Hi "R", glad to see you posting on this thread. For those who have asked "what's new", I probably should mention that excerpts from Fleet White's deposition in the civil case filed against the Ramseys by Chris Wolf have been posted by Jameson. That might make for some interesting discussion. There hasn't BEEN much actual discussion about what Fleet White had to say. Seems some would rather discuss Jameson and how she came by the deposition and whether or not it is "legal" for her to post from it. Hopefully, we can avoid THAT discussion at all costs. :beer:

[Mikie]

Post away. . . we need something to discuss! :seeya:

Where to start? As they say, start at the beginning. Anagrams were used in the Renaissance period by people like Galilelo and Leonardo Da Vinci, basically to hide things that would get them in trouble.
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath151.htm
"...Wanting to establish his priority of discovery, but not yet ready to reveal what he had found, he sent to Kepler (and others) the following jumble of letters, which he informed them was a coded description of his latest discovery:

smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras

It was not uncommon in those days for scientists to communicate (or
rather, to avoid communicating) their discoveries by means of coded
expressions. ..."

And in Brown's book, The DaVinci Code, anagrams are part of the story.

Okay, enough for the history lesson.

Take the capital letters in the Ramsey case ransom note:

MRLWWASYMWITIIAYTISPFBIILFYDJYDJUIJVSBTC

Now, all you have to do is rearrange them to get the special message which may be the actual purpose of the note in the first place!

[FDInLaw]

Where to start? As they say, start at the beginning. Anagrams were used in the Renaissance period by people like Galilelo and Leonardo Da Vinci, basically to hide things that would get them in trouble.
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath151.htm
"...Wanting to establish his priority of discovery, but not yet ready to reveal what he had found, he sent to Kepler (and others) the following jumble of letters, which he informed them was a coded description of his latest discovery:

smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras

It was not uncommon in those days for scientists to communicate (or
rather, to avoid communicating) their discoveries by means of coded
expressions. ..."

And in Brown's book, The DaVinci Code, anagrams are part of the story.

Okay, enough for the history lesson.

Take the capital letters in the Ramsey case ransom note:

MRLWWASYMWITIIAYTISPFBIILFYDJYDJUIJVSBTC

Now, all you have to do is rearrange them to get the special message which may be the actual purpose of the note in the first place!Forgive me for being lazy. . . but what do you get when you rearrange them??? :o

[Mikie]

Forgive me for being lazy. . . but what do you get when you rearrange them??? :o

That's okay, everyone is.

My studies are here:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/anagramsummary.html

The ransom note is the first one.

[FDInLaw]

That's okay, everyone is.

My studies are here:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/anagramsummary.html

The ransom note is the first one.How does your theory match the evidence in the case?

[The R]

Hi "R", glad to see you posting on this thread. For those who have asked "what's new", I probably should mention that excerpts from Fleet White's deposition in the civil case filed against the Ramseys by Chris Wolf have been posted by Jameson. That might make for some interesting discussion. There hasn't BEEN much actual discussion about what Fleet White had to say. Seems some would rather discuss Jameson and how she came by the deposition and whether or not it is "legal" for her to post from it. Hopefully, we can avoid THAT discussion at all costs. :beer:


Hey Thanks E2!

I'll try my best to keep up!

R

[Mikie]

How does your theory match the evidence in the case?

Good question. The problem is that the evidence in the case does not seem to point to the person in the anagrams, except in vague and general ways. I can only explain that by saying that the authorities have intentionally directed the evidence away from him and toward the Ramseys. My suspect is essentially protected by the authorities, and any evidence such as DNA or pubic hair is not attributed to him publicly. So really there is nothing other than the crime itself, the nature of the act, which coincides with the nature of the killer. It's basically a hopeless situation where nothing is provable because the killer is protected, immune.

[The R]

That's okay, everyone is.

My studies are here:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/anagramsummary.html

The ransom note is the first one.



OK,

I'm totally lost now! How do you determine how to unscramble the letters?

Thanks,
R

[Mikie]

OK,

I'm totally lost now! How do you determine how to unscramble the letters?

Thanks,
R

There are a few basic things you need to follow, as I see it. You need to realize that there will be consonants not used. You need to attempt to use all the vowels, although it seems sometimes there are too many "I's". It helps to have some experience.

Try to rearrange this into a simple sentence and see what happens.

TIHDCMIMIAANCDODAIAIL

[Evening2]

There are a few basic things you need to follow, as I see it. You need to realize that there will be consonants not used. You need to attempt to use all the vowels, although it seems sometimes there are too many "I's". It helps to have some experience.

Try to rearrange this into a simple sentence and see what happens.

TIHDCMIMIAANCDODAIAIL

Mikie, maybe you can help me out here. I can't remember where I read it but it was recent. About certain groups of individuals who use anagrams similar to what you are saying and DO leave out certain letters like you do. Do you recall reading that? If you do, maybe you could post a link as a source so people will know this is not just your imagination. I think the anagrams were referred to as sigils but I may be mistaken.

[Mikie]

Mikie, maybe you can help me out here. I can't remember where I read it but it was recent. About certain groups of individuals who use anagrams similar to what you are saying and DO leave out certain letters like you do. Do you recall reading that? If you do, maybe you could post a link as a source so people will know this is not just your imagination. I think the anagrams were referred to as sigils but I may be mistaken.

Sorry, I don't recall that. I do recall the word sigils but don't know anything about them.

p.s. The only letters left out of the anagrams I studied were usually silent or unnecessary e's such as in murdered, i.e. murdrd.

[Mikie]

There are a few basic things you need to follow, as I see it. You need to realize that there will be consonants not used. You need to attempt to use all the vowels, although it seems sometimes there are too many "I's". It helps to have some experience.

Try to rearrange this into a simple sentence and see what happens.



I think maybe that was not "simple" enough.

What I usually do to start out is to rearrange the letters alphabetically, and separate the vowels from the consonants, like this:

CCDDDHLMMNT
AAAAIIIIIO

[Mikie]

I think maybe that was not "simple" enough.

What I usually do to start out is to rearrange the letters alphabetically, and separate the vowels from the consonants, like this:

CCDDDHLMMNT
AAAAIIIIIO

Then I just study it, trying to see if there are any obvious or common words that might be possible or impossible. In this case, I see that some possible words are: A, I, IT, CAN, DID, CANDID DID NOT, HAD, LAD, MAD, MAID, LAID, MAIN, etc. and I notice that common words like THE, ARE, WAS, IS, HAS, BE, etc. are not possible.

From that I would guess that it might be a message like A xxxxxx... DID IT. I rearrange the original letters (highlight and drag the letters, or just cut and paste them) like this:

CCDHLMMN
AAAIIIO
A DID IT

There's a lot of guesswork and just sitting down and trying things, just seeing what works and what does not. A XXXXXX DID NOT DO IT is impossible, for example, because there is only one O and only one T.

I then just look at it and try to see words that can be formed from the remaining letters. With some trial and effort, sometimes within minutes, sometimes within hours, I realize that HOMICIDAL (this is where experience helps a lot) is a possiblity, so I rearrange like this:

CMN
AAI
A HOMICIDAL DID IT

Then it becomes a simple word jumble with the unused letters (CMNAAI) to realize the sentence:

A HOMICIDAL MANIAC DID IT

[Evening2]

Sorry, I don't recall that. I do recall the word sigils but don't know anything about them.

p.s. The only letters left out of the anagrams I studied were usually silent or unnecessary e's such as in murdered, i.e. murdrd.

If I recall, what I read said any double consonants were omitted (I think). I can't remember if any vowels were used but I'm "thinking" they weren't.

[One2Snoop]

Just stopped in to say hello! :seeya: It's been ages since I've followed the JBR case but I still remember the day it happened because we were in Colorado skiing not to far from Boulder when it happened.

BTW I'm pretty much a fence sitter and will waiver back and fourth as to whether an intruder did it or a Ramsey did it. I guess that makes me wishey washey LOL. It's a shame this case has never been solved after all these years.

:patriot:

[Evening2]

Just stopped in to say hello! :seeya: It's been ages since I've followed the JBR case but I still remember the day it happened because we were in Colorado skiing not to far from Boulder when it happened.

BTW I'm pretty much a fence sitter and will waiver back and fourth as to whether an intruder did it or a Ramsey did it. I guess that makes me wishey washey LOL. It's a shame this case has never been solved after all these years.

:patriot:

Hi O2S, glad you stopped by to say Hello. Yes, it's a real shame this case has never been solved. There's days I think it surely will be, and others I don't think it's even possible. What I DO know is that there are great posters here who will stop at nothing to continue to try to help solve this case. You never know when just the right clue will be uncovered. I hope you will find some time to join us here. And, O2S, thanks for all of your encouragement.

[Mikie]

If I recall, what I read said any double consonants were omitted (I think). I can't remember if any vowels were used but I'm "thinking" they weren't.

Maybe this is what you saw?
http://home.comcast.net/~max555/book/Sigils.html

They omit letters, then use the letters for graphic symbols.

This picture reminds me a lot of the string in the window well (maybe it was used for some sort of magic):
http://home.comcast.net/~max555/img/sigil4.gif
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img023.jpg

[Evening2]

Maybe this is what you saw?
http://home.comcast.net/~max555/book/Sigils.html

They omit letters, then use the letters for graphic symbols.

This picture reminds me a lot of the string in the window well (maybe it was used for some sort of magic):
http://home.comcast.net/~max555/img/sigil4.gif
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img023.jpg

Yes, Mikie, that is what I'm talking about. Thanks for finding it and posting it. Has anyone besides me noticed some things that are familiar with the ransom note? Like when the writer inserted the word "not"?

[LindaA]

If that picture ws taken the morning of the discovery of the crime, then I do not see how anyone can argue against the clear indication that someone was in that window well very recently.
that string had not been there ong (if, indeed, it is string. It does look awfully stiff). There are clear imprintgs of somethng on the cement, and the debris is not evenly distributed. Seems awfully strange to me. JMO.

[The R]

Then I just study it, trying to see if there are any obvious or common words that might be possible or impossible. In this case, I see that some possible words are: A, I, IT, CAN, DID, CANDID DID NOT, HAD, LAD, MAD, MAID, LAID, MAIN, etc. and I notice that common words like THE, ARE, WAS, IS, HAS, BE, etc. are not possible.

From that I would guess that it might be a message like A xxxxxx... DID IT. I rearrange the original letters (highlight and drag the letters, or just cut and paste them) like this:

CCDHLMMN
AAAIIIO
A DID IT

There's a lot of guesswork and just sitting down and trying things, just seeing what works and what does not. A XXXXXX DID NOT DO IT is impossible, for example, because there is only one O and only one T.

I then just look at it and try to see words that can be formed from the remaining letters. With some trial and effort, sometimes within minutes, sometimes within hours, I realize that HOMICIDAL (this is where experience helps a lot) is a possiblity, so I rearrange like this:

CMN
AAI
A HOMICIDAL DID IT

Then it becomes a simple word jumble with the unused letters (CMNAAI) to realize the sentence:

A HOMICIDAL MANIAC DID IT

Ok Thanks Mikie!

I didn't know if there was a scientific method to it, or if there were experts that deciphered the things. I thought it might be closely related to something like hand writing analyses?

Anyway, descrambling would be best left up to you, esp since I have no feel for it whatsoever.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

Just stopped in to say hello! :seeya: It's been ages since I've followed the JBR case but I still remember the day it happened because we were in Colorado skiing not to far from Boulder when it happened.

BTW I'm pretty much a fence sitter and will waiver back and fourth as to whether an intruder did it or a Ramsey did it. I guess that makes me wishey washey LOL. It's a shame this case has never been solved after all these years.

:patriot:

Did Mrs Ramsey compete in pageants as a child? Was wondering what the motivation for JBR's involvement in pageants at an early age was.

Thanks,
R

[Mikie]

Ok Thanks Mikie!

I didn't know if there was a scientific method to it, or if there were experts that deciphered the things. I thought it might be closely related to something like hand writing analyses?

Anyway, descrambling would be best left up to you, esp since I have no feel for it whatsoever.

ALLMO,
R

You're welcome.

I forgot to mention that there are automatic online anagram solvers like this one: http://www.anagramgenius.com/server.html but they don't seem to be of much use for bigger anagrams.

[LindaA]

Did Mrs Ramsey compete in pageants as a child? Was wondering what the motivation for JBR's involvement in pageants at an early age was.

Thanks,
R

I don't remember that PR competed in pageants as a child. I don't believe there were many, if any at all, when she was a child almost 50 years ago. (PR would be 51 or 52 had she lived.) PR said that the motivation was that since she had enjoyed them so much when she did compete, and after her bout with cancer she had doubts she would live to see JBR as a young adult (late teens) she felt it was something they could do together. She also noticed that JBR's personality seemed to be compatible with that type activity -- she loved to pretend to be performiing. Someone correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly.

[One2Snoop]

IIRC Patsy Ramsey was a former beauty queen - Miss Virginia or Georgia? Can't remember which state. I'll see if I can find some info on it...

[One2Snoop]

It was Virginia...

In 1977, Patsy Ramsey was crowned Miss West Virginia.

She was a sophomore at Parkersburg High School when she became first runner-up in the Miss Teen-Age West Virginia contest.

As a sophomore at West Virginia University, she decided to go for the state title and won it in 1977. Her sister, Pamela, later won the Miss West Virginia title as well.

In Atlantic City during the Miss America pageant, Patsy's dramatic reading won her a nonfinalist talent award and a $2,000 scholarship, which helped pay for her education at West Virginia University.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/10xxram5.shtml

[Evening2]

IIRC Patsy Ramsey was a former beauty queen - Miss Virginia or Georgia? Can't remember which state. I'll see if I can find some info on it...

I think she was first runner-up in the Miss America Pageant in the late 70's and she represented West Virginia. Her sister, Pam Paugh, also represented West Virginia but I can't remember if she made it to the Miss America Pageant.

[The R]

It was Virginia...

In 1977, Patsy Ramsey was crowned Miss West Virginia.

She was a sophomore at Parkersburg High School when she became first runner-up in the Miss Teen-Age West Virginia contest.

As a sophomore at West Virginia University, she decided to go for the state title and won it in 1977. Her sister, Pamela, later won the Miss West Virginia title as well.

In Atlantic City during the Miss America pageant, Patsy's dramatic reading won her a nonfinalist talent award and a $2,000 scholarship, which helped pay for her education at West Virginia University.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/10xxram5.shtml

I think she was first runner-up in the Miss America Pageant in the late 70's and she represented West Virginia. Her sister, Pam Paugh, also represented West Virginia but I can't remember if she made it to the Miss America Pageant.


Thanks for the info!

R

[Zoey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/485000/images/_489720_face300.jpg

:rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose:


Wasn't she a beautiful little girl? I feel bad that I just don't feel up to posting on a JBRamsey forum anymore. I got so fed up with Sycamore and the posters on there, that I gave it all up.

[SaraSidle]

Wasn't she a beautiful little girl? I feel bad that I just don't feel up to posting on a JBRamsey forum anymore. I got so fed up with Sycamore and the posters on there, that I gave it all up.

I feel the same way Zoey. Weren't you a councilperson? Welcome back

[Evening2]

Wasn't she a beautiful little girl? I feel bad that I just don't feel up to posting on a JBRamsey forum anymore. I got so fed up with Sycamore and the posters on there, that I gave it all up.

ZOEY! My Zoey!!! I have missed you SO much! I am so happy to see you here. I know what you mean about Sycamore. Did you happen to notice some of the things that happened to ME?! It didn't seem like I could do ANYTHING right, even when what I did was to do nothing. Sheesh! I didn't know which way was up and who was on first. BUT, but, but, but, me thinks I have figured a few things out.:tongue:

Anywho, it is wonderful to see all of you here.

Hi Sara. I hope you don't mind that we're back?

I don't mind the one thread discussion at all. At least it won't be boring.

[SaraSidle]

ZOEY! My Zoey!!! I have missed you SO much! I am so happy to see you here. I know what you mean about Sycamore. Did you happen to notice some of the things that happened to ME?! It didn't seem like I could do ANYTHING right, even when what I did was to do nothing. Sheesh! I didn't know which way was up and who was on first. BUT, but, but, but, me thinks I have figured a few things out.:tongue:

Anywho, it is wonderful to see all of you here.

Hi Sara. I hope you don't mind that we're back?

I don't mind the one thread discussion at all. At least it won't be boring.

OH evening I never had a problem posting with you. Glad you all are back. the more the merrier you know

[LindaA]

Zoey, I'm so glad to see you! I was just thinking about how many people were no longer posting on a JBR forum. I had such high hopes for 320, but it's never lived up to those hopes. I hope I wan't a part of the reason why you left, because I know I have gottne sucked into some unpleasant discussion over there,a nd have come near quitting several times.

Please continue to post here Zoey, Sara, etc. We'd like to keep it civil, even when we disagree.

[SaraSidle]

Zoey, I'm so glad to see you! I was just thinking about how many people were no longer posting on a JBR forum. I had such high hopes for 320, but it's never lived up to those hopes. I hope I wan't a part of the reason why you left, because I know I have gottne sucked into some unpleasant discussion over there,a nd have come near quitting several times.

Please continue to post here Zoey, Sara, etc. We'd like to keep it civil, even when we disagree.

Can't get rid of me Linda

[Evening2]

Zoey, I'm so glad to see you! I was just thinking about how many people were no longer posting on a JBR forum. I had such high hopes for 320, but it's never lived up to those hopes. I hope I wan't a part of the reason why you left, because I know I have gottne sucked into some unpleasant discussion over there,a nd have come near quitting several times.

Please continue to post here Zoey, Sara, etc. We'd like to keep it civil, even when we disagree.

Linda, I not only promise to do my part to keep it civil, but I take this solemn oath:

If posters refrain from using :biggrin: I will refrain from using :no: . Sound like a plan? :beer:

[judi25uk]

i remember seeing a few documentries here with lou smit as a main person on it talking about how he went about trying to investigate the crime and it was talking about a few crimes in the area not far from jonbenet's house in the time running up to the murder, someone dressed as a ninja breaking into a girls home and trying to kidnap her etc. just wanted to know if there was more info on it and what people thought about it?

[SaraSidle]

Linda, I not only promise to do my part to keep it civil, but I take this solemn oath:

If posters refrain from using :biggrin: I will refrain from using :no: . Sound like a plan? :beer:

I never remember you using :no:

[SaraSidle]

i remember seeing a few documentries here with lou smit as a main person on it talking about how he went about trying to investigate the crime and it was talking about a few crimes in the area not far from jonbenet's house in the time running up to the murder, someone dressed as a ninja breaking into a girls home and trying to kidnap her etc. just wanted to know if there was more info on it and what people thought about it?

Judith I do not know about this case as much as I would like so I cannot help you. I am more of a lurker when it comes to JB. I do not have any suspects.

[judi25uk]

Judith I do not know about this case as much as I would like so I cannot help you. I am more of a lurker when it comes to JB. I do not have any suspects.

hey there sara-thanks whats a lurker? u mean you just browse? lol sorry to have to ask!

[LindaA]

Judi, a lurker is someone who reads but doesn't post. With the JBR forums sthere are lots of lurker, because the discussion gets rather heated at times.

As for other crimes in the Boulder area around the time of the Ramsey case, the most notable was a young girl who attended the same dance school as JBR. Someone broke into her house on a night when her father was away, but the girl called out and alerted her mother, who scared the guy away before he could do any damage. When her family tried to have police investigate this crime, which occurred a few months after the Ramsey case, the LE was not interested in establishing a connection.

The theory was that the "perp" had perhaps lurked in the observation area of the dance studio and targeted both girls.

[Evening2]

I never remember you using :no:

Well, I have to admit that I did, but not VERY often. Just often enough to get the goat of a few deserving of it, IMO

[judi25uk]

Judi, a lurker is someone who reads but doesn't post. With the JBR forums sthere are lots of lurker, because the discussion gets rather heated at times.

As for other crimes in the Boulder area around the time of the Ramsey case, the most notable was a young girl who attended the same dance school as JBR. Someone broke into her house on a night when her father was away, but the girl called out and alerted her mother, who scared the guy away before he could do any damage. When her family tried to have police investigate this crime, which occurred a few months after the Ramsey case, the LE was not interested in establishing a connection.

The theory was that the "perp" had perhaps lurked in the observation area of the dance studio and targeted both girls.


thanks lindaA, yes thats exactly what i watched on that documentry, it seemed to me to be too much of a coincidence when i watched it. Can you really see this case being solved? i think about it quite often, wondering when and if there will be a break-through on it and then when there is i would love ann rule to write the whole story as in my opinion she would be perfect and honouring to the memory of JBR.

[SaraSidle]

Well, I have to admit that I did, but not VERY often. Just often enough to get the goat of a few deserving of it, IMO

I only remember Mother doing it with every post.

[Zoey]

ZOEY! My Zoey!!! I have missed you SO much! I am so happy to see you here. I know what you mean about Sycamore. Did you happen to notice some of the things that happened to ME?! It didn't seem like I could do ANYTHING right, even when what I did was to do nothing. Sheesh! I didn't know which way was up and who was on first. BUT, but, but, but, me thinks I have figured a few things out.:tongue:

Anywho, it is wonderful to see all of you here.

Hi Sara. I hope you don't mind that we're back?

I don't mind the one thread discussion at all. At least it won't be boring.


I did notice what happened to you - it was part of why I no longer post there.

[LindaA]

I did notice what happened to you - it was part of why I no longer post there.

I was wondering if it was just me, but I thought it was all very one-sided. I did miss parts of it while one vacation. I guess it's okay to discuss this here. No one seems to miind our talking about another board.

[Zoey]

Zoey, I'm so glad to see you! I was just thinking about how many people were no longer posting on a JBR forum. I had such high hopes for 320, but it's never lived up to those hopes. I hope I wan't a part of the reason why you left, because I know I have gottne sucked into some unpleasant discussion over there,a nd have come near quitting several times.

Please continue to post here Zoey, Sara, etc. We'd like to keep it civil, even when we disagree.


You could never be part of why I left. You and Evening have always had so much to offer the JB Ramsey discussion. I just couldn't take the badgering and baiting and RDI high five postings and the totally asinine questions (my favorite - does anyone know if Jameson speaks a foreign language?). Please....what in the world does that have to do with who murdered little Jonbenet. And then to read the horrible, mean, rude, ignorant postings the RDIs were doing on other forums....well, it just got to be too much for me.

And then - the Crème de la Crème was when once again, Rashomon was insisting someone produce their credentials to Freshwater - just like she had done to Elvislives. Yet she, nor another poster who claims to be a teacher, has ever had to produce their credentials. That is when I said enough is enough for me.

[Zoey]

Linda, I not only promise to do my part to keep it civil, but I take this solemn oath:

If posters refrain from using :biggrin: I will refrain from using :no: . Sound like a plan? :beer:

I absolutely hate that little jester guy. It was the one thing I appreciated at Sycamore - the few smilies that were allowed did not include that rude jester.

[Zoey]

Totally off topic - but did you all realize it has been a whole year since the disappearance of little Madeline McCann? I can't believe it has been a year.

[Evening2]

I only remember Mother doing it with every post.

Mother???

[SaraSidle]

Mother???

Mother Hen used it with every post on the Mary Winkler forum until it was deleted. Since then I have not heard from her or Cookiewench who both posted on Mary Winkler all the time.

[SaraSidle]

Mother Hen used it with every post on the Mary Winkler forum until it was deleted. Since then I have not heard from her or Cookiewench who both posted on Mary Winkler all the time.

I apologize to everyone for being off topic btw

[One2Snoop]

Totally off topic - but did you all realize it has been a whole year since the disappearance of little Madeline McCann? I can't believe it has been a year.

Yes, I was just thinking about that - its the saddest thing ever that she still hasn't been found. :(

For Maddie :rose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b96_DL8j40&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWq3GI4531U&feature=related

[One2Snoop]

I apologize to everyone for being off topic btw

Alrighty then, this water says get back on track LOL. :tongue:

[Evening2]

Alrighty then, this water says get back on track LOL. :tongue:

:patriot:

Edited to say: :tongue:

[Mikie]

I hope nobody minds if I write on topic. FWIW, I was studying the stringman in the window wellhttp://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman.jpg and came across this site which might be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch's_ladder
It was believed that witches of old cast a death spell over a person by tying the knots and then hiding the cord, and the only way to undo the spell was to find the secreted cord and untie each knot.[2]

[grneyes]

A witch's knots are generally done in a row, not a single knot though.

Like this: (x marks the knots)

---x---x---x---x---x---

[Evening2]

I hope nobody minds if I write on topic. FWIW, I was studying the stringman in the window wellhttp://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman.jpg and came across this site which might be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch's_ladder
It was believed that witches of old cast a death spell over a person by tying the knots and then hiding the cord, and the only way to undo the spell was to find the secreted cord and untie each knot.[2]

I think that site may very well be relevant, Mikie. According to that site, would it mean that perhaps a witch's ladder had previously been made by the killers and then hidden prior to the night of JonBenet's murder?

[Evening2]

A witch's knots are generally done in a row, not a single knot though.

Like this: (x marks the knots)

---x---x---x---x---x---

grneyes, wouldn't the knots in the garotte, the ones that were used to attach the cord to the stick, be considered to have been tied in a row?

[grneyes]

grneyes, wouldn't the knots in the garotte, the ones that were used to attach the cord to the stick, be considered to have been tied in a row?

It would depend on how they are tied for it to be considered to have any ritual bearings. Are the knots done a specific way? Ritual knot work has a pattern/patterns to it, it isn't done randomly (unless of course, they don't know what they are doing).

Is there a picture somewhere of how it was tied?

[Zoey]

It would depend on how they are tied for it to be considered to have any ritual bearings. Are the knots done a specific way? Ritual knot work has a pattern/patterns to it, it isn't done randomly (unless of course, they don't know what they are doing).

Is there a picture somewhere of how it was tied?


Scroll down close to the bottom of this page, and you can find photos of the knots.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

[grneyes]

Thanks for the link Zoey.

In my opinion, no, those are not ritualistic knots. Those knots were tied for strength (to keep JB bound) and for control and probably done fairly quickly.

[Evening2]

Thanks for the link Zoey.

In my opinion, no, those are not ritualistic knots. Those knots were tied for strength (to keep JB bound) and for control and probably done fairly quickly.

Thank you both, Zoey and grneyes for adding to this knot discussion. I'm getting ready to sign off but wanted to mention something regarding the knots. Most in LE (I believe) have said the knots were specific and not at all random and were made by someone with experience in tying those particular knots. LE actually had a knot expert come on board to examine the knots. Allegedly, the knots are quite difficult to make. Of course, some others have said they are just simple knots. Do you have an opinion, grneyes, one way or the other?

[Mikie]

Thank you both, Zoey and grneyes for adding to this knot discussion. I'm getting ready to sign off but wanted to mention something regarding the knots. Most in LE (I believe) have said the knots were specific and not at all random and were made by someone with experience in tying those particular knots. LE actually had a knot expert come on board to examine the knots. Allegedly, the knots are quite difficult to make. Of course, some others have said they are just simple knots. Do you have an opinion, grneyes, one way or the other?

Thanks grneyes. I agree it is probably not a witch's ladder. I guess this "stringman" could be just some kind of wrapping string, tossed in the window well. But it is mysterious, in that I cannot really tell exactly what it is or why it would be there. Looking at the photo more carefully, it seems like there are brown strings in the photo also...or are they twigs? I cannot tell. I've placed arrows pointing to some of them in this version of the photo.
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman3.jpg

[grneyes]

Thank you both, Zoey and grneyes for adding to this knot discussion. I'm getting ready to sign off but wanted to mention something regarding the knots. Most in LE (I believe) have said the knots were specific and not at all random and were made by someone with experience in tying those particular knots. LE actually had a knot expert come on board to examine the knots. Allegedly, the knots are quite difficult to make. Of course, some others have said they are just simple knots. Do you have an opinion, grneyes, one way or the other?

I've never seen a witch's ladder that even remotely resembles those knots but that doesn't mean he/she wasn't experianced in knots. Boy scouts, a sailor, even a surgeon is experianced in knots. By what I see in those particular pictures, I still don't think he spent a lot of time making the knots but if he was experianced in doing it, he wouldn't have to would he?

How difficult the knots would be to make is hard to tell by the pictures because they look pretty simple to me going strictly by those.

[grneyes]

I've tried to find some images but the only one I found that doesn't use the basic knot system (---x---x---x---x---x---) for the ladder is one done without knots that has feathers braided into the cord. Even my cord magic book uses the above basic knot system.

http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/image-admin/d/1260-2/1911_32_7_web.jpg

[Mikie]

I've tried to find some images but the only one I found that doesn't use the basic knot system (---x---x---x---x---x---) for the ladder is one done without knots that has feathers braided into the cord. Even my cord magic book uses the above basic knot system.

http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/image-admin/d/1260-2/1911_32_7_web.jpg

Fascinating, grneyes! Great example of a witch's ladder. Thanks. I'm inclined to think now that the brown stringlike things in the photo are vines. There are vines with leaves on them in the photo showing the left corner of the window well:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman4.jpg

[FDInLaw]

I never remember you using :no:Funny, she used that icon on me today and I'm not even sure why. :shrug:



:o

[FDInLaw]

Fascinating, grneyes! Great example of a witch's ladder. Thanks. I'm inclined to think now that the brown stringlike things in the photo are vines. There are vines with leaves on them in the photo showing the left corner of the window well:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman4.jpgInteresting discussion. Not sure what to think of any of it though.

- - - - - - - - - -

Some random links to help build the thread and discussion:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9337/cord.html

[Evening2]

Funny, she used that icon on me today and I'm not even sure why. :shrug:



:o

FD, I hope you know I was only teasing with you. I said so on the other thread. :o

[FDInLaw]

FD, I hope you know I was only teasing with you. I said so on the other thread. :o
Guess me no like that icon lol! :o

I'm sorry. . . I didn't understand. Someone had sent me a PM about that issue and I feared that you were jumping on me. :(

Glad that is not the case. :seeya:

[Evening2]

Guess me no like that icon lol! :o

I'm sorry. . . I didn't understand. Someone had sent me a PM about that issue and I feared that you were jumping on me. :(

Glad that is not the case. :seeya:

Boy, am I glad I saw those posts and realized my joke didn't "work". I was trying to spell the letter "F" (eff). Oh well, better luck (for me) next time. Thanks for understanding. You too One2Water. :seeya:

[FDInLaw]

Boy, am I glad I saw those posts and realized my joke didn't "work". I was trying to spell the letter "F" (eff). Oh well, better luck (for me) next time. Thanks for understanding. You too One2Water. :seeya: Oh, I caught the "eff" = "F". . . I thought you were referring to the "mother of all swear words" :eek:

Guess the next time I pick a nic I should avoid using the letter "F" or not be so sensitive!!! :o

[Evening2]

Oh, I caught the "eff" = "F". . . I thought you were referring to the "mother of all swear words" :eek:

Guess the next time I pick a nic I should avoid using the letter "F" or not be so sensitive!!! :o

Welllll, it DID sorta come out "sounding" like that. That's why I "thought" it was funny - :o :o :( I just didn't mean anything by it except a chance at humor. My bad!

[FDInLaw]

Welllll, it DID sorta come out "sounding" like that. That's why I "thought" it was funny - :o :o :( I just didn't mean anything by it except a chance at humor. My bad!
The icon thing also caused me to wonder . . . " :no: "





It's all good now though. :hat: :hat:

[Jayelles]

You could never be part of why I left. You and Evening have always had so much to offer the JB Ramsey discussion. I just couldn't take the badgering and baiting and RDI high five postings and the totally asinine questions (my favorite - does anyone know if Jameson speaks a foreign language?). Please....what in the world does that have to do with who murdered little Jonbenet. And then to read the horrible, mean, rude, ignorant postings the RDIs were doing on other forums....well, it just got to be too much for me.

And then - the Crème de la Crème was when once again, Rashomon was insisting someone produce their credentials to Freshwater - just like she had done to Elvislives. Yet she, nor another poster who claims to be a teacher, has ever had to produce their credentials. That is when I said enough is enough for me.

What a delightful little thread this is!

Two points - 1) you cite the question "Does jameson speak a foreign language" in your list of reasons for not posting at the Sycamore JBR forum any longer. Since you stopped posting at the JBTR forum many weeks before that post was made, did you using a crystal ball? If so, could you look into your crystal ball again and tell us whether the Ramsey case will every be solved?

2) I'm intrigued to know why I as a teacher would have to provide my credentials in order to discuss the Ramsey case?

I didn't question Elvis' credentials when she was answering case medical/autopsy questions on the forum in her capacity as a doctor but do you propose that we simply accept people at their word when they claim expertise to strengthen their opinions about the technical aspects of the case? Fortunately, real experts (like Elvis) comprehend how crucial sources are and expect their credentials to be questioned. Real experts are not offended when their credentials are challenged. Good researchers will always verify sources.

********************

Now, when does the slagging off of posters end and the Ramsey case discussion begin?

[Evening2]

Now, when does the slagging off of posters end and the Ramsey case discussion begin?

Oh, it began all right, and notice, we didn't even have to wait for you. :) Now, how many of these 86 posts are "slagging" posters?

[Callan]

Thanks grneyes. I agree it is probably not a witch's ladder. I guess this "stringman" could be just some kind of wrapping string, tossed in the window well. But it is mysterious, in that I cannot really tell exactly what it is or why it would be there. Looking at the photo more carefully, it seems like there are brown strings in the photo also...or are they twigs? I cannot tell. I've placed arrows pointing to some of them in this version of the photo.
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman3.jpg


Without doubt, what you are looking at here -are pipe cleaners. The figure shape - is of two separate pieces. There is also another single piece, lying further to the right.

The significance of two pieces being used, means that this figure was deliberatly shaped, so as to be a figure and is not just the result of someone twisting and turning a single piece. What really atracts my attention, is how the figure appears to have been placed, so it looks as if it is pointing away from the house. Very creepy.

Now if you want to be really startled, look at a small round object on the far right. Zoom in on it a bit and ... well you will see for yourself, it is as plain as day.

[The R]

Without doubt, what you are looking at here -are pipe cleaners. The figure shape - is of two separate pieces. There is also another single piece, lying further to the right.

The significance of two pieces being used, means that this figure was deliberatly shaped, so as to be a figure and is not just the result of someone twisting and turning a single piece. What really atracts my attention, is how the figure appears to have been placed, so it looks as if it is pointing away from the house. Very creepy.

Now if you want to be really startled, look at a small round object on the far right. Zoom in on it a bit and ... well you will see for yourself, it is as plain as day.


I'm a little confused and would like some help?

Is this photo an outside shot of where someone entered the reidence? As to the figure, could that not be twine? If it's outside could it be from something like a bundle of pine straw or something that was strewed?

Just asking.....thanks,

R

[Mikie]

Without doubt, what you are looking at here -are pipe cleaners. The figure shape - is of two separate pieces. There is also another single piece, lying further to the right.

The significance of two pieces being used, means that this figure was deliberatly shaped, so as to be a figure and is not just the result of someone twisting and turning a single piece. What really atracts my attention, is how the figure appears to have been placed, so it looks as if it is pointing away from the house. Very creepy.

Now if you want to be really startled, look at a small round object on the far right. Zoom in on it a bit and ... well you will see for yourself, it is as plain as day.

I think you are right about pipe cleaners. However, whether it is creepy or not is up to interpretation. Child's play?
As for the small round object, I have tried several times, without success, to convince anyone what it is, and no longer have any interest to go into that.

[Mikie]

I'm a little confused and would like some help?

Is this photo an outside shot of where someone entered the reidence? As to the figure, could that not be twine? If it's outside could it be from something like a bundle of pine straw or something that was strewed?

Just asking.....thanks,

R

That is a crimescene photo of the window well which was a possible entry and/or exit point from the basement by an intruder, as made public in this article about Lou Smit:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

[The R]

That is a crimescene photo of the window well which was a possible entry and/or exit point from the basement by an intruder, as made public in this article about Lou Smit:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html


TYVM for the link Mikie!

R:)

[nuisanceposter]

And when were these particular photos taken? Smit used photos that were not official crime scene photos and were not taken on the 26th of December. A photo taken after the 26th is not as good a source for how the house and grounds appeared than those taken on the 26th, for obvious reasons. IMO.

[SaraSidle]

I'm a little confused and would like some help?

Is this photo an outside shot of where someone entered the reidence? As to the figure, could that not be twine? If it's outside could it be from something like a bundle of pine straw or something that was strewed?

Just asking.....thanks,

R

I am sorry I zoomed the pictures and it sure looks like twine and not pipe cleaners to me. IMO

[The R]

I am sorry I zoomed the pictures and it sure looks like twine and not pipe cleaners to me. IMO

I tend to agree. I'm not trying in any way to discredit those who think otherwise, but the item looks to be wound or woven as a rope would be while most pipe cleaners I've seen have a wire base with fuzzy material attached to the wire.
It also appears to me as if the item was used to tie something and then cut away from whatever it was tied to.


ALLMO,
R

[SaraSidle]

I tend to agree. I'm not trying in any way to discredit those who think otherwise, but the item looks to be wound or woven as a rope would be while most pipe cleaners I've seen have a wire base with fuzzy material attached to the wire.
It also appears to me as if the item was used to tie something and then cut away from whatever it was tied to.


ALLMO,
R

I also agree with nuisanceposter. When were those pictures taken? IMO

[andU]

Wasn't she a beautiful little girl? I feel bad that I just don't feel up to posting on a JBRamsey forum anymore. I got so fed up with Sycamore and the posters on there, that I gave it all up.

You know what, Zoey? So am I; it seems we all go in circles or cycles ...I cannot fathom how LE must feel if they have followed all the leads of this case. I believe it will be solved one day, but not sure if it will happen in whatever is left of my lifetime. I'm just weary with the discussions. So, I'll hang back and read, mostly. We miss you at the Lounge, BTW.

[SaraSidle]

You know what, Zoey? So am I; it seems we all go in circles or cycles ...I cannot fathom how LE must feel if they have followed all the leads of this case. I believe it will be solved one day, but not sure if it will happen in whatever is left of my lifetime. I'm just weary with the discussions. So, I'll hang back and read, mostly. We miss you at the Lounge, BTW.

AndU I feel the same way. This is very frustrating and I really hope for JBR justice will come but unfortunately the way the whole thing has been handled I do not see it happening. IMO

[rashomon]

You could never be part of why I left. You and Evening have always had so much to offer the JB Ramsey discussion. I just couldn't take the badgering and baiting and RDI high five postings and the totally asinine questions (my favorite - does anyone know if Jameson speaks a foreign language?). Please....what in the world does that have to do with who murdered little Jonbenet. And then to read the horrible, mean, rude, ignorant postings the RDIs were doing on other forums....well, it just got to be too much for me.
Hey Zoey, quite a surprise to see you here. Are you no longer - what is it called - "councilman at large" at Sycamore?
I had a specific reason for asking this question about Jameson, Zoey dear. It had to do with the analysis (in connection with the mysterious Patricia Letters - I believe she wrote them) of a bogus email by Susan Bennett aka Jameson where she used too many commas and also capitalized nouns, and since the German language also capitalizes nouns and the use of commas is more frequent than in English, I thought "maybe" Susan is familiar with German and used elements of it for her faked post to muddy the waters.
Example from Scammy Sue's bogus post:

"On one of the Shows on AandE, the Investigation Show with Bill Kurtis, it was brought out that there was an Entrance Door".

But it was mere speculation on my part that she might speak German, nothing more.

And then - the Crème de la Crème was when once again, Rashomon was insisting someone produce their credentials to Freshwater - just like she had done to Elvislives.
Where on Sycamore did I insist "someone " produce their credentials? Who was that "someone"? Please give link so I can take a look.
Yet she, nor another poster who claims to be a teacher, has ever had to produce their credentials. That is when I said enough is enough for me.
Frankly, Zoey, I don't believe this was the real reason why you left.
The RDIs over at Sycamore prevented that forum from becoming a total IDI nest, and my guess is you hadn't expected that we would hang in there. :)

jmo

[Evening2]

Hi there, Zoey. Did you get my PM the other day? Just making sure my PMs are working so I sent one to one of my favorite people - YOU!!!

I know how busy you are but I wanted to say I hope you'll stay as handy as you can. You've been nominated (by me) to be our walking encyclopedia. You are just the greatest at it and your files must be awesome. Do you accept the "nomination"? I hope everyone agrees. Zoey is FANTASTIC, especially if you're trying to remember a portion of a transcript on the case. And boy, is she FAST!!! :) :beer: :read:

[DAFFODIL]

:biggrin:

[Evening2]

I tend to agree. I'm not trying in any way to discredit those who think otherwise, but the item looks to be wound or woven as a rope would be while most pipe cleaners I've seen have a wire base with fuzzy material attached to the wire.
It also appears to me as if the item was used to tie something and then cut away from whatever it was tied to.


ALLMO,
R

I agree with both you and Sara. It does look like twine. I looked especially at the knot and it looks like twine rather than pipe cleaner.:shrug:

[The R]

I am sorry I zoomed the pictures and it sure looks like twine and not pipe cleaners to me. IMO

I agree with both you and Sara. It does look like twine. I looked especially at the knot and it looks like twine rather than pipe cleaner.:shrug:


Guess my next questions would be....

If it is twine, could it have come from the basement? Or would it be from someone doing some landscaping? I know it was winter, but someone could've been placing straw on outdoor plants and cut away rope that helped hold the straw bundle together....of course this is only one example?

ALLMO,
R

[Evening2]

Guess my next questions would be....

If it is twine, could it have come from the basement? Or would it be from someone doing some landscaping? I know it was winter, but someone could've been placing straw on outdoor plants and cut away rope that helped hold the straw bundle together....of course this is only one example?

ALLMO,
R

I know what you mean, The R. We place pine straw around our plants for mulch and it comes bundled with that same type of twine, kind of a light tan color. It's hard to say WHERE the twine would have come from. But if it is a "symbol", then my guess is it was brought to the house WITH the killer/s. Really though, I don't think there's anyway to know for sure.:(

[Mikie]

Guess my next questions would be....

If it is twine, could it have come from the basement? Or would it be from someone doing some landscaping? I know it was winter, but someone could've been placing straw on outdoor plants and cut away rope that helped hold the straw bundle together....of course this is only one example?

ALLMO,
R
I see three separate pieces, same length, probably 6" long white pipe cleaners. Maybe it helps if I color them:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2a.jpg

[thewhitewitch1]

I see three separate pieces, same length, probably 6" long white pipe cleaners. Maybe it helps if I color them:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2a.jpg

Maybe JB was killed by the Blair Witch. :shrug:

[Evening2]

I see three separate pieces, same length, probably 6" long white pipe cleaners. Maybe it helps if I color them:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2a.jpg


Thanks for adding the color, Mikie. It does make it easier to see. I still
think the knot itself looks more like twine, but you could be right about the pipe cleaners. :shrug:

[Mikie]

Maybe JB was killed by the Blair Witch. :shrug:

The Blair Witch stickman was similar...but different.

http://www.serioussilver.com/images/photos/vampire_bat_horror/blair_witch_pin.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2a.jpg

[Evening2]

The Blair Witch stickman was similar...but different.

http://www.serioussilver.com/images/photos/vampire_bat_horror/blair_witch_pin.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2a.jpg


Boy, Mikie, am I impressed. You sure have a lot of information under your belt! Way to go! :seeya:

[Mikie]

Boy, Mikie, am I impressed. You sure have a lot of information under your belt! Way to go! :seeya:

No, Eve2, it's not under my belt...it's on the internet. I never watched that movie. But apparently WW1 did and saw the connection. Thanks to WW1 for that. The Blair Witch Project movie came out in 1999. Is there any factual basis behind it?

Here's the mythology
http://www.blairwitch.com/mythology.html

[nuisanceposter]

The Blair Witch story centers in Burkittsville, Maryland, about 45 miles from my house. I was actually living just 10 miles from Burkittsville in 1999, when the movie was in theaters, and drove through it three days a week on my way to and from work. I made sure to see the movie and enjoyed it very much - I had spent many a spring evening wandering around in abandoned houses in wooded areas in my carefree teenage years.

There is no factual basis for the story, though. The history of Burkittsville does not include any witches or curses or reports of missing people falling victim to the witch and/or curse. The entire backstory for the film was created solely for the film. Poor Burkittsville, a tiny little dot on the map that's basically rows of houses lined up on two main streets, was set upon by countless curious witch story fans. The movie wasn't even totally filmed in the Burkittsville area but mostly in Black Hills Regional Park.

[One2Snoop]

The Blair Witch story centers in Burkittsville, Maryland, about 45 miles from my house. I was actually living just 10 miles from Burkittsville in 1999, when the movie was in theaters, and drove through it three days a week on my way to and from work. I made sure to see the movie and enjoyed it very much - I had spent many a spring evening wandering around in abandoned houses in wooded areas in my carefree teenage years.

There is no factual basis for the story, though. The history of Burkittsville does not include any witches or curses or reports of missing people falling victim to the witch and/or curse. The entire backstory for the film was created solely for the film. Poor Burkittsville, a tiny little dot on the map that's basically rows of houses lined up on two main streets, was set upon by countless curious witch story fans. The movie wasn't even totally filmed in the Burkittsville area but mostly in Black Hills Regional Park.

Thanks nuisanceposter - Someone was trying to convince me this was based on a true story. I didn't think it was based on true events and when I asked this person to show me something to prove it they never responded to the post. Thanks for the verification. :seeya:

FWIW - in the picture above this looks like twine to me - not pipe cleaners. We used similar twine to steady the christmas tree - we'd tie the twine around the branches and tie the other end to a hook of some sort on the wall. Maybe the twine came from their christmas tree? or maybe it came off a package?
I haven't studied this case in years so forgive me if this has been figured out already.

[SaraSidle]

Thanks nuisanceposter - Someone was trying to convince me this was based on a true story. I didn't think it was based on true events and when I asked this person to show me something to prove it they never responded to the post. Thanks for the verification. :seeya:

FWIW - in the picture above this looks like twine to me - not pipe cleaners. We used similar twine to steady the christmas tree - we'd tie the twine around the branches and tie the other end to a hook of some sort on the wall. Maybe the twine came from their christmas tree? or maybe it came off a package?
I haven't studied this case in years so forgive me if this has been figured out already.

Well a good question posed by Nuisance Poster a while back is when was that picture taken?

[LindaA]

Looks a llittle stiff to be twine, and a little too pristine to have been in a window well very long IMO.

It does bear a strange resemblence to the Blair Witch thingy. Also IMO.

It is a good question as to when the photo was taken. It seems not to be marked as a crime scene photo.

[thewhitewitch1]

No, Eve2, it's not under my belt...it's on the internet. I never watched that movie. But apparently WW1 did and saw the connection. Thanks to WW1 for that. The Blair Witch Project movie came out in 1999. Is there any factual basis behind it?

Here's the mythology
http://www.blairwitch.com/mythology.html

Mikie...please don't take me seriously. It was just an attempt at a little humor. :biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

The Blair Witch story centers in Burkittsville, Maryland, about 45 miles from my house. I was actually living just 10 miles from Burkittsville in 1999, when the movie was in theaters, and drove through it three days a week on my way to and from work. I made sure to see the movie and enjoyed it very much - I had spent many a spring evening wandering around in abandoned houses in wooded areas in my carefree teenage years.

There is no factual basis for the story, though. The history of Burkittsville does not include any witches or curses or reports of missing people falling victim to the witch and/or curse. The entire backstory for the film was created solely for the film. Poor Burkittsville, a tiny little dot on the map that's basically rows of houses lined up on two main streets, was set upon by countless curious witch story fans. The movie wasn't even totally filmed in the Burkittsville area but mostly in Black Hills Regional Park.

They promoted the movie as a fact. I was so disappointed when I found out it was all fake. :(

[SaraSidle]

Mikie...please don't take me seriously. It was just an attempt at a little humor. :biggrin:

I caught it White!!! LOL

[SaraSidle]

They promoted the movie as a fact. I was so disappointed when I found out it was all fake. :(

ME too. And I made myself watch the whole movie.

[Mikie]

Mikie...please don't take me seriously. It was just an attempt at a little humor. :biggrin:

I realized that, I mean the movie was after the crime, but actually, I am looking for evidence of witchcraft in the crime, and I still wonder about that little "stringman". Witchcraft is suggested by the anagrams. The killer is referred to as a "witch's p i m p", among other things, (e.g. homicidal maniac, maniac witch, batman, Bill McR's illigitimate brother, etc.) which is a witch's aide in old English. The McR's are referred to as "witches", and in other cases also, the killers are called "bad witches". Some say the heart in her hand was a witch symbol. But if witches leave "signs" then what are we looking for? Actually there are many things that might be construed as "signs", such as the books on Patsy's dresser which she had no idea what they were, the note, the news article with JR's head drawn with a heart, while everyone else had an X, the opening of Bible to certain Psalms, the opening of the dictionary to the word incest, and so on. Those are, in my opinion, intentionally left signs which basically forewarn or explain the reasoning behind the crime. But this stringman still doesn't seem quite clear if it is intentional or irrelevant.

[thewhitewitch1]

I realized that, I mean the movie was after the crime, but actually, I am looking for evidence of witchcraft in the crime, and I still wonder about that little "stringman". Witchcraft is suggested by the anagrams. The killer is referred to as a "witch's p i m p", among other things, (e.g. homicidal maniac, maniac witch, batman, Bill McR's illigitimate brother, etc.) which is a witch's aide in old English. The McR's are referred to as "witches", and in other cases also, the killers are called "bad witches". Some say the heart in her hand was a witch symbol. But if witches leave "signs" then what are we looking for? Actually there are many things that might be construed as "signs", such as the books on Patsy's dresser which she had no idea what they were, the note, the news article with JR's head drawn with a heart, while everyone else had an X, the opening of Bible to certain Psalms, the opening of the dictionary to the word incest, and so on. Those are, in my opinion, intentionally left signs which basically forewarn or explain the reasoning behind the crime. But this stringman still doesn't seem quite clear if it is intentional or irrelevant.

Who refers to the McReynolds as "witches"? Internet nut cases? :eek:
As I said on another forum, I do not believe that any of the things that you mentioned were left as "signs" from an intruder. The Bible was open to a Psalm that was a favorite of Patsys. Since it was her house and the Bible belonged to the family, why is that so surprising and suspicious?
Was "incest" the only word on the page in the dictionary? :shrug:
How would incest be a reason for the crime unless it was committed by a family member? Did the intruder think he was "framing" the Ramseys by leaving the dictionary open to that page? What kind of logic is that? Are we to believe that the intruder thought that Patsy and/or John would not know what incest meant and had to look it up? :confused:
Patsy didn't "recognize" many things in her own house. She didn't even know what light fixtures were in some of the rooms. Why is it surprising that she didn't recognize a book? Why should we believe that she didn't recognize it? What in the heck does a book written in Danish have to do with JBs murder?
I asked you before, why would an intruder draw a heart around John in a mag. article and then stash it away so that it never would have been noticed if the police hadn't found it when they searched the house? If it was a "sign", wouldn't it have been left out in the open? One of the family members most likely was responsible for that and the Ramseys chose to let it seem like a mystery to support their intruder theory.
The heart on JBs hand was most likely drawn there by JB herself or by a friend. Patsy claimed that she actually saw the heart on JBs hand that morning (the 26th or the 25th...she was quite vague about the actual date)...and then she recanted the next day and claimed that she'd read about it in the autopsy (which she claimed before that she'd never read). Her telling the detectives that it was a "pretty good little heart" should be a clue that she did actually see it; yet IDI will come up with all kinds of excuses about what she "must have meant".
Why is it so hard to accept that the Ramseys may very well have murdered their daughter? Is it really so much easier for you to believe that she was killed by witches, secret societies, groups of pedophiles and things of that nature which there is no real evidence of? Is it less disturbing to believe those things than it is to believe that these "perfect" parents may actually be guilty?:confused: IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

I caught it White!!! LOL

Sara....;)

[Mikie]

Who refers to the McReynolds as "witches"? Internet nut cases? :eek:
As I said on another forum, I do not believe that any of the things that you mentioned were left as "signs" from an intruder. The Bible was open to a Psalm that was a favorite of Patsys. Since it was her house and the Bible belonged to the family, why is that so surprising and suspicious?
Was "incest" the only word on the page in the dictionary? :shrug:
How would incest be a reason for the crime unless it was committed by a family member? Did the intruder think he was "framing" the Ramseys by leaving the dictionary open to that page? What kind of logic is that? Are we to believe that the intruder thought that Patsy and/or John would not know what incest meant and had to look it up? :confused:
Patsy didn't "recognize" many things in her own house. She didn't even know what light fixtures were in some of the rooms. Why is it surprising that she didn't recognize a book? Why should we believe that she didn't recognize it? What in the heck does a book written in Danish have to do with JBs murder?
I asked you before, why would an intruder draw a heart around John in a mag. article and then stash it away so that it never would have been noticed if the police hadn't found it when they searched the house? If it was a "sign", wouldn't it have been left out in the open? One of the family members most likely was responsible for that and the Ramseys chose to let it seem like a mystery to support their intruder theory.
The heart on JBs hand was most likely drawn there by JB herself or by a friend. Patsy claimed that she actually saw the heart on JBs hand that morning (the 26th or the 25th...she was quite vague about the actual date)...and then she recanted the next day and claimed that she'd read about it in the autopsy (which she claimed before that she'd never read). Her telling the detectives that it was a "pretty good little heart" should be a clue that she did actually see it; yet IDI will come up with all kinds of excuses about what she "must have meant".
Why is it so hard to accept that the Ramseys may very well have murdered their daughter? Is it really so much easier for you to believe that she was killed by witches, secret societies, groups of pedophiles and things of that nature which there is no real evidence of? Is it less disturbing to believe those things than it is to believe that these "perfect" parents may actually be guilty?:confused: IMO

Well, as I post on my signature...

[DAFFODIL]

Great post White :beer: I am a great believer in Occams Razor.

[rashomon]

Great post White :beer: I am a great believer in Occams Razor.
Me too. Too bad so many IDIs never uitilize Occam'r razor, an indispensable tool for the studying of criminal cases.

Excellent post, TWW!

jmo

[Mikie]

Me too. Too bad so many IDIs never uitilize Occam'r razor, an indispensable tool for the studying of criminal cases.

Excellent post, TWW!

jmo

And it's too bad so many RDI's haven't applied presumption of innocence.

The dictionary was opened to, and the page was dogeared, to point to the word incest, per Steve Thomas.

The meaning, in my opinion, was that there was someone who needed her killed, and he got the witches to do it by claiming she was a victim of incest. As I see it, Janet was an incest writer, staunchly fighting with her writings against incest by her pen name Louise Armstrong. This is of course a secret, but by careful comparison of the photos of LA and JMcR I see they are one and the same. A pedophile who knew Janet might approach her with the suggestion that JonBenet was a victim of incest, and simultaneously, the one who did it is a wealthy executive who earned a whopping $118k bonus. Another person with a grudge against JR would probably love to express his disgust that the company run by JR, was acquired by Lockheed, who was selling arms to Nicaragua. With several people behind the scenes working together against JR, the plan to destroy him began. All my opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

And it's too bad so many RDI's haven't applied presumption of innocence.

The dictionary was opened to, and the page was dogeared, to point to the word incest, per Steve Thomas.

The meaning, in my opinion, was that there was someone who needed her killed, and he got the witches to do it by claiming she was a victim of incest. As I see it, Janet was an incest writer, staunchly fighting with her writings against incest by her pen name Louise Armstrong. This is of course a secret, but by careful comparison of the photos of LA and JMcR I see they are one and the same. A pedophile who knew Janet might approach her with the suggestion that JonBenet was a victim of incest, and simultaneously, the one who did it is a wealthy executive who earned a whopping $118k bonus. Another person with a grudge against JR would probably love to express his disgust that the company run by JR, was acquired by Lockheed, who was selling arms to Nicaragua. With several people behind the scenes working together against JR, the plan to destroy him began. All my opinion.

Yep. Much easier to believe than that her parents killed her. :rolleyes:
This is REAL LIFE, Mikie....not a B-rated movie. IMO

[Jayelles]

I don't think JonBenet's murder had anything to do with jealousy for her father for the simple reason that it makes no sense.

John Ramsey is a bland man, but he seems to have been a good businessman. He was described as the kind of person who blended into the wallpaper.

This is when I draw upon my many years of teaching experience (Hi Zoey :seeya: ). There are pupils whose names we teachers learn very quickly and whom we are able to recall many years later... and there are pupils who blend into the background and whom we cannot recall a year later. Usually the ones we remember best are the most challenging pupils - the ones for whom it is necessary to devise "management strategies". Next in line are the "stars" - those pupils who are a delight to teach because they are charming, well mannered and contribute a lot to class discussions. Then there the group who are described as the "invisible" pupils. They take the longest time to learn their names, their reports are the hardest to write and they are the soonest forgotten. BTW, this isn't just me, this is a well recognised and documented situation which is taught in teacher training colleges. i.e. it's a fact.

SO when you look at the Ramseys, there's Patsy who was colourful and charismatic and extreme..... and there's John - who "blends into the wallpaper". Which of these is going to make more of an impact? OK, I suppose it depends on what floats your boat. If it's business success, then maybe John really got someone's goat - but what kind of person would get themselves worked into a frothing green lather about that? IMO, it would be another business person or someone with business foremost in their mind. Therefore, IMO, the motive would be business related. So why torture, terrify and murder a sweet innocent 6 year old to get revenge? IMO, someone who wanted to destroy John Ramsey because of his business success would target the business or John Ramsey personally. I think the psychology is all wrong for this scenario.

If this person was able to gain access to the Ramsey house to murder JonBenet, then they just as easily have done so and loaded child porn onto John Ramsey's computer or planted an illegal substance in his bathroom and then tipped off police... Allegations of substance abuse or child pornography would have very effectively destroyed him without murdering an innocent child.

I think that only a person who was consumed with rage or sexual obsession *could* (i.e. be capable of) murdering Jonbenet. These are powerful emotions which cause people to lose all reason.

Patsy is the one who brings out emotions in people - one only has to read the forums to see that. I think JonBenet was murdered either because someone hated JonBenet herself or because she was Patsy's pride and joy.

There are several scenarios which could fit this bill ranging from pageant jealousy to someone who wanted to get close to Patsy but who felt that JonBenet was a barrier to that. For example, I recently heard a story about a little girl who is at ballet school. I'll call her A. She's a lovely girl with a lot of friends and one in particular whom I'll call B, but then there were a series of incidents which were bizarre and upsetting. B's property started going missing and would turn up in A's room - as though she had taken it. Then there was destruction of property and toilet graffiti which looked as though A really hated B and vice versa. Everyone was getting sick of it and there were nasty comments and finger pointing and A became very withdrawn and was wanting to go home. Meanwhile another girl had been very supportive. I'll call her C. Long story short, the A's mother (who is a friend of mine that's how I know about this) demanded a investigation because she was worried sick about her daughter and it turned out that the girl who had been supportive (C) had done it all. She desperately wanted to be A's friend and resented B bitterly. She was basically trying to drive the girls apart and then insert herself.

Of course this kind of theory would suggest a female - and that fits with those who believe the ransom note was written by a female - but not with the DNA which is male... but then there is the possibility that the DNA doesn't belong to the killer whereas there is little doubt that the ransom note was written by the killer.

This killer covered all bases..

[Mikie]

I don't think JonBenet's murder had anything to do with jealousy for her father for the simple reason that it makes no sense.

John Ramsey is a bland man, but he seems to have been a good businessman. He was described as the kind of person who blended into the wallpaper.

This is when I draw upon my many years of teaching experience (Hi Zoey :seeya: ). There are pupils whose names we teachers learn very quickly and whom we are able to recall many years later... and there are pupils who blend into the background and whom we cannot recall a year later. Usually the ones we remember best are the most challenging pupils - the ones for whom it is necessary to devise "management strategies". Next in line are the "stars" - those pupils who are a delight to teach because they are charming, well mannered and contribute a lot to class discussions. Then there the group who are described as the "invisible" pupils. They take the longest time to learn their names, their reports are the hardest to write and they are the soonest forgotten. BTW, this isn't just me, this is a well recognised and documented situation which is taught in teacher training colleges. i.e. it's a fact.

SO when you look at the Ramseys, there's Patsy who was colourful and charismatic and extreme..... and there's John - who "blends into the wallpaper". Which of these is going to make more of an impact? OK, I suppose it depends on what floats your boat. If it's business success, then maybe John really got someone's goat - but what kind of person would get themselves worked into a frothing green lather about that? IMO, it would be another business person or someone with business foremost in their mind. Therefore, IMO, the motive would be business related. So why torture, terrify and murder a sweet innocent 6 year old to get revenge? IMO, someone who wanted to destroy John Ramsey because of his business success would target the business or John Ramsey personally. I think the psychology is all wrong for this scenario.

If this person was able to gain access to the Ramsey house to murder JonBenet, then they just as easily have done so and loaded child porn onto John Ramsey's computer or planted an illegal substance in his bathroom and then tipped off police... Allegations of substance abuse or child pornography would have very effectively destroyed him without murdering an innocent child.

I think that only a person who was consumed with rage or sexual obsession *could* (i.e. be capable of) murdering Jonbenet. These are powerful emotions which cause people to lose all reason.

Patsy is the one who brings out emotions in people - one only has to read the forums to see that. I think JonBenet was murdered either because someone hated JonBenet herself or because she was Patsy's pride and joy.

There are several scenarios which could fit this bill ranging from pageant jealousy to someone who wanted to get close to Patsy but who felt that JonBenet was a barrier to that. For example, I recently heard a story about a little girl who is at ballet school. I'll call her A. She's a lovely girl with a lot of friends and one in particular whom I'll call B, but then there were a series of incidents which were bizarre and upsetting. B's property started going missing and would turn up in A's room - as though she had taken it. Then there was destruction of property and toilet graffiti which looked as though A really hated B and vice versa. Everyone was getting sick of it and there were nasty comments and finger pointing and A became very withdrawn and was wanting to go home. Meanwhile another girl had been very supportive. I'll call her C. Long story short, the A's mother (who is a friend of mine that's how I know about this) demanded a investigation because she was worried sick about her daughter and it turned out that the girl who had been supportive (C) had done it all. She desperately wanted to be A's friend and resented B bitterly. She was basically trying to drive the girls apart and then insert herself.

Of course this kind of theory would suggest a female - and that fits with those who believe the ransom note was written by a female - but not with the DNA which is male... but then there is the possibility that the DNA doesn't belong to the killer whereas there is little doubt that the ransom note was written by the killer.

This killer covered all bases..

I think the problem with most people in trying to assess the killer in this case is that they are thinking of him as a sole individual, and they try to attribute all the clues to one person. I believe that many were involved, and that complicates the issue. We are not dealing, as I see it, with a complex person who is sexually obsessed with JonBenet and at the same time has difficulties with child pageantry and jealousy with John's business, etcetera. I think we are dealing with a pedophile who abused JonBenet previously, a killer who is expert at his job, and various people who have problems with John's business, or John's wealth, and child pageantry. JMO

[Jayelles]

I think the problem with most people in trying to assess the killer in this case is that they are thinking of him as a sole individual, and they try to attribute all the clues to one person. I believe that many were involved, and that complicates the issue. We are not dealing, as I see it, with a complex person who is sexually obsessed with JonBenet and at the same time has difficulties with child pageantry and jealousy with John's business, etcetera. I think we are dealing with a pedophile who abused JonBenet previously, a killer who is expert at his job, and various people who have problems with John's business, or John's wealth, and child pageantry. JMO

I personally don't think a paedophile would have covered her body and taken the trouble to write a ransom note and I think that 99.9999% of humans would NOT be capable of murdering a child so the odds of finding a group of people willing to do so would be considerably less. I don't think John Ramsey had that many enemies - certainly not people who would hate him n the scale which would be required to make them insane enough to throttle his baby. OTOH, maybe there are skeletons in the Ramsey cupboard which haven't yet come out...

I do think the killer wrote the ransom note in a desperate attempt to create a red herring because (s)he was within the Ramsey circle.

[rashomon]

And it's too bad so many RDI's haven't applied presumption of innocence.

It is the evidence alone which leads to the truth, and when taking a good hard look at the TOTALITY of the evidence, it points nowhere else than to the Ramseys:
The staged 'garrote' scene, the ransom note (look at the samples on the ACR site - even a layperson can see Patsy wrote the note!), the fiber evidence, the size 12 underwear, the pineapple evidence, the Ramseys' many lies and unwillingness to cooperate with the investigators - they all point in one direction only: there was NO intruder, and the Ramseys covered the true reason for JonBenet's death.
Therefore the IDIs would have to explain away ALL this evidence. Imo so far no IDI theory posted on the forums could offer an even remotely plausible explanation.

jmo

[Callan]

I am sorry I zoomed the pictures and it sure looks like twine and not pipe cleaners to me. IMO

You need to zoom in on the round object. If you cannot see what is there immediately - then I must just be seeing things.

Unless you have a different type over the water than we do, then they are most definately pipe cleaners. If you look at the middle section, you can see a solid bend. You just cannot do that with twine.

[Mikie]

You need to zoom in on the round object. If you cannot see what is there immediately - then I must just be seeing things.

Unless you have a different type over the water than we do, then they are most definately pipe cleaners. If you look at the middle section, you can see a solid bend. You just cannot do that with twine.

I believe this is the round thing you are talking about, Callan, enlarged. The right picture is my own opinion. The 2 left pictures are LovelyPigeon's enlargements.
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/condom4sharpened.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/condom4sharpenedexplained.jpg

[thewhitewitch1]

I believe this is the round thing you are talking about, Callan, enlarged. The right picture is my own opinion. The 2 left pictures are LovelyPigeon's enlargements.
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/condom4sharpened.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/condom4sharpenedexplained.jpg

It's a hair-tie, Mikie. A "pony-tail" holder made out of elastic. IMO

[LindaA]

It looks like a pony tail holder to me, too. I think we have had this discussion before.

It also looks as if it could be a condom.

[Athena]

It looks like a pony tail holder to me, too. I think we have had this discussion before.

It also looks as if it could be a condom.

I recall this discussion also and I was very adamant at that time it was a pony tail holder. However, the furthest picture to the right (which I do not recall from the last discussion) definitely appears to be a condom. JMO

[SaraSidle]

I recall this discussion also and I was very adamant at that time it was a pony tail holder. However, the furthest picture to the right (which I do not recall from the last discussion) definitely appears to be a condom. JMO

I see that to Athena. I might not have if you did not mention it,.

[rashomon]

I recall this discussion also and I was very adamant at that time it was a pony tail holder. However, the furthest picture to the right (which I do not recall from the last discussion) definitely appears to be a condom. JMO
I don't think it is a condom. Imo an optical illusion is the cause for it being seen as a condom.

[Athena]

I don't think it is a condom. Imo an optical illusion is the cause for it being seen as a condom.

Really don't think it is an optical illusion. If you look at the leaves in the forefront they are crisper colors - and the leaves underneath the object appear to be covered by a transparent material and the colors are subdued. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Even if it is a condom...there's no proof it had anything to with JonBenet or her murder. It could be as simple as Burke and his friends got their hands on a condom (maybe pilfered from an older brother) and unrolled it to examine it and then discarded outside, where it ended up and was later photographed. Or, speaking of older brother, perhaps it was something discarded by JAR at some point. It could have even been discarded by someone who had nothing to do with the Rs but was somewhere in the area.

IMO, assuming it may be a condom, no one knows who left it there or how it got to be there or if it had anything to do with the person who killed JonBenet.

[LindaA]

Even if it is a condom...there's no proof it had anything to with JonBenet or her murder. It could be as simple as Burke and his friends got their hands on a condom (maybe pilfered from an older brother) and unrolled it to examine it and then discarded outside, where it ended up and was later photographed. Or, speaking of older brother, perhaps it was something discarded by JAR at some point. It could have even been discarded by someone who had nothing to do with the Rs but was somewhere in the area.

IMO, assuming it may be a condom, no one knows who left it there or how it got to be there or if it had anything to do with the person who killed JonBenet.

Absolutely. No matter what it is it ,cannot be proved by us at this point to have anything to do with the crime.

[SaraSidle]

Absolutely. No matter what it is it ,cannot be proved by us at this point to have anything to do with the crime.

NP you are such the voice of reason again.

[Athena]

Absolutely. No matter what it is it ,cannot be proved by us at this point to have anything to do with the crime.

ITA. However, I do wonder if it was collected and tested for DNA?

[LindaA]

ITA. However, I do wonder if it was collected and tested for DNA?


Very good question.

[The R]

You need to zoom in on the round object. If you cannot see what is there immediately - then I must just be seeing things.

Unless you have a different type over the water than we do, then they are most definately pipe cleaners. If you look at the middle section, you can see a solid bend. You just cannot do that with twine.


Sorry but I don't know what you mean when you say 'different type over the water'?

I zoomed in on the photo and I still think the object is twine or light rope. I've never seen a pipe cleaner that is wound like rope. It's also interesting how different people see different things. That round obect on the right looks nothing like any discarded condom I've ever seen, but that's just me.

The straight object in the middle apprears at first glance to be wound like the object on the the left, but it doesn't seem that the photo resolution is high enough to rule out it being just a twig or something.

ALLMO,
R

[The R]

of the two photos posted by Mikie, does anyone know what was being pointed out by the red arrows on the photo on the right and who made those red marks?

TIA,
R

[SaraSidle]

of the two photos posted by Mikie, does anyone know what was being pointed out by the red arrows on the photo on the right and who made those red marks?

TIA,
R

no R I do not know about the red marks and I also have no idea what over the water mean either. Not much help

[Callan]

It's a hair-tie, Mikie. A "pony-tail" holder made out of elastic. IMO


Hang on a minute, while I prepare myself for ridicule. Right, I am ready now.

Whenever I look at this object, the only thing that I really notice - is a perfectly formed face inside. You can even see hair!

So now, in this small area of a window well, you have a strange pointing figure and one of Jonbenet's hair-ties, with a face visible inside it.

You can have a go at me if you like, but to me ... that is weird!

[Mikie]

of the two photos posted by Mikie, does anyone know what was being pointed out by the red arrows on the photo on the right and who made those red marks?

TIA,
R

As I explained in one of my posts, those are, I believe, vines.

As for over the water, I think Callan is suggesting he lives on the other side of an ocean, such as in Brittish Isles or Australia.

[The R]

As I explained in one of my posts, those are, I believe, vines.

As for over the water, I think Callan is suggesting he lives on the other side of an ocean, such as in Brittish Isles or Australia.


OK Mikie thanks, that does help explain 'over the water.'

As for the red arrows, did you place those on the photo? If they are indeed CS photos it looks like the mark in the middle is pointing to a scratch on the surface that shows the result of activity of going in or out the window.

ALLMO,
R

[Mikie]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9098789]...

The dictionary was opened to, and the page was dogeared, to point to the word incest, per Steve Thomas.

...QUOTE]


I've made this photo to show what I believe was mentioned by Steve Thomas:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/incestindogearreddictionary.jpg

[Mikie]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9098789]...

The dictionary was opened to, and the page was dogeared, to point to the word incest, per Steve Thomas.

...QUOTE]


I've made this photo to show what I believe was mentioned by Steve Thomas:
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/incestindogearreddictionary.jpg

He wrote:
"When we checked the photos from a big manilla envelope marked as evidence #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A PICTURE SHOWED WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY ON A COFFEE TABLE IN THE FIRST FLOOR STUDY, THE CORNER OF THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PAGE SHARPLY CREASED AND POINTING LIKE AN ARROW TO THE WORD INCEST. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members."

[lodfafner]

Thanks grneyes. I agree it is probably not a witch's ladder. I guess this "stringman" could be just some kind of wrapping string, tossed in the window well. But it is mysterious, in that I cannot really tell exactly what it is or why it would be there. Looking at the photo more carefully, it seems like there are brown strings in the photo also...or are they twigs? I cannot tell. I've placed arrows pointing to some of them in this version of the photo.
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/stringman3.jpg

Mikie, your posts reminds me of John Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash), seeing patterns everywhere.
Are you a mathematician?

[Athena]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9099369]

He wrote:
"When we checked the photos from a big manilla envelope marked as evidence #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A PICTURE SHOWED WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY ON A COFFEE TABLE IN THE FIRST FLOOR STUDY, THE CORNER OF THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PAGE SHARPLY CREASED AND POINTING LIKE AN ARROW TO THE WORD INCEST. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members."

Excellent portrayal of the above statement with that photo Mikie!!!

[Mikie]

Mikie, your posts reminds me of John Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash), seeing patterns everywhere.
Are you a mathematician?

No, but I pursued my career (architect) because my high school counselor said I scored very high in "spatial visualization". I once wondered if John Nash saw the same anagrams I saw, so I emailed him...but he never responded.

[Mikie]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9099372]

Excellent portrayal of the above statement with that photo Mikie!!!

Thanks, Athena. Many people have disbelief that it even occurred or was possible. There seemed to be confusion about which edition of the dictionary was found. I happened to have one which agreed with Thomas' statements.

[Athena]

[QUOTE=Athena;9099387]

Thanks, Athena. Many people have disbelief that it even occurred or was possible. There seemed to be confusion about which edition of the dictionary was found. I happened to have one which agreed with Thomas' statements.

I recall the statement quite clearly. One of the first statements I read by McReynolds in ST's book referring to incest literally made my hair stand on end as a result of the above statement re: where the dictionary was opened to. This is why I think it is bizarre that there were many little odd coincidences between the McReynolds and the murder of JBR and this was one of them.

I can't copy from the book -- but the statement McReynolds made to ST is on the bottom of p726:


http://tinyurl.com/4p7kfy

[thewhitewitch1]

I recall this discussion also and I was very adamant at that time it was a pony tail holder. However, the furthest picture to the right (which I do not recall from the last discussion) definitely appears to be a condom. JMO

If it IS a condom (which I don't believe it is), then it has nothing to do with JBs murder because how is it that the police didn't see it and take it into evidence?
It's a hair-tie. You can see that little metal part between the elastic. And yep, we've had this discussion before. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9099369]

He wrote:
"When we checked the photos from a big manilla envelope marked as evidence #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A PICTURE SHOWED WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY ON A COFFEE TABLE IN THE FIRST FLOOR STUDY, THE CORNER OF THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PAGE SHARPLY CREASED AND POINTING LIKE AN ARROW TO THE WORD INCEST. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members."

Anyone who has to look up the definition of the word "incest" must be pretty stupid. On the other hand, Burke may not have known.
I don't see what relation this has to the murder. If you think it was an attempt to "frame" the Ramseys, it's pretty transparent, don't you think? Did the intruder think that the Ramseys needed to look up the definition of the word and the police would believe this? :shrug:
Or do you think the "intruder" killed JB because he believed she was the victim of incest? Either way, it doesn't make sense and is pretty illogical. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Mikie, your posts reminds me of John Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash), seeing patterns everywhere.
Are you a mathematician?

Mikie thinks everyone in the continental US has been stun gunned.
I have a hard time taking him/her seriously. Sorry, Mikie.
IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

[QUOTE=Mikie;9099400]

I recall the statement quite clearly. One of the first statements I read by McReynolds in ST's book referring to incest literally made my hair stand on end as a result of the above statement re: where the dictionary was opened to. This is why I think it is bizarre that there were many little odd coincidences between the McReynolds and the murder of JBR and this was one of them.

I can't copy from the book -- but the statement McReynolds made to ST is on the bottom of p726:


http://tinyurl.com/4p7kfy

In all fairness, Athena, many people thought JB was a victim of incest so I don't think it odd that the McReynolds expressed an opinion about it.
Is there any other source besides ST about this dictionary incident? If not, I am wondering why all of you who think ST is such a liar are suddenly believing he is telling the truth about this.:confused: IMO

[SaraSidle]

If it IS a condom (which I don't believe it is), then it has nothing to do with JBs murder because how is it that the police didn't see it and take it into evidence?
It's a hair-tie. You can see that little metal part between the elastic. And yep, we've had this discussion before. IMO

I am sorry White. Sometimes I see a pony tail holder (Cuz I see the metal) and sometimes I see a condom. Like one of those pictures that can be 2 things at the same time. IMO btw you make me lol and you know why

[thewhitewitch1]

I am sorry White. Sometimes I see a pony tail holder (Cuz I see the metal) and sometimes I see a condom. Like one of those pictures that can be 2 things at the same time. IMO btw you make me lol and you know why

Do I know why? ;)

I dunno, Sara...maybe it's a condom; maybe not but let's think about this. If the killer was so smart that he wiped down JBs vaginal area, would he be stupid enough to leave a used condom on the premises? Me-thinks not. IMO

[Mikie]

OK Mikie thanks, that does help explain 'over the water.'

As for the red arrows, did you place those on the photo? If they are indeed CS photos it looks like the mark in the middle is pointing to a scratch on the surface that shows the result of activity of going in or out the window.

ALLMO,
R



Yes, that is correct. I did place those arrows. Yes, they are crimescene photos that have been enlarged and cropped and added to, and I agree, there is some indication that something went in or out there.

[SaraSidle]

Do I know why? ;)

I dunno, Sara...maybe it's a condom; maybe not but let's think about this. If the killer was so smart that he wiped down JBs vaginal area, would he be stupid enough to leave a used condom on the premises? Me-thinks not. IMO

Yes I love your sense of humor. I don't even know if a hair thing or condom was even used in the crime. I do not know when they were even left there. I was just saying I can see it both ways. You know I am an on the fence kind of person when it comes to this one.

[grneyes]

I realized that, I mean the movie was after the crime, but actually, I am looking for evidence of witchcraft in the crime, and I still wonder about that little "stringman". Witchcraft is suggested by the anagrams. The killer is referred to as a "witch's p i m p", among other things, (e.g. homicidal maniac, maniac witch, batman, Bill McR's illigitimate brother, etc.) which is a witch's aide in old English. The McR's are referred to as "witches", and in other cases also, the killers are called "bad witches". Some say the heart in her hand was a witch symbol. But if witches leave "signs" then what are we looking for? Actually there are many things that might be construed as "signs", such as the books on Patsy's dresser which she had no idea what they were, the note, the news article with JR's head drawn with a heart, while everyone else had an X, the opening of Bible to certain Psalms, the opening of the dictionary to the word incest, and so on. Those are, in my opinion, intentionally left signs which basically forewarn or explain the reasoning behind the crime. But this stringman still doesn't seem quite clear if it is intentional or irrelevant.

A witch's aid is not called a p i m p, it's I M P (imp) and they are generally animal like creatures such as cats.

Also, witches do not make a habit of killing children. Except in the movies of course. Actual witches would not even considering killing a child as it is against their (our) beliefs. The #1 rule of a witch is "to harm none".

To believe any other way about witches is truly grasping at straws. Kind of like the one in the image...

Witches did not kill this child. I personally don't believe her parents did either but that's just my opinion.

[lodfafner]

Mikie thinks everyone in the continental US has been stun gunned.
I have a hard time taking him/her seriously. Sorry, Mikie.
IMO

Great minds sometimes wander off and loses track of reality.
Reality just seems too boring to them.

[Evening2]

[quote=Athena;9099425]

In all fairness, Athena, many people thought JB was a victim of incest so I don't think it odd that the McReynolds expressed an opinion about it.
Is there any other source besides ST about this dictionary incident? If not, I am wondering why all of you who think ST is such a liar are suddenly believing he is telling the truth about this.:confused: IMO

I don't recall anyone else thinking JonBenet was a victim of incest. I know the BPD checked that out and found nothing of the kind, but I don't recall anyone else actually believing that to be the case.

[Mikie]

[quote=thewhitewitch1;9099452]

I don't recall anyone else thinking JonBenet was a victim of incest. I know the BPD checked that out and found nothing of the kind, but I don't recall anyone else actually believing that to be the case.

DOI page 205
Chris Wolf told Jacqueline Dilson that he believed JonBenet had been abused by her father.

[Mikie]

Great minds sometimes wander off and loses track of reality.
Reality just seems too boring to them.

Although that might be true I don't see that as my case. I think I see things more deeply than the average person. I found, years ago that a **** was a witch's aide in a huge dictionary in a library. Also I see pairs of marks that match stun gun spacing on JonBenet's legs, also on the foreheads/faces of the McR's, the Ramsey parents, Gary Oliva, Charles Kuralt, John Mark Karr, and William S. Burroughs...also on the face of the Va Tech killer...and on the face of Cathy O'Brien, the woman who claims to have been a sex slave in "Trance Formation of America".

From my perspective, I see those things because they are there, and others cannot see them because they don't want to.

[thewhitewitch1]

[quote=thewhitewitch1;9099452]

I don't recall anyone else thinking JonBenet was a victim of incest. I know the BPD checked that out and found nothing of the kind, but I don't recall anyone else actually believing that to be the case.

I am speaking of the "public", Eve. As for people close to the case, how do we know what any of them thought unless they came out and said so? I'll bet a lot of people in the Ramsey circle, and particularly in Boulder, at least wondered about whether this was a case of incest. IMO

[rashomon]

Although that might be true I don't see that as my case. I think I see things more deeply than the average person. I found, years ago that a **** was a witch's aide in a huge dictionary in a library. Also I see pairs of marks that match stun gun spacing on JonBenet's legs, also on the foreheads/faces of the McR's, the Ramsey parents, Gary Oliva, Charles Kuralt, John Mark Karr, and William S. Burroughs...also on the face of the Va Tech killer...and on the face of Cathy O'Brien, the woman who claims to have been a sex slave in "Trance Formation of America".

From my perspective, I see those things because they are there, and others cannot see them because they don't want to.
But Mikie, why should all these people have stun gun marks on them?
Do you in all seriousness believe the Ramsey parents were both stun-gunned?
Mikie, having a vivid imagination is a good thing, but I think you got carried away here. Seeing stun guns everywhere instead of using Occam's razor is not a good idea. :)

jmo

[Mikie]

But Mikie, why should all these people have stun gun marks on them?
Do you in all seriousness believe the Ramsey parents were both stun-gunned?
Mikie, having a vivid imagination is a good thing, but I think you got carried away here. Seeing stun guns everywhere instead of using Occam's razor is not a good idea. :)

jmo

That's like telling Christopher Columbus he would fall off the edge of the earth. Occam's razor says that the kidnapping attempt was real and the parents are innocent.

[rashomon]

Great minds sometimes wander off and loses track of reality.
Reality just seems too boring to them.
And so they create their own surrealistic world?
Maybe writing fantasy stories would be an option for them ...

[rashomon]

That's like telling Christopher Columbus he would fall off the edge of the earth. Occam's razor says that the kidnapping attempt was real and the parents are innocent.
I'm afraid applying Occam's razor says exactly the opposite.

[Mikie]

I'm afraid applying Occam's razor says exactly the opposite.

Seems like a matter of opinion to me.

[Mikie]

Seems like a matter of opinion to me.

Isn't it a simpler theory that it is what it appears? I.e., a kidnapping. Why assume it was not? Occam's razor directs that one should minimize assumptions. That the Ramseys wrote the note is no more than an invalid assumption, imo. That the Ramseys staged all the evidence pointing to others is an invalid assumption, imo. That they lied about it all is an invalid assumption, imo. Using Occam's razor, what happened is what the evidence shows it to be...a kidnapping and murder by an intruder...to assume anything else is unnecessary...imo.

[lodfafner]

Isn't it a simpler theory that it is what it appears? I.e., a kidnapping. Why assume it was not? Occam's razor directs that one should minimize assumptions. That the Ramseys wrote the note is no more than an invalid assumption, imo. That the Ramseys staged all the evidence pointing to others is an invalid assumption, imo. That they lied about it all is an invalid assumption, imo. Using Occam's razor, what happened is what the evidence shows it to be...a kidnapping and murder by an intruder...to assume anything else is unnecessary...imo.

To use Occam the phenomenon being explained must first be defined.

If the ligature is being explained all thing being equal you don't need to introduce an intruder.

If the RN is being explained you don't need to introduce a fake kidnapping.

I think applying Occam to the whole case is not really feasible as the phenomenon involves so many details that needs to be explained.

[Mikie]

To use Occam the phenomenon being explained must first be defined.

If the ligature is being explained all thing being equal you don't need to introduce an intruder.

If the RN is being explained you don't need to introduce a fake kidnapping.

I think applying Occam to the whole case is not really feasible as the phenomenon involves so many details that needs to be explained.

So, I think I get it now. Occam's Razor is a sort of sophisticated BS which supports anything you want, provided nobody else knows the truth.

[Evening2]

A witch's aid is not called a p i m p, it's I M P (imp) and they are generally animal like creatures such as cats.

Also, witches do not make a habit of killing children. Except in the movies of course. Actual witches would not even considering killing a child as it is against their (our) beliefs. The #1 rule of a witch is "to harm none".

To believe any other way about witches is truly grasping at straws. Kind of like the one in the image...

Witches did not kill this child. I personally don't believe her parents did either but that's just my opinion.

Then what's a "familiar"? Also, don't you think just as there are christians and then there are "Christians" that there are witches and "Witches"? No offense to either, of course. Also, there are those with occult beliefs who are neither witches/Witches OR christians/Christians and we are more than likely talking about someone along one of THOSE paths. As for the "to harm none", I must say that has always bothered me a bit. Again, no offense meant, just explaining my position. I'd feel a lot better if it was spelled out more clearly, since "harm" can mean different things to different people. :confused:

[grneyes]

Then what's a "familiar"? They are basically the same thing. Witch hunters considered them evil little demons that did the malicious witch's bidding and that is where the negative connotations come in.

Also, don't you think just as there are christians and then there are "Christians" that there are witches and "Witches"? No offense to either, of course. Also, there are those with occult beliefs who are neither witches/Witches OR christians/Christians and we are more than likely talking about someone along one of THOSE paths. Yes that is possible. Anyone can call themselves witch, christian, whatever, and still kill someone.

As for the "to harm none", I must say that has always bothered me a bit. Again, no offense meant, just explaining my position. I'd feel a lot better if it was spelled out more clearly, since "harm" can mean different things to different people. :confused: Think of the 'Do unto others" saying that christians use. Treat people as you wish to be treated. Many witches believe that everything they do comes back to them 3 times stronger. (Think Karma if you will.) If they do harm then that also will come back to them. This is obviously not in technical terms but I think it's enough to give you some idea of what it means.

jmo

[lodfafner]

Are witches allowed to use stun guns?
According to D&D they can only use blunt weapons IIRC.

[grneyes]

Are witches allowed to use stun guns?
According to D&D they can only use blunt weapons IIRC.

I don't play D&D but I would say only to protect themselves but even for protection, many will try to avoid any type of violence.

[rashomon]

Seems like a matter of opinion to me.
No, it is a matter of evidence. It strongly indicates the Ramseys were involved.

jmo

[Mikie]

No, it is a matter of evidence. It strongly indicates the Ramseys were involved.

jmo
I don't see how it does that. I don't see any validity in it. However, I think if you make certain assumptions, like the Ramseys always lie, the Ramseys are guilty of killing JonBenet, etc., then it would probably lead one to conclude that they were involved. The problem is it depends on your assumptions. A ligature which has no link to the parents, of any kind, and which they deny having anything to do with, says they are involved? I don't think so, unless ligatures talk.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't see how it does that. I don't see any validity in it. However, I think if you make certain assumptions, like the Ramseys always lie, the Ramseys are guilty of killing JonBenet, etc., then it would probably lead one to conclude that they were involved. The problem is it depends on your assumptions. A ligature which has no link to the parents, of any kind, and which they deny having anything to do with, says they are involved? I don't think so, unless ligatures talk.

Gee, Mikie...what did you think they were going to say? Do you think that they would admit to owning the cord that was around JBs neck? :seeya:
If you could just allow for the possibility that there was no more cord like it in the Ramseys home to link it to, then your argument seems pretty silly.
IF the Ramseys are guilty, do you really think that they were going to tell the truth about everything? To my knowledge, most people would have a tendency to lie under such circumstances to avoid going to prison. :shrug:
IMO

[The R]

So, I think I get it now. Occam's Razor is a sort of sophisticated BS which supports anything you want, provided nobody else knows the truth.


Actually from what I can tell, Occam's Razor only works for the person who is holding it.

ALLMO,
R

[Athena]

Actually from what I can tell, Occam's Razor only works for the person who is holding it.

ALLMO,
R

Now this is funny! :beer:

[Mikie]

Since nobody is posting anything much lately I thought it might be interesting to others to see the heart in her hand. The first photo is from the autopsy photo. In the second photo I enhanced it to show it more clearly. Then there is an online diagram of the Shaker "heart in hand" symbolism. To my knowledge, the only character in the case that knew anything about Shakerism was Bill McReynolds. Janet wrote in her three part article: "Santa concluded the visit by singing the song he has adopted as his
anthem, an old Shaker hymn, "Simple Gifts." " Interestingly, in my opinion, he is a sort of "odd fellow", too, just informally speaking. I don't know if he was a member. The small black rectangle on her wrist was made by me to show location of abrasion on her wrist, (not listed in autopsy, but probably from the cord binding).

http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/heartonhand.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/astrospy/heartonhandenhanced
http://z.about.com/d/altreligion/1/0/W/S/2/hearthand.jpg
This is the website that explains the symbolism:
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsheartinhand.htm

[undrnomore]

John Ramsey is guilty of something!!!


By now everyone should know who I believe killed Jonbenet Ramsey it has been well documented. There have been many who agree with my theory and many who do not agree with it. My theory is still up for debate just like everyone elses. But there is one thing that should not be up for debate and that is how much John Ramsey really should know about who killed his daughter. I now want to focus all of my attention on the one person with the greatest burden of getting this crime solved and that is John Ramsey, and I truly believe that he has the information to get this crime solved but just isn't telling anyone. And now that John Ramsey has decided to run for public office again, I feel like it's time for John Ramsey to give the public some answers before doing so.


To the people who say that John Ramsey killed Jonbenet and is guilty of this crime, I say you are right, but only half right. I believe that John Ramsey did not kill his own daughter, but I do believe that he is guilty of covering up for who did commit this crime for some strange reason. And we all know that the cover up is just as bad as the crime itself. But again, whether or not you agree with that part of my theory most should agree with this part...

Unfortunately for John Ramsey this case comes down to two scenerios and both of them are bad for John Ramsey. Either, he killed Jonbenet or, someone who was intimately involved in a relationship with very high emotions for John Ramsey killed Jonbenet. And I think that says it all. It is very obvious that this killer was no stranger.

If I were to speak directly to John Ramsey I would say;

Mr. Ramsey, this killer knew about your bank and your banking, he knew that you lived in the south for a time, he knew that you would recognize the word "fat cat" in the ransom note because that's exactly what you told the police that the word "fat cat" you had recognize as being what Rod Westmoreland called himself an "Atlanta fat cat". The killer was sneaking around your house on XMAS day. The killer spoke as if he was someone of authority and highly educated, which means that the killer could have some kind of wealth most likely on your level or more, after all he would have been a friend of yours. With that said this killer would have had to have a family of his own somewhere to be with on XMAS day that he decided to abandon to be close to you. Unlike a drifter who may not have a family life of his own, this killer most likely had a family. So why Mr. Ramsey was this crime which was committed in this manner so important to this killer? You must have been able to figure it out after almost 12 years? The level of emotions exhibited from the killer in this crime towards you, combined with the killer's intimate knowledge of your personal life in my opinion proves that you are hiding something. At this point I don't need to know how much you know about the killer because the killer tells us everything we need to know about your relationship with him. But the public has a right to know what you are hiding. Over almost 12 years now you must know who was talking to you in the ransom notes. This person did kill your daughter brutally after all.

But curiously over the years John Ramsey has taken the position that the killer could NOT have been someone he knows because as he once told Larry King, "we don't know anyone this evil". The next person who interviews John Ramsey should ask him to expand on that answer because one does not truly know how much "evil" lies in another man especially if that person is good at hiding his own "evil". But John Ramsey is in a precarious position, he can't possilby concede that the killer was intimate friends with himself because he knows that people would expect that John should then know who this person is. So that's why he can only say that he "does not know anyone that evil".

The main question that everyone should ask John Ramsey is this;
Do you believe the killer was intimate with you or do you believe the killer was a stranger?

If he says that it was a stranger because he doesn't "know anyone that evil" then we will know that he is being deceptive because the killer was no stranger.

And if he says the killer had to be intimate(which I believe he can never admit) then the next question should be is, then who is it? It's been almost 12 years since this crime occured, and John Ramsey should have a very good idea as to who was speaking directly to him in the ransom note. This is his deceased daughter after all!

Undr

[tiny paw-prints]

John Ramsey is guilty of something!!!

(respectfully snipped)

It is very obvious that this killer was no stranger.



I agree.

[rashomon]

It seems to me that when children meet violent deaths there are 2 basic scenarios. The first is that they are out of their house/their parents/friends/ family's view and they are abducted.

The second is that they are murdered in their house/ found close to their house/last seen with a parent/family member/ family friend.

JB is in the 2nd category. Her mother, rest her soul, can no longer help. But there has to be someone in the 2nd category who knows what happened. No-one has been prosecuted. Isn't it time for something to be done. Every time I see that little girl dolled up and primping for a pageant on TV I shake my head.
I think John Ramsey knows what happened since he himself helped in the cover-up of the crime (fibers from his shirt were found in JonBenet's underwear).
Since fibers from Patsy's jacket were also found in incriminating locations at the crime scene and even a layperson can see that it was she who wrote the ransom note, it is quite clear who was the main stager of the scene: Patsy.
The Ramsey case was basically a slam dunk case against the parents, and that they got away with it is simply inconceivable.

jmo

[LindaA]

It must not have been so slam dunk because nobody slammed dunked 'em.

[rashomon]

It must not have been so slam dunk because nobody slammed dunked 'em.
Nobody slam dunked OJ Simpson either. See my point?

[LindaA]

Of course I see your point, but OJ was arrested and brought to trail. There was evidence against him. The problem was police tampering with the evidence, IMO.

Once the facts were out about about OJs past behavior, there was little doubt he did it. Just the opposite has happened with the Ramsys. Not one single fact has ever come to light that makes me and most logical, rational people believe they are guilty. In order to do that, one must ignore large chunks of the evidence as well as the norms of human behavior. IMHO.

[sevenof9fl]

I'm a newbie to the discussion of JB's murder, and this has doubtless been discussed, I think it's a shame Lou Smit could not get a 2nd autopsy - too many questions remain from the first one, which looks cursory.

Not sure how anyone could sustain a fractured skull as she did and not bleed profusely unless fracture occured close to TOD.

Overall, the initial investigation was a completely mucked up affair.

[LindaA]

I'm a newbie to the discussion of JB's murder, and this has doubtless been discussed, I think it's a shame Lou Smit could not get a 2nd autopsy - too many questions remain from the first one, which looks cursory.

Not sure how anyone could sustain a fractured skull as she did and not bleed profusely unless fracture occured close to TOD.

Overall, the initial investigation was a completely mucked up affair.

Welcome! Actually, many of us believe the head blow was administered very close to the time of death.

[SaraSidle]

Welcome! Actually, many of us believe the head blow was administered very close to the time of death.

Also it could have been a closed head injury which does not bleed outside the scalp.

Welcome to CL

[Livia]

Hang on a minute, while I prepare myself for ridicule. Right, I am ready now.

Whenever I look at this object, the only thing that I really notice - is a perfectly formed face inside. You can even see hair!

So now, in this small area of a window well, you have a strange pointing figure and one of Jonbenet's hair-ties, with a face visible inside it.

You can have a go at me if you like, but to me ... that is weird!

Hey Callan, if you're crazy, then so am I! :D

I first thought it was a face too!!

You know...the only thing I am certain about in this whole case is that it is absolutely the most perplexing murder I have ever read/seen/heard about.

To me it is utterly baffling. And I simply do not know what to think about who the killer or killers might be. (Altho I agree about Occam's razor--yes, conspiracies do sometimes exist, but I admit I find this one a bit confusing. After all, how many people/motives does it take to kill one small girl?! :confused: )

One minute I think, the Ramseys must have been somehow involved. The next, I think, no way, these people were utterly incapable of murdering (or molesting) their child. I constantly waver back and forth, I have to admit! :o

Back to the face/condom/ponytail holder--on closeup, it does look a lot (to me) like an unrolled condom. Then again, I can see what looks like the metal band that a ponytail holder (but no condom) would have. I have no idea if it's iin any way involved in JonBenet's murder, but I don't think there would be any evidence one way or the other. I very much doubt whether the Boulder PD tested it, given their track record! :(

Okay, in short....I am well and truly on the fence about this whole case and it makes me want to cry, knowing that someone brutally murdered a little girl and has gotten away with it.

[Livia]

Oh, and a warm welcome to you, sevenof9fl, as you can see we are an opinionated and contentious bunch, but fortunately all brilliant as well, lol!

[sevenof9fl]

Greetings, everyone! It's a pleasure to be here and to meet all of you! As for contentious, well, contentious in a nice way is what I'd say!

I agree this is a very perplexing murder, and what I wouldn't give to get my hands on on the case file or Lou Smit's file. It seems to be glaringly short on forensics or either forensics have been omitted from public disclosure.

The murder was so sensationaized by the press that I paid no attention to it when it occured and only became interested after watching "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" this year a 2nd time. I sorta decided that if only 1/2 of it was true, it was the worst handling of a murder case since the Brown/Goldman-OJ case. I was appalled at how badly the Boulder Police bungled the situation from the outset.

[SaraSidle]

Greetings, everyone! It's a pleasure to be here and to meet all of you! As for contentious, well, contentious in a nice way is what I'd say!

I agree this is a very perplexing murder, and what I wouldn't give to get my hands on on the case file or Lou Smit's file. It seems to be glaringly short on forensics or either forensics have been omitted from public disclosure.

The murder was so sensationaized by the press that I paid no attention to it when it occured and only became interested after watching "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" this year a 2nd time. I sorta decided that if only 1/2 of it was true, it was the worst handling of a murder case since the Brown/Goldman-OJ case. I was appalled at how badly the Boulder Police bungled the situation from the outset.


I saw that movie the other day also. You are so correct. When I came to the JBR threads I was appalled at this case. Between LE's investigation and the ever changing forensics personally I think it is going to take a real confession to solve this. Very frustrating. IMO

[sevenof9fl]

I saw that movie the other day also. You are so correct. When I came to the JBR threads I was appalled at this case. Between LE's investigation and the ever changing forensics personally I think it is going to take a real confession to solve this. Very frustrating. IMO

I agree - it's going to take a real confession or a lot of rummaging through cold case files. I have my own theory, of course, it's long and I'll post it one day soon. I just think it's such a shame that the police when off on "one-track-itis" and it may be that justice will never be served.

[LindaA]

Please do post y our theory soon, Seven. We'd love to hear it. And welcome.

[sevenof9fl]

Well, here goes:

___________

This was a planned act. The perpetrator had watched the victim and the victim’s family enough to know a rough schedule of activies and an estimated layout of the house. It could be that the victim was stalked intermittently from the pageant scene or the Boulder area.

The perpetrator entered through the basement window when the Ramsey’s were out and had perhaps even entered the home on more than one occasion before the night of the murder, given the length of time the basement window was broken. The garrote was made and the ransom note was written while the Ramsey’s were out and the perpetrator was in the home alone. Indeed, both could been done well beforehand, again, depending on how long the basement window had been broken.

The victim was subdued with a stun gun in her bed (marks to the face). Abduction was the original plan, however something went wrong: the child cried out or woke up from the original stun. The victim came free on the spiral staircase and was stunned a 2nd time, then grabbed by the perpetrator, resulting in the wedge-shaped neck abrasion. If compared to the inner steps of the spiral stair, I believe the abrasion will match.

The perpetrator had most likely planned to take the victim from the home, which is why she was wrapped in a blanket: to keep her hidden and warm. The Garrote would have been used in a torture ritual to suffocate and revive the victim while the perpetrator lived out a sexual fantasy and most likely sexually assaulted the victim. The terror of the victim is what the perpetrator is after, not the sexual assault itself; it is the terror that is the “turn-on.”

However, the perpetrator changes his plan and decides to assault the victim on site, either because of fear of interruption or he just doesn’t want to wait since he’s so close to the victim. He also miscalculated and kills the victim right away; not realizing how little effort it takes to kill a small child. Most likely the perpetrator is not a pedophile but someone who has confused the victim somehow with a more adult person, perhaps due to the over-sexualization of young pageant participants. This person is used to the victimization of adults, not children, or either it’s his first rape and she was a victim of opportunity and seen as easily compliant.

The strangulation did not happen in the room where the body was found, but somewhere else in the basement or the house or even outside the house in a car. The room in which the body was found was a body dump site. The straight, outstretched arms indicate the body was probably dragged into the room. The skull injury most likely resulted from frustration at being unable to shake the victim awake or the body being carelessly dropped close to TOD.

I think this was an intruder murder but maybe not a stranger murder. The perpetrator could have been someone the Ramsey’s knew only peripherally. The perpetrator came prepared with the duct tape and rope (and maybe even the garrote). Given the length of time the basement window had been broken, the perpetrator had perhaps gained entry into the house prior to the murder.

I think the perpetrator is a white male, and may have been very young at the time of the crime; as young as 16 but not any younger; no older than 25, or either mentally challenged or very emotionally and physically immature. I think this was the first murder and the shock of the death caused the perpetrator to wet himself, which is how the urine got on her nightclothes. I also think the murder could have been accidental; the object was rape. I think the police are looking for a pedophile, when they should be looking for a strangulation rapist of young adult victims. I think this victim was out of the normal victimology for this perpetrator which is why the crime scene gives such conflicting information.

[LindaA]

Thanks for taking the trouble to post your theory, Seven.. That's basically what many of us think happened. One disagreement I have is about the head injury. I believe experts have said the blow was so hard that it had to have been influcted by someone wielding an object (baseball bat, flashlight, i.e.) so I don't think it was caused by accidentally dropping her; your frustration theory makes more sense to me.

One question: if the perp took JBR alive out of the house, through which exits did he leave and return? Do you think he acted alone?

Once again, thanks for posting, and welcome!

[sevenof9fl]

Thanks for taking the trouble to post your theory, Seven.. That's basically what many of us think happened. One disagreement I have is about the head injury. I believe experts have said the blow was so hard that it had to have been influcted by someone wielding an object (baseball bat, flashlight, i.e.) so I don't think it was caused by accidentally dropping her; your frustration theory makes more sense to me.

One question: if the perp took JBR alive out of the house, through which exits did he leave and return? Do you think he acted alone?

Once again, thanks for posting, and welcome!

Thanks for reading!

I disagree with the experts on the head injury but I'll have to admit the skull fracture is the one thing that has caused me the biggest headache trying to puzzle out.

The reason I disagree with the experts is that hitting her just isn't logical, especially since it happened so close to TOD and there are no other signs of battery on the body (other than the strangulation). Hitting her early in the crime makes sense, but not late in the crime because she was already subdued.

OK, I just puzzled it out, writing it down, LOL!! Thanks! HA!

And if it was from being hit, where's the object? And how do you hit someone on the back of the head (with an object, no less) who's passed out on the floor??

I just have a hard time being convinced that someone is going to take what looks like a dead body (by that point in the crime), stand it up and hit it in the back of the head. It's too much work.

And if the perpetrator had rolled her over and hit her on the back of the head with her laying facedown, there would be injury to the front of her face.

All of this is presupossing the use of a stun gun but I think those marks can't be anything else.

Personally, I think the coroner missed something on her scalp (or maybe 3 or four other things) during the autopsy. Although I don't know that much about children's skulls and how easily they fracture, but I can't imagine a fracture that bad that would not bleed even a little, especially in that area. I think that's why Lou Smit wanted the body exhumed even though I've never heard why he wanted it done.

I think if he dropped her, it was at the basement window, or he dropped her at the dump site by just "slinging" her down from his shoulder (picture her carried over his shoulder like a large bag of dog kibble), something could have been on the floor.

I do think the perpetrator worked alone; and entered and exited through the basement window.

[LindaA]

Good points. Most RDI believe that a rage head blow by PR was the initiating event of the attack. (I don't agree, BTW.) I don't think we have discussed what position JBR would have to have been in to receive the blow where she did. I also agree with you that there is no other logical explanation for those marks other than a stun gun. I have read that some IDIs feel JBR was at some point hanging by her hands. Do you think she could have received the blow during that time even if she was unconscious from the strangling?

[sevenof9fl]

Good points. Most RDI believe that a rage head blow by PR was the initiating event of the attack. (I don't agree, BTW.) I don't think we have discussed what position JBR would have to have been in to receive the blow where she did. I also agree with you that there is no other logical explanation for those marks other than a stun gun. I have read that some IDIs feel JBR was at some point hanging by her hands. Do you think she could have received the blow during that time even if she was unconscious from the strangling?

LOL, sometimes the "experts" n this case really leave me rolling my eyes! They need Bob Keppel to take a look at this one or we need someone to get in a time machine and go back and secure the crime scene!

I don't see how one can think it could be the initiating event of the attack if you believe the coroner's report. To be blunt, they can't have it both ways - one can't believe the coroner's report AND believe that it was the initiating event. The complexities and timeline of the blow happening immediately, in her bed, and strangled immediately, taken down the stairs and dumped in the cellar - I just don't see it playing out like that. There are too many obstacles - the main one being that strangulation and positioning of the garrote couldn't happen quickly enough for the brain injury to be considered to have happened at "close to TOD." I just don't see where they're getting that from. It doesn't fit the coroner's report at all.

LOL, here we go back once again to the body exhumation and what that story would or would not have told.

Hanging? I thought about that, with the outstretched arms, even looked for bruising on the wrists but I could see none in the crime scene photos and there were none mentioned (and here we go with that coroner's report again) in the coroner's report.

Perhaps the PR's plan was to tie JB's hands behind her (rope on one wrist) but the stun gun rendered that point moot.

How did the blow happen? Other than a rage blow, I can't imagine a different scenario that would have occured close to TOD. If she's almost dead, then she most likely looks dead; why and more importantly, how do you stand her up and hit her on the back of the head? It'd be like trying to hold up a rag doll!

And I think I said earlier that if she'd been hit on the back of the head lying facedown, there would be bruising on the face; there could even be marks on the floor from swinging the instrument.

I shouldn't be nasty, but sometimes the "experts" don't even make common sense to me, at least not in this case!

Like someone else said, maybe it was you, I think maybe the only way this murder will ever be solved is when or if someone confesses.

[LindaA]

Great post, great replies to my questions. I believe it was the lead detective, Steve Thomas who first put forward the rage attack by the mother as his theory as to what happened -- with the head blow coming first. I always thought that didn't make sense because the strangling seemed like a strange and time-consuming way to cover up the head bash.

[sevenof9fl]

Great post, great replies to my questions. I believe it was the lead detective, Steve Thomas who first put forward the rage attack by the mother as his theory as to what happened -- with the head blow coming first. I always thought that didn't make sense because the strangling seemed like a strange and time-consuming way to cover up the head bash.

No problem; asking questions helps me solidify my thoughts; after all, I really just started thinking about this and it's nice to have someone to chat with about the case who's interested in it from a factual point of view.

Oh, Steve Thomas; yeah, I sorta remember that now from the movie, the "Patsy Ramsey-JB wet the bed-rage blow on the back of the head" murder theory.

*seven bites her tongue on what she wants to say----

And says instead, I guess the deep bruising and deep embedding of the garrotte on her neck wasn't a dead (no pun intended) givaway that she was alive and that the garrotting took no small amount of time.

It's so very unfortunate that the Boulder PD latched onto the Ramseys as suspects and wouldn't let it go. They clearly needed assistance that they were not willing to ask for.

[SaraSidle]

No problem; asking questions helps me solidify my thoughts; after all, I really just started thinking about this and it's nice to have someone to chat with about the case who's interested in it from a factual point of view.

Oh, Steve Thomas; yeah, I sorta remember that now from the movie, the "Patsy Ramsey-JB wet the bed-rage blow on the back of the head" murder theory.

*seven bites her tongue on what she wants to say----

And says instead, I guess the deep bruising and deep embedding of the garrotte on her neck wasn't a dead (no pun intended) givaway that she was alive and that the garrotting took no small amount of time.

It's so very unfortunate that the Boulder PD latched onto the Ramseys as suspects and wouldn't let it go. They clearly needed assistance that they were not willing to ask for.

Just wondering.......can the strangling and head injury happen at the same time?

[LindaA]

Just wondering.......can the strangling and head injury happen at the same time?

I suppose it is possible, especially if there is more than one perp on the scene, as some belileve. It might also be possible if JBR were hanging and someone took a swing at her, hit her hard on the head, and sent her body flying, thus pulling the rope tight. (No disrespect to JBR here, but kind of like one hits a pinata. Shudders) I don't know ... that seems like a long shot.

Seven, good to disucss this with someone who doesn't get all nasty if you disagree. I do agree with you that the bed-wetting rage theory doesn't hold water -- if you'll pardon the expression. I've been posting about this crime for well over a year, and there are those who still insist that is what happened. How a LE officer -- inexperienced in murder investigations or not -- could reach that conclusion and stubbornly stick to it -- even publish a book saying so is beyond me.

[SaraSidle]

I suppose it is possible, especially if there is more than one perp on the scene, as some belileve. It might also be possible if JBR were hanging and someone took a swing at her, hit her hard on the head, and sent her body flying, thus pulling the rope tight. (No disrespect to JBR here, but kind of like one hits a pinata. Shudders) I don't know ... that seems like a long shot.

Seven, good to disucss this with someone who doesn't get all nasty if you disagree. I do agree with you that the bed-wetting rage theory doesn't hold water -- if you'll pardon the expression. I've been posting about this crime for well over a year, and there are those who still insist that is what happened. How a LE officer -- inexperienced in murder investigations or not -- could reach that conclusion and stubbornly stick to it -- even publish a book saying so is beyond me.


Okay this is what I had in mind......while the perp is strangling her he/she bumps her head on a bathroom sink or cement floor at the same time? IMO

[sevenof9fl]

Just wondering.......can the strangling and head injury happen at the same time?

Absolutely - I think it could have happened if the PR got angry when he saw JB was dead - it's my theory she died before the PR was "done" with her - and bashed her head against the concrete floor.

[sevenof9fl]

I suppose it is possible, especially if there is more than one perp on the scene, as some belileve. It might also be possible if JBR were hanging and someone took a swing at her, hit her hard on the head, and sent her body flying, thus pulling the rope tight. (No disrespect to JBR here, but kind of like one hits a pinata. Shudders) I don't know ... that seems like a long shot.

Seven, good to disucss this with someone who doesn't get all nasty if you disagree. I do agree with you that the bed-wetting rage theory doesn't hold water -- if you'll pardon the expression. I've been posting about this crime for well over a year, and there are those who still insist that is what happened. How a LE officer -- inexperienced in murder investigations or not -- could reach that conclusion and stubbornly stick to it -- even publish a book saying so is beyond me.

I briefly entertained the idea of a 2nd perp, but discarded it as the scene had the appearance of a sex crime. Also, I think if there had been a 2nd perp, they would have taken JB out of the house immediately and the body would either have never been found or been found weeks later.

So much of my theory is based on the assumption that it was a sex crime when in point of fact, that could be total BS. The sex crime theory is based on the garrotte, and to be honest, I'd never seen a garrotte like the one used on JBR until this case.

It was a pretty sophisticated peice of equipment and for someone to just whip one up in a moment of panic after killing their child is absurd; and once again, flies in the face of the coroner's report.

IMHO, the Denver PD needed to call in the FBI's BAU the instant they saw the garrotte, because that peice of evidence, in and of itself, was a big whopping clue that this wasn't your ordinary everyday homicide and they were in over their heads.

Too bad they never wanted to admit it.

This was a case that was all about egos and nothing about justice, IMHO, and it makes me furious. /vent off, LOL!!!

[SaraSidle]

I think all JBR threads everywhere are pretty emotional due to the unsolvability(i think that is a word) of this whole case. IMO

[sevenof9fl]

I think all JBR threads everywhere are pretty emotional due to the unsolvability(i think that is a word) of this whole case. IMO

I agree 100% and I'll even take it one step further (and if unsolvability isn't a word, we'll make it one, anyway!).

The case would have been a tough one no matter who carried out the investigation but I think the emotion comes not only from the dead-ends in the case but from the "what if" factor: "what if" the case had not turned into a political circus and "what if" the Denver PD had not wasted time and resourses trying to make the facts fit a wrong-headed theory.

And in the end, I think that's what gets everyone's emotions running so high, the "couldda, shouldda, wouldda" but mostly it's the "needless ego factor."

The peoplel who were supposed to be speaking for the victim were, in the end, only speaking for their own agenda.

[SaraSidle]

I agree 100% and I'll even take it one step further (and if unsolvability isn't a word, we'll make it one, anyway!).

The case would have been a tough one no matter who carried out the investigation but I think the emotion comes not only from the dead-ends in the case but from the "what if" factor: "what if" the case had not turned into a political circus and "what if" the Denver PD had not wasted time and resourses trying to make the facts fit a wrong-headed theory.

And in the end, I think that's what gets everyone's emotions running so high, the "couldda, shouldda, wouldda" but mostly it's the "needless ego factor."

The peoplel who were supposed to be speaking for the victim were, in the end, only speaking for their own agenda.

I totally agree. I wonder why they never brough in Vidocq. IMO

[sevenof9fl]

I totally agree. I wonder why they never brough in Vidocq. IMO

Someone may have by this time, but when the investigation was current, no one in the PD was interested in anyone except the Ramseys except Lou Smit and he quit the force. And I think that someone from law enforcement has to bring the case to Vidocq, but I'm not sure on that.

And I have about 29370823861982740938 other questions about this case but I don't think they'll ever get answered, like, did they swab for skin cells on the garotte and/or rope, did they test for urine on any surfaces in the house . . .did they look for JB's skin anywhere (from the abrasion) and on and on and on . .

[SaraSidle]

Someone may have by this time, but when the investigation was current, no one in the PD was interested in anyone except the Ramseys except Lou Smit and he quit the force. And I think that someone from law enforcement has to bring the case to Vidocq, but I'm not sure on that.

And I have about 29370823861982740938 other questions about this case but I don't think they'll ever get answered, like, did they swab for skin cells on the garotte and/or rope, did they test for urine on any surfaces in the house . . .did they look for JB's skin anywhere (from the abrasion) and on and on and on . .


That is more questions than I have read but you are very close. IMO

[LindaA]

To answer one of your questions: they did find a urine stain on the carpet in the basement near where the body was found. I have read that it was JBR's, and it was fresh ,but don't remember how that was determined.

[Athena]

Also it could have been a closed head injury which does not bleed outside the scalp.

Welcome to CL

Sara it was a closed-head injury but that is not what LindaA is referring to. Due to the small amount of accumulation of blood in the brain as well as the blood not being organized; some of us believe that the head injury occurred very close to or at the same time that the strangulation occurred. Hope this helps.

[Athena]

I agree 100% and I'll even take it one step further (and if unsolvability isn't a word, we'll make it one, anyway!).

The case would have been a tough one no matter who carried out the investigation but I think the emotion comes not only from the dead-ends in the case but from the "what if" factor: "what if" the case had not turned into a political circus and "what if" the Denver PD had not wasted time and resourses trying to make the facts fit a wrong-headed theory.

And in the end, I think that's what gets everyone's emotions running so high, the "couldda, shouldda, wouldda" but mostly it's the "needless ego factor."

The peoplel who were supposed to be speaking for the victim were, in the end, only speaking for their own agenda.

Just one observation; Denver LE would not like the fact that you have confused them with the Boulder LE. Seriously more experienced LE from Denver offered help but the Boulder LE refused it.

[SaraSidle]

Sara it was a closed-head injury but that is not what LindaA is referring to. Due to the small amount of accumulation of blood in the brain as well as the blood not being organized; some of us believe that the head injury occurred very close to or at the same time that the strangulation occurred. Hope this helps.

Actually Athena I suggested a few posts above that both may have occured at the same time. bathroom sink,side of bathtub,cement floor,etc. IMO
Thanks for your response.

[Athena]

Actually Athena I suggested a few posts above that both may have occured at the same time. bathroom sink,side of bathtub,cement floor,etc. IMO
Thanks for your response.

The type of head injury JBR had was not a fall or hitting anything in the bathroom. It was a massive, powerful, deliberate blow to her head with a blunt instrument (e.g., flashlight, golf club, bat, etc).

[SaraSidle]

The type of head injury JBR had was not a fall or hitting anything in the bathroom. It was a massive, powerful, deliberate blow to her head with a blunt instrument (e.g., flashlight, golf club, bat, etc).

Thanks Athena. It was just a thought. Which do you think came first?

[Athena]

Thanks Athena. It was just a thought. Which do you think came first?

I understand Sara. Thoughts are what can solve the case. :)

I think there was an attempted strangling first, JBR screamed, and then was finally strangled to death. According to Linda Arndt, LE who attended the autopsy, she said the cord had been wrapped around her neck twice.


Here is a a picture of a demonstration by Spitz, a forensics expert who believed it was a flashlight that was the vehicle used to deliver the blow / Post# 30:

http://www.boards.320sycamore.com/showthread.php?p=22066&highlight=flashlight#post22066

Sara -- Know anything about knots? There's a heated, interesting discussion going on about what type of knot was around her neck:

http://www.boards.320sycamore.com/showthread.php?p=67309#post67309

[sevenof9fl]

Just one observation; Denver LE would not like the fact that you have confused them with the Boulder LE. Seriously more experienced LE from Denver offered help but the Boulder LE refused it.

That's what I get for not proofreading more carefully. I have a good friend I message with several times a day who is in Denver and I have to make a real effort to remember that the crime occured in Boulder, not Denver. "Force of habit," I suppose! ;)

[sevenof9fl]

I understand Sara. Thoughts are what can solve the case. :)

I think there was an attempted strangling first, JBR screamed, and then was finally strangled to death. According to Linda Arndt, LE who attended the autopsy, she said the cord had been wrapped around her neck twice.


Here is a a picture of a demonstration by Spitz, a forensics expert who believed it was a flashlight that was the vehicle used to deliver the blow / Post# 30:

http://www.boards.320sycamore.com/showthread.php?p=22066&highlight=flashlight#post22066

Sara -- Know anything about knots? There's a heated, interesting discussion going on about what type of knot was around her neck:

http://www.boards.320sycamore.com/showthread.php?p=67309#post67309

When I came up with my own theory of the crime, I tossed out all the "expert opinion" except the coroner's report and I'm even equivocal on some aspects of that to the point that I think a 2nd autopsy was needed. I think things were overlooked or omitted.

I disagree with the "reenactment" of the head injury with the flashlight because the directionality and force of the blow as shown in the photograph (with the blow striking in a downward motion with the illumination end of a flashlight) would have most likely driven bone or bone shards into the brain and the skull would more likely have shattered and not broken into peices, IF one could find a heavy enough flashlight for that type of injury.

Also, the illumination end (or 'head') of a fashlight is the lightweight end; if one drops a flashlight, the head is most likely to break or shatter. It looks good in the movies to bonk someone in the head with a flashlight with the illumination end but I've broken probably 25 flashlights just knocking them over on a counter.

The business end of a flashlight is the end with the batteries, and if JBR was hit with one at all, it was the end with the batteries. Also, if she'd been hit with the 'head' end of a flashlight, it most likely would have cut the scalp. The only type of flashlight that could have caused the type of injury she had would have been a large metal flashlight, and not that many people own metal flashlights. LE carry metal flashlights, but most people pick up the plastic type at the hardware store or supermarket. I've never read that the Ramseys had a metal flashlight, just that there was one on the counter.

And I doubt they'd leave a flashlight on a kitchen counter that they'd just brained their 6-year old with.

I read the back and forth about the garrotte - they're all wrong about the knots - those are reverse french bowline knots. They're used in S & M Bondage rituals.

Lou Smit was of the opinion that the Perp strangled JBR face up - at first I thought he was right about that, but upon further reflection, I think it's inconsistant with the garrotte marks, which appear to me as if she she could have been hung or was partially standing when strangled - possibly spun, puppet-like. - Yes, I've halfway maybe changed my mind about the hanging possiblility, whoever asked me about that, sorry, bad memory!

Depends on the length of the garrotte, actually - how much length there was or was not to allow for a face-to-face strangulation - and in sex crimes, it normally is face-to-face.

[Athena]

OK -- are the knots above you are referring to at the end of the noose, the wrists or around the stick? They were all different. :confused: Most of us agree that the ones around the wrists were like "cuffs" but what about the one at the back of the neck which is described as a double knot which I believe was a slip knot or a running knot and locked into a double lock after being pulled.

Not an expert at all in knots lol so not disputing what you are saying just trying to figure out whick ones you are describing?

Re: sex crimes being face to face - Dennis Rader aka BTK said just the opposite. He killed 71 women and out of the 71 he killed one face to face and said he, a serial killer, could not do that again. It actually made him upset.

[sevenof9fl]

OK -- are the knots above you are referring to at the end of the noose, the wrists or around the stick? They were all different. :confused: Most of us agree that the ones around the wrists were like "cuffs" but what about the one at the back of the neck which is described as a double knot which I believe was a slip knot or a running knot and locked into a double lock after being pulled.

Not an expert at all in knots lol so not disputing what you are saying just trying to figure out whick ones you are describing?

Re: sex crimes being face to face - Dennis Rader aka BTK said just the opposite. He killed 71 women and out of the 71 he killed one face to face and said he, a serial killer, could not do that again. It actually made him upset.

http://www.ecstagony.com/eng/info/artbond/knotsfrbow.htm

If you note the bottom drawing, all of the knots on JBR are similar to the cuff knot on this bondage site; it's simply a matter that some on JBR are double and some are not (might help to turn the photos upside down). I'm no expert in knots, either, but the only knots I've found that are anywhere nearly similar to the ones on JBR are the reverse french bowline single and double bondage knots.

Those knots are generally only used for bondage cuffs and not erotic asphyxia, generally slipknots are used for that purpose since they slip off quickly. Reverse French Bowlines tend to tighten with any movement whatsoever, rather like real handcuffs.

French Bowline knots were originally purposed for tying off a boat without placing too much strain on the staunchion or pylon.

Actually it was Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer that killed an estimated 71 women and who said that; the BKT killer killed at least two whole families via not only strangulation but stabbing, also.

I didn't exactly buy Ridgeway's crocodile tears for two reasons: first, it's easier for a victim to fight back when attacked from the front rather than the back. Second, as a practical matter, when attacking from behind, the attacker can get the victim in a leveraged choke hold and use the victim's body weight against them, making for a quicker and more efficient kill - that's why that particular technique is taught in the military. Think about it, it's easier to use your whole arm than it is only your fingers.

[sevenof9fl]

To answer one of your questions: they did find a urine stain on the carpet in the basement near where the body was found. I have read that it was JBR's, and it was fresh ,but don't remember how that was determined.

Ah, I did not know that; thanks!

[Athena]

http://www.ecstagony.com/eng/info/artbond/knotsfrbow.htm

If you note the bottom drawing, all of the knots on JBR are similar to the cuff knot on this bondage site; it's simply a matter that some on JBR are double and some are not (might help to turn the photos upside down). I'm no expert in knots, either, but the only knots I've found that are anywhere nearly similar to the ones on JBR are the reverse french bowline single and double bondage knots.

Those knots are generally only used for bondage cuffs and not erotic asphyxia, generally slipknots are used for that purpose since they slip off quickly. Reverse French Bowlines tend to tighten with any movement whatsoever, rather like real handcuffs.

French Bowline knots were originally purposed for tying off a boat without placing too much strain on the staunchion or pylon.

Actually it was Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer that killed an estimated 71 women and who said that; the BKT killer killed at least two whole families via not only strangulation but stabbing, also.

I didn't exactly buy Ridgeway's crocodile tears for two reasons: first, it's easier for a victim to fight back when attacked from the front rather than the back. Second, as a practical matter, when attacking from behind, the attacker can get the victim in a leveraged choke hold and use the victim's body weight against them, making for a quicker and more efficient kill - that's why that particular technique is taught in the military. Think about it, it's easier to use your whole arm than it is only your fingers.

Duh - you are absolutely correct. Got the names mixed up. I agree with what you said in your last paragraph - was just making a point that Ridgeway killed his victims from behind. Thanks.

Re: the knots. The question is about the type of knot around her neck not her wrists and how it was used with the stick (homemade garrote). Could it have been a breath control device? I actually wish you would join the discussion about the knots at 320 as you would be able to contribute to the discussion with a different POV.

[LindaA]

Yes, Seven, we'd love to have you at 320 Sycamore. The discussion there is much more detailed. But beware, those who do not agree with your POV tend to be a bit -- uh -- snippy.

[sevenof9fl]

Yes, Seven, we'd love to have you at 320 Sycamore. The discussion there is much more detailed. But beware, those who do not agree with your POV tend to be a bit -- uh -- snippy.

LOL, Linda, yeah, "snippy" sorta covers it - in fact, that's the reason I need to stay away from that place - I sorta have this ability to make quick work of people like that.

It's a "talent" I have. Not a nice talent, but a "talent," LOL!!

I wouldn't call all of it "detailed," I'd call some of it "parsing words," hahahahaha!!

I'll think about it but I may have to go under a different name! HA!!!

[sevenof9fl]

Duh - you are absolutely correct. Got the names mixed up. I agree with what you said in your last paragraph - was just making a point that Ridgeway killed his victims from behind. Thanks.

Re: the knots. The question is about the type of knot around her neck not her wrists and how it was used with the stick (homemade garrote). Could it have been a breath control device? I actually wish you would join the discussion about the knots at 320 as you would be able to contribute to the discussion with a different POV.

Logic tells me that the knot at the back of her neck is a slipknot but I can't see it well enough in the photograph to be definite. A slipknot IS normally used for breath control in erotic asphysiation, which is what I think the Perp was trying to accomplish as was in my original Theory of the case. I think the bowline knots were used to anchor the garrotte on the stick because they are strong knots and they'd hold, not slip off the stick, and also may have been done out of habit and/or familiarity.

I might not have explained it well in my original posted theory but my take is that the perp is familiar with S & M / Bondage rituals and is most likely an experience rapist but not a pedophile, and that's where LE went off the rails in the investigation.

That's also where the perp went off the rails, I think the death was accidental or happened earlier than planned, and that the blow to the head was a rage blow but not the way people imagine: the perp was mad because JBR died on him and he wasn't finished with her.

I'll think about 320 but those folks are awfully contentious and might lose my cool - LOL, I'll have to go over there under an assumed name! HA!

[LindaA]

I quite understand and agree with you about 320. But that site is mild compared to most of the Ramsey sites, I'll tell you. All those folks used to post here until the JBR thread was pulled.

RE: your s & m bondage theory. Another poster at 320 who used to post here shares that theory and posted some photos of ads for s & m material to demonstrate how it works. You would have thought he had posted nude photos of his mother, they way some people carried on. But these were the people who refuse to see that this could have been a form of bondage in the s & m sense of the term.

[sevenof9fl]

I quite understand and agree with you about 320. But that site is mild compared to most of the Ramsey sites, I'll tell you. All those folks used to post here until the JBR thread was pulled.

RE: your s & m bondage theory. Another poster at 320 who used to post here shares that theory and posted some photos of ads for s & m material to demonstrate how it works. You would have thought he had posted nude photos of his mother, they way some people carried on. But these were the people who refuse to see that this could have been a form of bondage in the s & m sense of the term.

"You would have thought he had posted nude photos of his mother, they way some people carried on." ROFLMAO ha hahahahahahahaha!! What a great laugh first thing in the AM!! Oh, that was hysterical. *sniff*

OK, I'll come on over.

[rashomon]

I think this was the first murder and the shock of the death caused the perpetrator to wet himself, which is how the urine got on her nightclothes.

The urine was JonBenet's.

jmo

[rashomon]

I'll think about 320 but those folks are awfully contentious and might lose my cool - LOL, I'll have to go over there under an assumed name! HA!
I see you have already lost your cool over there. ;)
Why would you consider going there under an assumed name? How would that help you to keep your cool? :confused:

jmo

[peachg]

Post away. . . we need something to discuss! :seeya:

Does anyone know the outcome of the trial that was recently on Tru Tv--the man that shot up a Jewish center in Seattle(--I remember he had some kind of mental illness, he was baldheaded and I think kinda of short and squatty looking. It was about a month ago ? I don't remember the names of anyone.

[SaraSidle]

Does anyone know the outcome of the trial that was recently on Tru Tv--the man that shot up a Jewish center in Seattle(--I remember he had some kind of mental illness, he was baldheaded and I think kinda of short and squatty looking. It was about a month ago ? I don't remember the names of anyone.


I have no idea peach. sorry.

[One2Snoop]

Does anyone know the outcome of the trial that was recently on Tru Tv--the man that shot up a Jewish center in Seattle(--I remember he had some kind of mental illness, he was baldheaded and I think kinda of short and squatty looking. It was about a month ago ? I don't remember the names of anyone.

Welcome to CL. :seeya: It might be better to start a new thread since this has nothing to do with JonBenet Ramsey.

This was posted June 4th 2008...

Retrial promised in Haq case mistrial:
Issue of insanity left jurors hopelessly deadlocked
By TRACY JOHNSON AND VANESSA HO
P-I REPORTERS

The women who survived bullet wounds inside the Jewish Federation nearly two years ago and the family of one who died must now get ready to endure a second trial after a jury couldn't decide Wednesday whether the shooter was guilty.

After more than seven days of deliberations, jurors remained deadlocked on virtually all of the 15 charges against Naveed Haq, a mentally ill man whose attorneys argued should be found criminally insane.Snipped
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365756_jewishfed05.html

[Jayelles]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1032029/Mummys-little-Lolita-The-11-year-old-girl-beauty-treatments-cost-300-month-make-look-like-Barbie.html

She wore her first set of false eyelashes at eight, and her beauty treatments cost £300 a month. A sick abuse of an 11-year-old? 'No', insists Sasha's mother, 'I just want her to be famous...'


And what Sasha wants, Sasha clearly gets. Last Christmas, Jayne and her husband, Martin, a builder who works all over the UK and is barely at home, spent £26,000 on Sasha's presents, which included a swimming pool.

[shill]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1032029/Mummys-little-Lolita-The-11-year-old-girl-beauty-treatments-cost-300-month-make-look-like-Barbie.html

Shouldn't this be posted on some other thread, like one about people who have issues with beauty pageants?

[Jayelles]

Someone is moderating this forum - brilliant!:beer:

[SaraSidle]

:beer:

ITA. thank you

[Bystander]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1032029/Mummys-little-Lolita-The-11-year-old-girl-beauty-treatments-cost-300-month-make-look-like-Barbie.html

That's so over the top that they are almost like caricatures. They encompass everything that is bad about pageants and child careers and it's too bad that the mother seems to be trying to get the daughter noticed via notoriety. All of her statements seem purposely controversial, don' they? It almost sounds like she's pimping her.

It's strange how they make it seem like pageants are such a big deal over here when the reality is, most of us wouldn't even know where to find one. Many of those who are famialiar with them were introduced to them via the JBR news stories.

The saddest part there is that the father doesn't care to even pay attention to what's going on.

Someone is moderating this forum - brilliant!:beer:

Is that why there seems to be a lack of continuity in some of the posts?

[DAFFODIL]

Yes some posts have been deleted.

[Bystander]

Thanks, Daffodil.

That story above caught my eye because people form such strong opinions based on information that's often incomplete, or that only focuses on what is outrageous. That was done a lot in the Ramsey case and seems to have been done in that story too. I didn't think it was all that off topic, for that reason. It helps to know when you're stepping into previous conflict on these boards, and it's almost all conflict!