Why was JonBenet never referred by her name in the RN?

[Evening2]

OK - evidence which would stand up in court.

No, Jayelles, not evidence that would stand up in court. When the case is put together, so to speak, anything and everything that caused the DA to arrive at his/her conclusion, is evidence, subject to it's ability to be "entered" as evidence.

So, when I offer as evidence everything the McReynolds have said, written, and done "IS" probable evidence, subject only to its ability to be admitted. As I see it, there's absolutely NO way it would not be admitted, when the case is put together. This is all in my opinion.

[Jayelles]

No, Jayelles, not evidence that would stand up in court. When the case is put together, so to speak, anything and everything that caused the DA to arrive at his/her conclusion, is evidence, subject to it's ability to be "entered" as evidence.

So, when I offer as evidence everything the McReynolds have said, written, and done "IS" probable evidence, subject only to its ability to be admitted. As I see it, there's absolutely NO way it would not be admitted, when the case is put together. This is all in my opinion.

Any DA who presented Janet McReynolds' 1960s thesis as "evidence" that she murdered Jonbenet Ramsey in 1996 would be laughed out of court IMO. You cannot say "this woman wrote a play about a girl who was murdered in the basement of her own home" and say it proves the writer killed Jonbenet Ramsey. If that was evidence, you could prove a case against any crime author - P Cornwell, PD James, Ruth Rendell (especially Ruth Rendell)... others.

They have to be able to place the McReynolds at the murder scene. None of your "evidence" does that.

[Melungeon]

Good counterarguments, but I think it would be helpful to briefly review the definition of "evidence". Some people may think "evidence" and "proof" are synonyms. They are not. Here's what Webster says:

1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling".

2. An indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear".

3. (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

There is no such thing as "real" evidence and "not real" evidence. Either something is evidence, that is, it is "basis for belief", an "indication", or it is not. You probably thought "evidence" is the same as "proof" when you wrote the above. Wrong.

Evidence must be connected to the crime victim/crime scene for it to be of value in solving the case. Analyze that evidence; what does it say or not say, i.e. what can be logically and reasonably concluded. Then correlate that piece of information with what is already known. Look at that new conclusion and compare it to the next piece of evidence. Analyze, correlate, include/exclude, where does it lead.

What is often posted on various boards are theories looking for evidence instead of conclusions carefully drawn from evidence that has been carefully analyzed and correlated or evidence that has been factually connected in some way to the scene.

There seems to be confusion between suspect profiling versus corroborative evidence. Profiles are tools but they aren't evidence. As already mentioned, theories shouldn't look for corroborating evidence to prove their theory.

Speculation is not the same as brain-storming. It would be helpful to some of us if posters would indicate they are either brainstorming, speculating, or submitting a theory based on carefully analyzed and correlated evidence as known to the public.

[Evening2]

Evidence must be connected to the crime victim/crime scene for it to be of value in solving the case. Analyze that evidence; what does it say or not say, i.e. what can be logically and reasonably concluded. Then correlate that piece of information with what is already known. Look at that new conclusion and compare it to the next piece of evidence. Analyze, correlate, include/exclude, where does it lead.

What is often posted on various boards are theories looking for evidence instead of conclusions carefully drawn from evidence that has been carefully analyzed and correlated or evidence that has been factually connected in some way to the scene.

There seems to be confusion between suspect profiling versus corroborative evidence. Profiles are tools but they aren't evidence. As already mentioned, theories shouldn't look for corroborating evidence to prove their theory.

Speculation is not the same as brain-storming. It would be helpful to some of us if posters would indicate they are either brainstorming, speculating, or submitting a theory based on carefully analyzed and correlated evidence as known to the public.

Mel . . . .very well said!

[Melungeon]

No, Jayelles, not evidence that would stand up in court. When the case is put together, so to speak, anything and everything that caused the DA to arrive at his/her conclusion, is evidence, subject to it's ability to be "entered" as evidence.

So, when I offer as evidence everything the McReynolds have said, written, and done "IS" probable evidence, subject only to its ability to be admitted. As I see it, there's absolutely NO way it would not be admitted, when the case is put together. This is all in my opinion.

Evening2, you failed to mention that the "evidence" you mention must be shown to have relevance, not to mention it must be of forensic quality (i.e., of such quality that it is admissible in a court of law). A perfect example is the polygraph. It is not admissible but it sure can give insight into the investigation and help direct investigators where to look or not look. The results aren't evidence, just as profiling isn't evidence.

If you are the same person who posted under your name and said, quoted in full, "I guess that's what Mary-Keenan-Lacy and others in LE were doing as well when they placed and to this day keep the McReynolds on the top of the suspect list. Just speculation and fantasy - my oh my!" then yes, until someone is arrested, tried, and convicted, you are speculating at the McReynoldses expense, in my opinion.

Edited to add: since some posters' quotes don't seem to be correctly matched to the correct poster, I wasn't sure if you or someone else made the above quoted statement.

[Evening2]

Evening2, you failed to mention that the "evidence" you mention must be shown to have relevance, not to mention it must be of forensic quality (i.e., of such quality that it is admissible in a court of law). A perfect example is the polygraph. It is not admissible but it sure can give insight into the investigation and help direct investigators where to look or not look. The results aren't evidence, just as profiling isn't evidence.

If you are the same person who posted under your name and said, quoted in full, "I guess that's what Mary-Keenan-Lacy and others in LE were doing as well when they placed and to this day keep the McReynolds on the top of the suspect list. Just speculation and fantasy - my oh my!" then yes, until someone is arrested, tried, and convicted, you are speculating at the McReynoldses expense, in my opinion.

Edited to add: since some posters' quotes don't seem to be correctly matched to the correct poster, I wasn't sure if you or someone else made the above quoted statement.

So, the question remains - when does "evidence" become evidence? ONLY when the Court says it's evidence. It is either "possible" or "probable" evidence while the sase is being "built". It is MY opinion, that the probable evidence I have posted often against the McReynolds would, in fact, be admitted as evidence if and when a case is filed and tried. This is, of course, my opinion.

[andU]

... I thought I'd missed a good discussion on this thread about why JBs name wasn't mentioned in the RN only to find that the subject had wound its way back to the McReynolds........ must we discuss them on every thread?

[Melungeon]

So, the question remains - when does "evidence" become evidence? ONLY when the Court says it's evidence. It is either "possible" or "probable" evidence while the sase is being "built". It is MY opinion, that the probable evidence I have posted often against the McReynolds would, in fact, be admitted as evidence if and when a case is filed and tried. This is, of course, my opinion.

Evidence is evidence. If you can't connect the information/item to the crime or show it's relevance, it won't be admissible evidence. I don't side with lawyer's tricks that "Maybe I can slide this by." Questionable evidence should never be used by an investigator. I'm not saying it won't be used, but it shouldn't be used. You've used speculation about someone's prior actions to put together a theory that you seem to have already believed and are calling that information evidence after the fact, in my opinion.

Actually, I have at least two known suspects and the possibility that a third unknown suspect might have been involved before, during, or after the fact. I hope I'm wrong.

[Jayelles]

Evening2, you failed to mention that the "evidence" you mention must be shown to have relevance, not to mention it must be of forensic quality (i.e., of such quality that it is admissible in a court of law). A perfect example is the polygraph. It is not admissible but it sure can give insight into the investigation and help direct investigators where to look or not look. The results aren't evidence, just as profiling isn't evidence.

If you are the same person who posted under your name and said, quoted in full, "I guess that's what Mary-Keenan-Lacy and others in LE were doing as well when they placed and to this day keep the McReynolds on the top of the suspect list. Just speculation and fantasy - my oh my!" then yes, until someone is arrested, tried, and convicted, you are speculating at the McReynoldses expense, in my opinion.

Edited to add: since some posters' quotes don't seem to be correctly matched to the correct poster, I wasn't sure if you or someone else made the above quoted statement.

IMO, none of this fantasy santa "evidence" would be admissable. Evidence needs to be related to the crime in order to be admissable. It also has to be relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

[Melungeon]

... I thought I'd missed a good discussion on this thread about why JBs name wasn't mentioned in the RN only to find that the subject had wound its way back to the McReynolds........ must we discuss them on every thread?

I apologize andU. I should check the headers before responding to posts. I'll try not to do that again.

[Mikie]

Evidence must be connected to the crime victim/crime scene for it to be of value in solving the case. Analyze that evidence; what does it say or not say, i.e. what can be logically and reasonably concluded. Then correlate that piece of information with what is already known. Look at that new conclusion and compare it to the next piece of evidence. Analyze, correlate, include/exclude, where does it lead.

Look at the heart in her hand. It is a Shaker symbol. The only person in the case who had any Shaker background was Santa, Bill McReynolds. Nobody else. It does not relate to anyone but Bill McReynolds, who talked and walked like a Shaker. The evidence says to me that Santa Bill McReynolds put it there. Correlate that with his statement that he was in bed at 8pm and you are led to believe that maybe he was in bed at 8, but where was he at midnight.

Who tore up JonBenet's letter to Santa and put it in her wastebasket? Santa? Only Santa Claus tears up letters to himself. Kids don't tear up their own letters to Santa. Santa can tell who's naughty and who's nice.

SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN
J. Fred Coots, Henry Gillespie (c) 1934

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He's making a list,
Checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!

She told a friend she was going to have a visit from Santa, after Christmas! But its a secret. She wasn't supposed to tell anyone. Why? Because he was going to do something special.

Evidence points to Santa.

[Jayelles]

Look at the heart in her hand. It is a Shaker symbol. The only person in the case who had any Shaker background was Santa, Bill McReynolds. Nobody else. It does not relate to anyone but Bill McReynolds, who talked and walked like a Shaker. The evidence says to me that Santa Bill McReynolds put it there. Correlate that with his statement that he was in bed at 8pm and you are led to believe that maybe he was in bed at 8, but where was he at midnight.

Who tore up JonBenet's letter to Santa and put it in her wastebasket? Santa? Only Santa Claus tears up letters to himself. Kids don't tear up their own letters to Santa. Santa can tell who's naughty and who's nice.

SANTA CLAUS IS COMING TO TOWN
J. Fred Coots, Henry Gillespie (c) 1934

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He's making a list,
Checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

Oh! You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!

She told a friend she was going to have a visit from Santa, after Christmas! But its a secret. She wasn't supposed to tell anyone. Why? Because he was going to do something special.

Evidence points to Santa.

And we know that John Ramsey referred to himself as "Santa" (when talking about his role in arranging her bike etc). IMO, this second Santa visit was the Ramseys referring to the second Christmas they were going to have at Charlevoix with the big kids.

[Evening2]

... I thought I'd missed a good discussion on this thread about why JBs name wasn't mentioned in the RN only to find that the subject had wound its way back to the McReynolds........ must we discuss them on every thread?

andU, when there is discussion about the note, suspects, the crime scene, etc., posts about those things involving suspects will come to light. Do they have to be discussed? Yes, if you want this crime solved. However, it takes at least two to have a discussion. At least these discussions are more beneficial then the ridiculous arguments that take place at times. If those in LE who believe the McReynolds committed this crime were posting on CL, they would certainly be posting about the McReynolds - why would you expect less from regular posters who certainly have studied this case as well as anyone else posting here?

[Sharon]

So, the question remains - when does "evidence" become evidence? ONLY when the Court says it's evidence. It is either "possible" or "probable" evidence while the sase is being "built". It is MY opinion, that the probable evidence I have posted often against the McReynolds would, in fact, be admitted as evidence if and when a case is filed and tried. This is, of course, my opinion.

Good questions, I msure the definition of `evidence` is always evolving. Im sure that there is no black and white answer. Some cases seem to only have circumstantial evidence. I never realised that evidence could be so slippery in both how it is interpreted and in identifying what is relevant. imo

[Evening2]

Good questions, I msure the definition of `evidence` is always evolving. Im sure that there is no black and white answer. Some cases seem to only have circumstantial evidence. I never realised that evidence could be so slippery in both how it is interpreted and in identifying what is relevant. imo

That's an excellent description, Sharon - what a court decides to allow in as evidence is constantly evolving. What was not admitted yesterday, might be admitted today. As Case Law evolves, so does what is admitted as evidence.

[Athena]

I posted this on another thread, but it I thought I was posting on this thread:-

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showp...&postcount=218

William Hickman killed Marian Parker, the 12 year old daughter of a banker he had worked for previously because her father had reported him for theft and he went to jail. It was a revenge killing and she was not sexually assaulted. He asked for $1500, tied wire to the girl's eyes to make them stay open and was already dead when the father gave Hickman the $1500.00. He sped off in the car and pushed her mutilated body out of the car a block away.

Unfortunately there are nuts in this world who do strange things for different reasons, including revenge or for perceived wrongdoings. JMO

[Sharon]

That's an excellent description, Sharon - what a court decides to allow in as evidence is constantly evolving. What was not admitted yesterday, might be admitted today. As Case Law evolves, so does what is admitted as evidence.

And fwiw, P. being in a rage is right up there in the big no evidence basket. Was she in a rage that night......where is the evidence except for in a spectatular theory. Shall we all get upset about the lack of evidence in `all` the current theories. In fact all this case has is a `lack` of evidence.....which is why it is basically a cold case in all reality. imo

And I see no problem if you have a theory that is way out for some people. We are just in discussion stage, its not as if we are filing a court case ourselves! If we cant discuss the Santas then we may as well not discuss anyone. There is no higher ground. No one is more credible as a suspect than anyone else in my top 10, and that does include weird Santa. I may not believe he did it 100% but he is not off the hook as far as Im concerned. And I certainly dont like many things that he did, and how he acted in this whole event. And I am not scared to voice my opinion that he could have done it as much as anyone could have. imo

[Sharon]

William Hickman killed Marian Parker, the 12 year old daughter of a banker he had worked for previously because her father had reported him for theft and he went to jail. It was a revenge killing and she was not sexually assaulted. He asked for $1500, tied wire to the girl's eyes to make them stay open and was already dead when the father gave Hickman the $1500.00. He sped off in the car and pushed her mutilated body out of the car a block away.

Unfortunately there are nuts in this world who do strange things for different reasons, including revenge or for perceived wrongdoings. JMO

Athena, according to many on this board the murder you are describing would be too illogical to happen!!! They wrote a fake rn, for a small sum of money, the body was already dead, they had revenge as a theme, mutilated the body, wire to stage the eyes......what perp would do that....surely that was the parents trying to stage it like an intruder did it!!!! A normal perp would not want to get caught, isnt this too risky....what a bold perp this was! imo

[shill]

They aren't IMVHO.

The play was written twenty years before JonBenet was murdered.

The comments about Jonbenet "derserving to die" were not Janet McReynolds opinion but rather her disgusted impression of the media's portrayal of her pageant life and murder.

I don't know what santa Bill's being fond of Janet (or Jonbenet - hard to tell from your wording which you intend) has to do with anything. I'm sure plenty of people were fond of Jonbenet. It isn't a strong motive for murder and it certainly isn't evidence.

If you have any REAL evidence that the McReynolds were involved in JonBenet's murder, then post it and I'll be happy to discuss it but I'm tired of debating this fantasy santa theory which is far fetched beyond imagine (IMO).

This post and others have no reference what so ever to the topic of JonBenet's name being missing in the ransom note.

It is a waste of time for all of us wander from the topic and I am growing disillusioned with posters who can't make a point about the topic and yet still feel the need to post anything they want just to make noise.

[shill]

... I thought I'd missed a good discussion on this thread about why JBs name wasn't mentioned in the RN only to find that the subject had wound its way back to the McReynolds........ must we discuss them on every thread?

How can you have a good discussion here when the threads get totally hijacked?

If you have an opinion about Why Was JonBenet never referred by her name in the RN?,
then lets hear it, or take it somewhere else.

I would rather see this thread die then be hijacked!

[Eagle1]

Shill also pointed out that Muslims treat women in this manner; they are property, not beings with any rights.

So true. And maybe it's true of all killers, not just JonBenet's killer, that they have very little regard for even males, feel right at home taking other peoples' property.

I think the killer and/or notewriter's rage was mostly against JR, but also against females, and that he could have been visiting the Philippines when JR was stationed there, hence the idea of a foreign faction.

I've never said the McReynolds themselves killed JonBenet, but there's certainly enough oddball things about them to keep them in our minds, as possible accomplices, lots of important unanswered questions like why he was keeping kids' names on a harp. Was that idea a combination of SHAKER and CELTIC, MUSLIM disregard for females, and maybe other historic beliefs Santa had taught about? So in a sense it's actually relevant, isn't it? I believe it's been said that the McReynolds' Unity church included all religions, even pagan?

They didn't seem to have any resentment against women, so probably didn't write the note, if they were there at all, which they certainly could have been, along with others.

[Jayelles]

How can you have a good discussion here when the threads get totally hijacked?

If you have an opinion about Why Was JonBenet never referred by her name in the RN?,
then lets hear it, or take it somewhere else.

I would rather see this thread die then be hijacked!

You're right. It's happening on practically every thread and I keep getting hooked in. I keep resolving to ignore the discussion but before I realise it, I've responded to a post and maybe even made another few posts about quite possibly the most far-fetched theory of all.

OK back to why Jonbenet's name wasn't on the ransom note.

I think the perp hated her. Think about it - how easy is it to simply say the name of someone whom you detest or are really, really angry with? Isn't there a tendency to refer to that person by an insulting nickname or refer to them as HIM or HER (or IT)?

I have observed that people who detest or are raging at someone do NOT use the person's name easily if at all.

Usings someone's name can be quite personal. I think the perp couldn't bring him/herself to use her name.

[starlite]

But they show a familiarity about John in the note that shows they certainly aren't hiding the fact they are no strangers to John's persona, but they seem clueless to his daughters name. IMO.

I agree shill, but maybe this is where they slipped up.IMO the rn served no purpose except to try and mislead suspicion away from the killer,and to show comtempt for John. By leaving the rn and reffering to John's bussiness, it cast suspicion on maybe it was an employee or ex employee,but by placing the rn on the steps, killing her and leaving the body in the house,imo shows they were much more familiar with the Ramseys than they intended. JMO.

[andU]

I apologize andU. I should check the headers before responding to posts. I'll try not to do that again.

I understand how easy it is to get off the subject; I'm guilty of doing it myself. We get caught up in a post and reply before we realize that the original may not have anything to do with the thread in the first place. We have all probably done it at one time or another.

[andU]

andU, when there is discussion about the note, suspects, the crime scene, etc., posts about those things involving suspects will come to light. Do they have to be discussed? Yes, if you want this crime solved. However, it takes at least two to have a discussion. At least these discussions are more beneficial then the ridiculous arguments that take place at times. If those in LE who believe the McReynolds committed this crime were posting on CL, they would certainly be posting about the McReynolds - why would you expect less from regular posters who certainly have studied this case as well as anyone else posting here?

I'm not saying 'don't discuss it'. I just feel that it would help organize the board if we stick to the topics of the threads.

[Evening2]

I'm not saying 'don't discuss it'. I just feel that it would help organize the board if we stick to the topics of the threads.

andU, the thread topic seems to have taken at detour at Post #19 and Post #22.

[Zoey]

You're right. It's happening on practically every thread and I keep getting hooked in. I keep resolving to ignore the discussion but before I realise it, I've responded to a post and maybe even made another few posts about quite possibly the most far-fetched theory of all.

OK back to why Jonbenet's name wasn't on the ransom note.

I think the perp hated her. Think about it - how easy is it to simply say the name of someone whom you detest or are really, really angry with? Isn't there a tendency to refer to that person by an insulting nickname or refer to them as HIM or HER (or IT)?

I have observed that people who detest or are raging at someone do NOT use the person's name easily if at all.

Usings someone's name can be quite personal. I think the perp couldn't bring him/herself to use her name.

But what could a 6 year old child have done to make someone hate her so much?

And I totally agree with your last two sentences. I think that is exactly why her name was never in the ransom note.

[Evening2]

[QUOTE=Zoey;8896381]But what could a 6 year old child have done to make someone hate her so much?

Exist!

[Kor]

I don't think the perp really knew how to spell it....it certainly isn't a common name....although I think it was a beautiful name! jmho I don't think he did have anger at Patsy or the children....but the coward decided to harm the smallest one in the family.....he didn't have the ba((s to confront John directly! jmho

I think so too. It was pretty simple as that. At first, one of JB's school teachers was on my suspect list, but I ruled them out as a perp because they would have to know how to spell the name for her report card or paperworks and why would one of them have a grudge against John? JB being in pageant or winning bunch of trophies are the only reasons I could think of beside someone from other competitive companies or employed under John's company which I believe the most likely. IMO

[LindaA]

But what could a 6 year old child have done to make someone hate her so much?
<snip>

I asked the exact same question, but so far have gotten no answer.

[Jayelles]

And fwiw, P. being in a rage is right up there in the big no evidence basket. Was she in a rage that night......where is the evidence except for in a spectatular theory. Shall we all get upset about the lack of evidence in `all` the current theories. In fact all this case has is a `lack` of evidence.....which is why it is basically a cold case in all reality. imo

And I see no problem if you have a theory that is way out for some people. We are just in discussion stage, its not as if we are filing a court case ourselves! If we cant discuss the Santas then we may as well not discuss anyone. There is no higher ground. No one is more credible as a suspect than anyone else in my top 10, and that does include weird Santa. I may not believe he did it 100% but he is not off the hook as far as Im concerned. And I certainly dont like many things that he did, and how he acted in this whole event. And I am not scared to voice my opinion that he could have done it as much as anyone could have. imo

Perhaps all suspects are equal in YOUR top 10, but I don't believe that's the way it actually works (I don't think it COULD work that way or the police would be drawing straws in order to make an arrest!). Lou Smit explained this to John Ramsey in his 1998 interview. The Ramseys were in the house when the murder occurred. That means we KNOW they had opportunity. Therefore, they have to be taken "out of the bucket" (Smit's words) - i.e. proved innocent. Other suspects OTOH have to be placed "in the bucket" - they need to be placed at the scene.

My understanding is that persons of interest can be ranked according to certain criteria. These criteria assess the probability of the person being involved and police use this to prioritise their investigation.

Beckner stated that the Ramseys were the only people who had the actual status of suspects and that this was based upon probability:-

14 And so from our perspective, to be
15 identified as a suspect, you would have to be
16 somebody that there was a real possibility that you
17 were involved in this crime versus, you know, someone
18 said they think you did this crime and so now we've
19 got to run down this lead, if that helps clarify it
20 at all.
21 Q Well, I mean, a real possibility versus a
22 possibility doesn't -- that's a pretty fine line for
23 me. But I'm not the person coming up with the
24 titles. What I want to find out is how does one move
25 from being under the umbrella of suspicion to the
43
1 status of suspect?
2 A Maybe probability is a better word than
3 possibility, because certainly possibility covers a
4 lot of different situations.
SNIP
4 A -- how I define it, no. I would say, you
5 know, as we talked earlier, under suspicion would
6 characterize it accurately. Whether someone actually
7 goes to the level of suspect or not, that's a pretty
8 high level.
SNIP
2 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay. From your -- from
3 the time period that you have been involved in the
4 Ramsey case, October of 1997 to date, you have never
5 publicly referred to any individual as a suspect; am
6 I right?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q You have always carefully indicated that
9 individuals, whoever may come up, were either not or
10 were under the umbrella of suspicion?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Or used the phrase under suspicion?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Which you have told me means the same
15 thing as being under the umbrella of suspicion?
16 A Yes.
17 Q So from start to today, you have not
18 classified any individual as a suspect?
19 A Publicly, correct.
20 Q Or otherwise?
21 A That's not accurate.
22 Q How is it inaccurate?
23 A Internally John and Patsy are considered
24 suspects.
25 Q Both of them?
64
1 A Yes. 2 Q Are considered to have probably been
3 involved in the death of their daughter?
4 A Probability, yes.
5 Q Has anyone else ever attained that status
6 of probably involved?
7 A No.

John Ramsey questioned the suggestion that they had to prove their innocence and Smit replied that it had to be done because any intruder who ever stood trial's defence was going to be that the Ramseys did it and that was why the police had to investigate the Ramseys thorougly - to enable them to counter an intruder's defence. John Ramsey seemed to accept this saying that this thought hadn't occurred to him before.

IMO, there IS a higher ground. It's not right to treat someone who cannot be placed at the scene as though they are just as viable a witness as people who CAN be placed at the scene unless there are accompanying factors which would make them a better suspect anyway - i.e. a known unhealthy obsession with the victim (i.e. stalking), a criminal record of similar behaviour with other victims, contradictory alibis...etc

Also, imo, it's certainly not right to completely fabricate scenarios and evidence in order to build a theory against someone who canot be connected to the crime by any physical evidence or witness statement. That is a completely different thing from theorising about evidence we know exists. No-one is suggesting that we cease discussing Santa as a suspect. My objection is solely about the making of false claims of "evidence". There is a distinction here.
Seriously - the evidence in this case is complex enough without people making more up.

I try to imagine how I'd feel if it were me or mine who was being portrayed in some completely fantastical theory by people on the Internet. I'd probably want to sue the people doing it but I understand that this might not be a financial option for many in the US (since you have to pay for a lawyer whether you win or not).

We've all seen how misinformation and opinions can become case "facts" (i.e. myths). Posting "IMO" as a disclaimer doesn't stop that from happening.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility and I think we have a responsibility not to post imagine scenarios and evidence as though they were on equal terms of discussion with actual facts and evidence.

I think THAT would be taking the higher ground.

Perhaps a solution would be to have a thread for discussing imagined scenarios which are not based on actual evidence - a clearly labelled thread so as not to mislead readers? That way those members who like to fantasise about the case and evidence can do so and those of us who don't can stay off those threads?

[Jayelles]

I asked the exact same question, but so far have gotten no answer.

LindaA,

1) I can't see where you asked this question. I've obviously missed a post. 2) please remember that I am in a different time zone from you and I'm an early bedder - I don't sit up half the night posting like others appear to do.
3) I have explained this already on the forum. There's a discussion about it here (perhaps YOU missed those posts):-

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...ar#post8826395

Why does anyone hate someone else? I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about it. People comit hate crimes for reasons of jealousy, racism, homophobia, because someone makes you feel small/inferior/humiliated....

It's a fact that motive isn't always present in a crime and also that it often isn't even apparent until the perp is caught and can explain it.

[Evening2]

I asked the exact same question, but so far have gotten no answer.

I answered on my Post #68.

[sharlock]

Usings someone's name can be quite personal. I think the perp couldn't bring him/herself to use her name.

I have always thought it is a real possibility that the person who wrote the note was not the same person who killed Jon Benet. It is personal to use a name and I think the RN writer didn't mention JB could be because they were not comfortable with the fact it was a little child who was being used to get at the Ramseys. I also believe the tone of the note changes dramatically towards the end as if someone else started to say what direction the note should go. This could mean the writer was conflicted in themself and was of 2 minds or that there was more than one perp. Very hard to say though without a definitive theory in mind and I still do not have one.

[LindaA]

With all due respect E2 and Jay, neither of your posts explains why anyone would hate a 6 yr. old enough to torture and kill her. And yes, Jay, I did take the 10 seconds to go back and read your post. What could a child do to inspire this kind of hate and rage? It seems to me to be the kind of hate that is felt by one adult for another, which is why I think JBR was the victim of someone's hatred for John, most likely.

As for the persons of interest -- those who might be placed "in the bucket"? How could we ever establish that they were not at the scene or does the DNA do that? (And if it has ruled any of them out it has also ruled the Ramsey's out.) We have 4000 fibers that have never been sourced, and less than solid alibis for some, at least. (If we sourced the fibers to one or more of these people, would that be proof? Many of them had been in the Ramsey home on the 23rd.) It seems the evidence carries us along the surface of a mobius strip.

[Evening2]

With all due respect E2 and Jay, neither of your posts explains why anyone would hate a 6 yr. old enough to torture and kill her. And yes, Jay, I did take the 10 seconds to go back and read your post. What could a child do to inspire this kind of hate and rage? It seems to me to be the kind of hate that is felt by one adult for another, which is why I think JBR was the victim of someone's hatred for John, most likely.

As for the persons of interest -- those who might be placed "in the bucket"? How could we ever establish that they were not at the scene or does the DNA do that? (And if it has ruled any of them out it has also ruled the Ramsey's out.) We have 4000 fibers that have never been sourced, and less than solid alibis for some, at least. (If we sourced the fibers to one or more of these people, would that be proof? Many of them had been in the Ramsey home on the 23rd.) It seems the evidence carries us along the surface of a mobius strip.

It was late and I should have explained my reply, LindaA. By "because she exists", I meant that JonBenet was merely a catalyst for some far greater fantasy in the mind of the perp/s.

[Jayelles]

With all due respect E2 and Jay, neither of your posts explains why anyone would hate a 6 yr. old enough to torture and kill her. And yes, Jay, I did take the 10 seconds to go back and read your post. What could a child do to inspire this kind of hate and rage? It seems to me to be the kind of hate that is felt by one adult for another, which is why I think JBR was the victim of someone's hatred for John, most likely.

Well it may seem inconceivable that someone could hate a 6 year old, but I don't think it's impossible. I don't think there's any barrier to hate. It's a personal thing which quite often seems irrational to others. I've seen people who hate a spoiled brat of a child or a cat which would destroy their flower beds, or a boss, or a teacher (or pupil). Most people would be able to control their feelings and NOT harm the object of their hatred, but for a variety of reasons, some might be unable to control it - be pushed over the edge so to speak.

I think only a person in the grips of extreme emotion could have taken a beautiful child from her bed, throttled her and then stoved her head in. I think that only doing that to the object of their passion would have satisfied them.

As for the persons of interest -- those who might be placed "in the bucket"? How could we ever establish that they were not at the scene or does the DNA do that?

They have to connect the person of interest with the crimescene. That could be with DNA, or fibres or fingerprints or a witness. In the Westerfield case, they couldn't put David Westerfield in the vanDam house, but they were able to place the victim in his RV and her blood was on his clothes and fibres which were scientifically identical to those found in his house were found on her body.

For those people who were NOT known to have been in the Ramsey house that night, the onus was on investigators to connect them to the crimescene. The Ramseys were already connected with the crimescene. Because they COULD have killed her (opportunity), it had to be proved that they didn't.

(And if it has ruled any of them out it has also ruled the Ramsey's out.) We have 4000 fibers that have never been sourced, and less than solid alibis for some, at least. (If we sourced the fibers to one or more of these people, would that be proof? Many of them had been in the Ramsey home on the 23rd.) It seems the evidence carries us along the surface of a mobius strip.

And therein lies the reason why the Ramsey murder has not been solved. It's not enough just to prove that a person of interest was in the Ramsey basement, but that they were in the basement at the time of the crime.

Fresh DNA would have been good, so too would a fresh fingerprint on the ransom note or duct tape.

[lucky13]

The resaon that JonBenet's name was not written in the ransom note is that Patsy just couldn't bring herself to write it down after what she had done to her. IMO

[rashomon]

The resaon that JonBenet's name was not written in the ransom note is that Patsy just couldn't bring herself to write it down after what she had done to her. IMO

My thoughts exactly.

[Evening2]

The resaon that JonBenet's name was not written in the ransom note is that Patsy just couldn't bring herself to write it down after what she had done to her. IMO

Yet she had no problems at all saying her daughter would be "beheaded"? That makes absolutely no sense. IMO

~ Evening2