Patsy and John Killed Their Daughter?

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by diplomat


So if the person who wrote that note meant it to be cryptic, then they were successful. Not one brilliant mind has been able to decipher it.

Yes. And, at the same time, the author had the satisfaction of saying directly to John, "This one's for you."

MOO

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
"A source close to the investigation told CBS News the reason investigators moved in on Karr was because of details, in emails to University of Colorado professor Michael Tracey, about the Ramsey house that had not been made public.

According to the source, Karr wrote about a check stub on John Ramsey's desk in the amount of $118,000, specifics about a staircase in the Ramsey’s home and details about the basement where JonBenet was killed."

The ransom note only makes sense (allowing you to decipher it) if you believe it was a ransom note written by John Karr.

You come up with wild theories, then you say that none of it makes any sense, only tells you that your theories are wrong. Sometimes, a ransom note is a ransom note.

No, it only makes sense when one considers that Michael Tracey had interviewed the Ramseys privately more than once and that (Probably) they had conveniently leaked information about the crime scene that was known only to the police and to them. Tracey, who has claimed at least once before to have "cracked the case" by finding the guilty party, slips this information to Karr and bingo, Karr is on CNN.

Tracey is not an objective observer. He has clearly gone over to the Ramsey defense side. If the Ramseys are leaking information to their defenders, such as Tracey, that the police need withheld to help solve this case, it is just another indication that they are guilty and that they are more interested in their reputations than in justice.

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
What about the fact that John Karr's handwriting is so close he could probably recopy an exact duplicate of the ransom note, if asked to.

Getting John Karr to recopy the ransom note live on the air, then comparing it to the original would make a great TV show for CNN or courtTV.

And why can you drag the Ramseys through the mud, but not anyone else?

The media has destroyed John Karr. Let him defend himself by showing that he actually wrote the note.

Patsy's handwriting is much, much closer. The Boulder DA probably destroyed her own political career by admitting Karr had nothing to do with it and letting him go. Considering many DA's are about as ruthless as the people they send to prison, she would not have released him if she thought she could make the charges stick.

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
"A source close to the investigation told CBS News the reason investigators moved in on Karr was because of details, in emails to University of Colorado professor Michael Tracey, about the Ramsey house that had not been made public.

According to the source, Karr wrote about a check stub on John Ramsey's desk in the amount of $118,000, specifics about a staircase in the Ramsey’s home and details about the basement where JonBenet was killed."

The ransom note only makes sense (allowing you to decipher it) if you believe it was a ransom note written by John Karr.

You come up with wild theories, then you say that none of it makes any sense, only tells you that your theories are wrong. Sometimes, a ransom note is a ransom note.

And at other times a RN is not a RN. Specifically, those times when the apparent kidnapping victim is left dead in the same house with the RN - then a RN is not a RN.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr's handwriting comparison.

Patsy Ramsey's handwriting

Ransom note

He said her death wasn't intended. It was an accident. The guilt he felt over that is why he confessed.

Vaughan, dozens of people confessed.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
But his was believable, and then, the press and officials, even federal officials skim over this story looked for every reason to make him not the guy, while taking into account none of the reasons why he may have been the one.

They couldn't link him to the actual case. His DNA didn't match, and he couldn't be placed in Boulder.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
$118,000.00 ........... Victory! .......... S.B.T.C. (plaque in basement closet near room JB's body was in)


The SBTC thing is a stretch, but I think the killer may have had a long list of grievances against John and was in sympathy with the man who claimed AG owed him $118K.

"Here's what you get for not paying the $118K."

I am beginning to think you might be right about some of this....I think John Douglas the former FBI profiler hired by the Ramseys...thought it was a white male...possibly oone with a grievance against John...former employee or coworker....and a sexual pervert!

[thewhitewitch1]

Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

[Lili007]

Originally posted by diplomat


So far JB has been described to perform as a hooker and now a seductress. I never saw her as anything but a dressed up little girl in various costumes. I think Julia Roberts played a hooker in a movie once and I just don't see she and JB as the same.

Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

Originally posted by Lili007


Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

I agree with what you stated. It makes me wonder if it was a reason why John Ramsey killed her? Is it because he see her as disgrace in his opinion to his family? I do not know John well enough to discover what excatly his beliefs were. Maybe he had deep dark secrets about being against JB's pageant activities, & her being treated or viewed as woman that Patsy never knew of? So its possible John killed JB base on his beliefs. IMO

[Lili007]

Harz,

My post didn't say or imply in any way anything about her parents killing their daughter. Just a comment on JonBennet's young years and how she was spending them, with the full encouragement and support of her parents. I just think that's wrong, and - more than that - I think it was the cause of her death.

I don't know who did it. If I had, I'd go to LE, rather than talk about it on message boards. This is all speculation but also a lot of information, and sharing of opinions. Individually, they probably lead nowhere. Collectively, in the hands of some investigators now or at whatever time, they might help in some way.

I'm personally not eager to point the finger at either parent, or at the brother. But at the same time, it has never 'felt' like an 'outsider' crime to me. I hope one day the family will know, so they can put all of it to rest in good conscience. And that JonBennet can be left in peace, once justice is done.

JMO
Lili

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

Good grief, they don't approve of the shape of her mouth?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Lili007


Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered?

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Good grief, they don't approve of the shape of her mouth?

Yeah, I didn't quite understand that about the mouth and eyes, either. Good point though, about "JB Potholder Making Loom" making the marks on her, though...instead of a stun gun. Whatever happened to her loom, anyway? IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I read about the video and instruction manual in the Ramseys book. JR tried to blow it off as "it was written in spanish so how could I read it" but geeze, some manuals have pictures demonstrating how to use a product and a video shows you how to use it. I'm sure he could figure it out.

I agree...but, a bigger question would be, WHY...would he have a manual, written in Spanish, if he couldn't read Spanish? Alot of different items come with an English manual, along with other languages, and I simply throw the ones that I can't understand, into the garbage...and keep the English one. Maybe, just maybe...there HAD been an English version of the stun gun instuction book, but someone threw it away. IMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered?

Or all the child actors that are dressed up in all sorts of get-ups for movies and TV, and taught to say some of the strangest things. Are those poor abused kids being murdered?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Ames


I agree...but, a bigger question would be, WHY...would he have a manual, written in Spanish, if he couldn't read Spanish? Alot of different items come with an English manual, along with other languages, and I simply throw the ones that I can't understand, into the garbage...and keep the English one. Maybe, just maybe...there HAD been an English version of the stun gun instuction book, but someone threw it away. IMO

In DOI, John said he and Patsy visted security type store and the clerk sent them home with a videotape catalog that was in Spanish. Which was it...a catalog or an instruction manual? Or a poromotional video, which I've also heard. Did the clerk give him the wrong tape? There are so many versions of this floating around!

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered?

Their father was not John Ramsey, who had an employee who wanted to settle a score. And that employee knew that it would cause far more grief for John to kill JB than to kill him. Couple that with the fact that the employee might have been a pedophile and that narrows the list.

Originally posted by Ames


I agree...but, a bigger question would be, WHY...would he have a manual, written in Spanish, if he couldn't read Spanish? Alot of different items come with an English manual, along with other languages, and I simply throw the ones that I can't understand, into the garbage...and keep the English one. Maybe, just maybe...there HAD been an English version of the stun gun instuction book, but someone threw it away. IMO

They picked that brochure up in another country? I think I read this in DOI.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by diplomat


Their father was not John Ramsey, who had an employee who wanted to settle a score. And that employee knew that it would cause far more grief for John to kill JB than to kill him. Couple that with the fact that the employee might have been a pedophile and that narrows the list.

I believe that is exactly what the former FBI profiler hired by the Ramseys said, too. I agree!

Originally posted by Lili007


Does it not disturb you that a child of 6 years old is described in those terms? That alone should ring a thousand alarm bells.

A "dressed up little girl" does not belong in the sort of costumes, suggestive poses, "knowing" side-glances, strutting walks and provocative poses that don't belong in a child's world.

If you wish to make a comparison with Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman', I have this to say:

1. In the movie, Jula Roberts was supposed to be 20-something going on 30. In real life pageants, JonBenet Ramsay was 6 going on 25 and some of her poses were more suggestive than Julia Roberts' in the movie. Julia Roberts looked more demure in her high-boots and mini skirt than JonBenet looked in those outfits she was made not just to WEAR, but to seduce the judges in, with the stage play she was taught to perform.

2. Pretty Woman is a movie about a young WOMAN with limited opportunities, but with a strong sense of self, forced by circumstances into life she didn't like, but used as a means to support herself, because she didn't see any other way. She had dreams and ideals, but she needed money to atain them.

It's also a story of a WOMAN of character and principles.

Mainly, it's the story of a WOMAN (get my drift yet??) growing up, finding love and understanding and the opportunity to develop fully into the beautiful, intelligent, kind person that she was. It's the story of a WOMAN. NOT a 6 year old child.

3. Of course you don't see JonBenet and Julia Roberts as the same. There's a good reason for that: THEY'RE NOT.

Julia Roberts is an ADULT ACTOR in what in my opinion is a very good movie.

Jon Benet, however, was a CHILD on a stage ACTING AS AN ADULT might in some distasteful bargain-basement production of a very bad movie. Except it wasn't a movie, or a stage play. It was her LIFE, at 6 years of age.

Yes, there's a big difference between JonBenet Ramsay and Julia Roberts, or at least there should have been, if JonBennet were treated as a child, as opposed to being encouraged to look and act like women 4 or 5 times her age.

JMO
Lili

What disturbs me is that there are people who would actually view JB as a hooker, no matter what costume she had on. I don't view her that way, dressed up in costume or just being a little girl. The alarm that goes off when I see those terms written about JB is that there are many pedophiles out there reading and watching and waiting (maybe even posting) for little girls with these very same ideas in mind. Ready to do harm. Not the fault of the child. These people ready to do harm would have the same thoughts no matter what JB was wearing.

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered?

Because John was not the father of all these little pageants girls, except for JonBenet. IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by diplomat


Their father was not John Ramsey, who had an employee who wanted to settle a score. And that employee knew that it would cause far more grief for John to kill JB than to kill him. Couple that with the fact that the employee might have been a pedophile and that narrows the list.

Why is "bussiness" so prominently misspelled?

[lynda_a_c]

Originally posted by diplomat


What disturbs me is that there are people who would actually view JB as a hooker, no matter what costume she had on. I don't view her that way, dressed up in costume or just being a little girl. The alarm that goes off when I see those terms written about JB is that there are many pedophiles out there reading and watching and waiting (maybe even posting) for little girls with these very same ideas in mind. Ready to do harm. Not the fault of the child. These people ready to do harm would have the same thoughts no matter what JB was wearing.

Hi Diplomat

I don't see her as a hooker, what I see is a little girl dressed provocatively and inappropriate for her age - jmo.

As a wee girl once myself, dressing up meant smudging makeup over my face and dressing up in 'costumes' made of wraps of material and my mums shoes - not my parents placing me on stage strutting my stuff.

You said yourself that there are many pedophiles out there waiting, it begs the question why any parent would dress their child in this provocative manner?

To a certain extent I agree that it if they are that way inclined it doesn't matter what the child is wearing - but why invite trouble?

Lastly - I have never seen anyone ever blame JBR for what happened.

Wherever the blame lays it's not with her.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
...But what about all the other little girls who participated in the very same pageants that JB did and were not murdered?

Your car is stolen. You call the police. Do you believe the crime will be solved if the police look for data on other STOLEN cars? Or do you think the crime will be solved by looking at the UNSTOLEN cars that remain?

We do not determine common elements in different crimes by looking at no crimes. We find common elements by looking at similar crimes.

If you tell the police the mugger just ran north - you would expect them to GO north to track him down. If the escapee ran downstairs - you don't head off by going UPstairs.

Same rules apply here. We don't look at everyone who WASN'T murdered & expect to find an answer to this murder.

[Ames]

Originally posted by diplomat


They picked that brochure up in another country? I think I read this in DOI.

:lol: They did? But, they can't speak or read spanish! Okay, now "that" makes "sense". Duhhhh IMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Ames


:lol: They did? But, they can't speak or read spanish! Okay, now "that" makes "sense". Duhhhh IMO

Actually, I think John was given the brochure up at a trade show in Miami. Spanish? That would make sense.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Why is "bussiness" so prominently misspelled?

IMO...I have heard that it is to make the author of the note look "uneducated"...it was written that way on purpose.

[Ames]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Actually, I think John was given the brochure up at a trade show in Miami. Spanish? That would make sense.

Yes, it does make sense....BUT...why keep something that you cannot read? IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Ames



IMO...I have heard that it is to make the author of the note look "uneducated"...it was written that way on purpose.

"Bussiness" is the only word misspelled in the entire note (other than the fact that "out smart" should be one word and not two). Other, more difficut imo words are spelled correctly throughout. No businessman would misspell the word. So, is the author not a businessman or is he a businessman trying to cover himself? If this were an honest mistake, I would think there would be others.

MOO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Ames



Yes, it does make sense....BUT...why keep something that you cannot read? IMO

You should see the things that are stuffed in my desk drawers and night table.

[Ames]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


You should see the things that are stuffed in my desk drawers and night table.

LOL...and MINE too!!! But, you can bet, to avoid clutter...I would throw out anything that was written in a different language that I could not read. It was posted that J was handed that manual in Miami, thats why it was in spanish. If he could not read it, why pack it, and bring it home with him? Why not throw away in Miami? Or give it back, and say..."Sorry, but I can't read spanish". IMO

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
John Karr misspelled conqueror as conquerer in the yearbook, and bussiness looks like a spelling mistake he would have made.

People could see a mother pushing her daughter out on stage to be provocative, denying her a normal childhood. The truth was probably that this beauty pageant activity didn’t define JonBenet’s life to a great extent and didn’t deny her a childhood. That aside, to some people it appeared a bad thing the Ramseys were doing with their daughter.

That in addition to John Ramsey’s job in defense were the two most obvious things about the Ramseys. The most obvious things probably caused the murder. The question is, who would be motivated by those two things to do this crime?

The ransom note says it was a small foreign group who didn’t like the attitudes of Americans, who respected the military and defense business but didn’t respect the country it served.

That statement is closely tied to the most obvious facts about the Ramseys, which makes the ransom note a legitimate document. Though it seems crazy and weird, it is directly addressing the most prominent thing about the Ramseys.

People that don’t understand philosophical motivations say the ransom note is weird and they dismiss it. When a weird man comes along and confesses; even though his personal motives, his handwriting and spelling mistakes match the ransom note, they dismiss him, saying he is weird.

Let’s take a bold step and arrest him on the federal charge of kidnapping. Take him to trial. The Ramseys had no reservations about parading the American market-oriented values on stage with their 6-year-old girl. The most obvious thing about John Karr is he would have reacted in every way the ransom note and crime suggested.

The authorities already took a bold step and asked Thailand to send him to CA. From there he went to CO. They decided they didn't have any evidence. No DNA match, no fingerprints of his at the crime scene, the couldn't even place him in Denver in Dec. '96. What makes you think there is a basis for arresting him and charging him with kidnapping?

Just as with other "intruders" who've been fingered, this didn't pan out. Probably because an intruder didn't do it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

--------------------------

i am so sorry, i find this particular website somewhat obtuse. Is the poster asserting that the marks were made by the loom? and if so, how were they made and what does that tell us about the murder? I just can't figure out why someone would press the loom against the side of her neck and her arm and what possible purpose that would serve.

I just can't seem to put two and two together the way the rest of you do.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


The authorities already took a bold step and asked Thailand to send him to CA. From there he went to CO. They decided they didn't have any evidence. No DNA match, no fingerprints of his at the crime scene, the couldn't even place him in Denver in Dec. '96. What makes you think there is a basis for arresting him and charging him with kidnapping?

Just as with other "intruders" who've been fingered, this didn't pan out. Probably because an intruder didn't do it.

EXACTLY...you hit the nail on the head!! No intruder. I personally think that John R. planned to leave the country, after Karr's arrest, because he KNEW that Karr was NOT guilty, and he knew that after it was discovered, the fingers would again, start pointing in JR direction. IMO

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
If a stun gun was used, that suggested a paramilitary operation. Other evidence for a paramilitary operation was a size 10, Hi-Tech boot print; and the ransom note said it was a group that does not respect what America stands for.

The crime was against AMERICA, not a 6 six-year-old girl. In fact, the ransom note made a particular effort to say emphatically she would in no way be harmed.

But some people are going to great lengths to discredit any suggestion that it was paramilitary, or an intruder. Someone comes out with a website that says it was a potholder loom, not a stun gun, after the corner said it looked like a particular brand of stun gun that he had seen marks from before JonBenet.

That website is an outrageous attempt to discredit the idea of a paramilitary intruder. Use of a stun gun would point directly to a sophisticated paramilitary intruder. The fact that the theory is so outrageous makes me think it really was paramilitary operation done by the very people who are claiming it was a plastic loom.

That's when you ask the question, “But why would someone press a loom into her arm?” That makes the whole theory looks as ridiculous as it really is. And that’s when you ask yourself, “Why are so many people making so much effort to discredit the intruder theory?” Was it a paramilitary operation carried out by people inside THIS country in places of authority who don’t like the idea that sex sells, nor do they like any of the other capitalistic free market principles America is all about (but they do like the military weapons "bussiness")?

When I read that, I coluld actually hear the theme from the Twilight Zone.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


When I read that, I coluld actually hear the theme from the Twilight Zone.

:lol: Me too ..along with Rod Serling's voice in my head.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just something to consider....

http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

--------------------------

i am so sorry, i find this particular website somewhat obtuse. Is the poster asserting that the marks were made by the loom? and if so, how were they made and what does that tell us about the murder? I just can't figure out why someone would press the loom against the side of her neck and her arm and what possible purpose that would serve.

I just can't seem to put two and two together the way the rest of you do.

I'm not sure what the author was suggesting. Maybe that JB fell on the loom? I keep seeing pictures of that loom in the crime scene photos and have been wondering what the significance of it is/was. I believe the author was also suggesting that some of the ties in JBs hair were the loops from the loom...whatever significance that may have on anything.
I just thought it was an interesting observation and so posted the link. Everyone was wondering what the marks on JB were from, if not a stun gun and that was a possibility. Not that I am convinced or anything but it was worth thinking about, at least.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Ames


EXACTLY...you hit the nail on the head!! No intruder. I personally think that John R. planned to leave the country, after Karr's arrest, because he KNEW that Karr was NOT guilty, and he knew that after it was discovered, the fingers would again, start pointing in JR direction. IMO

So why didn't he leave?

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
You want Twilight Zone? Okay. The general outline of the ransom note was likely composed by people who were behind the kidnapping.

They put in threats about beheading before John Karr or anyone else in America knew terrorists beheaded people. That’s a fact, which has been overlooked.

If the terrorists were the kind who behead people, and they gave John Karr the general composition of the ransom note to recopy in his own words, they inserted a glaring contradiction in the general composition that they gave to John Karr. They said. “We respect your business.”

If regular terrorists had said, “We respect your business.” They might have been talking about a company that makes hand grenades, not the company that makes F-16 fighter jets.

So we have people who knew about beheading before anyone else knew, and they have so much respect for Lockheed F-16’s that they made sure to mention how much respect they have for Lockheed when they said how they didn’t like what America stood for.

Moslem terrorist don’t have any need to make sure they don’t offend Lockheed. But Right Wing fanatics who seem to be taking over this country, transforming it into a country most Americans wouldn’t recognize have the need not to offend Lockheed. How did the people who behead people get linked together with the people who love F-16s in a ransom note written by a failure school teacher who later traveled the world?

(Go to Twilight Zone theme.)

You should always go to Twilight Zone theme at the begining of your posts - it helps set the tone.