Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...

[blueclouds]

I have to admit, I do not come in JBR topic most of the time. When I do, it seems people are so intense on their beliefs... either for or against the parents.

I know this is an intense topic. I'm finding so many that are against the mother.

I have a question though...

Do you believe a rookie drug detective (thomas) who NEVER DID A MURDER CASE...

OR DO YOU BELIEVE A SEASONED MURDER DETECTIVE WITH ALMOST AN IMPECABLE RECORD OF SOLVING MURDERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 1 CASE... THINKS THIS IS AN INTRUDER MURDER.

come on people... all around us is TRUE EXAMPLES OF children abducted from their own bedrooms... this was a LARGE LARGE HOME... HE COULDN'T RESIST HIMSELF, SHE DIED PREMATURELY,

How can people be so against the parents here?

(btw, I AM NOT A JAMS SUPPORTER)


I do honestly want to know peoples perspective as mine is obviously stated.

[Blazeboy3]

I for one am going on intinct and not prev knowledge and IMHO...Patsy did it(premeditated JBR murder all the way)without blinking...IMHO!

[Sabrina]

The rookie solved the case, the seasoned detective is still looking for his intruder. Does that answer your question?

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Sabrina
The rookie solved the case, the seasoned detective is still looking for his intruder. Does that answer your question? You got it, Sabrina.
The only thing the delusional detective has been "seasoned" with, is loco-weed.
Smit will go to his grave looking for his beloved intruder--count on it.


Let's take a poll:

How many years will the Ram$ey supporters mope around before it dawns on them that no intruder will ever be caught, and they bet on the wrong horse?

[lannie]

At first I thought the mother did it ,then I thought maybe Burke ,but when I go back to the ransome note ,which I am 100% sure Ratsy wrote,I think if she were covering for her son would she have writen the note the way it was writen ? I don't think so ,what do you think ,first I don't think she would be telling John that the small fraction respected his busniss !I don't think she would of brought in dead & dieing & beheaded if she were trying to protect Burke,all of those terrible words would be hard for a griving mom to write.I see a lot of planing ,sceeming, in the ransome note. It would be so much easer to think that BR mashed her in the head,while in the middle of a sex game ,patsy found her dead or dieing & did the staging to save Burke ,but the ransom note left was writen by a person out of there mind ,not griving for her child ,but almost saying to John , (look what you made me do this is all your fault).

[Toth]

Originally posted by Shylock
How many years will the Ram$ey supporters mope around before it dawns on them that no intruder will ever be caught, and they bet on the wrong horse? That is absolutely RIDICULOUS.
It is totally and completely absurd.
Clearly if the dna under the fingernails and in the panties of the murder victim were equine dna the CBI would have found that out by now.

[sissi]

I did,during the early weeks following the crime,think the Ramsey's participated. I thought this based on the lies presented in the media. Who else could have done this? There was snow on the lawn and walkways,and no foot prints! Forget the window being too small, this "snow" thing was huge! Forget the story about the spider web,this "snow" thing was IT. There could be no doubt that there was no one capable of levitating across that lawn,short of Santa coming down the chimney ,NO ONE gained access to that house!
It was a LIE! There was no snow on the walkways.
It was a LIE! Spiders do recreate their webs.
It was a LIE! Grown men climbed through that window to prove it.
After the early lies,it was easy to lose trust in what the media was presenting.
Clearly something was wrong . We ,media consumers, were sucking in every little puff of smoke put out there, fed a daily menu of garbage . IMO ,while I kept up with the reading,I did question ,why should what is in print today be less fiction than yesterday's lies?
People criticize me when I suggest the family as victim, IMO, there is no other way to express what has happened to them.

The Boulder PD,put all of their "eggs" in one basket,based on the same lies we believed. They were responsible to a family and to a public to do a better job, and refused,in some collective sociopathic way they could not accept being wrong,and therefore would not indict their own misinformation,would not start over. "There were no footprints in the snow",has never changed for them.

IMO JMO

[K777angel]

I've studied this case objectivley for a very long time.
Considered every angle both intruder and family/close friends (which experts tell us is where to look - particularly the immediate family)

The known FACTS in this case (not speculation like the DNA) do
not support some intruder. If 2 facts in this case were different
I may be able to seriously consider an intruder.
Those 2 facts are the child never taken from the home, but
actually HIDDEN in a remote room within the home. (And not only
that - but she was wrapped up with a blanket, her pants pulled
back up, the door latched behind the perp - and her favorite
nightie placed near her. Nothing an intruder who "couldn't wait"
would do or care about. (And just WHEN did he place those
3 pages of note on the stairs? Not before carrying the child
down - he would have stepped on them. Patsy said she had to
step OVER them. Intruder also had a child to carry.
And he wouldn't have gone BACK upstairs and done it afterwards.
Too risky - and besides - he left via the basement window according to intruder supporters.
In addition, the supposed purpose of the note was never carried
out. NO attempt to collect any ransom - and the child never
taken. Experts say that kidnappers for ransom and child predator killers are two completely different animals. They do
not cross over. Their goals are distinct and separate.
The stager in this crime was too naive to know this and it thus
exposed him/her as stagers.

The 2nd Fact to exclude any intruder is the fake "ransom" note.
It worked only very briefly to divert attention away from what really happened. Maybe that was the only goal. A short term
goal. Long enough of a diversion though for John to make arrangements to flee the state......

These 2 very MAJOR facts in this case forever have excluded any
"intruder" for me - and for forensic experts alike who see child
sex-abuse murder cases all the time.
This crime happened on Christmas night. THE most unlikely night
of the entire year for some "intruder" to commit this crime - or ANY
crime. Other than familial.

Who do I think killed JonBenet? I think most likely it was Burke
and his parents covered it up. I think it was an accident turned
horrible tradgedy. I think the combination of their wealth, powerful attorneys, Burke's young age and the BPD's lack of
homicidial experience in crime scene preservation - kept this case
from going to trial. Not for murder as Burke was just shy of 10,
but numerous counts of obstruction of justice and others.

That is my logical and educated opinion based on the undeniable
FACTS of the case.

P.S. - Ever wonder why the Ramseys would choose to pull Burke
out of high school and move to another state when he only
has 2 years left? I have.
Why have him "start over?" ??? Very difficult age to do that to
a kid. I have a boy the exact same age as Burke.
What motivated them to move to Michigan?

[Britt]

Originally posted by lannie
...I go back to the ransome note ,which I am 100% sure Ratsy wrote... the ransom note left was writen by a person out of there mind ,not griving for her child ,but almost saying to John , (look what you made me do this is all your fault).
I'm with you, lannie. I think that's it exactly.

IMO:

Patsy killed her.

John was molesting her.

Both of them covered up.

Burke had nothing to do with it, but behaved oddly because he has two dysfunctional weirdos for parents, one of whom kiilled his sister.

I just finished reading the Ramsey chapter in Dr. Wecht's new book Mortal Evidence and reviewed the medical info in his prior book on the case.

I now believe the head blow was not an accident. IMO Patsy, while attacking/struggling with/being very rough with JonBenét, accidentally choked her by putting pressure on her vagus nerve causing her to pass out/start to die and then appear dead.

Pressure on the neck could have (from Wecht's new book) ...pinched the vagus nerve, a key controller of many of the body's organs. The nerve runs from the brain down both sides of the neck and into the torso. Among other functions, it regulates the heart and lungs. If signals from the vagus nerve are interrupted, cardiac and respiratory responses could slow down, become irregular, and eventually cease - a process known as "electrical death." In normal function, special cells in the heart transmit neurological messages very quickly - reminiscent of an electrical impulse - that make the heart beat in a rhythmic fashion. If something interrupts those messages, a chain of events begins that can lead to death. The short-circuiting of the vagus nerve doesn't manifest itself in any obvious way, so JonBenet's death would have been inexplicable to her assailant. p. 49

If the pressure on JonBenet's vagus nerve... had short-circuited her breathing and heartbeat, she would have been rendered unconscious. Staring at a limp and lifeless [JonBenét], [the killer] may have panicked and decided to create, outwardly at least, an obvious reason for her death. He or she may have thought that the rope around her neck was not enough to attribute the death scene to some intruder. Something with more brutality was needed. Thus the massive skull fracture. p. 66

IMO John became involved after Patsy accidentally choked JB. Thinking JB was dead or near death, one of them hit her with the maglite as part of the staged intruder/kidnapping. Then, the garrote was created for the dramatic terrorist staging and to explain any neck injuries that might show up.

As for the sexual abuse, possibly Patsy caught John abusing JB that night, or figured it out, or JB told her, and then the struggle ensued where Patsy unintentionally hurt JB. Either that, or John staged the abuse to hide the prior abuse inflicted by him.

[sissi]

There was an ongoing investigation,shoddy at best,that included the taking of dna samples from almost all contacts of Jonbenet.
Why was this done?
IMO

[Ivy]

I'm convinced Burke is the real killer, but Sum Yung Gai, who (as Shylock pointed out) works in the Asian underpants factory where JonBenet's underpants were made, and who, following longstanding tradition, spits on his work, is no doubt the person whose DNA was found in JonBenet's underpants.

Is an arrest imminent? Will SYG be charged in the death of JonBenet--or will he be able to outrun the Ramsey bus?

[Sabrina]

Originally posted by sissi
I did,during the early weeks following the crime,think the Ramsey's participated. I thought this based on the lies presented in the media. Who else could have done this? There was snow on the lawn and walkways,and no foot prints! Forget the window being too small, this "snow" thing was huge! Forget the story about the spider web,this "snow" thing was IT. There could be no doubt that there was no one capable of levitating across that lawn,short of Santa coming down the chimney ,NO ONE gained access to that house!
It was a LIE! There was no snow on the walkways.
It was a LIE! Spiders do recreate their webs.
It was a LIE! Grown men climbed through that window to prove it.
After the early lies,it was easy to lose trust in what the media was presenting.
Clearly something was wrong . We ,media consumers, were sucking in every little puff of smoke put out there, fed a daily menu of garbage . IMO ,while I kept up with the reading,I did question ,why should what is in print today be less fiction than yesterday's lies?
People criticize me when I suggest the family as victim, IMO, there is no other way to express what has happened to them.

The Boulder PD,put all of their "eggs" in one basket,based on the same lies we believed. They were responsible to a family and to a public to do a better job, and refused,in some collective sociopathic way they could not accept being wrong,and therefore would not indict their own misinformation,would not start over. "There were no footprints in the snow",has never changed for them.

IMO JMO

The footprints were something a reporter said and it got blown out of proportion and is the favorite thing the Ramsey spin team brings up...


Yes, spiders weave webs but what are the chances of a spider recreating the web in a few hours right at that window well.

Yes,a grown man went through the window well but what are the chances an "intruder" would know that was even a window ...and broken...in the dark!! Yes, it gets dark around 5:00 in Boulder. AND it was hardly disturbed if at all. Look how difficult it was for Smit to get through the window and he practiced several times! LOL!

[Ivy]

Right, Sabrina.

Sissi, what species of spiders rebuild their webs immediately and quickly, and in the dead of winter?

Lou Smit wasn't able to demonstrate climbing through the window without brushing his butt on the sill. I guess the "intruder" was buttless--or else he could fly.

As for there being no footprints outside, there apparently was a dusting of snow that night. Even if there wasn't enough to allow footprints, how does that exonerate the Ramseys?

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
I'm convinced Burke is the real killer, but Sum Yung Gai, who (as Shylock pointed out) works in the Asian underpants factory where JonBenet's underpants were made, and who, following longstanding tradition, spits on his work, is no doubt the person whose DNA was found in JonBenet's underpants.

Is an arrest imminent? Will SYG be charged in the death of JonBenet--or will he be able to outrun the Ramsey bus?
lol Ivy :D Mr. Gai better lawyer up and hide. It worked for the Ramseys.

Speaking of the DNA, from Wecht's new book:

I had talked with Dr. Henry Lee many times over the years regarding the DNA issues in the case. Both of us felt it likely there was some sort of contaminant throwing off the results. p. 77

Then he goes on to discuss the "Mr. Gai" theory and references this article:

DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html)

[sissi]

Sabrina,no disrespect but most of what we heard those early days,and the news today, is always going to be the "words of SOME reporter".
What made you believe the Ramseys were the killers,the reports on Patsy being the note writer? Have you read reports that others couldn't be cleared on the basis of handwriting,as well?
Fact: We all have the same information,we just use our personal experiences and judgement to decide what we believe. We DO NOT KNOW who killed Jonbenet.

JMO

[Ivy]

Britt, excellent article! Thanks for the link. Everyone--including Ramsey supporters--should read the article.

Excerpt: (Thanks again, Britt :bigthumb: )

Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

[sissi]

QUOTE:Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.


NO ONE sees anything wrong with this? JMO IMO

[Ivy]

What do you see wrong with it, sissi? Do you consider it wrong that the investigator wished to remain anonymous to avoid the wrath of the Ramseys?

[FULTON]

Why no intruder?? The ramsome note,staged crime scene,hiding from police,no fresh dna only degraded.Body wiped clean,fibers from the R's found on tape and paint tray,their pad ,their pen,practice note, their paint brush handle,(not a very well prepared foreign faction) ect. ect

[gretchen]

Blueclouds,
Welcome to the JonBenet forum. You are correct, so many of us are very "insistent" in our beliefs. I respect other opinions and am wiiling to listen to any new evidence that comes along.
I do not believe in the intruder theory, makes no sense to me. Too much points in the Ramsey's direction. An intruder would have never stayed in the house long enough to drag JonBenet out of bed, feed her pineapple, molest her, kill her and write such a long ransom note.
Lou Smit is a "seasoned dectective" alright. But hardly objective. Remember, he prayed with this family when they approached him while he was observing their home.
And also, much has been said about Steve Thomas never working a homicide case before this murder. I don't think the principles of investigating a homicide are much different than a drug case-you follow the evidence. Period.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Ivy
What do you see wrong with it, sissi? Do you consider it wrong that the investigator wished to remain anonymous to avoid the wrath of the Ramseys?
And there ya go. :) Not to mention avoiding the wrath of his/her superiors (and I use that term loosely in Boulder) for leaking info.

Gretchen and Fulton - excellent posts. You sum things up nicely.

Sissi - I was just wondering... considering that you seem to believe no one, trust no source, and discredit/dismiss every piece of information you can't see with your own eyes (and even dismiss some of that! :D)... what drives you to participate in these case discussions?

That's a serious question. I'd really like to know. Most of us try to put together pieces of the 'puzzle' but it seems to me you toss out all the puzzle pieces without trying to fit them in anywhere. What is the point?

[sissi]

I believe the methodology is very different in solving a homicide vs solving a drug case.
In a homicide the evidence leads to a suspect.
In a drug case the suspect is known,and the evidence is gathered to develop the case.
Steve Thomas was trained in the latter,Lou Smit in the first,very different methods....IMO

There was no pathology within this family to indicate that any one of them could commit this crime.

IMO

Britt,I do toss out a lot of information,especially from investigators who think they are dna experts and wish to remain anonymous.

[Ivy]

The evidence strongly implicates the Ramseys even though there's no apparent family history suggesting they'd molest/murder one of their children. Some investigators (including Tripp DeMuth) and forensic experts (including Henry Lee) believe JonBenet's death may well have been unintentional, and that the Rs staged the scene to point to an intruder to try to explain away indications of sexual abuse. This fits with most BDI theories, including mine.

[Britt]

Originally posted by sissi
There was no pathology within this family to indicate that any one of them could commit this crime.
How do you know that? If there were molestation by a family member, how would you know? Don't you think a rich, powerful family has the means to hide ugly little secrets from the world? If a child's body with documented chronic sexual abuse, per the majority impartial expert opnion, isn't enough to convince someone of a possible dirty little secret in that family, nothing will. But I digress.

What pathology is necessary for a loss of temper?

What pathology is necessary for an accident?

What pathology is necessary for someone to stage/hide/cover up an incident they fear will destroy their life and send them to prison?

Britt,I do toss out a lot of information,especially from investigators who think they are dna experts...
Isn't that exactly what Lou Smit does? Not only does he think he's a DNA expert, he also thinks he's a stun gun expert.

Both the DNA experts and the stun gun experts - the real experts, not detectives or cops - dismiss both the DNA as crime-related evidence as well as the stun gun speculation.

Investigators who are not such experts and who therefore accept the experts' opinions believe (1) this is not a DNA case (i.e. the DNA means nothing) and (2) there was no stun gun.

So why do you believe Smit? You can't have it both ways. If you dismiss the investigators' non-expert opinions, anonymous or otherwise, then you have to dismiss Smit's as well.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Britt
How do you know that? If there were molestation by a family member, how would you know? Don't you think a rich, powerful family has the means to hide ugly little secrets from the world? If a child's body with documented chronic sexual abuse, per the majority impartial expert opnion, isn't enough to convince someone of a possible dirty little secret in that family, nothing will.

We can use John Andrew as a test case. Sissi, tell me all that you know about John Andrew Ramsey's two run-ins with police in September of 1996, one of them leading to an arrest. Those who already know what I write of, do not tip your hand, as this is a test of how well a family can keep an embarrassing dirty little secret from members of the public who are not so dedicated to ferreting such secrets out. The Ramseys are clearly ashamed of what happened, as they never mention it, even though it had ramifications which reached into the early months of 1997.

[sissi]

I guess I believe Smit just a little more than the others,because he came into the investigation after I had formed my own opinion. He didn't form it for me,he validated it.
I have never said I am right,I just try to express the what's and why's of the way I see it.
There was a child found murdered in a basement,her parents and brother were home,a ransom note was found,the police entered the home,the dad found the child. This isn't enough to make a family member guilty IMO.
The house was not secured there were open windows and at least one door,possibly another to the garage unlocked.
A neighbor said he saw a figure ,of a young man on the property.
A reporter claims he found something in a tree house that would not implicate the children.
A picture of another pageant child was taken to be viewed ,because the cord in the picture on viewing appeared the same as the cord in the crime.
The cord and the duct tape were the items missing ,there was no match in the house. Why? Intruders do not like leaving their belongings behind.
What about Patsy's handwriting, IMO ,anyone who copied it with their left hand would have similar results. I found it quite amazing,that some letters,ex. S,have an entirely different appearance when copied with the left hand..in the case of s..less of a slope in the top portion.
What makes Burke guilty? or John,or Patsy? I just don't get it .

IMO JMO

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Sabrina
The rookie solved the case, the seasoned detective is still looking for his intruder. Does that answer your question?

How exactly is this case solved? Wouldn't one think that if it were "solved" that the Ramsey's would have been put on trial by now? (I assure you, if OJ can get tried, who is scared of the Ramsey's?) Just because most of you refuse to admit that YOU are wrong, does not meant he case is solved. There is evidence of an intruder, but isn't it funny how all of you point fingers when you have no evidence of any sort of prior criminal/sexual predator history with either one of the parents. Yes, one can keep secrets of molestation within a family, we all know that to be true, but once you are put up in front of the American media for 8 years, don't you think that that facade would have come crumbling down by now? (Remember, 2 people can keep a secret, but one has to dead) No pathology is necessary for things such as losing temper or accidents, but garroting a 6 year-old requires a bit of that, don't you think?
By one saying no pathology is necessary, you basically say any of us could have this happen. You think you could raise a child halfway normal, one night lose control, bash their head in, grab a paintbrush and some rope and sexually garrote your child? That is absurd!

Also, while we are on the rope thing, two important key items of evidence cannot be linked to either parent. Where did the rope come from? What about the masking tape? Why would 2 parents need masking tape for their own child?

Secondly, if the blow to her head did kill her, (blunt force trauma) where was all the blood? That is one factor that is shared in all blunt force trauma cases, an immense shedding of blood.

An intruder may have stayed in the house long enough to feed JonBenet pineapple, redress her, etc etc. It may have been someone who knew them well and were comfortable in the house. This person obviously had been casing the house for a long time.

My question for all of you is "Why go to such elaborate stagings, writng a ransom note, staging a body, just to leave her body in the basement? Why not just NOT write the note, and leave her in the basement or dump her body outside?"

You would think if you knoew enough to do some of the things the Ramsey's have been accused of, you would remember small things such as that? Or do you guys just choose to ignore it?

Oh yeah, and the body was wrapped, but haphazardly, her legs and arms were sticking out.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by sissi
What makes Burke guilty? or John,or Patsy? I just don't get it .

IMO JMO

In my opinion, what ultimately drives me toward a theory of Ramsey guilt is the real-world evidence that 100% of child murders inside a house, when the child is not found dead in her or her bedroom, were committed by a parent or other person who lived in the house or was an intimate member of the household. Every anecdote a Ramsey defender can quote about child murder inside a house and involving an intruder also always involves the child either being removed from the house entirely or being killed in his or her bed. Nobody can get around this, and until they can, I have to go with a theory which is 100% possible, rather than a theory which is unprecedented in human history.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
My question for all of you is "Why go to such elaborate stagings, writng a ransom note, staging a body, just to leave her body in the basement? Why not just NOT write the note, and leave her in the basement or dump her body outside?"
And how would the parents explain their dead child without the note to tell the "story," without the staging and the props to show "what happened"? Even if they dumped her outside, they'd still need to explain what happened.

Parents hoping to get away with the crime would HAVE TO stage it. How the heck else would they explain the death?

I'd ask you the same question: Why would an intruder go to such elaborate stagings, writng a ransom note, staging a body, just to leave her body in the basement? Why not just NOT write the note, and leave her in the basement or dump her body outside?

[Ivy]

The Ramseys had no choice but to write a phony ransom note. Without the note there would have been no "evidence" of an intruder. None.

It is possible the Ramseys had initially planned to remove JonBenet's body from the house and dump it or try to bury it somewhere but for any of a variety of reasons, changed their minds. (A while back there was a thread devoted to discussing this possibility.) Regardless of whether the body stayed or was removed from the house, the Ramseys needed something that pointed to an intruder and away from them. Writing a phony ransom note was the perfect solution.

[sissi]

AJT400 shares in my belief,what he/she said makes good ,sound sense IMO

Why nut is saying 100% of children found in their homes murdered were murdered by someone who lived in that home or were intimate family members. I do know this is not true.

JMO IMO

[blueclouds]

Thank you for all the replies. I appreciate reading all the feedback because I believe in the intruder theory, due to the DNA and the horrific way she was murdered.

But I also have to respect your theories too as I'm sure there is a lot I haven't read about this case &/or the parents that make so many people so certain its them.

Saddest thing is whoever is guilty, should be put to death (as my quote on the bottom) and there's a little girl dead in a grave with no justice.

If it was the mother, she won't be meeting God or her Jesus when she goes.

[Toth]

Originally posted by sissi
I do know this is not true. So does he but the important thing to remember is that even in that Susan Smith case wherein the cops were immediately focusing on the mother, they still treated it as a carjacking as well despite thier concern over her behavior and the ever-changing scene of the crime.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Just because most of you refuse to admit that YOU are wrong, does not meant he case is solved.
And just because most of you refuse to see how Boulder corruption could prevent this case from going to trial does not mean the case is UNsolved.

But you're right that the case isn't completely solved since no one knows exactly what happened. However, the suspect list is short: Patsy, John and Burke Ramsey. And since the evidence could convict Patsy and would have gone to trial in any other jurisdiction, IMO that's close enough to being solved.

There is evidence of an intruder...
Really? Where? Please list (current and accurate) "intruder" evidence that has no other possible explanation but an intruder.

...but isn't it funny how all of you point fingers when you have no evidence of any sort of prior criminal/sexual predator history with either one of the parents.
And funny how many of you Ramsey defenders point fingers at innocent bystanders with zero evidence, historical or otherwise, simply to take the heat off the Ramseys.

Again, how does a known history relate to whether or not a perp did a crime? All perps begin their history somewhere. And rich, powerful perps can hide a lot of history.

I wonder again why John lawyered up his first family.

...don't you think that that facade would have come crumbling down by now?
A facade is probably as durable as it needs to be. Even if it did crumble, how would we know? The rich and powerful Ramseys and their legal/pharmaceutical reinforcements can keep a lot hidden.

No pathology is necessary for things such as losing temper or accidents, but garroting a 6 year-old requires a bit of that, don't you think?
In other words, pathology is necessary for staging a crime (i.e. garroting)? How so? If a perp has a choice between (1) calling police and confessing to an accident that could land them in jail or (2) staging a phony crime scene in order to avoid jail, what sort of pathology drives one to choose door number two?

By one saying no pathology is necessary, you basically say any of us could have this happen.
Yes, any of us could have an accident or lose our temper with tragic unforeseen results... of course that could happen. No one is immune from that sort of thing because no one is perfect. As for deciding to stage a phony crime scene... no, I don't think we all would choose that route, but it wouldn't require a pathology to do so.

You think you could raise a child halfway normal, one night lose control, bash their head in, grab a paintbrush and some rope and sexually garrote your child? That is absurd!
Why? It's not like there's a how-to book or a protocol for crime staging.

Hypothetical: What if a child who is being molested by her father, with physical evidence of that molestation, then gets in a struggle with her mother and is inadvertently injured, either by pressure on the vagus nerve or by her head being bashed into something, to the point where the parents think she is dead?

Then what? How "should" they stage that? Wouldn't a fake kidnap/sex predator scenario be perfect here? They know there's evidence of the molestation. They know there will likely be evidence of the struggle, e.g. possible neck injuries. What to do with that? It can't be ignored. It must be incorporated into the staging. What's the alternative? Call police and risk the obvious fallout?

It's a given that molestation happens in secret. It's a given that an accident or unintentional tragedy can happen to anyone. So combine those elements and then what? Is it so inconceivable or absurd to think some people might decide to stage a fake crime to save their butts? And in doing so, whether they want to or not, they have to incorporate the vaginal and neck injuries into the staging, or else they can't blame those injuries on the "intruder."

Also, while we are on the rope thing, two important key items of evidence cannot be linked to either parent. Where did the rope come from?
Duct tape and cord... common household items, easily removed from the house in a purse or pocket by the Ramseys, who were not searched. Not a huge mystery here.

What about the masking tape? Why would 2 parents need masking tape for their own child?
It was duct tape and it was applied postmortem = staging.

Secondly, if the blow to her head did kill her, (blunt force trauma) where was all the blood?
First, it didn't have much time to bleed -- the head blow and strangulation occurred at close to the same time. Second, pressure on the vagus nerve would have slowed blood pressure.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by sissi
I did,during the early weeks following the crime,think the Ramsey's participated. I thought this based on the lies presented in the media. Who else could have done this? There was snow on the lawn and walkways,and no foot prints! Forget the window being too small, this "snow" thing was huge! Forget the story about the spider web,this "snow" thing was IT. There could be no doubt that there was no one capable of levitating across that lawn,short of Santa coming down the chimney ,NO ONE gained access to that house!
It was a LIE! There was no snow on the walkways.
It was a LIE! Spiders do recreate their webs.
It was a LIE! Grown men climbed through that window to prove it.
After the early lies,it was easy to lose trust in what the media was presenting.
Clearly something was wrong . We ,media consumers, were sucking in every little puff of smoke put out there, fed a daily menu of garbage . IMO ,while I kept up with the reading,I did question ,why should what is in print today be less fiction than Okyesterday's lies?

People criticize me when I suggest the family as victim, IMO, there is no other way to express what has happened to them.

The Boulder PD,put all of their "eggs" in one basket,based on the same lies we believed. They were responsible to a family and to a public to do a better job, and refused,in some collective sociopathic way they could not accept being wrong,and therefore would not indict their own misinformation,would not start over. "There were no footprints in the snow",has never changed for them.

IMO JMO

OK, AND you do know it's a FACT that: Anyone Can Justify ANYTHING!, right?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
How exactly is this case solved? Wouldn't one think that if it were "solved" that the Ramsey's would have been put on trial by now? (I assure you, if OJ can get tried, who is scared of the Ramsey's?) Just because most of you refuse to admit that YOU are wrong, does not meant he case is solved. There is evidence of an intruder, but isn't it funny how all of you point fingers when you have no evidence of any sort of prior criminal/sexual predator history with either one of the parents. Yes, one can keep secrets of molestation within a family, we all know that to be true, but once you are put up in front of the American media for 8 years, don't you think that that facade would have come crumbling down by now? (Remember, 2 people can keep a secret, but one has to dead) No pathology is necessary for things such as losing temper or accidents, but garroting a 6 year-old requires a bit of that, don't you think?
By one saying no pathology is necessary, you basically say any of us could have this happen. You think you could raise a child halfway normal, one night lose control, bash their head in, grab a paintbrush and some rope and sexually garrote your child? That is absurd!

Also, while we are on the rope thing, two important key items of evidence cannot be linked to either parent. Where did the rope come from? What about the masking tape? Why would 2 parents need masking tape for their own child?

Secondly, if the blow to her head did kill her, (blunt force trauma) where was all the blood? That is one factor that is shared in all blunt force trauma cases, an immense shedding of blood.

An intruder may have stayed in the house long enough to feed JonBenet pineapple, redress her, etc etc. It may have been someone who knew them well and were comfortable in the house. This person obviously had been casing the house for a long time.

My question for all of you is "Why go to such elaborate stagings, writng a ransom note, staging a body, just to leave her body in the basement? Why not just NOT write the note, and leave her in the basement or dump her body outside?"

You would think if you knoew enough to do some of the things the Ramsey's have been accused of, you would remember small things such as that? Or do you guys just choose to ignore it?

Oh yeah, and the body was wrapped, but haphazardly, her legs and arms were sticking out.
:nono:


Hum...read much? Read the books!...IMHO the blood story comes alive....!!!!


Secondly, if the blow to her head did kill her, (blunt force trauma) where was all the blood? That is one factor that is shared in all blunt force trauma cases, an immense shedding of blood.

:)

Kellermann's Kollectionn of:
JONBENET RAMSEY TRIAL BOOKS
Last Updated 02/04/00


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

Hodges, Andrew G. (1998). A Mother Gone Bad: The Hidden Confession of JonBenet's Killer. Birmingham, AL: Village House Publishers.


Keene-Osborn, Sherry. (1997). Pretty Baby: The Life and Death of JonBenet Ramsey. ----: Ballantine Books.


McLean, Linda Edison. (1998). JonBenet's Mother: The Tragedy and the Truth. Parsons, WV : McClain Print. Co.


Schiller, Lawrence. (1999). Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: JonBenet and the City of Bouldert. New York: HarperCollins.


Singular, Stephen. (1999). Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography. Beverly Hills, CA: New Millennium Press.


Smith, Carlton. (1997). Death of a Little Princess: The Tragic Story of the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey. New York: St. Martin's Press.


Stobie, Jane Gray. (1999). JonBenet's Gift: A Miracle for the Millennium. Denver, CO: Blue Balloon Press.


Von Duyke, Eleanor (with Dwight Wallington). (1998). A Little Girl's Dream? A JonBenet Ramsey Story. Austin, TX: Windsor House Publishing.


Wecht, Cyril & Bosworth, Charles. (1998). Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? New York: Onyx.

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


See other kollectionns
FAMOUS TRIALS KOLLECTIONNS
TRIAL BACKGROUND KOLLECTIONNS


:confused: :dontknow: :bigthumb: :evil:

[Blazeboy3]

AND READ THE OTHERS THAT ARE HARD TO GET/FIND (BOOKS)...KEEP SEARCHING-AND YOU WILL FIND!

[SisterSocks]

Originally posted by Blazeboy3
I for one am going on intinct and not prev knowledge and IMHO...Patsy did it(premeditated JBR murder all the way)without blinking...IMHO!

Read and reread your books Blaze everyone of them....




Patsy did not kill her daughter.

She might have covered up but, SHE didn't kill JB

[ajt400]

Why nut is saying 100% of children found in their homes murdered were murdered by someone who lived in that home or were intimate family members. I do know this is not true.

That isn't true, I am not trying to be misleading but only about 90% of children murdered are murdered by people they know, note PEOPLE THEY KNOW, not just their parents. And, yes, Blazeboy, I do read, quite alot actually. I however don't just pick out the facts that support my point of view. I at one time believed the Ramsey's were guilty. I believed that until I actually decided to read books with other points of view. I have not pointed a finger at anyone in particular, I just don't believe the Ramsey's did this.
I realized that alot of the information that I went on was wrong, like the footprints in the snow, the fact that a grown man cou;d not fit through the basement window, small things like that.

And I do believe that pathology has alot to do wit this case. I don't think that you just come up with something like garroting your child if you accidentely kill her/him. Not everyone watches court tv and not everyone is aware of sexual predators behavior. Yes it is true that everyone starts somewhere, but pathology like this doesn't spring up in people who are in their 40's and 50's. This sort of sexual deviancy would have had to have been evident somewhere in their past. It just simply isn't.

Yes, I do believe the media should be able to justify what they print, it is called checking your sources, not just printing what seems relevant at the time.

I think foreign DNA at the scene is pretty strong evidence that someone else was there. I also think the fact that they could not be linked to the rope or masking tape is signifigant as well. I am not saying that one couldn't get rid of it, but when you can't track the sale to them, what do you have.

Most of you go on fabricated circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is strong, there is nothing that can beat that.

Also Blazeboy, just because you read it in a book, does not mean that it is truth. Books are written by people and people have opinions.

Lastly, why, if your daughter is killed by you accidently, do you stage the scene to be a kidnapping, if you are just going to leave the body in the basement? Why get rid of a few things but leave others behind? (Like the pad the note was written on) Wouldn't you want to get the child as far away from the house as possible?

And I am sorry, but I will take the work of 2 easoned homicide investigators like Lou Smit and John Douglas over some Boulder det who have had no previous homicide investigations. Most of the evidence you all claim is just scratching the surface, once you look beneath it, you have nothing.

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
Why nut is saying 100% of children found in their homes murdered were murdered by someone who lived in that home or were intimate family members.
That isn't what why_nutt said.

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
This sort of sexual deviancy would have had to have been evident somewhere in their past.
and if we were talking about sexual deviancy, that opinion might mean something. But staging isn't sexual deviancy.

(btw not that it matters here but "sexual deviancy" is not necessarily "evident;" ask the Van Dams)

[Ivy]

sissi and ajt400, here is why_nutt's actual quote. Please note the phrase I highlighted in blue. As you will see, why_nutt did not say what you claim s/he did.

Originally posted by why_nutt
In my opinion, what ultimately drives me toward a theory of Ramsey guilt is the real-world evidence that 100% of child murders inside a house, when the child is not found dead in her [bed] or her bedroom, were committed by a parent or other person who lived in the house or was an intimate member of the household.

ajt, please explain to those of us who are skeptics what makes the "foreign DNA at the scene pretty strong evidence that someone else was there." I urge you to read MIBRO's thread, "Just for you, Ned and Ivy" on page 3 of the archived threads. There are other archived threads discussing the so-called "foreign" DNA too, if you want to take the time to search. Some DNA-related threads are on this very page, I believe.

The Ramseys weren't searched before they left the house on the 26th, and despite what Toth claims, Pam Paugh removed many items from the house that were not accounted for. The duct (not masking) tape roll and the remainder of the cord (if there was any) could have been taken by the Ramseys or by Paugh. Btw, can the purchase of every item you own or have ever owned be tracked?

John and Patsy's Plan A may have been to remove JonBenet's body from the house. Maybe they decided against doing so because when it came right down to it, they couldn't bear the thought of dumping the body of their precious daughter. There could have been a lot of different reasons why they changed their minds, including being afraid of being seen or heard driving away by the neighbors and of leaving tire tracks in the dusting of snow in the driveway. Also, what if the vehicle's engine was still warm when the police arrived after the 911 call, and the police felt the hood? It's also possible JonBenet's body wouldn't fit in a suitcase because rigor had begun to set in by the time the Ramseys finished the ransom note, and they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body without some kind of protection against dogs and other animals. Regardless, the Ramseys had to produce "evidence" of an intruder to show the police, and writing a phony ransom note was the only way they could do it. Whether they removed the body from the house or left it there, the note was a MUST to "prove" to law enforcement that an intruder had sneaked into the house and killed JonBenet.

John Douglas, who didn't know beans about the case, was hired by the Ramseys, and he spoke only with John, not Patsy. Some profiler. :rolleyes:

Lou Smit lost his heart to the Ramseys upon learning that, like his wife, Patsy was fighting cancer. Lou, John and Patsy prayed together, which strengthened their bond. There is no way on God's green earth that Lou Smit will ever turn on them. He's obviously in a deep state of denial regarding their involvement. Speaking of Lou Smit, his intruder demonstration on TV was both pathetic and hilarious. I don't agree with Steve Thomas's PDI theory, but he's a heck of lot better detective than Smit. Not as hunky though...lol

ajt, I think it's you who's just scratching the surface.

[Toth]

when not found in her bed, and not left handed, and not having a name beginning with "J", ...

Drawing rather narrow strawmen.

[Jayelles]

Intriguing.

[lannie]

ajt, welcome !! I was new at this once many years ago & typed myself into the middle of wedslethers & only two members took the time to welcome me ,Imon & Maxie ,so may I in websleuths tradition,say WELCOME and GLAD you are here, you thoughts seem to come from your heart ,typing here will cause you to think & grow & somethimes growing in Knowlage is painfull & anytime we dissagree please know that it is not OF you ,,just with some of the conclusions you have brought to the table , so stay with us ,continue to post on JB's behalf, in trying to keep this case (crime ) in the forfront of public opinion so that one day something will have to be done about the great disservice that has been done to little JonBenet.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Ivy
Tdespite what Toth claims, Pam Paugh removed many items from the house that were not accounted for. Was this because the cop so admired her he even helped carry some of those 'tons of stuff' out to the car for her?

[Ivy]

Toth, please don't misquote me. I didn't spell "despite" "Tdespite." Are you trying to make me look like a bad spaler?

Anyway, good question. Who knows...maybe Pam got away with lots of extra stuff because Everett not only admired her but thought she was the prettiest little thing he'd ever laid eyes on.

From Steve Thomas's book, page 52

Everett kept only a general inventory of what was removed, and even that abbreviated listing was astonishing. Stuffed animals, tiaras, three dresses for JonBenet, pageant photo portfolios, toys and clothes for Burke, John Ramsey's Daytime, the desk Bible, and clothing. For Patsy, there were black pants, dress suits, boots, and the contents of the curio cabinet. Bills, credit cards, a black cashmere trench coat, jewelry that included her grandmother's ring and an emerald necklace, bathrobes, a cell phone, personal papers, bank records, Christmas stockings, her Nordstrom's credit card, and even their passports. The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags, boxes, sacks, and luggage, the true contents unknown.

[Britt]

Originally posted by shamu
and if we were talking about sexual deviancy, that opinion might mean something. But staging isn't sexual deviancy.

(btw not that it matters here but "sexual deviancy" is not necessarily "evident;" ask the Van Dams)
Exactamundo, shamu, and touché!

Ivy - great posts. Thank you for posting the Thomas excerpt and for your other countermeasures against misinformation (especially the measured kind, ifyouknowwhatImean).

lannie - you're right and good post. Where are my manners? Welcome to ajt. :) Welcome also to blueclouds to the JBR forum. :)

[TLynn]

Sissy, the neighbor said he saw JAR walking up to the house.

The NEXT DAY, John's detectives TOLD BARNHILL (the neighbor) it couldn't have been JAR as he was in Georgia - then, Barnhill changed his story.

The cord had excessive length on it (17"), revealing no purpose in the loose tying of the cords around her wrist - the cord was used up...there was no cord to take out of the house.

And the end of the cord? Isn't that what Shapiro found outside in the tree...nice touch, throwing it out the window.

Just where is the window in JonBenet's room to the tree? Could that be why her drapes were messed up behind her bedboard?

[sissi]

TLinn quote:Sissy, the neighbor said he saw JAR walking up to the house.
YES! He did admit not being able to identify JAR,that does not take away from the fact he saw a person about the size and general appearance of JAR.

Shapiro found rope,it didn't match the garotte. I DO NOT KNOW what else he found,that which made him change his mind about Ramsey guilt.
IMO JMO

[ajt400]

Hello everyone, thank you for welcoming me, despite my posts. I am and always have been intrigued by this crime. I wonder sometimes if they will ever prosecute anyone for this murder and it makes me angry! I used to believe the parents did it, now I am not so sure....it seems the BPD just followed a scent without looking in any other directions.

I know the evidence of foreign DNA on a body does not mean much, there have been cases where foreign DNA has been found and pointed detectives in the wrong direction. But doesn't anyone else here think it at least deserves a nod of recognition? Maybe they should check it out then they could say "Okay, this foreign DNA had nothing to do with this case?" I would feel better then, it wouldn't seem as if the BPD was just aimed at the Ramsey's despite evidence otherwise. In any other murder case DNA found on or around the body would warrant an investigation into where that DNA came from and why it was not connected to the crime.

My thing about sexual deviants and staging is I understand you don't have to be a sexual deviant to stage a crime scene, but where would that idea just enter someones head? Your child is killed accidentely and you stage her crime to look like 3 or 4 different crimes? How is that logical? (Maybe I am expecting too much from criminals)
Why go to such elaborate staging just to f*#& it up? Most people would stage the crime (i.e Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Liysa Northton) but they don't stage it to be a kidnapping-murder-everything else in the book.

Also, just curious, of all those child murders that occur in the US, how many FOUND THEIR OWN CHILDS BODY? Most want others to discover the body, not themselves. If anyone has an accurate average of this I would be very interested to read it.

My main concern is this:
I do want justice for JonBenet and others like her, BUT I do not think sending the wrong person-people to jail for her crime is justice.

[K777angel]

Sexual abuse is at the heart of this crime. Follow that scent and you will find your killer and the motivation behind wanting her dead. This is an age old story. Heinous and sad - but nothing new.
Her injuries were not just fresh - but "chronic." Meaning at least 48 hours old. This little girl was molested before the night of her murder.
We KNOW she was molested the night she died. And the forensic physical evidence does not lie. She was also molested during the week prior and possibly before.

There are some deep, dark secrets in that family.
It is probably "generational" as it usually is.

And the sad thing is that NO ONE talks.
Especially in a family where there is a LOT of money at stake.

These families are used to sweeping dirty secrets under the rug.
You don't talk about it - and it simply never happened.
You hide behind your status, money, big home, flashy cars, clothes, decorating, airplanes, boats, summer homes and vacations. You spend oodles of money on grooming your tiny daughter to be Miss America and glory in the spotlight you once had and can never recover. You are happy to stand in the beam of your daughter's spotlight. Because, as you always say, "Like Mother - Like Daugher." You even title a chapter in your book with this title. (Chapter 7)

[sissi]

Remember please,that there is no indication of chronic abuse!
Wecht was not the "expert" on the case,it is an opinion only.
Other's suggest the only chronic inflamation seen,could be caused by bubble bath or any other possible irritant.There were NO healing or healed injuries to suggest anything other than an acute injury caused by the person who killed her.
JMO

[Toth]

Originally posted by K777angel
Her injuries were not just fresh - but "chronic." Meaning at least 48 hours old. This little girl was molested before the night of her murder.
She was also molested during the week prior and possibly before.
Wecht keeps telling us stuff like that, but he has never seen anything beyond the autopsy report that everyone else has, so how did he come up with such fanciful stuff?

[ajt400]

That's true, if people think that John Douglas has no place stating is opinion with the resources he had, then Cyril Wecht def. doesn't have any more info and shouldn't have any more credence here on this forum to relay his opinions.

[ajt400]

Also, is anyone looking into the question I asked earlier about parents who murder their children, "How many find the bodies?"

And, I don't believe in the America we are today and with the media we have now that a man, woman, or pair could sexually molest their daughter for years and NO ONE be able to find any concrete evidence of that AT ALL, even after 7 1/2 YEARS? Money or no money, you know the tabloids would be all over that in 2 seconds flat. That is alot of the reason that I don't think they killed her. I just don't believe this person could do this and conceal the inner being the way John Ramsey has (if it is him that you think is guilty). The same goes for Patsy.

I agree that this could be hidden BEFORE the fact, but after? I just think that if it could be found, it would have been by now.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
I agree that this could be hidden BEFORE the fact, but after? I just think that if it could be found, it would have been by now.
It HAS. Expert interpretation of the autopsy report tells us exactly that. JonBenét was sexually abused prior to the night she was killed.

Arguing about it is a waste of time. Serious truth seekers can do research and educate themselves. There's a whole lot more there than only Dr. Wecht's opinion.

But if you choose to ignore all that... then answer this: HOW would it be found out? If you don't believe what the child's dead body tells you, then how else could we, the public, ever expect to learn such a secret? It's not like the molester abused JB in front of witnesses. The only witness is dead! If there is a second witness, she is hiding behind lawyers and not talking.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
It HAS. Expert interpretation of the autopsy report tells us exactly that. JonBenét was sexually abused prior to the night she was killed.

Arguing about it is a waste of time. Serious truth seekers can do research and educate themselves. There's a whole lot more there than only Dr. Wecht's opinion.

But if you choose to ignore all that... then answer this: HOW would it be found out? If you don't believe what the child's dead body tells you, then how else could we, the public, ever expect to learn such a secret? It's not like the molester abused JB in front of witnesses. The only witness is dead! If there is a second witness, she is hiding behind lawyers and not talking.

IT"S IN THE LATEST BOOK... AS OF NOW>>>READ/RE-READ IF YOU HAVE STRENGTH/COURAGE TO GO BEYOND NORMAL INFO/FYI?!


http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
One of the threads asked about a new book on JonBenet Ramsey. I am the author of that book. It's an attempt to do some radically new things in order to shift attention back to what should have remained the focus of this case: the sexual abuse of children and the permanent psychological damage done when one sexualize a child in the way children are sexualized by Child Beauty Pageants. I also want, from the start, to indicate another thing that makes my book distinctive. I will not make a penny from it. I have established a Trust so that all money due me from the book and from productions of the play it contains will be devoted to Organizations who work on behalf of sexually abused children. That said, let me briefly describe the book.. An Evening With JonBenet Ramsey begins with a full-length play, Cowboy's Sweetheart, which imagines the life of a sexually abused and murdered child as it might have evolved had she lived. The play explores her psyche, her experience, and her struggle to deal with the traumatic memories that haunt her. (It tries, in effect, to give JonBenet the life that was taken from here.) The play is followed by two essays. They involve extensive research and consider the JonBenet Ramsey case from a number of perspectives. The discussion includes a critique of the media and of the two theories that have been developed to solve the crime. Again, my effort is to move the discussion to a new level. My name, by the way, is Walter A. Davis and I am a Professor Emeritus in the English Department at The Ohio State University. Like so many of you I first become involved in this story when I first saw a video of JonBenet "performing" and found myself in tears: "How could anyone do that to a child?" I asked. The book is a response to the pain of that question. Those who want the book can get it at a 15% discount on paperback and a 10% discount on hardcover from Xlibris: Call 888-795-4274, ext.276 or order online at www.xlibris.com. Or, of course, from Amazon.com.
I look forward to your responses and as a new member, to making a contribution to your discussions. Warm regards, Walter A. Davis

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Hello everyone, thank you for welcoming me, despite my posts. I am and always have been intrigued by this crime. I wonder sometimes if they will ever prosecute anyone for this murder and it makes me angry! I used to believe the parents did it, now I am not so sure....it seems the BPD just followed a scent without looking in any other directions.

I know the evidence of foreign DNA on a body does not mean much, there have been cases where foreign DNA has been found and pointed detectives in the wrong direction. But doesn't anyone else here think it at least deserves a nod of recognition? Maybe they should check it out then they could say "Okay, this foreign DNA had nothing to do with this case?" I would feel better then, it wouldn't seem as if the BPD was just aimed at the Ramsey's despite evidence otherwise. In any other murder case DNA found on or around the body would warrant an investigation into where that DNA came from and why it was not connected to the crime.

My thing about sexual deviants and staging is I understand you don't have to be a sexual deviant to stage a crime scene, but where would that idea just enter someones head? Your child is killed accidentely and you stage her crime to look like 3 or 4 different crimes? How is that logical? (Maybe I am expecting too much from criminals)
Why go to such elaborate staging just to f*#& it up? Most people would stage the crime (i.e Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Liysa Northton) but they don't stage it to be a kidnapping-murder-everything else in the book.

Also, just curious, of all those child murders that occur in the US, how many FOUND THEIR OWN CHILDS BODY? Most want others to discover the body, not themselves. If anyone has an accurate average of this I would be very interested to read it.

My main concern is this:
I do want justice for JonBenet and others like her, BUT I do not think sending the wrong person-people to jail for her crime is justice.

:evil: ajt400 FWIW IMHO see it(the crime) for what it is...A SadStory of Trauma to JonBenet!

[Blazeboy3]

OK HERE's A "CHALLENGE" FOR YOU TO ("READ)"Doubtful that you can read/understand/comprehend?!?!);READ THE FOLLOWING w/"UNDERSTANDING?!?!?"
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
AND COMPREHEND WHAT WAS STATED ... IN YOUR OWN WORDS

One of the threads asked about a new book on JonBenet Ramsey. I am the author of that book. It's an attempt to do some radically new things in order to shift attention back to what should have remained the focus of this case: the sexual abuse of children and the permanent psychological damage done when one sexualize a child in the way children are sexualized by Child Beauty Pageants. I also want, from the start, to indicate another thing that makes my book distinctive. I will not make a penny from it. I have established a Trust so that all money due me from the book and from productions of the play it contains will be devoted to Organizations who work on behalf of sexually abused children. That said, let me briefly describe the book.. An Evening With JonBenet Ramsey begins with a full-length play, Cowboy's Sweetheart, which imagines the life of a sexually abused and murdered child as it might have evolved had she lived. The play explores her psyche, her experience, and her struggle to deal with the traumatic memories that haunt her. (It tries, in effect, to give JonBenet the life that was taken from here.) The play is followed by two essays. They involve extensive research and consider the JonBenet Ramsey case from a number of perspectives. The discussion includes a critique of the media and of the two theories that have been developed to solve the crime. Again, my effort is to move the discussion to a new level. My name, by the way, is Walter A. Davis and I am a Professor Emeritus in the English Department at The Ohio State University. Like so many of you I first become involved in this story when I first saw a video of JonBenet "performing" and found myself in tears: "How could anyone do that to a child?" I asked. The book is a response to the pain of that question. Those who want the book can get it at a 15% discount on paperback and a 10% discount on hardcover from Xlibris: Call 888-795-4274, ext.276 or order online at www.xlibris.com. Or, of course, from Amazon.com.
I look forward to your responses and as a new member, to making a contribution to your discussions. Warm regards, Walter A. Davis

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by K777angel
Sexual abuse is at the heart of this crime. Follow that scent and you will find your killer and the motivation behind wanting her dead. This is an age old story. Heinous and sad - but nothing new.
Her injuries were not just fresh - but "chronic." Meaning at least 48 hours old. This little girl was molested before the night of her murder.
We KNOW she was molested the night she died. And the forensic physical evidence does not lie. She was also molested during the week prior and possibly before.

There are some deep, dark secrets in that family.
It is probably "generational" as it usually is.

And the sad thing is that NO ONE talks.
Especially in a family where there is a LOT of money at stake.

These families are used to sweeping dirty secrets under the rug.
You don't talk about it - and it simply never happened.
You hide behind your status, money, big home, flashy cars, clothes, decorating, airplanes, boats, summer homes and vacations. You spend oodles of money on grooming your tiny daughter to be Miss America and glory in the spotlight you once had and can never recover. You are happy to stand in the beam of your daughter's spotlight. Because, as you always say, "Like Mother - Like Daugher." You even title a chapter in your book with this title. (Chapter 7)

Like it or not...BINGO:Sexual abuse is at the heart of this crime. !

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Hello everyone, thank you for welcoming me, despite my posts. I am and always have been intrigued by this crime. I wonder sometimes if they will ever prosecute anyone for this murder and it makes me angry! I used to believe the parents did it, now I am not so sure....it seems the BPD just followed a scent without looking in any other directions.

I know the evidence of foreign DNA on a body does not mean much, there have been cases where foreign DNA has been found and pointed detectives in the wrong direction. But doesn't anyone else here think it at least deserves a nod of recognition? Maybe they should check it out then they could say "Okay, this foreign DNA had nothing to do with this case?" I would feel better then, it wouldn't seem as if the BPD was just aimed at the Ramsey's despite evidence otherwise. In any other murder case DNA found on or around the body would warrant an investigation into where that DNA came from and why it was not connected to the crime.

My thing about sexual deviants and staging is I understand you don't have to be a sexual deviant to stage a crime scene, but where would that idea just enter someones head? Your child is killed accidentely and you stage her crime to look like 3 or 4 different crimes? How is that logical? (Maybe I am expecting too much from criminals)
Why go to such elaborate staging just to f*#& it up? Most people would stage the crime (i.e Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Liysa Northton) but they don't stage it to be a kidnapping-murder-everything else in the book.

Also, just curious, of all those child murders that occur in the US, how many FOUND THEIR OWN CHILDS BODY? Most want others to discover the body, not themselves. If anyone has an accurate average of this I would be very interested to read it.

My main concern is this:
I do want justice for JonBenet and others like her, BUT I do not think sending the wrong person-people to jail for her crime is justice.

I'm so sorry for the LATE WELCOME...but "WELCOME TO YOU!" ... I do hope that you enjoy your "stay here."!?!? IMHO...It's warm / safe/ happy +plus sum ... hee hee LOL all of the things you can think of +sum... regarding JonBenet ...it's a happy/safe/home/ here IMHO...!!!...where you can be yourself among others alike...!...vent/voice w/o ?!?!?:confused:

[ayjey]

Welcome!

I too would like to see justice in this case but I think too many things happened (or didn't happen) and we will never see closure in this murder.

IMO, there are some things that point towards a non-family member, but, there are also some things that make the Ramsey's look suspicious, if not guilty. For example: Personally, I find it hard to believe that Patsy would kill her daughter, especially knowing she would never be able to have another child, yet Patsy's handwriting is very similar to the ransom note.

OTOH, There is evidence that we don't even know about, so we don't know who is being investigated outside the family, if anyone at all!

:dontknow:

[Toth]

Originally posted by ayjey
child, yet Patsy's handwriting is very similar to the ransom note. No, it is not 'very' similar. There are other people who have had writing samples that are more similar.
All you can say is that most experts simply do not have enough evidence to definitively state that she did not write the note; but none are anywhere near the point where they would be state that she did write the note.

[Barbara]

"....No, it is not 'very' similar. There are other people who have had writing samples that are more similar...."

Who are they Toth? I'd be curious. Sissi, are you watching for the response?

[ayjey]

Originally posted by Toth
No, it is not 'very' similar. There are other people who have had writing samples that are more similar.
All you can say is that most experts simply do not have enough evidence to definitively state that she did not write the note; but none are anywhere near the point where they would be state that she did write the note.


Ya know what, Toth?

I looked at Patsy's handwriting and I looked at the ransom note and, Yes, it is very similar. Nowhere did I state that she wrote the note.

And just where are the "other people who have had writing samples that are more similar? "

I, for one, am getting tired of your "hit and run" posts.

Answer this one, Toth: And just where are the "other people who have had writing samples that are more similar? "

[Ivy]

Wrong, Toth. Despite what you like to pass off as fact, there are experts who are not only near the point of stating that Patsy wrote the note but who have actually stated it. David Leibman, former president of the National Association of Document Examiners, and Gideon Epstein, who until he retired in 2000, was director of the forensics unit of the documents lab at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, are both positive Patsy wrote the note.

[shamu]

Welcome, blueclouds.

My opinion: I doubt that this is the work of an intruder. It could be, but what is likely? We know of no reason he/she would intrude and kill and stage and leave note etc.

OTOH we know that everywhere throughout time and sometimes “in the best of families” there are accidental deaths... incest.... rage killings...

We also KNOW there is shame and CYA behavior, especially if there is culpability on the part of parent or sibling. We find cover-up behavior even in cases where families aren’t to blame! (I’ve seen estimates that half of AEA deaths scenes are staged to look like something else. No family member should feel any guilt over such an accidental death, of course. Yet so many families try to make it look like suicide or murder.)

So I wouldn’t be surprised that a Ram might stage if he/she felt guilty for the death of Jonbenet, regardless of the particulars of how it happened. And how could it have happened? Endless possibilities. Accidental death via vagus nerve damage. Rage head bash. Accidental death via collar during child’s play. And so on.... a number of possibilities, some that we haven’t thought of. But stuff happens. Count on it. And cover-ups happen. Count on it. Both are relatively common. Intruders who leave both note and body? UNcommon (to say the least!)

--edited for spelling--

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Britt
It HAS. Expert interpretation of the autopsy report tells us exactly that. JonBenét was sexually abused prior to the night she was killed.


Many experts differ on that opinion, some say that there is evidence, others say there isn't. Who to believe, just the ones that side with your theory? Also, that doesn't prove who sexually molested her, just that she was molested.

And, expert interpretation is just that Interpretation, you can interpret anything that you want to. Many people have wildly varying interpretations of the bible, it doesn't make it true!

[ajt400]

Originally posted by shamu
[B]Welcome, blueclouds.

My opinion: I doubt that this is the work of an intruder. It could be, but what is likely? We know of no reason he/she would intrude and kill and stage and leave note etc.
B]

Why is it likely that two parents who are seemingly intelligent to do the same thing? The crime makes no sense either way one looks at it...

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Many experts differ on that opinion, some say that there is evidence, others say there isn't. Who to believe, just the ones that side with your theory? Also, that doesn't prove who sexually molested her, just that she was molested.

And, expert interpretation is just that Interpretation, you can interpret anything that you want to. Many people have wildly varying interpretations of the bible, it doesn't make it true!
I don't think we can compare science - interpreting autopsy findings - to interpreting literature.

Of course you're right that it doesn't prove who molested/abused her, but the fact that she was abused/molested the night she was killed connects the prior abuser to the murder, unless she was being abused by more than one person.

As for choosing experts, I simply choose the majority, definitive expert opinion over the minority, unclear opinion(s).

Five out of seven experts said clearly there was prior sexual abuse. The other two, Spitz and Krugman, were unclear, but did not state definitively there was no prior abuse. There is an excellent summary here (thank you, Sundance!)...

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/ex_abuse.htm

Dr. Krugman said he couldn't be sure that the vaginal abuse was "sexual" rather than "physical." You can read for yourself his explanation... see also PMPT page 467 (paperback).

Then, on Burden of Proof, Krugman said the 'sexual' abuse could have been a cover-up for prior physical abuse (in the vaginal area):

COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?

KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.

Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997 (http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/12291997krugmanonbop.htm)

The problem with understanding Krugman is that he keeps making the distinction between "physical" and "sexual" abuse. The point is: JonBenét had prior abuse in her vaginal area, per majority expert opinion, including possibly Krugman per the above quote from Burden of Proof.

[ajt400]

Even proof of prior abuse doesn't prove who was doing it. I was abused as a child by a family friend on many more than one occasion. It just proves she was abused prior to the fact, and she could have been abused by more than one person.

Why wouldn't the family doctor say anything to the BPD if he had any knowledge of sexual abuse? They are required to by law, and he could be held accountable now if there was prior abuse. (Because she was murdered) Esp. since so many have said that their was evidence of that abuse!

I hope you don't just take all of your opinions because of the majority, just becasue it is do doesn't make it right!!

[Barbara]

"I hope you don't just take all of your opinions because of the majority, just becasue it is do doesn't make it right!!"

So if one shouldn't base an opinion on the majority of experts, just how should one base an opinion? How do you develop your opinions?

[ajt400]

On what I think....not just what a majority believes. The majority has been wrong before.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Why wouldn't the family doctor say anything to the BPD if he had any knowledge of sexual abuse?
JonBenét's doctor, Dr. Beuf, didn't know whether JB was abused or not because he didn't look. He said so himself.

From Diane Sawyer's interview with Dr. Beuf:

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

He couldn't say for sure. He didn't look. He didn't know.

ABC Primetime Live, September 10, 1997 (http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm)

[ajt400]

So, then she didn't show classic signs of sexual abuse that is evident with how she acted? He had no reason tosuspect abuse?

[Barbara]

Most family pediatricians do not normally look for signs of sexual abuse or any other abuse for that matter.

In today's age, doctors are more sensitive to the signs of all types of abuses, but not routinely, especially private pediatricians.

Here in NYS, there is a certificate course for child abuse investigators. I had to become certified in this area due to the nature of my job, working with the developmentally disabled. I can tell you first hand, that most doctors, according to the experts who taught the course do not "look" for abuse.

I can't recall my daughter's pediatrician ever doing a thorough vaginal exam. Everything was a cursory look to make sure nothing was obviously wrong, but even he would only be looking for irritation, bacteria, etc., not for sexual contact.

Unfortunately, times change and doctors must be more observant

[ajt400]

Doesn't a child show signs of being abused, not just nec. the physical but things such as excessive wetting of the bed, drawing away from group activites? (I am drawing at blanks here because I am not sure...)

Agreed, their needs to be something more done to assure that child abuse does not happen to any child, well-hidden or not.
I would be thourougly disappointed in any physician that didn't report the abuse if they thought it could be happening....

Also Barbara, I am sorry about my earlier tone. I am a bit of a smart-a*%, it is one of my best and worst qualities, I can't hold it back sometimes.

Hopefully my apology is accepted, I mean no harm to anyone hear.

To be honest I love to debate and discuss this case because there are many avenues that need to be checked. I am convinced this case could be solved if someone that is not biased looked at the evidence.

[tipper]

Sounds to me like he thinks he "probably" would have seen it.

From Diane Sawyer's interview with Dr. Beuf:

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

[Jayelles]

I think that one of the points regarding the sexual abuse is that it may have commenced on or around the 23rd December. JonBenet was noted to be shy (declining to sing) reported as saying that she "didn't feel pretty" (strange thing for someone to make up) and then she was allegedly unwell that Christmas Day - not eating much.

Could these be signs of sexual abuse newly commenced?

[Toth]

Have you been able to find any source that corroborates these dark and foreboding statements? Anyone there who says JonBenet stated she did not feel pretty and was pensive and moody?

[Jayelles]

No I don't have a primary source for that - it's hearsay. Wouldn't stand up in court unless it came from the primary source. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Edited to say: Hoever, JonBenet was sexually assaulted and murdered so every witness statement counts - little pieces of a jigsaw.

As a parent and teacher who is responsible for children on a daily basis, I don't dismiss these things. There are many adult women who were sexually abused as children who claim that the people they told didn't believe them. Are you one of these people? Do you dismiss the statements of Mrs Santa and Judith Phillips just because you don't like them much? If so, I'd be inclined to wonder whose side you were on.

[ajt400]

True, but isn't alot of the evidence on this case circumstantial? I think that may be the problem with most of the evidence--it's just what she said, he said, she said, etc.

[ajt400]

Also, one could state that the reason she wasn't feeling good on Christmas day (i.e. she wasn't eating much) could have more to do with the fact (or idea) that maybe she ate too much candiy or treats....again an assumption, but not entirely off base...

[Jayelles]

Yes and Yes. Most of the evidence is weak. I would agree that kids tend to be over-excited on Xmas Day and snack on sweeties and eat very little turkey and brussel sprouts - these are simply other factors which must be built into the equation.

We can't discount any witness statement just because we don't like the witness. If the witness has proved unreliable in the past, then I would tend to give that person more or less credibility as a result.

[Ivy]

Aside from a perp's confession or an eyewitness's account of a crime, or maybe a video tape of a crime (the only examples of direct evidence I can think of), I believe all other evidence is considered circumstantial evidence, even DNA evidence.

The circumstantial evidence so far certainly appears to implicate the Ramseys. (I don't buy the "foreign" DNA baloney, and neither do many of the former investigators on the case.)

[Toth]

Originally posted by Jayelles
No I don't have a primary source for that - it's hearsay. Wouldn't stand up in court unless it came from the primary source. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm concerned about how someone who was there claims to have heard and seen things that NONE of the other people present seem to have either seen or heard.

[tipper]

My problem with the "I don't feel pretty" statement is I find it odd that that's all there is. Wouldn't Phillips ask why and try and comfort her in some way? As presented I had the feeling that there may have been more to the conversation but since it didn't present JonBenet in the light ST was trying to achieve he left it out.

[Jayelles]

Toth, you can't be serious. A dozen folk were in a massive house with umpteen rooms. They were partying - imbibing of the grape no doubt. The kids would have been all over the place. People go to the loo, they go to the kitchen to fetch napkins and clean cutlery or to fill up the nut dish. So someone went to the loo and found JonBenet sitting alone in the hall and asked her what was up? You dismiss it's relevance because it didn't happen in front of the entire company? Yer heid's wastit.

My guess is that Santa did his bit, the pressies were given out, then the kids all went off to play and the adults chatted, supped and ate. There would have been ample opportunity for the "not feeling pretty" incident to have occurred.

[why_nutt]

Originally posted by Toth
I'm concerned about how someone who was there claims to have heard and seen things that NONE of the other people present seem to have either seen or heard.

You can find any number of people in this case who see things nobody else does. On the evening of December 25th Susan Stine saw the entire Ramsey family bubbly and excited at her house, despite the fact that John was in the car and JonBenet was unconscious in the back seat. Patsy, of course, has seen many things nobody else has, including a Santa teddy bear dressed in some vague outfit other than as Santa, JonBenet dead in a coffin in the form of a doll in a box, and Geraldo conducting his mock jury on MSNBC when the show was never broadcast on that channel. Patsy's sister Polly saw a vision of JonBenet running through a field when JonBenet was still thought to have been kidnapped and alive. Polly's husband saw Polly surrounded by a bright aura of light.

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
Why is it likely that two parents who are seemingly intelligent to do the same thing? The crime makes no sense either way one looks at it...
Compared to an intruder, it is likelier that it's a parent because there is no reason whatsoever for an outsider to do this.

Let me ask you this... (This isn't what happened to JonBenet, but it sheds some light on staging tendencies of families) EMTs have said they see staging, about half the time, when there is an AEA fatality.

To me, this demonstrates the likelihood of cover-ups for all kinds of events for which others may feel ashamed.

AEA is disguised (sometimes) as murder. It's disguised (more frequently) as suicide.

Do you think this is done by a family member or by an intruder?

[Britt]

Originally posted by tipper
Sounds to me like he thinks he "probably" would have seen it.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
And it sounds to me like he can't say absolutely for sure he would have seen it because he didn't look, which is the relevant point.

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.

He says he "probably" would have seen it right before he says he didn't do the procedure necessary to have seen it! Hello? Either he looked or he didn't... HE DIDN'T. Therefore, he is not in a position to know. Period.

[tipper]

He could have seen her hymen without using a speculum. He would have been checking her crotch on at least a couple occasions since she was there for vaginitis (in it's broader sense).

[Britt]

Also, if the abuse began just a few days before she died, Dr. Beuf may not have even seen her during that time. Perhaps the last time he saw her for vaginitis she hadn't been abused.

Nevertheless, as he said, he could have missed internal damage by not doing a speculum exam. If he was certain she wasn't abused and he could prove it with his medical records and examinations of her, he would have said so. He was not definitive in his assertion that she was not abused.

[Sabrina]

ajt400--
Cyril Wecht has an autopsy to analyze.

John Douglas had a 2 hour conversation with John Ramsey and chit chat with Patsy. He had no forensic evidence at the time of his initial "analysis" in January 1997. At least Lou Smit gave it 72 hours before he declared the Ramseys didn't do it. LOL

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Doesn't a child show signs of being abused, not just nec. the physical but things such as excessive wetting of the bed...
JonBenét was a bed wetter. She sometimes wore Pullups at her age, for cryingoutloud... open package found the morning of the 26th.

Oh, I know I know, the reports of her bedwetting and soiling are all meaningless gossip, including former housekeepers Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's and Linda Wilcox's first-hand accounts. Uh huh.

But bedwetting aside, if the abuse had started very recently, say a few days before her death, there wouldn't have been much time to exhibit symptoms.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
On what I think....not just what a majority believes. The majority has been wrong before.
We're talking about majority expert opinion, not majority public opinion. Unless one is also an expert, one would need a good reason IMO to dismiss an expert opinion.

Perhaps it would be helpful if one of these Ramsey defenders with medical expertise could take us through the autopsy, line by line, and explain to us how it proves JB did not suffer prior vaginal abuse. Details, please.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Britt
JonBenét was a bed wetter. She sometimes wore Pullups at her age, for cryingoutloud... open package found the morning of the 26th.

I don't have a kd, ut isn't that kind of strange? Do most kids have that problem that late in their childhood? I am sure kids wet their beds, but how often? And JBR was supposed tyo be a chronic bed wetter, right?



But bedwetting aside, if the abuse had started very recently, say a few days before her death, there wouldn't have been much time to exhibit symptoms.

Do you think that that is what happened? Do you think she wasn't molested unil a few days before?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by shamu
Compared to an intruder, it is likelier that it's a parent because there is no reason whatsoever for an outsider to do this.

Let me ask you this... (This isn't what happened to JonBenet, but it sheds some light on staging tendencies of families) EMTs have said they see staging, about half the time, when there is an AEA fatality.

To me, this demonstrates the likelihood of cover-ups for all kinds of events for which others may feel ashamed.

AEA is disguised (sometimes) as murder. It's disguised (more frequently) as suicide.

Do you think this is done by a family member or by an intruder?

You make sense to me, shamu. I like to look at the bahaviorah aspect of a crime/crime-scene. Do most of the families you mention above stage as an accident or as a murder by a elusive "bushy-hair stranger?" Which, does, tie in w/the Ramsey case, the intruder.

I have to be honest that I believed they did it for a long time. I read a few books, glanced at a few articles in magazines, yada, yada yada. Then I put it down for awhile. Recently, I read a few books that looked at the whole thing from the other angle, and I began to be a lil more open to other suggestions. In all honesty, lately I have been disenheartened by the media and I do see the way this case has been, in a way, ruined by the media. I believe in free speech--most definitely--but it all needs to stop somewhere. I thought there could be a chance that everything had been clouded by the media. I still do.

I just can't make up my mind on this one. It seems if it where so easy, as some people act s it is, they would definetely have been at least tried by now! Do you really believe in some giant cover-up? It's almost like the idea of OJ being framed. Why? Do they really have THAT much money and political pull? The way this case is blown up, you would think that would be squashed by now.:dontknow:

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Ivy
Aside from a perp's confession or an eyewitness's account of a crime, or maybe a video tape of a crime (the only examples of direct evidence I can think of), I believe all other evidence is considered circumstantial evidence, even DNA evidence.

The circumstantial evidence so far certainly appears to implicate the Ramseys. (I don't buy the "foreign" DNA baloney, and neither do many of the former investigators on the case.)

The first two are known now to be unimportant. An eyewitness can cloud things in their memories, fit things there that were not before. A confession can be coerced, beaten and some people confess to things that they didn't do.

What could be circumstantial about your DNA?
If your DNA is found on a dead child, I think the police might be knocking on your door in the next few.

What part about the foreign DNA do you not buy? It's existance?
Why? Shouldn't the old investigators know whether or not it was there?

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
It seems if it where so easy, as some people act s it is, they would definetely have been at least tried by now!
They can't be tried because nobody can prove who did it. You can't try a family because you think "they" did it. You need to have a clearer idea of who to charge; it can't be just general family fishiness. Even those of us who suspect family involvement concede that one or two Rams may be innocent. (Or at least, I do.)

[ajt400]

The only reason I say why not just try them, it's because some people make it seem like such an open and shut case. So, the basis of the case simply comes down to fishiness? Of a hinky feeling?

Just curious, who do you think committed the crime? Which parent or family member?

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
Do most of the families you mention above stage as an accident or as a murder by a elusive "bushy-hair stranger?"

Well, they don't stage as an accident because that's what it already is. (Accidental death by strangling during masturbation.) When it's portrayed as murder I don't know the "typical" way of staging that. (Broken window? "He had enemies?") I don't know. But usually when there's staging, it's portrayed as suicide. Any crossdressing attire is removed... pictures and magazines are tossed... victim is re-dressed fully clothed...

Of course, this has nothing to do with Ramseys. But I mention it because it's amazing how ordinary "good" people--who never lie--will change in a flash when something dreadful happens. Suddenly it's time to practice deceit; time to try to deceive the authorities. They are so ashamed that -- during the worst minutes of their life-- they are busy altering the premises before they ever call 911! It shows me what "good people" can do, unthinkingly, when they are feeling terribly shocked and ashamed.

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Do you think that that is what happened? Do you think she wasn't molested unil a few days before?
IMO all we know for sure is what the autopsy findings say, per the meaning of "chronic":

In the world of forensic pathology, chronic means at least forty-eight to seventy-two hours old. There's no fudging that time frame... Mortal Evidence, p. 54.

Therefore, JonBenét had vaginal injury that was inflicted during that time frame. Whether she was molested/abused prior to that is speculation. It's possible, but the 48-72 hour window is what we know for certain based on the medical findings. She had an ongoing bedwetting problem, which may be a clue but is hardly proof in and of itself that she was being abused.

[Britt]

Originally posted by shamu
...it's amazing how ordinary "good" people--who never lie--will change in a flash when something dreadful happens. Suddenly it's time to practice deceit; time to try to deceive the authorities. They are so ashamed that -- during the worst minutes of their life-- they are busy altering the premises before they ever call 911! It shows me what "good people" can do, unthinkingly, when they are feeling terribly shocked and ashamed.
So true, shamu.

It's called self-preservation.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by ajt400
Doesn't a child show signs of being abused, not just nec. the physical but things such as excessive wetting of the bed, drawing away from group activites? (I am drawing at blanks here because I am not sure...)

Agreed, their needs to be something more done to assure that child abuse does not happen to any child, well-hidden or not.
I would be thourougly disappointed in any physician that didn't report the abuse if they thought it could be happening....

Also Barbara, I am sorry about my earlier tone. I am a bit of a smart-a*%, it is one of my best and worst qualities, I can't hold it back sometimes.

Hopefully my apology is accepted, I mean no harm to anyone hear.

To be honest I love to debate and discuss this case because there are many avenues that need to be checked. I am convinced this case could be solved if someone that is not biased looked at the evidence.

No problem AJT, we all have days like that. I tend to overreact from time to time myself. Those things happen. Thanks for the apology. :)

[Blazeboy3]

IMHO...IT'S (INFO ON WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE) IS IN THE LATEST BOOK OUT BY W.A. DAVIS ...
Today - May 1997
http://www.burrelles.com/transcripts/nbc/toda9705.htm

"SEARCH FOR 'JONBENET' AND SEE WHAT YOU FIND FYI...:

Parents of JonBenet Ramsey speak with reporters for the first time since their daughter's death;

:cool: :confused: :nono: :bigthumb: :dontknow:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
The only reason I say why not just try them, it's because some people make it seem like such an open and shut case. So, the basis of the case simply comes down to fishiness? Of a hinky feeling?

Just curious, who do you think committed the crime? Which parent or family member?

Really curious: Who: IMHO Patsy + John (tragedy/trama/unthinkable-speakable) acts ... why?!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by shamu
They can't be tried because nobody can prove who did it. You can't try a family because you think "they" did it. You need to have a clearer idea of who to charge; it can't be just general family fishiness. Even those of us who suspect family involvement concede that one or two Rams may be innocent. (Or at least, I do.)

I agree...IMHO this trial/court is "outside" the real one...FWIW,... just like the latest book says/states...read it if you can obtain a copy ... it's TRUELY COMPELLING IMHO...A MUST READ! HE(DAVIS) AS WRITTEN MANY BOOK OFF TOPIC...FYI


An Evening with JonBenet Ramseyby Walter A. Davis List Price: $21.99 eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details. Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
Edition: Paperback Other Editions: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Hardcover $31.99 $31.99 Order it used!

http://www.fetchbook.info/search_Walter_A._Davis/searchBy_Author.html

Control of Tumour Growth & Its Biological Bases
Walter Davis, W. Davis Hardcover / January 1984 / 0898386039

Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, & the Tragic Imperative
By Walter A. Davis Hardcover / February 2001 / 0791448339

Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, & the Tragic Imperative
By Walter A. Davis Paperback / February 2001 / 0791448347

Early Records of the Town of Lunenburg, 1719-1764
By Walter A. Davis Library Binding / March 1995 / 0832846414


:cool: :) :D

[Pepper]

I have not followed this case closely, have not read any of the books, and my knowledge is only from the snippits of information on TV, so I am no "expert."

But based on what little I know, I tend to believe in the intruder theory. I wonder if the intruder/killer just could be a.....WOMAN?

Everyone seems to think that only a man could have committed this crime probably because of the sexual overtones. But maybe, just maybe it was a very clever woman. The tone of the ransom note to me suggests a woman. Perhaps this person was the mother of another girl competing against JBR in the pagents who saw JBR as a threat to her daughter's success. Perhaps she was a friend of Patsy who had been in the Ramsey home. Perhaps JBR knew her and trusted her........

This is only my admittedly uninformed speculation. As a woman, we generally don't view our gender as capable of something like this. But we all know there are sick women out there too. If she was exceptionally clever, she might have staged the scene to make it look like a man did it. :dontknow:

[Toth]

Originally posted by Pepper
I wonder if the intruder/killer just could be a.....WOMAN? A great many posters have seen a second 'voice' in the ransom note, that of a female. I have not.
A great many posters have from time to time remarked on the absence of semen and have considered that perhaps the most obvious explanation might be relevant. However, I do not think that any woman pedophile, even if she existed, could deposit the male dna that was found under the fingernails and in the panties.

Sure women are increasing in the ranks of criminals and in violent crimes particularly, but I don't see this as a female crime at all.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Pepper
But maybe, just maybe it was a very clever woman. The tone of the ransom note to me suggests a woman. Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her son against her daughter.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
A great many posters have seen a second 'voice' in the ransom note, that of a female. I have not.
A great many posters have from time to time remarked on the absence of semen and have considered that perhaps the most obvious explanation might be relevant. However, I do not think that any woman pedophile, even if she existed, could deposit the male dna that was found under the fingernails and in the panties.

Sure women are increasing in the ranks of criminals and in violent crimes particularly, but I don't see this as a female crime at all.

Forgive me--can't believe I posted that...

[Britt]

Originally posted by Pepper
If she was exceptionally clever, she might have staged the scene to make it look like a man did it.
Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shylock
Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her son against her daughter.

IMHO TRUTH: A WOMEN(PATSY) DID THIS! Minus the last 5 words in your post, I agree as you guoted/with what you posted to be the truth(absolute) IMHO to date FWIW... "Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her
... !!!???""":mad:

$$$ ... they made alot of money$$$ by Burke because of JonBenet...follow the "money$$$..."

:confused: :nono: :dontknow: :mad:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

IMHO..."they wouldn't cover for another women!" COMMON SENSE says : NOT!:confused: :bigthumb: :nono: :evil: :dontknow:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

Anyone remember what page it's on: John states in DOI that he could do better(staging) LOL...

[Britt]

Originally posted by Blazeboy3
IMHO..."they wouldn't cover for another women!" COMMON SENSE says : NOT!:confused: :bigthumb: :nono: :evil: :dontknow:
I agree, Blazeboy.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the Ramseys' lies and evasive behavior.