The REAL target?

[Toth]

I've often thought that the molestation was so minimal in comparison to all the time and effort devoted to extraneous matters that the real target of the crime was the parents.

I would like to compare JBR and Dru Sjodin.

Sure ... LOTS of differences: age, geography, etc.

Dru Sjodin was attacked in a mall's parking lot in Grand Forks, ND as she left work, her attacker arrived home three hours later. Its clear he had the knife in his hand at the mall and used it to inflict some sort of wound, then he took her somewhere fairly nearby raped her, killed her and disposed of the corpse and then drove home.

No note, no weird bindings, no ineffective duct tape, no extraneous matters. Clearly a sexual assault. No one is going to say the parents were involved or that Dru Sjodin was involved in pornography.

This is how a pervert operates.

In the JBR case the molestation is similar to a 'hesitatiion wound' inflicted by a knife, it represents doubt and insufficiency.

The murder of JonBenet Ramsey was not a sex crime; it was done to satisfy the intruder's perverted lust, it was done to inflict torment on the parents.

[Jack]

Interesting... I've always thought that the indication of molestation, coupled with the fact that it was "minor" (sorry, couldn't think of a better way to describe...) and not a brutal rape, points to someone trying to make it look like a sexually motivated attack when it really wasn't.

[TLynn]

If the "intruder" wanted to inflict "torment" on the Ramseys - it wouldn't have been a "minor" molestation.

Wrong, Toth. It would have been brutal.

It was either a cover-up fora molestation that happened earlier - or, it was a cover-up to make it look like a sexual molestion (agreeing with Jack).

You can't justify it by saying it was done to "torment" the parents - actually, the more I think about it - the more ridiculous that reasoning is.

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by TLynn
If the "intruder" wanted to inflict "torment" on the Ramseys - it wouldn't have been a "minor" molestation.

Wrong, Toth. It would have been brutal.

It was either a cover-up fora molestation that happened earlier - or, it was a cover-up to make it look like a sexual molestion (agreeing with Jack).

You can't justify it by saying it was done to "torment" the parents - actually, the more I think about it - the more ridiculous that reasoning is.

What Jack and TLynn said. :clap:

The "minimal" molestation was done:

1. to cover up previous molestation for when JBR was examined by autopsy

or

2. to helping in the staging of the "crime scene" to deflect suspicion away from John, Patsy and Burke.

If someone had wanted to hurt the Ramseys by murdering and molesting JBR, she would not have been wrapped papoose-like (as described by John) and suffered "minimal" molestation. The damage to her body would have been horrific and the crime scene much more violent.



My opinion.

[Imon128]

The lesser severity (if there is such a thing) of the vaginal injuries could also indicate that the perp was caught in the act and had to terminate the dirty deed. Or that JB balked, fell and hit her head. She could have fallen due to lack of oxygen from some source.

[Maxi]

Perhaps the killer thought JBR would welcome the sexual contact. The realization that she didn't, or the realization of what s/he was really doing, may have been enough to make him or her stop before more damage was done. It may also have been enough to make him or her kill.

[Jack]

Could be Imon. If that is the case don't you think it would point to a known perp. If an intruder was caught in the act there would be no ransom note, etc. And an intruder bent on molesting would not be bothered by an unconcious victim.

[K777angel]

The "real target" of this crime was NOT the parents - it was JonBenet. An accident that occured with subsequent elaborate staging to cover up the crime and divert attention away from the real perp(s) and what really happened (which I believe as do many experts and authorities).

If the real "target" of this crime were the parents, JonBenet's body would have been "displayed" for them to see. Instead, the complete opposite occured. The body was "hidden." In the most remote part of the house.
Not only hidden, but wrapped up and laid on a blanket.
Her body WIPED DOWN from the assault and her pants pulled back up.
These are not actions taken by a "pervert" out to target the parents. These are actions taken by someone who not only cared about JonBenet but was remorseful about what had happened. Yet the overriding emotion that propelled the perp and/or helper(s) into gear - was FEAR. Of being found out.

And then there is that pesky note. The note has NO other purpose in this crime, taking every aspect of the crime into account, expect to diver attention AWAY from the real perps.
It is just full of clues and is the closest thing to a smoking gun there is in this crime.
It is the one thing that marries the Ramsesy forever to what happened in their home that night. Their signature is all over it.
Had they not concocted that silly letter/note - they may well have gotten away with the perfect crime.

The REAL target of the crime was JonBenet herself.
Tragically.

[Jack]

Can't say I disagree with you Angel.

[sissi]

It seems most of us have stood by our original theories,parents or intruder,for years,the only thing we waiver on is how we perceive the motivation behind the murder. Was it sexually motivated,was the family the target,and ..on.
This week,ya' all know I reconsider this from time to time....,I think the killer was embarrassed that he molested a child,and used something inanimate ( the paintbrush) to distance himself,and nothing more. A similar thing happened locally,a child was killed by a brutal rapist with a history of raping adult women,the child was his only kill and the only one among the victims that was molested with an object.
jmo

[Ivy]

sissi...so, the molester molested the child with an object because he was embarrassed to have molested a child? Was he then so embarrassed to have molested the child with an object that he murdered her? I don't get your reasoning.

[Maxi]

It sounds crazy, but maybe the killer just didn't have the stomach for what she or he'd done. I've read about would-be rapists who killed because they couldn't live with their behavior or their failure to actually accomplish the rape.

These types sometimes engage in undoing behavior like covering the body or even just covering the victim's head. How sick is that?

[Toth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sissi
It seems most of us have stood by our original theories, parents or intruder,for years,the only thing we waiver on is how we perceive the motivation behind the murder /QUOTE] Yes, very few seem actually to consider the evidence. There are some who even believe there had been ongoing molestation despite absolutely no evidence of it and considerable evidence against it. And as Prof. Tracy put it 'If they think Burke did it, they are barking mad'.

Thats the hesitancy I had in starting this thread.

Had Dru Sjodin been accosted at her home there would have been no note and maybe no concealment.

I've wondered why a note of any sort much a note that was so strange and fanciful? I've wondered why the concealment? Why that particular little girl? Why the knife, cord, tape, rope, sack, flashlight(?), bat(?). Was he actually disorganized or merely wanted to give the appearance of it? Why a somewhat "minimal" assault? Was he hesitant? Was he merely adding insult to injury? Was he actually thrilled by his activities or was he revolted? Was it experimentation?

I just see Dru's murder as a simple 'rape/homicide'. And I see the murder of JonBenet Ramsey as just having too many facets to ever use the word "simple" about it at all.

Lou Smit's "she was a pedophile's dream, therefore a pedophile killed her" is tempting but it seems a bit too simplistic and I think it is wrong. I think it may have been made to merely look like a pedophile's actions.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Toth
Why that particular little girl?
Because she had the bad luck of living in the home of the molester and killer.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by sissi
And as Prof. Tracy put it 'If they think Burke did it, they are barking mad'.
sissi, apparently you and Tracy consider Cyril Wecht and Michael Baden both "barking mad" along with the rest of us who think Burke could have done it, since both Dr. Wecht and Dr. Baden believe that Burke was capable of having killed JonBenet. Wecht said there was nothing that was done to JonBenet that Burke couldn't have done, and Baden said Burke needs to be looked at.

[sissi]

Toth quote:
Lou Smit's "she was a pedophile's dream, therefore a pedophile killed her" is tempting but it seems a bit too simplistic and I think it is wrong. I think it may have been made to merely look like a pedophile's actions.

I believe it was a very wrong assumption,Lou had it half right,an intruder did it!!!!!!!!!.....but he ,as well as the rest,helped the trail run cold by looking into every nook and cranny for a pedophile.
What kind of guy does this? Certainly not the guy that lays in wait for the quick grab of a playground child,nor the guy who works the fatherless boy at cubscouts,this was far more high risk .
The Leopold Loeb guys were close..maybe? They made it a game.
JMO and just for today:)

[Imon128]

I wanna know how Lou knows what pedophiles dream about, LOL. Seriously, I guess he'd probably know from his training. However, with an out of the blue attack, as some say, I doubt it was pedophile. Those guys, from what I've read and seen, usually make the child their friend, first, and if any man had been near JB that much, I'd think the R's would have clued the LE in on it, and so far, (if they did clue them in) nothing matches. I poopoo the pedophile scenario.

[sissi]

I don't know why the stuff,but just did a little search and came up with this.
http://www.ratdogdick.com/askratdog/rd053199.shtml

jmo

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Ivy
Wecht said there was nothing that was done to JonBenet that Burke couldn't have done, and Baden said Burke needs to be looked at. Forget the experts. Anyone so naive that they think a 10 year old boy couldn't swing a baseball bat hard enough to break the skull on a 6 year old little girl shouldn't be allowed out of the house alone.

[lannie]

Originally posted by sissi
I don't know why the stuff,but just did a little search and came up with this.
http://www.ratdogdick.com/askratdog/rd053199.shtml

jmo
Reply from Lannie,
Thanks Sissi,very interesting,there was someone wanting to help, she knew she had dates ,phone records,ect,ect,.what struck me was that no one was willing to help with the crime at the ramsey home. All I can think of is "we lost our cell phones for a mo. HENCE there are no records of phone calls that night.Never saw THAT teddy bear,faint, Faint.Get my Golf clubs out of that house next day ,Get out of town the day of finding her body,don't care who Burke is with or how long he is unprotected, just get us out of town now!

[Toth]

> All I can think of is "we lost our cell phones for a mo. HENCE
>there are no records of phone calls that night.
Whether they lost the cell phone or not, the phone company records would be the same. There were no calls made from or to that cell phone that month.

>Never saw THAT teddy bear,faint, Faint.
It was in the bag of prizes every contestant received, Patsy simply did not recall ever having seen it before and may not have. It certainly looked a bit shabby and out of place. It was therefore proper for her to call it to the attention of the investigators.

>Get my Golf clubs out of that house next day
No gold clubs were removed from the house or attempted to be removed from the house.
>Get out of town the day of finding her body
You mean to go home to Atlanta? For the funeral?

>,don't care who Burke is with or how long he is unprotected,
you mean with Fleet White, with the police and with CPS. They should have been worried then?

[Britt]

Originally posted by Toth
lannie: Get out of town the day of finding her body

Toth: You mean to go home to Atlanta? For the funeral?
Was the funeral on December 26?

That must be it. John's attempted flight a half hour after bringing the body up from the basement was because he didn't want to be late to the funeral. :rolleyes:

[Imon128]

Sounds as if John might have been mulling over the funeral arrangements quite awhile before the discovery of the body? The decision as to where to bury JB, etc., were made without any conversation that we know about, between John and Patsy.

Patsy most likely was doing her Lazarus routine while John dialed the pilot. I don't know of any written conversation about John and Patsy discussing the funeral arrangements. Sometimes it's what's NOT said that makes us ponder.

[MsBee]

IQuote Imon: I don't know of any written conversation about John and Patsy discussing the funeral arrangements. Sometimes it's what's NOT said that makes us ponder.

So then because YOU don't have information as to what the grieving parents said to each other you condemn them as killers? That makes me ponder. Why would you consider anyone is privvy to their private conversations?

[Maxi]

Aunt Pam talked a little about the preparation for the funeral on LKL. I remember her saying something about the m.e. cutting JBR's fingernails so terribly short that they couldn't do a proper manicure.

I think John's part in the funeral arrangements was probably quite different from Patsy's. There may not have been any need for them to discuss the arrangements.

[gretchen]

Originally posted by Maxi
Aunt Pam talked a little about the preparation for the funeral on LKL. I remember her saying something about the m.e. cutting JBR's fingernails so terribly short that they couldn't do a proper manicure.

I think John's part in the funeral arrangements was probably quite different from Patsy's. There may not have been any need for them to discuss the arrangements.

Aunt Pam was so concerned about JonBenet's fingernails being cut short that a "proper manicure" couldn't be done? How SICK is this family? Gee, I would be much more concerned with who in the he** killed my niece!

Manicure indeed!!

[Shylock]

Originally posted by gretchen
Aunt Pam was so concerned about JonBenet's fingernails being cut short that a "proper manicure" couldn't be done? How SICK is this family? Manicure indeed!! What Gretchen, you would bury a 6-year old little girl without a proper manicure??? Sheesh, I'll bet you'd even put her in the ground without waxing her eyebrows~ Shame on you! :banghead:

[Maxi]

I think the m.e.'s cut them way down, like halfway down the nail bed. I can't remember whether Aunt Pam's comments seemed to be about appearances or about her hands looking hurt. I'll see if the transcript is still available.

Anyway, I had the impression Patsy's family was handling the funeral details and John was basically just paying for it and dealing with lawyers. I could be wrong, tho. It was a long time ago now.

[K777angel]

No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not.
The only forensic evidence left were those of her parents.
Patsy's jacket fibers ENTWINED in the cord around JonBenet's neck. On the sticky side of the duct tape - which Patsy "claims" she was never near. In the paint tote where the broken paint brush found that was used on the cord tied around her neck.
John Ramseys black fibers from his Italian made shirt he was wearing that night according to police statements - found in JonBenet's underwear.
To name a few.
Forget the DNA angle. The criminal forensic DNA experts in this case have said it was degraded, contaminated and that this was
"NOT a DNA case."
For all that was done to JonBenet, if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to even BE in that house with her parents right there - there would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
There is not.
So it's not just what they DID find present that points to the Ramsey family - it is the dearth of what they did NOT find just as much.

You must take every aspect of this case (evidence and FACTS - not just "oh they were just not the "type" of people who would be involved in such a crime...") into account in order to see the real picture. You cannot exclude facts because it does not "fit" your theory - as Lou Smit shamefully does over and over.
Nor can you "kill the messenger" when you don't like the message.
It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.

[Imon128]

And, IMO, that includes McSanta, Keenan's pet theory, and any intruder who entered via Lou's infamous basement window. Even John said it was an inside job, and WHO was inside? Four went to sleep, three woke up. Four, that we know about. I'm not discarding that a 5th family member was in the home, but never discussed, and that's because nobody might have known. No pedophile, no outsider, the inner circle can't be dismissed, at this point, IMO.

[Toth]

>With all that was done to that little girl there should be a >plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
>There is not.
Dna, note, cord, tape, rope, sack, window debris, window grate and vegetation, palm print, shoe prints, flashlight(?), cigarette butts(?).

>Forget the DNA angle.
Yeah, lets forget the most scientific and reliable tool we have.

>if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to
>even BE in that house with her parents right there - there
>would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
>There is not.
Don't you think the fibers found in the immediate area of the place of death that match no fibers anywhere else in the house would qualify?

>It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.
Yes. And you are a very certain poster.
Don't quite know about your investigative techniques though, if you found a known pedophile who had been in the area would you want to not focus on "the type of person" he was?

[Toth]

Originally posted by Imon128
Four went to sleep, three woke up. No, Four went to sleep, three stayed asleep, one was awakened during the night by an intruder.

[Imon128]

AND HENCE (no intruder, IMO) three woke up.

[Maxi]

There's plenty enough lack of objectivity on both sides of the case.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel
Forget the DNA angle. The criminal forensic DNA experts in this case have said it was degraded, contaminated and that this was
"NOT a DNA case."



Wasn't that stated before the DNA was found? I have read elsewhere that the DNA was CODIS certifiable, that there were enough markers to be able to match a suspect, if found.

Anyone got any links that will be fact, and no ones opinion??

Also, in all fairness, there could have been DNA, whether belonging to the parents or an alleged suspect intruder, before the crime scene was trampled upon.

Two of the biggest points are why can no one connect the rope and tape to the R's? Those were essential in the murder?

I agree with Maxi that both sides will not meet in the middle. Even if new evidence comes out OR old evidence is rehashed, most will not admit to any wrongdoing.

[Toth]

The dna appears foreign even if it were lacking in the desired number of markers. Its still 'a male other than a Ramsey'.

The tape was a recently manufactured roll of tape, an item not likely to have been bought as some sort of Christmas gift wrapping tape and certainly there is no matching roll of tape in the house.

As for lack of objectivity: I think you can include Opinionated Lee in that category. He had access to very little and yet he spouts off on the dna. The BPD even mislead the forensic types on the stun gun marks, originally concealing information from Dr. Dobersen.

[ajt400]

I include everyone in that comment. As far as Dr Lee goes, yes he is a smart man, but how could he testify for the defense in OJ's case, but not this one? That undermines his credibility as far as I am concerned.

[Imon128]

Dr. Lee, as I recall, was hired by Alex Hunter before anybody else could get to him. Same with Barry Scheck.

[ajt400]

So then his opinion is limited to which side hires him frst? We know this to be true. Also, can the prosecution hire people like the defense can? I thought they could not hire witnesses.

[Maxi]

Both Scheck and Lee have said they are only on the side of good science.

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
>With all that was done to that little girl there should be a >plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
>There is not.
Dna, note, cord, tape, rope, sack, window debris, window grate and vegetation, palm print, shoe prints, flashlight(?), cigarette butts(?)

Not a single thing you mention Toth has been attributed to an "intruder." Oh except by the illiterate speaking Lou Smit who wanted so badly to be the hero detective in this case he "found" things in crime scene pictures (he was NEVER present the days and weeks directly after the crime) that he promoted (all over national television so as best to get his much desired attention)
as being "evidence" and part of the crime. I laughed out loud when I saw him point to a teeny, tiny lift up in a bedskirt that a cat couldn't even have scurried under - and claim that this may have been where the "intruder" hid! LOL!! For God's sake - does he think the messy Ramsey's have perfectly coiffed bedskirts amidst the cluttered and disorganized rest of the house? He is grasping at straws.
He completely ignored so much other evidence in his "theory" that he lost all credibility with those who KNOW all the evidence (he does not) and proper investigative techniques - the most important of which is objectivity. Which he lacked in this case.

>Forget the DNA angle.
Yeah, lets forget the most scientific and reliable tool we have.

That's right Toth. It IS "the most scientific and reliable tool we have." And the qualified experts who have examined and tested this DNA have stated that it is SO minute and so degraded that it most likely has nothing to do with the crime committed. Probably transfer evidence occuring at the manufacturer. Deal with it.


>if it were some outside intruder who was careless enough to
>even BE in that house with her parents right there - there
>would be his DNA and fiber/forensic evidence all over the place.
>There is not.
Don't you think the fibers found in the immediate area of the place of death that match no fibers anywhere else in the house would qualify?

Oh - you must mean Patsy Ramsey's fibers from her jacket she WORE that night? Those same fibers found intertwined in the cord around her daughter's neck and in the paint tote the stick on the cord was taken and broken from??
And John Ramsey's black fibers from his shirt made in Israel that HE wore that night found in her crotch? Mmhmmm....

>It's called objectivity. And certain posters here lack it altogether.
Yes. And you are a very certain poster.
Don't quite know about your investigative techniques though, if you found a known pedophile who had been in the area would you want to not focus on "the type of person" he was?

Oh Toth honey - you are a VERY certain poster. The most certain on this forum.
And about this "known pedophile", and the "type of person he was" - so what? Was he wearing Patsy Ramsey's red and black jacket that night? If not - I guess he was not involved in the crime now was he?
Quit pretending that there weren't MANY other potential suspects investigated for this crime - and eliminated when the evidence did not link them to the crime. Much as you don't like it I know.
The authorities MUST work with the evidence that is there - not concocted "evidence" like "what type of person" someone is - to help solve this crime.
The basic facts in this case simply cannot eliminate the Ramseys from being involved in this crime somehow.
But I guess some just choose to "kill the messenger" when they don't like the message - like you are about to do in your reply.
;)

[Imon128]

I believe Steve Thomas said there were 600+ investigated.

[Toth]

Originally posted by ajt400
Also, can the prosecution hire people like the defense can? I thought they could not hire witnesses. Either side can hire experts in whatever field they want to. Whether that person can be allowed to offer an opinion to the jury is a separate question relating to the qualifications of the expert and the scope of his testimony.

My understanding is that the Ramseys wanted Dr. Lee and offered to waive any privilege involving communications in order to get him.

In Europe there is more of a tradition of the expert appearing to inform the court, in the US its become more an expert appearing as an advocate witness and the lawyers cleverly limiting the tests that will be performed and insisting on oral reports prior to written reports, etc.

We are faced each day with a great deal of 'advocacy' rather than 'neutral scholarly documents'. Doctors publish articles that have been ghostwritten by a pharmaceutical company, yet readers are not told of the financial conflicts of interest. Surveys and reports in zoning cases are advocacy documents, not scientifically sound assessments. I think we should return to the days when a scientific paper addressed the truth rather than The Party Line and an Expert Witness gave testimony in a courtroom that his colleagues would not laugh at if he gave at a lunch meeting. The Harvard Shrink-type who wrote a book asserting the truth of all those New Mexico Alien Abductions did so for royalties, not for science. When Syracuse established its school for the study of Facilitated Communication it did so in order to get 35 million dollars, not in order to further scientific inquiry.

Neutral experts, whose testimony can't be bought?
Getting harder and harder to find those.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by K777angel

If the real "target" of this crime were the parents, JonBenet's body would have been "displayed" for them to see. Instead, the complete opposite occured. The body was "hidden." In the most remote part of the house.
Not only hidden, but wrapped up and laid on a blanket.
Her body WIPED DOWN from the assault and her pants pulled back up.
These are not actions taken by a "pervert" out to target the parents. These are actions taken by someone who not only cared about JonBenet but was remorseful about what had happened. Yet the overriding emotion that propelled the perp and/or helper(s) into gear - was FEAR. Of being found out.


I dont see why one can assume that the ramseys were not targets simply because the body was not displayed out in the open in a shocking manor. Just think from the killers point of view for a moment, he/she has just killed a defenceless little girl in order to hurt the ramseys. Now thinking where to put the body. he/she could display jBR in the living room in one last final atempt to hurt the ramseys, or he/she could hide her in the basement. Now displaying JBR in the living room for instance would be horrible for the parents to experience, however the killer thinks hiding her would be just as worse, because the ramseys would be in more pain not knowing where thier daughter is, if shes still alive and if they will as the note scribes 'get her remains back for a funeral' in the event of the worst scenario.

Now imagine a parent no knowing the answers to these questions for what could be hours, would in my opinion far more painful for john and Patsy.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
The dna appears foreign even if it were lacking in the desired number of markers. Its still 'a male other than a Ramsey'. Toth, the problem with the DNA has nothing to do with how it appears. There is no identifiable source for the DNA that can be dated to the crime. For all anyone knows, the DNA came from the Asian garment factory or some contamination from Meyer's lab.
Plan on going to your grave waiting for the DNA to be matched.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Maxi
Both Scheck and Lee have said they are only on the side of good science.


Is that before or after the OJ trial?? I just hate the fact that the man got away with two awful murders. It makes me angry....

[ajt400]

I doubt there were 600+ investigated....something about that number just seems over the top. Not to say in some murder investigations there aren't that many people investigated.

[K777angel]

There are certain things in a crime scene that criminal experts look at to determine or get an idea of what occured - or did not occur. This is called crime scene analysis.
One of the most important things they look for in a murder is HOW the body was left. Was it dumped? Was it posed? Was it out in the open - or hidden? Among other things.
The actions of the killer and how he treated the body after he killed the person gives great insight into what happened and the motivations of the killer.

JonBenet was never even taken out of her house. Her parents were right there (as far as we know). How could the "intruder" even be assured that John and/or Patsy were not awake when he supposedly came upstairs to grab JonBenet?? He could not of course. They were on the floor above JonBenet. One of them could have easily walked down those stairs and ran right into him.
What did he do? Walk upstairs and go into John and Patsy bedroom to see if they were asleep? LOL! Also, he would have no way of knowing just how many people actually came home with John and Patsy. Intruder theorists claim he was already in the house when the Ramseys arrived home. So obviously they believe he was hiding. No way he could then see just how many came into that house to sleep that night. There could have been additional "guests" there as far as he was concerned (about being caught) roaming around that night.

Also - for all those "intruder did it" believers I have an important question for you.
At just what point did this guy place those 3 pages of the note/letter on the stairs?
This is very important. He could not have placed them there on his way UP the stairs to get JonBenet because he would have stepped on them coming down with her.
He could not have placed them on his way DOWN the stairs as he was carrying her. (Or do you think he just put JonBenet down and placed them? LOL! Of course not - he couldn't have carried them both down and not have created wrinkles in the pages. There were none.)
And it is simply ridiculous to think that after killing her down in the basement, this guy is going to run back upstairs and put the dumb "note" there. This would mean he had written it before the whole crime and it makes absolutely NO sense then to have not taken her AWAY from the house and then attempted to collect the ransom money which the note tries desperately to convince the reader is the point of it.

There is NO logical time that this "intruder" could have placed that note. Because he didn't. He didn't/doesn't exist.
It makes NO sense that anyone other than one of the family members in the house that night did this crime and cover-up/staging.

So just WHEN do you intruder theorists think this guy put the "ransom" letter on the stairs? Just curious.....

[Toth]

Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids because there is NO LOGIC to a demented pedophile doing it?

[lannie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sissi
This person who killed Jonbenet,if insane,would have no qualms about leaving the ransom note on his way out.
The second type of intruder would be a person well known to the child,one that came prepared with the note,and knew where to place it to get Patsy's early morning attention.
another possibility>>>>>>>?
I'm not certain she was murdered in the house,is everyone else certain of this?
Are we sure she wasn't taken,perhaps for photography, dressed in the nightgown, killed for her lack of co-operation,and returned along with ransom note to the home? Do we know she wasn't wrapped in the blanket for transportation? Did the BPD check for fibers from the cars of known suspects,including Randy Simons?

JMO [/

QUOTE]
YES< all this while intangling patsy' s jacket fiber in the cord at JB's neck ,while Patsy gets up & dresses in her same dirty clothes she wore the day before. JB must of peed in the basement that night, right before the intruder took her & then he killed her & took her back to the house, what a nice fellow.

[Ivy]

sissi, how stupid do you think the Intruder was? Do you really think he would remove JonBenet from the house, kill her, and then return her body to the house, along with a ransom note?

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids because there is NO LOGIC to a demented pedophile doing it?

First of all I take exception to describing John Ramsey as "highly moral." In my book - and God's - committing adultery is far from being "highly moral." And having 3 young children on top of it puts John Ramsey in a category of the unethical and IMmoral.
He destroyed a family and created a broken home. That is a fact.
So scratch that title off the John Ramsey list.

There is NO EVIDENCE that a "demented pedophile" killed JoBenet Ramsey.
There IS evidence that a close family member did and it was staged and covered up. Not very well though.

You can claim till the cows come home Toth all kinds of glowing things about the Ramseys. Doesn't make it true.
First of all - how in the **ll do YOU even know that they were "loving parents"? They may have just been indulging parents mistaking their indulgence in part, for love. The pageants are a perfect example. (And of course they probably loved their children, but for you to continue to make intimate descriptions of the Ramseys as if YOU lived there and it is fact, - well it raises suspicions.)

It's very easy to claim some "pedophile" killed JonBenet.
Truth is that pedophiles - David Westerfield is a perfect example - abduct their target and get the heck out of there so they can do their nasty business.
The child was not taken away and the killer told the parents he wanted money.
Like the criminal experts have said - kidnappers and sex criminals do not mix. They are two different breeds and their motivations and goals are totally different.
That's the mistake the Ramseys made in writing that note.
Hoping the sexual molestation of JonBenet was ALSO "hidden" - the wiping down and pants pulled back up - they relied on the kidnapping angle.
Too bad they didn't bank on the autopsy revealing what REALLY happened that night.
Otherwise they may not have ever written that note.

[K777angel]

I should add that "kidnappers for ransom" and sex offender criminals do not mix.

[Toth]

The cops did not check vehicles for fibers.
Photography, IF it took place, took place in the basement.
Place of death is where the urine was voided near the artist's totebox, outside the 'wine cellar'.
Nightgown was probably there due to 'static cling'.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel
You can claim till the cows come home Toth all kinds of glowing things about the Ramseys. Doesn't make it true.
First of all - how in the **ll do YOU even know that they were "loving parents"? They may have just been indulging parents mistaking their indulgence in part, for love. The pageants are a perfect example. (And of course they probably loved their children, but for you to continue to make intimate descriptions of the Ramseys as if YOU lived there and it is fact, - well it raises suspicions.).

How do you know the Ramsey's were not loving parents? Do you know them? Did you ever personally see them mistreat their children? Or are you going on the pretense that putting your child in a beauty pageant is evil and wrong and whoever would do that would have to be harming their child? (They are quite common here, along with dance recitals and youth football, etc)

For all your words in the post above, you seem to have lost the fact that YOU are assuming as well. Why can you do it and not Toth? The evidence shows that her parents were not abusive. Speculation is the only thing that has been offered to this point as to her life before her death--and her treatment. Most have claimed that they seemed doting and caring towards their children, and Patsy towards her step-children.

Oh and also, as far as the sex offenders and kidnappers mixing. There can be cross breeds, you know. I have been studying serial killers for quite some time now, and serial offenders of today are different than some even 10 years ago, much less 20. People are ever evolving, and killers will change with the times.

Who would have thought that rock and rap could meet a happy medium?:bigthumb:

[Toltec]

Tje FBI has not run into a "cross-breed" of that sort EVER.

Insane people leave plenty of evidence behind.

There are plenty of examples of "good christian parents" who kill their spouse and/or children. No doubt the Ramseys were loving parents but there can be that one incident...that one accident....

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toltec
Tje FBI has not run into a "cross-breed" of that sort EVER.


Duh, you think I don't know that? The FBI will also tell you that they only know of few serial murderers in our society. Many are in the cocooning stage and trolling stage--which means they haven't killed yet. EVER, as you so brazenly put in bold, only refers to the past up to now. Evolution takes time. There may be many cross breeds of serial killers in this country that will not strike for years now--I do believe that some are operating right now and just have not been caught yet. (Since you are so wise in the ways of serial killers, you would know that they do not get caught unless they make a mistake, get arrested for another crime, confess, or kill themselves--)

Also, you say, insane people leave lots of evidence behind. Was Ted Bundy not insane to you? How about Dahmer? These were just a few that operated amongst other people for years without anyone noticing what was really going on in their heads.

And, either way you want to cut it, this offender was not insane in the legal sense of the word. He/she may not have staged the scene perfectly, but they had the know-how and composure to do it---and obviously get away with it. I have never stated that I thought the killer was just a maniac running loose through the house. (see William Heirens)

[Imon128]

IMO, this case doesn't appear to be anybody strange to the household, John, or Patsy. I think it's a family member...JAR. JMO, of course.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
Law-abiding, highly moral, loving parents suddenly decide to kill one of their kids? You're right, Toth...it could only have been Burke. The parents just staged the whole coverup to protect him from a life of mysery.

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Toth
The cops did not check vehicles for fibers.
Photography, IF it took place, took place in the basement.
Place of death is where the urine was voided near the artist's totebox, outside the 'wine cellar'.
Nightgown was probably there due to 'static cling'.

Toth - you do NOT know where the "place of death" occurred.
Name your source for that.
But let's pretend that you are right and she was murdered outside the room ("wine cellar') where PATSY'S paint/totebox was (by the way - why do you distance her from the ownership of it by referring to it only as "the artist's" totebox????)

Anyway - so she is killed right there OUTSIDE the "wine cellar."
WHY then did the killer take the time to: Wrap her in blanket,
lay a blanket on the floor to lay her on, place her on the blanket and then when leaving, take even MORE time to turn around and latch the door behind him/her???? Again - As the criminal experts have said - the facts show that the killer was far too comfortable in that house to be an intruder. No fear of discovery.

By the way - you have no idea WHERE or WHAT vehicles the cops
checked for fibers in.
Again, name your source if you do. Otherwise, please quit making
absolute statements all the time like this without backing them
up.

[sissi]

Who knew where the paintbrush was kept...where the knife was hidden......where the blanket and nightgown could be found?
JMO IMO

Toth,this is a fact I missed,she emptied her bladder at death near the area where the paint tote was kept?

IMO

[sissi]

Originally posted by Ivy
sissi, how stupid do you think the Intruder was? Do you really think he would remove JonBenet from the house, kill her, and then return her body to the house, along with a ransom note?

No,I was thinking they left the note as an actual ransom note,before taking her. It did seem to complicate the crime a bit by having her found in her own home,there was no search of vehicles,other's homes,which may have been "messy" for the killer,having her back home may have just saved the killer from ever being found.
JMO

[sissi]

AJT Quote:Evolution takes time. There may be many cross breeds of serial killers in this country that will not strike for years now--I do believe that some are operating right now and just have not been caught yet.

If they manage to avoid discovery until late in age,could they
stop killing? Could a life/death event of their own push them for
one more kill,even if they are now considered "aged".?

[tipper]

For what it's worth- The only numbers I've ever heard about serial killers is that there are approximately 100 operating in the country at any given time. Of course that was 10 or so years ago so the number may have risen.

[Toth]

Originally posted by sissi
Who knew where the paintbrush was kept...where the knife was hidden......where the blanket and nightgown could be found?
Toth,this is a fact I missed,she emptied her bladder at death near the area where the paint tote was kept? There is no indication that the intruder would have had to have known where the Artist's Tote-Box was located or what was in it. He merely rummaged around and found something he felt would be suitable.
Yes, place of death was NOT the wine cellar but was where the urine was voided since usually the bladder empties at death.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
I've often thought that the molestation was so minimal in comparison to all the time and effort devoted to extraneous matters that the real target of the crime was the parents.

I would like to compare JBR and Dru Sjodin.

Sure ... LOTS of differences: age, geography, etc.

Dru Sjodin was attacked in a mall's parking lot in Grand Forks, ND as she left work, her attacker arrived home three hours later. Its clear he had the knife in his hand at the mall and used it to inflict some sort of wound, then he took her somewhere fairly nearby raped her, killed her and disposed of the corpse and then drove home.

No note, no weird bindings, no ineffective duct tape, no extraneous matters. Clearly a sexual assault. No one is going to say the parents were involved or that Dru Sjodin was involved in pornography.

This is how a pervert operates.

In the JBR case the molestation is similar to a 'hesitatiion wound' inflicted by a knife, it represents doubt and insufficiency.

The murder of JonBenet Ramsey was not a sex crime; it was done to satisfy the intruder's perverted lust, it was done to inflict torment on the parents.

:nono: :confused: :dontknow: HUH?; effort devoted to extraneous matters (as you posted above) I'm not sure I follow...diff chapter/page maybe ? ... ?...When/Where=JonBenet?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by K777angel
First of all I take exception to describing John Ramsey as "highly moral." In my book - and God's - committing adultery is far from being "highly moral." And having 3 young children on top of it puts John Ramsey in a category of the unethical and IMmoral.
He destroyed a family and created a broken home. That is a fact.
So scratch that title off the John Ramsey list.

There is NO EVIDENCE that a "demented pedophile" killed JoBenet Ramsey.
There IS evidence that a close family member did and it was staged and covered up. Not very well though.

You can claim till the cows come home Toth all kinds of glowing things about the Ramseys. Doesn't make it true.
First of all - how in the **ll do YOU even know that they were "loving parents"? They may have just been indulging parents mistaking their indulgence in part, for love. The pageants are a perfect example. (And of course they probably loved their children, but for you to continue to make intimate descriptions of the Ramseys as if YOU lived there and it is fact, - well it raises suspicions.)

It's very easy to claim some "pedophile" killed JonBenet.
Truth is that pedophiles - David Westerfield is a perfect example - abduct their target and get the heck out of there so they can do their nasty business.
The child was not taken away and the killer told the parents he wanted money.
Like the criminal experts have said - kidnappers and sex criminals do not mix. They are two different breeds and their motivations and goals are totally different.
That's the mistake the Ramseys made in writing that note.
Hoping the sexual molestation of JonBenet was ALSO "hidden" - the wiping down and pants pulled back up - they relied on the kidnapping angle.
Too bad they didn't bank on the autopsy revealing what REALLY happened that night.
Otherwise they may not have ever written that note.

:cool: :o :( :mad: ;
Ditto!; totally agree!!! ... what were the R's "thinking" (if any "thinking" was goiing-on!!!)
:dontknow: :evil: :nono: :confused: :eek:

[ajt400]

Originally posted by sissi
AJT Quote:Evolution takes time. There may be many cross breeds of serial killers in this country that will not strike for years now--I do believe that some are operating right now and just have not been caught yet.

If they manage to avoid discovery until late in age,could they
stop killing? Could a life/death event of their own push them for
one more kill,even if they are now considered "aged".?

Yes, the numbers have to be alot higher than that. I read that in 1980, the FBI estimated around 500 serial offenders could be operating--which doesn't necassarily mean that they are actually killing people at that time. That means there are some trolling, and in their cocoon stage.

In response to your question, Albert Fish was arrested when he was around 80 I believe for the murder, rape, cannabalism of an 8 year old girl named Grace Budd. (He was 80 when he was killed her) Serial murder may not involve sex as we know it, but it is a sexual crime. I guess the only answer could be, do most aged people you know still have sexual thoughts and longings? The serial murderer cannot stop himself, it is an appetite for him-a sexual release. Most humans cannot ignore that. Sorry that is the best way I know how to expalin it. But, no, these men don't stop themselves because the act of torture, rape and murder are ingrained in the psyches to a point that they feel they need it just as you and I need that new dress in the mall---or even we need food to eat.

[TLynn]

Static cling from the nightgown - from the blanket within the dryer. Who knew her blanket was in the basement dryer...

And ya'll can theorize as much as you want, but no one can explain the pineapple with an intruder.

There is too much personal evidence pointing to the Ramseys in a cover-up.

[Imon128]

That dang blanket....it's really out of place for an intruder. What would have been the purpose, in the dryer, or not? Distancing? Comfort for a loved one who the perp didn't intend to kill? Comfort for the perp? Hmmm.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Imon128
That dang blanket....it's really out of place for an intruder. What would have been the purpose, in the dryer, or not? Distancing? Comfort for a loved one who the perp didn't intend to kill? Comfort for the perp? Hmmm.


Or maybe coverage for the person trying to get her out of the house?

Considering the fact that she was wrapped haphazardly with both arms sticking out combined with the fact that I don't know of any parents who kill that have 'discovered' the body before. This does not mean it does not exsist. That just never happens. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, please share.

Also, the pineapple.....why wouldn't both just lie and fabricate an intricate story to go with that? It could have been easily explained. Why deny any connection at all?

[Maxi]

But neither has there ever been a body and a note demanding ransom for the victim found in the same home. Nor have we been able to find a case in the U.S. which someone not related to the family sexually abused and killed a child as vengence against a parent This is indeed a unique case.

[Imon128]

Originally posted by ajt400
Or maybe coverage for the person trying to get her out of the house?

Considering the fact that she was wrapped haphazardly with both arms sticking out combined with the fact that I don't know of any parents who kill that have 'discovered' the body before. This does not mean it does not exsist. That just never happens. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, please share.

Also, the pineapple.....why wouldn't both just lie and fabricate an intricate story to go with that? It could have been easily explained. Why deny any connection at all?

JB wasn't covered haphazerdly. She was wrapped papoose like and I can't see somebody using a white blanket (bright) to disguise JB's transporting out of the house. The suitcase would have drawn less attention, IMO.

[eliza]

Originally posted by ajt400
Or maybe coverage for the person trying to get her out of the house?

Considering the fact that she was wrapped haphazardly with both arms sticking out combined with the fact that I don't know of any parents who kill that have 'discovered' the body before. This does not mean it does not exsist. That just never happens. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, please share.

Also, the pineapple.....why wouldn't both just lie and fabricate an intricate story to go with that? It could have been easily explained. Why deny any connection at all?


Good point ajt400 about the pineapple, it would have been easy for the Ramseys to work in a snack of pineapple before bed into their story. The only trouble is the Ramseys must not have known about the pineapple, maybe Burke is the only one who knew and neglected to tell this before the cover-up began. A little info I bet the Ramseys would have loved to known prior to the cover-up.

[Imon128]

Or John, if he was molesting JB, and used it to lure her. Or, JAR, might have had the same knowledge and used it to lure JB.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
Also, the pineapple.....why wouldn't both just lie and fabricate an intricate story to go with that? It could have been easily explained. Why deny any connection at all? Part of the coverup involves "distancing" Burke from JonBenet. The Ramsey's want everyone to believe that the last time Burke had any contact with JonBenet was at the White's party. Supposedly she fell asleep in the car, and Burke didn't get out of bed in the morning.
However, we know from Burke's own statement that she wasn't asleep when they got home, she walked in on her own. The pineapple which she ate after they arrived home proves that.
And now we know by listening to the edited 911 call that has been released with Patsy's cries of "help me Jesus" that it's a very safe bet Burke's voice is also on it just as described. So he WAS up in the morning and they lied about that too.

Why are they trying to distance Burke from his sister?--You figure it out.

[Toth]

we know from Burke's own statement that she wasn't asleep when they got home, she walked in on her own. That is absurd. He was nine years old, he was questioned on that point by the cop and admitted that JonBenet was asleep and was carried up the stairs.

[ajt400]

I think the distancing you speak of may just be the protection from the media, etc. I mean, that is quite a traumatic experience for someone his age--his sister being murdered and all in the house!

[Nehemiah]

I think the distancing is very important. Jayelles has said before that perhaps the Rs just didn't want Burke to be seen as involved in any way, therefore, they distanced him from the happenings. I can go with that, too, as it could just be a safety net that they have seemingly constructed around him. For whatever reason, it appears there is distancing, which is suspect in most peoples' eyes.

Had the Rs not done that, and had they from the very beginning jumped in and availed themselves to the investigation of themselves, they would possibly be either totally exonerated, or in jail.

[ajt400]

Who here would throw their child to the wolves in this situation? I could see maybe if the had offered him up on a silver platter.

How many times was Burke interrogated? Is it illegal in Colorado to interrogate a minor without parental consent?

[Toth]

Originally posted by ajt400
How many times was Burke interrogated? Is it illegal in Colorado to interrogate a minor without parental consent? Several times. Often without a parent being present despite the officer knowing that was illegal. Once without a social worker or parent being present.

[Imon128]

As I recall, Burke was talked to the day of the killing, and once where Patsy took him to the meeting place, and was it again later with parental knowledge? The point I'm trying to make is that it wasn't 'several' times, IMO.

I have no problem with LE talking to Burke the day of the killing, since John rushed the child away from LE who wanted to talk to Burke at their home. John told them that Burke didn't know anything, that he'd slept all night (words to that effect). IMO, John should have just let Burke talk to LE right then and there.

[ajt400]

To my knowledge, Imon, he was talked to twice (which isn't several, but what the hey, it's more than once) and both times he was talked to without parental consent. (This is according to the R's, they didn't even know that Burke had been interviewed because I believe it happened at the White's)

Is it illegal to interview a child without parental consent? (This statement is also according to the R's)

[Imon128]

Do you know where the second time took place, without his parents knowing?

I believe that one time Patsy took Burke to the meeting place, however, she had to wait outside the room. I guess that makes me think that Patsy and John gave consent.

[Maxi]

My recollection is that the police officer who accompanied Burke to the White's on Dec. 26 asked him a few questions. After that, I don't think he was questioned until the one official interview with all the special accomodations.

No one has to talk to the police. It takes a grand jury subpoena to force someone to talk to the police. I think it is a requirement that a parent either be present or waive the right to be present when a minor is questioned in Colorado. We don't have that protection here in Virginia.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
That is absurd. He was nine years old, he was questioned on that point by the cop and admitted that JonBenet was asleep and was carried up the stairs. What's your source for THAT baloney Toth, the Swamp again?...You know better than to post that crap here.

"He (Burke) said that his sister fell asleep on the way home, but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenet walked in slowly and went up the spiral staircase to bed, just ahead of Patsy. That was quite a difference than the initial and frequently repeated story that she was carried to bed." [IRMI p317]

That interview with Burke happens to be on video tape.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
I think the distancing you speak of may just be the protection from the media, etc. I mean, that is quite a traumatic experience for someone his age--his sister being murdered and all in the house! OK ajt400, then ask yourself this. If the Ramseys weren't involved in the crime, how would they have known Burke knew nothing? Maybe he heard something important in the middle of the night. Maybe he got up and peeked out his bedroom and saw something.
If your child was murdered by a (real) intruder, wouldn't you ask your other child if he had heard something? Wouldn't you think that LE should also be asking that question?

I'll bet you lots of money that the Van Damms didn't have any problem whatsoever with LE asking their younger boys questions. But then, they were innocent and had had nothing to hide--makes a difference, don't it.

[ajt400]

Probably not unless I knew they were already focusing the investigation on me and my husband only a few hours after the murder. I would allow the police to talk to my child in that instance, but I do think they should ask permission from the parents--especially if it is a minor and especially if it is illegal.

Then again, I don't know that it is illegal.....

[Ivy]

Not only were the Ramseys furious when they learned Burke had been questioned by LE when he was the Whites', Patsy wept uncontrollably while Burke was being interviewed by the psychologist. This interview was quite a while after JonBenet's death, so instead of crying over JonBenet, I think Patsy was crying because she was desperately afraid that Burke would flub up and implicate himself as the killer.

I think it's very odd that the Rs were angry when they found out about LE questioning Burke at the Whites'...unless the Rs were afraid of what he may have divulged. If I were an innocent parent of a murdered girl, I would have been glad that LE questioned my son, even if I hadn't authorized it.

[eliza]

Originally posted by Ivy
Not only were the Ramseys furious when they learned Burke had been questioned by LE when he was the Whites', Patsy wept uncontrollably while Burke was being interviewed by the psychologist. This interview was quite a while after JonBenet's death, so instead of crying over JonBenet, I think Patsy was crying because she was desperately afraid that Burke would flub up and implicate himself as the killer.

I think it's very odd that the Rs were angry when they found out about LE questioning Burke at the Whites'...unless the Rs were afraid of what he may have divulged. If I were an innocent parent of a murdered girl, I would have been glad that LE questioned my son, even if I hadn't authorized it.


Right on Ivy! It seems to me you have the Ramseys on one hand that can't even wake a sleeping child up when their daughter is missing to see if he heard or seen anything and on the other hand there seems to be criticism of LE in questioning that same child if he seen or heard anything. It appears to me one was more interested in finding out what happened to JBR than the other.

[Imon128]

It's unfathonable to me, that the R's didn't awaken Burke to find some info, much less that they didn't after Burke was known to be awake. Super suspicious.

[Nehemiah]

More distancing, it seems. I agree that it seems appropriate to find out if Burke heard or saw anything in the night that might point to an intruder. I don't see this as throwing him to the wolves at all; it would be considered by most as normal behavior to extensively question anyone in the house during the course of a murder. If someone had broken into the home, Burke may have that one clue that could have helped them determine who the intruder was. I see the distancing as a red flag.

[Toth]

>It's unfathonable to me, that the R's didn't
>awaken Burke to find some info,
Such as height, weight and clothing worn by the intruder?
What do think Burke did? Wake up, see an intruder carrying off his sister and then turn over and go back to sleep??
If he had awakened after hearing a scream and saw an intruder, he might have foolishly attacked the intruder or more wisely ran to his parents room, but he was going to just go back to sleep. He had no information to offer.

>much less that they didn't after Burke was known
>to be awake. Super suspicious.
Not at all!! The commotion caused by Patsy's screaming and her running about, John's yell to call 911, Patsy's frantic call with that dumb operator, etc. awakened him and I guess he just felt like pretending to be asleep. If he were 29 or 19, I would be suspicious, but at 9, I'm not at all suspicious.

[Nehemiah]

Elizabeth Smart's younger sister had information when Elizabeth was abducted. What if the Smarts had distanced her from that crime?

[Toth]

Same bed, same room, actually awake, percipient witness.

[Maxi]

Here are a few things I would have asked Burke as soon as I realized JBR was missing:

Have you noticed any strange people or cars near the house?

Has anyone you don't know tried to talk to JBR recently?

Has anyone been paying more attention to her than usual?

Has JBR said anything to you that sounds weird when you think about it?

Did you hear any noises in the night?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
>It's unfathonable to me, that the R's didn't
>awaken Burke to find some info,
Such as height, weight and clothing worn by the intruder?
What do think Burke did? Wake up, see an intruder carrying off his sister and then turn over and go back to sleep??
If he had awakened after hearing a scream and saw an intruder, he might have foolishly attacked the intruder or more wisely ran to his parents room, but he was going to just go back to sleep. He had no information to offer.

>much less that they didn't after Burke was known
>to be awake. Super suspicious.
Not at all!! The commotion caused by Patsy's screaming and her running about, John's yell to call 911, Patsy's frantic call with that dumb operator, etc. awakened him and I guess he just felt like pretending to be asleep. If he were 29 or 19, I would be suspicious, but at 9, I'm not at all suspicious.

:confused: :dontknow: Hum...what if the Intruder/Monster is your FATHER (Burke)?...???

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Who here would throw their child to the wolves in this situation? I could see maybe if the had offered him up on a silver platter.

How many times was Burke interrogated? Is it illegal in Colorado to interrogate a minor without parental consent?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Who here would throw their child to the wolves in this situation? I could see maybe if the had offered him up on a silver platter.

How many times was Burke interrogated? Is it illegal in Colorado to interrogate a minor without parental consent?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Who here would throw their child to the wolves in this situation? I could see maybe if the had offered him up on a silver platter.

How many times was Burke interrogated? Is it illegal in Colorado to interrogate a minor without parental consent?

Yup;IT'S ILLEGAL TO MOLEST/KILL A DAUTHER TOO!!!:( :dontknow: :confused: :mad: :( :rolleyes:

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
He had no information to offer.
How would you know that? How would they know that? Yeah, maybe he did hear something and peek out of his room.

And why was Patsy so visually nervous when she had to bring Burke in for questioning? If Burke supposedly "knew nothing", the only emotion Patsy should have been feeling was frustration at the waste of time.

IMO...Burke is up to his eyeballs in this crime.

[Maxi]

Oh, Shy, please add an IMO when you say that! We don't want to be Wood's next anniversary special.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Maxi
We don't want to be Wood's next anniversary special. Why would Lin Wood sue Tracey's "Barking Mad"?

[Ivy]

Toth, it's easy for you and Tracey to call BDIers "barking mad" without giving any valid reasons why Burke couldn't have done it. Please explain why you think Burke was incapable of killing JonBenet.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Ivy
Toth, it's easy for you and Tracey to call BDIers "barking mad" without giving any valid reasons why Burke couldn't have done it. Please explain why you think Burke was incapable of killing JonBenet. Toth can make all the lame excuses he wants to, but the bottom line is it takes only TWO things to commit a murder, Ability and Opportunity -- Burke had both.
(And since Tracey doesn't have the common sense to realize that, it makes him barking worthless.)

[eliza]

Originally posted by Ivy
Toth, it's easy for you and Tracey to call BDIers "barking mad" without giving any valid reasons why Burke couldn't have done it. Please explain why you think Burke was incapable of killing JonBenet.


Toth, As a BDIer I really don't like being called "barking mad". Unless I'm missing something none of us were there that night , so none of us could possibly know what really happened to JBR. I go where the evidence leads me and to me it leads straight to Burke. If you look at that same evidence and it leads you in another direction, I respect that. So if you have valid reasons why Burke could not possibly be involved, then like Ivy and Shylock I would love to hear it.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Ivy
Toth, it's easy for you and Tracey to call BDIers "barking mad" without giving any valid reasons why Burke couldn't have done it. Please explain why you think Burke was incapable of killing JonBenet.

:) I'm not Toth, but IMHO Burke COULD'NT HAVE KILLED JONBENET cause of dwgs in Dr.Hodges (the one's Burke drew in Church and are avail/printed in 2nd bk by Dr. Andrew Hodges)-- the only person/author to write 2 books accusing the R's of JonBenet's murder and he has NOT BEEN SUED BY R's TO DATE ... what's common sense say about that??? ... ???:D :rolleyes:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Ivy
Not only were the Ramseys furious when they learned Burke had been questioned by LE when he was the Whites', Patsy wept uncontrollably while Burke was being interviewed by the psychologist. This interview was quite a while after JonBenet's death, so instead of crying over JonBenet, I think Patsy was crying because she was desperately afraid that Burke would flub up and implicate himself as the killer.

I think it's very odd that the Rs were angry when they found out about LE questioning Burke at the Whites'...unless the Rs were afraid of what he may have divulged. If I were an innocent parent of a murdered girl, I would have been glad that LE questioned my son, even if I hadn't authorized it.

:D Ditto...reminds me of the SMART case...the sister remember(s)ing...AND THE/HER PARENTS HOPING?PRAYING FOR SUCH...!!!:D

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by Ivy
Toth, it's easy for you and Tracey to call BDIers "barking mad" without giving any valid reasons why Burke couldn't have done it. Please explain why you think Burke was incapable of killing JonBenet.

Yes, this is your golden opportunity, Toth. Please list the reasons why you think him incapable. Your opinion is respected, even though everyone doesn't agree.

[K777angel]

Taking the entire crime into account - with ALL of the known facts and evidence, it leads to only one logical conclusion IMO.
That Burke Ramsey caused the death of his sister by accident and his parents frantically covered it up never dreaming word of it would go beyond the borders of Boulder. It snowballed into an international news story.
But they HAD to protect their son.

What else could they do?

[Toth]

What else could they do? Be honest and upright and do the right thing. Call 911 for immediate medical help, no matter how hopeless things might seem; talk briefly to Burke and then go talk to the police who accompanied the ambulance. What else?

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
Be honest and upright and do the right thing. Call 911 for immediate medical help, no matter how hopeless things might seem; talk briefly to Burke and then go talk to the police who accompanied the ambulance. What else? And have their son known for the rest of his life as the kid who killed his child beauty queen sister while molesting her.... Nope, doesn't sound like a Ramsey method to me.

Can't you just hear John Ramsey: "Now I've lost TWO daughters, and I'm NOT going to lose a son!"

[Toth]

Originally posted by Shylock
Nope, doesn't sound like a Ramsey method to me. Thats because it doesn't sound like a Ramsey situation, but people who 'do the right thing' accept the consequences of doing the right thing.

[Imon128]

What else could they DO????? How about whatever it took to get to JB's killer. Talking to LE whenever and whereever LE needed to chat with them, would have been a good start, IMO. They had lawyers in place right from the getgo. This could be where things went wrong...the R's took the law in their hands. Not a good thing.

[SisterSocks]

Ramsey's did what everyone else wanted them to do ----except of course the BPD <SNICKER>

[Toth]

The Ramseys did what was perfectly reasonable, it was the BPD that were obstinate and hindered the investigation.

[Barbara]

Originally posted by Toth
The Ramseys did what was perfectly reasonable, it was the BPD that were obstinate and hindered the investigation.

Since I have asked a number of times, I'll have to ask this: Since the Ramseys are the ONLY known parents of a victim to demand conditions from LE, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the VanDams, the Levy's, Walsh, Smart, Runion, etc. are ALL "un-reasonable?

Do you really believe deep down that the Ramsey's attitude toward LE was reasonable? I think not

[Toth]

Originally posted by Barbara
Do you really believe deep down that the Ramsey's attitude toward LE was reasonable? To answer your question honestly and directly, let me say the following:

Yes .

I think their lawyers may have handled the public relations aspects very badly, but I can truly say that if I were a member of the Colorado bar and had been engaged by the Ramseys to protect their intests against such a vengeful and obsessed police force, I would have done very little differently than the counsel who actually represented them did.

The BPD should have instantly agreed to come to the attorney's conference room, remain seated, speak quietly and refrain from any questions implying parental involvement untill the witnesses had been questioned on all other matters and all information had been obtained when the witnesses were calm and not angered by accusations. And to answer you next question, Yes, most police departments would agree to those terms and agree to them quite readily. It was the BPD that derailed the investigation, even leaking the negotiation terms to the reporters within five minutes of the Ramsey attorneys having phoned the authorities.

Alot of suspects think that if they are innocent, they do not need a lawyer. Such people usually wind up as inmates.

[Barbara]

Toth,

While I agree that ALL people being questioned, innocent or not, should have an attorney, I have to disagree with your reasoning.

Law Enforcement have a job to do, however distasteful it may seem to those being the subject of questioning and suspicion. In real life, those who are ADULTS understand this. That is why most people will cooperate with the police.

Your argument might have more credence if they didn't have lawyers. Then I could understand somewhat what you are saying. The Ramseys had a TEAM of lawyers, therefore there is no reason to believe the police could have violated their rights.

The Ramseys should not have given demands. As they themselves have stated, they KNOW that the parents MUST be questioned. Why in the world wouldn't they understand that they needed to be questioned "separately" AND without their silly conditions.

Any taxpayer in Boulder would have the right to be upset had the police given in to the Ramsey demands.

Are you saying that police everywhere should have the terms of questioning dictated to them by all suspects?

Again, do you know of any other case where the parents of a victim behaved as the Ramseys? I'll take your lack of response as a NO

[Toltec]

Originally posted by ajt400
Duh, you think I don't know that? The FBI will also tell you that they only know of few serial murderers in our society. Many are in the cocooning stage and trolling stage--which means they haven't killed yet. EVER, as you so brazenly put in bold, only refers to the past up to now. Evolution takes time. There may be many cross breeds of serial killers in this country that will not strike for years now--I do believe that some are operating right now and just have not been caught yet. (Since you are so wise in the ways of serial killers, you would know that they do not get caught unless they make a mistake, get arrested for another crime, confess, or kill themselves--)

Also, you say, insane people leave lots of evidence behind. Was Ted Bundy not insane to you? How about Dahmer? These were just a few that operated amongst other people for years without anyone noticing what was really going on in their heads.

And, either way you want to cut it, this offender was not insane in the legal sense of the word. He/she may not have staged the scene perfectly, but they had the know-how and composure to do it---and obviously get away with it. I have never stated that I thought the killer was just a maniac running loose through the house. (see William Heirens)

No need to be condescending....should I call you MR. KNOW IT ALL???? Bundy and Dahmer were not insane....just sick in the head. An insane person does not know AT THE TIME of what he/she is doing and will not be thinking about evidence left behind.

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by Toth
Same bed, same room, actually awake, percipient witness.

Exactly; I agree.

On the morning that Patsy called 911--perhaps Burke had some of that same info as MK Smart had about Elizabeth's abduction. After all, his bedroom was not far from JB's; he could have been awake in the night; he could have even actually witnessed something. To sweep him up and out of the house w/out being questioned extensively by police is a red flag to me. For all the Rs knew, it could have meant the difference between life and death for their daughter.

[lannie]

Thanks Nehemiah, I totally agree, I can not even think I would not Q. all of my other children if one turned up missing, even if they were sleeping ,I would still awake them ,did the rams not think that J B's life was more important than Little burke getting his ZZ"S ,what a great big lie they told & still try to convince us they care, money is all they care about .

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toltec
No need to be condescending....should I call you MR. KNOW IT ALL???? Bundy and Dahmer were not insane....just sick in the head. An insane person does not know AT THE TIME of what he/she is doing and will not be thinking about evidence left behind.

That is the legal definition of insanity, what we base insanity on in a court room. Both of the killers were organized which means they had the know how and reasoning abilities to know what they were doing was wrong. They just did not care....sociopathic personalities, ring a bell? If you seriously think that someone that eatrs parts of peoples bodies and has corpses on his bed is not insane, then maybe YOU need a head check.

And, es, I agree, someone that knows what they are doing at the time of the crime is not insane.

Now, look at someone like William Heirens, he would be legally insane. He did not cover his tracks and was literally walking around with the blood all over him!

And, you can call me Ms. Know It All.....I do not know everything, I was just correcting you.

[Maxi]

:waitasec: Hey, I thought we'd agreed that Ms.or Mr. Bossy Boots was the name du jour for us know-it-alls.

What is confusing is the legal definition of insanity vs. the psychological diagnosis of mental illness vs. our intuitive sense that anyone who eats other people is crazy.

IMO, the legal and legislative folks have been too busy playing to public outrage and sympathy for victims to catch up to modern understandings about mental illness. Just because someone knows society disapproves of his or her actions doesn't mean they can make rational decisions. As the law stands in most states, even quite delusional people are considered "sane" if they function adequately in other parts of their lives.

[Toth]

Insanity is a legal term. It is solely a legal term. It is not a medical term.

Being a cannibal does not make you insane. Particularly if a jury doesn't want you to get off the hook.

The McNaughton Rule is the older test: At the time the defendant had to be incapable of knowing right from wrong.

the more modern rule requires the existence of a disease of defect which rendered him incapable of knowing his act was wrong or incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law.

But these are legal constructs, not medical ones and not the ones that would be used by a layman going about their ordinary affairs.

[Imon128]

Guilty first, crazy later?

[Maxi]

Toth, the problem comes in the interpretation of the phrase "know right from wrong". Does that mean in the moral sense, in the social sense, or what? Many states interpret it to mean that the defendant knows society would disapprove of his actions. But if you think you have secret knowledge that gives you the ability to make a better judgement than the rest of society, that definition makes no sense.

What I'd like to see is a guilty by reason of insanity plea. Some states have the equivalent in their "guilty but insane" plea. I'd also like to see the rules for determining legal sanity broadened to include the many variations of mental defect that can impair judgement.

In the JBR case, there are lots of possible metal defects that could have affected the killer. My fav for an intruder perp is borderline personality disorder. My fav for a Ramsey perp is brief psychotic disorder.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Maxi
In the JBR case, there are lots of possible metal defects that could have affected the killer. My fav for an intruder perp is borderline personality disorder. My fav for a Ramsey perp is brief psychotic disorder.
Interesting, Maxi. Why borderline personality disorder for an intruder perp?

[Maxi]

My family had a situation develop with a woman who had Borderline Personality Disorder with subclinical paranoia that rose to the surface under stress. That's how my shrink described her, anyway. She became so fond of my daughter that it became obsessive. When we tried to back off the relationship a bit, she became very angry, and did the classic BPS "switch" -- my daughter, who had been an angel in her eyes, suddenly became a devil out to destroy her life. My shrink said this woman could be physically dangerous to my daughter.

[BloodshotEye]

Something that has always stayed with me, about this case - was the peculiar "disconnect" between the crime/crime scene and that ridiculous ransom letter.
A notion that seems to plague a number of you as well.

The only way I could connect these two pieces of evidence, was to create the scenario where there were TWO intruders. One who wanted to abduct the child for ransom, and the other who wanted to exact their anger/revenge on the child. For some, the suggestion of an "intruder" is ridiculous; and the thought of TWO intruders, who can't seem to agree - is almost laughable if not merely stupid. Is the answer to this conundrum, that there were "two" people, but neither was an intruder? Can't figure it out.

JB's Body Hidden - Like a Young Person/Teenager Might Hide an Accident or Mess
In my mind's eye, I am imagining this to be a peculiar crime scene. The death seems as though it was an accident. Possibly the result of not knowing how easily one could shut off the air-way with a garot. Unexpected. As if the intent was to scare or exact some revenge, but never to kill her. And there was a hurried attempt to hide it; and a door latch fastened. Like a young person or teenager hiding a mess.

Garot Knot
I can't help feeling that this has some connection to some weird interaction or "play" at the White party. Like (humor me) one of the boys (an older boy?) showing another, how to make a peculiar garot knot. The garot cord may have fiber from PR's coat, if she used the cord to wrap a gift, or for some other purpose, and it was then picked up by someone else. The fibers do not mean much to me.

Evidence of Stun Gun marks
If this is true, it's the wild card, that keeps me from making presumptions about BR. A Stun gun is not a typical toy or find, for a very young person. But a teen or young adult? Quite possibly.

My "latest" take/opinion on this case, is that someone at the White party, is involved. Possibly a teen or young adult, with whom BR interacted.

[Maxi]

How about a young adult with whom JAR interacted at college?

[Nehemiah]

Yes, Maxi, that would be my choice if an intruder is involved.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Bloodshot Eye
Something that has always stayed with me, about this case - was the peculiar "disconnect" between the crime/crime scene and that ridiculous ransom letter.
Same here, Bloodshot Eye. The only way they connect for me is in a Burke-did-it theory. I believe Burke unintentionally killed JonBenet during sexual play, and that John and Patsy staged the coverup. The phony ransom note was necessary, because without it, there would have been no evidence whatsoever of an Intruder. I think J&P probably wrote it (imo Patsy penned it) with the intention of removing JonBenet's body from the house, but then changed their minds for any of a variety of reasons, and decided to leave the body in the house for one of their friends or the police to find. Whether they removed the body or left it in the house, the note was absolutely essential, even if it didn't jibe with the crime scene. (When I read the note from the perspective that it was written with the idea of removing the body from the house, it makes more sense...but time was of the essence, and the Rs probably couldn't spare the time to rewrite it.)

The Ramseys had a boat, and the whole family (well, maybe not Patsy) could probably tie knots, including Burke. He was also in scouts, where knot-tying is taught. Anyway, the garotte knot was actually a simple one, not the complex knot the RST would have us believe it was.

I'm not convinced a stun gun was used. In fact, I think that's likely just Ramsey bs.

[Imon128]

IMO, that ransom note was written by a family member. We need to know more intricate details as to the family's interworking at the time. I say JAR was a bottleneck....IN THE GRAND SCHEME of things.

[BloodshotEye]

I know what you mean about these "stun gun marks", Ivy. There are a few people who have already spoken about how this conculsion, was based on faulty reasoning.

The primary objection to this conclusion, about the "bluish line", that was supposed to suggest a stun gun "arc". I had to agree; when does an arc or burn, cause a blue mark? I for one, can't recall one. But I am trying to keep an open mind. A well defined blue line, sounds more like very thin transfer of ink or paint. In the past, I have used a pen, and touched the printing, only to transfer the ink on my wrist or hand. I then transfered this ink, to the envelope or my shirt. Very interesting how evidence "transferrs".

There is an article that I have been trying to locate, to reference a theory. I recall reading an L.A. Times newspaper, while on a plane. Trying to recall when I was traveling, so that I can search the archives. The article was written about a person (young woman) who knows the White family. Without going into detail, this is an article you will want to read. I am narrowing my archive search to the year 2002, somewhere between January and September. I am hoping I can find it. Some very compelling stuff.

[BloodshotEye]

I think one of the targets for the on-going investigation, will likely focus on someone that JAR loves enough, to "forgive". Either family, or someone he considers/treats as family.

In a Vanity Fair article (October 1997), there was an account of the interview with police. JAR was asked by police, what type of punishment should JonBenet's killer receive. JAR replied, "Forgiveness". The police then gave JAR details of the crime, and what was done to JonBenet; and asked JAR again, what should be done with such a person who did this. Again, JAR responds with, "Forgiveness". This account is my recollection of the article, not intended to be an exact transcription.

The point is, I believe that the target or the focus of the on-going investigation, will be someone that JAR loves enough to "forgive". Even for committing such a horrid act upon his little girl. Who might that be?

IMO, the investigation would be targeting males; young and young-adult. Males? Because the nature of this crime, appears to be vengeful and retaliatory, involving submission and sex. This type of acting out, is by and large, aberrant male behavior.

I agree, Maxi, the JAR angle, is a curious one. JAR (JR's son from first marriage) is supposed to be one of the three people that have officially been cleared. Okaaaay. I'll go along with that for now. But again, I am keeping an open mind. To this day, there is still some contradiction in whether or not he was in Atlanta or Denver when this occurred. And yea, I know that JAR and daughter Melinda were supposed to have flown in, when JR informed them that JonBenet was missing. Perhaps I would be willing to eliminate JAR, if I knew of the corroborating info that excludes him.

The other targets, should include very close personal/long time friends that attended the White party. And of course, the obvious one, BR.

Just my opinion of course...but I have been known to be right once or twice..

Edit Notes:
I have edited to correct my mix-up of JAR and JR initials. Thanks Toth, for pointing that out.

Also adding, that it was reported that Attorney Dave Heckenbach, who ran grand juries for the Denver District Attorney's office from 1986 to 1992, said that this exchange between JAR and police, could be one of the issues the jury wanted to ask him about.

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist, but I guess strange things have happened.

[Toth]

I think one of the targets for the on-going investigation, will likely focus on someone that JR loves enough, to "forgive". Either family, or someone he considers/treats as family.

In a Vanity Fair article (October 1997), there was an account of the interview with police. JR was asked by police, what type of punishment should JonBenet's killer receive. JR replied, "Forgiveness". The police then gave JR details of the crime, and what was done to JonBenet; and asked JR again, what should be done with such a person who did this. Again, JR responds with, "Forgiveness".

I believe that the target or the focus of the on-going investigation, will be someone that JR loves enough to "forgive".
Would this belief that you have change if you were informed that despite your faith in Vanity Fair no such comments were made. Incidentally, its not John Ramsey who is alleged to have made those comments, its JAR. John Andrew Ramsey, but he did not make them. He did not say forgiveness.

[Ivy]

Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

[BloodshotEye]

Thanks for pointing that out, Toth. I think I got to posting too quickly, and mixed up my JR and JAR. I'll have to go up there, and sort it out. Thanks.

[Imon128]

Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

This is true, Ivy, you are correct.

[Toth]

Originally Posted by Ivy
Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.
This is true, Ivy, you are correct.
Nope. The same article that erroneously claims JAR made that comment erroneously claims its on some police videotape that the author claims exists but has not viewed.
I have no idea if JAR will someday hold those views or if someday he will express those views, but so far he has not expressed those views. Now if you merely want to believe that Vanity Fair article because it is good stuff for your preconcieved notion of family-involvement of some sort, that is a totally different matter. Maybe you want him to have said it in the past and maybe you want him to say it in the future, but so far it has not happened. You may ofcourse keep your fingers crossed in the hopes that he will at some time say it. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to you, but it won't change the fact that so far he has not said it.

[Imon128]

Originally Posted by Ivy
Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

Nope. The same article that erroneously claims JAR made that comment erroneously claims its on some police videotape that the author claims exists but has not viewed.
I have no idea if JAR will someday hold those views or if someday he will express those views, but so far he has not expressed those views. Now if you merely want to believe that Vanity Fair article because it is good stuff for your preconcieved notion of family-involvement of some sort, that is a totally different matter. Maybe you want him to have said it in the past and maybe you want him to say it in the future, but so far it has not happened. You may ofcourse keep your fingers crossed in the hopes that he will at some time say it. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to you, but it won't change the fact that so far he has not said it.

All I can say is read Steve's book.

[BloodshotEye]

With regard to the the interview of JAR, reported to have been conducted by police:

As I posted up there...
Various news papers, reported that Attorney Dave Heckenbach, who ran grand juries for the Denver District Attorney's office from 1986 to 1992, said that this exchange between JAR and police, could be one of the issues the jury wanted to ask him about.

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist, but I guess strange things have happened.

[Ivy]

Thanks for the laugh, Toth, but I don't take kindly to people who make me choke on my coffee. ;)

[Imon128]

I do believe that info regarding JAR saying this, is in Steve's book.

[Toth]

Thanks for the laugh, Toth, but I don't take kindly to people who make me choke on my coffee. ;)You must have a real tough time then reading that Vanity Fair article and reading the Steve Thomas book.
Coffee? You should try tea. The leaves will give you are more authoritative source than Steve Thomas.

[Britt]

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist...
Nope, not likely that they would. What purpose would that serve?

I'm surprised the Reverend Toth doesn't simply attribute JAR's statement to his being a Good Christian, consistent with Ramsey perfection... lol.

[Imon128]

Yeah, JAR, that good little Christian boy who was known to have drinking problems (with the law) and a very hot temper. Your typical God fearing teenager, who might hope for a little (????) forgiveness for himself as he spewed his words? Yeah, probably. JMO, though.

[Ivy]

Toth, how do you know that JAR didn't make the forgiveness comments? Did he tell you he didn't? If he did tell you that, then that settles it...he didn't make the forgiveness comments. lol

[Tristan]

[QUOTE=K777angel]No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not."

Excellent point. There would have been SO much evidence left behind, seeing as the supposed "intruder" was in the house for so long. (Lying in wait for them to get home, then to fall asleep, proceed to abduct Jonbenet and then molest and kill her.)

"It is utterly absurd to think that this was a stranger."

While there are several different theories that *could* work, ALL are Ramseys!!!

[Toth]

He took his duct tape with him but he left his dna under her fingernails and in her panties. Are you complaining that he didn't leave muddy footprints on the carpet? Do you really think such a magnum opus of a fanciful ransom note was concocted by the parents after some sort of bedwetting accident? IF she wet the bed, how did her bladder once AGAIN void urine at the place of death in the basement?

[Maxi]

One possibility is that she did not completely void her bladder the first time.

Another is that the incident that took place upstairs happened because she didn't urinate when Patsy or John wanted her to.

Yet another possiblity -- perhaps the urine in the basement floor came from her already urine soaked longjohns.

[Toth]

Another is that the incident that took place upstairs happened because she didn't urinate when Patsy or John wanted her to. So now you have the parents going berserk and killing her because she did NOT wet the bed?

The lengths to which you will go to avoid simply saying "an intruder".

[lannie]

[QUOTE=K777angel]No intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"With all that was done to that little girl there should be a plethora of forensic evidence left behind by the perp.
There is not."

Excellent point. There would have been SO much evidence left behind, seeing as the supposed "intruder" was in the house for so long. (Lying in wait for them to get home, then to fall asleep, proceed to abduct Jonbenet and then molest and kill her.)

"It is utterly absurd to think that this was a stranger."

While there are several different theories that *could* work, ALL are Ramseys!!!

Reply ,there was a lot of evidence left behind and as much as we know it all belongs to the family in the house ,the (ramseys) .

[Toth]

Not the cord, the duct tape, the stun gun, the male dna, the action-movies of the note, the handwriting of the note.
No motive, no pathology.

[Shylock]

The lengths to which you will go to avoid simply saying "an intruder".What I find interesting is the same people who so easily say "intruder" are the ones that lack the common sense to realize that any 10-year old can swing a baseball bat hard enough to crack the skull of a 6-year old.

[Toth]

Can they leave dna that doesn't belong to them in three separate spots on their victim?

[Jayelles]

Can they leave dna that doesn't belong to them in three separate spots on their victim?

Can you provide a source that says the three different DNA samples are a match? At least LovelyPigeon has the integrity to state:-

I have not read a credible published source claiming that the male DNA from the nail clippings is either consistent with or inconsistent with the male DNA from the panties,

Are you saying you know something she doesn't?

[Ivy]

Toth, if the mystery DNA is real and not a false positive from the amplification process, it probably came via a sneeze or cough from a worker in the underwear factory. There is no way your intruder would leave smidgens of degraded DNA on the body.

[Shylock]

Toth, if the mystery DNA is real and not a false positive from the amplification process, it probably came via a sneeze or cough from a worker in the underwear factory. There is no way your intruder would leave smidgens of degraded DNA on the body.

Ivy, see the new thread I just posted which really details what DNA contamination is all about.

[Blazeboy3]

So now you have the parents going berserk and killing her because she did NOT wet the bed?

The lengths to which you will go to avoid simply saying "an intruder".

:) :cool: please "tell me 'IT AIN'T SO'!"..."
You can't be "serious=for real" ... hum... right ... ???

[Blazeboy3]

Not the cord, the duct tape, the stun gun, the male dna, the action-movies of the note, the handwriting of the note.
No motive, no pathology.

Ok...so TOTH-you were there at "that time of confusion/killing?"
Toth: "Absolutely...are you/so SURE ABOUT THAT/THIS :liar: :crazy: info? :blowkiss: :blowkiss: :doh: ???"Hum???

[Blazeboy3]

It sounds crazy, but maybe the killer just didn't have the stomach for what she or he'd done. I've read about would-be rapists who killed because they couldn't live with their behavior or their failure to actually accomplish the rape.

These types sometimes engage in undoing behavior like covering the body or even just covering the victim's head. How sick is that?

TOTALLY "SICK" IMHO ... FWIW ... But I'm from NEBRASKA (Omaha...the la