"Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"

[Nehemiah]

I am just now reading this book by Wecht. I know most of you read this a long time ago, and frankly, I don't know why I've waited so long to purchase/read it.

What are your thoughts on this particular book and on Dr. Wecht?

[sissi]

Dr. Wecht,IMO,interpreted the autopsy findings correctly,finding that the strangulation occurred before the hit on the head. He found the "less than two spoonfulls of blood indicative of blood flow having stopped".
His problem wasn't in his discussion of autopsy findings ,it was with his giant leap to "DETECTIVE". Indicating chronic vaginal inflamation must mean chronic abuse,then taking that to the terrible end that this wasn't just chronic abuse it was JOHN who abused,molested and killed her.
He is good in his field,he should have stayed there!!!

IMO

[Maxi]

The book is great for explaining the medical aspects of the case, tho some of Wecht's conclusions can be disputed. The rest of the book is just rehashed tab stories. Wecht had no inside track on the case at the time he wrote the book.

I believe Wecht has a JD as well as an MD, so evalutation evidence and legal issues isn't completely out of his field.

[ajt400]

I think that Wecht is one of those people that tends to see conspiracy wherever he looks. (JMO-don't freak out on me) His book was very informative as far as medical records go. I don't put alot of faith in him as a detective, either.

[Imon128]

I really enjoyed reading Wecht's book. He gave some good medical info, in layman's terms. I expected him to have some ideas, and was glad to hear what he thought, since he's had so much experience and has seen the outcome of cases he's worked on.

[BrotherMoon]

Thank yoooo sissi! Strangulation first. Chisel that in stone (JonBenet's tombstone).

Wecht had a wheedling ghost writer. Wecht himself is much impressed by Wecht. He gets derailed by the importance of sex.

Nehemiah. The kundalini is an eastern philosophy that says the body's energies lie dormant at the base of the spine. That's represented by the coiled serpent. Stimulation of the serpent causes the energy to rise in the body along two paths that intersect at seven junctures called chakras. Various schools of modern psychology parallel the description of symptoms of the activated chakras. Notably (please excuse me but I have to use the F word) Freud and his sex theory match the second chakra.

Stimulation of the serpent can cause symptoms all over the body if not done with guidance, including excessive talking (fifth), visions (sixth) and obsession with the God image (seventh). Sexual activity is only one of the symptoms of the rising kundalini energy.

Patsy's crime shows symptoms from the stimulation of many of the chakras and yes sex is part of it but a minor one imo. Wecht like so many over emphasize it.

You asked about the serpent in one of my other posts.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
I am just now reading this book by Wecht. I know most of you read this a long time ago, and frankly, I don't know why I've waited so long to purchase/read it.

What are your thoughts on this particular book and on Dr. Wecht?

My Thoughts: Compelling...a must-read b00k ...at times "hard to comprehend but you do so for the sake of JonBenet......I did have to read this/his/Wecht's book twice... ... !!! ... ~~~ ???!!!~~~!!!"IMHO...FWIW :D :eek: :D:rolleyes: ;) :) :o :D

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
Thank yoooo sissi! Strangulation first. Chisel that in stone (JonBenet's tombstone).

Wecht had a wheedling ghost writer. Wecht himself is much impressed by Wecht. He gets derailed by the importance of sex.

Nehemiah. The kundalini is an eastern philosophy that says the body's energies lie dormant at the base of the spine. That's represented by the coiled serpent. Stimulation of the serpent causes the energy to rise in the body along two paths that intersect at seven junctures called chakras. Various schools of modern psychology parallel the description of symptoms of the activated chakras. Notably (please excuse me but I have to use the F word) Freud and his sex theory match the second chakra.

Stimulation of the serpent can cause symptoms all over the body if not done with guidance, including excessive talking (fifth), visions (sixth) and obsession with the God image (seventh). Sexual activity is only one of the symptoms of the rising kundalini energy.

Patsy's crime shows symptoms from the stimulation of many of the chakras and yes sex is part of it but a minor one imo. Wecht like so many over emphasize it.

You asked about the serpent in one of my other posts.

:confused: :dontknow: WHAT'S IT MEAN?: ... help ?!... ENGLISH ... please ...(I read/understood it...but not sure of meaning...!?)/...!~~~:dontknow: :confused: :D :p ;) :)

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Imon128
I really enjoyed reading Wecht's book. He gave some good medical info, in layman's terms. I expected him to have some ideas, and was glad to hear what he thought, since he's had so much experience and has seen the outcome of cases he's worked on.

DITTO...I agree(a joyful book to read!)! ...can't say I understood it in his layman terms but I did read the whole book(open-mindedly +) and can say/did enjoy reading it (as I understood it to be ... ) for what it was worth to me...regarding JONBENET PATRICIA RAMSEY...!!!~~~ .. ~~~it's a MUST-READ-BOOK ... just because it's FULL OF INFORMATION TO DATE... ~~~@@...~~~!!!:D
:mad: :eek: :confused: :mad: :confused: :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :D

[ajt400]

So, if the strangulation came first, that rules out an accident, right? (PR going bonkers and knocking JBR in the head)

[Nehemiah]

ajt, some have theorized that the strangulation was Burke getting angry with her over some incident, and then the garrotte was applied by the parents to cover up anything that had to do with that. Others have theorized that it was aea gone too far.... I guess the ones who hold these theories would need to speak of it for themselves as I cannot remember the details.

Thanks BrotherM, for your explanation.

[BrotherMoon]

Yes, strangulation first rules out accident.

Head blow second rules in ritual.

Blazeboy3, I mean JonBenet's death does not revolve around sexual abuse as so many of the lay detectives think.

Patsy did the deed but she was using JonBenet before the famous deed in ways that had nothing to do with sex and she continues to use her in ways that have nothing to do with sex.

The Psalms are refered to over and over by Patsy before the event, after in DOI and in the ransom note. Patsy repeatedly ties the angel theme to JonBenet, again before, after and during the event. Patsy's ruminations on God are projected on to JonBenet.

The blow to the head, the initial strangulation, the final position of the garrote, the raising of the arms, the implied posing of the body and the duct tape point to obsessional thinking about corporeal issues in the upper region. And the large panties refer to lower body issues.

The nature of this crime points to a wide spectrum of psychological and physical concerns in the perp, not just sex.

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon


The Psalms are refered to over and over by Patsy before the event, after in DOI and in the ransom note. Patsy repeatedly ties the angel theme to JonBenet, again before, after and during the event. Patsy's ruminations on God are projected on to JonBenet.



Where are the Psalms referred to in the ransom note?

[BrotherMoon]

The number 118.

The repeated use of the word delivery.

The line "I will call you..."

Victory! Saved By The Cross

Psalms;

50-15 And call apon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver you and you will honor me.

118-15 Shouts of joy and Victory resound in the tents of the righteous.

119-146 I have called out to you, Save me! and I will keep your statutes.

[candy]

Excellent Brother Moon!

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
So, if the strangulation came first, that rules out an accident, right? (PR going bonkers and knocking JBR in the head)
Depends on what one means by "accident." It could have been unintentional: PR (or whoever) going bonkers, grabbing JB by the neck/collar and inadvertently choking her.

The head blow which followed could have also been unintentional: PR (or whoever) flinging JB around by the neck/collar and bashing her head into something... OR it could have been deliberate: JB goes unconscious from the choking, perp thinks she's dead and the head blow is attempted staging.

IMO Dr. Spitz is correct:
1. Choking
2. Head blow
3. Garrote strangulation

The "strangulation" came before AND after the head blow.

[BrotherMoon]

Thanks candy. Everyone interested in this case should read The Psalms, especially 118. And they should use The New International Version Study Bible (large volume) as that was the one found in the Ramsey home. The NIV has a comment on 118, it is called the climax of the liturgy. 118 is about sacrifice and if it is the climax then sacrifice is the major theme of The Psalms along with praise.

68-20 Our Lord is a God who saves, from the soveriegn Lord comes escape from death.

103-17 But the loving kindness of God is from time indefinite-

103-18 With those who keep His covenant, and remember to obey His precepts.

105-9 The covenant He made with Abraham, the oath He swore to Isaac.

116-12 How can I repay the Lord for all his kindness to me?

116-17 I will sacrifice a thank offering to you.

[BrotherMoon]

Britt,

Choking/strangulation
Blow to the head
Repositioning of the garrote for display

All intentional.

Marking of the dictionary
Display of The Bible
Feeding of the pineapple
Opening the window
Misspelling posession

All intentional

[ajt400]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
The number 118.

The repeated use of the word delivery.

The line "I will call you..."

Victory! Saved By The Cross

Psalms;

50-15 And call apon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver you and you will honor me.

118-15 Shouts of joy and Victory resound in the tents of the righteous.

119-146 I have called out to you, Save me! and I will keep your statutes.

Sorry Brother, but that just smells like BS to me. How do you know SBTC means saved by the cross? How do you know the 118 in the ransom note refers to the psalm 118?

This is just pure speculation.


And I have a hard time believing that strangling could be accidental. You just don't accidently strangle someone.

Also, if the blow to her head came in the middle, why was is done? To quiet a screaming child? To get the job done? To make sure she was dead?

[Nehemiah]

Thanks BrotherM, for your explanation. However, I can't really "see" a connection to the Psalms, esp. not knowing what SBTC stands for. The only connection I can make is *118* to *118,000* and I think that is a stretch.

[Maxi]

I've wondered if someone triggered a vagal response by grabbing a collar or something like that. If JBR appeared dead or was dead from the vagal response, perhaps that someone thought of what had happened as a strangulation. That might lead to staging a strangulation scene with the cord and stick to explain away the first one.

[Imon128]

I believe the killer did an act that could have suffocated JB, and when JB collapsed from this act, hit her head, the killer began a massive coverup because he knew she was dead/dying.

[BrotherMoon]

ajt400, I didn't say the strangulation was accidental, I said it was deliberate.

The strangulation caused death. The blow to the head had meaning in that it sent the angel on it's way as per The Psalms
118-16 The Lord's right hand is lifted high, The Lord's right hand has done mighty things.

Acronyms are commonly used in the Christian subculture and S.B.T.C. is commonly known as saved by the cross. Acronyms are an important part of the Christian myth as JHVH, INRI, ICTHYS and many others.

My theory is speculation based on connections made betwen well known facts of the case. Most notably literature that Patsy concerned herself with and elements of the case that match the literature.

The body was posed post mortem. I include the final position of the garrote as part of the posing. The head blow was delivered before that and did not have anything to do with killing as that was already done by the strangualtion (manual, garroting or otherwise).

The lack of skin lascration precludes an accident as an accident would likely be with a hard object. The head was covered or the object that hit her was padded.

Nehemiah and ajt400 see www.Seraph.net.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
So, if the strangulation came first, that rules out an accident, right? There is no proof either way which came first, the strangulation or the headblow. Some of the so-called "experts" think the lack of blood proves the headblow was second--it doesn't.
When they broadcast the photos Smit released on the Today Show, one of them was the photo of the cracked skull cap. Smit commented about the lack of blood. An emergency room Doctor (I think in Denver) came forward and stated that they see a lot of skull fractures that have little or no bleeding.

[sissi]

Brother moon, it's interesting that others,such as the Barnhills were steeped deeply into religion,if I remember correctly they ran the in home bible study class. Who attended these classes?
Through the years I have "tasted" many religions,and have found some so limited in scope ,their "word" so paraphrased,and their congregations so fanatical,that the attraction is there for those who need "obsessively need" a power to take over their lives. Among these groups are those so very repentent for horrible past sins, adults who will hold their hands to the heavens and repent for adultery,child molestation,drug use,murder,they cry,mumble,scream out for forgiveness.......perhaps we have a backslider?
JMO IMO

[Ivy]

As a BDIer, I find the Ramsey quotes in the following article excerpt interesting:

Theories about the Ramseys' guilt tend to cast one of them as the accomplice who is protecting the perpetrator.
"Anybody who's ever had a child, and thinks that, has to have rocks in their heads," Patsy said. "I mean, I love my husband. But I adore, passionately, my children. And if he ever laid a hand on them, I'd knock his block off. People just don't use their common sense."

"The police asked me that question," John said. "I had to think about it, because I'd never even thought about it. The police said, 'Just what if Patsy had done this? Would you turn her in? Would you turn on her?' Of course I would. I would have to."

Their son, Burke, who was 9 at the time of the killing, has been cleared by authorities. But both Ramseys agree it would be more tempting to cover up for your child than for your spouse.

"The love of a child is unconditional," John said. "So that presents a much bigger dilemma, if you love that child unconditionally, and yet they've done this horrible thing. But if you love that child, you've got to get help for that child. It's a tougher question to think through."

Source (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0319rams1.shtml)

[Nehemiah]

I have been a Christian for many years and I can assuredly say that mainstream Christianity (which would definitely include Episcopalian, Presbyterian, of which the Rs were a part) does not ascribe to sacrificing one's children--not for any form of repentance, or to please/gain favor with God...or for any reason. Certainly there are lunatics in every religion but I have not read anything to date that led me to believe that the Rs were practicing anything that would lead them to believe that God would have them sacrifice a child.

I respect your right to hold the views that you do; I just do not agree. To say that Patsy suffered a psychosis that led to this, well, I won't rebut that because I don't have inside info to argue that point. However, to make a blanket statement that Christianity supports such, well, I know better and have to put my two cents in on that one. ;)

[Maxi]

Nehemiah, that was one problem I had with Stephen Singular. He has said that Patsy's charismatic Christianity made her more likely to become psychotic. Of course, he also said that some huge percent (I forget the number) of Southern women were sociopaths.

I think it would be more accurate to say that charismatic beliefs and practices can mask a psychotic break, especially at the beginning. Religious delusions are very common in psychosis, and, if a person often talks about such things as direct orders from God or possession by demons, it might be hard to tell when those beliefs are truly religious and when they are part of a psychosis.

[Nehemiah]

I know I am neurotic; perhaps I am a sociopath and psychotic, also, and don't know it? LOL I wonder upon what study Singular bases his statement? Very interesting but he'd have to prove that one to me!

I agree that certain held beliefs could mask the beginning of a psychotic episode. From what has been written/reported about Patsy, it has never appeared that she was suffering from a psychosis. With as much as was leaked about the case, I would think that something that serious would have been exposed in some form or the other to the public, but that's just my opinion.

[BrotherMoon]

Well put Maxi. Evidence of Patsy's prgressive psychosis can be found in the change of pageant costuming for JonBenet through time and possibly in the frequency of JonBenet's visits to the doctor and her bed wetting.

Personal psychology comes before religion, philosophy or social interaction. The theme of religion in her crime overlays psychopathology. The Psalms were not the motive for what she did, they provided her with authority and justification for what she wanted to do. She had urges to USE JonBenet early in the child's life, maybe before she was born. That urge was acted apon bit by bit, eventually JonBenet was integrated into Patsy's personal fantasy that revolved around her relationship with a supernatural being. Patsy's private ruminations about her own God/Evil nature and her relationship to her God were well developed in her adolescence. I refer you all to The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie. Please read the book and play and watch the movie.

Jean Brodie was a pathological narcissist. Sandy Stranger struggled to free herself from her influence. This story parallels Patsy's psychological development and needs; to free herself from her own narcissism or from the influence of Nedra who gives all the appearences of having been an intrusive narcissist herself.
Patsy identified with the characters of this story to an extraordinary degree to the point that they became split-off persona complexes, elements in her own unfinished maturation.

THE KEYS TO PATYS'S PSYCHOSIS ARE TO BE FOUND IN THIS STORY, NOT THE PSALMS.

Patsy found a later identification with the character in the Psalms as her adult life went along on it's path of digression. The wreckage of her life was compensated by fantasy and a regression into childhood, into unfinished business, into unattended needs. And she lost control. Her attempt to control involved inventing her own God and interpreting The Psalms in a self serving manner. In the end she could not see the difference between her infantile retentive self and her God and probably didn't want to, just as she couldn't tell the difference between herself and JonBenet.

As far as evidence of a psychosis, it is there, and would become more evident if all the details of her life were to come out. Psychoses run in a gradient, at the beginning the symptoms are not seen as pathological. In fact they are often seen as positive creative qualities. I refer to all the visionary experiences of the prophets of the OLd and New Testament.

Chistianity did not fail Patsy Ramsey, she failed it.

[ajt400]

But Brother, it's been 8 years....nothing has come up yet except for peoples specualtions.

I would rather see a psychiatrist exam her and then make a diagnosis of her psychosis and whether or not she is psychotic, narcissistic, etc.

Does anyone have any info on this? Has PR ever been hospitalized before or after the murder for any form of breakdown or 'episodes?'


If this is true about PR then the disease gets worse as you age, she would have been full blown by the time JBR was killed and definetely now. I would think after the murder it would be harder for her to hide her problems from others. Especially those close to the family.

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Britt
Depends on what one means by "accident." It could have been unintentional: PR (or whoever) going bonkers, grabbing JB by the neck/collar and inadvertently choking her.

The head blow which followed could have also been unintentional: PR (or whoever) flinging JB around by the neck/collar and bashing her head into something... OR it could have been deliberate: JB goes unconscious from the choking, perp thinks she's dead and the head blow is attempted staging.

IMO Dr. Spitz is correct:
1. Choking
2. Head blow
3. Garrote strangulation

The "strangulation" came before AND after the head blow.

Absolutely! Well said, Britt, as always.

This scenario fits all of the KNOWN evidence. There is still evidence we do not know, and may never know.

As I have posted before, the following order of injury to JBR makes sense:

1. Choking - possibly by shirt neck collar or hands
2. Head blow
3. Garrote strangulation

As Maxi said, if the vagus nerve was stimulated, JBR could have appeared already dead after the initial choking and head blow. The garrote was applied AFTER some sort of struggle when JBR could no longer defend herself.

As discussed previously, many posters have stated examples of severe head wounds that produced very little internal bleeding at the skull area.


My opinion.

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Maxi
I think it would be more accurate to say that charismatic beliefs and practices can mask a psychotic break, especially at the beginning. Religious delusions are very common in psychosis, and, if a person often talks about such things as direct orders from God or possession by demons, it might be hard to tell when those beliefs are truly religious and when they are part of a psychosis.

Excellent post, Maxi, and an extremely accurate description of the "religious" experience of some individuals.



My opinion.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Cherokee
1. Choking - possibly by shirt neck collar or hands
2. Head blow
3. Garrote strangulation



If hands were used, or a shirt collar for that matter, where are those marks? Would there not be bruising around the neck if that were the case? There was damage when she was supposedly 'already dead' with the use of the garrote. Why would there not be when the actual strangulation occured?

[BrotherMoon]

ajt400, Patsy is well protected by her husband and lawyers isn't she? With less pressure there is less need for disociation.

And remember, the object of the killing was to get a personal emissary to heaven. That has been accomplished. That would lessen symptoms right there. My guess is there has been a transfer of narcissistic needs to Burke and his role in their church. The psychosis continues.

I disagree with your anticipation of the progression and your use of the word disease. She isn't diseased, she is human.

And 2003-1996=7 not 8.

[ajt400]

Yes, and humans have diseases.....do you think a disease of the brain is different?

Oh Mr Bossy Britches, excuse me, I was 8 days short of the actual 8 year reunion. My bad.

I thought the killing was because of incest? It now is a sacrifice to Jesus?

How do you anticipate the progression when it has been proven? Mental illness, especially psychosis, gets WORSE with age. Look it up.....

[ajt400]

Oh, and even without less pressure, the disorder would still be there.

Psychotic personalities do not just wake up one morning and are "cured."

[Maxi]

Ajt, please delete the naming calling from your post to BrotherMoon.

If Patsy killed JonBenet, I think she might have done it while in the throes of a brief psychotic episode. A brief psychotic episode requires, be definition, normal functioning before and after the episode. Psychotic episodes can also be triggered by general medical conditions or drug use. These episodes can come on rather suddenly and don't last more than a few weeks. They may or may not recur.

I've always wondered if this might have been why Patsy was so heavily medicated in the weeks after JBR's death, and why family and friends seemed to keep her tucked away. I remember that the police had some difficulty getting medical records from the Ramseys -- I don't know whose records those were.

Here's a good online resource with up-to-date psychological definitions and clear explanations. The DSM-IV casebook is available in bookstores, and gives interesting examples of some psychiatric diagnoses.

[Nehemiah]

But they did go on CNN so soon after the murder. I can't see JR trusting that situation if Patsy were psychotic, or so recently psychotic that she had committed a crime. I would think a cool headed CEO would be afraid that she could get verbally out of control with a camera rolling.

[Imon128]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
But they did go on CNN so soon after the murder. I can't see JR trusting that situation if Patsy were psychotic, or so recently psychotic that she had committed a crime. I would think a cool headed CEO would be afraid that she could get verbally out of control with a camera rolling.

Yes, very fishy that they'd go on TV so soon after JB's death. If, in fact, they were overcome with grief at the loss of JB, a TV appearance so soon, would have been a no brainer....NO, read my lips, NO. It only makes them appear to be overly concerned with appearances, and not overcome with grief. JMO

[Cherokee]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
But they did go on CNN so soon after the murder. I can't see JR trusting that situation if Patsy were psychotic, or so recently psychotic that she had committed a crime. I would think a cool headed CEO would be afraid that she could get verbally out of control with a camera rolling.

We know that Patsy was drugged at the time of the CNN interview, and many people have surmised she was on some sort of benzodiazepine such as Valium, Xanax, Klonopin or the like.

These drugs are known as tranquilizers, and they inhibit spontaneous response as they are central nervous system depressors. These drugs have a calming effect because they keeps neurons from firing in certain areas of the brain, especially neurons carrying the anxiety hormone cortisol. This reduces any anxiety response in the individual, and so is used to combat panic attacks or other psychological disturbances.

If you watch the CNN interview closely, you notice Patsy rambles with her responses which is also indicative of someone under the influence of "tranquilizers." In addition, John controls the conversation, often interrupting Patsy, or taking over the topic at hand. He is careful to keep Patsy on a "short leash' as it were, and make sure she does not say something incriminating.



My opinion.

[Nehemiah]

Good point, Imon.

[BrotherMoon]

Thanks again Maxi. Any chance I can change my hat as per....?

Psychoses come and psychoses go,
What are you gonna do about it?
That's what I wanna know.--Paul Simon (Paraphrased)

I think the appearance on CNN was part of her psychotic behavior. She used a phrase right out of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie when she broke in and said we feel there are at least two people that know, the killer and someone that person may have CONFIDED IN. John flinched noticeably.

DOI is also part of her psychosis. She just can't keep quiet.

My hope is the pressure cooker is still going and will pop when John lets the lid slip. Hot times in Charleviox?

[Imon128]

No doubt John' s reaction to Patsy's diatribe caused a 'flinch'. I guess it's u[ to our intrerpreation. Both parenst had a faux pas moment, no matter how we intrpret it, IMO.

[Ivy]

Not long after JonBenet's death, Patsy and Burke went to Michigan, alone. I don't believe John would have trusted Patsy to be alone with Burke if Patsy had psychotic tendencies, especially if she had killed JonBenet during a psychotic episode.

[sissi]

Good point IVY!
Patsy exhibited no sign of psychotic behaviors.
Maybe we should look at a few who did...Fleet in Atlanta....Randy
Simon ..running through the streets naked....Mervin Pugh..alchoholic or nut?.....Santa with his ramblings at the service....the guy who worked for Jay who said he saw the ghosts of children coming out of the sewers saying Jay killed her......MM who claims he was temporarily "gone" while robotripping over the holiday.....wow!! Boulder may have nuts,but why were there so many in Jonbenet's life.
After the murder a few more put in their two cents, Chris Wolf's girlfriend,the guy who attended the memorial service (forgot his name) do we call him St. Aquinas?....again santa...and on....
JMO that Patsy is innocent!!!!!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Ivy
As a BDIer, I find the Ramsey quotes in the following article excerpt interesting:

Theories about the Ramseys' guilt tend to cast one of them as the accomplice who is protecting the perpetrator.
"Anybody who's ever had a child, and thinks that, has to have rocks in their heads," Patsy said. "I mean, I love my husband. But I adore, passionately, my children. And if he ever laid a hand on them, I'd knock his block off. People just don't use their common sense."

"The police asked me that question," John said. "I had to think about it, because I'd never even thought about it. The police said, 'Just what if Patsy had done this? Would you turn her in? Would you turn on her?' Of course I would. I would have to."

Their son, Burke, who was 9 at the time of the killing, has been cleared by authorities. But both Ramseys agree it would be more tempting to cover up for your child than for your spouse.

"The love of a child is unconditional," John said. "So that presents a much bigger dilemma, if you love that child unconditionally, and yet they've done this horrible thing. But if you love that child, you've got to get help for that child. It's a tougher question to think through."

Source (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0319rams1.shtml)

Interesting read...
"We've not ever faulted anybody for looking at us," Patsy said. "Our child, our home, we're the parents. But don't stop there. That's the trouble."
...
"You can't protect against everything," John said. "Life is a risk. But you've got to implore people, when it comes to their children, to know that people look at your children and get sexually excited. Know that. We were ignorant of that. Be aware."
...
"I have thought a lot about what I want to happen to this killer," John said. "And what I want to have happen is, I want this person to suffer as much as my daughter suffered. If he values life more than anything, then put him to death. But in some cases, death can be a gift. And I am not going to give this person a gift.

:dontknow: :confused: what the R's saying (?s); trying to anyway?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
I know I am neurotic; perhaps I am a sociopath and psychotic, also, and don't know it? LOL I wonder upon what study Singular bases his statement? Very interesting but he'd have to prove that one to me!

I agree that certain held beliefs could mask the beginning of a psychotic episode. From what has been written/reported about Patsy, it has never appeared that she was suffering from a psychosis. With as much as was leaked about the case, I would think that something that serious would have been exposed in some form or the other to the public, but that's just my opinion.

Have you read dr.Hodges two books on this? Maybe Dr.Hodges' definition of Patsy's ways is their (psychosis?...yathink?it was in Dr.Hodges' two books (re:Patsy's character...?) that to-date, The R's have not sued him...wonder why?...

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
ajt400, Patsy is well protected by her husband and lawyers isn't she? With less pressure there is less need for disociation.

And remember, the object of the killing was to get a personal emissary to heaven. That has been accomplished. That would lessen symptoms right there. My guess is there has been a transfer of narcissistic needs to Burke and his role in their church. The psychosis continues.

I disagree with your anticipation of the progression and your use of the word disease. She isn't diseased, she is human.

And 2003-1996=7 not 8.

DITTO!...I agree ... do the math LOL!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
Thanks again Maxi. Any chance I can change my hat as per....?

Psychoses come and psychoses go,
What are you gonna do about it?
That's what I wanna know.--Paul Simon (Paraphrased)

I think the appearance on CNN was part of her psychotic behavior. She used a phrase right out of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie when she broke in and said we feel there are at least two people that know, the killer and someone that person may have CONFIDED IN. John flinched noticeably.

DOI is also part of her psychosis. She just can't keep quiet.

My hope is the pressure cooker is still going and will pop when John lets the lid slip. Hot times in Charleviox?


DrHodges books reveal this(Patsy's psychoses) IMHO!
http://enotalone.com/books/0961725524.html
THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES VIA PSYCHO-LINGUISTICS
By necessity, Dr. Hodges repeats much of the rivetting research he first revealed in his first book on the Ramsey murder, A MOTHER GONE BAD, but here he and his learned colleagues go much further. Not only do they explore the hidden messages from the child killer(s) contained in the rambling "ransom note" found at the scene, they also expertly analyze subsequent statements by the Ramsey parents--all of which point to their sadly shared guilt. After making an amazingly strong case against the Ramseys, damning them with their own words no less, Dr. Hodges then takes aim at both the media and the would-be prosecutors, for their inability and/or unwillingness to accept this convincing psycholinguistic analysis as evidence suitable for a court of law. According to recent news reports (mid-July 2000) the parents--John and Patsy Ramsey--soon will schedule another of their rare meetings with Boulder Police in an effort to solve the Dec. 25, 1996 strangulation slaying of their six-year-old beauty queen daughter. Such a sitdown should be as good a time as any for the authorities to confont these prime suspects with the subliminal messages which Hodges and others have unearthed, including multiple references to Patsy's struggle with cancer and John's financial and professional guilt-trips. Dr. Hodges maintains that all human beings possess a "Deeper Intelligence" which comes to the fore regardless of efforts to suppress it. In this manner, he maintains that Patsy especially, as the author of the alleged ransom note, "brilliantly" tells the entire story of that awful Christmas night in Colorado four years ago. Anyone who still thinks the Ramseys are innocent owes it to themselves, to JonBenet, and to the very concepts of Truth and Justice, to hear Hodges out. As the good doctor himself advises the Ramseys in an "open letter" in this new book, "The Truth will set you free."

[ajt400]

I can't do math, I went to public school. They just taught us to use calculators if the digits are TOO big!

[BrotherMoon]

I'd like to belabor a dead horse concerning psychosis.

A psychosis occurs when a person's ego degrades to the point it becomes subject to the contents of the unconscious. The unconscious is the source of symbol, dream and myth. A psychotic may identify with a mythic figure or imagine themselves related to one and to be a part of a mythic storyline. Their behavior may have a high degree of structure and a low degree of rationality.

Patsy's psychosis has structure evidenced by the ransom note, the repeated references to The Psalms and literature in general. I include DOI here. Her psychosis has very much to do with numbers, dates, birthdays and the symbolism in letters, words and objects.

Her psychosis was timeline sensitive. It led up to a single date, the last Christmas before her 40th and JonBenet's 7th birthday. Her psychosis led to an act that was carried out. Her psychosis has structure much as a novel has the structure of; introduction, body, climax and denouement. Patsy is still in the psychotic denouement, her daughter is in heaven with a God awaiting her arrival.

As far as disease, I do not believe the psyche resides in the brain. It resides in the whole body and possibly beyond. Behavior pathology does not necessarily indicate physical pathology. There is major fault to be found with scientific materialism.

Patsy Ramsey is inhibited in her ability to function socially due to moral maladaptation and lack of maturation. It is these qualities that are compensated by an IMAGINED relationship to a supernatural being. This is something that humans in general have been grappling with throughout history.

Patsy's behavior and crime have little to do with disease and more to do with problems of the conscious moral nature that we all share.

[sissi]

BrotherMoon,I believe the person who killed Jonbenet was mentally ill,either induced by organic disease or by substance abuse. It is not uncommon for this type of person to be having some type of religious experience and incorporating it into their crime. Patsy,no,she's just fine,she didn't kill her baby!
imo

[BlueCrab]

Who killed JonBenet? Well, we know that it can reasonably be boiled down to the involvement of at least one of the three family members besides JonBenet who were known to be in the house that night.

John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor -- and Burke doesn't. And neither has Burke ever been cleared, since Hunter's affidavit, in my opinion, is an obvious fraud.

However, there is some evidence of a fifth person in the house that night --
and that person could have been the killer with a Ramsey family member as an unwilling accomplice.

The killing, in my opinion, involved EA (erotic asphyxiation) and was an accident followed by gruesome staging and a bizarre coverup. The physical evidence of the killing being the result of EA gone wrong is the EA device still wrapped around JonBenet's neck and the circumferential marks on the neck.

In my opinion JonBenet died accidentally during EA, and was then hit on the head and finally viciously strangled as part of the staging to make it appear that the "murder" was done by a terrorist foreign faction.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Ivy]

Welcome back, Blue Crab! We've missed you.

Would you please tell us what evidence there is of a possible fifth person in the house that night?

[eliza]

I also would like to welcome you back BlueCrab, I've been eagerly waiting for your return! That 5th person theory of yours seems very intriguing.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
And neither has Burke ever been cleared, since Hunter's affidavit, in my opinion, is an obvious fraud. Welcome back Blue Crab. You don't have to consider Burke's status as a suspect any more, it's a whole new investigation. The RST will be the first to tell you that Keenan has started from "ground-zero" with her own team and own investigation. That being the case, Burke is once again one of three prime suspects. And nobody from Keenan's office has said "boo" about him being cleared by this "new" investigation.

With that said, I have to add that I don't hold out any hope that this "new" team of investigators has any more common sense than the last bunch. Keenan has already shown herself to be quite the bimbo. I wouldn't hold my breath about anything in this case. The only sure-thing is that no intruder will EVER be caught. Ramsey supporters have a better chance of witnessing the second coming of Christ before the capture of their beloved intruder.

[Nehemiah]

Welcome back BlueCrab. Did you get a new computer?

[sissi]

Absolutely, there was a fifth person in that house......the killer!
IMO
Who was it?
Was it someone we "know"?
Was it
Fleet in the throws of a manic episode?
Was it a Pugh,who didn't like the way their child was treated as second hand rose?
Was it an "alley" dweller?
Was it Santa? How many of your spouses carve out the names of dead children?
Was it that oriental young man that lived with the "steins or fernies",I forget which?
Was it the twins who lived with melody stanton?
How about the "prophet",who liked to decapitate barbies and take their pictures?
Chris wolf,why would he?Political reasons?
The gardener,who noticed her leg muscles and her "deep" thoughts?
The Boulder burglar?
Could it be the photographer who ran naked throught the streets screaming to all that he was innocent?
A scorned business associate,Merrick?
The babysitter,who gave up dates because she loved Jonbenet so much she needed to watch her?(at 19 puleaze)
Maybe the eccentric who set the foyer on fire? His handwriting is darn close,but he just liked dressing up the already dead.
Or perhaps Jay's employee who saw the ghosts tell him Jay did it?
Has anyone ever read a novel..where there were sooooooooo many possibilities.
And.....without really knowing each individually ,how can we think Patsy ,Burke or any Ramsey is the best choice. Heck they seem the least psychotic of the "Boulder group".

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
Yes, strangulation first rules out accident.

Head blow second rules in ritual.

Blazeboy3, I mean JonBenet's death does not revolve around sexual abuse as so many of the lay detectives think.

Patsy did the deed but she was using JonBenet before the famous deed in ways that had nothing to do with sex and she continues to use her in ways that have nothing to do with sex.

The Psalms are refered to over and over by Patsy before the event, after in DOI and in the ransom note. Patsy repeatedly ties the angel theme to JonBenet, again before, after and during the event. Patsy's ruminations on God are projected on to JonBenet.

The blow to the head, the initial strangulation, the final position of the garrote, the raising of the arms, the implied posing of the body and the duct tape point to obsessional thinking about corporeal issues in the upper region. And the large panties refer to lower body issues.

The nature of this crime points to a wide spectrum of psychological and physical concerns in the perp, not just sex.

I totally agree...but Jesus...didn't ANYONE SEE THIS COMING??? ,,, ... reminds me of when Patsy stated that it was "premeditated"--and she's the only one that stated that word--thought!!!:dontknow: :confused:

Main Entry: pre·med·i·tat·ed
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
: characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning <premeditated murder>
- pre·med·i·tat·ed·ly adverb
by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
I'd like to belabor a dead horse concerning psychosis.

A psychosis occurs when a person's ego degrades to the point it becomes subject to the contents of the unconscious. The unconscious is the source of symbol, dream and myth. A psychotic may identify with a mythic figure or imagine themselves related to one and to be a part of a mythic storyline. Their behavior may have a high degree of structure and a low degree of rationality.

Patsy's psychosis has structure evidenced by the ransom note, the repeated references to The Psalms and literature in general. I include DOI here. Her psychosis has very much to do with numbers, dates, birthdays and the symbolism in letters, words and objects.

Her psychosis was timeline sensitive. It led up to a single date, the last Christmas before her 40th and JonBenet's 7th birthday. Her psychosis led to an act that was carried out. Her psychosis has structure much as a novel has the structure of; introduction, body, climax and denouement. Patsy is still in the psychotic denouement, her daughter is in heaven with a God awaiting her arrival.

As far as disease, I do not believe the psyche resides in the brain. It resides in the whole body and possibly beyond. Behavior pathology does not necessarily indicate physical pathology. There is major fault to be found with scientific materialism.

Patsy Ramsey is inhibited in her ability to function socially due to moral maladaptation and lack of maturation. It is these qualities that are compensated by an IMAGINED relationship to a supernatural being. This is something that humans in general have been grappling with throughout history.

Patsy's behavior and crime have little to do with disease and more to do with problems of the conscious moral nature that we all share.

Compelling post/info-Thanks!; so what SHOULD HAVE PATSY done... in your honest onion?... surely this was not her only WAY OUT!:eek: ... but I do see how this would have been her "PROFITIBLE WAY OUT"...(?):rolleyes:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
Who killed JonBenet? Well, we know that it can reasonably be boiled down to the involvement of at least one of the three family members besides JonBenet who were known to be in the house that night.

John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor -- and Burke doesn't. And neither has Burke ever been cleared, since Hunter's affidavit, in my opinion, is an obvious fraud.

However, there is some evidence of a fifth person in the house that night --
and that person could have been the killer with a Ramsey family member as an unwilling accomplice.

The killing, in my opinion, involved EA (erotic asphyxiation) and was an accident followed by gruesome staging and a bizarre coverup. The physical evidence of the killing being the result of EA gone wrong is the EA device still wrapped around JonBenet's neck and the circumferential marks on the neck.

In my opinion JonBenet died accidentally during EA, and was then hit on the head and finally viciously strangled as part of the staging to make it appear that the "murder" was done by a terrorist foreign faction.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

WELCOME BACK! Could John(her dad) or Patsy (her mom) OR BOTH have done EA on JonBenet that night? ... is this a possibility that most don't want to consider/ask-answer?:nono:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by sissi
BrotherMoon,I believe the person who killed Jonbenet was mentally ill,either induced by organic disease or by substance abuse. It is not uncommon for this type of person to be having some type of religious experience and incorporating it into their crime. Patsy,no,she's just fine,she didn't kill her baby!
imo

Are you absolutely sure that "she didn't kill her baby!" ... how so?
Justification is EVERYTHING(ANYONE CAN JUSTIFY ANYTHING--FACT!)... so the fact is you're right in your own mind/thinking ... but "the killer on the loose" is still out there regardless..:nono:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
I can't do math, I went to public school. They just taught us to use calculators if the digits are TOO big!

AJT:Too funny...they didn't have CALCULATORS when I was in school/went to school ... you're TOO LUCKY!!!...!!!:) :D:cool: :D

[BlueCrab]

Here's why I believe there was a fifth person in the house that night:

1. The evidence is compelling that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. Therefore it had to have been written by Burke or a fifth person in the house that night.

2. There was crime scene evidence missing from the house that logically could have been removed only by a fifth person. These items included the roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape; the balance of the Stansport white cord; the murder weapon; the tip of the paint brush handle; the piece of dark blue fabric used to wipe down JonBenet; the size 6 panties JonBenet was wearing prior to being redressed in ridiculous size 12 panties; the red ink pen used to draw the red heart on JonBenet's palm; the stun gun; and the nine pages ripped from the note pad used to write the ransom note.

3. There is foreign DNA evidence that suggests that two males were involved.

4. Patsy made repeated comments in the plural, such as "they", about the possible killers. Pam Paugh came right out on T.V. and admitted she knew who was involved and there were two of them, but she didn't know which one did the actual killing.

5. Burke, being only 9 years old at the time, was immune to prosecution under Colorado law but nevertheless the Ramseys embarked on a massive coverup. This suggests they are covering up for a fifth person in the house that night who was 10 years old or older.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Nehemiah]

So, what do you believe their motivation to be in covering up for the fifth person, if Burke were immune?

[BlueCrab]

In my opinion the only reason for the Ramseys to cover up what really happened, even though Burke was immune to prosecution, was to protect a fifth person from possible prosecution who was a family member or a close family friend.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Barbara]

Welcome back BlueCrab!

[Shylock]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
The evidence is compelling that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. A few things have happened in your absence. Someone can post a link for you to FFJ where you can see Darnay's comparison of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note. It convinces anyone with normal eyesight that Patsy is the author of the note. It goes beyond "compelling".

[eliza]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
In my opinion the only reason for the Ramseys to cover up what really happened, even though Burke was immune to prosecution, was to protect a fifth person from possible prosecution who was a family member or a close family friend.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab
As far as the law and Burke I don't believe the Ramseys were aware that Burke would be immune and would just assume he could be prosecuted and so the cover-up began. By the time they realized he was too young they were in over their heads and couldn't find a way out. Also if a fifth person was involved that could have complicated matters even more if one was immune and the other of a age to be prosecuted.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by eliza
As far as the law and Burke I don't believe the Ramseys were aware that Burke would be immune and would just assume he could be prosecuted and so the cover-up began. By the time they realized he was too young they were in over their heads and couldn't find a way out. I think you're right on the money, Eliza. Why would the Ramseys have ANY reason to know the law about what age a child is culpable? I think the dictionary being open and marked to the word "incest" was probably the Ramseys trying to determine what Burke could possibly be guilty of, or charged with.

[Toth]

Originally posted by Shylock
I think the dictionary being open and marked to the word "incest" was probably the Ramseys trying to determine what Burke could possibly be guilty of, or charged with. The dictionary was neither open to that page nor was the page dog-eared in any way. Neither of the Ramseys would concoct any sort of cover-up of anything.

[Ivy]

BC, I think it's possible there was a 5th person (not an intruder) in the house that night who was involved in JonBenet's death, but I don't agree with your reasons for believing there was. Here's why:

After seeing Patsy's exemplars compared to the handwriting in the note, I'm convinced that Patsy penned the note. No one could mimic every nuance of her writing so perfectly.

One of the three Ramseys could easily have disposed of the tape roll, etc. when they left the house on the 26th. None of them was searched by LE. Also, Auntie Pam could have removed the evidence when she did her sweep of the house.

The so-called "foreign" DNA is likely just "noise," or a false positive resulting from the amplification process.

Patsy's "they" comments probably referred to the small foreign faction in the note.

As other posters have said, it's doubtful the Ramseys would have known about the immunity law for kids under 10, so I think the coverup was to protect Burke. Also, I don't think the Rs would go out on a limb for a friend, or even for another family member, under such horrible circumstances.

[Jayelles]

The dictionary was neither open to that page nor was the page dog-eared in any way. Neither of the Ramseys would concoct any sort of cover-up of anything.

How would you know that Toth? You weren't there. You have freely admitted on several occasions that you have never met any of the Ramseys and that you stay in a state far from Boulder (even farther from Georgia).

You cannot possibly claim to to have intimate knowledge of the Ramseys thoughts and of the crime scene.

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by Shylock
A few things have happened in your absence. Someone can post a link for you to FFJ where you can see Darnay's comparison of Patsy's handwriting to the ransom note. It convinces anyone with normal eyesight that Patsy is the author of the note. It goes beyond "compelling".


Will someone please post the link?

[eliza]

I agree with Shylock, Patsy wrote the note. I'm convinced that Patsy wrote the note as her part in the cover-up to save her son from prosecution. I believe that Burke had no prior knowledge of the note and that explains his comment on the 911 call to his father "What did you find".

[SisterSocks]

Originally posted by ajt400
I think that Wecht is one of those people that tends to see conspiracy wherever he looks. (JMO-don't freak out on me) His book was very informative as far as medical records go. I don't put alot of faith in him as a detective, either.


Hey ajt, I agree here. I not a big fan of Wecht.

Socks

[SisterSocks]

Originally posted by eliza
I agree with Shylock, Patsy wrote the note. I'm convinced that Patsy wrote the note as her part in the cover-up to save her son from prosecution. I believe that Burke had no prior knowledge of the note and that explains his comment on the 911 call to his father "What did you find".


Very good point Eliza, Yes I think Patsy wrote the note. Although, I am of the opinion that JAR might be involved.. or a friend.


But if the friend was the killer then why would Patsy write the note Ya Know?

There is just no answer to this puzzle:dontknow:


Socks

[Nehemiah]

Can someone post a link to FFJ where the note is compared to Patsy's writing?

[BlueCrab]

The following is just BlueCrab's opinion:

I'd like to see the comparisons too. If they are from Darnay Hoffman then, IMO, they're invalid.

The comparisons from Tom Miller, Cina Wong, David Leibman, Larry Ziegler, and Gideon Epstein included exemplars that were supposedly in the hand of Patsy Ramsey. IMO they weren't. They were exemplars from Burke Ramsey's photo album obviously written by Burke, not Patsy.

IOW, if Hoffman's experts were right, then Burke Ramsey penned the ransom note.

All of the official handwriting examiners who had access to the ORIGINAL note before it was destroyed for further scientific analyses and who had ALL of the exemplars to study determined that neither John nor Patsy likely wrote the note.

None of Hoffman's examiners had access to the original note.

From this evidence it appears to me that Burke Ramsey penned the ransom note, but was likely helped with the text by the fifth person in the house that night.

[Ivy]

The link was originally posted by Tricia at FFJ. It was an Adobe Acrobat file of the legal document comparing, in a side-by-side format, the exemplars Patsy gave police to the handwriting in the note.

The link I saved no longer works, and I can't find a link to the document anywhere on the net, or at Forums for Justice. Maybe someone who knows Tricia could ask her to repost the link here. (The Adobe file also contained a couple of Wolf v Ramsey affidavits, as I recall.)

Edited for correction: It was ayjey who posted the link here, not tricia. I found ayjey's post with the link, but the link no longer works. Here's a link to ayjey's post:

Patsy's exemplars (http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=783&highlight=exemplars)

[Maxi]

I have wondered if JAR dictated the note over the phone to his friend on the scene, or if he wrote it at another time and his friend carried it in. I know many people hear Patsy in the writing, but I hear a young man because of all the action movie references. I wonder if Patsy helped JAR write high school and college papers. It's possible he could have picked up some of her style.

[BlueCrab]

Patsy also helped teach Burke how to write.

I agree the note had a young male tone to it, what with all of the threats and apparent references to action movies.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Ivy]

I was taught to form my letters in a certain way via the Palmer penmanship method, but my handwriting looks nothing like the Palmer method, and never did. Even if Patsy did teach Burke to write, I don't think he could duplicate her writing to a tee.

I'm a woman older than Patsy. I watch lots of action movies and can quote dialogue from many of them. My husband and I both can, and when we watch movies more than once, we like to say our favorite lines of dialogue with the actors. Our grown kids give each other frightened looks when we so this while they're here.

[Imon128]

Originally posted by Maxi
I have wondered if JAR dictated the note over the phone to his friend on the scene, or if he wrote it at another time and his friend carried it in. I know many people hear Patsy in the writing, but I hear a young man because of all the action movie references. I wonder if Patsy helped JAR write high school and college papers. It's possible he could have picked up some of her style.

Maxi, good thinking! I recall in the beginning of the case, from a tab, ( at that time one of the tabs were insiders), one tab said there was an email on Burke's (hard to believe anybody else couldn't have used it) PC asking how to write a ransom note. This case makes much more sense when I consider JAR the one responsible for JB's death.

[Thorkim]

Whoa Nellie, Imon. This was reported in a tab? I thought I'd read every tab out there and don't remember that. Wow! I think I heard something once about "something" being found on Burke's computer, but had never heard what. And I don't care what anyone says, the tabs have been more right on about this case and recent ones more than they have not. I realize that doesn't prove Burke was involved (anyone could have written the email), but it sure as hell wouldn't have been an intruder. Wouldn't they need a password to get into his computer in the first place? I think a male Ram was behind this crime and do not rule out either JAR or Burke. Why aren't these people behind bars?

[Imon128]

I might have a copy of that tab, Thorkim, but I don't have my scanner hooked in case I'd find it.

Passwords on PC's can be used by more than one, or a PC can be left on with a user's password and somebody else can go under it, I believe.

The PC claimed to be Burke's might have been in what they called the playroom/toyroom on the same floor as the youngsters bedroom. I haven't read where the PC was located, so won't say for sure.

I don't think BDI, but I do believe it was a male Ramsey. Again...JMO

[BlueCrab]

In the 1998 interviews John told Lou Smit:

"The ransom note seemed childish, in terms of a young person."

I agree with John's interpretation -- it was likely written by a young person.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Imon128]

Hi Blue Crab. Although I don't think BDI, I always enjoy reading your take on it. Nice to see you posting again.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
In the 1998 interviews John told Lou Smit:
"The ransom note seemed childish, in terms of a young person."
LOL - Well just what did you expect John to say to the cops, "it reads like the distraught mother of freshly murdered child wrote it"?

The language in the ransom note is NOT the language of a 10 year old. Remember, when this little twirp thinks of his sister he goes "beep, beep, beep"...


IMO

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
Here's why I believe there was a fifth person in the house that night:

1. The evidence is compelling that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. Therefore it had to have been written by Burke or a fifth person in the house that night.

2. There was crime scene evidence missing from the house that logically could have been removed only by a fifth person. These items included the roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape; the balance of the Stansport white cord; the murder weapon; the tip of the paint brush handle; the piece of dark blue fabric used to wipe down JonBenet; the size 6 panties JonBenet was wearing prior to being redressed in ridiculous size 12 panties; the red ink pen used to draw the red heart on JonBenet's palm; the stun gun; and the nine pages ripped from the note pad used to write the ransom note.

3. There is foreign DNA evidence that suggests that two males were involved.

4. Patsy made repeated comments in the plural, such as "they", about the possible killers. Pam Paugh came right out on T.V. and admitted she knew who was involved and there were two of them, but she didn't know which one did the actual killing.

5. Burke, being only 9 years old at the time, was immune to prosecution under Colorado law but nevertheless the Ramseys embarked on a massive coverup. This suggests they are covering up for a fifth person in the house that night who was 10 years old or older.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Here's WHY IMHO THERE WAS NO 5th PERSON!

./1. The evidence is compelling that neither John nor Patsy wrote
./the ransom note. Therefore it had to have been written by
./Burke or a fifth person in the house that night.

a: I AGREE TO DISAGREE...WHERE IS THE "EVIDENCE" TO BACK
UP THIS INFO YOU REFERENCE ABOVE??? ... URL(S)SURELY?

./2. There was crime scene evidence missing from the house that
./logically could have been removed only by a fifth person. These
./ items included the roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape; the
./balance of the Stansport white cord; the murder weapon; the
./ tip of the paint brush handle; the piece of dark blue fabric used
./to wipe down JonBenet; the size 6 panties JonBenet was
./wearing prior to being redressed in ridiculous size 12 panties;
./the red ink pen used to draw the red heart on JonBenet's palm;
./the stun gun; and the nine pages ripped from the note pad
./used to write the ransom note.

a: ALL OF THE ABOVE ITEMS COULD HAVE BEEN IN PATSY'S
PURSE(HANDBAG)! IMHO Patsy's bag/purse was not
searched for such...WHY NOT?!

./3. There is foreign DNA evidence that suggests that two males
./were involved.

a: DNA is not an "absolute"...this DNA could be/may have
been modified- but the RANSOM NOTE CAN NOT
BE "CHANGED--IT IS WHAT IT IS!!; provide URL if you can
regarding TWO MALES???...???

./4. Patsy made repeated comments in the plural, such as "they",
./about the possible killers. Pam Paugh came right out on T.V.
./and admitted she knew who was involved and there were two
./of them, but she didn't know which one did the actual killing.

a: OK...SO WHAT DOES THIS/THAT MEAN... IMHO it's the two of
them (John/Patsy--as in stuck w/each other
re:Domique Dunn(LKL))!?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Ivy
I was taught to form my letters in a certain way via the Palmer penmanship method, but my handwriting looks nothing like the Palmer method, and never did. Even if Patsy did teach Burke to write, I don't think he could duplicate her writing to a tee.

I'm a woman older than Patsy. I watch lots of action movies and can quote dialogue from many of them. My husband and I both can, and when we watch movies more than once, we like to say our favorite lines of dialogue with the actors. Our grown kids give each other frightened looks when we so this while they're here.

:D Huh Me Too...LOL; too funny ... I'm 2yrs (or 1yr) younger than Patsy but me and hubby of many years(18) do do the same and get those "looks" from kids(4)...we're on the same chapter no doubt so can relate...same page - don't know...heehee LOL!;)

[BlueCrab]

Shylock,

The ridiculous length of the wordy ransom note, its shock movie adages, its unnecessary threats and other immature language, its bizarre amount for a ransom demand, its childish foreign terrorist theme, and its obvious failure to convince anyone it was a real ransom note since the writer also failed to take the collateral, JonBenet, with him, strongly suggests the writer was a young juvenile male.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[BlueCrab]

Blazeboy 3,

Regarding the ransom note -- the main evidence that neither John nor Patsy likely wrote it comes from the opinions of the government's expert document examiners. These included Chet Ubowski of the CBI and his staff; Richard Dusak of the U.S. Secret Service; and private examiners authorized by the CBI to examine the note: Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford, Lloyd Cunningham, and Howard Rile.

Regarding the DNA -- On page 182 of PMPT pb, "The CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenet's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenet's DNA was the main component, but there was a minor component consisting of DNA from another person or possibly more than one."

It was further determined that the secondary DNA sample was from at least one male, but not likely from John Ramsey. However, I can't find the source for this right now.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Imon128]

Originally posted by BlueCrab
Shylock,

The ridiculous length of the wordy ransom note, its shock movie adages, its unnecessary threats and other immature language, its bizarre amount for a ransom demand, its childish foreign terrorist theme, and its obvious failure to convince anyone it was a real ransom note since the writer also failed to take the collateral, JonBenet, with him, strongly suggests the writer was a young juvenile male.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Even John said at the time of the body's discovery that he felt it was "an inside job".

[Rachael]

I have not read every single thread or every reply so please forgive me for asking this but is it possible that Burke could have strangled JonBenet and when she passed out she could have fell back and hit her head on something? Kids fight often and it very possibly could have been an accident. I see no other reason why her mother or father of anyone would hit her over the head in an attempted cover up. To me that is such a grotesque thing (to hit someone over the head with a heavy object).

[BlueCrab]

Rachael,

Yes, it was grotesque -- but it happened.

It appears that JonBenet was strangled first, perhaps gently and accidentally, but then, as part of the staging, smashed so hard over the head with a heavy object that it split her skull in two, and then strangled again so severely that the cord ligature imbedded deeply into her neck.

The stick and cord around JonBenet's neck was not a Garrote. Garrotes look nothing like that and usually are simply a piece of wire or cord with a handle on each end.

The device on JonBenet had just one handle and couldn't have functioned as a typical garrote. In my opinion it was a device used for EA (erotic asphyxiation). Even John Ramsey admits the killer was experienced in EA.

Therefore, it appears to me to be an accidental killing while engaged in the extremely dangerous act of EA. The accidental killing was then covered up to look like it was the result of a sadistic murder committed by a terrorist -- as suggested by the fake ransom note.

The naivety of the whole scene, IMO, points to one or more young males.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Imon128]

I do see a potential case whereby JB was suffocated by something, fell and hit her head, and the perp panicked. I also see a scenario wherey the perp premediated the death, due to JB exposing the perp.

[ajt400]

I think they were strangling her, she woke up--began to flip out, the attacker (whomever you wish) freaked out, hit her on the head.....staged the garrote.

I know that is random--but I have to go smoke a cigarette! Dirty habit--but I love them!

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Rachael
is it possible that Burke could have strangled JonBenet and when she passed out she could have fell back and hit her head on something? Kids fight often and it very possibly could have been an accident. Sure anything's possible. Part of Thomas' theory is that Patsy threw her into the bathroom and she struck her head on the bathtub or someother fixture.
I've often wondered if she wasn't struck on the head at all, but thrown off the second floor landing near the staircase and landed on her head. There was a case a couple years ago where an 8-year old boy killed a 4-year old girl by using a wrestling hold on her that he saw on TV, watching WWF SmackDown. Maybe Burke picked her up over his head while clowning around and she went flying down the stairwell, landing on her head. However, none of that explains the childlike molestation, unless that was pure staging by the parents to make it look like a pedophile intruder.

[K777angel]

I think that Patsy Ramsey DID write that ransom letter.
All elements used in writing it were HERS. The paper pad, the pen - and the pen was even placed BACK in the cup it came from.

The linguistics in the letter are Patsy, Patsy, Patsy.
Experts have stated that the letter was written by a woman or a "genteel man." Hardly a 10 yr old kid.

Everything about that note points to Patsy. The paper, pen, wording, placement of the note on the stairs (where SHE always comes down and where SHE places things that need to go upstairs... SHE found the letter etc. etc.)

Also - the Ramseys curious attitude about the letter AFTER the crime, AFTER they KNEW the letter was a lie, a fake - cannot be ignored.
Even after JonBenet was buried, when the "ransom" letter was mentioned on the CNN interview - Patsy DEFENDED it! Saying, "well it looked like a kidnapping to me!"
Rather than the obvious reaction of, "We just can't figure out WHY the kidnappers would leave that letter telling us that we would get JonBenet back if we gave them the money and followed our instructions...." They should have felt very cheated and angry that they hadn't even been given a CHANCE to get the so-called ransom money etc. They should have been puzzled and confused as to why they didn't even leave with the kidnap victim - the one ticket to the money they made such a big deal of stating they wanted - but killed her right on the spot and HID her.
Never even bothering to call and collect the money.
Instead, they CONTINUED to act as if that letter was real. But ONLY when someone ELSE brought it up.
Never did the Ramseys themselves bring up that ONE piece of crucial evidence and link to the killer: The "ransom" letter.
Rather, they distanced themselves from it by ignoring it.

Left it lying on the floor the day of the murder.
When Detective Ardnt asked John Ramsey and his friends WHO they thought may have written it and been involved - ALL of them had an idea to share - except John Ramsey.

No, that letter was written by Patsy Ramsey. No shadow of a doubt in my mind.
The only question I have is if her husband was there to assist her in crafting it...... Working together to protect someone. But who?

[Shylock]

Originally posted by K777angel
No, that letter was written by Patsy Ramsey. No shadow of a doubt in my mind.
The only question I have is if her husband was there to assist her in crafting it...... Working together to protect someone. But who? I think your thoughts are right on the money, K7! We don't really have to wonder too much about who they were protecting, do we... They made the answer pretty obvious with their claims that JonBenet and Burke were not together at all (she was asleep) when they got home, and their claim that Burke was not up during the 911 call, and knew nothing.

If Burke was so innocent, and knew absolutely nothing about what happened in the house that night, why would Patsy have been so visually nervous when she brought him in for questioning? If the Ramsey's story was true, Patsy would have felt as stupid bringing Burke in as she would have bringing in the family dog for questioning. It would have been nothing but a foolish waste of time in her mind. In fact, she would have been steaming that the cops were wasting valuable time they could be using to find her daughter's killer.

[eliza]

BlueCrab, In regards to your theory on the Ransom note could it be possible that we are both right. What if their were two notes. One the boys wrote and one that Patsy rewrote to cover-up the crime. In this theory, the parents find the note and know the police will be able to tell who wrote the note so Patsy rewrites the note. The missing pages from the tablet could be the original ransom note. Just a thought.

[Ivy]

When John told Smit the ransom note sounded childish, he must have been 'fessing up that Patsy wrote it.

From the NE (4/2001):

Asked what goes through her mind when she recalls the events of JonBenet's death, Patsy gave a bizarre childlike answer.

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child."

[eliza]

Originally posted by Ivy
When John told Smit the ransom note sounded childish, he must have been 'fessing up that Patsy wrote it.

From the NE (4/2001):

Asked what goes through her mind when she recalls the events of JonBenet's death, Patsy gave a bizarre childlike answer.

"It kind of makes my heart go pitty-pat. I mean right now, I'm feeling like, gosh, this happened to my child."


I agree Ivy, what an odd answer. It almost sounds as if she is talking about JBR winning one of her pageants instead of the death of her daughter.

[Rachael]

I have always believed that Patsy and John wrote the note to cover up for Burke. I do not believe that Patsy would hit her daughter over the head with enough force to split her skull in two as you have described. I still wonder if she hit her head on accident perhaps someone dropped her.

[BlueCrab]

eliza,

Your theory of two ransom notes -- one by Burke and a rewrite by Patsy -- seems to be a possible scenario. It would explain the childish tone in the text. But if Patsy rewrote the note, why wouldn't she have shortened it and have made it sound more mature? And it would mean that the government's handwriting experts all had it wrong. Her 4.5 score meant she was on the verge of total elimination as the possible writer.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[K777angel]

Originally posted by Shylock
I think your thoughts are right on the money, K7! We don't really have to wonder too much about who they were protecting, do we... They made the answer pretty obvious with their claims that JonBenet and Burke were not together at all (she was asleep) when they got home, and their claim that Burke was not up during the 911 call, and knew nothing.

If Burke was so innocent, and knew absolutely nothing about what happened in the house that night, why would Patsy have been so visually nervous when she brought him in for questioning? If the Ramsey's story was true, Patsy would have felt as stupid bringing Burke in as she would have bringing in the family dog for questioning. It would have been nothing but a foolish waste of time in her mind. In fact, she would have been steaming that the cops were wasting valuable time they could be using to find her daughter's killer.

Shylock - I've always said that it isn't just what the Ramseys DID do that caused suspicion, but just as much what they did NOT do.
Like shake Burke "awake" if they had to and quiz him up one side and down the other to see if he heard ANYTHING odd during the night. It just defies logic that they would simply "look in on him" and leave it at that. How the hell did they KNOW that he wasn't lying dead of some injury in that bed????? They couldn't without checking... but they knew that no one else had been in the house that night except the 4 of them.
Also, they did not run outside and look up and down the street, check the yard, the garage, their neighbors for heaven's sake!
The neighbors could have seen or heard something critical to their daughter's "abduction." But it wasn't on their mind to do this or wasn't a natural instinct or impulse to run and look and ask - because they KNEW where she was all along.
IMO
Their pat answer for that whole night and morning was SLEEP, SLEEP, SLEEP. JonBenet slept. All the way home. Up the stairs.
And even through her mother tugging her clothes off and putting pj bottoms on her. Yeah right. John even had to emphasize this with his statement "I couldn't believe how sound asleep she was." (Oh PLEASE believe us she was sleeping and didn't walk into the house and eat pineapple that night!!)

And John and Patsy and Burke just "slept."
Burke wasn't awake or talking on the 911 call in the background - he was "asleep."
How easy to cover many things up by all agreeing to simply say "We all were asleep."

Patsy must have "slept" in her Christmas party clothes she wore that evening.
She had the same ones on when the officer came to their home that morning at 6:00am.

Yes Shylock - the first time I read how Patsy sobbed when Burke was being questioned - it raised a big red flag. It seemed terribly out of place if they were all innocent, but perfectly IN PLACE if her son had been involved and she was terrified he would slip up and say something incriminating.
John and Patsy decided to stick to the "sleeping" alibi as well as keeping Burke far, far away from them that day.
Away from prying questions of the police at their home. (No officer "accompanied" Fleet White as he took Burke to their home. The officer went over there later to ask Burke if he heard or saw anything that might lead them to who took his sister. That is NOT an interrogation but a simple little interview. Perfectly understandable and desired by all means - if you have nothing to hide.
There was no fear for Burke's safety that day.
They didn't even go straight to get him when they "discovered" jonBenet dead! They went to a friends for hours!
So much for John's lame claim of "fearing for their safety" and calling for a plane 30 minutes after he finds his daughter murdered!
So many things just simply do not add up. To their story.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
In regard to the head wound, I have heard that you can tell if the wound was caused by something striking the head or the head striking something.Does anyone know which is the case here? I doubt there is any way to tell for sure in this case. Remember, they didn't even know there was a head wound until they peeled back her scalp and discovered it quite by accident.

[BlueCrab]

ajt400,

Regarding your interesting question about scientifically determining whether JonBenet was hit by a moving object or whether her head struck a stationary object -- just for the fun of it I'll take a swing at it (only O.J. can take a stab at it).

The following information is not a scientific analysis because I'm not qualified to make one, but there are experts who can fairly well determine from velocity and mass data and appearance of physical deformation regarding "what struck what?"

But in my personal unprofessional opinion, judging from the head injury, JonBenet was hit by a baseball bat. Baseball bats have velocity of from about 50 MPH to over 100 MPH, depending on who's doing the swinging.

It appears to me that only a baseball bat would have had the velocity to split JonBenet's skull in two. The velocity of her falling or being pushed and striking a stationary object to cause that much damage would have to be low, perhaps a velocity of around 10 or 15 MPH, and therefore remote as the cause of the injury.

Just my unprofessional opinion.

BlueCrab

[Ivy]

Some time ago, I posted a link to a website that gave info on how much force it would take to crack a human skull. (I don't know if I still have the link.) According to the info I read there, even adult males, whose skulls are heavier and denser than those of children and most women, can fracture their skulls by merely walking into objects such as walls.

I think the Maglite was probably the object that fractured JonBenet's skull. The Maglite's rubber rim could have been what kept her scalp from being damaged.

[Blazeboy3]

:( :) ajt400, I didn't say the strangulation was accidental, I said it was deliberate.

The strangulation caused death. The blow to the head had meaning in that it sent the angel on it's way as per The Psalms
118-16 The Lord's right hand is lifted high, The Lord's right hand has done mighty things.

Acronyms are commonly used in the Christian subculture and S.B.T.C. is commonly known as saved by the cross. Acronyms are an important part of the Christian myth as JHVH, INRI, ICTHYS and many others.

My theory is speculation based on connections made betwen well known facts of the case. Most notably literature that Patsy concerned herself with and elements of the case that match the literature.

The body was posed post mortem. I include the final position of the garrote as part of the posing. The head blow was delivered before that and did not have anything to do with killing as that was already done by the strangualtion (manual, garroting or otherwise).

The lack of skin lascration precludes an accident as an accident would likely be with a hard object. The head was covered or the object that hit her was padded.

Nehemiah and ajt400 see www.Seraph.net.
In 1997 our company was contacted by the Boulder Police Department to assist them in the investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. We were asked to submit an analysis of the ransom note and in 1998 we were asked to write a psychological profile on Patsy Ramsey. Here are those reports.



PROFILE REPORT
Analysis of $118,000 ransom demand in Ramsey case
To: Det. Ron Gosage
Reference: Psalm 118:27b, Biblical reference Old Testament

"The Lord is our God, Who has shown and given us light. Decorate the festival with leafy boughs and bind the sacrifices to be offered with thick cords to the horns of the altar."

Based on my experience, this second section of verse 27 has been used by several white supremacy groups such as the Christian Identity movement and the Aryan Nation to justify their killing of blacks, Jews and other minorities. In their non-orthodox view, the verse is speaking of offering a person as a sacrifice to God and God is accepting their sacrifice on his altar as atonement. No conservative or liberal Christian theologians interpret the verse in this way.

We have consulted with several theologians about the verse and all have agreed that the verse is a metaphor concerning praise and redemption.

As a historical note, the Hebrews where required to offer a blood sacrifice to God to atone for their sins as a

...

[Blazeboy3]

:) :rolleyes: http://www.seraph.net./ :angel:

[Toth]

Why do you post this seraph nonsense at all?

[Maxi]

I don't think it's complete nonsense. There's usually some insight, even in things that are largely nonsense. It pays to look at all analyses. I find Yeager's work strange and not well informed about psychology, but he gets hired as an expert, so there must be something there.

[Toth]

I don't think it's complete nonsense. It is complete, unadulterated nonsense and was concocted solely as an interrogation tool designed to be exhibited to Patsy Ramsey.

[Maxi]

I doubt that, Toth. Patsy would be laughing too hard to answer any questions. :laugh:

[little1]

Brothermoon, you think the strangulation was the cause of death? I did not think that even most ME's could determine the cause of death pertaining to this case, even now. (Or with complete certainity, at least) So, you believe this was not an accident?

[BrotherMoon]

Not believe, think. And Seraph came closer to the mark than any one else except for me.

[BrotherMoon]

The major difference I have with Seraph is their idea that the head blow was done out of frustration. I think that was calculated. The strangulation and violation were done as punishment for sins. Once the dark side had been addressed the light side was attended to by sending the angel to God by means of the head blow. You have to remember that what appears to have been done to a person was actually taking place inside Patsy Ramsey's mind at the time. To Patsy JonBenet was an object, an integral factor in a psychotic fantasy. What Patsy did to JonBenet was reflecting what was going on in Patsy's mind. This is typical of progressive psychosis. It does not make sense to us to blow up the Federal building in OK city but to Tim Mcveigh it made perfect sense because the building and the destructive act were elements in his delusion, which he tried to control. Same thing with Patsy Ramsey.

Maxi, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Yeager's misunderstanding of psychology. Thanks.

[K777angel]

Brother Moon - The scripture you just quoted from Matthew is where our Lord has given Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom" - Keys denoted Authority in holy scripture. He is here making Peter - "The Rock" as he has called him - head of his holy church on earth. The first pope so to speak. The succession from Peter has never ended to this day down to Pope John Paul II.

The power to "bind & loose" is also part of the authority our Lord is bestowing on Peter (the office of Peter). He goes on to say that "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." (his church) This authority is not a "personal" authority but one directly and representing Christ's. With it also comes the power to "bind and loose" sins (in the sacrament of confession). He tells his disciples, "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." John 20:23 He had immediately before saying this, BREATHED on them and said, "Recieve the Holy Spirit..." then gave them the authority (in His name) to forgive sins. It is only the second place in scripture where God breathes on Man. The first time is when he breathed his life into Adam.
Lest anyone might think the "binding and loosing" somehow had something to do with JonBenet Ramsey.

[little1]

ajt400,

Regarding your interesting question about scientifically determining whether JonBenet was hit by a moving object or whether her head struck a stationary object -- just for the fun of it I'll take a swing at it (only O.J. can take a stab at it).

The following information is not a scientific analysis because I'm not qualified to make one, but there are experts who can fairly well determine from velocity and mass data and appearance of physical deformation regarding "what struck what?"

But in my personal unprofessional opinion, judging from the head injury, JonBenet was hit by a baseball bat. Baseball bats have velocity of from about 50 MPH to over 100 MPH, depending on who's doing the swinging.

It appears to me that only a baseball bat would have had the velocity to split JonBenet's skull in two. The velocity of her falling or being pushed and striking a stationary object to cause that much damage would have to be low, perhaps a velocity of around 10 or 15 MPH, and therefore remote as the cause of the injury.

Just my unprofessional opinion.

BlueCrab

Okay bluecrab, lets take the baseball bat theory a little further.

I agree that it could have been a bat (or that flashlight)--but where is the bat now? (Oh, BTW, was that flashlight ever checked for any of JBR's hair, blood, etc? Just In Case?) Where would the bat play into a sexual game between the siblings? Would the bat have been in a place where it would just be laying arund for it to be used?

[little1]

The major difference I have with Seraph is their idea that the head blow was done out of frustration. I think that was calculated. The strangulation and violation were done as punishment for sins. Once the dark side had been addressed the light side was attended to by sending the angel to God by means of the head blow. You have to remember that what appears to have been done to a person was actually taking place inside Patsy Ramsey's mind at the time. To Patsy JonBenet was an object, an integral factor in a psychotic fantasy. What Patsy did to JonBenet was reflecting what was going on in Patsy's mind. This is typical of progressive psychosis. It does not make sense to us to blow up the Federal building in OK city but to Tim Mcveigh it made perfect sense because the building and the destructive act were elements in his delusion, which he tried to control. Same thing with Patsy Ramsey.

Maxi, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Yeager's misunderstanding of psychology. Thanks.

So a sacrifice so to speak? Why not the traditional forms of sacrifice? Where is it listed that sexual staging and posing also strangulation is a form of sacrifice?

[Maxi]

BrotherMoon, I spoke to Dale Yeager about his definition of psychopath/sociopath, and it was no where near in line with that used by most psychologists and profilers. Two of his more off-the-wall assertions were that fundamentalist Christians were more likely than other Christians to be psychopaths, and that some incredible percent (I forget what -- maybe 50%) of Southern women were psycopaths. It's beyond me why the BPD used Yeager as a consultant on religious overtones to JBR's murder. The last time I looked at his site, most of his experience seemed to be in security, particularly canine security..

[BrotherMoon]

Thanks Maxi. I would say that someone that spends his life in a forest is likely to think the whole world is full of trees. People schooled in Freudian psychology see sex as the motive in this case. When I got into borderline personality disorder books I saw everyone with problems as borderline. Yeager came up with his interpretation because he was schooled in such cases. I came up with the sacrifice theory on my own before I started reading about the case becasue I had been reading Joseph Campbell and C.G. Jung. I agree that fundamentalism can take a person closer to psychosis than a less stringent form of religion. Just take a look at what is going on in Islam. Sounds like Yeager has a bias. I don't use the Seraph report as a definitive in this case, only a reference point, and one that I say is closer to the truth than any other theory save mine.

To clarify the sacrifice thing for little I would say that Patsy did not follow external directions in the manner of most people's cartoonish understanding of sacrifice, something like we would see in a Hollywood movie. Patsy followed inner compulsions that were to her validated by The Psalms. She did not find a "recipe" for sacrifice in literature an go from there. She bit by bit subsumed the life of her daughter in classic narcissistic fashion culminating in using her as a means to connect herself with a deity.

It is typical of people to believe that the body inhabits the temporal realm of space, time and matter. The soul inhabits the non-temporal realm. When an animal or person is killed in sacrifice the soul is separated from the body and goes off to the eternal realm usually as a messenger to beseech the intervention of a deity. Same thing with a burnt offering, the matter is burned, the smoke rises, disipates and disappears. What was once matter is then spirit that goes to the heavenly realm as a messenger.

Again, in the psychosis JonBenet became an object that Patsy used in many ways. In the end she could not see the difference between herself and her daughter. If it makes this any easier to understand, Patsy was in a juvenile/infantile regression with the according moral development, very possibly identified with Sandy Stranger and the Brodie set. Thus the juvenile tone of the ransom note.

The Psalms is all over this case, there is no doubt. So is The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Two indicators that point to Patsy. The many confusing elements of the staging and note indicate an irrational sadistic personality with a high I.Q. very much lost in the world of symbolism.

[BlueCrab]

BrotherMoon,

Your sacrifice theory is interesting and could, of course, be possible since none of us know for sure what happened. But I just can't see Patsy doing all the things to JonBenet that were done to her that night. Her behavior would had to have been Jekyll and Hyde a thousand times over.

And I doubt either of the parents would have covered up for the other after such a brutal crime. Only if Burke was involved would the parents agree to try to cover up the truth.

I'm aware of what religious extremism can do, and your Islam example is an appropriate analogy -- but with Islamic extremists the hate has often been beat into people from birth. That's all they can think of. Patsy did not show any previous extreme behaviors.

In my opinion the killing of JonBenet and the bizarre staging, including the childish ransom note, has juvenile behavior written all over it.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Eagle1]

Yeager? Then you had him confused with Singular earlier, and I could not remember Singular saying what you were quoting. It was Yeager, right?

[Maxi]

Yeager? Then you had him confused with Singular earlier, and I could not remember Singular saying what you were quoting. It was Yeager, right?

Hmm...I looked at post 125 on this thread, and I did say Yeager. I know I've mixed up the names before tho. Yeager is the guy with the Seraph website that was hired as an expert on religious themes in crimes. Singular is the guy who quoted extensively from Pam Griffith.

[sissi]

Who killed Jonbenet Ramsey?
If someone finally convinces EVERYONE that her family did not kill her ,who would you think committed the crime? Does anyone have a "second choice" if "proven" not to be a Ramsey?
Could we think the alley guy who the BPD lost?
Could Melody Stanton have been awakened by the "twins" coming in from a crime?
Could the "prophet" have acted in the way of Manson,initiating a crime but not getting his hands dirty?
Santa?
An angry family member of the housekeeper?
Who would you pick if you were "convinced" once and for all it was an intruder?
JMO IMO

[Ivy]

Sorry, sissi, but if I ever became convinced that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'd insist on having my head examined.

[sissi]

Sorry, sissi, but if I ever became convinced that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'd insist on having my head examined.

You really couldn't accept being wrong?
IMO JMO

[Ivy]

sissi, if there's ever absolute, indisputable proof that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'll accept it.

[BlueCrab]

sissi, if there's ever absolute, indisputable proof that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'll accept it.

There's a good possibility an intruder did kill JonBenet, but at least one of the Ramseys in the house knows who he is. The cover up, in my opinion is for the benefit of that intruder and that Ramsey -- whom appears to be Burke.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[Nehemiah]

There's a good possibility an intruder did kill JonBenet, but at least one of the Ramseys in the house knows who he is. The cover up, in my opinion is for the benefit of that intruder and that Ramsey -- whom appears to be Burke.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

If Mike Kane was privvy to the GJ proceedings... and in your opinion, the case was solved during that time involving minors.... then what about Kane interviewing J & P in Atlanta? Would he not just forget all that if he really knew the "truth" of the case? I am just trying to reconcile your theory with the GJ and with Kane's involvement. Please help me along these lines.

Nehemiah

[txsvicki]

Millions of people do not believe that the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were psychotic, but were ispired by God. I am one of those and from the South. I suppose that I am a sociopath and psychotic because I believe the Bible. I have a feeling that the reason he said that southern women are psychotic has to do with HIS religious non beliefs, since the south is a large Bible belt area, especially Baptists.

[SisterSocks]

Millions of people do not believe that the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were psychotic, but were ispired by God. I am one of those and from the South. I suppose that I am a sociopath and psychotic because I believe the Bible. I have a feeling that the reason he said that southern women are psychotic has to do with HIS religious non beliefs, since the south is a large Bible belt area, especially Baptists.


Preach on Sister friend... I agree Amen and Amen. :blowkiss:

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

If Mike Kane was privvy to the GJ proceedings... and in your opinion, the case was solved during that time involving minors.... then what about Kane interviewing J & P in Atlanta? Would he not just forget all that if he really knew the "truth" of the case? I am just trying to reconcile your theory with the GJ and with Kane's involvement. Please help me along these lines.

Nehemiah


Nehemiah,

In my theory the grand jury solved the case to the extent that they knew non-culpable children were involved and, by confession to the jurors, knew they killed JonBenet. In such cases involving very young children absolute secrecy is required under Colorado law. However, there were still some loose ends to tie up even though the grand jury had been permanently dimissed.

For instance, should John and Patsy, and perhaps others, be charged with obstruction of justice for lying and covering up to protect Burke? If so, how can this be done without revealing to the world that Burke killed JonBenet? Did Burke have an accomplice? If so, how old was the accomplice? And to what extent were John and Patsy REALLY involved?

Loose ends -- they're still hanging, and there doesn't seem to be anything to do about it without violating Colorado law protecting the identities of the children.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

[TLynn]

I cannot reasonably believe in an intruder because of the pineapple. Perhaps I could stretch it to someone who knew JonBenet very well, but who would bring pineapple to the house?!

The Ramseys say JonBenet was deep asleep. Patsy said she didn't buy, serve or have any knowledge of the pineapple!

So, basically, they're saying an intruder came into the house and served pineapple to JonBenet with a big spoon.

Fit that scenario into any intruder theory -

Burke may have been involved, but the GJ did NOT come to that conclusion.

[little1]

I cannot reasonably believe in an intruder because of the pineapple. Perhaps I could stretch it to someone who knew JonBenet very well, but who would bring pineapple to the house?!

The Ramseys say JonBenet was deep asleep. Patsy said she didn't buy, serve or have any knowledge of the pineapple!

So, basically, they're saying an intruder came into the house and served pineapple to JonBenet with a big spoon.

Fit that scenario into any intruder theory -

Burke may have been involved, but the GJ did NOT come to that conclusion.

No, the way you described it is not plausible. But the intruder does not necessarily have to be unknown. I have always leaned towards the "someone close to the family" theory.

An intruder that JBR knew could have come into the home, (also the home would not be unfamiliar to this person, either) and to coax her downstairs to feed her something. If the person was someone JBR trusted, th