PDA

View Full Version : this is my opion of course


ICU
03-03-2004, 10:27 AM
I know that the case of the Ramsey child is old and has been hashed to death, there are a lot of people who have already formed the opinion that the parents did it. Partner ship in a crime always has a weak point in it, there has to be someone in charge, to keep the weak one from breaking down and confessing. If it was a joint venture there has to be a lot of hard thinking after the crime or accident, imagine one of the parents after the shock of the death, it is hard to do if it is the first time, to sit down and write a lengthily ransom note, there has to be a lot of emotions running through the parent to keep a clear head and concentrate on making deliberate errors in spelling, quoting lines from different movies that seems kind of odd for the Ramsey’s to be watching those kind of films. The zodiac killer quoted from his favorite movie in his lengthy coded script. But he was a serious killer, no emotions ran through him, in a sadist situation were the male keeps his wife and companion in crime, isolated from family and friends to create a zombie like partner for his pleasure that was completely reliant on him. Does John sound like that kind of person? His wife was outgoing and involved in pageants with her daughter, she does not sound like a person whom was being controlled by her husband. How weak was she not to turn her husband in for murder or molestation of their daughter. Looks like a strong team to me, I know the lawyer thing turned everybody off about them, but look at it this way, you and I know that when a crime like this is in the news, family and relatives are always the first suspects, no matter how much grief that I’m in, you can bet that I need protection from media and over zealous cops and detectives. I’m not writing this to make the Ramsey’s look innocent but to have a serious conversation with someone on this site that will and can think this out step by step, someone that had done reading on psychopaths, sociopath, there has to be a lot of soul searching into the working of a killer, serious questions it is not a contest to see whom is the smartest or how much you can joke about what color was the shoes the detective was wearing, but a serious slow and meticulous thought process, is there anyone interested in this enough to spend the time and energy? I do not believe that because it has not been solved that it cannot be solved.



_______________
IMO

K777angel
03-03-2004, 12:30 PM
You seem to be under the assumption that JonBenet's death was due to a purposeful killing. That is not what most believe and not what the evidence indicates. This was most likely a tragic "accident" that led to her death.
Accident in the sense that the goal was NOT for her to die or even be seriously wounded - but an accident in the sense that injury was impulsively inflicted on JonBenet in a moment or flash of RAGE.
The perp then panicked at what had just occured - thought JonBenet was already dead from the head blow, needed to have her body indicate something VISIBLE as to "why" she lay dead - and came up with a cord around her neck to suggest she was strangled to death. Little did the perp/stager know that there was indeed a tiny speck of life left in little JonBenet and the tightening of the cord simply hurried the inevitable. Leaving minor tell-tale marks of asphyxiation.
This "strangling" was not violent as usually seen. There was no damage to the strap muscles in her neck and no damage to the hydoid bone - as is almost always the case.
To further go along with this aspect of the crime as being staging and not purposeful - is the re-dressing, wiping down and bundling like a baby of the body. And placed on a blanket. Actions taken by someone who cared and had remorse over what had happened.

JonBenet had dust on the bottom of her feet. She obviously must have walked in that basement room that night.
The blow to the head logically would have taken place as she was standing.
It would have been extremely awkward - and would make no sense - for the perp to choose that kind of action (swinging an object against the side of her head) while she is laying down on the floor.
And she could not have been standing had she been strangled first OR "stun-gunned."

I believe it is possible that JonBenet was being molested, fought back - possibly running away (giving reason for the dust on her bare feet) - was struck by the perp in the head rendering her unconscious (or to the perp/stagers "dead") and the staging began to cover it all up.
I think it is possible that the one who started the whole affair was her older brother Burke - and the parents stepped in and have taken over to this day covering it all up.
Their actions - and lack of certain actions - make this scenario the most likely given the evidence we know.

One curious aspect of the crime that I believe needs more pondering but is an important clue - is the fact that JonBenet's arms were RAISED above her head when she died and there was no attempt to lower them by the stager.
Either - she was in rigor mortis when the stager stumbled upon her body, or
this was a decision by the stager when her hands were "loosely" (no purpose other than staging) tied by the cord.

Nehemiah
03-03-2004, 12:52 PM
One curious aspect of the crime that I believe needs more pondering but is an important clue - is the fact that JonBenet's arms were RAISED above her head when she died and there was no attempt to lower them by the stager.
Either - she was in rigor mortis when the stager stumbled upon her body, or
this was a decision by the stager when her hands were "loosely" (no purpose other than staging) tied by the cord.

Which always makes me think of the comment by John Walsh when he said something like "....after John [Ramsey] cut her down..."

IMO

Nehemiah
03-03-2004, 12:54 PM
I’m not writing this to make the Ramsey’s look innocent but to have a serious conversation with someone on this site that will and can think this out step by step, someone that had done reading on psychopaths, sociopath, there has to be a lot of soul searching into the working of a killer, serious questions it is not a contest to see whom is the smartest or how much you can joke about what color was the shoes the detective was wearing, but a serious slow and meticulous thought process, is there anyone interested in this enough to spend the time and energy?IMO

Sounds like a call for BrotherMoon. :woohoo:

IMO

Ivy
03-03-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Nehemiah
Which always makes me think of the comment by John Walsh when he said something like "....after John [Ramsey] cut her down..."

As much as I adore John Walsh and admire what he does, I've never heard that he's been privy to any more information on the JBR case than we are. Also, I've never heard that John Ramsey had a knife or scissors with him with which he could have cut JonBenet down.

I think Walsh might have heard a rumor that JonBenet was hanged by the neck or by the wrists and assumed it was true, or he reached the conclusion on his own, because the wrist cords would have been useless to restrain JonBenet (for one thing, her wrists were tied in front of her), and because the ligature has often been described as a noose.

BrotherMoon
03-03-2004, 01:25 PM
Sounds like a call for BrotherMoon. :woohoo:

IMO

I'm here to help. :twocents:

I think it was deliberate. There was no lasceration on the head, no external swelling but petechial hemorrhaging, ergo, strangulation first, head blow second. Too many aspects of the staging do not make sense in terms of staging for police, ergo, staging for viewing by the perp.

There are many, many concurrences (not coincidences) between the case and literature Patsy is known to have been associated with. The rn is full of symbolism known only to the writer. Many aspects of the staging are symbolic. DOI is full of symbolic and mythic references.

I think the event was carried out in a state of psychosis, which often has a mythic nature. Patsy believes she was saved from death by an interventionist super being, and that her daughter is now with that God in a non-dimensional, eternal realm awaiting her mother's arrival. Both are irrational conclusions, the tip of the psychotic iceberg. This was a one time event with the goal being achieved; JonBenet is in heaven, in a state of perfection and Patsy has that link and that hope. This ain't the first time this has been done and it won't be the last.

I'm here to answer the call. :blushing:

BrotherMoon
03-03-2004, 01:32 PM
and because the ligature has often been described as a noose.

But it was not constructed like a noose, it did not slip, it held until it was cut off. It had two knots. Ivy, look up knots in a dictionary.

Ivy
03-03-2004, 01:38 PM
BrotherMoon, did I say I thought it was a noose? NO. :hand: I said it has often been described as a noose. I should have clarified by adding "in the press and on Internet forums." No way was the device a noose, imo.

IMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 02:28 PM
BrotherMoon, did I say I thought it was a noose? NO. :hand: I said it has often been described as a noose. I should have clarified by adding "in the press and on Internet forums." No way was the device a noose, imo.

IMO

Have you seen the autopsy photos?



_______________
IMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 02:31 PM
But it was not constructed like a noose, it did not slip, it held until it was cut off. It had two knots. Ivy, look up knots in a dictionary.



Have you seen the autopsy photos?



_______________
IMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 02:37 PM
Does anyone know if the Mother of the child was being treated for
Bipolar Disorder?


_______________
IMO

Britt
03-03-2004, 02:44 PM
Partner ship in a crime always has a weak point in it, there has to be someone in charge, to keep the weak one from breaking down and confessing. If it was a joint venture there has to be a lot of hard thinking after the crime or accident...
Never underestimate the power of self-preservation. Gives ordinary people superhuman strength.

Besides, weaknesses are considerably fortified when a perp has clout and means and can avoid/control LE access to him/herself. Hiding behind lawyers gives a perp plenty of time and space to pull him/herself together.

Does John sound like that kind of person? His wife was outgoing and involved in pageants with her daughter, she does not sound like a person whom was being controlled by her husband. How weak was she not to turn her husband in for murder or molestation of their daughter. Looks like a strong team to me...
Exactly. I think you answered your own point. Furthermore, if two perps are equally invested in self-preservation (e.g. one is the molester, one is the killer), both would be sufficiently motivated to keep it together and wouldn't need controlling by the other.

I’m not writing this to make the Ramsey’s look innocent but to have a serious conversation with someone on this site that will and can think this out step by step, someone that had done reading on psychopaths, sociopath, there has to be a lot of soul searching into the working of a killer, serious questions...
Add "narcissists" and various "personality disorders" to the list, as well as research on incest and expert interpretation of physical/medical evidence and crime scenes.

Welcome ICU :)

BlueCrab
03-03-2004, 02:49 PM
I think the knot at the neck was a slip knot that formed a noose, and at one time gently slid to adjust the tightness A/O looseness (diameter) of the noose.

IMO the noose was being used for non-consensual EA on JonBenet. However, after the perp violently pulled on the stick as if he were trying to start up a cantankerous lawn mower, the slip knot collapsed to pull JonBenet's hair into it to form a tight double knot that couldn't be undone.

The opposite end (the handle end) of the cord was wrapped twice around the neck and close to the head, thus also pulling hair into that once bulky and loosely tied knot on the stick at the same time the perp violently yanked on the handle. Both knots (one at the neck and the other on the stick) tightened simultaneouslly -- pulling hair into them.

JMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 02:53 PM
You seem to be under the assumption that JonBenet's death was due to a purposeful killing. That is not what most believe and not what the evidence indicates. This was most likely a tragic "accident" that led to her death.
Accident in the sense that the goal was NOT for her to die or even be seriously wounded - but an accident in the sense that injury was impulsively inflicted on JonBenet in a moment or flash of RAGE.
The perp then panicked at what had just occured - thought JonBenet was already dead from the head blow, needed to have her body indicate something VISIBLE as to "why" she lay dead - and came up with a cord around her neck to suggest she was strangled to death. Little did the perp/stager know that there was indeed a tiny speck of life left in little JonBenet and the tightening of the cord simply hurried the inevitable. Leaving minor tell-tale marks of asphyxiation.
This "strangling" was not violent as usually seen. There was no damage to the strap muscles in her neck and no damage to the hydoid bone - as is almost always the case.
To further go along with this aspect of the crime as being staging and not purposeful - is the re-dressing, wiping down and bundling like a baby of the body. And placed on a blanket. Actions taken by someone who cared and had remorse over what had happened.

JonBenet had dust on the bottom of her feet. She obviously must have walked in that basement room that night.
The blow to the head logically would have taken place as she was standing.
It would have been extremely awkward - and would make no sense - for the perp to choose that kind of action (swinging an object against the side of her head) while she is laying down on the floor.
And she could not have been standing had she been strangled first OR "stun-gunned."

I believe it is possible that JonBenet was being molested, fought back - possibly running away (giving reason for the dust on her bare feet) - was struck by the perp in the head rendering her unconscious (or to the perp/stagers "dead") and the staging began to cover it all up.
I think it is possible that the one who started the whole affair was her older brother Burke - and the parents stepped in and have taken over to this day covering it all up.
Their actions - and lack of certain actions - make this scenario the most likely given the evidence we know.

One curious aspect of the crime that I believe needs more pondering but is an important clue - is the fact that JonBenet's arms were RAISED above her head when she died and there was no attempt to lower them by the stager.
Either - she was in rigor mortis when the stager stumbled upon her body, or
this was a decision by the stager when her hands were "loosely" (no purpose other than staging) tied by the cord.

The problem with a blow to the head before strangulation is that it does not leave petechial hemorrhaging. It seems to me that you have the idea that it was an accident, what kind of accident would cause someone to fake a murder, If you are married and have kids, one of the kids accidentally strangles the other one, do you think that it would be logical to bludgeon the dead child? And could you do that? In the case of Lizzy Borden even when she struck the step mother on the back of the head, there was really not that much blood, sometimes the head will not bleed profusely from a blunt instrument.


_______________
IMO

K777angel
03-03-2004, 03:22 PM
The problem with a blow to the head before strangulation is that it does not leave petechial hemorrhaging.
_______________
IMO


Sure it could. If she was not yet dead after the head blow, and the cord was tightened around her neck it would cause the petechial hemorrages that she had on her body.

It makes more sense that it happened this way than the other way around.
If you believe that she was strangled first - obviously she could not be "standing up" when the head blow was delivered. And it makes no sense to consider that the perp chose to - or was even ABLE to - swing that object and strike her (while she is lying down) on her head where contact was made.

I think the head blow came first, her heart was barely beating (thus the small amount of bleeding in the brain) - but beating just enough to cause the petechial hemorraging found after the cord was tightened. The perp/stager very possibly thought she was already dead after the head blow and therefore did not believe any more "harm" was really being done to her by the cord.

ICU
03-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Sometime before dawn, JonBenét is killed; her skull is fractured, she is strangled with a cord, duct tape is put over her mouth, and her body is placed downstairs in a small windowless room in the basement. She is wrapped in a blanket, with the ligature still around her neck, head uncovered, and her arms above her head.

The child still has her cloths on, if it were a sex crime why is the child still dressed?
Duct tape is over her mouth, Why?
She is wrapped in a blanket, Why?
Her arms above her head, if you take the time to wrap the child in a blanket, why leave the arms above the head? Can anyone figure what importance that has to the murderer?
The child is strangled to death, unconsciousness precedes death, the murderer could have cut the rope before death but did not, the autopsy photos show that the ligature was extremely tight around the neck, so why the killing blow to the head, now if there was rage or anger, I believe that the head would have had several hits.
What was used to crack the skull of a six year old, could it be the heavy boot?

_______________
IMO

FULTON
03-03-2004, 03:44 PM
Sure it could. If she was not yet dead after the head blow, and the cord was tightened around her neck it would cause the petechial hemorrages that she had on her body.

It makes more sense that it happened this way than the other way around.
If you believe that she was strangled first - obviously she could not be "standing up" when the head blow was delivered. And it makes no sense to consider that the perp chose to - or was even ABLE to - swing that object and strike her (while she is lying down) on her head where contact was made.

I think the head blow came first, her heart was barely beating (thus the small amount of bleeding in the brain) - but beating just enough to cause the petechial hemorraging found after the cord was tightened. The perp/stager very possibly thought she was already dead after the head blow and therefore did not believe any more "harm" was really being done to her by the cord.
Ditto K777angel

BlueCrab
03-03-2004, 04:07 PM
One curious aspect of the crime that I believe needs more pondering but is an important clue - is the fact that JonBenet's arms were RAISED above her head when she died and there was no attempt to lower them by the stager.
Either - she was in rigor mortis when the stager stumbled upon her body, or
this was a decision by the stager when her hands were "loosely" (no purpose other than staging) tied by the cord.

Angel -- When erotic asphyxiation (two people) is practiced, the arms of the subject are often tied above him/her to keep the subject from tearing away the ligature around the neck before the climax is reached.

I'm convinced that EA had been taking place because the EA device was still wrapped around JonBenet's neck. Even John Ramsey believes the perp likely used EA on JonBenet (even though he incorrectly referred to it as AEA).

JMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 04:14 PM
Sure it could. If she was not yet dead after the head blow, and the cord was tightened around her neck it would cause the petechial hemorrages that she had on her body.

It makes more sense that it happened this way than the other way around.
If you believe that she was strangled first - obviously she could not be "standing up" when the head blow was delivered. And it makes no sense to consider that the perp chose to - or was even ABLE to - swing that object and strike her (while she is lying down) on her head where contact was made.

I think the head blow came first, her heart was barely beating (thus the small amount of bleeding in the brain) - but beating just enough to cause the petechial hemorraging found after the cord was tightened. The perp/stager very possibly thought she was already dead after the head blow and therefore did not believe any more "harm" was really being done to her by the cord.

What if the strangulation was first, and when she became unconscious, she fell to the floor, then she is kicked to the side of the head with a heavy boot, but the ligature is so tight that she dies from strangulation, then what if he tried to pick her up by the hands, but she is dead so he leaves her there, rigormortis sets in and the arms stay in that position, now after he realizes she is dead, why would he wrap her in a blanket? And if he was an intruder, he was an experienced one, not to leave any evidence behind, why would he not take a souvenir she had on her, like the cross pendent or bracelet or a lock of her hair as a trophy?


_______________
IMO

ICU
03-03-2004, 04:40 PM
Angel -- When erotic asphyxiation (two people) is practiced, the arms of the subject are often tied above him/her to keep the subject from tearing away the ligature around the neck before the climax is reached.

I'm convinced that EA had been taking place because the EA device was still wrapped around JonBenet's neck. Even John Ramsey believes the perp likely used EA on JonBenet (even though he incorrectly referred to it as AEA).

JMO


I thought that this was a self inflicted act, Of course, this same self-endangerment that may provide a thrill to the person carrying out auto-erotic asphyxiation also weakens one's self-control and judgment, possibly resulting in accidental death. It's estimated that between 500 and 1000 deaths occur annually in the United States from this dangerous type of masturbation. I don’t think this would apply to JonBenet.


_______________
IMO

Shylock
03-03-2004, 04:54 PM
The problem with a blow to the head before strangulation is that it does not leave petechial hemorrhaging.

Oh yes it does! Please investigate the symptoms of severe head concussion readily available on the net. One of them is "mild to violent convulsions". It doesn't matter if convulsions are caused by lack of air from strangulation, or by head trauma, BOTH methods cause petechial hemorrhaging. When people die of convulsions, they are actually suffocating to death because they can't catch their breath.

BlueCrab
03-03-2004, 08:19 PM
I thought that this was a self inflicted act, Of course, this same self-endangerment that may provide a thrill to the person carrying out auto-erotic asphyxiation also weakens one's self-control and judgment, possibly resulting in accidental death. It's estimated that between 500 and 1000 deaths occur annually in the United States from this dangerous type of masturbation. I don?t think this would apply to JonBenet.IMO


Peek-a-boo, ICU (sorry, I couldn't resist that),

Autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) is solo masturbation. Erotic asphyxiation (EA) is masturbation using a partner.

In EA the partner masturbates the subject and simultaneously controls the ligature that temporarily asphyxiates the subject to maximize the orgasm. The subject's arms are usually tied overhead to keep him/her from involuntarily ripping off the ligature before the orgasm is complete because the body senses danger and wants to breathe no matter what. In EA the life of the subject is literally in the hands of the partner.

IMO the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was designed for EA.

JMO

txsvicki
03-04-2004, 12:33 AM
I'm here to help. :twocents:

I think it was deliberate. There was no lasceration on the head, no external swelling but petechial hemhorraging, ergo, strangulation first, head blow second. Too many aspects of the staging do not make sense in terms of staging for police, ergo, staging for viewing by the perp.

There are many, many concurrences (not coincidences) between the case and literature Patsy is known to have been associated with. The rn is full of symbolism known only to the writer. Many aspects of the staging are symbolic. DOI is full of symbolic and mythic references.

I think the event was carried out in a state of psychosis, which often has a mythic nature. Patsy believes she was saved from death by an interventionist super being, and that her daughter is now with that God in a non-dimensional, eternal realm awaiting her mother's arrival. Both are irrational conclusions, the tip of the psychotic iceberg. This was a one time event with the goal being achieved; JonBenet is in heaven, in a state of perfection and Patsy has that link and that hope. This ain't the first time this has been done and it won't be the last.

I'm here to answer the call. :blushing:


Not trying to cause any sort of argument, but I have never heard of, or read a word that belief in God,salvation, in life after death, heaven, and God's being in charge is in any way considered a mental illness or a symptom of psychosis. Now, a person actually believing himself to be Jesus, God, or to possess superhuman powers is considered mentally ill. There is a big big difference and every judge, police officer, qualified psychiatrist, medical doctor, etc. knows the difference. Why would a person who believes in nothing, living for no reason at all, having no hope, and eventually dying and becoming nothing forever be any more less likely to have killed a child?

Maikai
03-04-2004, 02:18 AM
If there were two, it's possible one was psychopath, and the other duped into the crime----perhaps was the one that wrote the note, to insure he/she keeps his/her mouth shut. Two together might have made a dangerous combination--alone neither one may have had the guts to carry out a plan. The brutality of the murder shows someone that was not a stranger to violence---and he chose as his target a completely innocent and vulnerable child. This is not the act of loving parents with history whatsover of anything in their past that could even hint that they were capable of this type of crime--let alone have the knowledge of making a garrote, or had the knowledge of the movie lines used in the note. The parents and Burke are innocent. I don't discount a drug addiction--something like methamphetamine---that came into play. A kidnapping gone bad by amateurs isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

BrotherMoon
03-04-2004, 03:04 AM
Not trying to cause any sort of argument, but I have never heard of, or read a word that belief in God,salvation, in life after death, heaven, and God's being in charge is in any way considered a mental illness or a symptom of psychosis.

Riiiiiiigggghhhttt. And those guys that flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were sane. Your post makes me :sick: .

ICU
03-04-2004, 10:10 AM
Oh yes it does! Please investigate the symptoms of severe head concussion readily available on the net. One of them is "mild to violent convulsions". It doesn't matter if convulsions are caused by lack of air from strangulation, or by head trauma, BOTH methods cause petechial hemorrhaging. When people die of convulsions, they are actually suffocating to death because they can't catch their breath.

You wrote:
BOTH methods cause petechial hemorrhaging. When people die of convulsions, they are actually suffocating to death.

Suffocating to death is the key word, petechial hemorrhaging, is the lack of oxygen, It has been recently discovered that convulsions cause petechial hemorrhaging when the person dies from it, that is why it will cause confusions in the reports, was the person suffocated with a pillow or convulsions, the epileptic person is a risk. But JonBenet was being strangled, I think that is what really caused the death and the petechial hemorrhaging, and yes there was the head impact. I value your response and in no way am I trying to sound like a know it all, I have a lot to learn, at the time I’m studying Geographic Profiling and hope to gain more knowledge in this area of study.


_______________
IMO

ICU
03-04-2004, 10:32 AM
Peek-a-boo, ICU (sorry, I couldn't resist that),

Autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) is solo masturbation. Erotic asphyxiation (EA) is masturbation using a partner.

In EA the partner masturbates the subject and simultaneously controls the ligature that temporarily asphyxiates the subject to maximize the orgasm. The subject's arms are usually tied overhead to keep him/her from involuntarily ripping off the ligature before the orgasm is complete because the body senses danger and wants to breathe no matter what. In EA the life of the subject is literally in the hands of the partner.

IMO the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck was designed for EA.

JMO

You wrote:
Peek-a-boo, ICU (sorry, I couldn't resist that)

That is exactly what I was thinking of when I selected the ICU user, “I SEE YOU”, wouldn’t it bee nice to say to the killer, “I SEE YOU”, “I know what you did and I know Whom you are and you will not get away with it”.

O.K. if what you say about the EA is true, then I would assume that she would have been sexually assaulted, in the manner that a partner would do it, it is similar to AEA where it intensifies sensations. That's because the lack of blood flow and oxygen can produce giddiness, lightheadedness, or exhilaration. It sounds like the one being strangled will experience the rush, so what’s in it for the perp? Remember she was found with her cloths still on, do you suppose it was the knots that had the perp excited, ligature knots are the perp’s high, similar to shoes fetish. What is you thoughts on that?



_______________
IMO

ICU
03-04-2004, 10:54 AM
If there were two, it's possible one was psychopath, and the other duped into the crime----perhaps was the one that wrote the note, to insure he/she keeps his/her mouth shut. Two together might have made a dangerous combination--alone neither one may have had the guts to carry out a plan. The brutality of the murder shows someone that was not a stranger to violence---and he chose as his target a completely innocent and vulnerable child. This is not the act of loving parents with history whatsover of anything in their past that could even hint that they were capable of this type of crime--let alone have the knowledge of making a garrote, or had the knowledge of the movie lines used in the note. The parents and Burke are innocent. I don't discount a drug addiction--something like methamphetamine---that came into play. A kidnapping gone bad by amateurs isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Maikai, Thanks for reading my opinion on the case.
I have asked questions about the bipolar disorder, and got no answer.
One of the symptoms are Grandiose delusions. Individuals imagine that they have special connections with God, celebrities, or political leaders.
Another symptom is Sudden irritability or rage, particularly when grandiose plans are thwarted.
Just the tip of the iceberg, so I was wondering if a person with this illness will kill, I remember reading about Joan Crawford’s rage with a wire cloths hanger on her daughter, She was bipolar, so you can’t rule anyone out. Until you are 100% sure not 99.9%. That is why you have to take this apart and look at it under a microscope.



_______________
IMO

ICU
03-04-2004, 11:25 AM
It was reported that the Ramsey's security system was not operating at the time of the murder.
This man is rich, although this was not a high crime area, but necessary to have security systems installed. How long was the security system not operating? Why have one if you are not going to keep it working properly? Did they look into the people whom installed the system? I used to work for security a few years back, and I know that the people are not screened for that job, just look at what they found at the airport, all sorts of criminals working the security systems. This is just a thought. Can anyone tell me if they did a check on the security system personal. Do not speculate on an answer, really know for sure. Now as for the knots found around JonBenet wrist, I could only see from the autopsy photos one hand tied, so for EA to be done, do both hands have to be tied? If they were then why was the left hand free? Do you suppose the perp took the time to untie just one hand and if he did, Why?

Toltec
03-04-2004, 11:52 AM
my first thought was intensive care unit...tee hee!

i've said it once and i'll say it again...intruders don't stay long enough to stage a crime. Why would this intruder who bashed JonBenet's head, strangled and molested her suddenly feel remorse and gently wrap her in a blanket as John put it "cocoon style"?

Why would this animal suddenly feel any sympathy after doing what he/she did to this precious little girl?

ICU
03-04-2004, 02:13 PM
my first thought was intensive care unit...tee hee!

i've said it once and i'll say it again...intruders don't stay long enough to stage a crime. Why would this intruder who bashed JonBenet's head, strangled and molested her suddenly feel remorse and gently wrap her in a blanket as John put it "cocoon style"?

Why would this animal suddenly feel any sympathy after doing what he/she did to this precious little girl?

Toltec in my earlier writings I said, to understand the criminal you have to think like one, it is a dangerous trip because it makes you feel strange, example just imagine you are nine years old, you are a little boy, your parents put you and your little six year old sister to bed, you are waiting for Christmas morning to wake up and open your gifts under the tree, this is odd but imagine you wake up and decided to play a game with your sister whom is sleeping in the next room, you go in and wake her and say hey lets play cowboys and Indians, what do you think your sister is going to say, most likely hey burke leave me alone I’m tired. So burke decides he wants to play so he ties a rope around his sisters neck and puts tape on her mouth and ties a rope around her wrist and starts to drag her to the basement, now with the one hand not tied, she might remove the tape and start yelling for her mother, and might even put up a fight with her brother, so how does her brother kill her? Why is he the one some people think did it? He would have to be a very angry boy at nine years of age, he would have to be able to carry his sister to the basement, then he would have to have ligature ready to put around her neck, know about a double knot that will act as a noose, so it will tighten when he pulled it, he would have the mind to loop the end of the ligature around the paint brush handle, why? Who knows? Now he is ready to be rough with her, she is struggling with him and the rope, she may even start kicking him, so the little boy would push her down and kick her in the head, assuming he is wearing heavy boots to cause a crack in her head. causing her to be dazed. Then he would wrap a blanket around her so she could not kick him any more, then he would start pulling on the rope and watching her struggle for air, all this time he is cool and in control, she goes unconscious, the rope is not undone and in a few seconds she dies, so the boy, leaves her in the basement, goes back to bed as if nothing ever happened. Does that sound like a lot of horse s**t? Absolutely.

_______________
IMO

Brefie
03-04-2004, 03:08 PM
Of course.....that's why people suggest that a lot of what was found was 'staged'.

Shylock
03-04-2004, 04:25 PM
It was reported that the Ramsey's security system was not operating at the time of the murder.
This man is rich, although this was not a high crime area, but necessary to have security systems installed. How long was the security system not operating? Why have one if you are not going to keep it working properly?

After JonBenet's death, when they had moved to the Atlanta area, John Ramsey was assaulted by another intruder who entered their house during the day. The security system was not turned on this time either.
It appears neither Ramsey has enough brains to turn on a security system. Or else neither developed a fear of intruders after JonBenet's death simply because there was no intruder.

BlueCrab
03-04-2004, 05:02 PM
You wrote:
Peek-a-boo, ICU (sorry, I couldn't resist that)

That is exactly what I was thinking of when I selected the ICU user, ?I SEE YOU?, wouldn?t it bee nice to say to the killer, ?I SEE YOU?, ?I know what you did and I know Whom you are and you will not get away with it?.

O.K. if what you say about the EA is true, then I would assume that she would have been sexually assaulted, in the manner that a partner would do it, it is similar to AEA where it intensifies sensations. That's because the lack of blood flow and oxygen can produce giddiness, lightheadedness, or exhilaration. It sounds like the one being strangled will experience the rush, so what?s in it for the perp? Remember she was found with her cloths still on, do you suppose it was the knots that had the perp excited, ligature knots are the perp?s high, similar to shoes fetish. What is you thoughts on that?



_______________
IMO


ICU, the only way I can answer that question is to say that, in sex, gratification can be obtained by pleasuring the partner. Of course, there could be other motivations, both good and evil.

JMO

Shylock
03-05-2004, 12:53 AM
But JonBenet was being strangled, I think that is what really caused the death and the , and yes there was the head impact.

There is something else you will need to consider. Dr. Spitz believes he sees evidence of a prior strangulation. He suggests it might have been by the collar on her shirt. So you now have THREE possible sources for the petechial hemorrhaging:
1) Strangulation by the garrote cord.
2) Strangulation by the collar or some other means not yet identified.
3) Suffocation due to convulsions caused by the head blow.

Now add into the equation that there was absolutely NO damage to the internal organs in her neck under the cord or to her tongue, AND the fact that the deep red color caused by the cord was localized ONLY under the cord (an important indicator of post-mortem bruising). Both are facts that point to the cord being applied after she was already dead to hide whatever really happened to her.

Maikai
03-05-2004, 01:43 AM
paraonoid schizophrenics are the most likely to be involved in violent crimes, and this is borne out in studies of the prison population. So, if there is a mental illness involved, I'd look for the paranoid shizo....and many of them can be high-functioning. An addict that used say methamphetamine is what I suspect. They would have a feeling of omnipotence while high....and they could be prone to violent outbursts when coming down. I think that could explain the unexplainable in the crime, such as the ransom note...the risk of entering the home...the impulsive murder (at least that's the way it appears to me). University Hill was experiencing a rise in crime due primarily to drug usage in the area---if you look at the surrounding environment and what was going on, a druggie is a good suspect. Transients had moved to the Hill area, after being kicked off of Pearl Street---and there were fights and violent crimes several times a week. Stun guns and bats were becoming weapons of choice in the area.

The Ramseys explained the alarm system, and why they didn't use it. It was obsolete, and the kids had set it off in the past, and it made a very loud noise. They thought they were in a safe neighborhood, their guard was down. Many people have alarm systems and don't use them. I think it was a real tragedy that so much money was spent on the house remodelling it, and so little consideration given to security---basement windows are prime places of intruder entry-----and at least one grate was not even secured to the ground. If someone saw a broken window, they would know that window was not armed.

Shylock
03-05-2004, 08:53 AM
The Ramseys explained the alarm system, and why they didn't use it. It was obsolete, and the kids had set it off in the past, and it made a very loud noise. They thought they were in a safe neighborhood, their guard was down. Many people have alarm systems and don't use them.


Oh really Maikai? And what was their excuse for not using the alarm system in their newly remodeled house in Vinings?

ICU
03-05-2004, 09:06 AM
After JonBenet's death, when they had moved to the Atlanta area, John Ramsey was assaulted by another intruder who entered their house during the day. The security system was not turned on this time either.
It appears neither Ramsey has enough brains to turn on a security system. Or else neither developed a fear of intruders after JonBenet's death simply because there was no intruder.

Now that is a good thought, what the heck is the matter with that guy? You know that even Lizzy Borden had her new house heavily secured with bars in the windows and double locks on the door, strange huh? Considering that she did the killing, even if it was to make people believe that she was telling the truth about not being the killer, again what is the matter with John Ramsey?

_______________
IMO

Barbara
03-05-2004, 09:08 AM
Oh really Maikai? And what was their excuse for not using the alarm system in their newly remodeled house in Vinings?

Or their excuse for seemingly NEVER using their alarms in prior homes. I do believe they were burglarized several times over the years, possibly once or twice BEFORE the murder, but I'm not positive.

ICU,

The problem (as I see it) is that you keep referring to thinking like a "criminal". For those of us who believe the Ramsey family is involved with this murder and know what happened that night, the vast majority of those theorists DO NOT believe this was a premeditated "criminal mind" at work. The vast majority believe that whichever member of the family is responsible, it was spontaneous, whether accidental or not.

If you find yourself thinking like a "criminal" you will find that the murder doesn't make sense to a criminal. It lacks all the stereotypical aspects of a practiced criminal. A real criminal would NEVER leave a note, especially handwritten at a crime scene when there is a murder and the body is left behind. A real criminal wouldn't make sure that there is no real hard evidence they were there AND THEN LEAVE A HANDWRITTEN NOTE.

ICU
03-05-2004, 10:23 AM
Or their excuse for seemingly NEVER using their alarms in prior homes. I do believe they were burglarized several times over the years, possibly once or twice BEFORE the murder, but I'm not positive.

ICU,

The problem (as I see it) is that you keep referring to thinking like a "criminal". For those of us who believe the Ramsey family is involved with this murder and know what happened that night, the vast majority of those theorists DO NOT believe this was a premeditated "criminal mind" at work. The vast majority believe that whichever member of the family is responsible, it was spontaneous, whether accidental or not.

If you find yourself thinking like a "criminal" you will find that the murder doesn't make sense to a criminal. It lacks all the stereotypical aspects of a practiced criminal. A real criminal would NEVER leave a note, especially handwritten at a crime scene when there is a murder and the body is left behind. A real criminal wouldn't make sure that there is no real hard evidence they were there AND THEN LEAVE A HANDWRITTEN NOTE.

Hi Barbara,
You said that “you will find that the murder doesn't make sense to a criminal”. Why would it not make sense to a criminal? His way of thinking is different than ours, we would never think that what he does makes sense, so how can we say it would not make sense to a criminal?

You said “the vast majority of those theorists DO NOT believe this was a premeditated "criminal mind" at work” They have been wrong many times before, I do not like to follow the majority, they cloud the mind with a lot of misinformation.

You said “The vast majority believe that whichever member of the family is responsible, it was spontaneous, whether accidental or not.” Spontaneous that is a curious word, can you think of anything that might result in that kind of spontaneous or accidental result in the death of the child? What do you think was going on? Do you have any concrete evidence that anyone in the family was that unstable?

You said “A real criminal would NEVER leave a note” never say NEVER.

You said “A real criminal wouldn't make sure that there is no real hard evidence they were there AND THEN LEAVE A HANDWRITTEN NOTE” Barbara no one is perfect, criminals almost always make mistakes, and I’m sure that if the family did it, and it was the first time for them, there would be a lot of mistakes.

Barbara I know that I have written a lot here and some may be lost in volume, but the question I would like for you to help me with is, where did that blanket found wrapped around the child, come from? why was it in the basement? where was that blanket before it was discovered in the basement? What do you think it was intended for originally in the murder? The blanket wrapped around the child seems odd.

_______________
IMO

ICU
03-05-2004, 10:55 AM
There is something else you will need to consider. Dr. Spitz believes he sees evidence of a prior strangulation. He suggests it might have been by the collar on her shirt. So you now have THREE possible sources for the petechial hemorrhaging:
1) Strangulation by the garrote cord.
2) Strangulation by the collar or some other means not yet identified.
3) Suffocation due to convulsions caused by the head blow.

Now add into the equation that there was absolutely NO damage to the internal organs in her neck under the cord or to her tongue, AND the fact that the deep red color caused by the cord was localized ONLY under the cord (an important indicator of post-mortem bruising). Both are facts that point to the cord being applied after she was already dead to hide whatever really happened to her.


You said “the cord being applied after she was already dead to hide whatever really happened to her”.
That sounds like a possibility, but think about this, What if she did die of a head injury, that resulted In a convulsion?
Now if you were the father or mother, you think the son or whom ever did it, was in danger of being held for murder, so you both decide to make it look like an intruder came in and killed her, wow what a devious plan, now you know that she will be discovered, so why when the detective suggested that you and a friend look around to see if anything was out of place,
you go directly to the body and unstage what you wanted to look like a murder by someone else, now if he and his wife were going to be cool about it you know the note and all the crying, why discover the body and make your self look guilty, why not just say you checked the house and could not find anything, now that would look bad, because if and when the body was discovered, the husband would have a lot of explaining to do, why not just yell out to the detective that he found her, now that would keep the staging in place.
For someone who wanted to make this look like an intruder did it, should have had the police look around the house, that way he could act surprised when the body was discovered. As a rule the murderer usually does not discover the body.
But the main thing I want to say is, if she died from a blow to the head, why not just leave it that way and say she was Bludgeon to death and left there by the intruder. The note is all wrong anyway. the Ramsey family must have been reading about serial killers to think up a crime like that. Does that sound like what John and Pat read for fun? If I were them I would not bring the police into it, until after I dumped the body someplace far from the house,then I would call the police, really how much trouble would it be to put a little six year old in a duffle bag and drop her off in a secluded area, in the middle of the night, now you have a ransom note and a missing daughter, if they were cool enough to do it, why not do the next step and just dump the body, it is only going to be trouble for them to keep it. This basement thing is a mystery.

_______________
IMO

BlueCrab
03-05-2004, 11:09 AM
Barbara I know that I have written a lot here and some may be lost in volume, but the question I would like for you to help me with is, where did that blanket found wrapped around the child, come from? why was it in the basement? where was that blanket before it was discovered in the basement? What do you think it was intended for originally in the murder? The blanket wrapped around the child seems odd.

_______________
IMO


I'm not Barbara, but I'd like to give you my opinion re' the blanket.

It was below 10 degrees outside and, although the furnace was likely cranking, it would still be chilly to crawl out of bed and go downstairs in the middle of the night. I think JonBenet went downstairs voluntarily with someone she knew, and she wore the nightgown and carried the blanket downstairs with her to help keep warm.

JMO

ICU
03-05-2004, 11:50 AM
I'm not Barbara, but I'd like to give you my opinion re' the blanket.

It was below 10 degrees outside and, although the furnace was likely cranking, it would still be chilly to crawl out of bed and go downstairs in the middle of the night. I think JonBenet went downstairs voluntarily with someone she knew, and she wore the nightgown and carried the blanket downstairs with her to help keep warm.

JMO


Sorry about that, must have hit the wrong button, but thanks for the response.

What you said makes sense, It sure makes John Ramsey look stupid, here is a man with considerable wealth and does not keep his alarm system in working order, and seems scrooge like in the heat at night, considering how cold it was outside.
However, this person that took her out of bed that night, may not even had to wake her, it is funny how children can sleep through just about anything, even picking them up if they are tired enough will not even wake them, they can even sleep with the television blaring in the background. So I believe that she felt secured in her bed, and if she felt someone lift her, she probably would have thought it was one of her parents, I know this because my sister in law asked me to pick up her 5 year old son, whom had fallen to sleep on the couch, he did not wake up when I carried him to his bed. Now I’m not his father but I’m sure he did not know whom was carrying him, so he was not alarmed. I think it would be easier for the perp to carry the child, instead of making her walk to the basement. Now about the blanket, are you sure it came from her bed? Do you think that the perp wanted to just kill her and leave her in the basement? What do you think was on the perps mind when he/she decided to take her to the basement? An evil thought process is going on here, there is intent to brutalize this child and murder her, it was planed out IMO, I can think of no other reason for bringing her to the basement of that house. But why on Christmas eve, would this perp want to kill this child, it looks to me as if a killing was to be the end result of that night. Do you have any gut feeling about all this, not what other people have said, just your feeling or observation, have you seen the photos and autopsy report on this case? Do you know what the layout of the house looks like?

_______________
IMO

Barbara
03-05-2004, 11:55 AM
Hi Barbara,
[QUOTE]You said that “you will find that the murder doesn't make sense to a criminal”. Why would it not make sense to a criminal? His way of thinking is different than ours, we would never think that what he does makes sense, so how can we say it would not make sense to a criminal?

With this statement you leave the door open to "closing it" as well when the rationale that the family had no "history", "reason", etc. comes up. Frequently, the statement is made that it made no sense for any family member to have committed this crime given what we know. For me the real "criminal" type wouldn't take the many chances taken if in fact, it were an intruder. That is what doesn't make sense. An intruder would not have to take such great effort to cover up his tracks, only to leave a handwritten note that could possibly be traced back.

You said “the vast majority of those theorists DO NOT believe this was a premeditated "criminal mind" at work” They have been wrong many times before, I do not like to follow the majority, they cloud the mind with a lot of misinformation


Let me clarify this statement. The "vast" majority of the theorists came to these conclusions on their own, and that is how they became the "vast majority". It's not a matter of "following" the majority, one has to follow the evidence and the information. Misinformation has already been out there from the "majority" of Ramsey supporters, who, with no real knowledge to back up their statements will just state that without a doubt, the Ramseys could not have done this, or to make the misinformational statement that there was a stun gun, she struggled, it wasn't pineapple, etc. Misinformation can come from everyone and everywhere and has nothing to do with majority or minority, at least on these forums

You said “The vast majority believe that whichever member of the family is responsible, it was spontaneous, whether accidental or not.” Spontaneous that is a curious word, can you think of anything that might result in that kind of spontaneous or accidental result in the death of the child? What do you think was going on? Do you have any concrete evidence that anyone in the family was that unstable?

It's not such a curious word; it simply means that it was not planned. I can think of many things that would be a "spontaneous" scenario. A family member just snapping, having gotten angry, or a family member, even accidentally hitting her and causing more damage than was intended is still "spontaneous". There is nobody on the forums that has any concrete evidence that the family was stable or unstable. Some will go by the theory that if there was nothing documented that there were any psychiatric problems, including depression, than it couldn't be the case. Wrong. So as far as evidence, nobody has any either way. All part of the mystery

You said “A real criminal would NEVER leave a note” never say NEVER.

The only response I have for that statement is that it is still safe to say that it had never happened before (a body AND a ransom note) and has not happened since. So for me, while "never" may be strong, it still works in my thinking thus far regarding this type of crime

You said “A real criminal wouldn't make sure that there is no real hard evidence they were there AND THEN LEAVE A HANDWRITTEN NOTE” Barbara no one is perfect, criminals almost always make mistakes, and I’m sure that if the family did it, and it was the first time for them, there would be a lot of mistakes.

If the family did it, and it was the first time for them, they made some mistakes. Unfortunately, the crime scene was so tainted that we'll just never know exactly how many mistakes were made. One of the mistakes IMO is the ransom note

Barbara I know that I have written a lot here and some may be lost in volume, but the question I would like for you to help me with is, where did that blanket found wrapped around the child, come from? why was it in the basement? where was that blanket before it was discovered in the basement? What do you think it was intended for originally in the murder? The blanket wrapped around the child seems odd._

The blanket, if memory serves me right, was in the dryer of the house. I think it's intention was for the exact purpose it was used for...because they cared about the victim, the perp/s didn't want her just lying on a cold, hard, basement floor, so the perp/s wrapped her. It's not odd. It's a sign that whomever killed her, cared for her. That's been done before in many murders______________

ICU
03-05-2004, 12:07 PM
What I find interesting is that the alarm system is not working or shut down, how easy for the killer not to have to worry about that. A ransom note, and a dead body. This sounds like a walk in the park. But the big question is if you kill the girl and want it to look like an intruder kidnapped her, why not take the body out and dump it, why hang on to it? And have the cops swarming allover the place and find her, Just go to the trouble of dumping the body at some secluded place, then call the cops, now how hard is that to do?
Considering all the trouble of making it look like a crime and not an accident. How stupid can they be? Everyone knows that the longer you keep the body, the greater the chance of discovery. _______________
IMO

Barbara
03-05-2004, 12:14 PM
Considering all the trouble of making it look like a crime and not an accident. How stupid can they be? Everyone knows that the longer you keep the body, the greater the chance of discovery. _______________
IMO

EXACTLY! If an accident, the family still has to explain it and take responsibility. They are not stupid. NO WAY would they dump her outside where animals may get at her and who knows when the body would be found. They wanted her found, they loved her, but wanted no responsibility. That's why John must have gotten so frustrated, he just went and found her himself! He was just hoping they would have found her initially and when they didn't, he waited for the opportunity to go ahead and make a beeline to the body and "find" it

ICU
03-05-2004, 12:17 PM
paraonoid schizophrenics are the most likely to be involved in violent crimes, and this is borne out in studies of the prison population. So, if there is a mental illness involved, I'd look for the paranoid shizo....and many of them can be high-functioning. An addict that used say methamphetamine is what I suspect. They would have a feeling of omnipotence while high....and they could be prone to violent outbursts when coming down. I think that could explain the unexplainable in the crime, such as the ransom note...the risk of entering the home...the impulsive murder (at least that's the way it appears to me). University Hill was experiencing a rise in crime due primarily to drug usage in the area---if you look at the surrounding environment and what was going on, a druggie is a good suspect. Transients had moved to the Hill area, after being kicked off of Pearl Street---and there were fights and violent crimes several times a week. Stun guns and bats were becoming weapons of choice in the area.

The Ramseys explained the alarm system, and why they didn't use it. It was obsolete, and the kids had set it off in the past, and it made a very loud noise. They thought they were in a safe neighborhood, their guard was down. Many people have alarm systems and don't use them. I think it was a real tragedy that so much money was spent on the house remodelling it, and so little consideration given to security---basement windows are prime places of intruder entry-----and at least one grate was not even secured to the ground. If someone saw a broken window, they would know that window was not armed.

The problem with being paranoid schizophrenic, and being high on drugs while breaking into a home is you are just to noisy, there is too much going on inside of you to quietly break into a house with 4 people there, besides if you are going to kill, why not kill everyone there?

_______________
IMO

BrotherMoon
03-05-2004, 12:18 PM
So many aspects of the staging and the note do not make sense as a crime or a faked crime for discovery by police that I am led to think the entire thing was done by Patsy for Patsy with no real concern for anything or anyone outside her skull.

This includes the "entombment", the "shroud" and the "stigmata".

ICU
03-05-2004, 12:20 PM
EXACTLY! If an accident, the family still has to explain it and take responsibility. They are not stupid. NO WAY would they dump her outside where animals may get at her and who knows when the body would be found. They wanted her found, they loved her, but wanted no responsibility. That's why John must have gotten so frustrated, he just went and found her himself! He was just hoping they would have found her initially and when they didn't, he waited for the opportunity to go ahead and make a beeline to the body and "find" it

Barbara you have a big heart, and a Fierce one at that. What you just wrote is an interesting way of looking at it.

ICU
03-05-2004, 12:30 PM
So many aspects of the staging and the note do not make sense as a crime or a faked crime for discovery by police that I am led to think the entire thing was done by Patsy for Patsy with no real concern for anything or anyone outside her skull.

This includes the "entombment", the "shroud" and the "stigmata".

I have asked about patsy having bipolar disorder, just to describe a 3 of symptoms.
1. Sudden irritability or rage, particularly when grandiose plans are thwarted.
2. Feeling on top of the world. A sensation of sheer and utter happiness that nothing - not even bad news or a horrifying event or tragedy - can change.
3. Grandiose delusions. Individuals imagine that they have special connections with God, celebrities, or political leaders.
Do you think that someone with this illness could do what was done to JonBenet?
Joan Crawford used a wire hanger on her daughter. So she says.
_______________
IMO

TLynn
03-05-2004, 01:10 PM
Perhaps -

The Ramseys expected the police to find the body. Officer French, first officer on the scene, didn't find it. Fleet White searched the basement didn't find it. John previously "searched the house" and didn't find her....approximately seven hours passed without the body being discovered.

Perhaps -

John realized the body was not going to be discovered by anyone...it was hidden too well and the anxiety of the kidnapping "charade" - especially without a phone call was too much -- first chance, he had to find her.

John didn't actually undo any staging - FW was an eyewitness to the discovery - he pulled off the tape (which was placed on JonBenet's mouth after death) and, I believe, removed one of the wrist ligatures (which was loosely tied).

John found the body - because no one else did or was going to....

TLynn
03-05-2004, 01:11 PM
The blanket was in the basement dryer (according to the housekeeper & Patsy Ramsey, herself). It is speculated that the Barbie nightgown was "static cling" - hence, it was also found.

Britt
03-05-2004, 01:47 PM
John found the body - because no one else did or was going to....
I agree, TLynn. I also think it's possible he got wind the big guns were on the way - the FBI and maybe search dogs - and the last thing John wanted was real law enforcement at the house, so he prevented that by "finding" the body, thereby turning the "kidnapping" into a murder and ending any FBI jurisdiction. Better to keep things local and in the hands of the Good Ole Boys and bumbling local cops.

BrotherMoon
03-05-2004, 03:11 PM
I have asked about patsy having bipolar disorder,
Do you think that someone with this illness could do what was done to JonBenet?

_______________
IMO
Imagine an equilateral cross, a plus sign. In bipolar disorder the ego swings between the upper and lower extremes of the cross and in borderline personality disorder the ego swings between the horizontal extremes. Either way, the ego has trouble mediating the swings, either way, over time there is a degredation to the authority of the ego with an increase in irrational behavior the result.

A psychosis occurs when the authority of the ego degrades to the point that 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 and view themselves as part of a mythic storyline. They may exhibit behavior that appears structured but actually lacks rationallity, i.e. moral decision making as they follow the mythic script.

Patsy shows signs of having been in a progressive psychosis due to the degredation of a narcissistic ego structure that exposed a borderline type ego core. That infantile/juvenile ego was attached to persona identities from Patsy's youth, along with the conflicts of her youth. Those conflicts and the latent resolutions were worked out on her daughter by proxy in unconscious transference.

Patsy is still using JonBenet as angel to work out her conflicts, which now are overtly spiritual.

ICU
03-05-2004, 04:46 PM
So many aspects of the staging and the note do not make sense as a crime or a faked crime for discovery by police that I am led to think the entire thing was done by Patsy for Patsy with no real concern for anything or anyone outside her skull.

This includes the "entombment", the "shroud" and the "stigmata".

Could you give me a believable scenario about that night? Take me step by step into what you think really happened, from what you know about the case, use as much imagination as possible, but be as logical as possible, start from when everyone is asleep in their beds. This is interesting to see just what you could put together. I’m not trying to be funny, I’m just curious.

_______________
IMO

Toltec
03-05-2004, 04:47 PM
Imagine an equilateral cross, a plus sign. In bipolar disorder the ego swings between the upper and lower extremes of the cross and in borderline personality disorder the ego swings between the horizontal extremes. Either way, the ego has trouble mediating the swings, either way, over time there is a degredation to the authority of the ego with an increase in irrational behavior the result.

A psychosis occurs when the authority of the ego degrades to the point that 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 and view themselves as part of a mythic storyline. They may exhibit behavior that appears structured but actually lacks rationallity, i.e. moral decision making as they follow the mythic script.

Patsy shows signs of having been in a progressive psychosis due to the degredation of a narcissistic ego structure that exposed a borderline type ego core. That infantile/juvenile ego was attached to persona identities from Patsy's youth, along with the conflicts of her youth. Those conflicts and the latent resolutions were worked out on her daughter by proxy in unconscious transference.

Patsy is still using JonBenet as angel to work out her conflicts, which now are overtly spiritual.

Does that explain Patsy's behavior after JonBenet's body was found...John found Patsy behind an armoire curled up in a fetal position, mumbling to herself.

ICU
03-08-2004, 09:39 AM
The police DID look around the house. But remember, they thought it was a kidnapping, so they were looking for entry points, not dead bodies. And John Ramsey was in no position to order the police to do a better search of the house. All they could do was sit there and wait for the body to be discovered. Luckily, the detective told John Ramsey and Fleet White to re-search the house from top to bottom. That gave John Ramsey the opportunity to discover the body.

You said “The police DID look around the house. But remember, they thought it was a kidnapping, so they were looking for entry points, not dead bodies.”

What kind of training did those cops have? Sounds like they were graduates of the keystone cops academy. Even we know that the basement is a prime entry point for an intruder. Don’t tell me that the cops were afraid of the dark in the basement not to look there, but instead let the possible perps check it out. Does that make any sense?

_______________
IMO

ICU
03-08-2004, 09:51 AM
I think Patsy was diddling (digitally manipulating) JB for some time before the event as compulsive behavior, latent sexual awareness transfered to the girl, or it was part of Patsy punishing herself by proxy with intercourse resentment. I don't think it was part of the staging as she tried to clean it up, back tracking as it were. Patsy took JB to the doc many times, I think treating herself, again by proxy, medically for her compulsive intrussions. The two are connected.

As far as John going along, just think of all the women who turned a blind eye to their men abusing their daughters, chosing not to see. I think John would rather live a lie than realize he sleeps with the Devil. Patsy didn't exhibit the same attachment to Burke, so a threat is not sensed. However, I think Patsy may have narcissistic plans for Burke concerning religion. I hope so.

As far as the cushioning, I agree, that scenario is mentioned in The Silence of the Lambs. I'm not sure about why_nutt.


This is an interesting theory, but unless it can be proven that what you say about Patsy did to her daughter “diddling (digitally manipulating) JB” then it is just conjecture, a guess. You seem to be convinced of Patsy’s part in this as the main perp. I’m not saying that you are wrong, all I want to know is, how can you prove, that what you think is true?

_______________
IMO

ICU
03-08-2004, 10:10 AM
I heard that Fleet envied John about something he had, that Fleet wanted, That in it’s self seems odd because Fleet was a rich man and could afford whatever John owned, except for the little girl, I’m not sure what it was, but does anyone know if Fleet was close to JonBenet, in a inappropriate way, you know kind of like someone making you feel uncomfortable? Did he express any kind of father like attention on the girl? and did Fleet have a key to the house? He would know that the alarm was not working, John surely would have told him, being a friend in all. This may not seem important but does Fleet have an artistic talent? In other words did he do paintings?
_______________
IMO

BlueCrab
03-08-2004, 10:14 AM
You said ?Fleet White searched the basement didn't find it.? How did he miss her?
They both Fleet and John searched it later and found her, It sounds like Fleet is lying about not seeing her or she was covered up by the invisibility cloak. Did Fleet have a key to the house? I heard that he was some kind of pervert am I right?

_______________
IMO


Fleet White searched the house by himself minutes after getting there, which was shortly after the cops got there at about 6:00 A.M. Fleet unlatched, opened the wine cellar door, leaned in and looked inside without actually entering the room. It was dark inside the room and he couldn't find the light switch. Since he didn't see anything suspicious Fleet closed the door and relatched it.

Around 1:00 P.M. John and Fleet searched the basement and John, who was several steps ahead of Fleet, opened the wine cellar door and found JonBenet lying on the floor not far from the door. John removed the tape from JonBenet's mouth and untied one of the tightly-tied knots (according to John) that held her arms together at the wrists, and he carried her upstairs.

Fleet White insists that when he opened the wine cellar door early that morning he would have seen JonBenet lying on the floor despite the darkness, especially since she was wrapped in a white blanket. IMO Fleet White knows who killed JonBenet because he knows the body had been moved. The court protective order prevents Fleet from publicly saying who did it.

JMO

BlueCrab
03-08-2004, 10:17 AM
You said ?Fleet White searched the basement didn't find it.? How did he miss her?
They both Fleet and John searched it later and found her, It sounds like Fleet is lying about not seeing her or she was covered up by the invisibility cloak. Did Fleet have a key to the house? I heard that he was some kind of pervert am I right?

_______________
IMO


Fleet White searched the house by himself minutes after getting there, which was shortly after the cops got there at about 6:00 A.M. Fleet unlatched, opened the wine cellar door, leaned in and looked inside without actually entering the room. It was dark inside the room and he couldn't find the light switch. Since he didn't see anything suspicious Fleet closed the door and relatched it.

Around 1:00 P.M. John and Fleet searched the basement and John, who was several steps ahead of Fleet, opened the wine cellar door and found JonBenet lying on the floor not far from the door. John removed the tape from JonBenet's mouth and untied one of the tightly-tied knots (according to John) that held her arms together at the wrists, and he carried her upstairs.

Fleet White insists that when he opened the wine cellar door early that morning he would have seen JonBenet lying on the floor despite the darkness IF SHE HAD BEEN THERE, especially since she was wrapped in a white blanket. IMO Fleet White knows who killed JonBenet because he knows the body had been moved. The court protective order prevents Fleet from publicly saying who did it.

JMO

Shylock
03-08-2004, 10:59 AM
What kind of training did those cops have? Sounds like they were graduates of the keystone cops academy.

Well yeah, everyone is pretty much in agreement that Detective Linda Arndt was in WAY over her head and really botched the crime scene. About the only thing good you can say about Arndt is that she DID request help from her supervisor several times but didn't get any. They were pretty short-staffed because of the holiday and the wrong person was on duty.

ICU
03-08-2004, 01:06 PM
Fleet White searched the house by himself minutes after getting there, which was shortly after the cops got there at about 6:00 A.M. Fleet unlatched, opened the wine cellar door, leaned in and looked inside without actually entering the room. It was dark inside the room and he couldn't find the light switch. Since he didn't see anything suspicious Fleet closed the door and relatched it.

Around 1:00 P.M. John and Fleet searched the basement and John, who was several steps ahead of Fleet, opened the wine cellar door and found JonBenet lying on the floor not far from the door. John removed the tape from JonBenet's mouth and untied one of the tightly-tied knots (according to John) that held her arms together at the wrists, and he carried her upstairs.

Fleet White insists that when he opened the wine cellar door early that morning he would have seen JonBenet lying on the floor despite the darkness IF SHE HAD BEEN THERE, especially since she was wrapped in a white blanket. IMO Fleet White knows who killed JonBenet because he knows the body had been moved. The court protective order prevents Fleet from publicly saying who did it.

JMO

So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
did John go to the basement alone after Fleet checked it out and move the body? sounds risky. Why would Fleet take it up pond himself to coduct a search in the first place? or did the police tell him to do so?
how Convenient The court protective order prevents Fleet from publicly saying who did it.

sissi
03-08-2004, 01:45 PM
He could have been lying,he could have checked to see if she was "still there".
Did he have a key? Yes,Patsy gave Priscilla a key, I believe it was the night of the 23rd,knowing that
the White's were having guests and that they (ramseys) were leaving she gave it to her just in case a few needed a place to stay. The question? Did the White's make the bid for that key? or.....did Patsy just offer it out of the blue?
Was Fleet wealthy? Some suggest he wasn't,and suggest Priscilla couldn't make the purchases allowed Patsy...that John always paid for the sailing and trips.
Was Fleet fatherlike,YES!..He was quick to come to the aid of a child.....remember the wiping and changing stories?
Did he hold down a job,or was he an aging surfer boy?
In his fifties,was Priscilla wife number one?
Where is the lapse in his "adult life",what did he do?

TLynn
03-08-2004, 02:06 PM
John did go down into the basement on his own around 10 a.m. -

That's when he says he discovered the broken basement window open; closed it, didn't lock it and - didn't tell anyone he found it "open."

Barbara
03-08-2004, 02:08 PM
Fleet White is not guilty of this murder.

Fleet White made a bad choice of friends

Fleet White is a convenient scapegoat for those who would protect the Ramseys and their failures in this case

Fleet White hasn't spoken publicly on this case because he, unlike the Ramseys and other players in this case thinks it is inappropriate to speculate about his feelings in this case.

"So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
did John go to the basement alone after Fleet checked it out and move the body"

Fleet lying? No
John was in the basement alone for some time. Only he knows for sure what he was doing down there. We can only speculate.

little1
03-08-2004, 02:15 PM
The police DID look around the house. But remember, they thought it was a kidnapping, so they were looking for entry points, not dead bodies. And John Ramsey was in no position to order the police to do a better search of the house. All they could do was sit there and wait for the body to be discovered. Luckily, the detective told John Ramsey and Fleet White to re-search the house from top to bottom. That gave John Ramsey the opportunity to discover the body.


That all works except how would the R's know that the detectives assigned would be so inept? (Just because it was Boulder?)

Shylock
03-08-2004, 03:48 PM
That all works except how would the R's know that the detectives assigned would be so inept? (Just because it was Boulder?)

They didn't, nor did they care. I'm sure they expected the body to be found within an hour of the 911 call. It must have been terribly frustrating for them when that didn't happen and they had to sit there for hours--continuing the ruse that they believed a real kidnapping was in progress.

IMO

little1
03-08-2004, 04:23 PM
They didn't, nor did they care. I'm sure they expected the body to be found within an hour of the 911 call. It must have been terribly frustrating for them when that didn't happen and they had to sit there for hours--continuing the ruse that they believed a real kidnapping was in progress.

IMO


If that is the case, why not "hide" her in a room that was not so unknown to others? Why not try to get the body out of house? Why stage a kidnapping, then leave the body in the house? Makes no sense.

ICU
03-08-2004, 05:28 PM
If that is the case, why not "hide" her in a room that was not so unknown to others? Why not try to get the body out of house? Why stage a kidnapping, then leave the body in the house? Makes no sense.

little1, I have read your replies and I am convinced that you are a good sleuth, and do not follow a witch hunt that have no substance in it. I believe that hard questioning and logical thinking, not innuendos conjectures and wild guesses, I can not believe the steadfast belief of ones guilt on nothing else but feelings about them, none of which can be proven. They seem to like the sound of it and that is all they are going on. Now watch this, I will be attacked by all the ones I’m talking about, it never fails.

_______________
IMO

Toltec
03-08-2004, 05:37 PM
If that is the case, why not "hide" her in a room that was not so unknown to others? Why not try to get the body out of house? Why stage a kidnapping, then leave the body in the house? Makes no sense.

Where would you suggest hiding the body of the child you killed??? If it were me I would have placed her in the wine cellar.

Patsy's reaction after seeing Officer French coming up from the basement spoke volumes. Hiding behind splayed fingers...eyeballing him? She must have been stunned to realize that French did not discover JonBenet.

IMO

ICU
03-08-2004, 05:41 PM
Fleet White is not guilty of this murder.

Fleet White made a bad choice of friends

Fleet White is a convenient scapegoat for those who would protect the Ramseys and their failures in this case

Fleet White hasn't spoken publicly on this case because he, unlike the Ramseys and other players in this case thinks it is inappropriate to speculate about his feelings in this case.

"So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
did John go to the basement alone after Fleet checked it out and move the body"

Fleet lying? No
John was in the basement alone for some time. Only he knows for sure what he was doing down there. We can only speculate.

So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
Yes I do, the man said that he did not see her because the wine cellar was too dark, he just poke his head in, he could not see in the dark, and he could not find the light switch, I believe he knew where the light switch was, wow what a guy, looking around for anything unusual after hearing about the Ramsey girl is kidnapped and he only poked his head in the wine cellar and said nope nothing there, but later said when he and John found her, hey I could have seen her there in the dark so close to the door with that white blanket on her, what a liar. Go ahead stand up for him.

_______________
IMO

BlueCrab
03-08-2004, 08:28 PM
So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
did John go to the basement alone after Fleet checked it out and move the body? sounds risky. Why would Fleet take it up pond himself to coduct a search in the first place? or did the police tell him to do so?
how Convenient The court protective order prevents Fleet from publicly saying who did it.


ICU,

IMO Fleet White had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet. He came over to the Ramseys house a little after 6 A.M. because Patsy frantically called him and asked for help. Fleet searched the house soon after getting to the Ramseys because he was told JonBenet had been kidnapped and is missing.

Fleet was alone when he searched the basement. He wouldn't have any reason to lie about seeing the body when he peered into the wine cellar. I'm convinced Fleet didn't see the body because it really wasn't there at 6:00 A.M. IMO John moved the body later that morning when he went into the basement by himself. He moved it because he wanted it found because the suspense was killing Patsy and himself.

Fleet knows the body was moved and therefore knows a Ramsey is guilty of killing JonBenet. He 's convinced he would have seen JonBenet wrapped in a white blanket despite the darkness.

IMO that's the basis of the falling out between the Ramseys and the Whites. Fleet White wants John Ramsey to come clean, even if Burke is involved, and stop the destruction of innocent families by innuendo -- including his own. Fleet blames Alex Hunter for sweeping everything under the rug, unnecessarily making almost everyone look suspicious.

JMO

Shylock
03-08-2004, 09:14 PM
If that is the case, why not "hide" her in a room that was not so unknown to others? Why not try to get the body out of house? Why stage a kidnapping, then leave the body in the house? Makes no sense.

You're kidding right? The answers to your questions should be obvious to you. The kidnapping was staged to point the crime outside the house. And why would they even TRY to get the body out of the house and take the chance of being seen by someone.

If you had a dead kid on your hands and couldn't leave your house, just what would YOU do?

Toltec
03-09-2004, 12:10 AM
The real reason the Ramseys had a fallout with the Whites was because the Whites knew who was responsible for the death of their daughters best friend.

One instance is when Priscilla White confronted Patsy by telling Patsy that she knows a thing or two about a thing or two. What was Patsy's response?

NONE.

Early on in the investigation, the Ramseys had their pit bull Stine keep watch and keep the Whites away from them.

The Fernies no longer have contact with the Ramseys. Remember Barbara Fernies observation of Patsy? Barbara said that it was she who mourned more than Patsy did.

TLynn
03-09-2004, 03:10 AM
The door was latched - no reason to think she was in the wine cellar. The sun wasn't out yet either - still dark. The light switch was set back and FW had never been in there before.

Officer French didn't even open the door to look in.

Also, if you've seen the layout of the "wine cellar" - JonBenet was not in a clear path by the door.

Interesting that French didn't notice the broken window....

sissi
03-09-2004, 08:28 AM
Fleet was familiar with the wine celler ,he had grabbed a bottle of "red" during a get together,and knew the area,knew the location of the switch.
Why is it that so many claim not to be familiar with that room? LHP herself claimed she didn't
"even know the room",yet she and her hubby removed decorations to carry upstairs shortly before Christmas.
Why was the door relatched? Clearly something isn't right.
During the early morning hours,while people were coming and going,was the house surrounded by police? NO!
Could the killer have been hiding in a crawl space,less likely to be found than Jonbenet's body?

Shylock
03-09-2004, 08:49 AM
Fleet was familiar with the wine celler ,he had grabbed a bottle of "red" during a get together,and knew the area,knew the location of the switch.
Where do you get this information from? I thought John said that while they called it a "wine celler" they had never really stored wine there.

Barbara
03-09-2004, 08:59 AM
So Fleet could have been lying about not seeing her the first time ya think?
Yes I do, the man said that he did not see her because the wine cellar was too dark, he just poke his head in, he could not see in the dark, and he could not find the light switch, I believe he knew where the light switch was, wow what a guy, looking around for anything unusual after hearing about the Ramsey girl is kidnapped and he only poked his head in the wine cellar and said nope nothing there, but later said when he and John found her, hey I could have seen her there in the dark so close to the door with that white blanket on her, what a liar. Go ahead stand up for him.

_______________
IMO

Gee ICU, for someone who claims that they don't know every part of this case, you sure do seem hell bent on bashing Fleet White. Rather unusual for someone who hasn't been on top of the case for very long.

What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?

Hmmmmmm....I do believe we have met before.

ICU
03-09-2004, 09:28 AM
Some have responded rather interestingly, and I’m surprised that I have not been torn to shreds, but there is still time yet, not all the votes are in. This is why I think that it was an intruder, now this is my opinion, There was no evidence of forced entry, you can exclude the cellar window because it was found to be too small for a person to fit into with out getting hurt, there is a window well there and no disturbance of dust was found. Now someone would have to have a key, because even if the alarm was not activated or not working, John would have at least locked the door. It is known that a few people had copies of the keys, John let people he knew use his house when they were away. One of the so called friend of John’s let himself in through the front door, he knew that the alarm was not activated, because John would have told his friends with a key that the alarm is not functional, now this intruder knows were JonBenet is sleeping, this person may have had fantasies about her, this is not a transient because of the neighborhood. This is an educated person, with a fantasy, what time of the night this happened who knows? The intruder goes to the girls room and picks her up, she awakes IMO and recognized the intruder and was not alarmed, I do not think that the intruder planned to kidnap the child but to for fill the fantasy, the murder was commited because the intruder would be identified, JonBenet would not want to be near this person again and would have alerted people that something was wrong, so the murderer had to finish his crime, besides what better way to cover up your crime than to leave the body in the parents basement, so the intruder may have offered her the pineapple to keep her calm, most pedophiles are loving to the victims they are going to violate it helps with the fantasy, so they go to the cellar, now why would JonBenet just follow the intruder to the cellar? Well if the pedophile was good at it, he could have said anything to keep her calm and convince her to go along with him, this is a six year old girl whom is trusting this intruder. I have read about different kinds of killings of children by their mothers and what I have read is, they would just kill them by drowning, stabbing, poison, suffocation, etc…, it was quick and simple, look at the way JonBenet was murdered, with ligatures, knots that slipped to strangle, ligatures on the wrist, the ligature around the neck was not only designed to tighten, it also had a paint brush handle, which the end of the ligature was wrapped around it. All this is time consuming and methodical, I believe that the blanket was used to stop her from kicking, (and the tape to keep her quiet, so why bother if both parents were in on it, so what if she started to scream beg for her life), because there was not enough rope for her legs, I read that some one suggested that the paint brush was used as a pull like on a lawn mower. To the intruder the rope around the paint brush means something to them in his fantasy, this was not a functional device as it was a fantasy, you could pull the rope without the paint brush handle, because the murder was not straight forward in the way most mother have killed their children, this crime was committed with fantasy. The ransom note needs to be looked at real carefully, I do not believe it was written by Pat Ramsey. This is my opinion and I’m hoping that I can have an opinion without being crucified for it. Does anyone remember the mother and father in Australia, a few years back, they said that their baby was carried off by wild dogs. Now the only thing that the public were noticing was that she did not seem to be grieving hard enough for her child, so they thought that she did away with her own child, the woman said that she just could not carry on the way the public thought she should, as it turns out they found her child, the child was found to have been devoured by the wild dogs, It was a common thing for children to be carried off by wild dogs in that part of the country, but the public was on a witch hunt.

_______________
IMO

ICU
03-09-2004, 09:49 AM
Gee ICU, for someone who claims that they don't know every part of this case, you sure do seem hell bent on bashing Fleet White. Rather unusual for someone who hasn't been on top of the case for very long.

What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?

Hmmmmmm....I do believe we have met before.

Hello Barbara,

We have never met before, because if we did I sure as hell would not forget you.
You are right, I was not very well informed about the case when I started, but it does not take long to familiarize your self with it.

I usually try to think outside the box, when I read about this stuff, because there is too much crazy conjecture out there. I have to think on my own.
I was dumping on Fleet because to me he seemed a bit suspicious.
You said “What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?” well he was a friend of the Ramsey’s and had a key and went out with them, I’m sure he was invited down to the wine cellar with John at one time or another, and does know were the light switch is. Haven’t you ever been invited over to a friends house and they showed you around, seems like the thing to do, in a social gathering, at least once.

_______________
IMO


_______________
IMO

ICU
03-09-2004, 09:58 AM
The door was latched - no reason to think she was in the wine cellar. The sun wasn't out yet either - still dark. The light switch was set back and FW had never been in there before.

Officer French didn't even open the door to look in.

Also, if you've seen the layout of the "wine cellar" - JonBenet was not in a clear path by the door.

Interesting that French didn't notice the broken window....

You said "FW had never been in there before." How do you know that?
Is it because he said so? You can't be that trusting in people, are you?

ICU
03-09-2004, 10:04 AM
The real reason the Ramseys had a fallout with the Whites was because the Whites knew who was responsible for the death of their daughters best friend.

One instance is when Priscilla White confronted Patsy by telling Patsy that she knows a thing or two about a thing or two. What was Patsy's response?

NONE.

Early on in the investigation, the Ramseys had their pit bull Stine keep watch and keep the Whites away from them.

The Fernies no longer have contact with the Ramseys. Remember Barbara Fernies observation of Patsy? Barbara said that it was she who mourned more than Patsy did.

You said “The real reason the Ramseys had a fallout with the Whites was because the Whites knew who was responsible for the death of their daughters best friend.” Assuming that they were referring to the Ramseys, as the responsible parties, well the only way that they could be that certain is if they were there at the time, other wise it is just conjecture.
_______________
IMO

little1
03-09-2004, 10:14 AM
You're kidding right? The answers to your questions should be obvious to you. The kidnapping was staged to point the crime outside the house. And why would they even TRY to get the body out of the house and take the chance of being seen by someone.

If you had a dead kid on your hands and couldn't leave your house, just what would YOU do?


Um, not write a 3 page ransom note and hide her body in the basement. It's got to be one or the other. Can't be both. I think we all have heard stories of people moving bodies in the middle of the night. Ever heard of plastic garbage bags? There are lots of ways to get a body out of a house without being seen, especially in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. You guys have to be kidding right? I live in Greenville, Sc, a couple of years ago a guy beat his girlfriend to death, wrapped her body in an air mattress and proceeded to drag her across a heavily traveled road at about 7:30 in the morning. People stopped to ask him if he needed help, several people actually, one of those folks noticed that the mattress was trailing blood behind it. Needless to say, this guy was caught. But I think we all know there are PLENTY of ways to get a body out of a home without being noticed.

I have a question, though.....
I have read that no one noticed any unusual lights or flashlight beams, anything like that on the night of the murder.
> How could someone, even being familiar in the house, wirte a 3 page ransom note in the dark. We can assume that another person held the flashlight for them, but why not cut a light on? It is obvious that some sort of thinking went into this note, and they took their time writing it and possibly hiding the handwriting. So how can you do that in the dark?

little1
03-09-2004, 10:17 AM
Gee ICU, for someone who claims that they don't know every part of this case, you sure do seem hell bent on bashing Fleet White. Rather unusual for someone who hasn't been on top of the case for very long.

What gives you reason to "believe" that he "knew" where the light switch was?

Hmmmmmm....I do believe we have met before.


Lots of people here bash the R's. they bash Lou SMit, they bash DA Hunter, why is Fleet any better?

What makes you so certain he didn't know where the light switch was?

Barbara
03-09-2004, 10:19 AM
Some have responded rather interestingly, and I’m surprised that I have not been torn to shreds, but there is still time yet, not all the votes are in. This is why I think that it was an intruder, now this is my opinion, There was no evidence of forced entry, you can exclude the cellar window because it was found to be too small for a person to fit into with out getting hurt, there is a window well there and no disturbance of dust was found. Now someone would have to have a key, because even if the alarm was not activated or not working, John would have at least locked the door. It is known that a few people had copies of the keys, John let people he knew use his house when they were away. One of the so called friend of John’s let himself in through the front door, he knew that the alarm was not activated, because John would have told his friends with a key that the alarm is not functional, now this intruder knows were JonBenet is sleeping, this person may have had fantasies about her, this is not a transient because of the neighborhood. This is an educated person, with a fantasy, what time of the night this happened who knows? The intruder goes to the girls room and picks her up, she awakes IMO and recognized the intruder and was not alarmed, I do not think that the intruder planned to kidnap the child but to for fill the fantasy, the murder was commited because the intruder would be identified, JonBenet would not want to be near this person again and would have alerted people that something was wrong, so the murderer had to finish his crime, besides what better way to cover up your crime than to leave the body in the parents basement, so the intruder may have offered her the pineapple to keep her calm, most pedophiles are loving to the victims they are going to violate it helps with the fantasy, so they go to the cellar, now why would JonBenet just follow the intruder to the cellar? Well if the pedophile was good at it, he could have said anything to keep her calm and convince her to go along with him, this is a six year old girl whom is trusting this intruder. I have read about different kinds of killings of children by their mothers and what I have read is, they would just kill them by drowning, stabbing, poison, suffocation, etc…, it was quick and simple, look at the way JonBenet was murdered, with ligatures, knots that slipped to strangle, ligatures on the wrist, the ligature around the neck was not only designed to tighten, it also had a paint brush handle, which the end of the ligature was wrapped around it. All this is time consuming and methodical, I believe that the blanket was used to stop her from kicking, (and the tape to keep her quiet, so why bother if both parents were in on it, so what if she started to scream beg for her life), because there was not enough rope for her legs, I read that some one suggested that the paint brush was used as a pull like on a lawn mower. To the intruder the rope around the paint brush means something to them in his fantasy, this was not a functional device as it was a fantasy, you could pull the rope without the paint brush handle, because the murder was not straight forward in the way most mother have killed their children, this crime was committed with fantasy. The ransom note needs to be looked at real carefully, I do not believe it was written by Pat Ramsey. This is my opinion and I’m hoping that I can have an opinion without being crucified for it. Does anyone remember the mother and father in Australia, a few years back, they said that their baby was carried off by wild dogs. Now the only thing that the public were noticing was that she did not seem to be grieving hard enough for her child, so they thought that she did away with her own child, the woman said that she just could not carry on the way the public thought she should, as it turns out they found her child, the child was found to have been devoured by the wild dogs, It was a common thing for children to be carried off by wild dogs in that part of the country, but the public was on a witch hunt.

_______________
IMO

Why would you assume, being "new" and all to the case and forums, that you would be crucified/torn to shreds, etc. for your opinion? As far as John's "so called" friend, who did you have in mind?

As far as the woman in Australia, yes, I am familiar with the story. I am familiar with many stories where innocent parents are accused of things they have not done. I don't believe that is happening in this case.

There was no forced entry because the "perp/s" were already inside.

There were no obvious signs of an intruder because there was no intruder.

I take the knowledge of this case, read all the forums, books, etc. and then when others try to make this case more convoluted, I realize that sometimes, just sometimes, things are exactly as they seem, plain and simple and in this case, for me, it is simple. The family is involved in this murder.

Shylock
03-09-2004, 10:19 AM
The ransom note needs to be looked at real carefully, I do not believe it was written by Pat Ramsey. This is my opinion and I?m hoping that I can have an opinion without being crucified for it.

You need to take a serious look at the evidence file listed below in my signature. You will be able to see with your own two eyes that exemplars of Patsy's known handwriting were found to match virtually every letter in the ramsom note. Forget what the dueling experts say, engage your own eyes and brain to find the truth.

Then you need to face the reality that it would be totally impossible for any unknown MALE intruder to break into someone's house, and have handwriting that matches the FEMALE of the house's handwriting in so many examples. You would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening THREE TIMES then that ever happening.

Once you wake up to the fact that Patsy wrote the note you'll also realize that there was no intruder. There are ONLY three legitimate suspects in this case--and all three have "Ramsey" for a last name.

Shylock
03-09-2004, 10:41 AM
Um, not write a 3 page ransom note and hide her body in the basement. It's got to be one or the other. Can't be both. I think we all have heard stories of people moving bodies in the middle of the night. Ever heard of plastic garbage bags? There are lots of ways to get a body out of a house without being seen, especially in the dead of night on Christmas Eve.

Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. One or the other? They work hand-in-hand. If you can't get the body out of the house, you HAVE TO point the crime outside the house.

I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?

You say it was the "dead of night" on Christmas, but you are not considering the reality of the timing. It was Christmas, the vast majority of people DID NOT have to be up early for work the next morning. People were out late at Christmas gatherings. Some people, like the Ramseys, might even have been getting up very early for a Christmas trip. Can you imagine if John Ramsey tried to drive away from his home at 3 A.M. and just happened to run into someone from down the block out walking their dog because they had just gotten home from a party? How would he explain THAT one!

Trying to remove a body from a house in the middle of night is a VERY stupid thing to do.

little1
03-09-2004, 11:10 AM
Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. One or the other? They work hand-in-hand. If you can't get the body out of the house, you HAVE TO point the crime outside the house.

I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?

You say it was the "dead of night" on Christmas, but you are not considering the reality of the timing. It was Christmas, the vast majority of people DID NOT have to be up early for work the next morning. People were out late at Christmas gatherings. Some people, like the Ramseys, might even have been getting up very early for a Christmas trip. Can you imagine if John Ramsey tried to drive away from his home at 3 A.M. and just happened to run into someone from down the block out walking their dog because they had just gotten home from a party? How would he explain THAT one!

Trying to remove a body from a house in the middle of night is a VERY stupid thing to do.

What I am saying makes perfect sense, it just doesn't fit into your scheme. I understand one would want to point a finger in any direction other than at themselves, writing a 3 page ransom note then hiding the body in the basement IS NOT the way to do it. Does nayone here think it is? It seems irrational to me. In all honesty, they could have put her body outside, maybe that would make it more "realistic."

Also, he could easily explain leaving his own home on that night. Who says he needs to dump the body then, why not hide it in his car? He did leave the house didn't he? (At some point?)

ALso, I would like to know what you think of the "lighting" question I asked earlier.

How does one create such staging in the dark? We have a 3 page ransom note, we have garrotes, etc. How does one do that in the dark?

little1
03-09-2004, 11:13 AM
[QUOTE=Shylock]I agree with you that it is possible to get a body out of the house in the middle of the night, David Westerfield did it, so did David Dowaliby. BUT, if you even try that, you're taking the chance of getting caught just by some bizarre chance. What if a neighbor happens to get up a to use the bathroom and sees you exit or return to your house?
QUOTE]

Why would someone need an excuse to exit or enter their home? Christmas would give anyone a decent reason, "I was taking out all the extra boxes and trash." I know that on Christmas when I was a kid, my parents put all my toys together--and got rid of all the junk that night--so it wasn't laying around everywhere.

BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 11:17 AM
You need to take a serious look at the evidence file listed below in my signature. You will be able to see with your own two eyes that exemplars of Patsy's known handwriting were found to match virtually every letter in the ramsom note. Forget what the dueling experts say, engage your own eyes and brain to find the truth.

Then you need to face the reality that it would be totally impossible for any unknown MALE intruder to break into someone's house, and have handwriting that matches the FEMALE of the house's handwriting in so many examples. You would have a better chance of getting hit by lightening THREE TIMES then that ever happening.

Once you wake up to the fact that Patsy wrote the note you'll also realize that there was no intruder. There are ONLY three legitimate suspects in this case--and all three have "Ramsey" for a last name.


Shylock,

There is a chance that Patsy wrote the ransom note, but the "proof" you provide at the bottom of each of your posts is not convincing. Just about everyone in the U.S. was taught in schools using the same textbooks and the same lesson plans. Therefore, we all write similarly. The exemplars in your "proof" could likely be matched by tens of millions of U.S. citizens, perhaps even including you and me.

By being selective in choosing what letters to use for comparison purposes, you or I could be accused of writing the ransom note.

That's why expert handwriting examiners look not only to how often letters MATCH when comparing exemplars but, more importantly, how often they DO NOT match.

The six professional examiners used by the CBI concluded it was highly unlikely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.

JMO

Shylock
03-09-2004, 11:56 AM
That's why expert handwriting examiners look not only to how often letters MATCH when comparing exemplars but, more importantly, how often they DO NOT match.
The six professional examiners used by the CBI concluded it was highly unlikely that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.


There is a BIG problem with the six experts you mention above. They were either hired by the Ramseys and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. Or, they did what they do best and exactly what you just said; they compared Patsy's known writing to the ransom note and based their conclusion on how many letters matched versus those that didn't. That was their mistake.

That type of handwriting analysis would make a lot of sense, EXCEPT that the ransom note is in DISGUISED handwriting. The only time the exemplars in the note match Patsy's are when she slips up and doesn't disguise her writing well enough. So naturally the majority of the note doesn't match Patsy. Only Gideon Epstein approached the note as being disguised writing, and he is 100% sure Patsy wrote it. How do we know the note is in disguised writing? Because the author is not consistant in the disguise. Efforts to camouflage letters in one area of the note are not consistant in other areas.

When you establish only the disguised note exemplars that match Patsy, it's obvious that a male stranger couldn't possibly have made that many matches. Furthermore, some of the most damning evidence is Patsy switching back and forth between upper and lower case in certain words, and switching the normal and manuscript style letter "a". How many male intruders do you actually think would have that in common with the mother of the child they kill?

little1
03-09-2004, 01:40 PM
There is a BIG problem with the six experts you mention above. They were either hired by the Ramseys and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. Or, they did what they do best and exactly what you just said; they compared Patsy's known writing to the ransom note and based their conclusion on how many letters matched versus those that didn't. That was their mistake.

That type of handwriting analysis would make a lot of sense, EXCEPT that the ransom note is in DISGUISED handwriting. The only time the exemplars in the note match Patsy's are when she slips up and doesn't disguise her writing well enough. So naturally the majority of the note doesn't match Patsy. Only Gideon Epstein approached the note as being disguised writing, and he is 100% sure Patsy wrote it. How do we know the note is in disguised writing? Because the author is not consistant in the disguise. Efforts to camouflage letters in one area of the note are not consistant in other areas.

When you establish only the disguised note exemplars that match Patsy, it's obvious that a male stranger couldn't possibly have made that many matches. Furthermore, some of the most damning evidence is Patsy switching back and forth between upper and lower case in certain words, and switching the normal and manuscript style letter "a". How many male intruders do you actually think would have that in common with the mother of the child they kill?

Well, I am sure glad those experts have the likes of you to correct them! WHat are you doing on a message board!? You could be working cases!

Shylock
03-09-2004, 02:02 PM
Well, I am sure glad those experts have the likes of you to correct them! WHat are you doing on a message board!? You could be working cases!
Stick around, you might learn something...

Barbara
03-09-2004, 02:20 PM
Stick around, you might learn something...

Not likely Shylock.

Barbara
03-09-2004, 02:27 PM
little1, I have read your replies and I am convinced that you are a good sleuth, and do not follow a witch hunt that have no substance in it. I believe that hard questioning and logical thinking, not innuendos conjectures and wild guesses, I can not believe the steadfast belief of ones guilt on nothing else but feelings about them, none of which can be proven. They seem to like the sound of it and that is all they are going on. Now watch this, I will be attacked by all the ones I’m talking about, it never fails.

_______________
IMO

Witch hunt? No substance? Innuendos? Conjectures? Wild guesses? Nothing else but feelings? and my personal favorite....."THEY"?

You keep predicting attacks, and slams, and all these other terrible things that have yet to happen to you for voicing your opinion. Why do you feel the need to be offensive about others' opinions?

Why do you say that? ...especially since you are so "new" to the case and forums.

You don't expect anyone to believe this do you? We have all met you before, just not with that hat and not on this forum.

You give yourself away with every post that insults us here at WS...especially the "they" part. Just who is "they"?

little1
03-09-2004, 02:36 PM
Stick around, you might learn something...


I doubt I will learn anymore here on this website about handwriting analyses than I could in college? Wow! WHy should I go to college! I have a few websites I can study, right? Puh lease!

little1
03-09-2004, 02:37 PM
Not likely Shylock.


I wonder why anyone would not post here thinking they would get attacked? Hmm? Just because we all don't agree with you, and your kind, doesn't mean we are wrong. Keep in mind, this case is still open.

Shylock
03-09-2004, 02:49 PM
WHy should I go to college! I have a few websites I can study, right?

Ya got that right! Hey, before reading here you didn't even know that Smit was a common crook who stole case evidence when he left the job.
So you already know more today than you did yesterday. Keep up the good work!

Barbara
03-09-2004, 02:59 PM
I wonder why anyone would not post here thinking they would get attacked? Hmm? Just because we all don't agree with you, and your kind, doesn't mean we are wrong. Keep in mind, this case is still open.

And my "kind"? Just what kind is that.

Funny, you didn't mention anything when ICU was insulting my "kind". HMMMM

BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 03:44 PM
When you establish only the disguised note exemplars that match Patsy, it's obvious that a male stranger couldn't possibly have made that many matches. Furthermore, some of the most damning evidence is Patsy switching back and forth between upper and lower case in certain words, and switching the normal and manuscript style letter "a". How many male intruders do you actually think would have that in common with the mother of the child they kill?


I'm gonna go with the experts and say Patsy likely didn't write the ransom note, but what makes you think an intruder wrote it? I don't think an intruder wrote it. An intruder would have zero motive to write a fake ransom note. Let's have a look at Burke's handwriting examination results from the CBI before saying Patsy wrote it. One of the three Ramseys in the house that night wrote the RN, and John was excluded and Patsy was practically excluded as the writer. They won't release Burke's results. Why?

JMO

little1
03-09-2004, 04:14 PM
Ya got that right! Hey, before reading here you didn't even know that Smit was a common crook who stole case evidence when he left the job.
So you already know more today than you did yesterday. Keep up the good work!

Um, I have been here for awhile reading, I have been to many other sites, too. I have read alot of books on the case--and I had never heard that before.

You have been posting here for how long and YOU didn't know his record with solving cases? Seems to me like you only pick and choose the stuff that fits nice and neatly into your frame of thinking. Wonder why this case wasn't solved in the first place.

little1
03-09-2004, 04:18 PM
And my "kind"? Just what kind is that.

Funny, you didn't mention anything when ICU was insulting my "kind". HMMMM


"Your" kind, what did I mean? You were the poster who was rude to me above, even though I hve never spoken to you about this case. You just came out and said something to the likes of "I don't think so," what did you expect back? My undying love and admiration for your "Oh so brilliant" case synopsis? Sorry if I disappointed you.

The truth is most of you who are so damn sure that they are guilty, cannot even agree on who actually committed the murder. There are more scenarios flying around here and other websites that would make ANY movie screenwriter jealous.

TBO< I didn't notice ICU insulting you. I thought you could take of yourself. My bad.

Toltec
03-09-2004, 05:19 PM
Witch hunt? No substance? Innuendos? Conjectures? Wild guesses? Nothing else but feelings? and my personal favorite....."THEY"?

You keep predicting attacks, and slams, and all these other terrible things that have yet to happen to you for voicing your opinion. Why do you feel the need to be offensive about others' opinions?

Why do you say that? ...especially since you are so "new" to the case and forums.

You don't expect anyone to believe this do you? We have all met you before, just not with that hat and not on this forum.

You give yourself away with every post that insults us here at WS...especially the "they" part. Just who is "they"?

Forget about them Barbara...just drive-by's.

ICU
03-09-2004, 05:39 PM
"Your" kind, what did I mean? You were the poster who was rude to me above, even though I hve never spoken to you about this case. You just came out and said something to the likes of "I don't think so," what did you expect back? My undying love and admiration for your "Oh so brilliant" case synopsis? Sorry if I disappointed you.

The truth is most of you who are so damn sure that they are guilty, cannot even agree on who actually committed the murder. There are more scenarios flying around here and other websites that would make ANY movie screenwriter jealous.

TBO< I didn't notice ICU insulting you. I thought you could take of yourself. My bad.

Wow! little1, you sure have a lot of fire in your blood, don't let the critics cool you down, it is just smoke and mirrors on there part.

---------------
IMO

ICU
03-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Witch hunt? No substance? Innuendos? Conjectures? Wild guesses? Nothing else but feelings? and my personal favorite....."THEY"?

You keep predicting attacks, and slams, and all these other terrible things that have yet to happen to you for voicing your opinion. Why do you feel the need to be offensive about others' opinions?

Why do you say that? ...especially since you are so "new" to the case and forums.

You don't expect anyone to believe this do you? We have all met you before, just not with that hat and not on this forum.

You give yourself away with every post that insults us here at WS...especially the "they" part. Just who is "they"?

Hello Barbara,

You do not know who they are? why are you so angry? I do not agree with you about the Ramseys guilt, it does not mean that you are wrong. I'm just Speculating. I have not mentioned you by name in the post, why would you think that I'm talking about you?

ICU
03-09-2004, 06:00 PM
And my "kind"? Just what kind is that.

Funny, you didn't mention anything when ICU was insulting my "kind". HMMMM

Barbara I'm sorry that you feel that I'm insulting your "kind", that is a strong accusation "insulting" why would I insult anyone here? this is a forum is it not? people speculate and ask questions, they may not all agree with you or other people on this site, it does not mean they are insulting you. Don’t take it so personal.

--------------
IMO

ICU
03-09-2004, 06:05 PM
Forget about them Barbara...just drive-by's.


Toltec IS GIVING YOU SOME GOOD ADVICE BARBARA "Forget about them Barbara...just drive-by's".

sorry to see you go.

________________

IMO

ICU
03-09-2004, 06:13 PM
We know that a killer will get pleasure in tormenting the parents of the victims, it has happened many times before. We also know that the killer will enjoy the thrill of almost getting caught at what he is doing at the time of doing it. Jack the ripper was such a person doing it in the open. This kind of thrill makes the rush even more intense. Killers have been known to return to the scene of the crime, the son of Sam was such a person, he used to get it on as some would say, when he stood at the spot where he killed his victim. The killer would rather have someone else discover the body, it adds to the excitement for the killer to look at the faces of the people responding to what he did. Lizzy Borden kept on saying that she thought she heard her stepmother upstairs, hoping that someone would go up and discover the body. The Zodiac killer was very skilful in his scripted letters to the editor of his favorite newspaper. It wasn’t until a few years later they discovered how he fooled the handwriting experts, with his hand written letters. A little imagination will fool just about anyone. Magicians do it all the time. They need to examine the ransom note the same way that they examined the Zodiac letter. I was surprised at how easily it was done, but I would never have guessed at how it was done. I believe that the person whom killed JonBenet fits all of the above. So it is in my opinion that it was a friendly face that JonBenet trusted, a wolf in sheep clothing whom came in the night, with a key in it’s hand and a fantasy on it’s mind. It has been recently discovered that the number one video for the pedophile is the JonBenet beauty pageants.
_______________
IMO

Shylock
03-09-2004, 06:13 PM
You have been posting here for how long and YOU didn't know his record with solving cases? Seems to me like you only pick and choose the stuff that fits nice and neatly into your frame of thinking.

I knew about Smit's record and the Heather Dawn Church case. But I admit that until you posted the actual numbers and I did the math I didn't know the guy had a 96% career failure rate. I'm surprised with a record like that they didn't relieve him of duty and demote him to a floor sweeping position.

ICU
03-10-2004, 01:30 PM
ICU,

IMO Fleet White had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet. He came over to the Ramseys house a little after 6 A.M. because Patsy frantically called him and asked for help. Fleet searched the house soon after getting to the Ramseys because he was told JonBenet had been kidnapped and is missing.

Fleet was alone when he searched the basement. He wouldn't have any reason to lie about seeing the body when he peered into the wine cellar. I'm convinced Fleet didn't see the body because it really wasn't there at 6:00 A.M. IMO John moved the body later that morning when he went into the basement by himself. He moved it because he wanted it found because the suspense was killing Patsy and himself.

Fleet knows the body was moved and therefore knows a Ramsey is guilty of killing JonBenet. He 's convinced he would have seen JonBenet wrapped in a white blanket despite the darkness.

IMO that's the basis of the falling out between the Ramseys and the Whites. Fleet White wants John Ramsey to come clean, even if Burke is involved, and stop the destruction of innocent families by innuendo -- including his own. Fleet blames Alex Hunter for sweeping everything under the rug, unnecessarily making almost everyone look suspicious.

JMO

Someone on this site told me that uncle Fleet was like a father to JonBenet or should I say uncle Fleet, now he must have been close if patsy called him and asked for help, What kind of help? (Fleet searched the house soon after getting to the Ramseys.) What was he looking for? he was told JonBenet had been kidnapped and is missing. Did he think he was a detective or something? Now this is interesting, (Fleet was alone when he searched the basement.) He searched the basement and not find the child. Why would the child be hidden if the Ramseys wanted her to be found? Come on now did he really search the basement? You said "He wouldn't have any reason to lie about seeing the body when he peered into the wine cellar." Why not? He needed someone else to find the body, why would he take all the fun out of finding her himself? (John moved the body later that morning when he went into the basement by himself.) Now if he went to the basement later by himself, who saw him do that? how do you know that he did that? Now this is a contradiction you said (He moved it because he wanted it found because the suspense was killing Patsy and himself.) Why would he hide it in the first place if he wanted it to be found? you said (Fleet knows the body was moved and therefore knows a Ramsey is guilty of killing JonBenet.) Detective/uncle Fleet knows that the body was moved? How does he know that? It sounds like he is covering his you know what for saying that he searched the basement, I repeat Searched the basement when he arrived there earlier and found nothing. Where could you hide a six year old child in the basement, and not be found? remember she was found with her arms raised and rigor mortise set in, not in a fetal position that would make her easer to conceal. and Fleet goes on blaming everyone except himself. sounds like when you make a silent fart you start to point the finger in the other direction.

Hey that was fun.

____________
IMO

Barbara
03-10-2004, 01:47 PM
John wanted the body found by the police

You said that Fleet was blaming everyone but himself. Like Who?

How sad that you find any of this "fun"

SisterSocks
03-10-2004, 01:49 PM
John wanted the body found by the police

You said that Fleet was blaming everyone but himself. Like Who?

How sad that you find any of this "fun"


Yup, :clap:
Socks

ICU
03-10-2004, 01:50 PM
Um, not write a 3 page ransom note and hide her body in the basement. It's got to be one or the other. Can't be both. I think we all have heard stories of people moving bodies in the middle of the night. Ever heard of plastic garbage bags? There are lots of ways to get a body out of a house without being seen, especially in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. You guys have to be kidding right? I live in Greenville, Sc, a couple of years ago a guy beat his girlfriend to death, wrapped her body in an air mattress and proceeded to drag her across a heavily traveled road at about 7:30 in the morning. People stopped to ask him if he needed help, several people actually, one of those folks noticed that the mattress was trailing blood behind it. Needless to say, this guy was caught. But I think we all know there are PLENTY of ways to get a body out of a home without being noticed.

I have a question, though.....
I have read that no one noticed any unusual lights or flashlight beams, anything like that on the night of the murder.
> How could someone, even being familiar in the house, wirte a 3 page ransom note in the dark. We can assume that another person held the flashlight for them, but why not cut a light on? It is obvious that some sort of thinking went into this note, and they took their time writing it and possibly hiding the handwriting. So how can you do that in the dark?

Personally I do not believe that the note was written in the house, it was too long a note to write by someone whom just killed their child, and being careful not to implicate themselves in anyway. I’m sure that John or Patsy knew about handwriting experts, why be so stupid as to write a ransom note? Now on the other hand, how about and intruder with a fantasy in mind, writing his ransom note long before the crime. He must have been having a ball imagining what it would do the ramseys and the media not to mention the cops, a killer likes to control all of the above, it is part of his fantasy, however he never intended to kidnap the child, he just to watch the ramseys squirm. Looks like he succeeded.
_______________
IMO

Ivy
03-10-2004, 02:04 PM
ICU...if an intruder wrote the note and did it beforehand, how in the heck did he manage to sneak into the house with it, without folding it or getting it smudged and dirty and wrinkly? besides, the note was written on paper from the Ramseys' tablet, with their pen.

IMO

Barbara
03-10-2004, 02:35 PM
The note was written on the Ramsey's own pad with the Ramsey's own pen. Sooooooo.....whoever wrote the note wrote it in the house. The current RST theory is that while he was waiting for the Ramseys to come home, he wrote the note.

Not that I believe any of that, but that's the current RST theory.

Barbara
03-10-2004, 03:02 PM
Toltec IS GIVING YOU SOME GOOD ADVICE BARBARA "Forget about them Barbara...just drive-by's".

sorry to see you go.

________________

IMO

My, my aren't we the snotty one? Is your comment conjecture, wild guessing? smoke and mirrors?

As far as my going.....I've been here way before you and I "speculate" that I'll still be here long after you're gone. You should keep in mind that this isn't the forum you are used to....people just don't disappear here. That's another forum altogether. :)

Barbara
03-10-2004, 03:11 PM
"Your" kind, what did I mean? You were the poster who was rude to me above, even though I hve never spoken to you about this case. You just came out and said something to the likes of "I don't think so," what did you expect back? My undying love and admiration for your "Oh so brilliant" case synopsis? Sorry if I disappointed you.

The truth is most of you who are so damn sure that they are guilty, cannot even agree on who actually committed the murder. There are more scenarios flying around here and other websites that would make ANY movie screenwriter jealous.

TBO< I didn't notice ICU insulting you. I thought you could take of yourself. My bad.

First...I wasn't talking to you. Second, I was referring to YOUR kind. I don't have a case synopsis, brilliant or otherwise. Third.....Of course there are more scenarios out there than you can process obviously. That's why there are these boards. But then again, I could be mistaken. You might just be the poster who was actually there and witnessed the whole thing, so perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us what the REAL scenario is, since "most of us" can't seem to figure out the murder as WE weren't there as you obviously were.

And yes, I can take care of myself. Of course you didn't notice ICU insulting anyone, no surprise there.

little1
03-10-2004, 03:28 PM
First...I wasn't talking to you. Second, I was referring to YOUR kind. I don't have a case synopsis, brilliant or otherwise. Third.....Of course there are more scenarios out there than you can process obviously. That's why there are these boards. But then again, I could be mistaken. You might just be the poster who was actually there and witnessed the whole thing, so perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us what the REAL scenario is, since "most of us" can't seem to figure out the murder as WE weren't there as you obviously were.

And yes, I can take care of myself. Of course you didn't notice ICU insulting anyone, no surprise there.

I am sorry, I am a little touchy. I thought you were talking to me.

I am going to try to call a truce with you, this sort odf bickering gets us nowhere. :truce:

Barbara
03-10-2004, 03:50 PM
I am sorry, I am a little touchy. I thought you were talking to me.

I am going to try to call a truce with you, this sort odf bickering gets us nowhere. :truce:


Agreed. No problem here. Peace :truce: :blowkiss:

little1
03-10-2004, 04:09 PM
Agreed. No problem here. Peace :truce: :blowkiss:


I don't know if I like the arguing or the making up more?!?!? :blowkiss:

BlueCrab
03-10-2004, 04:25 PM
(John moved the body later that morning when he went into the basement by himself.) Now if he went to the basement later by himself, who saw him do that?IMO

John admitted he went into the basement later that morning by himself and "checked the broken window". No one believes that.

IMO that's when John moved JonBenet out into the open so she would be found easier. The Ramseys expected her to be found within minutes after the cops got there, but it didn't happen. John and Patsy couldn't stand it any longer, so John moved the body around 10 to 11 A.M.

It's why Fleet White didn't see the body at 6 A.M.; it wasn't there when he looked into the wine cellar at 6 A.M.

JMO

little1
03-10-2004, 04:35 PM
Where was it? It had to be in the basement, right? JR wouldn't have tried to carry a body around that house with people and cops everyhere. If it was in the basement, why didn't FW OR JR see it before---in the initial first search? WHat other rooms in the basement were not checked that morning?

Actually, did the police ever do a complete search of that house--not a week later--but that day? A complete once over, you know to gather evidence?

ICU
03-10-2004, 04:48 PM
ICU...if an intruder wrote the note and did it beforehand, how in the heck did he manage to sneak into the house with it, without folding it or getting it smudged and dirty and wrinkly? besides, the note was written on paper from the Ramseys' tablet, with their pen.

IMO


Ivy, If the intruder used an envelope the size of the letter it would keep it in good shape, I do not believe he sneaked into the house, however he just unlocked the door and let himself in. It would be easy to get paper from the Ramsey house if you were there before, and pens are not hard to find, I could pick up all that stuff at my friends house, even without his knowledge. I do not believe that the intruder was a sloppy person, I always thought that he was smart and organized, he wouldn’t have left a ransom note in bad shape.
_______________
IMO

BlueCrab
03-10-2004, 04:53 PM
Where was it? It had to be in the basement, right? JR wouldn't have tried to carry a body around that house with people and cops everyhere. If it was in the basement, why didn't FW OR JR see it before---in the initial first search? WHat other rooms in the basement were not checked that morning?

Actually, did the police ever do a complete search of that house--not a week later--but that day? A complete once over, you know to gather evidence?


The cops were thrown off that morning by the ransom note. They thought it was a kidnapping and didn't think JonBenet was still in the house. Of course, that's no excuse for the cop's sloppy search of the house and not sealing off the whole house immediately after getting there. Kidnapping is a serious crime too.

Where was the body before John moved it? I don't know; it's only my theory. My guess is tucked somewhere behind the debris stored in the basement.

JMO

Shylock
03-10-2004, 04:53 PM
The truth is most of you who are so damn sure that they are guilty, cannot even agree on who actually committed the murder. There are more scenarios flying around here and other websites that would make ANY movie screenwriter jealous.

What the majority of us agree on is that there was nobody in the house that night except the four members of the Ramsey family. There is no way to know for sure which of the surviving three was responsible for JonBenet's death and which (or how many) of the three were involved in the staging to cover-up what really happened. Each of the three Ramseys had the ability and opportunity to commit the crime, so all three are prime suspects.

Steve Thomas was right on the money when he said that unless there is a confession, this case will never be solved.

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:08 PM
John admitted he went into the basement later that morning by himself and "checked the broken window". No one believes that.

IMO that's when John moved JonBenet out into the open so she would be found easier. The Ramseys expected her to be found within minutes after the cops got there, but it didn't happen. John and Patsy couldn't stand it any longer, so John moved the body around 10 to 11 A.M.

It's why Fleet White didn't see the body at 6 A.M.; it wasn't there when he looked into the wine cellar at 6 A.M.

JMO

OK then if we are talking about moving bodies around the basement, how about this, the intruder is playing games with the Ramseys, now this is only because we are talking about shuffling the body around. After the intruder kills the girl he hides the body because he believes that the Ramseys might conduct a house search for their daughter, he does not want to spoil the fun of his ransom note, now sense the body can be hidden in the basement and no one can seem to find her after a search, the intruder gets a call from Patsy that morning, after the Ramseys tell him she is missing, he does a search, the intruder goes down to the basement and moves the body closer to the door in the wine cellar, so she will be found, because the suspense is killing him, that she had not been found yet. A little screwy but so is the part about John moving his dead daughter around like a bag of garbage. Why can't anyone see that the intruder could be playing games with the Ramseys?
_______________
IMO

Britt
03-10-2004, 05:19 PM
Ivy, If the intruder used an envelope the size of the letter it would keep it in good shape, I do not believe he sneaked into the house, however he just unlocked the door and let himself in. It would be easy to get paper from the Ramsey house if you were there before, and pens are not hard to find, I could pick up all that stuff at my friends house, even without his knowledge. I do not believe that the intruder was a sloppy person, I always thought that he was smart and organized, he wouldn’t have left a ransom note in bad shape.
Yeah, points for tidiness, that's it :rolleyes:

The intruder claimed to have two male accomplices (see note). Perhaps the intruder/notewriter wrote the note while the accomplices were committing or staging the crime, or perhaps while they were having pineapple with JonBenet. Tidy AND efficient, this faction.

But IMO Patsy wrote the note and the two male accomplices were John and Burke, but that's JMO... and technically speaking, Burke may've been an accomplice after the fact (by lying to participate, knowingly or not, in the coverup).

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:25 PM
The cops were thrown off that morning by the ransom note. They thought it was a kidnapping and didn't think JonBenet was still in the house. Of course, that's no excuse for the cop's sloppy search of the house and not sealing off the whole house immediately after getting there. Kidnapping is a serious crime too.

Where was the body before John moved it? I don't know; it's only my theory. My guess is tucked somewhere behind the debris stored in the basement.

JMO

If a call came in that there was a kidnapping, and the police got there, why would they seal of the house? wouldn't that be done if there was a murder in the house? the one thing that I found strange is that the detective in charge asked John and Fleet to look around, I am surprised they did not ask Fleet to Flee the establishment.

Why in the world would she be tucked somewhere behind the debris stored in the basement, only to have to take the chance on being caught moving her to an obvious place, how would he know were to put the body were Fleet had not looked. that would be ludicrous. He would have known that it would definitely implicate him. Look if John and Patsy had killed her then staged it to look like a kidnapping, the nature of the crime shows no remorse, why not jest leave it until it rot, then it would be found, then they could look surprised and Fleet could say hey I did not see her there.
_______________
IMO

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:34 PM
Yeah, points for tidiness, that's it :rolleyes:

The intruder claimed to have two male accomplices (see note). Perhaps the intruder/notewriter wrote the note while the accomplices were committing or staging the crime, or perhaps while they were having pineapple with JonBenet. Tidy AND efficient, this faction.

But IMO Patsy wrote the note and the two male accomplices were John and Burke, but that's JMO... and technically speaking, Burke may've been an accomplice after the fact (by lying to participate, knowingly or not, in the coverup).

Why isn't Burke in a psychiatric ward, do you have any idea what a murder like this could do to the mind of a nine year old boy? Have you ever known a nine year old boy keeping a secret? never mind a secret murder, He would have to brain dead. the Ramseys would be plotting his murder next, for fear that he will talk when it gets to much for him.
_______________
IMO

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:37 PM
What the majority of us agree on is that there was nobody in the house that night except the four members of the Ramsey family. There is no way to know for sure which of the surviving three was responsible for JonBenet's death and which (or how many) of the three were involved in the staging to cover-up what really happened. Each of the three Ramseys had the ability and opportunity to commit the crime, so all three are prime suspects.

Steve Thomas was right on the money when he said that unless there is a confession, this case will never be solved.


Shylock You said "What the majority of us agree on is that there was nobody in the house that night except the four members of the Ramsey family." Don't forget the intruder.

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:40 PM
The cops were thrown off that morning by the ransom note. They thought it was a kidnapping and didn't think JonBenet was still in the house. Of course, that's no excuse for the cop's sloppy search of the house and not sealing off the whole house immediately after getting there. Kidnapping is a serious crime too.

Where was the body before John moved it? I don't know; it's only my theory. My guess is tucked somewhere behind the debris stored in the basement.

JMO


BlueCrab You said "The cops were thrown off that morning by the ransom note."

You forgot to mention that the keystone cops were thrown off by the whole darn case.

Toltec
03-10-2004, 05:47 PM
Let's get some facts straight...John went into the basement BEFORE Detective Linda Arndt showed up..at around 8:10am. He told LE that he went into the basement between 7-9am. We know it is more like 7-8am. It's in the NE book...

Second, I believe JonBenet's body was tucked further into the wine cellar which explains why Fleet did not see her. When John went downstairs, he moved JonBenet closer to the door.

IMO

ICU
03-10-2004, 05:51 PM
Where was it? It had to be in the basement, right? JR wouldn't have tried to carry a body around that house with people and cops everyhere. If it was in the basement, why didn't FW OR JR see it before---in the initial first search? WHat other rooms in the basement were not checked that morning?

Actually, did the police ever do a complete search of that house--not a week later--but that day? A complete once over, you know to gather evidence?


Little1 You Asked "why didn't FW OR JR see it before---in the initial first search?"

I believe that FW did see her, because that is just where he left her. John knew that FW checked the wine cellar, so all he did was look at the broken window in the basement, so they say. I believe that he would have no reason to believe that his daughter was in the basement because the note said that she was kidnapped. It wasn't until the detective told John and Fleet to check around for anything unusual, is when he checked the basement, However if Fleet said that he checked the wine cellar, why didn't he yell out to John that he already looked there and not to bother because he did not see anything? instead he let John discover his daughter.
_______________
IMO

why_nutt
03-10-2004, 05:58 PM
Second, I believe JonBenet's body was tucked further into the wine cellar which explains why Fleet did not see her. When John went downstairs, he moved JonBenet closer to the door.

IMO

I can find this credible because of one specific aspect of the case. If you look at the picture of the white blanket on the cellar floor, you can see that it is positioned directly over the safe which was drilled into the ground. But JonBenet's body shows no signs of laying over the safe for any length of time. There is no blanching of her back's lividity in the shape of the safe's door. The blanket does not appear to be so thick that it would absorb the height of the safe hinges and handle in such a way as to leave no mark on JonBenet. If, as you speculate, JonBenet was positioned somewhere other than over the safe, her body would have been laying on smooth ground and lividity would be unremarkable.

Note: If, on the other hand, JonBenet's body truly was left over the safe and not moved, then this speaks to even more concern on the part of the killer for JonBenet's "comfort." The killer might have left the blanket under JonBenet specifically to protect her body from being marked by the safe door. An intruder would have no instinctive reason to make her comfortable this way. A parent would instinctively do so.

ICU
03-10-2004, 06:01 PM
Let's get some facts straight...John went into the basement BEFORE Detective Linda Arndt showed up..at around 8:10am. He told LE that he went into the basement between 7-9am. We know it is more like 7-8am. It's in the NE book...

Second, I believe JonBenet's body was tucked further into the wine cellar which explains why Fleet did not see her. When John went downstairs, he moved JonBenet closer to the door.

IMO

I was under the impression that Fleet was there at 6:am and that he was in the basement alone, looking at his prey. then John went down later to check on the window that he remembered was broken, he must have had a bad feeling that because he did not fix it, it made it easy for the intruder to get in and take his daughter out through the same window, of course not thinking that the intruder had a key. I'm sure that FW told the Ramseys that he checked the basement and did not see anything unusual.
_______________
IMO

ICU
03-10-2004, 06:12 PM
I can find this credible because of one specific aspect of the case. If you look at the picture of the white blanket on the cellar floor, you can see that it is positioned directly over the safe which was drilled into the ground. But JonBenet's body shows no signs of laying over the safe for any length of time. There is no blanching of her back's lividity in the shape of the safe's door. The blanket does not appear to be so thick that it would absorb the height of the safe hinges and handle in such a way as to leave no mark on JonBenet. If, as you speculate, JonBenet was positioned somewhere other than over the safe, her body would have been laying on smooth ground and lividity would be unremarkable.

Note: If, on the other hand, JonBenet's body truly was left over the safe and not moved, then this speaks to even more concern on the part of the killer for JonBenet's "comfort." The killer might have left the blanket under JonBenet specifically to protect her body from being marked by the safe door. An intruder would have no instinctive reason to make her comfortable this way. A parent would instinctively do so.

why_nutt Where were able to obtain the picture you spoke of about the safe? I would like to look at that, thank you.
However you sopke of the instinctive reason to cover the child in the blanket, I believe that empirically if the parents did it. when the blanket was used to cover her in a cocoon style to comfort her, I wonder why they left the arms outstretched, why not take them down and wrap the blanket around her as if she were sleeping in bed? I think that an intruder used the blanket to stop her from kicking him. I do not think that there was any comfort for JonBenet.

BlueCrab
03-10-2004, 09:08 PM
Why isn't Burke in a psychiatric ward, do you have any idea what a murder like this could do to the mind of a nine year old boy? Have you ever known a nine year old boy keeping a secret? never mind a secret murder, He would have to brain dead. the Ramseys would be plotting his murder next, for fear that he will talk when it gets to much for him.
_______________
IMO

Patsy and Burke were both under the care of psychiatrists following the murder, and they still may be. I don't know about John.

JMO

Barbara
03-11-2004, 09:18 AM
Little1 You Asked "why didn't FW OR JR see it before---in the initial first search?"

I believe that FW did see her, because that is just where he left her. John knew that FW checked the wine cellar, so all he did was look at the broken window in the basement, so they say. I believe that he would have no reason to believe that his daughter was in the basement because the note said that she was kidnapped. It wasn't until the detective told John and Fleet to check around for anything unusual, is when he checked the basement, However if Fleet said that he checked the wine cellar, why didn't he yell out to John that he already looked there and not to bother because he did not see anything? instead he let John discover his daughter.
_______________
IMO

Believe it or not, we have something in common. If your theory is that Fleet White killed JBR, then like me, you also have no faith that the DNA is a viable piece of evidence. After all, Fleet White's DNA was also tested and did not match.

Now having said that, it must also be your opinion, given your past posts about FW's involvement in a child sex ring that John Ramsey is also a pedophile, because nobody with common sense can separate the fact that John Ramsey was also accused along with Fleet of being a part of this pedophile ring.

So you see, every theory has a common thread.

ICU
03-11-2004, 10:46 AM
Believe it or not, we have something in common. If your theory is that Fleet White killed JBR, then like me, you also have no faith that the DNA is a viable piece of evidence. After all, Fleet White's DNA was also tested and did not match.

Now having said that, it must also be your opinion, given your past posts about FW's involvement in a child sex ring that John Ramsey is also a pedophile, because nobody with common sense can separate the fact that John Ramsey was also accused along with Fleet of being a part of this pedophile ring.

So you see, every theory has a common thread.

I'm sorry I do not believe that I said anything about a child sex ring.

But DNA is interesting, What did they try to match FW's DNA to? What was on the body, that did not belong to JonBenet other than the ligerture and tape? They tried to match what piece of evidence that they thought had DNA on it? You have me very curious about that. I know that it is almost impossible to go into a room and not leave DNA there, We are DNA shedders from the time we are born to the time we die, it is like a paper trail of our lives. FW’s DNA must have been all over the house, including the Basement. Now that is really strange about FW’s DNA not being found on her, considering that even if she walked to the basement she should have picked up some of his DNA. What is your thoughts on that? I can not believe that the maid is that good at cleaning house.
__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
03-11-2004, 10:59 AM
Patsy and Burke were both under the care of psychiatrists following the murder, and they still may be. I don't know about John.

JMO

I believe that is common practice that the parents seek psychiatric help after the murder of their child, Ref. the Carlie Brucia abduction, the mother was so distraught after seeing her daughters abduction on the video tape. and later hearing about the body being found, I am almost certain that she would have had to go to the morgue to identify her daughter and seeing what had been done to her. this is not something you can just forget. That is why I don’t understand how Burke could have been involved.
__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

Shylock
03-11-2004, 11:03 AM
Shylock You said "What the majority of us agree on is that there was nobody in the house that night except the four members of the Ramsey family." Don't forget the intruder.

One of these day you just might figure out that there was NO intruder. There has never been any CONCLUSIVE evidence of an intruder, and there never will be. That's why the Ramseys are, have always been, and will always be, the PRIME suspects.

Shylock
03-11-2004, 11:19 AM
Why isn't Burke in a psychiatric ward, do you have any idea what a murder like this could do to the mind of a nine year old boy? Have you ever known a nine year old boy keeping a secret? never mind a secret murder, He would have to brain dead.

If Burke was involved, he has been totally brainwashed since the early morning hours of the crime. Besides writing the ransom note to point the crime outside the house, the ransom note could have also been written to convince Burke that he ultimately was not responsible for JonBenet's death.

This may be why Burke asks, "What did you find?" on the 911 tape. Burke knew he hurt JB the night before - and he was told she would be alright. And now there was something proving she was alright and that someone else was involved in what would eventually be discovered that day.

Barbara
03-11-2004, 11:53 AM
I'm sorry I do not believe that I said anything about a child sex ring.

But DNA is interesting, What did they try to match FW's DNA to? What was on the body, that did not belong to JonBenet other than the ligerture and tape? They tried to match what piece of evidence that they thought had DNA on it? You have me very curious about that. I know that it is almost impossible to go into a room and not leave DNA there, We are DNA shedders from the time we are born to the time we die, it is like a paper trail of our lives. FW’s DNA must have been all over the house, including the Basement. Now that is really strange about FW’s DNA not being found on her, considering that even if she walked to the basement she should have picked up some of his DNA. What is your thoughts on that? I can not believe that the maid is that good at cleaning house.
__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

You can't be seriously asking about "what DNA". If you are, you need to go back to reading about this case before you can post on any forum with any sort of opinion. You seem to have very strong opinions about Fleet White which are now null and void, as would be all your opinions if you truly are telling the truth about not knowing anything about DNA. With all due respect of course.

You may not have used the exact words child sex ring, but in one of your anti Fleet posts, you mentioned the California incidents (again, not exact words). The only thing supposedly that happened in California was not very flattering regarding Fleet, but those who like to use that in bashing Fleet conveniently forget that John Ramsey was implicated as well.

twilight
03-11-2004, 12:18 PM
When reading any good detective novel, there is usually some reference to 'that smell' that all homicide detectives know so well. What I'm wondering, and would be curious to know if any of you could supply, is the time it takes for a body to start to smell? Is it possible that French, and White could have toured the area of the storage room and not smelt the body? What about later when John opened the door?

ICU
03-11-2004, 03:14 PM
One of these day you just might figure out that there was NO intruder. There has never been any CONCLUSIVE evidence of an intruder, and there never will be. That's why the Ramseys are, have always been, and will always be, the PRIME suspects.


Shylock, What kind of proof would you need if the intruder used a key to let himself in? and has already been in the house before, leaving his prints and DNA allover the place, How could anyone know if an intruder came into the house? the keystone cops were looking for breaking and entering, now to them that is an intruder, If the intruder used a key would that make him an intruder if he came in uninvited? Why is that so hard to understand?
__________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!”
IMO

ICU
03-11-2004, 03:45 PM
When reading any good detective novel, there is usually some reference to 'that smell' that all homicide detectives know so well. What I'm wondering, and would be curious to know if any of you could supply, is the time it takes for a body to start to smell? Is it possible that French, and White could have toured the area of the storage room and not smelt the body? What about later when John opened the door?

The pungent smell of rotting flesh, could take a while, depending on how cold it was in the basement. However if you are talking about the poetic license of the detective in his instinct says “I can smell death in the air”. He would have to have a real good sense of smell, But death does have a smell about it that makes it unique to any other smell. There is just something about it that you can never forget.
______________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
03-11-2004, 04:04 PM
This is my last posting on the JonBenet case, it has been a pleasure discussing the intricate parts of this mystery, some of you must have a sense of relief that I will not be drudging up the intruder again, but I have not heard any convincing evidence that the Ramseys are responsible for the death of their child.

I will be flying out to the UK. tomorrow, where I will be attending a meeting with some of my colleges to discuss some cold cases. I will return sometime in the future to buzz you again.
Regards: ICU

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

Shylock
03-11-2004, 04:17 PM
Shylock, What kind of proof would you need if the intruder used a key to let himself in? and has already been in the house before, leaving his prints and DNA allover the place, How could anyone know if an intruder came into the house? the keystone cops were looking for breaking and entering, now to them that is an intruder, If the intruder used a key would that make him an intruder if he came in uninvited? Why is that so hard to understand?

Just because "anything is possible" what you wrote could have happened however bizarre the chances. But you need to expand on the theory from there, because right now it doesn't work too well with the pineapple and the ransom note.

little1
03-11-2004, 04:29 PM
Just because "anything is possible" what you wrote could have happened however bizarre the chances. But you need to expand on the theory from there, because right now it doesn't work too well with the pineapple and the ransom note.


BUt has the Ransom note been DEFINETELY linked to PR? Are they saying now that she DEFINETELY wrote the note?

Shylock
03-11-2004, 04:57 PM
BUt has the Ransom note been DEFINETELY linked to PR? Are they saying now that she DEFINETELY wrote the note?

It's the old game of "dueling experts" which is why you should view the evidence and make up you own mind.

It should be noted however that NO expert is willing to say Patsy POSITIVELY DIDN'T write the note. They leave themselves an "out" by saying there is a "low possibility" that she wrote it.
On the other hand, the experts that say Patsy DID write it also say they are "100 percent sure" she wrote it.

little1
03-11-2004, 05:17 PM
Does anyone have any other GOOD books to recommend to me. The more I read this book PMPT, the more I think that PR was involved. I also think that JR was involved, I don't know if he had any hand in the staging or whatnot. I also believe, though too, that Fleet was involved somehow. He was being WAY to involved, always putting his nose in---in most cases, that usually indicates involvement. (I know some on here think of FW as Jesus reincarnate--but does anyone really KNOW anything about this man? His background, etc?)
Anyway, just wanted some feedback, going to buy some more books this weekend. (I bought 4 last week and am working on ALL right now)

Toltec
03-11-2004, 05:27 PM
A complete 180???

I recommend reading the NE book which is an interrogation of both John and Patsy Ramsey. They get caught in lie after lie.

IMO

Shylock
03-11-2004, 05:40 PM
Does anyone have any other GOOD books to recommend to me.
You should read Steve Thomas' book so you know what went on between the police and the DA's office. Then you will know why this case was never solved.

BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 06:19 PM
It's the old game of "dueling experts" which is why you should view the evidence and make up you own mind.

It should be noted however that NO expert is willing to say Patsy POSITIVELY DIDN'T write the note. They leave themselves an "out" by saying there is a "low possibility" that she wrote it.
On the other hand, the experts that say Patsy DID write it also say they are "100 percent sure" she wrote it.

Shylock, not quite. Several of the CBI's handwriting examiners were certain Patsy didn't write the ransom note. Also, please remember that the six examiners used by the CBI who concluded as a group there was a very low probability that Patsy wrote it, all had the ORIGINAL ransom note to work with.

None of Darnay Hoffman's examiners had the original note to work with, which was a significant liability.

Edwin F. Alford, Jr, private examiner: "Examination of the questioned handwriting and comparison with the handwriting specimens submitted has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patricia Ramsey as the writer of the letter."

Richard Dusak, document analyst for the U.S. Secret Service, concluded there was no evidence that Patsy wrote the note.

JMO

little1
03-12-2004, 11:32 AM
A complete 180???

I recommend reading the NE book which is an interrogation of both John and Patsy Ramsey. They get caught in lie after lie.

IMO


No, not a complete 180, just trying to make sense of all this....it isn't easy. IMO, even if the R's were brought to trial, there would not be enough evidence to convict them. I am just not sure......

Shylock
03-12-2004, 11:44 AM
IMO, even if the R's were brought to trial, there would not be enough evidence to convict them. I am just not sure......

You got that right. There will NEVER be enough evidence to prove which of the Ramseys caused the actual death and which just participated in the cover-up. As Asst. D.A. Pete Hoffstrum said to Steve Thomas about Patsy, "Just because she wrote doesn't mean we can prove a murder."

And in the worst case scenerio, John and Patsy could just point the finger at each other to give the Jury reasonable doubt.

I think years ago the DA should have charged both John and Patsy with "conspiracy to cover-up a murder" which they quite possibly could have proven to a jury. That would have opened the door to a whopper of a civil suit where the BPD could have sued the Ramseys for every taxpayer dollar that was spent on this investigation. It also would have kept the Ramseys from making money off JonBenet's death with their own lawsuits.

little1
03-12-2004, 11:51 AM
I think that MOST involved in this case have made money off of it. It is sad, she was a baby! Accident, cover up, intentional, or intruder, this child's death should not have been in vain! IMO, the media had a HUGE role in screwing this case up. (kinda like OJ, please don't tell me you think that OJ is innocent?)

Britt
03-12-2004, 03:49 PM
IMO, the media had a HUGE role in screwing this case up.
Not as huge as the Boulder Prosecutor's Office, which screwed this case up, down and sideways... and got plenty of help from the Boulder Police Department. Blaming the media here is like blaming the symptoms for the virus.

little1
03-12-2004, 03:55 PM
Not as huge as the Boulder Prosecutor's Office, which screwed this case up, down and sideways... and got plenty of help from the Boulder Police Department. Blaming the media here is like blaming the symptoms for the virus.


Yup, you are right. I can't believe the leaks that happened in this case! It seems like both sides were very childish, and should have kept their mouths shut!

Blazeboy3
03-15-2004, 03:20 AM
I know that the case of the Ramsey child is old and has been hashed to death, there are a lot of people who have already formed the opinion that the parents did it. Partner ship in a crime always has a weak point in it, there has to be someone in charge, to keep the weak one from breaking down and confessing. If it was a joint venture there has to be a lot of hard thinking after the crime or accident, imagine one of the parents after the shock of the death, it is hard to do if it is the first time, to sit down and write a lengthily ransom note, there has to be a lot of emotions running through the parent to keep a clear head and concentrate on making deliberate errors in spelling, quoting lines from different movies that seems kind of odd for the Ramsey’s to be watching those kind of films. The zodiac killer quoted from his favorite movie in his lengthy coded script. But he was a serious killer, no emotions ran through him, in a sadist situation were the male keeps his wife and companion in crime, isolated from family and friends to create a zombie like partner for his pleasure that was completely reliant on him. Does John sound like that kind of person? His wife was outgoing and involved in pageants with her daughter, she does not sound like a person whom was being controlled by her husband. How weak was she not to turn her husband in for murder or molestation of their daughter. Looks like a strong team to me, I know the lawyer thing turned everybody off about them, but look at it this way, you and I know that when a crime like this is in the news, family and relatives are always the first suspects, no matter how much grief that I’m in, you can bet that I need protection from media and over zealous cops and detectives. I’m not writing this to make the Ramsey’s look innocent but to have a serious conversation with someone on this site that will and can think this out step by step, someone that had done reading on psychopaths, sociopath, there has to be a lot of soul searching into the working of a killer, serious questions it is not a contest to see whom is the smartest or how much you can joke about what color was the shoes the detective was wearing, but a serious slow and meticulous thought process, is there anyone interested in this enough to spend the time and energy? I do not believe that because it has not been solved that it cannot be solved.



_______________
IMO

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/desborough.html
Interesting; I'm replying before I read further...it reminds me David Icke's video tapes (two) titled "Revelations of a Mother Goddess" wherein on tape 2 it is stated that JonBenet was the price the R's had to pay--the child who put the last xmas ball on the tree...that her family knew...and how it related to the devil John Bay(sp?). Have you any info on this?

FYI...a piece of David Icke's writing
The adage "what you don't know can hurt you" is very true when it comes to Illuminati intent. Thanks to David Icke, the Illuminati's biggest secret has been publicly revealed for the first time, despite the best efforts of the Illuminati-controlled media to suppress it. As the author states in the book, the Illuminati foments wars and mayhem in order to create terror, the vibrations of which become encoded onto the earth's ley lines, thus inhibiting the spiritual growth of humanity.

Shawna
03-16-2004, 04:07 PM
There is an interesting website that connects Jonbenet's murder to Laci Peterson's.

"The Ramsey girl was murdered on Christmas, and Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve".

" It is quite possible that a Satanic cult was responsible for the Ramsey murder. Note the 6 year gap (as in 666, the Satanic number) between these two cases. The Satanic Cult may be looking at Astronomy events in the timing of ritual murders: in December 1996. Also, the Ramsey case asked for a $118000 ransom, and this may relate to Revelation 1:18"


http://revelation13.net/Laci.html

Blazeboy3
03-18-2004, 02:40 AM
There is an interesting website that connects Jonbenet's murder to Laci Peterson's.

"The Ramsey girl was murdered on Christmas, and Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve".

" It is quite possible that a Satanic cult was responsible for the Ramsey murder. Note the 6 year gap (as in 666, the Satanic number) between these two cases. The Satanic Cult may be looking at Astronomy events in the timing of ritual murders: in December 1996. Also, the Ramsey case asked for a $118000 ransom, and this may relate to Revelation 1:18"


http://revelation13.net/Laci.html

IMHO...it's a XMAS "thing/sacrifice?" Thank you very much for the URL/informational site...I'm off and reading LOL! :cool:

FWIW IMHO...it's just TOO SIMPLE A SOLUTION...MOST(MAJORITY) CAN'T BELIEVE(COMPREHEND) THAT THE R'S COULD MURDER JONBENET...!?:waitasec: :( :banghead: :silenced:
http://www.howtobesaved.com/page15.html
23. WHO MURDERED JONBENET RAMSEY? Did John and Patsy Ramsey murder their daughter? Go to www.*************.com click on the reversals page and listen to audio clips and you decide. Patsy's famous statement is "There are at least two people on the face of the earth that KNOW who did this----that is the killer and some other person that killer may have confided in."
The ten thousand dollar question is this. How does Patsy Ramsey know that there are at least two people that know who commited the murder? The answer is obvious! There really are two people that know who murdered JonBenet Ramsey. They are John and Patsy Ramsey! :mad:

NOTE:THE ABOVE URL DOESN'T APPEAR TO WORK(N/A); HERE'S ANOTHER
FYI:
http://hometown.aol.com/reverse247/ramsey/ramsey3.html

On April 15, 2000 Fox News Channel aired Carol McKinley's interview with John and Patsy Ramsey in a one hour presentation billed as "The Ramseys: On The Record." The parents are still plugging their book, "The Death of Innocence," and Carol McKinley asked the expected pointed questions in a polite way. The parents' reversals are revealing in that we now know more about who was present, including a name for the rapist and more details about someone named David who interrupted the rapist.
- The forward speech is quoted below. Brackets show where the reversals occur. The reverse speech is shown in bold. Click on each .ra extension to hear the forward and reverse speech. The forward speech is heard first and then followed by each reversal being played three times at progressively slower speeds. Finally, the bracketed segment of forward speech is played and immediately follwed by the reversal, all at normal speed. If you minimize Real Player at the bottom of your screen, you can follow the text to verify each reversal as you hear it.
- Comments and opinions are those of this author and may or may not accurately represent the true thoughts of the speakers.
- Excerpts include:
- John Ramsey is offended by the Boulder Police Department hiding a video camera at JonBenet's grave in hopes of taping some incriminating admission by the parents.
- Patsy Ramsey explains why there are no shower curtains in their new home.
- While the Ramseys discuss how a killer could familiarize himself with their house, their reversals supply another name and confirm that John Ramsey was not in the room while his daughter was raped.
- John Ramsey explains why the parents are speaking out now while his reversal blames himself for being distracted with his girlfriend while his daughter was being raped.
- Patsy Ramsey complains about what she has had to endure.
- Patsy Ramsey states that their book was written from personal knowledge.
- Carol McKinley's reversal when reciting the name of the parents' book is quite revealing. Did the parents unconsciously choose this title for their book because of the reversal?
- Patsy Ramsey appears to concoct a story about JonBenet to gain audience empathy.
- John Ramsey describes putting JonBenet to bed while his reversal indicates who interrupted the rape of his daughter.
- Patsy Ramsey describes finding the ransom note.
- Carol McKinley and John Ramsey talk over each other at the same time while they are both reversing. See if you can hear both sets of reversals at the same time!
- John Ramsey talks about cooperating with police while one of his reversals indicates the giving of hair and blood samples was done to fake out their pastor.
- Patsy Ramsey recites the profile of the rapist, according to the experts hired by the Ramseys, while her reversal indicates he was someone who had offered them a deal, possibly for drugs.
- John Ramsey denies the story about his son Burke's voice being heard in the background on the 911 call while his reversal indicates John is protecting the identity of whoever he spoke to in the background while the call was taking place.
- John Ramsey asks that the killing of a young child be made a federal offense while his reversal indicates that it was he himself who panicked and faked the crime scene.
- Patsy Ramsey rambles on about the need to protect children while her reversals talk about evil and describe herself as a fiend with money ready.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about the common bonds she shares with her husband.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about finding the killer while her reversals indicate they may be able to locate him through an assistant.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about the kind statements of strangers being little angels sent from God while her reversal speaks about lust and living forever after having made up the crime.

:crazy: ???

little1
03-18-2004, 02:13 PM
Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

Shylock
03-18-2004, 07:15 PM
Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.
I think most Americans are smart enough to realize that a ransom note found in the same house as a young dead girl is way too fishy. Then when they heard the parents lawyered-up and were refusing to cooperate with the police their minds were made up.

little1
03-19-2004, 01:00 PM
I think most Americans are smart enough to realize that a ransom note found in the same house as a young dead girl is way too fishy. Then when they heard the parents lawyered-up and were refusing to cooperate with the police their minds were made up.


Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

Shylock
03-20-2004, 05:29 PM
Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.

Blazeboy3
03-23-2004, 02:40 AM
Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

Oh little1...are you educated or knowledgible(sp?)..."EVERYTHING (ALL:everything&everyone) IS ENERGY, that is a fact! ... ENERGY follows THOUGHT, that is a fact! ... ENERGY cannot be destored but can change form, that is a fact! ...

so you little1 with all your courage must ask yourself ... "Why is it that most of the people think the R's are guilty ??? ... remember the "energy thing!" :banghead: :waitasec: :crazy: :)

w/luv :snooty:

Blazeboy3
03-23-2004, 02:43 AM
Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

Is this a "game"; I think not! ... IMHO IT'S ABOUT "JUSTICE/JONBENET." IMHO it appears to be a "go fish game to you." ... set me straight/prove me wrong/right/whatever??? :crazy:

P.S. IMHO "MOST BELIEVE THE RAMSEYS ARE GUILTY" FWIW...???!!!

BlueCrab
03-23-2004, 07:20 AM
Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.


Here's the results of a web poll (Bill Bickel, Crime/Punishment) as of April 15, 2002 after 1,512 votes:

WHO KILLED JONBENET RAMSEY?

Patsy Ramsey 50%

Burke Ramsey 18%

Intruder 18%

John Ramsey 10%

Fleet White 2%

Misc. 2%

So it appears that 78% of the public (almost four out of five) believe a Ramsey family member killed JonBenet.

JMO

eliza
03-23-2004, 07:48 AM
My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.


I agree with Shylock, I believe the vast majority of the population are not fooled by the Ramseys. The Ramseys and their Lawyer in my opinion have distorted many of the facts and used the media to do it. The only sympathy I see are the people that don't want to get tangled up in one of their many lawsuits.

little1
03-23-2004, 10:50 AM
My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.


Yup, I agree on the OJ thing, he is definietely guilty. Darlie Routier? I think her husband may have had a hand in it more than she did, but I think she knew or covered up that crime. The Ramseys? The only thing that truly bugs me is the way they refused to talk to police. Could they not understand that in order for the investigation to go ANY further they must submit to interviews and such to clear them as suspects? (I use the term loosley here, but y'all know what I mean) I just don't understand that. If they had submitted to interviews and an investigation to clear them, then I don't think we would be discussing the case right now. Vincent Bugliosi said it best when he stated that the strongest evidence against the Ramseys is the fact that no one else could have committed the crime. But that in itself is the weakest evidence as well. No one can prove which one did it, withput a reasonable doubt, and which one covered up.

Shylock
03-23-2004, 01:00 PM
The only thing that truly bugs me is the way they refused to talk to police. Could they not understand that in order for the investigation to go ANY further they must submit to interviews and such to clear them as suspects?

You hit the nail right on the head. The Ramseys and their supporters want you to believe that they couldn't have been more cooperative with the investigation. That's a farce and they can only offer twisted facts to try and prove it.

The reality is that not once did the Ramseys show ANY type of interest in what the police were doing to try and find their daughter's killer. Everything from Day-1 was about THEM--and how they were going to stay out of jail. John even admitted a couple years ago that none of the investigators they hired ever worked on trying to solve the crime. Their job was solely to keep he and Patsy out of jail.

Brefie
03-23-2004, 01:35 PM
John even admitted a couple years ago that none of the investigators they hired ever worked on trying to solve the crime. Their job was solely to keep he and Patsy out of jail.

WOW! Really? Do you have an exact quote? This is genuine surprise and interest - not sarcasm. I would really like to learn more about this.

Thanks in advance.

Seeker
03-23-2004, 01:58 PM
Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."

here. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_15_912274%2C00.html)

Brefie
03-23-2004, 03:29 PM
Very interesting. Thanks for the link, Seeker, I apreciate it.

BlueCrab
03-23-2004, 03:50 PM
No one can prove which one did it, withput a reasonable doubt, and which one covered up.


It can be done by the process of elimination. ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night killed JonBenet or knows who killed her. If exculpatory evidence can be developed for two of them, then the third one is the likely killer.

For instance, if they'd publicly release the results of all three handwriting examinations (John's, Patsy's and Burke's) it would, IMO, tell a story all of its own if two could be definitely eliminated as the writer.

JMO

Seeker
03-23-2004, 05:29 PM
Yes BC, but that story would be that none of them could be ruled conclusively as the writer of the note. None of the 3's handwriting was anywhere close to it.

Patsy rated 4.5 with 5 being the lowest probablility and 0 being a conclusive match. The handwriting isn't going to solve this crime.

You cannot charge both parents with the same crime as a unit. You would have to choose which one you could prove beyond reasonable doubt did the deed, and no-one can.

If the Ramseys are covering for someone, then the logical conclusion would be their remaining child IMO. I don't see them covering for one another. I don't believe they would have stayed together this long if one knew the other did it.

With this particular case it's really hard to prove who killed her. There is a lot of forensic evidence from the family found, but they lived there.

why_nutt
03-23-2004, 05:57 PM
If the Ramseys are covering for someone, then the logical conclusion would be their remaining child IMO. I don't see them covering for one another. I don't believe they would have stayed together this long if one knew the other did it.


From a certain perspective, can we not already say that Patsy has demonstrated she will cover for John? In the incident of John's affair with a woman he subsequently deemed dangerous and has described his fear of, Patsy protected John and herself from the woman by pretending she was nothing more to John than an acquaintance, so the woman would not hurt either of them in a jealous rage. The woman bought the lie. Nearly twenty years later, Patsy denied knowing of this woman's existence and expected the BPD to buy this new lie just as easily. Could it be that, in the absence of knowing John had already confessed to the BPD of the affair, she was covering up for John by not admitting such an affair had taken place? Would this not be proof she can cover when she wants to?

Seeker
03-23-2004, 06:21 PM
I'm sure she could, but the question in my mind is would she over something as traumatic as the murder of not only just your youngest child, but your only daughter and hope of fullfilling your own ambitious dreams?

The murder and sexual desecration (sp) of her baby daughter is a far different thing than an affair. An affair John had before he even knew her (or am I misremembering that part again?).

I may be remembering this wrong, but didn't he have an affair while married to his first wife? Isn't that what broke up the marriage? If so then it was way before Patsy ever met him. It's not like he cheated on her...so if she covered it up then it's because it really didn't affect her IMO, because it wasn't done to her. IOW she wasn't the recipient of his betrayal in that instance.

BlueCrab
03-23-2004, 08:19 PM
Yes BC, but that story would be that none of them could be ruled conclusively as the writer of the note. None of the 3's handwriting was anywhere close to it.


We only know the results of John's and Patsy's handwriting exams. John's was apparently 5.0 (eliminated as the writer) and Patsy's was around 4.0 to 4.5 (almost eliminated as the writer). Burke's results were never released.

JMO

little1
03-24-2004, 01:30 PM
It can be done by the process of elimination. ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night killed JonBenet or knows who killed her. If exculpatory evidence can be developed for two of them, then the third one is the likely killer.

For instance, if they'd publicly release the results of all three handwriting examinations (John's, Patsy's and Burke's) it would, IMO, tell a story all of its own if two could be definitely eliminated as the writer.

JMO


You cannot prosecute a case susccessfully with an assumption or a likely result.

BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 01:59 PM
You cannot prosecute a case susccessfully with an assumption or a likely result.


IMO the case will never be prosecuted anyway, because kids too young to prosecute are involved. Also, the judge probably wouldn't let the handwriting analyses in as evidence. But out here in the world of web sleuths we'd know who the likely killer is if two of the Ramseys could be eliminated as the writer of the RN and the third Ramsey couldn't. ONE of those three Ramseys killed JonBenet or knows who killed her.

JMO

sissi
03-24-2004, 04:17 PM
IMO the case will never be prosecuted anyway, because kids too young to prosecute are involved. Also, the judge probably wouldn't let the handwriting analyses in as evidence. But out here in the world of web sleuths we'd know who the likely killer is if two of the Ramseys could be eliminated as the writer of the RN and the third Ramsey couldn't. ONE of those three Ramseys killed JonBenet or knows who killed her.

JMO

Who scored higher than Patsy Ramsey in a match? Was it Beckner or Hunter who said others scored higher? Who were they? Was one Santa?
IMO

Barbara
03-24-2004, 04:22 PM
Who scored higher than Patsy Ramsey in a match? Was it Beckner or Hunter who said others scored higher? Who were they? Was one Santa?
IMO

The whole "scoring" system is bogus. The only person to use that system seems to be the graphologist "they" hired. Nobody else ever had a numerical system (that I know of)

Seeker
03-24-2004, 05:26 PM
Barbara, wasn't that info confirmed by the Secret Svc?
I thought I saw something about that somewhere.

In fact the only people who tried to say it absolutely was Patsy's writing were Hoffman and his hired experts.

BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 06:33 PM
In fact the only people who tried to say it absolutely was Patsy's writing were Hoffman and his hired experts.


That's correct to the best of my knowledge also. The six examiners the CBI used came to the conclusion that it was a very low probability that Patsy wrote the RN.

The numerical system used by the CBI when examining the 73 suspects actually came from Alex Hunter. Handwriting analyses border on the subjective side and he wanted an objective scoring system that weighed the results of the exams on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 elimination as the writer.

It was Lin Wood who got Gideon Epstein to admit under oath during a deposition that there were others who had scored lower than Patsy during the exams.

JMO

Ivy
03-24-2004, 06:43 PM
I wouldn't care how many experts ended up testifying that Patsy's handwriting doesn't match the writing on the note. I've seen the exemplars and there is no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note. I don't understand how any person with eyesight can doubt it.

For anyone who hasn't seen the exemplars, a link can be found in Shylock's posts.

imo

BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 07:59 PM
I wouldn't care how many experts ended up testifying that Patsy's handwriting doesn't match the writing on the note. I've seen the exemplars and there is no doubt in my mind that Patsy wrote the note. I don't understand how any person with eyesight can doubt it.

For anyone who hasn't seen the exemplars, a link can be found in Shylock's posts.

imo


At least some, and perhaps most, of Patsy Ramsey's exemplars used by Hoffman's examiners may not have been Patsy's at all -- it appears some of them could have been Burke's.

With respect to the London Letter and other exemplars used by the CBI for comparison purposes, please consider that we were all taught how to write using the same exemplars in elementary school, so we all write similarly. That's why professional examiners look for things other than just letters that seem to look alike.

JMO

Ivy
03-24-2004, 08:06 PM
Please explain, BC. If you're referring to the photo album captions, why do you think Burke wrote those? I'm a mom, and I captioned all the photos in our family albums, including pix of the kids. In their baby books (which I kept current till they were about five), I captioned pictures of them as if they themselves had done it. ("Here I am leaving the hospital with Mommy and Daddy" etc.) I think Patsy did the same thing with pix of Burke.

imo

Shylock
03-24-2004, 08:15 PM
At least some, and perhaps most, of Patsy Ramsey's exemplars used by Hoffman's examiners may not have been Patsy's at all -- it appears some of them could have been Burke's.
The exemplars came from Patsy, not Burke. All are available on the net including 2 pageant applications. In addition, cards that Patsy wrote are available on Maketoast's site.

If you take a look at how many of the exemplars match Patsy's writing, it's obvious that no stranger is going to break into ANYONES house and match their writing with that amount of frequency. Epstein appears to be the only expert that took that into consideration.

BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 08:26 PM
Please explain, BC. If you're referring to the photo album captions, why do you think Burke wrote those? I'm a mom, and I captioned all the photos in our family albums, including pix of the kids. In their baby books (which I kept current till they were about five), I captioned pictures of them as if they themselves had done it. ("Here I am leaving the hospital with Mommy and Daddy" etc.) I think Patsy did the same thing with pix of Burke.

imo

The captions were not only written in the first person, they were sloppily witten -- exactly as a child would write them. Patsy is a neat writer. When asked who wrote the captions in Burke's personal photo album she replied she didn't remember. Right.

JMO

Shylock
03-24-2004, 08:44 PM
Patsy is a neat writer. When asked who wrote the captions in Burke's personal photo album she replied she didn't remember. Right.

Not all of Patsy's writing is neat. Take a look at the one pageant application she wrote and you'll swear she must have consumed 1/2 a bottle of whiskey before writing it. The writing on Burke's photos does match Patsy's sloppy printing. It matches the Marilyn Monroe badge perfectly.

BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 08:50 PM
If you take a look at how many of the exemplars match Patsy's writing, it's obvious that no stranger is going to break into ANYONES house and match their writing with that amount of frequency.


Perhaps no one had to break in to closely match much of Patsy's writing. Maybe he already lived there. And perhaps he wrote almost like Patsy because Patsy taught him how to write.

JMO

Nehemiah
03-25-2004, 09:04 AM
Are the captions in Burke's album available for viewing on line?

IMO

Shylock
03-25-2004, 09:47 AM
Are the captions in Burke's album available for viewing on line?
They were a couple years ago. We'll have to see if anyone knows where they are posted now.

BlueCrab
03-25-2004, 10:21 AM
Are the captions in Burke's album available for viewing on line?

IMO


Darnay Hoffman's examiners used the captions, so they are in ACandyRose's website listed under "Darnay Hoffman File".

Look for the written analyses of Tom Miller, Cina Wong, and David Liebman.

JMO

ICU
03-31-2004, 09:24 AM
Hello,
I have just returned from the UK. It was a very nice visit with my colloquies, I will only be here for a short while and will return later. I know that I said that I would not be writing any more on the JonBenet case, however while I was with my friends we did discuss the Benet case for a short time, and one of the members that was reading the autopsy report said to me, “did you notice the small bruise on her neck, circular in shape”? it is in the shape of a button, perhaps a glove with a snap on it. He kept looking at the autopsy pictures and said that he could see the details of the crime in his mind. He like most of us believes that it was an intruder, this was his point. He suggested that it was a young man that was angry at John for something John did that caused him to leave the town and join the military, someone that knew the Ramsey’s and was a guest at the house, he also knew JonBenet and vise a versa. This person was home on leave and did not tell anyone about it, because he had a plan to let himself into the house using the key he had made a copy of earlier, he may have let himself in a few times while the Ramsey’s were away, he would look around and pick up a few things, in his snooping he may have noticed the Bonus check and the amount, and used it to write the ransom note with. He let himself in that night wearing his boots and gloves, when he went to JonBenet’s room and woke her, she did not stir because she knew him and may have been surprised to see him, he would tell her to be quiet because he had a surprise for her and did not want to wake the rest of the family. So they walked or he carried her to the kitchen and to keep her calm offered her some pineapple, after that he may have told her that the surprise was in the basement. It is believed that this person placed the suitcase in front of the cellar window to create the illusion that the intruder entered that way, because he had a key and did not want authorities looking for possible copies or any one with the chance to make copies. It was also suggested that this person may have something to do with a child sex ring, such as the Wonderland Club. It is believed that the perp had a camera with him and he took pictures of the rape and crime, the bondage and attack on the girl has the ear marks of such child porn pedophile cases that involved this kind of action. The bruise on her neck may have happened when he struck her with the glove on his hand, leaving the round button mark on her neck. The strangulation and the head fracture may have been the results of the frenzied action the perp could not control. This perp wanted to destroy the family and with the help of the keystone cops, media and public, he succeeded. This goes a little longer but I do not have the time to write, this is the opinion of the gentleman whom sat in on the meeting.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you,controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

Jayelles
03-31-2004, 09:32 AM
A year or more ago, my little daughter came running into the kitchen carrying a little table upside down when she fell forward. One of the table legs grazed her on the neck and I froze when I realised that the mark was very similar to the mark on JonBenet's neck - i.e. triangular in shape. The little table legs are turned/rounded and it must have twisted as she fell onto it in order to cause a triangular abrasion.

ICU
03-31-2004, 09:51 AM
A year or more ago, my little daughter came running into the kitchen carrying a little table upside down when she fell forward. One of the table legs grazed her on the neck and I froze when I realised that the mark was very similar to the mark on JonBenet's neck - i.e. triangular in shape. The little table legs are turned/rounded and it must have twisted as she fell onto it in order to cause a triangular abrasion.

They took a very close look at the round bruse on her neck and it had an imprint of what you might see on a button that is on a pair of denums, you could see an image of some kind.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

Jayelles
03-31-2004, 11:54 AM
How do you suppose a jeans button got pressed onto her neck? Are you absolutely sure it's the neck mark they are referring to? One of the other abrasions (the one on the side of her face) has a "boat-shaped" mark in it - this was noted by one of the forensic experts who commented on the case. We discussed it here a few months ago and the thread might still be here. If I can find it, I shall bump it up for you.

Ivy
04-01-2004, 12:57 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/10042002-48hrs.htm

Excerpt:

Program showing Erin Moriarty talking with forensic pathologist, Dr. Werner Spitz:

Erin Moriarty: "How sure are you that it's not a stun gun?"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "Well I'm a hundred percent sure because stun gun injuries don't look that way."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Dr. Werner Spitz, a nationally known pathologist who has worked on major cases including the assassination of J.F. Kennedy."

(Program showing photos of the stun gunned pig and marks on JonBenet)

Erin Moriarty: "This was now on her and this was done on a pig skin."

Dr. Werner Spitz: "Are you telling me that this looks to you like the other one, the one that JonBenet has? They don't look like that to me at all. A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, it's a burn essentially. And these don't look like burns."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

BlueCrab
04-01-2004, 06:13 PM
http://www.acandyrose.com/10042002-48hrs.htm



Erin Moriarty: "How sure are you that it's not a stun gun?"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "Well I'm a hundred percent sure because stun gun injuries don't look that way.

"A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, it's a burn essentially. And these don't look like burns.

"If you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."[/b]


Where is it documented that Dr. Werner Spitz is an expert on stun gun injuries? Or has he even had ANY experience in identifying stun gun injuries? I think he's flying by the seat of his pants.

Spitz, after looking at autopsy pictures of the injuries, says the injuries were likely caused by stones on the floor and a button on blue jeans, and supports that by saying the imprint of a boat can be seen in the injury on JonBenet's face.

Hell, I can look up into the sky and see the shape of a boat in the clouds on almost any day of the week.

All stun gun injuries are burns, and sometimes they are associated with abrasions. And they all look different from each other. Dr. John Meyer, the only pathologist who examined the injuries on the body, at first called the injuries abrasions, but later changed that to say they were consistent with stun gun injuries.

JMO

Ivy
04-01-2004, 07:04 PM
Werner Spitz has been a forensic pathologist for almost 50 years, BC. Here's a short bio on him.

http://www.cnn.com/LAW/greta.at.law/spitz.7.11/moreonthistopic.html
Dr. Werner Spitz is currently the medical examiner for Macomb County, Michigan, as well as a professor of pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine and an adjunct professor of toxicology at the University of Windsor, Canada. He received his training at the Geneva University Medical School in Switzerland and the Hebrew University Hadassa Medical School in Jerusalem, Israel. He is the author of 90 scientific publications and the author of a textbook, Medicolegal Investigation of Death.

I believe Dr. Spitz is more qualified than Smit--or even Dobersen--to make stun gun determinations. By the way, he didn't look at the clouds and see a boat-shaped structure. He used a magnifying glass and examined the autopsy photo showing the mark in question, and noticed a boat-shaped structure within it.

Dobersen admitted that to make a determination as to whether any of the marks on JonBenet's body were made by a stun gun, examining the tissue would be necessary. It's too late now, so we'll never know for certain if a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

imo

BlueCrab
04-01-2004, 09:25 PM
Werner Spitz has been a forensic pathologist for almost 50 years, BC. Here's a short bio on him.

http://www.cnn.com/LAW/greta.at.law/spitz.7.11/moreonthistopic.html
Dr. Werner Spitz is currently the medical examiner for Macomb County, Michigan, as well as a professor of pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine and an adjunct professor of toxicology at the University of Windsor, Canada. He received his training at the Geneva University Medical School in Switzerland and the Hebrew University Hadassa Medical School in Jerusalem, Israel. He is the author of 90 scientific publications and the author of a textbook, Medicolegal Investigation of Death.

I believe Dr. Spitz is more qualified than Smit--or even Dobersen--to make stun gun determinations. By the way, he didn't look at the clouds and see a boat-shaped structure. He used a magnifying glass and examined the autopsy photo showing the mark in question, and noticed a boat-shaped structure within it.

Dobersen admitted that to make a determination as to whether any of the marks on JonBenet's body were made by a stun gun, examining the tissue would be necessary. It's too late now, so we'll never know for certain if a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

imo



Ivy,

Medical practitioners have very little to no experience with stun gun injuries. Most doctors, including pathologists, wouldn't know what a stun gun injury looked like. There are only a few experts in the field.

I have a friend who's been an emergency room physician for about 15 years in a large hospital. Last year I asked him how many stun gun injuries he's ever treated, and he said none. (That's not to say he could have treated them but didn't know the cause of the injury.)

I think Spitz was winging it.

JMO

Ivy
04-01-2004, 09:49 PM
BC, in a way, everyone is winging it, including Smit and Dobersen. No determination is possible without examining the tissue, and as you pointed out some time ago in one of your posts, there's surely nothing left now to examine.

The stun gun idea doesn't bother me much unless someone uses it as "evidence" of an intruder, but I still don't buy it.

imo

BlueCrab
04-01-2004, 10:27 PM
BC, in a way, everyone is winging it, including Smit and Dobersen. No determination is possible without examining the tissue, and as you pointed out some time ago in one of your posts, there's surely nothing left now to examine.

The stun gun idea doesn't bother me much unless someone uses it as "evidence" of an intruder, but I still don't buy it.

imo


One reason I try to keep the stun gun theory alive is because there's a remote possibility a stun gun could have been the murder weapon. The large injury on the right side of JonBenet's face near the ear, if a stun gun injury, could have been from a prolonged stun gun hit (such as 10 seconds or more) that paralyzed her respiratory muscles and killed her by asphyxia.

JMO

why_nutt
04-01-2004, 11:00 PM
One reason I try to keep the stun gun theory alive is because there's a remote possibility a stun gun could have been the murder weapon. The large injury on the right side of JonBenet's face near the ear, if a stun gun injury, could have been from a prolonged stun gun hit (such as 10 seconds or more) that paralyzed her respiratory muscles and killed her by asphyxia.

JMO

Actually, no. A stun gun works by paralyzing the muscles of the body, but in order to create the largest electrical circuit through the body, the circuit must begin and end in the largest muscles, which is why all stun gun manufacturers recommend that the torso and its muscles be favored as a target. A person's face is extremely ineffective as a stun gun target, as would be a person's feet or wrists, because the muscles of the jaw and face are very small, and it is difficult to get a circuit going out of one probe of the stun gun, through the muscles of the jaw, down through the neck, into the torso, legs and arms, and then back up through the legs, arms, torso and neck and into the face again to complete the circuit by closing it via the other stun gun probe. There is simply too much electrical resistance involved. Remember, a stun gun is essentially a gun-shaped switch. You turn it on, and it tries to complete a circuit. In accord with electrical theory, it will do this by taking the shortest path possible. If a stun gun is applied to the face, all it will be likely to do is cause the facial muscles to contract. The circuit would have no need to expend extra effort in traveling down to the muscles of the chest wall and paralyzing them.

Shylock
04-02-2004, 01:06 AM
The large injury on the right side of JonBenet's face near the ear, if a stun gun injury, could have been from a prolonged stun gun hit (such as 10 seconds or more) that paralyzed her respiratory muscles and killed her by asphyxia.

There is no way the mark on JB's face was made by a stun gun. There is ONLY ONE MARK. And there is no such thing as a stun gun with a single probe. Furthermore, the RST/Swamp theory that the second probe was on top of the tape is a joke. The tape would have insulated the electrical current, and there is no evidence of ANYTHING of that nature on the piece of tape.

The tape would have been the BEST indicator of stun gun use because it would have melted or at the very least charred from the electrical discharge. Ask any electrician what electrical tape charred from high voltage looks like, they've all seen it.

Shylock
04-02-2004, 01:09 AM
Dr. John Meyer, the only pathologist who examined the injuries on the body, at first called the injuries abrasions, but later changed that to say they were consistent with stun gun injuries.

Meyer said "Anything is possible". Meyer would have given the same answer if someone asked him if a meat-fork had made the marks on her back.

BlueCrab
04-02-2004, 06:52 AM
Meyer said "Anything is possible". Meyer would have given the same answer if someone asked him if a meat-fork had made the marks on her back.


Page 431, PMPT pb:

"Smit and Steve Ainsworth were still investigating the possible use of a stun gun. By now they had learned that Air Tasers were sold locally by Boulder Security, and that another stun gun, called the Muscle Man, had the same characteristics as the Air Taser.

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

"Soon after, Ainsworth learned of a 1988 Larimer County murder in which a stun gun had been used on a thirteen-month-old girl, Michaela Hughes, who had been sexually assaulted and killed. Ainsworth met with Dr. Robert Deters, the pathologist on the case, and showed him the autopsy photos of JonBenet. Deters agreed that the marks were consistent with a stun gun injury, but he didn't think the body had to be exhumed. Nothing more would be learned by examining the skin tissue. Ainsworth asked Deters if a child of six would be immobilized by a stun gun's electrical shock. Not only would the child be paralyzed, the coroner said, but she would have been unable to scream."

JMO

tipper
04-02-2004, 08:43 AM
There is no way the mark on JB's face was made by a stun gun. There is ONLY ONE MARK. And there is no such thing as a stun gun with a single probe. Furthermore, the RST/Swamp theory that the second probe was on top of the tape is a joke. The tape would have insulated the electrical current, and there is no evidence of ANYTHING of that nature on the piece of tape.

The tape would have been the BEST indicator of stun gun use because it would have melted or at the very least charred from the electrical discharge. Ask any electrician what electrical tape charred from high voltage looks like, they've all seen it.
OT but wouldn't a stun gun with a single probe be like a cattle prod?

Shylock
04-02-2004, 09:52 AM
OT but wouldn't a stun gun with a single probe be like a cattle prod?
Cattle prods also have a two electrodes: http://www.hotshotproducts.com/hs2000.htm

tipper
04-02-2004, 11:01 AM
Cattle prods also have a two electrodes: http://www.hotshotproducts.com/hs2000.htm
That's interesting. The ones I remember looked like heavy flashlights with a single silver button at the business end. But, of course, that was 40+ years ago. Couldn't find any pictures though I did learn that Google offers up some very 'interesting' sites in response to an image search for cattle prod. :)

Ivy
04-02-2004, 11:20 AM
As far as the investigation goes, what difference does it make whether a stun gun was used on JonBenet? If one was, a Ramsey could have used it just as well as an intruder, especially if BlueCrab's fifth person theory is true. If one wasn't, it doesn't prove or disprove IDI or RDI either.

imo

SisterSocks
04-05-2004, 11:38 PM
Does anyone know if the Mother of the child was being treated for
Bipolar Disorder?


_______________
IMO


Of course NOT!!!!! Patsy didn't have mental problems until after Jon Benet Died ...... She had Panic Attacks and took Adivan to help, also she took Paxil for depression.


SistetSocks

ICU
04-06-2004, 09:24 AM
Where is it documented that Dr. Werner Spitz is an expert on stun gun injuries? Or has he even had ANY experience in identifying stun gun injuries? I think he's flying by the seat of his pants.

Spitz, after looking at autopsy pictures of the injuries, says the injuries were likely caused by stones on the floor and a button on blue jeans, and supports that by saying the imprint of a boat can be seen in the injury on JonBenet's face.

Hell, I can look up into the sky and see the shape of a boat in the clouds on almost any day of the week.

All stun gun injuries are burns, and sometimes they are associated with abrasions. And they all look different from each other. Dr. John Meyer, the only pathologist who examined the injuries on the body, at first called the injuries abrasions, but later changed that to say they were consistent with stun gun injuries.

JMO


Why would Pat or John use a stun gun?

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-06-2004, 09:31 AM
Actually, no. A stun gun works by paralyzing the muscles of the body, but in order to create the largest electrical circuit through the body, the circuit must begin and end in the largest muscles, which is why all stun gun manufacturers recommend that the torso and its muscles be favored as a target. A person's face is extremely ineffective as a stun gun target, as would be a person's feet or wrists, because the muscles of the jaw and face are very small, and it is difficult to get a circuit going out of one probe of the stun gun, through the muscles of the jaw, down through the neck, into the torso, legs and arms, and then back up through the legs, arms, torso and neck and into the face again to complete the circuit by closing it via the other stun gun probe. There is simply too much electrical resistance involved. Remember, a stun gun is essentially a gun-shaped switch. You turn it on, and it tries to complete a circuit. In accord with electrical theory, it will do this by taking the shortest path possible. If a stun gun is applied to the face, all it will be likely to do is cause the facial muscles to contract. The circuit would have no need to expend extra effort in traveling down to the muscles of the chest wall and paralyzing them.

Would the stun gun leave a boat like image on the wound?

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-06-2004, 09:41 AM
Of course NOT!!!!! Patsy didn't have mental problems until after Jon Benet Died ...... She had Panic Attacks and took Adivan to help, also she took Paxil for depression.


SistetSocks

That is interesting. Most cases that I have read or heard about, when the mother kills her kids, they try to make up some story of kidnapping or intruder story, something simple so not to get confused when questioned. The Ramsey case has too many complexities to it. If she were manic depression, would she be able to plan what she did?

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-06-2004, 10:02 AM
How do you suppose a jeans button got pressed onto her neck? Are you absolutely sure it's the neck mark they are referring to? One of the other abrasions (the one on the side of her face) has a "boat-shaped" mark in it - this was noted by one of the forensic experts who commented on the case. We discussed it here a few months ago and the thread might still be here. If I can find it, I shall bump it up for you.


I was suggesting the type of button, something like a denim button made of metal with an imprint on it, that could leave a mark when used to strike someone with. The person may have taken off the glove and hit her with it leaving the mark on her neck. For a pedophile ring that would be good filming.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

BlueCrab
04-06-2004, 10:54 AM
Why would Pat or John use a stun gun?


Neither of the parents would have used a stun gun on JonBenet, but Burke could have, especially if he was in the company of one or more other boys. There's almost no limit to what 10-year-old boys might do in groups. If one of them comes across a stun gun, there's a good chance they'll find a way to try it out.

JMO

Blazeboy3
04-07-2004, 03:07 AM
Neither of the parents would have used a stun gun on JonBenet, but Burke could have, especially if he was in the company of one or more other boys. There's almost no limit to what 10-year-old boys might do in groups. If one of them comes across a stun gun, there's a good chance they'll find a way to try it out.

JMO

Here's an interesting re-read I'm sure? :eek:
http://www.crimelynx.com/alexrivlive.html

RIVERA: I'm sure.

Mr. HUNTER: ...who are frustrated about this.

RIVERA: Was a stun gun used to incapacitate the child and facilitate the homicide?

Mr. HUNTER: I'm not going to talk to you about matters of evidence, but I will say that the issue of stun gun was raised long ago and has been looked at thoroughly by my team.

RIVERA: And rejected?

Mr. HUNTER: The team rejects it at this point in time.

RIVERA: And so when the Ramseys...

Mr. HUNTER: Now that doesn't mean we close our minds...

Blazeboy3
04-07-2004, 03:20 AM
As far as the investigation goes, what difference does it make whether a stun gun was used on JonBenet? If one was, a Ramsey could have used it just as well as an intruder, especially if BlueCrab's fifth person theory is true. If one wasn't, it doesn't prove or disprove IDI or RDI either.

imo
Yup...I totally agree...it doesn't MATTER! What does MATTER is that JonBenet is not here and her parents are...hum??? :cool:

Britt
04-07-2004, 01:40 PM
Most cases that I have read or heard about, when the mother kills her kids, they try to make up some story of kidnapping or intruder story, something simple so not to get confused when questioned. The Ramsey case has too many complexities to it.
Hello? That's exactly what Patsy (or Patsy & John) DID: they made up a kidnap/intruder story.

The only complexities this case has are the obstacles thrown between the Ramseys and law enforcement: their powerful lawyers and the chicken***** incompetent DA's office that was intimidated by (and buds with) those powerful lawyers. Then came another lawyer hired to keep the intimidation going indefiintely.

This isn't about complexities... it's about MONEY and power. The Ramseys could afford to make the case "complex."

Blazeboy3
04-08-2004, 03:02 AM
Hello? That's exactly what Patsy (or Patsy & John) DID: they made up a kidnap/intruder story.

The only complexities this case has are the obstacles thrown between the Ramseys and law enforcement: their powerful lawyers and the chicken***** incompetent DA's office that was intimidated by (and buds with) those powerful lawyers. Then came another lawyer hired to keep the intimidation going indefiintely.

This isn't about complexities... it's about MONEY and power. The Ramseys could afford to make the case "complex."


"BRAVO!" Well said/posted...I agree totally FWIW; IMHO, this whole movie/picture of the R's "life" is what they wanted and benefited from ... for whatever reason(s) they (the R's) know who-what-when-where-why???:D
Surely it's a "control" thing (w/greed)...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

control\Con*trol"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Controlled; p. pr. & vb. n. Controlling.] [F. contr[^o]ler, fr. contr[^o]le.] [Formerly written comptrol and controul.] 1. To check by a counter register or duplicate account; to prove by counter statements; to confute. [Obs.]

This report was controlled to be false. --Fuller.

2. To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to overpower.

Give me a staff of honor for mine age, But not a scepter to control the world. --Shak.

I feel my virtue struggling in my soul: But stronger passion does its power control. --Dryden.

Syn: To restrain; rule; govern; manage; guide; regulate; hinder; direct; check; curb; counteract; subdue

Toth
04-09-2004, 03:02 PM
Neither of the parents would have used a stun gun on JonBenet, but Burke could have, especially if he was in the company of one or more other boys. I have no idea how you could even think such a thing about any nine year old boy, much less about Burke Ramsey.

A stun gun does not prove the existence of an intruder but it makes it so much more likely, particularly since the parents don't own a stun gun and never have owned one.

Jayelles
04-09-2004, 03:03 PM
I have no idea how you could even think such a thing about any nine year old boy, much less about Burke Ramsey.

A stun gun does not prove the existence of an intruder but it makes it so much more likely, particularly since the parents don't own a stun gun and never have owned one.

Perhaps people *think such a thing* because they read the newspapers. Sadly such cases do exist - and involving children younger than 9.

Barbara
04-09-2004, 03:20 PM
A stun gun does not prove the existence of an intruder but it makes it so much more likely, particularly since the parents don't own a stun gun and never have owned one.

The above reflects Toth's opinion only and in no way should be regarded as fact or more credible than anyone else's opinion. It is his opinion only.

The FACT is that nobody really knows for sure whether the Ramseys own or ever owned a stun gun. The FACT is that it is not official by law enforcement that a stun gun was even used.

The official reports by law enforcement do not state the use of a stun gun. Until that happens, there was no stun gun.

Shylock
04-09-2004, 07:42 PM
I have no idea how you could even think such a thing about any nine year old boy, much less about Burke Ramsey.
Give it up Toth, this wouldn't be the first time a kid under 10 years old did something that took another child's life.

BlueCrab
04-10-2004, 12:40 AM
Give it up Toth, this wouldn't be the first time a kid under 10 years old did something that took another child's life.


That's right, kids under 10, especially when in a group, can cause a lot of damage and pain. It doesn't nearly approach murder of course, but a couple of weeks ago in my town three 9-year-old boys broke into a neighbor's house during the day and totally demolished the inside, causing thousands of dollars in damage. All three are being charged in criminal court as adults.

JMO

Trino
04-10-2004, 01:19 PM
This is from another posting re: missing. Contrast the way these parents are reacting vs. Patsy and John. Whether Burke was involved or not, I feel the parents know something.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4679619.html

Shylock
04-10-2004, 03:08 PM
This is from another posting re: missing. Contrast the way these parents are reacting vs. Patsy and John. Whether Burke was involved or not, I feel the parents know something.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4679619.html
While this article deals with how the parents of MISSING children act, I can see how parents of MURDERED children would behave in similar fashion. The Ramseys of course, never showed any real frustration or rage that their daughter's killer wasn't being agressively hunted down. I think we all know why that is--it's pretty hard to get worked-up over a boogieman who you know doesn't exist.

vicktor
04-10-2004, 11:13 PM
[QUOTE=ICU]That is interesting. Most cases that I have read or heard about, when the mother kills her kids, they try to make up some story of kidnapping or intruder story, something simple so not to get confused when questioned. The Ramsey case has too many complexities to it. If she were manic depression, would she be able to plan what she did?QUOTE]

Exactly. Occams Razor predicts that complex staging is too improbable to be considered a viable explanation. Our belief that this could be possible comes from watching movies or reading books that suggest hidden subterfuge. Add to it magazines or newspapers that engage in what if or conspiracy speculation. Few people have been directly involved in who-dunits or crime dramas and thus don't know how they work in real life.

ICU
04-26-2004, 09:42 AM
That's right, kids under 10, especially when in a group, can cause a lot of damage and pain. It doesn't nearly approach murder of course, but a couple of weeks ago in my town three 9-year-old boys broke into a neighbor's house during the day and totally demolished the inside, causing thousands of dollars in damage. All three are being charged in criminal court as adults.

JMO

This is incredible, now we agree that not only one intruder but a group of intruders, Burks friends climbed through the basement window that evening and went to JonBenet’s room to use a stun gun on her, drag her unconscious body down to the basement, use duct tape and tie her hands, then strangle her to death, not to mention hit her on the head with a blunt instrument, after that leave through the window again, said good night boys Merry Christmas oh and by the way thanks Burk for the good time, ya and don’t forget to write the ransom note about us kidnapping your sister.
__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-26-2004, 09:57 AM
I have no idea how you could even think such a thing about any nine year old boy, much less about Burke Ramsey.

A stun gun does not prove the existence of an intruder but it makes it so much more likely, particularly since the parents don't own a stun gun and never have owned one.

You know Toth, what I find amazing about all this is that the whole family have to be
Murderers to explain the death of the child, how convenient, open and shut case, why do we need investigators at all, just say they all killed the child. It is a good thing that the Ramseys did not have guest staying over or they would all be accused of have been involved with the death of the child. With this kind of thinking, all you need do is arrest and execute whom ever was in the house, that way how can you miss? That was the way the German Secret police did it.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-26-2004, 10:09 AM
The above reflects Toth's opinion only and in no way should be regarded as fact or more credible than anyone else's opinion. It is his opinion only.

The FACT is that nobody really knows for sure whether the Ramseys own or ever owned a stun gun. The FACT is that it is not official by law enforcement that a stun gun was even used.

The official reports by law enforcement do not state the use of a stun gun. Until that happens, there was no stun gun.


For once I agree with you Barbara. Why would a man whom lives in an almost crime free neighborhood have a need for a stun gun in the first place? Now if he lived in the bad part of town maybe. This sort of crime is usually unheard of in the sleepy towns of Colorado where the rich reside. That is why I see a bad seed there, someone with a vengeance. Sorry I had to say that, I could not resist.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-26-2004, 10:16 AM
Give it up Toth, this wouldn't be the first time a kid under 10 years old did something that took another child's life.

Shylock That is true about kids killing kids, and that is usually because they are trying to impress there friends with how bad they can be, and it escalates. Now how many kids do you think were in the house at the time of the murder?

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

ICU
04-26-2004, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=ICU]That is interesting. Most cases that I have read or heard about, when the mother kills her kids, they try to make up some story of kidnapping or intruder story, something simple so not to get confused when questioned. The Ramsey case has too many complexities to it. If she were manic depression, would she be able to plan what she did?QUOTE]

Exactly. Occams Razor predicts that complex staging is too improbable to be considered a viable explanation. Our belief that this could be possible comes from watching movies or reading books that suggest hidden subterfuge. Add to it magazines or newspapers that engage in what if or conspiracy speculation. Few people have been directly involved in who-dunits or crime dramas and thus don't know how they work in real life.

Vicktor, the note was not all that complex, and I can not for the life of me understand why all the sleuths here on this site make it so, Pat and John would have to be morons to write it, and I do not mean stupid, I mean dumb down in there thinking, that was not written by them, anyone with a notion of how young teenagers or Pedophiles talk can see that Pedophiles think like teenagers, how else do you think they are so successful in their hits.

__________________________________________________ __
”He who angers you, controls you!” (unknown author)
IMO

BrotherMoon
04-26-2004, 01:06 PM
anyone with a notion of how young teenagers or Pedophiles talk can see that Pedophiles think like teenagers,

That's asinine.