Picking up where we left off

[SuperDave]

This is to continue the discussion between myself, Jane Osa, Seahorse and anyone else interested.

Originally posted by Jane Osa
Well, no BBQ ribs, Superdave - since I'm in Alaska next to the ocean & it's fishing season I had plenty of smoked salmon and fresh (as in caught this afternoon) halibut & lots of happy tourists off the cruise ships & corny songs played live...

Ah!

I can agree that P. being in her same clothes isn't the height of bizarre weirdness, but, I'd also expect that she'd get herself into some silken nightgown and wrap herself in a cashmere robe in the morning before descending to make coffee & breakfast, etc. - however, if you are very tired & have a plane to catch, etc. maybe not (and who would arrange a flight that early the day after Christmas anyway? Where were they going?).

Well, if Chuck Green's reporting is accurate, Patsy was never in bed that night. As for where they were going, they were headed to the family's summer home in Charlevoix Michigan to meet up with John's children from his first marriage where they'd head for Florida, I believe.

I also agree people's memories are not all that reliable. If the Ramseys testified to begin with instead of waiting four months (as I understand) maybe their brains wouldn't be so foggy.

Yeah, maybe!

Maybe the reason they didn't cooperate is that they are very selfish - they wanted to protect themselves more than their dead child - that's inconceivable for most of us but inconceivable seems to be an apt word for most of their actions.

I think that was part of it. I think it's more of an instance of not being able to help JB anymore, so you save the living. See, some people, including John Ramsey, have said that if Patsy killed JB, he'd have thrown her to the wolves. Yeah, sure. He's already lost one daughter from his previous marriage (who he admits he cared about more than JB), he's just lost JB, and we really expect him to lose Patsy, too? IMO (Big caveat there), he figured Patsy would die in prison. He probably blamed himself for not seeing the warning signs of danger and not saving JB when he had the chance, so in a sense, it was HE who killed her, and if he gave up Patsy, he'd kill her too, and in one day, his son Burke would have lost his sister AND his mother and would probably hate John for the rest of his life. Save the living. He claims to be a religious man. Maybe he figured that if he could save Patsy's life, she could repent and escape the flames of hell. (Not only that, but you have to remember one other thing. John had already been married once. That marriage ended when his wife found out he had cheated on her. He got caught. They ALWAYS get caught, because they think they won't. If he turned Patsy in, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage just to marry a monster. That's very hard for the fragile male ego to take. Trust me, I know.)


So, what about lying about Burke during the 911 call? And the pineapple JBR ate (either their memory is 'faulty', they are lying, or JBR got up roaming the house & ate it or the person who eventually murdered her was someone she was completely comfortable with - enough to 'hang out' and eat pineapple with in the dining room) - ?

I can see faulty memory, to a point. What makes the pineapple important is that they said JB was asleep when they got home and never woke up. The pineapple says that didn't happen. It could be completely innocent. Kids are always hungry. And JB hadn't eaten that much that day. Fleet White even made her a doggy bag to take home from his party. The kids could have been awake and wanted a bedtime snack. We know that John was going to help Burke work on his train set for a little while before bed. He may have called him. Burke left the room, Patsy takes a piece of pineapple from the bowl and says, "Here, honey. Don't tell your Daddy." Nothing wrong with that. My parents used to do that with us every now and then. If that happened, why not just say so? (It'd be a great story for a jury, wouldn't it?) JB may have been up and roaming the house, but from all accounts, she couldn't have reached the bowl on top of the counter. Someone HAD to get it for her. As for hanging out and eating it in the dining room, then what? He waited the two and a half hours it took to digest? I don't buy it.

I don't recall anyone's opinions on how and why there is DNA of a male on leggings & underwear (skin & blood, right?) if you believe the R.s did it?

No, it was JB's blood on the underwear, nobody elses. What you have to remember is DNA is EVERYWHERE, and it's extremely easy to get on a lot of things. The advances in DNA technology are wonderful, but a criminologist who talked about this case said it, so it's not just my opinion: the more sensitive it gets, the more likely it is to find irrelevant DNA. She used those very words, or may I be struck dead.

I'd like to hear a theory on how it is there. I've heard ideas of it being 'old' or 'contaminated' or it could be anyone (!?!)

That's what the criminologist said. As for being degraded, DNA analysis studies the 13 markers left in fresh DNA. None of the samples left on JB (haven't heard about the leggings) had all of their markers. The nail DNA had about 4, and the panty DNA had 9 and one that was highly questionable. Not very likely they were from that day. Not only that, but Mark Fuhrman said that some of those markers may be shadow bands, which is where the PCR tests used on low-quality DNA try to "fill in the gaps," as it were. This new DNA test is so sensitive, it might reproduce those shadow bands as well, but that's just a guess.

I haven't heard anything solid from someone who believes the R.s guilty - ?

be more specific, Jane Osa.

but, you have to admit the DNA 'says' something.

Hey, I say use it. There's not reason not to. it's just not enough to exclude anyone. That it clears the R's is only the opinion of the DA, who has always thought them innocent, even before she saw any evidence. Read Steve Thomas's book if you want to know what I'm talking about. It's replete with stories about how she tried to hang this crime on Santa Bill McReynolds and wouldn't entertain the idea of Patsy being guilty because she was a woman. Mary Lacy is a very committed feminist, a mother and a career woman. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not one of these "a woman's place is in the home" type guys. I'm secure enough in my manhood to say that if I woman wants it all, she can have it. I just hope she can handle it and she doesn't lose perspective. I think (MY OPINION!) that Mary Lacy saw Patsy, a wealthy, successful mother and indentified with her. She saw this successful, lovely lady being grilled by a bunch of macho male cops and that was it. Frank Coffman, a journalist in Boulder, said that after Detective Tom Haney's interview with Patsy in 1998, Lacy told him he was too rough on her. WHAT?! For one thing, Tom Haney is one of the FINEST homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that a rookie on the BEAT would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the h*** does she think SHE is?" Later on, she had the unmitigated gall to tell the cops that because they were men, they couldn't understand a woman's mindset. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! That may or may not be true, but it's a hell of a way to decide guilt or innocence! She makes her predecessor look like Rudy Giuliani.

Or this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html

Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant.

In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: "The DNA could be an artifact. It isn't necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else."

It’s no secret that in 1997, when Lacy was a sex-assault prosecutor under then-DA Alex Hunter, she was furious when he did not appoint her to work on the case. Because Hunter and the police shied away from the intruder theory, many law enforcement officials often wonder if Lacy’s attempts to prove them wrong are driven more by her personal feelings than by the actual pursuit of justice.

Shortly after taking office, Lacy announced in 2003 that she believed the Ramseys were innocent, an unusual and inappropriate statement for a prosecutor to make during an ongoing investigation.

What that article doesn't mention is that in 2002, Lin Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, threatened to sue the police department if they didn't turn over the case to the DA's office, when he knew full well that Mary Lacy was sympathetic to his clients. What kind of sleazy backroom deal is THAT?! I've never even heard of such a thing: a suspect's lawyer deciding who the investigation is run by? I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know if that could be constituted obstruction of justice, or collusion, or not, but it damn well ought to be a disbarring offense. As far as I know, it may be legal, but it can't be ethical. Then, when she had the case, she made absolutely no attempt to even contact any of the original investigators, she brought in a whole new team consisting of people totally loyal to her point of view, including private investigators paid by the Ramseys, not to find the killer, but, as John admitted in his court deposition, to build a defense and keep him and Patsy out of jail. Alex Hunter was a lousy DA, (more on him per request) but at least he'd hear all sides. Lacy refuses to even talk to people who think the Ramseys might have been involved. That kind of "investigation" may fly in places like the Soviet Union or Zimbabwe or North Korea, but this is America, and we're supposed to be better than that.

This stinks, Jane Osa. There's no other word for it. This is the most despicable instance of legal masturbation I've ever heard of since Watergate. I apologize if I seem angry, but ever since I was a kid, I learned the Pledge of Allegiance. I believed in it.

"Justice for all."

What a load that turned out to be.

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I think I have to lie down.

[angelwngs]

PR also needed to be in the same clothes that she had on the night before so that she could throw herself onto the body of JBR in front of numerous witnesses, in order to justify why fibers from what she had on the night before would be found on JBR.

(IMHO)

[Ames]

PR also needed to be in the same clothes that she had on the night before so that she could throw herself onto the body of JBR in front of numerous witnesses, in order to justify why fibers from what she had on the night before would be found on JBR.

(IMHO)

Exactly!

[LI_Mom]

PR also needed to be in the same clothes that she had on the night before so that she could throw herself onto the body of JBR in front of numerous witnesses, in order to justify why fibers from what she had on the night before would be found on JBR.

(IMHO)

I think that's giving WAY too much credence to the Ramsey's ability to think ahead & think like a crime scene investigator.

It's easier to imagine that wearing the same clothes simply turned out to be a lucky 'mistake.'

[Toltec]

I think that's giving WAY too much credence to the Ramsey's ability to think ahead & think like a crime scene investigator.

It's easier to imagine that wearing the same clothes simply turned out to be a lucky 'mistake.'

Patsy Ramsey watched the OJ murder trial every now and then....she knew what she was doing.

[LI_Mom]

Patsy Ramsey watched the OJ murder trial every now and then....she knew what she was doing.

That's true. And I believe she also was a fan of true crime books?

Personally, if I had to bet money.... I just think that it's a bit of a stretch to suppose they'd be thinking THAT clearly. Even if they're staging things there has to be a LOT of stress because they're not hardened criminals & I just don't think these people are particularly smart.


But it's a good theory in any event. I wouldn't say it's impossible.

[Ames]

That's true. And I believe she also was a fan of true crime books?

Personally, if I had to bet money.... I just think that it's a bit of a stretch to suppose they'd be thinking THAT clearly. Even if they're staging things there has to be a LOT of stress because they're not hardened criminals & I just don't think these people are particularly smart.


But it's a good theory in any event. I wouldn't say it's impossible.

I believe that the same clothes were worn for two reasons...
1. She never made it to bed that night.
2. She wanted to be able to explain her fibers away..that is why she grabbed JB's body, while reciting the "Lazarus Speech". When told about those fibers found, in her 98 interview..she actually even says....something like..."well of course they would be there, I fell on her body". Not an exact quote...you would need to look it up for that. IOW..she KNEW what she was doing when she flung herself on JB's body, and I believe thats the reason that John brought her up from the basement too....and not let the investigators come DOWN to the basement to her. He also wanted to be able to explain away any of his fibers. These Rams were smart people.

[LI_Mom]

I believe that the same clothes were worn for two reasons...
1. She never made it to bed that night.
2. She wanted to be able to explain her fibers away..that is why she grabbed JB's body, while reciting the "Lazarus Speech". When told about those fibers found, in her 98 interview..she actually even says....something like..."well of course they would be there, I fell on her body". Not an exact quote...you would need to look it up for that. IOW..she KNEW what she was doing when she flung herself on JB's body, and I believe thats the reason that John brought her up from the basement too....and not let the investigators come DOWN to the basement to her. He also wanted to be able to explain away any of his fibers. These Rams were smart people.

Like I said, it could be.

The one thing we know for a FACT..... the original LE on the scene were IDIOTS.

[Ames]

Like I said, it could be.

The one thing we know for a FACT..... the original LE on the scene were IDIOTS.

AMEN to that!

[SuperDave]

No one has any thoughts on what I said?

Jane Osa, where you be?

[Anniegirl]

SD-- hope this isnt too off topic but am wondering does anyone know if the housekeepers husband's DNA has been check?

I saw on one of Tricia's links ..everyone involve in Ramseys life during time of jonBenet death and it shows pic of housekeeper and her hubby and said they on the Leeza or Lessa show ( im guessing Lessa Gibbons had a show?) anyway, that a psychic drew a pic of JonBenet's killer and many thought the sketch look a lot like their housekeepers hubby----

I ,respect you believe PR killed her daughter--just wondering anyones thoughts on this guy?

[JMO8778]

It was well-said,SD!!

[JMO8778]

SD-- hope this isnt too off topic but am wondering does anyone know if the housekeepers husband's DNA has been check?

I saw on one of Tricia's links ..everyone involve in Ramseys life during time of jonBenet death and it shows pic of housekeeper and her hubby and said they on the Leeza or Lessa show ( im guessing Lessa Gibbons had a show?) anyway, that a psychic drew a pic of JonBenet's killer and many thought the sketch look a lot like their housekeepers hubby----

I ,respect you believe PR killed her daughter--just wondering anyones thoughts on this guy?
yes,he was checked and cleared.he was also very cooperative with LE.he was also much older than the guy in the drawing appears to be.

[SuperDave]

SD-- hope this isnt too off topic but am wondering does anyone know if the housekeepers husband's DNA has been check?

I saw on one of Tricia's links ..everyone involve in Ramseys life during time of jonBenet death and it shows pic of housekeeper and her hubby and said they on the Leeza or Lessa show ( im guessing Lessa Gibbons had a show?) anyway, that a psychic drew a pic of JonBenet's killer and many thought the sketch look a lot like their housekeepers hubby----

I ,respect you believe PR killed her daughter--just wondering anyones thoughts on this guy?

Well, in my moments of doubt (not too many, but I do have them) the housekeeper and her husband are two people I do wonder about. But yes, as far as I know he was checked out.

[Anniegirl]

Well, in my moments of doubt (not too many, but I do have them) the housekeeper and her husband are two people I do wonder about. But yes, as far as I know he was checked out.

Thanks, sorry to get in middle here--wasnt sure which thread to go to..the other is pretty long now.

I am not big on "Psychic' powers' .. However, have seen some cases where some were right on.

That James Prague pissed me off on "The View"(i only watch on days off ..all to hear my WHoopi!) the other morning , saying Heath Ledger came to him while he was shaving in mirror, that he "didnt recognize his face but than realized it was Heath and said, Heath was saying how he "screwed" up and something about his daughter" than he disappeared.Oh, and he also said Britney spears has 2 angels on each side of her..
yea , pick 2 people heavily on media last 6 months or so--- and how odd ..he is promoting his new book.

OK>>NOW , IM REALLY off topic ..sorry. :) *back to my corner*!:eek:

[SuperDave]

I don't even think about psychics.

Desperado, why don't you come to your senses. You've been out riding fences for so long now! LOL

[JMO8778]

The psychic drawing looks a lot of John Ramsey if you ask me.

[Anniegirl]

I don't even think about psychics.

Desperado, why don't you come to your senses. You've been out riding fences for so long now! LOL


LOL..cute....

Got a juice box? :D Just kidding :D

Does anyone have actual link to the sketch ? I never saw it , only read about it.

[Anniegirl]

I just check my playlist from myspace and i be darn i have "Desparado" on my list...LOL Fitting , for me , huh>?:rolleyes:

I admitted being on the fence-- sucks..im getting splinters even :eek:

I would just love to know the truth..although i , sorta kinda think i do-- even if from this sane parents perspective I dont want to believe a mother could do that to their child .

OK... going to fly away for now :D:clap:

[SuperDave]

Hey, I was just trying to be funny. I didn't mean to start the 3rd World War! LOL

Try www.acandyrose.com for a sketch.

[Anniegirl]

Hey, I was just trying to be funny. I didn't mean to start the 3rd World War! LOL

Try www.acandyrose.com (http://www.acandyrose.com) for a sketch.


I like humor :D took it as such really---hope you did the juice box too..hehe.

Thanks, I'll go there..been there before --will have to make sure i dont allow myself to see the autopsy photos again though--upsetting .

[SuperDave]

I know. I'm just getting as much as I can from it.

[Jane Osa]

Now that I've had my steak with bearnaise sauce and cabernet I'll post...
Actually, I've been letting all the information settle & not think too obessesively & clear my head (not that I haven't had steak & wine...).

I had been trying to focus on what could be clearly, simply stated as facts - but, now that I'm aware of the fact vs. fictions in this case better that's not at all so easy. I'm still trying to get a list of such 'facts' - I think we'd all agree that her killer knew her - what a news break, eh? Frustrating.

I thought if the R.s had premeditated this (nothing really points to that) I thought if for instance they weren't packed although they're supposedly going off for a trip it'd be clear they were never intending on leaving...but, that was just a little thought that's gone nowhere.

One tip that isn't discussed, that I've seen, is the neighbor saying she heard a 3 to 6 second scream just after midnight - she said it was one of the most awful screams you could imagine from a child, etc. - if she is remembering correctly then we can surmise what was happening at that point to cause such a scream. (And the pineapple had been digested 2 and a half hours prior to death, right? - so, she would have had to been awake, even briefly, when they came home and ate it at that time - assuming her scream was not to soon before her death...)

I've heard people on this board state that there wasn't any stungun, some that there were - I'll go in search of the contrasting theories but, if anyone wants to share their opinions or what they know I'd appreciate it. If she were stunned it'd explain her getting to the basement where I'm sure all the crimes were committed - the garrote, possibly the weapon used in the head trauma, the paint brush she was molested with. If she were stunned and awoke during this she may have screamed at that point.

For the folks who believe the R.s did it - isn't there 'evidence' of packing peanuts, or such, from the window they believe the intruder came in & out of - not that this is earth shattering evidence...just wondering (and not that I don't hold the R.s as very likely guilty).

Superdave - do you have any posts where you put out your theory methodically against the R.s and as methodically contradict evidence that supports an intruder - ? I'd like to read it, if so.

It'd be a sorry state to live in if you came to the wasted, cynical point of not having anger at injustice anymore - so, blow off your steam Superdave, I don't mind!

I understand the doubts about the DNA better now, thanks!

[SuperDave]

One tip that isn't discussed, that I've seen, is the neighbor saying she heard a 3 to 6 second scream just after midnight - she said it was one of the most awful screams you could imagine from a child, etc. - if she is remembering correctly then we can surmise what was happening at that point to cause such a scream.

That there was a scream at all is disputed.

(And the pineapple had been digested 2 and a half hours prior to death, right? - so, she would have had to been awake, even briefly, when they came home and ate it at that time - assuming her scream was not to soon before her death...)

Something like that.

I've heard people on this board state that there wasn't any stungun, some that there were - I'll go in search of the contrasting theories but, if anyone wants to share their opinions or what they know I'd appreciate it.

Well, I know that the stungun was the brainchild of Lou Smit, based on an earlier case he had worked, so maybe his threshhold was set lower to begin with. But he decided there was one, shopped around until he found a pathologist who agreed (after said pathologist had already said he couldn't tell with any certainty, and who couldn't tell that the marks on Gerald Boggs were stun guns marks when one WAS used), ignoring one he already had contacted who said no (Dr. Robert Stratbucker- THE GUY when it comes to stunguns.) I mean, if the coroner had come up to him and said, "I think such and such was used on this girl, but the cops won't listen. Maybe you will," he MIGHT have had a leg to stand on.

If she were stunned it'd explain her getting to the basement where I'm sure all the crimes were committed - the garrote, possibly the weapon used in the head trauma, the paint brush she was molested with. If she were stunned and awoke during this she may have screamed at that point.

I own one of these things. It's completely impractical for a crime like this. It's designed to incapacitate someone for a few seconds so you can get away. It doesn't knock a person unconscious. I know, because I've had myself zapped to prove it. (OW!)

For the folks who believe the R.s did it - isn't there 'evidence' of packing peanuts, or such, from the window they believe the intruder came in & out of - not that this is earth shattering evidence...just wondering (and not that I don't hold the R.s as very likely guilty).

packing peanuts around a window that had been broken since that summer? You're right, it isn't very shattering. Especially when the accumulated dirt on the windowsill is clearly not disturbed. You could still see the marks from the last good rain. Plus the grate still had a spiderweb attached to it. Dr. Brent Opell said that since the agelendae spider hibernates in winter, it was unlikely to be respun during the night.

Superdave - do you have any posts where you put out your theory methodically against the R.s and as methodically contradict evidence that supports an intruder - ? I'd like to read it, if so.

Oh, boy. I guess not. But I'll be happy to post one in the future. Truth be told, I like to leave theory to others. I'm more of a "take it as it comes" kind of guy.

It'd be a sorry state to live in if you came to the wasted, cynical point of not having anger at injustice anymore - so, blow off your steam Superdave, I don't mind!

The day I stop being angry about injustice is the day I stop breathing.

I understand the doubts about the DNA better now, thanks!

Tip of the iceberg, Jane Osa.

[Jane Osa]

But, I want it all! A la Angela Landsbury summing it up brilliantly at the end of 'murder, she wrote'...

I may play around with the scream after midnight as a hypothetical 'fact' & see where it leads. There needs to be the still-point, so to speak - at least, for me, or it's too chaotic to grasp.

On some other post, SuperDave, you said that the intruder's DNA is only on leggings nowhere else & why would that be, something like, 'you wear gloves, then, grab her' - what if she were grabbed before gloves were donned - ?
Still one thing I haven't cleared up - why aren't the R.s DNA all over the place? P. dressed her for bed, right? If someone has answered this, sorry...as I roam the annals of this forum I'm finding some of my questions already addressed & frequently answered...

[SuperDave]

But, I want it all! A la Angela Landsbury summing it up brilliantly at the end of 'murder, she wrote'...

In good time.

On some other post, SuperDave, you said that the intruder's DNA is only on leggings nowhere else & why would that be, something like, 'you wear gloves, then, grab her' - what if she were grabbed before gloves were donned - ?

I'm hard-pressed to see the intelligence in that. Besides, most people who believe in an intruder think he camped out in the house for hours (without going to the bathroom or eating...). If he didn't have his gloves on, wouldn't he leave fingerprints all over the place? There weren't any on the note, just for example.

Still one thing I haven't cleared up - why aren't the R.s DNA all over the place? P. dressed her for bed, right? If someone has answered this, sorry...as I roam the annals of this forum I'm finding some of my questions already addressed & frequently answered...

It may be. But you'd expect to find it, right? So what's the point?

[Jane Osa]

Yes, I suppose they would have had gloves on the whole time as you suggested - wasn't thinking straight, in fact I think I'm a bit burnt out right now.

I think what I hate emotionally is that the R.s look to be guilty & I wish it weren't so- there is this DNA, but there is also EVERYTHING else. Whenever I try to imagine an intruder scenario it doesn't go far - unless it were some kid, a friend of Burkes?, and then P. & J. covered for them, (or just P.?)...it's just so ridiculous..the RN sounds childish and the whole crime scene is either a cover-up and/or a complete amateur criminal. (By the way, Seahorse, I think the idea of a set-up for the R.s would have included incriminating DNA, it wouldn't have been hard to manufacture, so, I'm very much leaning away from that scenario). Remember that Santa was going to visit - maybe Burke and a friend or friends were going to hang-out (secretly, or maybe just Burke and JonBenet together in the basement for 'santa' - Burke teasing JonBenet & not necessarily having any specific desire to harm her - Aspergers is a 'strain', for lack of a better term, of autism - tend to be highly intelligent but obessively focused and not empathetic)...and JBR was there, the garrote, etc. - one thing leads to another, she screams, etc. However, I think a child (unless convinced of no serious wrong doing, somehow, or happily suffering memory loss) would break under pressure or guilt (but, I could be wrong about that - people usually break @ 50 years later). Ach! I'm rambling...my point was that whenever I do the intruder hypothesis it all breaks down whereas there are plenty of avenues to investigate if you take R.s did it mentality....I hope to come up with a scenario of both & post it to the 'member's theories' section - oh, & I think I'm the one who created that discussiont thread there & got us 'in trouble'...oops..:crazy:

By the way, my brother is a long 4 years older than me (closer to five than four) - and I remember being 5/6 around christmas in Mojave, CA. and seeing, probably jet lights, and being all excited about 'santa' - he was 9/10, just about to turn 10 actually, so he humored me & probably teased (but, I wouldn't realize it was teasing) & my boyfriend is also four years older than his sis & got in big trouble one year for teasing & then bursting her bubble - JBR said Santa was going to come again...maybe, Burke referring to some private 'get-together' with just he & JBR (maybe other kids? probably not though) - however, that type of playfulness isn't what you'd expect from Aspergers - they're usually very practical and concrete or literal in thinking - not real imaginative.

[Jane Osa]

Let me clarify - jet lights do not equal 'santa' but, if you think the red lights are rudolph the red-nosed reindeer's guiding nose it does! I think my parents humored me but, I vaguely remember my brother being not quite so charitable...my point being Burke wanted to hang out after parents are in bed, in the basement, it's christmas - 'santa' is going to visit again, etc...he's made a garrote, or god knows what & it all dengenerates...

[SuperDave]

Yes, I suppose they would have had gloves on the whole time as you suggested - wasn't thinking straight, in fact I think I'm a bit burnt out right now.

I completely understand.

I think what I hate emotionally is that the R.s look to be guilty & I wish it weren't so-

We all do, Jane Osa.

there is this DNA, but there is also EVERYTHING else

That's about the size of it.

Whenever I try to imagine an intruder scenario it doesn't go far - unless it were some kid, a friend of Burkes?, and then P. & J. covered for them, (or just P.?)...

It's been wondered.

it's just so ridiculous..the RN sounds childish and the whole crime scene is either a cover-up and/or a complete amateur criminal. (By the way, Seahorse, I think the idea of a set-up for the R.s would have included incriminating DNA, it wouldn't have been hard to manufacture, so, I'm very much leaning away from that scenario).

Yeah, the CASKU guys, the people who do this stuff for a living, said it was amateur night.

Remember that Santa was going to visit - maybe Burke and a friend or friends were going to hang-out (secretly, or maybe just Burke and JonBenet together in the basement for 'santa' - Burke teasing JonBenet & not necessarily having any specific desire to harm her - Aspergers is a 'strain', for lack of a better term, of autism - tend to be highly intelligent but obessively focused and not empathetic)...

Whoa! Time out. Who said Burke had autism or Asperger's? I didn't say it.

and JBR was there, the garrote, etc. - one thing leads to another, she screams, etc. However, I think a child (unless convinced of no serious wrong doing, somehow, or happily suffering memory loss) would break under pressure or guilt (but, I could be wrong about that - people usually break @ 50 years later).

Children do tend to block out this stuff, but that's as far as I'll go.

Ach! I'm rambling...my point was that whenever I do the intruder hypothesis it all breaks down whereas there are plenty of avenues to investigate if you take R.s did it mentality

Too many! That's part of the problem. Make no mistake, Jane Osa. The Ramseys were not charged for one reason:

PMPT paperb, p. 671:

"Even if the evidence someday proved that a sexual assault had preceded the child's death, the prosecution would still have to prove which parent was responsible for the assault. That left the prosecution with the troubling question of which parent - if indeed either parent - had knowingly caused the child 's death. Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects remained two suspects."

.I hope to come up with a scenario of both & post it to the 'member's theories' section - oh, & I think I'm the one who created that discussiont thread there & got us 'in trouble'...oops..

Don't blame yourself. The fault is mine. I took my "never let them see you bleed" mentality and took it a touch too far.

If RiverRat, LinasK and rashomon were here, they could help you out even more, I'm sure. They might mention something I've missed.

[Jane Osa]

As for the Asperger's it's been said - on this site & elsewhere...I can look for references, but, I thought that was generally understood? (yet, another fiction? Yay!) Yes, amateur night indeed....sometimes I detest myself for having a chuckle on this forum about this case - but, you'd go crazy without a sense of humor...and mine tends to be dark anyway...

I know you've mentioned the tactics with the R.s - and that is then the sole or major reason you believe they've not been charged: having two 'equal' subjects (i.e., both possibly equally quilty) and being mired in that conundrum? You mentioned someone - Alex Hunter(off the top of my head) - who was 'humane' enough not to separate them - so, then, you don't think it's evidence, etc. but the handling of the suspects that is the reason for the R.s not being charged? Just making sure I understand your position - you've mentioned those details but, I don't recall you saying so clearly (that I've read) that that is the crux of the issue to your mind (as far as r.s being tried).

I can't put two thoughts together - I'm going to bed! Goodnight sleuths.

[SuperDave]

I know the Asperger's angle has been put forth, but since nothing conclusive ever came out about it, I'm holding out on saying that it was true. I'm pretty sure it isn't. He may have, but I've not seen any evidence of it.

Yes, amateur night indeed....sometimes I detest myself for having a chuckle on this forum about this case - but, you'd go crazy without a sense of humor...and mine tends to be dark anyway...

That's no problem with me.

I know you've mentioned the tactics with the R.s - and that is then the sole or major reason you believe they've not been charged: having two 'equal' subjects (i.e., both possibly equally quilty) and being mired in that conundrum?

Well, yes. In my opinion, and that of several of the authorities who worked this case, that wasn't the only reason, but it was the chief reason.

You mentioned someone - Alex Hunter(off the top of my head) - who was 'humane' enough not to separate them - so, then, you don't think it's evidence, etc. but the handling of the suspects that is the reason for the R.s not being charged?

Yes, Alex Hunter. He considered it humane and enlightened. I consider it weak and stupid. But then, he'd been in office 30 years with no real challenges from his political rivals or the cases he took, which mostly ended in plea bargains, so bureaucratic inertia set in like concrete with him (which included a hostility toward anyone telling him how to do his job, especially outsiders). So, no, to me it's not a question of having enough evidence, just not enough evidence against one specific parent and a prosecutor too inanimate to do what had to be done.

I'll go further than that, Jane Osa. I've been saying for several years now that this case has been so bungled, the DA's office so incompetent, that the investigation cannot be fixed. We need to completely start over. The governor (who actually worked on this case!) or the state attorney general should step in, take this case from the Boulder DA's office and entrust it to a special prosecutor, someone completely new and untarnished and objective who can make a decision based on the evidence. Now, what's funny about that position is that it's always the pro-Ramsey people who are dead-set against that. Why? If the evidence is so overwhelming that the Ramseys are innocent, what do they have to fear? That's what I want to know.

Just making sure I understand your position - you've mentioned those details but, I don't recall you saying so clearly (that I've read) that that is the crux of the issue to your mind (as far as r.s being tried).

Yes, in my opinion. That is where I stand.

Goodnight. For now.

[Seahorse]

SuperDave,
I am curious, what do you think about FW (I don't know if we are allowed to type the names here but I am sure you know who I am talking about)? The information that I have read about him has been very interesting and as far as a "behavior" sample...his was most bizarre, IMO.
Also, and still sticking with my original theory, what if at some point the R's woke up, realized there had been a murder, realized how it looked, and in fact did cover up a crime that someone else committed. So what if P did write the note etc. Again, I believe the point was to make the R's life Hell for the rest of their lives. The R's were definitely correct in assuming that they would be the prime suspects, in fact, it appears they have been the only suspects.
Another thing that gets me....If the R's did do it, I would only believe they did it to cover up an accident. Let's say that JB fell down the stairs or something happened to casue her death accidentally...there would be bruises all over her or at least some other kind of injury. This death, assuming it was the knock over the head that killed her, was deliberate, intentional and done by someone who meant to kill her.

[angelwngs]

Well, in my moments of doubt (not too many, but I do have them) the housekeeper and her husband are two people I do wonder about. But yes, as far as I know he was checked out.

Same here, SD, but there are too many 'details' which fit into the cover-up and too many facts in the crime which point away from the housekeeper and/or her family, IMO.

The most confusing question related to this case that I haven't been able to find or come up with a logical answer to is , (primarily the bolded underlined part):

"Hey, Rube"

Better known Santa and Mrs. Santa. Bill is a retired journalism professor from the University of Boulder who became a suspect early in the case after talking about his relationship with JonBenet when he played Santa at the Ramseys' Dec. 23rd Christmas party and on other occasions. Janet also came under suspicion when it was revealed that she had written a play many years before, the subject of which was a murder of a girl in a basement, and that the McReynolds had a daughter who had been molested as a child many years before on the day after Christmas, the same day JonBenet's body was found. Their sons, who had never met JonBenet or the Ramseys, were also investigated. The McReynolds have since moved out of state and have publicly voiced their dismay about being innocently caught in the web of the Ramsey case.
Bill McReynolds died of a heart attack in September, 2002 at the age of 72.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6502/primer2/sideshow_ (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6502/primer2/sideshow_)
msthd.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6502/
primer2/primer9_sideshow.html&h=241&w=300&sz=26&hl=en&start=1&tbnid
=uTwL7i7GFCaJMM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bramsey%2Bcase%2Bplayers%26gbv%3 D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

(If the link doesn't work just google ramsey case players.)

Since McReynold's background was in journalism and his wife was a playwright, PR's journalism background would have encouraged conversation between the three of them on the topic. Correct? It was reported that the McReynolds had played Mr. and Mrs. Santa for three years at the Ramsey home. She had to know about the play "Hey, Rube", and the fact that their daughter had been a 'day after Christmas' molestation victim.

Given the 'day after Christmas' molestation connection between both the daughter of PR and the daughter of the McReynolds, and the fact that it was reported that JBR said Santa was brininging her a suprise after Christmas, I just do not believe it could have been coincidence that JBR was assaulted and murdered on the day after Christmas.

If JBR was hit over the head by PR, in a rage of anger over something which had just happened, her murder was unplanned. That would make the 'day after Christmas' a coincidence. I do not believe in coincidences.

Could PR have planned JBR's murder? (That was painful to type...) I can't wrap my mind around this possibility.

Could PR have been the one who told JBR that Santa would bring her a suprise after Christmas?

Could all of us here who feel deeply that PR is guilty of JBR's murder have
missed how severely 'sick' this mother's mind really was? Could it have been planned by PR?

Personally, I'm shaking my head on this one. It is messing with my head...

Someone please lead me to a logical answer that I can accept on this one.

[JMO8778]

I know it's been said before,but I agree.The White's were the ones behaving like grieving parents,not the R's.
What specifically was odd? I think they were just thrown,rather floored...by the R's behavior of not cooperating with LE.FW became very angry at that,and who can blame him? I can't imagine how I would react in that situation.
And lastly,why stage an accident as a murder? why make it worse than it already is? b/c they knew it was no accident,as well as Jb had the vaginal injuries that had to be explained by an 'intruder',and the marks from manual strangulation that were attempted to be covered by the garotte.

[JMO8778]

there were signs to outsiders that patsy was indeed mentally off-balance;some of her friends had staged an intervention for after Christmas,b/c she was creating a 'mega-JB thing',what with the platinum blond hair,sexy outfits and moves,complete w makeup that made her look more like a 21 YO.
as well as the housekeeper noticed she was becoming increasingly agitated with Jb,to the point of rage.I think she said she'd never seen patsy so upset.later she said in retrospect,she thought Patsy had indeed killed her.
A lot of us think Patsy had signs and symptoms of bipolar disorder.that can be esp. true when others notice a change in the person's normal behavior,as did the mothers who planned the intervention,and the housekeeper.outsiders noticing something is amiss and/or the person is behaving out of character is a huge red flag.there are other things in her past that make me think she had it,but for lack of time,I can't go into that right now.

[SuperDave]

SuperDave,
I am curious, what do you think about FW (I don't know if we are allowed to type the names here but I am sure you know who I am talking about)? The information that I have read about him has been very interesting and as far as a "behavior" sample...his was most bizarre, IMO.

Oh, boy. Well, I suppose (MY OPINON) that it would seem odd that he seemed to care more than JB's real parents.

Also, and still sticking with my original theory, what if at some point the R's woke up, realized there had been a murder, realized how it looked, and in fact did cover up a crime that someone else committed. So what if P did write the note etc. Again, I believe the point was to make the R's life Hell for the rest of their lives. The R's were definitely correct in assuming that they would be the prime suspects, in fact, it appears they have been the only suspects.

You know, Alan Stock is a radio talk show host, and he might agree with you. He said that even if the Ramseys didn't do the killing, they're heavily implicated in the cover-up.

Another thing that gets me....If the R's did do it, I would only believe they did it to cover up an accident. Let's say that JB fell down the stairs or something happened to casue her death accidentally...there would be bruises all over her or at least some other kind of injury.This death, assuming it was the knock over the head that killed her, was deliberate, intentional and done by someone who meant to kill her.

if memory serves, she was bruised in a few places, but I see what you mean. Keep in mind that when we say "accident," we simply mean that it was unintentional and that "Accident" is just easier to say than "unintentional killing."

[DeeDee249]

She had minor bruising, but none that would indicate a fall down the stairs. First of all, the skull fracture is blunt force trauma, and a fall would cause different injuries, usually to the neck or spine as well as multiple bruises all over the body. Even is she had fallen over those spiral stairs in addition to any skull fracture that may have occurred, (and it would probably be in a different place on her skull) there would be damage to her spine and/or neck. The small shoulder bruise was likely from her being pressed against the floor while alive or someone leaning or pressing there. It doesn't look like a "being beaten" kind of bruise. The other bruising is in her vagina. Definitely not caused by a fall or being beaten, but by sexual assaul (even if not done with sexual intent). The other marks are classified as "abrasions" - scrapes or marks that are not bruises, or petechiae, which are actually the result of bleeding from the blood vessels and not caused by injury to the soft tissue, as is other bruising.
Whatever Mayer did or did not do, it is presumed he would have noted if any of her injuries appeared to be caused by a fall. The autopsy doesn't mention that she was "beaten" either, though media reports have always said she was found "beaten and strangled". The "beaten" part was presumably the head bash, though technically is isn't a beating. To do his job, a coroner shouldn't be told what apparently happened- he should be able to find what happened.

I also believe that her death was not intentional but not an accident in they strict sense of the word, as in getting hurt in a fall or from a ladder, or household injury. And yes, I believe the parents would cover for such an accidental death by staging a kidnapping/murder- but only for either a family member or someone they knew who had enough on them to make it in their best interests not to come forward with the truth.

[LI_Mom]

Let me clarify - jet lights do not equal 'santa' but, if you think the red lights are rudolph the red-nosed reindeer's guiding nose it does! I think my parents humored me but, I vaguely remember my brother being not quite so charitable...my point being Burke wanted to hang out after parents are in bed, in the basement, it's christmas - 'santa' is going to visit again, etc...he's made a garrote, or god knows what & it all dengenerates...

I just wanted to point out that this type of theory makes perfect sense if you're talking about a totally normal child.....

Big brothers tease little sisters. Little sisters can be bratty & antagonize older brothers.

Big brothers sometimes go a little overboard when they rough house.

Accidents happen between siblings all the time.... not out of any malice... just because things get out of hand when kids get over-excited & too wild.


Even in a family that looks perfect from the outside... these things happen with normal & healthy & happy children.

Oh and this type of wild behavior results maybe in broken property or screaming or crying.... it usually drives parents up a wall & sometimes even reasonable parents OVER-REACT when their kids are spinning out of control....

[LinasK]

I believe that the same clothes were worn for two reasons...
1. She never made it to bed that night.
2. She wanted to be able to explain her fibers away..that is why she grabbed JB's body, while reciting the "Lazarus Speech". When told about those fibers found, in her 98 interview..she actually even says....something like..."well of course they would be there, I fell on her body". Not an exact quote...you would need to look it up for that. IOW..she KNEW what she was doing when she flung herself on JB's body, and I believe thats the reason that John brought her up from the basement too....and not let the investigators come DOWN to the basement to her. He also wanted to be able to explain away any of his fibers. These Rams were smart people.

I think you are dead on right Ames, with both points, especially #2! I have been saying the same thing about Patsy and John, they purposely contaminated the evidence by their actions.

[LinasK]

SuperDave,
I am curious, what do you think about FW (I don't know if we are allowed to type the names here but I am sure you know who I am talking about)? The information that I have read about him has been very interesting and as far as a "behavior" sample...his was most bizarre, IMO.
Also, and still sticking with my original theory, what if at some point the R's woke up, realized there had been a murder, realized how it looked, and in fact did cover up a crime that someone else committed. So what if P did write the note etc. Again, I believe the point was to make the R's life Hell for the rest of their lives. The R's were definitely correct in assuming that they would be the prime suspects, in fact, it appears they have been the only suspects.
Another thing that gets me....If the R's did do it, I would only believe they did it to cover up an accident. Let's say that JB fell down the stairs or something happened to casue her death accidentally...there would be bruises all over her or at least some other kind of injury. This death, assuming it was the knock over the head that killed her, was deliberate, intentional and done by someone who meant to kill her.

Okay, since Dave asked for me, I'm going to step in with my theory again...it's not up in the members section. I believe John was molesting JB in the basement and takes the garroting game too far. The head bash- was either one of two things -one of the R's decides JB is too far gone/ they don't want to face the negative PR of calling 911, so they finish her off with a head bash and the following cover-up, or 2) Patsy walks in on John molesting JB- after the garrote again, aims for John and accidentally in her rage bashs JB's head. Either way, the end result is the same. John contaminates the evidence by bringing JB up the stairs and Patsy also does by throwing herself on the body.

[SuperDave]

I think you are dead on right Ames, with both points, especially #2! I have been saying the same thing about Patsy and John, they purposely contaminated the evidence by their actions.

Either that, or they just knew that was their best bet afterwards.

Okay, since Dave asked for me, I'm going to step in with my theory again...it's not up in the members section. I believe John was molesting JB in the basement and takes the garroting game too far. The head bash- was either one of two things -one of the R's decides JB is too far gone/ they don't want to face the negative PR of calling 911, so they finish her off with a head bash and the following cover-up, or 2) Patsy walks in on John molesting JB- after the garrote again, aims for John and accidentally in her rage bashs JB's head. Either way, the end result is the same. John contaminates the evidence by bringing JB up the stairs and Patsy also does by throwing herself on the body.

Excellent, as always. But since Jane Osa asked so nicely, here I go!

The following is the opinion of SuperDave, and does not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else.

Okay, my theory (at least for now): Let's assume, for the moment, that the story about JB being asleep when they got home is false. Burke asks for a bedtime snack. Patsy sees a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter and gives him some, telling him not to paw at it. Both children have some.

JOHN: "Come on, honey. Let's get you to bed. Be with you in a minute, son."

BURKE: "I'll wait for you there, Dad."

PATSY: "Just a quick check to see if I missed anything."

Patsy is now alone. She's doing her thing. John puts JB in bed. They speak for a minute. Maybe something else. Maybe he gives her privates a "quick check." He goes down to the basement.

Patsy's catching her breath in the living room. John and Burke come up.

JOHN: Head on up to bed, son.

BURKE: "Okay, Dad."

The parents are alone.

JOHN: "Come on up to bed."

PATSY: "No, I'm not done yet."

JOHN: "You shouldn't take so much on yourself."

PATSY (irritated at him): "I have to. I do everything around here."

JOHN: "Sorry I mentioned it."

John goes upstairs. Soon, JB is back down.

PATSY: "What do you want now, honey," with a little irritation in her voice.

JB: "I did it again."

PATSY: "Oh, God. Come on."

Up to JB's room.

PATSY: "I dont see anything."

JB: "I didn't go to bed yet."

PATSY: "Can't you do anything I ask?"

JB: "I'm sorry."

PATSY: "Get in there."

Into the bathroom. Patsy cleans her up.

PATSY: "Here, don't tell you're father."

JB: "You and Daddy tell me secrets."

PATSY: "Secrets?"

JB: "Yeah, Daddy tells me to keep secrets."

PATSY: "Like what?"

JB (suddenly sullen): "It wouldn't be a secret then."

PATSY (now more irritated): "Fine."

Patsy becomes rough.

JB: "OW! Mommy, that hurts! Daddy's nicer."

PATSY: "I didn't think your father cleaned you up."

JB: "He doesn't. He calls it our special game."

PATSY's head snaps up. Their eyes meet.

JB (whispering): "I told the secret."

PATSY (in a rage): "YOU ROTTEN LITTLE LIAR!!"

JB (almost in a panic): "I'm sorry, Mommy!"

PATSY: "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget!"

JB tries to run away, but her pants are still around her knees. She tries to pull them up, but trips. As she gets up, Patsy grabs her collar and flings her. She MEANS to toss JB onto the bed face-first and spank the daylights out of her. But she mistimes it and JB goes headfirst like a missile into the bedpost at tremendous speed. It cracks her skull.

Patsy sees JB crumpled on the floor.

PATSY: "That won't work, you little faker. You're in big trouble."

She picks JB up and lays her on the bed. But she's so limp.

PATSY: "I said, cut it out."

Nothing. JB is in shock and doesn't seem to be breathing.

PATSY (anger replaced by worry): "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, you cut that out right now. Baby? (Now panicked): BABY?! PLEASE say something! Oh, GOD, I didn't mean to! No, oh, God, no! Not my baby!"

John comes in.

JOHN: "What the h*** is going on in here?!"

Patsy turns. Her eyes, full of tears and hate. She blitzes him.

PATSY: "YOU B*****D!"

He grabs her wrists. "Are you crazy?!" He sees JB. "What did you do?!"

PATSY: "Me?! You couldn't get it from me, so you took her! And I believed YOU!"

JOHN: "You stupid, crazy b***h! I have to save her!"

PATSY: "It's too late now! She's dead!"

JOHN: "NO! That's impossible!" (Keep in mind, John's lost Beth.)

PATSY: "I'll see you rot for this!"

JOHN: "How?! You killed her."

Patsy fights until she's fought-out. She collapses to the floor, sobbing.

JOHN: "Honey..."

PATSY: "We can't leave her like this. She's so beautiful. like an angel. She deserves better."

JOHN: "I can't believe this. Burke...what will happen to him?"

PATSY: "He can't ever know about this. He can't think we killed JonBenet."

JOHN: "How do we make this right?"

PATSY: "I thought you were the big expert!"

JOHN: "Shut up! I'm trying to think."

PATSY: "What kind of person would do this?"

JOHN: "The kind we saw in the Navy. Damn, I wish I could remember who they were."

And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put him in prison where the inmates will line up to get a shot at them in horrible way...

PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"

JOHN: "Do it yourself."

Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.

JOHN: "I can't even look at her like that."

They think about bundling her up to dump, but it's too risky. In the basement.

PATSY: "Wouldn't she have been messed with down there?"

JOHN: "Don't ask me to--"

PATSY: "You already DID! That's how we got into this mess."

JOHN: "I can't touch her like this." He uses the brush to avoid touching her privates. His fibers end up on her, having scuffed off his sleeve on her clothing when he pulls his arm back. "Can you write left-handed?"

PATSY: "Yeah, but--"

JOHN: "Come on."

John dictates part of the note, she writes. At this point, she's caught up in this. Her greatest pageant, her greatest adventure. It's exhilerating.

And that's it. Thank the gods, because I have NEVER felt ANYTHING as heart-wrenching as writing that, with the exception of burying my parents! I cried and sobbed the whole way through that! PLEASE don't ANYONE ask me any more! I think I have to relax for a minute.