Why would Lou Smitt and another FBI profiler say they did not do it?

[newtv]

Lou Smitt devoted his retired life to this case and did not believe they did the crime-he believes it was an intruder? John Douglas (I think thats his name), a
profiler with the FBI, said he did not believe the ramseys fit the profile at all-and wrote about it..now these 2 were pply privy to most of the details - why would they be so supportive if the ramseys did this..
(I am asking for your thots- not an argument about their guilt or innocence)..I think this is a fair question-2 very well reputed members of society say No Way the ramseys were involved..one by investigating and one by profiling..?
And they do not think it was Burke either?? They have stated in writing and publicly that they do not see how it could be anyone but an intruder..
(I dont have a link but i am sure you know better than me what I am referring to-it was a long time ago but I know I watched a whole program on Lou Smitt and watched the profiler being interviewed many times about the case..)..

[cookie]

Both of these are fair questions. First, the profiler, Douglas, didn't see any of the actual evidence and was consulted way after the fact. He saw only what the Ramseys showed him and told him. Mr. Douglas didn't even interview Patsy Ramsey, only John. He also didn't follow his own rules and guidlines about his profiling that he, himself had established. And, as for Lou, he was brought in a few days after the case had been being investigated. I believe he was hired to sort through the evidence and catalog it into some kind of order. The thing is, he has presented some stuff called "evidence" that wasn't actually the case, such as the picture of a basement window open wide. He said that when he saw that picture, that's when he started believing in an intruder. But, at the time JonBenet was found in the basement, that window wasn't open wide like that. Then there are other things that he can't explain such as the pineapple in her digestive system. He referred to JonBenet as a pedafile's dream, but she was wasn't abused in the way that most pedafiles abuse their victims. Then there is the statement about the blue arc on JonBenet's body being caused by the electricity from the stungun. These are a few of the things that make me scratch my head and wonder why these two guys came to their conclusions.
If I am not correct about any of the above info, please feel free to make corrections of what I have stated.

[K777angel]

Keep in mind that John Douglas broke with protocol (which he himself helped establish) and after only meeting with John Ramsey and Ramesy's lawyers - having NO access whatsoever to the all important police reports, forensic evidence test results, autopsy reports - gave a premature opinion based only on that ONE-SIDED and very self-serving information.
His peers in the FBI were shocked at him and he became the butt of jokes in his professional circles. Deservedly so.

And Lou Smit, after meeting and praying with the Ramseys decided they weren't "the kind of people" that could do this. He then went on the FIND so called "evidence" that would fit an intruder theory because he so badly wanted that to be true. He IGNORED so much evidence that HE then became the butt of jokes with his professional peers. There is much for you to see regarding Lou Smit and how he is so deceptive in presenting the case because he went all over national television peddling it. It's a joke.
(For instance he conveniently leaves out the important FACT that a chair was found propped up against the door to the room in the basement with the broken window where he claims the 'intruder' escaped from! Now just HOW did this intruder - not to mention why - manage to go inside that room and at the same time prop the chair up against the door on the other side of it outside in the hall??)
Only an objective detective would then RULE OUT an intruder having gone through that window due to that chair propped up against the door.
Smit ignores it, never mentions it - because does not fit his pet theory.
There is so much more to point out - but out of time.

Suffice it to say - both Smit and Douglas were scoffed at amongst their proffessional peers for the shoddy work they did.
They didn't even claim to have an open mind about what happened to JonBenet. They, irresponsibly and without valid information and facts to back themselves up - claimed they were "innocent."

Even the Boulder Police Department has never stated that the Ramseys are "guilty."

[Shawna]

I remember reading in 1998 John Douglas asked Haddon,Morgan and Foreman if Patsy Ramsey was in a lesbian relationship. It took me a few days to locate an odd profile on my computer disk but I found it. Why would Douglas ask that question then accuse a teenager for murdering Jonbenet? His profile in "The Cases That Haunt Us" did not make any sense to me. Who was responsible for the lesbian profile? :eek:

Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer


The killer may be:
*A white female
*Age: 35-45 years
*Single or divorced
*Average or slightly above average intellectually
*A loner and acted alone in murder
*Domineering
*Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
*Sexually aggressive and willing to try anything
*Overconfident with an air of superiority
*Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short
or frequently tied up
*High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
*History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
*Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a
civil servant
*Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker
hobbies, including books,movies
*Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities
*Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder
*Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the
murder with increased use
*Stays in touch with investigation.

[Ivy]

Maybe the idea that the killer might be a lesbian came from the fact that no semen was found on the body, yet there was vaginal trauma.

imo

[Cain]

And what did Ressler and McCrary think/said?

IMO these are good profilers, Douglas is just an so-so profiler (but a good seller), who has partnered with a good writer, Mark Olshaker.

[tipper]

And what did Ressler and McCrary think/said?

IMO these are good profilers, Douglas is just an so-so profiler (but a good seller), who has partnered with a good writer, Mark Olshaker.
Ressler doesn't think the family did it. Don't know about McCrary.

[Ivy]

Ressler had this to say about the note: "Bogus." (The Denver Post, 9/9/97) What do you suppose he meant by that?

"The kidnap note, that's about as bogus as I could imagine," Ressler said. "When you make an entry into a house to effect a kidnapping, that's a very high-risk situation -- and then to spend the time writing a note like that? That tells me something is amiss here. And there's too many cute things in the note -- 'Don't try to grow a brain, John' -- all that personal stuff just smacks of a bogus kidnap scenario. I would have been extremely suspicious.''
...
And this is what should have happened, he said.
"Everybody in the house goes downtown. They (John and Patsy Ramsey) are separated. And they are being interviewed, and they are talking about all aspects of the situation.
"A, you don't conduct a group interview, and B, you don't conduct much of an interview there at the scene. You want people out of their comfort zone. You want them in your control.
"I haven't ever heard a reasonable, logical explanation'' for why police failed to do so, he said.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0608jon.htm

What does McCrary think about the case?

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."

"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

imo

[Shylock]

Why would Lou Smitt and another FBI profiler say they did not do it?

Two simple answers to your questions:

John Douglas (the former FBI profiler) was PAID by the Ramseys to develop a profile of an intruder. He did the job he was paid to do.

Lou Smit is a delusional old man who had his own agenda from the moment he was hired. Smit was only on the case 72 hours when he proclaimed the Ramseys "innocent". The case file at that time was over 20,000 pages long. After only 72 hours, Smit would not have had time to memorize his way to the Men's room, much less figure out where the evidence was pointing.

Smit also likes to play games with the evidence. For example, he knows the pineapple proves the Ramseys are lying about what happened when they got home that night, but instead of considering them suspects because of it he makes up a stupid scenerio like an intruder brought some pineapple up to her bedroom in a tupperwear bowl and fed it to her....

[tipper]

John Douglas was hired by the Ramsey attorneys/investigators to give his analysis and evaluation of the crime and his opinion as to John Ramsey's guilt.

Re Ressler:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html)

Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002

Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler said he doubts the case will ever be solved unless someone comes forward with new evidence or a "deathbed confession." "This is a situation where the police botched the initial investigation, and years later, they're still trying to sort things out," said Ressler, who helped build the psychological profile of New York's "Son of Sam" killer in the 1970s.
Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

[Ivy]

Maybe Ressler is really our very own BlueCrab.

imo

[lisafremont]

And how does Lou Smit explain away the "ransom" letter?

Just as the Jayson Williams juror who said that Jayson didn't have the look of a cold-blooded killer in his eyes, Lou Smit sees innocence in the Ramseys'.

IMO

[Britt]

John Douglas (the former FBI profiler) was PAID by the Ramseys to develop a profile of an intruder. He did the job he was paid to do.
Exactly.

Lou Smit is a delusional old man who had his own agenda from the moment he was hired.
Exactly. He was/is clearly trying to relive his moment of glory from the Heather Church case. He has been working for the Ramseys since he quit the case, and effectively from day one, as you point out, Shylock. Smit bonded with the Ramseys and allowed them to use their common religion to manipulate him. Smit simply ignores what he can't explain.

Investigators/profilers/experts hired by and working on behalf of the Ramseys are not impartial, reliable sources of information. Duh. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, or your ego as the case may be.

[Cain]

You said:

"Ressler doesn't think the family did it"

And Ressler said:

(from:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html)


Ressler on JBR:

"I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects" (...) "But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child"


I think Resler's opinion is clear enough,


------------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.

[tipper]

Based on the dates, I'd say no longer believes they were involved.

Re Ressler:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html)

Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002


http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html)

Interview with

Robert K. Ressler

March 14, 1999

[Ivy]

It's interesting that Ressler mentions Burke Ramsey and also mentions that he, Ressler, thinks JonBenet's death may have been accidental. I gather from all the articles about Ressler posted on this thread that Ressler thinks that even though the killer may not be John, Patsy, or Burke, he believes the Rs know who the killer is and are covering for this person (or persons), which means Ressler thinks the Rs were friends of the killer/s . Though my remark about Ressler being BlueCrab was TIC, maybe Ressler does believe a friend or friends of Burke's killed JonBenet.

imo

[Britt]

Based on the dates, I'd say no longer believes they were involved.
That's not what he said. He did not say he believes they weren't "involved." He did not say, for example, he believes Patsy didn't write the note or that the Ramseys didn't lie and cover up and know what happened. Ressler's comments cannot be spun to suggest he is an intruder theorist, not by a long shot.

As you posted above, he said he doubts a family member killed her. He doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet and that There may have been other people in the house that night...

Sure sounds to me like he's thinking like BlueCrab's theory or similar. Ivy, maybe you're right. :)

[Cain]

Exactly.

Ressler: "Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

Consider two phases: the crime, and the staging.


And when this second interview, in 2002, Lin Wood already was actively suing everybody.

IMO

[BrotherMoon]

newt, Smit and Douglas were right, feel better?

Now, pull the covers over your head and go back to sleep.

[Misty]

Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer
Behavioral Analysis of the JonBenet Case
The Ransom "Note"
The killer may be:
.......A white female
.......Age: 35-45 years
...... Single or divorced
.......Average or slightly above average intellectually
.......A loner and acted alone in murder
.......Domineering
.......Sexually she would most likely be aggressive and willing to try anything
.......Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
.......Overconfident with an air of superiority
.......Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short or frequently tied up
.......High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
.......History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
.......Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a Police Officer.
.......Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker hobbies, including books, movies
.......Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities investigating the case
.......Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder.
.......Has a well established history of drug abuse. Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the murder
with increased use afterward


Donald Pugh

[newtv]

The post about the profile of the killer-its interesting that he thinks its a female-i mean maybe he asked if she (patsy)had a lesbian lover because it could be a lesbian love thing gone bad and that woman killed jon benet-and it could explain why they dont want her to be found out??
(That is not homophobia-I am a gay woman myself - I am pushing the edges based on the question about patsy being a lesbian is all- and then reading this profile..)..

I find it interesting that they believe its a female as I would think the violence of it would be a man's style- the strangling etc..

[newtv]

Exactly.

Ressler: "Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

Consider two phases: the crime, and the staging.


And when this second interview, in 2002, Lin Wood already was actively suing everybody.

IMOdont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?

[newtv]

Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer
Behavioral Analysis of the JonBenet Case
The Ransom "Note"
The killer may be:
.......A white female
.......Age: 35-45 years
...... Single or divorced
.......Average or slightly above average intellectually
.......A loner and acted alone in murder
.......Domineering
.......Sexually she would most likely be aggressive and willing to try anything
.......Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
.......Overconfident with an air of superiority
.......Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short or frequently tied up
.......High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
.......History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
.......Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a Police Officer.
.......Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker hobbies, including books, movies
.......Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities investigating the case
.......Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder.
.......Has a well established history of drug abuse. Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the murder
with increased use afterward


Donald Pugh
so misty do u think this is patsy?? I really dont know so thats why I ask- cuz it doesnt specifically say a family member-but very interesting-and if u read my next post i am addressing this post in it-re - lebian lover theory.

[Blazeboy3]

The post about the profile of the killer-its interesting that he thinks its a female-i mean maybe he asked if she (patsy)had a lesbian lover because it could be a lesbian love thing gone bad and that woman killed jon benet-and it could explain why they dont want her to be found out??
(That is not homophobia-I am a gay woman myself - I am pushing the edges based on the question about patsy being a lesbian is all- and then reading this profile..)..

I find it interesting that they believe its a female as I would think the violence of it would be a man's style- the strangling etc..

IMHO "they" believe it to be both with majority toward female; IMHO; Dr.Andrew Hodges explains both (male/female) involvement in JonBenet's death FYIW. :rolleyes:

[Misty]

Donald thought a cop killed JonBenet, specifically Linda Arndt -- Munchausen Syndrome (law enforcement). (I've got a good article on munchausen by law enforcement somewhere.) The syndrome is real; motive is attention. Donald has training in handwriting analysis and came to the conclusion that a woman wrote the note; some of the phrases in the note could be interpreted as cop lingo. Linda's behavior after the crime is bizarre, but I believe that her behavior reflects her own issues.

This profile is not of Patsy.

[newtv]

misty- then no wonder there has been so much confusion about who to arrest- seems like there is suspicion cast everywhere-did Linda Arndt know them before the murder??

sorry if this is old news but I had not heard this theory before- and pugh- isnt that patsy's maiden name?? (not relevant but just curious)..thx

[newtv]

IMHO "they" believe it to be both with majority toward female; IMHO; Dr.Andrew Hodges explains both (male/female) involvement in JonBenet's death FYIW. :rolleyes:
Well that then seems to fit with both John and Patsy doesnt it?
I can sure see why they cant go to court-too many theories to cause reasonable doubt-a jury cant convict if a defense attorney has this much to work with - jmho...thx

[Cain]

"dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?"

Well, I figure that what Ressler tries to say is that the killer was somebody who was a guest in the house. Even Michael Helgoth or Gary Oliva wouldn't be "intruders" if they were in the house with the Ramsey's knowledge and permit. An intruder is somebody who has not been invited, somebody that breaks in without the owner's consent. So, I think Ressler refers to someone who was there with the family's consent. And yes, that would mean something very near to BlueCrab's theory. In that case, the Ramsey's wouldn't hace told the truth to the police.

Just figuring.

---------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.

[tipper]

dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?Actually he didn't say "not an intruder." He said "not a stranger."

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her. "
That could be someone who had worked for them or John's company, someone they'd met somewhere, someone who'd been through the house on a tour. In other words it wasn't a random act.

[newtv]

"dont ya just hate these guys who say stuff like this-i mean what do they expect us to do- figure it out- not a family member and not an intruder???
Then who?? That eliminates everyone doesnt it?? I mean you cant have it both ways unless they believe it was someone who visited them?"

Well, I figure that what Ressler tries to say is that the killer was somebody who was a guest in the house. Even Michael Helgoth or Gary Oliva wouldn't be "intruders" if they were in the house with the Ramsey's knowledge and permit. An intruder is somebody who has not been invited, somebody that breaks in without the owner's consent. So, I think Ressler refers to someone who was there with the family's consent. And yes, that would mean something very near to BlueCrab's theory. In that case, the Ramsey's wouldn't hace told the truth to the police.

Just figuring.

---------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.
:doh: - now that is likely exactly what they mean rofl- ok- so all that really means is they believe it was someone other than the ramseys but who knew the ramseys??
and does anyone know if they knew Linda Arndt prior to the murder investigation? (Since she became a possible suspect based on the profile)..and she said she thought it was John Ramsey-that she was looking into the eyes of a killer..which again makes this a puzzle-everyone involved has a different opinion-the other detective was adamant it was patsy (the guy)..so no wonder it is still unsolved..

[Ivy]

Ressler called the note "bogus." He also said John and Patsy should have been taken to the police station and interrogated...and interrogated separately. Ressler apparently believes that John and/or Patsy, if not the killer/s, covered up for the killer/s, and that either John or Patsy, or both, wrote the phony ransom note to do just that.

I doubt that Ressler believes the Ramseys would stage a coverup to protect an AG employee, or even an adult family friend. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, because Ressler mentions Burke Ramsey (which no other profiler has done, to my knowledge) and thinks JonBenet's death may have been an accident, I think Ressler may suspect that Burke and/or one or more of his friends killed JonBenet.

imo

[vicktor]

Donald thought a cop killed JonBenet, specifically Linda Arndt -- Munchausen Syndrome (law enforcement). (I've got a good article on munchausen by law enforcement somewhere.) The syndrome is real; motive is attention. Donald has training in handwriting analysis and came to the conclusion that a woman wrote the note; some of the phrases in the note could be interpreted as cop lingo. Linda's behavior after the crime is bizarre, but I believe that her behavior reflects her own issues.

This profile is not of Patsy.

Yes, that definitely looks to be the case.

[Cherokee]

sorry if this is old news but I had not heard this theory before- and pugh- isnt that patsy's maiden name?? (not relevant but just curious)..thx

Patsy's maiden name was Paugh.

[Nedthan Johns]

You described **** to a "T" LOL

My comments: Lou gave compelling documentation that a stun gun MAY have been used in the commission of this crime, however failed to get the parents to agree to exhume to prove his theory 100%. This from parents who originally stated to the press they would DO ANYTHING in their power to find the killer of their baby. Smit's stun gun theory since has pretty much been debunked. Lou also never intereviewed Patsy personally.

[solosamtheman]

Lou Smitt devoted his retired life to this case and did not believe they did the crime-he believes it was an intruder? John Douglas (I think thats his name), a
profiler with the FBI, said he did not believe the ramseys fit the profile at all-and wrote about it..now these 2 were pply privy to most of the details - why would they be so supportive if the ramseys did this..
(I am asking for your thots- not an argument about their guilt or innocence)..I think this is a fair question-2 very well reputed members of society say No Way the ramseys were involved..one by investigating and one by profiling..?
And they do not think it was Burke either?? They have stated in writing and publicly that they do not see how it could be anyone but an intruder..
(I dont have a link but i am sure you know better than me what I am referring to-it was a long time ago but I know I watched a whole program on Lou Smitt and watched the profiler being interviewed many times about the case..).. At first Fleet White supported Mr. Ramsey too and he was with JR, when JR found JonBenet and most of the day as well. Don't you find it just a bit odd that after Fleet had some time to re-hash the events of the day, all of the sudden he turned on JR and openly stated that He hoped the next time he saw JR was in a courtroom. Just some food for thought. I appreciate your comments because I am the type that always looks at a theory and assumes it to be true then I attempt poke holes in the story. And if I can't poke any holes in the story then I have to continue to assume it's true till I can. The intruder theory, and the theory that the Ramseys are innocent is beginng to look like swiss cheese.

[Maikai]

You described **** to a "T" LOL

My comments: Lou gave compelling documentation that a stun gun MAY have been used in the commission of this crime, however failed to get the parents to agree to exhume to prove his theory 100%. This from parents who originally stated to the press they would DO ANYTHING in their power to find the killer of their baby. Smit's stun gun theory since has pretty much been debunked. Lou also never intereviewed Patsy personally.

The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.

[Jayelles]

The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.

I agree that it wasn't/isn't the Ramseys call to order an exhumation. The police should have done that.

I disagree that Doberson's "high degree of medical certainty" would hold up in court. All it would take would be for someone to produce graphical evidence as myself and others have done which indicates that it is unlikely an Air taser was used and that the only way a stungun could be proved for certain would be by tissue sampling.

Stratbucker (sp?) is THE expert on stunguns and he says the marks were absolutely NOT caused by a stungun. His evidence is "discredited" only because he has connections to Taser - not because he is considered incompetent or that his claims were dubious. His evidence is based upon scientific testing and it is likely he would be a powerful witness against Doberson in any actual trial.

I have two marks on my leg which look as if a vampire has had a go at me! I've had them for years and they were caused by sheep ticks.

[Shylock]

Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.
Doberson has also said you can't be sure without a tissue sample and can't tell by photographs alone. Since he comments in whatever direction gets him the most publicity, nothing he says has any real value.

Additionally, Doberson has yet to explain how a stun gun would even fit into the crime - why anyone would use one - and how you get someone to eat pineapple after you just shocked the hell out of them.

[Barbara]

The BPD could have gone through the legal process and done the exhumation---Steve Thomas said they didn't do it because they were afraid of negative publicity. It's unreasonable to put this burden on the Ramseys--they weren't running the investigation. Doberson said he is convinced a stun gun was used with a high degree of medical certainty---and he has the experience and knowledge to back him up....not to mention the test on the pig.

You missed the point once again MaikaI.

The BPD didn't feel a stun gun was used. The Ramseys did. The Ramseys were the ones who decided to pay for the follow up medical experiments, etc. in an effort to prove a stun gun was in fact used. THEY are the ones who wanted to prove this theory, not the BPD. The BPD had no need to exhume because they didn't believe the stun gun theory. They already had their answer.

The Ramseys on the other hand wanted the stun gun theory proven. They paid for the "experts", experiments on pigs, etc. and once again, did the job half-assed. Like the polygraph, they decided to do that as well, but used their own polygrapher. Another half-assed job. When making a claim and then going about proving it, they knew ahead of time that the only way to either prove or disprove that theory was to exhume and they once again, went only as far as needed to be able to continue the lie

Like all things Ramsey, they make a statement, lie, and pay someone to swear by it!

[Ivy]

Even if it could be proven that the marks on the body were from a stun gun, it wouldn't have helped the investigation. The stun gunner could have been one of the Ramseys just as well as an intruder. Why would LE want to order the body be exhumed if the information gleaned from re-examining the marks would lead nowhere?

All this stuff about a stun gun having been used on JonBenet is Ramsey propaganda, and I don't swallow it.

imo

[Nedthan Johns]

Me neither.

Let’s review. You and your wife are suspects in the worst imaginable crime you could ever be accused of ‘THE RAPE AND MURDER OF YOUR OWN CHILD”. You are obviously dealing with a bunch of cops that don’t know what the hell they are doing. They are accusing YOU of the crime. Weeks later the DA hires one of the TOP homicide detectives in this country and guess what, he thinks YOU are innocent. In comes up with COMPELLING evidence that a stun gun MAY have been used to subdue your sweet little child, and up until this point there is little to NO evidence of an intruder. You go on NATIONAL TV with your wife to proclaim your innocence, and in addition you make a PROMISE to the nation and to your murdered child that you will do EVERYTHING WITHIN YOUR POWER, to catch this horrible intruder and bring JUSTICE to your murdered daughter. Now this wonderful detective who got down on his knees with you and prayed for your daughter and for guidance during this case, looks to you and states, “We need to exhume JonBenet’s body to PROVE my wonderful stun gun theory is true, it may help in catching this horrible intruder pedophile, and most certainly would help us ascertain what type of stun gun was used during the commission of this crime.” Now you look this detective in the face and blatantly tell him, “NO”. The ONLY person going out on a limb for you and you tell him NO. Two people who CLAIM to be Christians that know that their child’s soul is in heaven, say NO. “They don’t want to disturb her, yet they would rather her murderer continue seeking out other victims. Does this make ANY sense at all?????? What sort of parents does this make the Ramsey’s if they state they set up a foundation to help other children in JonBenet’s name, yet won’t do the ONE thing that may help every child from being another victim of this pervert by taking this monster off the streets? The Ramsey’s KNEW that exhuming the body and letting Lou Smit and his crew perform another autopsy would not only reveal a stun gun was NOT used they were afraid that there would be further evidence that would implicate them. The refusal to exhume the body only FURTHER implicates their involvement. Because NO loving parent of a murdered child would NOT exhume if it meant possibly catching a killer.

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Ned
The Ramsey’s KNEW that exhuming the body and letting Lou Smit and his crew perform another autopsy would not only reveal a stun gun was NOT used they were afraid that there would be further evidence that would implicate them. The refusal to exhume the body only FURTHER implicates their involvement. Because NO loving parent of a murdered child would NOT exhume if it meant possibly catching a killer.

You nailed it, Ned. If another autopsy had revealed that the marks weren't from a stun gun, another of the Ramseys' "proof" of an intruder would've gone POOF, just like the hair on the blanket and the Hi-Tec print did...and as you said, a second examination of the body might have revealed something that would point to the Rs' involvement. They didn't want to press their luck. Their refusal to have the body exhumed had nothing to do with wanting JonBenet to rest in peace. It had to do with their desperate need to hang on to their ammo and avoid being caught.

I think it's time for Ramsey supporters to wake up and realize that the stun gun scenario is baloney...a scam.

imo

[jubie]

Lets keep in mind this would have been a very thoughtful intruder who carried up some pineapple in a tupperware bowl for JonBenet to nibble on before zapping her with the gun!! Good Grief!

[Nedthan Johns]

It’s sad but it’s things like this that make the case laughable. To think that an intruder would have brought in FRESH pineapple of all things to “coax” his victim out of bed, then later has to use a stun gun. Why bother with the pineapple then if he had a stun gun? It’s this kind of mentality in this case that infuriates me so. You can’t on one hand claim a stun gun was used and IGNORE the pineapple evidence. She ate that pineapple, and she ate it AFTER she arrived home. The intruder didn’t just help himself to the Ramsey’s refrigerator. Bowl, spoons and all. This is just ridiculous thinking. I don’t buy Lou’s explanation that the time of pineapple digestion cannot prove for certain it was eaten after JB arrived home. This is where the White’s testimony of that evening is crucial. The fact that JB ate cracked crab that night, and most likely other things that were later NOT found in her digestive track, proves to me that the pineapple was eaten after she arrived home, even if it did take longer to digest. That pineapple is one of the most important clues we have in this case, and it seems to get ignored and brushed off by Ramsey’s supporters. The fact that the Ramsey’s DENY knowing anything about it is even more suspect, since pineapple was found in plain site on their kitchen counter with Patsy’s and Burke’s fingerprints on the bowl. Had they acknowledged the fact that there was pineapple, I may not find it suspect, but Patsy’s out right denial of it, speaks volumes to me. They never factored that into their “JonBenet was asleep when they arrived home theory”.

I would imagine that in time if not by now, Burke Ramsey is going to question his parents regarding this night. His statement that JonBenet was alive and help walked in presents that night, most certainly is still with him.

[BrotherMoon]

To Sandy the unfamiliar pineapple had the authentic taste and appearence of happiness and she focused her small eyes closely on the pale gold cubes before she scooped them up in her spoon, and she thought the sharp taste on her tongue was that of a special happiness, which was nothing to do with eating, and was different from the happiness of play that one enjoyed unawares. Both girls saved the cream to the last, then ate it in spoonfuls. TPOMJB

Too bad Patsy didn't have her stomach pumped, 12/26/96.

[vicktor]

Lets keep in mind this would have been a very thoughtful intruder who carried up some pineapple in a tupperware bowl for JonBenet to nibble on before zapping her with the gun!! Good Grief!

Its possible to assemble the pieces a lot of different ways, some of which obviously don't make much sense from any viewpoint. A better suggestion would be that JB was up seen, or unseen, and ate some pineapple around 10pm, then went up to bed. That's consistant with the autopsy, as far as digestion time.