Would you pull a cord

[madeleine]

cold blooded person
no remorse
doing extremely violent things


What makes you think the R's FIT?

 

[madeleine]

For these reasons, statistics on filicide aren't really applicable in this case, in the sense that 'if a child is found dead in the home..." Its what RDI grasps at in the absense of hard evidence.

ITA.


Q. There's no way to use other case studies?
A.(Koby) The fact of the matter is the Boulder Police Department is now the experts, the only experts, in this kind of case.

Now we have an answer as to why this case wasn't solved so far.

 

[madeleine]

Very interesting ,also by G.McCrary

The victim was both strangled and bludgeoned, with the bludgeoning occurring afterward

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/6.html

She had also suffered blunt force trauma to the head, after strangulation.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/jonbenet_profiled/4.html

 

[madeleine]

IMO BOTH McCrary and Douglas are actually saying the same thing.
It was someone who knew JB,knew the house&the family.No stranger.

 

[madeleine]

And here's Kirschner,loved by RDI's because he says head blow came first.
Says the following:

While Wecht concluded the girl was strangled during a "sex game" using the cord and accidentally killed, with the murderer taking pains to cover the crime up, another renowned child abuse expert, Dr. Robert Kirschner, believes the autopsy results reveal a planned act of violence.

"I think it shows whoever wanted to kill this child really did not like this child," said Kirschner, retired deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, Ill., and a clinical associate at in the pathology and sociology departments at the University of Chicago. "Garroting takes away the potential it was a spontaneous act in anger."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/08/14-2.html

 

[Tadpole12]

"I couldn't kill my kid (I THINK), so they couldn't either".This is not what I think.This is not my argument,,dunno about others.
And re what Walker said,I guess we are all well aware that SOME people are capable of such things but maybe the people he is talking about had a background.
I just wanted to know what makes you think that THESE two people were capable of this.What actions of theirs,what part of their behavior.Cause you are the one giving me this line "if everybody is capable of it,the R's were too".It's the same kind of argument you accuse others of using.

Hi madeleine.

TY for breaking out the Daily Camera links.
So much to consider.

The poll question was creative, not really that life and death Sophie's Choice decision, it was a indulgent destraction, although few inferences can be made to the JBR case.
I'm sure we all could perform gruesome acts for survival or even an equally gruesome staging scenario if we were out of our right state of mind.
And some of us are darker minded than others so the starting point is different.


The difference between what one is capable of, .... is one other.
Add two to an act and what can be achieved is quite different?

 

[Tadpole12]

The problem with that assertion is that this "BS" argument has an awful lot of real heavy hitters behind it. Don't kill the messenger.

Hi SD.

The problem is that there's always a dual assertion. Assert that RDI knew JBR was still alive, then either violent act can be seen as a mercy kill.

There's a 'selected' expert to back any probability.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby

"The person who did this is living in hell right now because no matter what happens, they know they did something terrible and extremely violent."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/12/28-3.html

Nah.

According to JR, the person who did this is 'an evil person beyond imagination'. According to top experts, the nature of the crime suggests zero remorse, someone who had intent to harm and kill a small child.

In my view this is true because this person further wrote about the execution beheading a small child, a concept without precedent on a global scale. Further, those who have been known to mix ideology with their crimes don't display remorse or act like they've done something terrible or are guilt ridden. Manson and Kaczynski come to mind.

Anyway, it would seem at this point that JR is actually better at characterizing crime than the BPD chief.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

IMO BOTH McCrary and Douglas are actually saying the same thing.
It was someone who knew JB,knew the house&the family.No stranger.

OK but what of the things that this person knew could've been learned simply by being there that afternoon? I mean, they would learn the layout of the house, they could listen to messages, read mail, read notes on the desk, etc., etc.

 

[madeleine]

OK but what of the things that this person knew could've been learned simply by being there that afternoon? I mean, they would learn the layout of the house, they could listen to messages, read mail, read notes on the desk, etc., etc.

IMO,LE should have followed up the bonus lead.It's not like all Boulder citizens knew about the 180.000.Grill the folks who knew and look for possible connections.

 

[madeleine]

Nah.

According to JR, the person who did this is 'an evil person beyond imagination'. According to top experts, the nature of the crime suggests zero remorse, someone who had intent to harm and kill a small child.

In my view this is true because this person further wrote about the execution beheading a small child, a concept without precedent on a global scale. Further, those who have been known to mix ideology with their crimes don't display remorse or act like they've done something terrible or are guilt ridden. Manson and Kaczynski come to mind.

Anyway, it would seem at this point that JR is actually better at characterizing crime than the BPD chief.

My point was,even the chief of police admits that it was an extremely violent person who did this.So that contradicts the accident+cover up scenario.

 

[MurriFlower]

IMO BOTH McCrary and Douglas are actually saying the same thing.
It was someone who knew JB,knew the house&the family.No stranger.

I've been looking again at the house floor plans on http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/The House

Unfortunately, some of the points where evidence was found are not listed.

But, I think this is a very interesting house, especially the basement area. I've been trying to work out why it was designed as it was, but not having houses with basements here, I'm at a bit of a loss.

The window to the basement, with the window well I can now understand. However, there were other windows in the basement that opened into the space under the house, which seems odd. For example, there is a picture of the storeroom adjacent to the laundry. It had an open window with a chair underneath, as if someone had climbed out of it. This opens into the space beneath the area where the telephone was used by PR to dial 911, so this seems to fit with someone being able to spy on the R's, the "Speaking to anybody about your situation......" in the RN. The bathroom has a small window that is directly below another small window in the foyer on the 1st floor. There seems to have been some suspicion by the BPD about this, as the tank and lid of the toilet were taken away and there is a cloth of some kind on the floor circled in the crime scene photo. There is a window in the laundry and another in the other wall of that storeroom that open to what appears to be a void in the first floor area called the 'lower hall'. I could be wrong, but I think there might be access from this area via this void to the under house area (man hole?). There is an external door into the garage. There is an external door into a storage area beneath the spiral staircase, but it's not possible to see if there is access to the house through this (or in fact what it might have been used for). So, it seems there were at least six external doors allowing access to the first floor of the house. The basement window is the only one I can see that provides direct access to the basement, but there could be others not shown on the plan. For example there may have been other access points (man holes) in the exterior of the house not marked, which with the opening windows in the basement could provide several potential points of entry and exit (as well as hiding places) from the basement and therefore the entire house.

So, what you say Madeline about the person knowing the house well is a very good point. It's the sort of house where boys would love to explore and hide. It reminds me of a movie I saw many years ago, where the former owner's son comes back and starts living in the ceiling area without the new owners knowing. He comes out at night through a 'secret' entry in the closet under the stairs, steals from them, eats their food and spies on them during the day.

 

[BBB167893]

"I couldn't kill my kid (I THINK), so they couldn't either".This is not what I think.This is not my argument,,dunno about others.

I didn't say it was your argument. I'm just saying that there were and are people who should know better who were using that as their baseline.

And re what Walker said,I guess we are all well aware that SOME people are capable of such things but maybe the people he is talking about had a background.

I guess you'd have to ask him.

I just wanted to know what makes you think that THESE two people were capable of this.What actions of theirs,what part of their behavior.Cause you are the one giving me this line "if everybody is capable of it,the R's were too".It's the same kind of argument you accuse others of using.

Perhaps it is. Like I said, I've been taking the wrong approach.

What makes me think that these two people were capable of this? Well, madeleine, that's kind of my point. I hate to seem like I'm copping out on this one, but I believe the old prosecutor's saying puts it best:

"If I can prove that someone did it, I need not prove that they were capable of doing it."

That's how I've been approaching this thing.

 

[BBB167893]

If I personally wouldn't do it that doesn't mean that the R's didn't.But WHAT makes you think that they did?I mean,you must base this argument on something,what is it.

Ah, well that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Indeed, that's been my argument all along. The argument should not be, "is someone capable of doing it?" but rather "did they do it?" And you are quite correct. I do base it on something. A lot of somethings.

Everybody is capable of this is not an answer and this poll shows it.

Correct. The question of capability gets us nowhere from any angle. That's why I was against it.

So what is it that makes you think that these two were capable of such things. There's nothing in their background

I don't know about that.

and I am sure you agree LE did everything in their power to find out the R's dirty/creepy secrets.

Actually, I DON'T agree with that. There were a lot of things LE could have done that they didn't do. Just off the top of my head, tapping their phones and bugging their house and cars. I know that's what I would have done.

 

[BBB167893]

More:

McCrary described JonBenet's killer as calculating and manipulative.

"He may have quickly constructed an alibi, but I don't ... think he'd rehearse it, because he's a very self-confident guy to create this kind of staging (with the ransom note)," McCrary said. "This is someone who is glib, who has superficial charm but ultimately is very cold blooded."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/24-2.html

Hmm. That fits with what Dr. Steven Pitt said about PR, whatever that does for you. For those not familiar, Steven Pitt is a forensic psychologist who was involved with the investigation in its halcyon days.

 

[BBB167893]

cold blooded person
no remorse
doing extremely violent things


What makes you think the R's FIT?

Well, JR fits the first two in these ways: in his appearances, he presents a totally flat affect, as though nothing excites or bothers him. As for the "extremely violent" thing, I think Koby was trying to lay a guilt trip on the killer(s) by saying "you think what you did was all antiseptic, but this is what you did."

 

[californiared]

Ugh, I haven't been to this thread in awhile, people still think the R's are innocent? I would think the average person should be able to realize they are not just by knowing the basics of the case, but come on, the ransom note? People actually read that and still think that they R's are not guilty? If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

 

[DeeDee249]

The R house had been renovated to a large extent before they bought it. The Rs did not put that huge addition on the house. If you look at it from the exterior, it was a classic, charming Tudor that seemed to have a huge, modern extension just stuck onto the back of it. The addition really didn't go with the style of the house at all. The "new" addition is where the family had their bedrooms, and where the spiral stairs were located. Tudor homes of that period (when the house was originally built) were not noted for large kitchens, so I wouldn't be surprised if the R kitchen had been extensively remodeled.
That's probably why the basement was so disjointed. Maybe there were some newer parts of the basement that were under the new addition, but for the most part, a basement is not always enlarged when a house is. But only part of the basement was fixed up (carpeted, etc) The rest was just cement- floor and cinderblock storage.

 

[madeleine]

Ugh, I haven't been to this thread in awhile, people still think the R's are innocent? I would think the average person should be able to realize they are not just by knowing the basics of the case, but come on, the ransom note? People actually read that and still think that they R's are not guilty? If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

Sorry for not being as smart as youSo it's funny trying to see both sides of the story?What makes you so superior anyway.

 

[madeleine]

You know,I never took any of this personal.But if I think different it doesn't make me stupid only because I don't agree with certain things other are so SURE of.
If some know it all,fine with me.But it doesn't make you allmighty,it only makes you sound arrogant,especially in this case where there are so many possibilities.
So if I don't agree with you that makes me pathetic and you're sad about it,hey it's even funny that some are so dumb and don't see PR is a monster and she wrote a note,isn't it?
I know that there are idiots out there who only come and throw such lines at us without even having a theory,what makes me sad is that others who claim to be unbiased are right behind thanking these kind of idiots for their posts.
yes I started wondering whether I was wrong and whether the R's might be indeed innocent,If that makes me a sad person and even a funny one then I guess you can have this place for yourself and fill it with PR DID IT.I can go somewhere else.