Members' Theories
- Thread starter JBRMod2
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that's it precisely.
When you return, consider that prior sexual abuse need NOT have involved a parent. JB had siblings, one of which the housekeeper had found under a blanket in his room with JB on more than one occasion (she was screamed at by the children who told her to "get out").
There was also an older, college-age half-brother who attended the University just blocks away and visited often on weekends. Remember, chronic (ongoing) sexual abuse requires regular, secluded access to the child. Both brothers meet that requirement.
I just couldn`t stay away longer though I should have had the patience to look up more information.
First I have to say that in IDI scenarios I don`t have a reasonable explanation for the pineapple. The only innocent explanation I can come up with is that she and Burke ate it some time at night, but Burke didn`t talk about it because that was not what they were supposed to be doing. But I guess he would have told about it by now. There are explanations such that the intruders knew JB liked pineapple, brought it and perhaps it contained some drug. I`m not saying that`s not possible but I`m not going to include it in my scenario.
How about IDI and prior sexual abuse? The abuser would naturally have to be someone JB had contact with. Being in pageants made her a target for pedophiles but it also may have gotten the attention of say older boys in the neighbourhood or at school. The prior sexual abuse may not be connected to the crime in IDI scenarios, though the crime was in part sexual in nature.
I`ve been thinking about a more than one perpetrator scenario.
The 118,000 dollars have been a problem for me in IDI. I have to wonder who might have known about Johns bonus or gain access to this information. What if the perpetrators indeed were a small foreign faction/group who were in computer or telecommunications business and they hacked Johns or AGs information? They couldn`t completely keep it to themselves but put the 118,000 dollars in the RN to kind of brag about it- ha ha - we have your personal information. As for the long an kind of strange RN, I think they may have just "had a little fun" with it and John.
I believe they were planning to take JB away and molest her and perhaps even kill her, JB might have recognized one or more of them. But something went wrong- they couldn`t handle JB/she screamed/she got away. I have an idea about the stun gun. As I understand it, the marks on her body seem to fit "the spikes" of an airt taser stun gun held against her skin, but SuperDave has pointed out that they can`t be actual stun gun injuries caused by a working stun gun. But what if they had the stun gun, planned to use it and tried to use it but it did not work and that caused problems- they stroke her in the head and/or made the garrote to control her.
The crime was at least in part sexual in nature and the perpetrator/s molested her in the basement. They took off gloves and wanted to touch her clothes and body, the latter they wiped clean but did not realize that there would be touch DNA on her clothes. One of them kept guard in case someone would get up in the house.
Why didn`t they take the body? Perhaps they got starteled by something or someone inside or outside the house and thought it would be risky to take her. They may have put her in the wine cellar just to buy time so that the R`s would be waiting for their call instead of finding the body-> calling the police.
That`s about how I see IDI.
About the stun gun, this would be for SuperDave. Why do you think Dobersen thought the stun gun theory was plausible? Here`s a bit from one story:
"He (Smit) also said it appears marks on her face and back were made by a stun gun. Police have discounted the stun-gun theory, but Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Dobersen now believes Smit may be right.
"This isn't rocket science," Dobersen said. "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." He recently reviewed enlarged autopsy photographs shown to him by Smit and Newsweek magazine and says the marks are consistent with a particular kind of stun gun."http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031400.htm
First I have to say that in IDI scenarios I don`t have a reasonable explanation for the pineapple. The only innocent explanation I can come up with is that she and Burke ate it some time at night, but Burke didn`t talk about it because that was not what they were supposed to be doing. But I guess he would have told about it by now. There are explanations such that the intruders knew JB liked pineapple, brought it and perhaps it contained some drug. I`m not saying that`s not possible but I`m not going to include it in my scenario.
How about IDI and prior sexual abuse? The abuser would naturally have to be someone JB had contact with. Being in pageants made her a target for pedophiles but it also may have gotten the attention of say older boys in the neighbourhood or at school. The prior sexual abuse may not be connected to the crime in IDI scenarios, though the crime was in part sexual in nature.
I`ve been thinking about a more than one perpetrator scenario.
The 118,000 dollars have been a problem for me in IDI. I have to wonder who might have known about Johns bonus or gain access to this information. What if the perpetrators indeed were a small foreign faction/group who were in computer or telecommunications business and they hacked Johns or AGs information? They couldn`t completely keep it to themselves but put the 118,000 dollars in the RN to kind of brag about it- ha ha - we have your personal information. As for the long an kind of strange RN, I think they may have just "had a little fun" with it and John.
I believe they were planning to take JB away and molest her and perhaps even kill her, JB might have recognized one or more of them. But something went wrong- they couldn`t handle JB/she screamed/she got away. I have an idea about the stun gun. As I understand it, the marks on her body seem to fit "the spikes" of an airt taser stun gun held against her skin, but SuperDave has pointed out that they can`t be actual stun gun injuries caused by a working stun gun. But what if they had the stun gun, planned to use it and tried to use it but it did not work and that caused problems- they stroke her in the head and/or made the garrote to control her.
The crime was at least in part sexual in nature and the perpetrator/s molested her in the basement. They took off gloves and wanted to touch her clothes and body, the latter they wiped clean but did not realize that there would be touch DNA on her clothes. One of them kept guard in case someone would get up in the house.
Why didn`t they take the body? Perhaps they got starteled by something or someone inside or outside the house and thought it would be risky to take her. They may have put her in the wine cellar just to buy time so that the R`s would be waiting for their call instead of finding the body-> calling the police.
That`s about how I see IDI.
About the stun gun, this would be for SuperDave. Why do you think Dobersen thought the stun gun theory was plausible? Here`s a bit from one story:
"He (Smit) also said it appears marks on her face and back were made by a stun gun. Police have discounted the stun-gun theory, but Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Dobersen now believes Smit may be right.
"This isn't rocket science," Dobersen said. "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." He recently reviewed enlarged autopsy photographs shown to him by Smit and Newsweek magazine and says the marks are consistent with a particular kind of stun gun."http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031400.htm
I'm hard-pressed to come up with a sound reason for him to think that, Mysteeri.
Quite a while back, I had seen where Air Taser prongs were matched to the marks on JB. Not to her actual BODY, but I believe to the measurement span between the marks. The coroner used his ruler to measure the exact distance between the marks and noted it in the autopsy, and as I recall the comparison, the Air Taser did not fit exactly. There was a photo of it around that I had seen online, but I don't remember where I saw it.
Mysteeri, your point about the stun gun being just pressed against her skin, but not activated is a good point. That may have just made an abrasion, and not an electrical burn, as would be the case if she was actually stunned with it. I would hope that the coroner would have seen whether these marks were burns, as they were freshly made at the time of her death. He described them as abrasions, and so we have to assume he looked at them closely enough to determine that. I don't know what method would have had to be used to determine if they were burns, but I am thinking that unless he was told to see if they WERE burns, he may not have taken tissue samples of the marks to test for burns. Too late now.
Mysteeri, your point about the stun gun being just pressed against her skin, but not activated is a good point. That may have just made an abrasion, and not an electrical burn, as would be the case if she was actually stunned with it. I would hope that the coroner would have seen whether these marks were burns, as they were freshly made at the time of her death. He described them as abrasions, and so we have to assume he looked at them closely enough to determine that. I don't know what method would have had to be used to determine if they were burns, but I am thinking that unless he was told to see if they WERE burns, he may not have taken tissue samples of the marks to test for burns. Too late now.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
I don't really know if they are burns or if a taser was used, but these marks, especially the one on the right, are rectangular. What else could have made them?
That is one of the most vexing puzzles in this case. And so frustrating because that door is already shut. No way to test her now. To quote Dr. Lee: "rice already cooked".
claudicici
Well-Known Member
Why didn`t they take the body? Perhaps they got starteled by something or someone inside or outside the house and thought it would be risky to take her. They may have put her in the wine cellar just to buy time so that the R`s would be waiting for their call instead of finding the body-> calling the police.
I know this is not a discussion thread but if they got starteled why would they have spend time wiping JB and redressing her ?
I know this is not a discussion thread but if they got starteled why would they have spend time wiping JB and redressing her ?
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
I think it shows remorse/shame, either by the killer or the assistant.
claudicici
Well-Known Member
...but they wouldn't have had time if they got starteled...
I didn`t notice this post. Yes, abuse by a sibling is something to consider.
Those were the words I was looking for, thank you. My understanding still is, that the reason LS and Dobersen thought they might be stun gun marks is because of the span between the marks, and SD`s point has been that they can`t be actual burn marks of a stun gun.
I`ll see if I can find that info you referred to in the first paragraph.
I don`t know. I believe the events are a result of unexpected situational factors and "ex tempore" decisions. They had to wipe her down and not leave DNA/prints even if they got starteled (hmm, that`s a bad choice of words) by something and realized it was risky to take her. I`m not sure about the re-dressing, how much of that was done.
Oh, and this was not a discussion thread..
That was just my a scenario.
À few things I`d like to add. Could the other end of a stun gun have been used in the head blow?
I`ve been thinking about the hacking idea a little further. If IDI, I actually see this plausible. The hackers need not be in computer business themselves, they could be just some college kids who were perhaps familiar with the Ramseys and JB, perhaps John Andrews acquaintances. But the SBTC might refer to Small Business something. Here`s an SBTC (Small Business Technology Council):
http://www.sbtc.org/about/wwd.html
And here`s a SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research)
http://www.sbir.gov/
"We respect your bus(s)iness, but not the country that it serves"
"Small foreign faction"
"If we monitor..you will be scanned.."
"S.B.T.C - Victory"
118,000 dollars, they were able to hack AG`computer system or phone system and find out about Johns`bonus amount. They had a grudge against AG or John himself. And they were perhaps against capitalism and big companies, but not small businessess.
They may have come up with the idea of kidnapping after they had hacked the information and though about what they could do with it.
I would`ve added this to my previous post but I can`t edit it anymore.
From SBTC came to mind "Small Business Tax Cuts" - victory! I don`t know much about Johns political opinions (or American politics for that matter) or how he would`ve been involved in politics in the 90`s. I know that he is a republican and by googling it looks as though in general they are not too "small business friendly". Like:
SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK BILL SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024957.php
I wonder if there was political discussion or a decision in the 90`s concerning small businesses and their taxation, that John or AG was somehow involved in? John would`ve naturally talked about politics in his private life.
From SBTC came to mind "Small Business Tax Cuts" - victory! I don`t know much about Johns political opinions (or American politics for that matter) or how he would`ve been involved in politics in the 90`s. I know that he is a republican and by googling it looks as though in general they are not too "small business friendly". Like:
SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK BILL SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024957.php
I wonder if there was political discussion or a decision in the 90`s concerning small businesses and their taxation, that John or AG was somehow involved in? John would`ve naturally talked about politics in his private life.
My theory is that it was an intruder. There are alot of twisted and sick people in this world, but I find it hard to believe that her parents would be able to fake that someone murdered her. If they were going to act like someone murdered her then I don't think they would have wrote the ransom note. And if they were going to fake like someone kidnapped her for ransom then I don't think John Ramsey would have found JonBenet's body and shown it to the police, because then it would be obvious that she wasn't taken for ransom. I think it's pretty obvious that her parents loved her. It's horrible enough to accidentally kill your child, but then to pretend like someone else murdered her? That's unthinkable. As a parent myself, God forbid this ever happen, but if I accidentally killed my child, the first thing I would do is call the ambulance. I would not write a ransom note, and make it look like my child was murdered. My theory is that this was an intruder, and that this intruder knew this family very well. I've looked at the foor plans of the Ramsey house, and it's almost impossible for someone who has NEVER seen the inside of this house before, to just walk in there, find JonBenet's room, then find the basement, and that small room where she was murdered. Alot of people, who were very close friends to the Ramseys, and who had been in that house very frequently, said they never even knew that the room exsisted. I have a suspision about the housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and her family. She worked in that house and she knew her way around there very well. She would have easily been able to find, the paintbrushes, and pad of paper, and pens to write a ransom note. She knew where everything was, and there were probably times when she was alone in that house. Her husband, Mervin Pugh, said he didn't know the Ramseys but he had helped Linda carry christmas trees up from the room where Jonbenet was found dead. So he obviously knew where that room was. He could have easily murdered her.
Her is some evidence I have gathered that strongly points to the Pugh family-
1. On December 23, 1996, Linda Hoffman-Pugh took Patsy's paint tray down to the basement.
*A broken end of a paint brush handle was one of the instruments involved in Jonbenet's murder.
2.Linda Hoffman-Pugh had two keys that she could use to gain entrance into the Ramsey home at any time
3. On Thanksgiving 1996, Linda Hoffman-Pugh was going to decorate the Ramsey house with Christmas decorations, and put up the artificial trees. Mervin Pugh, her husband, and Arian Pugh, her daugher, were also their to help her. They also cleaned windows on that day. They couldn't find the artificial trees, in the basement, and they were looking around when they came across the wine cellar, were dead Jonbenet was found, they looked in there and found the artificial Christmas trees. Mervin and Arian helped Linda carry the Christmas trees upstairs.
4. This is not confirmed but a tip came in to Lou Smit saying that Ariana Pugh was found in child *advertiser censored* pictures online. The person that called said they were afraid Mervin Pugh was a child molester.
5. Pam Paugh, Patsy's younger sister,got a call from an anonymous woman saying Mervin Pugh was a child molester and he killed Jonbenet.
If it was an intruder that the Ramsey's did not know, he would have had to been in the Ramsey house at least once to get familar with the house. The intruder obviously had to be a pretty sick individual to kill Jonbenet and then leave a ransom note. I think it was apart of a joke to the intruder, he or she probably found it amusing.
I think the one of the reasons the Boulder police focused so heavily on the Ramsey family through the whole investigation was that it was easier that way. You have to remember, all of these investigators and police probably spent their whole lives in Boulder, and are now raising their own children in Boulder. I think it would be hard for them to wrap their minds around the fact that, there was someone in their town, where they raised their kids, and they felt safe, that was sick enough to murder an innocent 6 year old girl, on Christmas night, in her own home. I think it was easier on them to think that the family did it on accident, or Patsy got angry and she accidentally killed Jonbenet. I think it comforted them. It was easier on America, as well, to think there isn't someone who is sick enough to do something like that. I think America WANTED to think the Ramsey's did it, because it would make them feel safer and more comfortable. I believe the Boulder police probably wanted the Ramsey's to be the killer more than they actually had evidence that the Ramseys were the killer.
Her is some evidence I have gathered that strongly points to the Pugh family-
1. On December 23, 1996, Linda Hoffman-Pugh took Patsy's paint tray down to the basement.
*A broken end of a paint brush handle was one of the instruments involved in Jonbenet's murder.
2.Linda Hoffman-Pugh had two keys that she could use to gain entrance into the Ramsey home at any time
3. On Thanksgiving 1996, Linda Hoffman-Pugh was going to decorate the Ramsey house with Christmas decorations, and put up the artificial trees. Mervin Pugh, her husband, and Arian Pugh, her daugher, were also their to help her. They also cleaned windows on that day. They couldn't find the artificial trees, in the basement, and they were looking around when they came across the wine cellar, were dead Jonbenet was found, they looked in there and found the artificial Christmas trees. Mervin and Arian helped Linda carry the Christmas trees upstairs.
4. This is not confirmed but a tip came in to Lou Smit saying that Ariana Pugh was found in child *advertiser censored* pictures online. The person that called said they were afraid Mervin Pugh was a child molester.
5. Pam Paugh, Patsy's younger sister,got a call from an anonymous woman saying Mervin Pugh was a child molester and he killed Jonbenet.
If it was an intruder that the Ramsey's did not know, he would have had to been in the Ramsey house at least once to get familar with the house. The intruder obviously had to be a pretty sick individual to kill Jonbenet and then leave a ransom note. I think it was apart of a joke to the intruder, he or she probably found it amusing.
I think the one of the reasons the Boulder police focused so heavily on the Ramsey family through the whole investigation was that it was easier that way. You have to remember, all of these investigators and police probably spent their whole lives in Boulder, and are now raising their own children in Boulder. I think it would be hard for them to wrap their minds around the fact that, there was someone in their town, where they raised their kids, and they felt safe, that was sick enough to murder an innocent 6 year old girl, on Christmas night, in her own home. I think it was easier on them to think that the family did it on accident, or Patsy got angry and she accidentally killed Jonbenet. I think it comforted them. It was easier on America, as well, to think there isn't someone who is sick enough to do something like that. I think America WANTED to think the Ramsey's did it, because it would make them feel safer and more comfortable. I believe the Boulder police probably wanted the Ramsey's to be the killer more than they actually had evidence that the Ramseys were the killer.
- Status