1154 users online (254 members and 900 guests)  



Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Why would theRamseys need to stage?

Voters
231. You may not vote on this poll
  • Fear of Prison (includes all LE, including social services)

    120 51.95%
  • Fear of Reactions of Relatives

    3 1.30%
  • Fear of Losing Status

    60 25.97%
  • Theatrical Impulse/Make the Crime Sensational (Fame)

    7 3.03%
  • Insanity/Break With Reality

    11 4.76%
  • Other

    30 12.99%

Page 1 of 59 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 879
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914

    Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

    Another poster inspired me to create this poll.

    You'll notice I didn't leave a "no" option. That's because I didn't want to leave any easy outs.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,075
    cuz there's NO way, the Ramseys were gonna let people see what they really were.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    I think it was motivated by concern for BR, as well as fears about how it would affect their lives. Not status, really, but every aspect of their lives would be affected somehow by this. And there was Patsy's illness and uncertainty about what the future held for her. But I think it was to try to put it as far away from them as they could, for the sake of keeping the family intact.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Why would the Ramsey's need to stage? Heck, I've been asking that very same question for years!

    If the R's had an answer for the head injury that matched the forensics (and I believe they would, if they knew how it happened) then their story would be consistent with the facts, and be accepted as an accident.

    No need to stage anything. No need to exacerbate their problems.

    Presuming the myth of previous abuse is true, the older injuries would first have to be officially construed as a crime, which never even happened. Presuming a prior crime is officially identified, they could simply deny any knowledge of those preexisting but newly discovered injuries. Worst case, there is a sex crime charge, a trial, and a conviction for the preexisting and relatively minor injury. Thats probably less than 3 years in prison, assuming it wasn't beat in court. What with JR's money buying power, that would be easier than beating a child murder rap.

    So, no need for staging in the first place. Thus it is to nobody's advantage to stage an otherwise explainable accident to look like a capital child murder, with kidnap for ransom thrown in just to invite the FBI. Its too self-defeating a plot to be plausible--I'm genuinely surprised it was ever considered at the professional level.

    And this is without taking into consideration the absolute absurdity of the idea that someone who lives in the same house would put pen to paper for 1500 handwritten characters, under any circumstances.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 06-17-2010 at 02:26 AM.

  5. #5
    Zoe Bogart's Avatar
    Zoe Bogart is offline Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fema Region VI
    Posts
    4,840
    I assume their need to stage would be the reason most people fear getting caught in a crime: fear of punishment (prison), plus they didn't want to lose their status, prestige, money, etc., and they didn't want to appear as monsters. I could have checked all the boxes but didn't think the poll would allow choosing more than one answer. Most of them seem to fit.
    My brain is copyright-protected.
    Please pardon any typos. I'm a lousy typist and an even worse proofreader.


    Big Brother and the Thought Police have arrived
    1984 by George Orwell (1949)

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    If RDI the only thing that's fake/staged about the crime is the RN.The rest is real.She was alive when strangled,alive when sexually assaulted.
    Fibers from the cord found in her BED+sexual assault?Doesn't it tell you anything.

    imo


    This is very interesting and it is similar to S.Singular's theory.

    docG writes: There is some very real evidence pointing toward John as sole perpetrator of this horrendous crime, but this evidence is rarely considered due to widely circulated reports that he was eliminated as a possible writer of the note. Every other aspect of the case has been thoroughly examined and thoroughly questioned in the media and on the internet, but the decision to eliminate John has a very special status: it has always been accepted as gospel. We have only to visit the website of forensic document expert Fausto Brugnatelli to wonder at the strange decision to rule John out.
    docG believes that to understand why John must be regarded as the chief suspect in this case, it is necessary, first, to realize that there is no real intruder evidence and no reason for any intruder to have done all the things that were done on the night of the crime -- certainly no reason for an intruder to write an obviously phoney ransom note; secondly, there is no evidence connecting Patsy to the crime (see above). Burke could not have written the note, much less cracked open his sister's skull. Which leaves: John Ramsey. Evidence pointing to John includes:


    The note itself, which was clearly part of a plan to stage a phoney kidnapping and dump the body while claiming to be delivering the ransom. If Patsy had not called 911 when she did, the plan could have succeeded. Patsy is the one who made that call, NOT John. Moreover, the note is directed at John and designates HIM to be the one to raise the ransom and deliver it to the kidnappers. If Patsy hadn't called 911, he could have used the note as an excuse to send her and Burke off to stay with friends while he took control of the situation, as demanded by "the kidnappers." Many people think John told Patsy to make that call, but this is contradicted by Patsy's own testimony in the first Tracey documentary, in which she says it was she who told John she was going to call the police. More about the note here.
    Evidence Used in Crime Not Linked to John. The evidence that supposedly links Patsy with the crime is actually much more consistent with John as perp. Nothing from the house that was used in the crime is directly linked to John. Most is linked to Patsy. If Patsy were guilty, she'd have avoided using her own things. Same with John. Patsy's things were used. John's were not. This fact points to JOHN, not Patsy. (This does NOT mean, by the way, that John was trying to frame Patsy, there's no evidence of that. All it means is that there was a limited number of things available in the house, so if someone wanted to avoid using his own things, he'd go out of his way to use someone else's. Burke's knife was also used, so he didn't limit himself to Patsy, just took whatever was available that couldn't be directly linked to him.)


    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/John%20Ramsey
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    I voted other ,thinking "to fool your wife"
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    If RDI the only thing that's fake/staged about the crime is the RN.The rest is real.She was alive when strangled,alive when sexually assaulted.
    Fibers from the cord found in her BED+sexual assault?Doesn't it tell you anything.

    imo


    This is very interesting and it is similar to S.Singular's theory.

    docG writes: There is some very real evidence pointing toward John as sole perpetrator of this horrendous crime, but this evidence is rarely considered due to widely circulated reports that he was eliminated as a possible writer of the note. Every other aspect of the case has been thoroughly examined and thoroughly questioned in the media and on the internet, but the decision to eliminate John has a very special status: it has always been accepted as gospel. We have only to visit the website of forensic document expert Fausto Brugnatelli to wonder at the strange decision to rule John out.
    docG believes that to understand why John must be regarded as the chief suspect in this case, it is necessary, first, to realize that there is no real intruder evidence and no reason for any intruder to have done all the things that were done on the night of the crime -- certainly no reason for an intruder to write an obviously phoney ransom note; secondly, there is no evidence connecting Patsy to the crime (see above). Burke could not have written the note, much less cracked open his sister's skull. Which leaves: John Ramsey. Evidence pointing to John includes:


    The note itself, which was clearly part of a plan to stage a phoney kidnapping and dump the body while claiming to be delivering the ransom. If Patsy had not called 911 when she did, the plan could have succeeded. Patsy is the one who made that call, NOT John. Moreover, the note is directed at John and designates HIM to be the one to raise the ransom and deliver it to the kidnappers. If Patsy hadn't called 911, he could have used the note as an excuse to send her and Burke off to stay with friends while he took control of the situation, as demanded by "the kidnappers." Many people think John told Patsy to make that call, but this is contradicted by Patsy's own testimony in the first Tracey documentary, in which she says it was she who told John she was going to call the police. More about the note here.
    Evidence Used in Crime Not Linked to John. The evidence that supposedly links Patsy with the crime is actually much more consistent with John as perp. Nothing from the house that was used in the crime is directly linked to John. Most is linked to Patsy. If Patsy were guilty, she'd have avoided using her own things. Same with John. Patsy's things were used. John's were not. This fact points to JOHN, not Patsy. (This does NOT mean, by the way, that John was trying to frame Patsy, there's no evidence of that. All it means is that there was a limited number of things available in the house, so if someone wanted to avoid using his own things, he'd go out of his way to use someone else's. Burke's knife was also used, so he didn't limit himself to Patsy, just took whatever was available that couldn't be directly linked to him.)


    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/John%20Ramsey
    If it weren't for the fact that, on finding and reading the RN, PR said to JR, "What will I do" and JR said "Call 911". This has even been used to by RDI to indicate that they BOTH were involved, because they suggest the RN specifically forbids even talking to a stray dog!!

    Just another baseless theory I think Madeline.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    I am going to be really honest now.You know what annoys me about PDI in general?And what I really don't understand re the guilty(PR) beyond reasonable doubt poll?
    IF JDI or BDI then they must be SO damn happy that most of the people got it wrong!The evidence is weak,even if RDI ,all the stuff that points to RDI doesn't tell us which one KILLED her.How can you be so sure that JR just helped her in the cover-up,especially since we have sexual assault.
    If JDI,PDI's are just playing JR's game.


    It's what started to tick me off re LE in the first place.ST telling JR well,you can't know,you weren't there.Duh.How do you know.
    So what,only because JR SEEMED the calm,cool one and PR was more exuberant does this mean she was the one capable of murder,a better candidate for a rage attack?


    If JDI I think JR should send ST flowers and a bottle of wine and thank him for all the help&protection he got.This PDI diversion was better than the RN.


    imo
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,953
    Okay,let's say RDI.
    Why was she wiped off if PR killed her accidentally?
    Because thinking that she's dead they post-mortem sexually assaulted her in order to make it look like an intruder did it and she started to bleed(because actually she was still ALIVE)? Why bother clean the blood up?Blood would have pointed even more to a brutal intruder killing.
    DOESN"T MAKE SENSE.I don't think so.


    So if PDI why was she wiped off?WHAT was wiped off and why?
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    down by Dun Ringill

    This is going to be the way I phrase my next poll.

    Do you suspect the R's?

    1.) YES

    2.) OF COURSE

    3.) YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.

    4.) DUH! OBVIOUSLY.

    5.) YOU BET YOUR SWEET BIPPY

    6.) AFFIRMATIVE

    7.) WITHOUT A DOUBT

    8.) POSITIVELY

    9.) CERTAINLY

    People who don't accept the truth about what happened are excluded from expressing their opinion on this unbiased, neutral poll, with a margin of error of 104%.

    My problem with RDI is there isn't any proof. Combine all the evidence, every bit of it, and what do we have that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter?

    Mostly speculation and several fibers of extremely dubious value are all there is.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    35
    I think they staged because they didn;t have it in them to simply get rid of her body. To simply toss it out in the woods somewhere.

    I think the whole business with the chord happened after the note was written.

    I think both parents argued about what to do with Jon Benet's body. One of them did not want to have a funeral without her body.

    At some point the decision to dump the body was replaced by the staging of the sexual attack on Jon Benet.

    JMHO.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Why would the Ramsey's need to stage? Heck, I've been asking that very same question for years!
    I know. That's why I started this thread in the first place.

    If the R's had an answer for the head injury that matched the forensics (and I believe they would, if they knew how it happened) then their story would be consistent with the facts, and be accepted as an accident.
    Could they be sure of that?

    Presuming the myth of previous abuse is true, the older injuries would first have to be officially construed as a crime, which never even happened. Presuming a prior crime is officially identified, they could simply deny any knowledge of those preexisting but newly discovered injuries.
    Yeah, good luck with that!

    Worst case, there is a sex crime charge, a trial, and a conviction for the preexisting and relatively minor injury. Thats probably less than 3 years in prison, assuming it wasn't beat in court. What with JR's money buying power, that would be easier than beating a child murder rap.
    What you say may be true. But the Rs have always come off as "all-or-nothing" people.

    So, no need for staging in the first place. Thus it is to nobody's advantage to stage an otherwise explainable accident to look like a capital child murder, with kidnap for ransom thrown in just to invite the FBI. Its too self-defeating a plot to be plausible
    Except that it isn't. It does one thing very well: it provides reasonable doubt, at least for someone. And as certain other cases prove, there's always someone who will believe you.

    --I'm genuinely surprised it was ever considered at the professional level.
    The fact that it WAS considered at the professional level should tell us all something.

    And this is without taking into consideration the absolute absurdity of the idea that someone who lives in the same house would put pen to paper for 1500 handwritten characters, under any circumstances.
    To YOU, it's absurd. To ME, it's absurd. But to someone worried about going to prison with the label of kiddie-killer who didn't have a lot of options, I can see how it would be just the thing. I never cease to be surprised at what people will do if they get desperate enough.

    Indeed, that was the point of me starting this thread without a "no" option. I'm forcing you to step into their shoes.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I am going to be really honest now.You know what annoys me about PDI in general?And what I really don't understand re the guilty(PR) beyond reasonable doubt poll?
    IF JDI or BDI then they must be SO damn happy that most of the people got it wrong!The evidence is weak,even if RDI ,all the stuff that points to RDI doesn't tell us which one KILLED her.How can you be so sure that JR just helped her in the cover-up,especially since we have sexual assault.
    If JDI,PDI's are just playing JR's game.
    Hmm! Maybe you and I should revive the "no honor among thieves" thread?

    So what,only because JR SEEMED the calm,cool one and PR was more exuberant does this mean she was the one capable of murder,a better candidate for a rage attack?
    Maybe that was the idea.

    If JDI I think JR should send ST flowers and a bottle of wine and thank him for all the help&protection he got.This PDI diversion was better than the RN.
    Kind of puts the DOI cover in a new light, doesn't it?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Okay,let's say RDI.
    Why was she wiped off if PR killed her accidentally?
    Because thinking that she's dead they post-mortem sexually assaulted her in order to make it look like an intruder did it and she started to bleed(because actually she was still ALIVE)? Why bother clean the blood up?
    Because they couldn't bear to look at it, is my view.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

Page 1 of 59 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Madonna's Stage Collapses
    By arielilane in forum Celebrity and Entertainment News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 10:09 PM
  2. Broken Window - to stage or not to stage?
    By Voice of Reason in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 06-04-2005, 04:00 PM
  3. 'Sex on stage' couple in court
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-11-2004, 11:02 PM