Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 509

Thread: Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252

    Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

    Up until this point, I have thought members of the Ramsey family may have been involved. Perhaps Burke, with Patsy and John covering it up. Perhaps Patsy. Much of the writing on the ransom note has similarities to Patsy's writing. But just as an intruder may have got the information on the $118,000 bonus from a paycheck stub, an intruder might have copied from writing of Patsy Ramsey, not so much to implicate her, but just to disguise his/her own style. Some experts say Patsy Ramsey likely wrote it, others say she did not. Many experts did say the writing and word choice indicated it was probably done by a middle aged white female. A lot of circumstantial evidence points to the Ramsey's. But most of that evidence is disputed and/or has alternative non-incriminating interpretations.

    But new DNA evidence appears to clear the Ramsey's. They now have male DNA from three seperate spots on her body or clothes, and that DNA does NOT match Burke or John Ramsey. One of the DNA spots produced 9 markers, meaning it is highly unlikely to have come from a school playmate or other accidental source. The presence of the DNA in three spots also goes against an accidential source. Though I agree an accidential source should not be entirely ruled out.

    About nine months after JonBenet's death, a dance school classmate of hers named "Amy" was the victim of an attempted abduction. Nachtsider provided this link previously dealing with "Amy" and other evidence of an intruder in the Ramsey case:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in661569.shtml

    I am aware this is a controversial case and many have strong feelings in regards to the Ramsey's as suspects or an intruder as a suspect. Other threads are already debating that issue, I don't want to get into it too much here. I am more interested in asking "Do these new suspects have enough evidence pointing to them that they should be investigated?" and "Is there other evidence that can rule these suspects out or evidence that points towards guilt?"

    Doug Oswell and myself [AK Wilks] were the sources for the information that led the FBI to recently request a DNA draw on Ted Kaczynski for comparison with possible suspect DNA in the Tylenol Murders case. We are waiting for a court order on the DNA draw and awaiting the outcome of the comparison in that case.

    Recently Doug Oswell and I took a fresh look at the Ramsey case, which absent a major lab error, now appears more likely to have been done by an intruder.

    We are looking at Brian Mitchell, aka "Brian David Mitchell", aka "Immanuel", aka the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart, as a possible suspect, along with his accomplice in child abduction and rape, Wanda Barzee.


    Comments by Doug Oswell
    Analysis by AK Wilks

    If you look even superficially at the Ramsey and Smart cases you'll see that they have a great deal in common.

    * First, the victims were from two relatively wealthy upper-middle-class families living in large houses where the children's sleeping quarters were separated by some distance from those of the parents.

    * Those dwellings were in upscale residential areas on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas, each within a very short distance of wilderness area marked by mountainous and hilly terrain. The cities in question were approximately 300 miles apart.

    * In both cases renovation work had been done on the houses shortly before the respective incidents, each involving workers strange to the family.

    In fact, Brian Mitchell had briefly worked at the Smart home doing odd jobs. The Ramseys had recently had construction and home improvement work done. In addition, they had lawn and landscape services. While it is unlikely that the name "Brian Mitchell" appears on any list of employees of these companies that did work at the Ramsey home, many of these types of companies employ temp workers, who they often pay "under the table", thus there would be no records.

    * In both cases, an audacious entry was made into the dwelling through a small aperture while the family members slept; in each case the perpetrator was familiar with the layout of the house.

    * The victims themselves shared the common attributes of blonde hair, angelic looks, and unique personal talents. Both were abducted directly from their beds.

    Both children were beautiful and shared a very similar look. Both were talented performers, JonBenet in beauty paegents and Elizabeth a harp player. Many serial killers and child molestors have a certian look or type of victim they seek. The similarity between JonBenet and Elizabeth is noteworthy.



    Above: Elizabeth Smart and JonBenet Ramsey

    Below: Elizebeth Smart Short Hair, Picture of JonBenet Ramsey and Photoshop Image of What JonBenet May Have Looked Like Older, Elizabeth Smart Long hair








    * Brian Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart's abductor, had been classified as a pedophile early in life and was known to have sexually abused young children as an adult. He is an accomplished burglar; small, wiry and thus able to insinuate himself into tight places. He is known to have attempted at least two abductions in addition to that of Elizabeth Smart, both of the audacious "in-house" sort where the dwellings were actually occupied at the time of the attempts.

    * Before attempting to abduct Elizabeth Smart's cousin [Olivia Wright] he told Wanda Barzee that he planned the abduction to occur on a holiday because during a holiday the response to the abduction would be slow.

    JonBenet Ramsey was killed on a holiday, Christmas night. The July 24th attempted abduction of Elizabeth Smart's cousin, Olivia Wright, happened on Pioneer's Day, and official state holiday in Utah, which recognizes the arrival of the Mormon groups in the area. Most govenrment offices and many businesses are closed. Elizabeth Smart was abducted on June 4, not a holiday per se, but a time of celebration with many school graduations, proms and school events. In fact Elizabeth and her parents were at such an event on the night of June 4, meaning both that they were all out of the house and that Elizabeth was visible at the event.

    * Early in 1995, Mitchell and Barzee moved to Idaho, where they lived in a trailer on land belonging to Tom and Betty McKnight. At some point later in the year, after staying on the McKnights' property for about six months, Mitchell decided to sell their possessions and go on a hitchhiking tour with Barzee. Barzee evidently kept a journal about this tour and was questioned about it during testimony given during court proceedings. Prosecutors attempted to elicit details of their itinerary during this tour, but her answers were vague and general, providing information no more exact than that they had ended up in the eastern U.S. before traveling to Florida and then to Los Angeles and Hawaii before returning to Salt Lake City in mid-1997.

    * Yet, according to Betty McKnight, upon leaving Idaho, "Brian and Wanda eventually sold their truck and other possessions and left Idaho with very few belongings as they went hitchhiking to Colorado."

    See http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/k...188,full.story

    Article on Betty McKnight testimony: "They said, 'We're just going to go on our own,' and they walked away," she said. "All they had was whatever was in their backpack. He picked apples off the tree that we had and put them in his pockets and jacket and that was going to be their food for a while."

    McKnight said she wondered what would happen to them.

    "I said, 'Where are you going?' They said, 'Colorado,' " she testified.


    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY AK WILKS

    One objection would be that Elizabeth Smart was 14 years old, and JonBenet Ramsey only 6 years old. Despite the similarity in their looks, a reasonable objection might be raised that JonBenet was likely killed by a pedohile, one who is attracted to pre-pubuesent infants and toddlers, while Mitchell would seem to be attacted to young teenage girls who are in or about to start puberty.

    But Mitchell's ex-wife stated that he had molested their daughter between the ages of 18 months and 5 years old, and family members stated Mitchell had earlier exposed himself to a girl who was 3 to 4 years old, thus indicating that he did have a sexual interest in children the age of JonBenet and younger. Numerous psychiatrists testified that Mitchell was in fact a pedophile.

    Also, in September 1997, a girl named "Amy" who had been in JonBenet's dance class was the victim of a home invasion and attempted abduction. Many investigators regarded this as perhaps being done by the same man who had killed JonBenet. "Amy" was 14 years old, the exact same age as Elizabeth Smart at the time of her abduction.

    Eliabeth Smart testified that Mitchell told her if she screamed or made noise he would "duct tape my mouth shut."

    JonBenet was found with duct tape over her mouth. This duct tape had animal hairs, perhaps from a beaver, indicating it may have been from someone who was living outdoors in nature, as Brian Mitchell was.

    Elizabeth's sister Mary Katherine stated that during the abduction she thought she head Elizabeth ask "why" she was being taken, and that the abductor said "Ransom".

    Of course in the JonBenet case a ransom note was left.

    So in both cases the prospect of a kidnap and return for ransom is introduced by the attacker, with no real intent of getting a ransom, but instead to either calm the fears of the victim and/or delay notification of authorities.

    In 1995 Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee leave Idaho and state they are going to "Colorado". With no real documentation as to their exact whereabouts, it seems very possible if not likely that they are in Colorado during the winter of 1996, the time of the JonBenet murder. It also appears that right around the September 1997 time of the failed abduction of JonBenet's dance school classmate, the 14 year old "Amy", Mitchell and Barzee stop their two years of wanderings and return to Utah.

    Is has previously been speculated that the signing of "SBTC" on the JonBenet ransom note may stand for "Saved By The Cross", a Christian expression that may well have appealed to the extremist Mormon/Christian/Esoteric fundamentalist views of Mitchell and Barzee.

    The many different handwriting experts who have examined the ransom note often have differing views on aspects of it, but the most consistent opinion in the majority of the expert handwriting analyses I have seen is that the ransom note, judging by both handwriting styles and phrasology, was likely written by a middle aged white female. Wanda Barzee was a middle aged white female. The number of male child sex murderers who have an active female accomplice is extremely small. If the handwriting and word analysis experts are right, it appears that the JonBenet killer likely had such an active female accomplice, which matches Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee.

    And as noted by Doug Oswell, Barzee gave some very odd testimony concerning her handwriting.

    See http://breaking.sltrib.com/mitchell/...transcript.php

    Nov 18, 2010 Testimony of Wanda Barzee


    Steele: So you sold everything and then did you leave?

    Barzee: I think it was Aug. 8 that we were on the property of Fred and Janice Benson and I got a priesthood blessing and I felt that we were given specific instruction on how we were to travel, hitchhiking across the nation to see the sights and early history of the (LDS) church. We were first to stop and Adam-ondi-Ahman (in Missouri) and go from there.

    Steele: Is that what you did? Did you write a book about it?

    Barzee: I kept a journal.

    Steele: What did you call that journal?

    Barzee: I can’t remember.

    [Steele calls for exhibit. Shows it to Barzee.]

    Barzee: I think this is the journal I wrote when we went through the nation.

    Steele: If you would look at ... first of all ... is it typed, handwritten?

    Barzee: It’s in my handwriting.

    Steele: And your handwriting is special is it not?

    Barzee: It was then. I was always right-handed but when we traveled through the nation we were up in the Santa Cruz mountains of Palo Alto, California. We stayed there for five months while we pulled a handcart and I felt impressed to practice writing with my left hand. So this was written with my left hand.


    Steele: How long did it take to teach yourself to write left-handed?

    Barzee: It took me a while. While Brian said he was ministering, I would be at libraries and I would practice writing recipes and things down.

    Steele: If I were to call that calligraphy instead of mere handwriting would that be fair?

    (answer not heard)

    ----- ----- ----- -----

    This testimony is very strange. It has no real relevance to the Smart case - it makes no difference with which hand she wrote the journal. But if we consider Mitchell a suspect for the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Wanda Barzee as a suspect as an accomplice and possible writer of the ransom note, it then becomes extremely relevant. It might appear as if Barzee wrote the journal after the fact, and after the Ramsey case, as a way to distinguish her writing in the journal from the ransom note writing. There is no logical reason an adult person would suddenly change with hand they write with. It makes no sense. Yet if Barzee wrote the ransom note, she would have a very strong incentive to create a fake journal which has entries that put them on a tour of Mormon historical sites placing them elsewhere than Colorado (when in fact they told Betty McKnight that they were they were going to Colorado) and which has handwriting that is very different from her own natural writing.

    There are multiple unconfirmed reports that the DNA found on JonBenet is from a Caucasian. There was also a pubic hair recovered of undescribed color, and a photo of a dark hair on JonBenet's sleeve. Brian Mitchell is Caucasian and has dark hair.

    Judging by the suitcase with some of JonBenet's things in it found by the window, and the ransom note probably designed to cause delay in notifying authorities, the intent may have been to kidnap JonBenet, and her death partially accidential as a result of the deviant sexual game involving the cord around her neck. Elizabeth Smart testified that at first she was also bound by a cord, a cord that would be tied to a tree.

    CONCLUSION

    Thus there are numerous reasons to consider Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee as serious suspects in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Of course, Mitchell was convicted on federal kidnapping charges, and sentenced in May 2011. In theory, there should be a DNA draw done on him, with his DNA placed into CODIS. Newspaper reports indicate that some of the DNA found on JonBenet's body and underwear had 9 markers, enough to be entered into CODIS. Thus, in theory, at some point CODIS would indicate a "hit" if there is a match between the Mitchell DNA and the Ramsey suspect DNA.

    Theory is one thing, reality is another. Red tape and bureacracy might mean that the Mitchell DNA draw and entry into CODIS could take place in a few months, but it could also be a few years. There are 300,000 DNA profiles waiting for inclusion into CODIS. By routine procedure, if and when the Mitchell DNA draw is done, it would go to the back of this line for entry into CODIS. Thus it could be several years before it is actually entered. And if Mitchell refuses to cooperate, there could be more delays of months if not years in getting a court order to get the DNA.

    Ted Kaczynski was convicted on federal charges in 1998, yet the FBI is now seeking a court order to get a DNA draw on him, because Ted never had a DNA draw done from his body and his DNA has never been entered into CODIS.

    If he has not already been cleared and the authorities think the evidence pointing to Mitchell as a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey cases merits investigative follow up, then they MUST request Mitchell's DNA if it is already on record with the FBI and/or Salt Lake City PD, request the federal prison to expedite procedures for the Mitchell DNA draw and inclusion in CODIS or directly request a court to order a DNA draw on Mitchell.



    Post from DOUG OSWELL:

    AK--Good analysis. There's one thing that throws cold water on it, though. I happened to find a copy of the handwritten journal that Barzee kept after leaving Idaho, and the entries for Christmas of 1996 show them in Portland, Oregon and preparing for a trip to Alaska, where they supposedly stayed for several weeks. See http://unazod.com/odd/birth_zion.pdf . For my part, I have no trouble believing that Mitchell could have ginned up this journal for no other reason than to provide himself with an alibi. But of course, not everyone is going to see it that way. (The journal isn't written in diary fashion; the entries appear to have been made after the fact, and the ones covering the time in question are quite vague, particularly as to events.)

    I'm not going to get all worked up about this, but I'll definitely stay alert.

    It's hard to do writing comparisons between the Ramsey ransom note and the calligraphic-style handwriting used by Wanda Barzee in her "Birth of Zion" document. Here are some things, however, that really stand out [as common on both documents]: (1) wordspacing is even throughout; (2) there is double-spacing after a period; (3) the abbreviation "a.m." contains no periods; (4) paragraphs are set off with large indents; and perhaps most interesting of all
    (5) line spacing is even but tight, with the descenders of one line allowed to run directly into ascenders of the next line.

    One particularly noteworthy passage from the Barzee document:

    "A significant vision took place 12 January 1999 that I entitled, "Vision of Celebration/Birthday Party - Wedding Feast." The vision was a little girl going to her bedroom to hide behind the headboard of her bed that was covered with stuffed animals so she wouldn't have to participate in the celebration that was about to take place."

    AK Wilks: It appears that the entire Barzee Mitchell journal appears to have been written after the fact, and may be a huge attempt at an alibi. For the rough time period of winter 1996, there is nothing I know of to prove that they actually were in Portland/Seattle and headed to Alaska.

    In fact given their finances, it appears very unlikely they went to Alaska, or that they could survive as homeless people there. It does give them an excuse why nobody could place them in Utah. So rather than rely on their vague after the fact journal which may be false, I would place more faith in the statement of a thrid party, the McKnights, who testified that in 1995 Mitchell and Barzee said they were going to COLORADO.

    In the journal they state that a homeless man gave them $300 for a ticket to Alaska! They state he had this money from disability checks and wanted to help them. This story sounds very fanciful to me. Homeless men do not typically have $300 handy and do not often give it away to strangers.

    It would be interesting to see if any hard evidence places them in Alaska, and if so, was it before or after Christmas 1996.

    This I think is the passage mentioned by Doug. Reading this, you can picture JonBenet hiding behind her bed, a bed that I do think had stuffed animals.

    I also post the ransom note here. I can't really see any major similarities in the writing, but the Journal is done in such an odd calligraphy method it is really hard to make any judgements. Doug makes some interesting observations about certain common formatting and style elements.






    When you see pictures of the Ramsey house from the front, it looks small. I used to think "How could they not hear the scream that a nieghbor heard?"

    But when you see the rear of the Ramsey home, you realize it was huge, a mansion. It is very probable that the Ramseys sleeping on the third floor would not hear anything from the basement, or even JonBenet's room on the second floor.

    And the Ramsey home does look like the Smart home - both are exceptionally large homes. Very similar.





    Left: Home of Elizabeth Smart Right: Rear of JonBenet Ramsey Home Bottom: Floor Plan For Basement of Ramsey Home

    Two excerpts from the Barzee Mitchell journal. One mentions, in what purports to be around 2001, "failed attempts" to get the first wife, and that they shall take girls "10 to 14" in age. If you go back 4 years, that would indicate a 6 year old to be taken in 1996/1997. But the "failed attempts" may just refer to their efforts to convince adult young women to join them in plural marriage.

    The second excerpt refers to the plan to kidnap Smart, wherein Wanda Barzee will offer words to soothe her, and then "bath" her body. The killer(s) of JonBent packed a suitcase with JonBenet's bedding and her Dr. Seuss book. There is evidence an intruder may have given JonBenet a bit of pinaapple to eat. An effort to "soothe" a little girl and make her feel comfortable enough to leave peacefully? And her vaginal area and other parts of her body were "wiped". An effort to "bath" the girl?

    Some of this is speculation on my part, I admit that, my point is to raise the question "Have Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee already been cleared in the JonBenet Ramsey case? If not, is there enough evidence to suggest that they should at least be looked at?"




  2. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,638
    Just speechless here...

    "Suspects" implies there is a NAME associated with the DNA. There is NOT. There are no new suspects.
    This info is NOT new. It's been around for years. Those of us that follow regularly have read this all before.
    Patsy owned a fur coat, as well as beaver boots.
    The paintbrush (belonging to Patsy) came from a paint tote in the basement, just feet from the body. Patsy's fibers from her outfit worn the DAY OF THE CRIME were found in that paint tote, as well as entwined into the garrote knot and on the duct tape allegedly from JB's mouth. There were several artists' brushes in that tote, along with the "brush" end used to make the garrote, and many of these are made from animal fur. The presence of animal hairs in JBs hands in NO WAY prove she was killed by an "outdoorsman".

    The Barzee's were not among the DNA's donors, who have never been identified. The DNA could easily have come from an unreated source, as it was SKIN CELLS and not semen, blood, or other body fluids. Skin cells can easily transfer just by touching something like a door knob, shaking hands etc. ALL the Rs attended a Christmas party that day. The DNA does NOT prove there was an an intruder nor can it be proven to belong to the killer. Until that DNA is identified as belonging to a specific person, it cannot be considered proof the parents were not involved in this crime.

    Anyone else want to add something?
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,227
    Wow, is all I have to say. I'd think that the Barzee's would have only wanted a Mormon girl.

    During the testimony in Casey's trial a touch dna expert was testifying. He mentioned the skin cell dna left being more likely the more pressure applied to an object and the rougher or sticky an object is the more likely skin cells will be left behind. Whoever touched JonBenets underwear and longjohn waistbands was applying force and perhaps sweating, and NOT someone who simply touched the longjohns or panties at a retail store? I believe it, but don't believe it was the barzee woman and mitchell what's his name. I still think it was some other man and woman who had access to JonBenet.

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to txsvicki For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki View Post
    Whoever touched JonBenets underwear and longjohn waistbands was applying force and perhaps sweating, and NOT someone who simply touched the longjohns or panties at a retail store?
    The factory worker who sewed those panties defines your description.

  7. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to twinkiesmom For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Just speechless here...

    "Suspects" implies there is a NAME associated with the DNA. There is NOT. There are no new suspects.
    This info is NOT new. It's been around for years. Those of us that follow regularly have read this all before.
    Patsy owned a fur coat, as well as beaver boots.
    The paintbrush (belonging to Patsy) came from a paint tote in the basement, just feet from the body. Patsy's fibers from her outfit worn the DAY OF THE CRIME were found in that paint tote, as well as entwined into the garrote knot and on the duct tape allegedly from JB's mouth. There were several artists' brushes in that tote, along with the "brush" end used to make the garrote, and many of these are made from animal fur. The presence of animal hairs in JBs hands in NO WAY prove she was killed by an "outdoorsman".

    The Barzee's were not among the DNA's donors, who have never been identified. The DNA could easily have come from an unreated source, as it was SKIN CELLS and not semen, blood, or other body fluids. Skin cells can easily transfer just by touching something like a door knob, shaking hands etc. ALL the Rs attended a Christmas party that day. The DNA does NOT prove there was an an intruder nor can it be proven to belong to the killer. Until that DNA is identified as belonging to a specific person, it cannot be considered proof the parents were not involved in this crime.

    Anyone else want to add something?
    I would. I challenge the assertion that some handwriting experts said Patsy didn't write the note. NONE of the experts ever said that, not even the ones John hired. Thank you.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  9. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    SuperDave = "I would. I challenge the assertion that some handwriting experts said Patsy didn't write the note. NONE of the experts ever said that, not even the ones John hired. Thank you."

    http://myhandwriting.com/celebs/ransom1.html#bartsays

    "When we, as document examiners, compare this writing with the known writing of the mother, we come up empty. There doesn't seem to be a match... which explains why, after taking five samples of writing, the experts in Colorado also didn't get a match.

    We don't have enough handwriting of the father, John Ramsey, to rule him out as the author of the note. But, it strikes me as peculiar that the ransom note is so long and doesn't appear to be in a "fake" handwriting, which one would suspect of someone doing if they were trying to "cover up" a crime or put the police on a wild goose chase. Although the note starts out as nervous and shaky, it levels out throughout and appears to have similar characteristics until the end. "

    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...he-Ransom-Note

    "1.Dr. Fausto Brugnatelli claims to be a certified expert in handwriting analysis, document examination and handwriting evaluation. His analysis concludes that the note likely was written by John Ramsey.

    2.Bart Bagget claims to be an internationally reknowned handwriting expert and founder of Handwriting University.com. His analysis is that John Ramsey is the likely RN writer, but concedes there is relatively little known JR handwriting available for comparison."

    "Others Who Could Not Be Eliminated
    Overview

    •Carnes Opinion. "Other experts believe the Ransom Note may have been authored by other people. In addition to Mrs. Ramsey, there were other individuals "under suspicion" who had their handwriting analyzed and who were not eliminated as the possible author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.)" (Carnes 2003:30).


    •Hunter Deposition. Alex Hunter videotaped a deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case on November 27, 2001; according to Internet poster Jameson, parts of this deposition are under seal. However, the deposition was referenced in the videotaped deposition of Gideon Epstein May 17, 2002 which has been made public. (In this section, which begins on p. 165, line 22, the questioner is James Rawls) Q. And from Alex Hunter's perspective, you also understood that there were other individuals under suspicion who were not eliminated; correct? A. That's what I understand, yes. Q. Who were not eliminated as the author of the ransom note. A. I understand that, right."

    "

    Bill McReynolds

    •According to Internet poster Athena
    "In his own book, Thomas states that McReynolds handwriting was similar but he did not believe he had anything to do with the murder because of his disability." (This appears to be a paraphrased reference; no specific page number provided).


    Jeff Merrick

    •According to Internet poster Athena, "According to PMPT p166 - Merriman's [sic] handwriting was so close they believed he wrote the note but did not kill JBR" (This appears to be a paraphrased reference to paperback version of Schiller).


    Glenn Meyers

    •According to Internet poster Athena, in PMPT "p182 - Glenn Meyers handwriting was was similiar;" (This appears to be a paraphrased reference to paperback version of Schiller).


    Chris Wolf

    •LLoyd Cunningham Analysis. "For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff Chris Wolf as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 279; PSMF P 279.)" (Carnes 2003:30).
    •Wolf's Girlfriend. "Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend has also testified that she was "struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled plaintiff's own handwriting" and believes that he is the note's author. (J. Brungardt Aff. P 43.)" (Carnes 2003:30).
    •Editing Mark Used in RN. "Further, to the extent that the use of a single editing mark might suggest to plaintiff's experts that Mrs. Ramsey was the author, given her bachelor's degree in journalism, one should also note that plaintiff, himself, has a Masters' degree in journalism. (Id. P 13.)" (Carnes 2003:30)."

  11. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by AKWILKS View Post
    SuperDave = "I would. I challenge the assertion that some handwriting experts said Patsy didn't write the note. NONE of the experts ever said that, not even the ones John hired. Thank you."

    http://myhandwriting.com/celebs/ransom1.html#bartsays

    "When we, as document examiners, compare this writing with the known writing of the mother, we come up empty. There doesn't seem to be a match... which explains why, after taking five samples of writing, the experts in Colorado also didn't get a match.

    We don't have enough handwriting of the father, John Ramsey, to rule him out as the author of the note. But, it strikes me as peculiar that the ransom note is so long and doesn't appear to be in a "fake" handwriting, which one would suspect of someone doing if they were trying to "cover up" a crime or put the police on a wild goose chase. Although the note starts out as nervous and shaky, it levels out throughout and appears to have similar characteristics until the end. "

    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...he-Ransom-Note

    "1.Dr. Fausto Brugnatelli claims to be a certified expert in handwriting analysis, document examination and handwriting evaluation. His analysis concludes that the note likely was written by John Ramsey.

    2.Bart Bagget claims to be an internationally reknowned handwriting expert and founder of Handwriting University.com. His analysis is that John Ramsey is the likely RN writer, but concedes there is relatively little known JR handwriting available for comparison."

    "Others Who Could Not Be Eliminated
    Overview

    •Carnes Opinion. "Other experts believe the Ransom Note may have been authored by other people. In addition to Mrs. Ramsey, there were other individuals "under suspicion" who had their handwriting analyzed and who were not eliminated as the possible author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.)" (Carnes 2003:30).


    •Hunter Deposition. Alex Hunter videotaped a deposition in the Wolf v. Ramsey case on November 27, 2001; according to Internet poster Jameson, parts of this deposition are under seal. However, the deposition was referenced in the videotaped deposition of Gideon Epstein May 17, 2002 which has been made public. (In this section, which begins on p. 165, line 22, the questioner is James Rawls) Q. And from Alex Hunter's perspective, you also understood that there were other individuals under suspicion who were not eliminated; correct? A. That's what I understand, yes. Q. Who were not eliminated as the author of the ransom note. A. I understand that, right."

    "

    Bill McReynolds

    •According to Internet poster Athena
    "In his own book, Thomas states that McReynolds handwriting was similar but he did not believe he had anything to do with the murder because of his disability." (This appears to be a paraphrased reference; no specific page number provided).


    Jeff Merrick

    •According to Internet poster Athena, "According to PMPT p166 - Merriman's [sic] handwriting was so close they believed he wrote the note but did not kill JBR" (This appears to be a paraphrased reference to paperback version of Schiller).


    Glenn Meyers

    •According to Internet poster Athena, in PMPT "p182 - Glenn Meyers handwriting was was similiar;" (This appears to be a paraphrased reference to paperback version of Schiller).


    Chris Wolf

    •LLoyd Cunningham Analysis. "For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff Chris Wolf as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 279; PSMF P 279.)" (Carnes 2003:30).
    •Wolf's Girlfriend. "Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend has also testified that she was "struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled plaintiff's own handwriting" and believes that he is the note's author. (J. Brungardt Aff. P 43.)" (Carnes 2003:30).
    •Editing Mark Used in RN. "Further, to the extent that the use of a single editing mark might suggest to plaintiff's experts that Mrs. Ramsey was the author, given her bachelor's degree in journalism, one should also note that plaintiff, himself, has a Masters' degree in journalism. (Id. P 13.)" (Carnes 2003:30)."
    Take some friendly advice from an old hand, AKWILKS: be careful of your sources.
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  13. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  14. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    DeeDee states there is nothing new in what I wrote. In doing several internet searchers and reviewing websites on the case and journalism, as far as I can tell, Doug Oswell and myself are the first person to ask if Brian David Mitchell should be a suspect in the Ramsey case. What is "new" here, and what I have never before seen discussed in the Ramsey case is the following:

    * Brian David Mitchell is a pedophile, rapist, child molestor and child abductor, who abducted children from their bed.

    * He selected as targets beautiful and talented children, blonde hair, angelic looks.

    * He came equipped with rope cords and duct tape to cover the mouth of the child if she made noise.

    * From 1995 to 1997 his last known location was "Colorado".

    And all the other items and information I listed above, including that he had a female accomplice.

  15. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  16. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    SuperDave - you said "None" of the experts had said Patsy did not write the note. That is simply not true. We can debate the qualifications of each "expert", but the fact is numerous experts, with reputations ranging from fair to good to excellent to poor to disputed, have either said they don't think Patsy wrote the note and/or they point to someone else as a possible or likely author.

    This is all old and has been discussed endlessly. I personally think much of Patsy's writing DOES look like the ransom note, but I wonder of she wrote it or the attacker (or his accomplice) copied some of her writing.

    I agree a lot of evidence points to the Ramseys. Yet we also have intruder evidence, incuding male DNA mixed with blood and two other spots of the same DNA, including one that yielded NINE MARKERS, which would only likely come from an abrasive pulling leaving skin cells, not a mere touching.

    What is new in what I posted is information about a known and convicted home invasion child abductor and pedophile, in Colorado in the time period, who used rope cord and duct tape in his abductions, in which he entered large homes and took the child from her bed, while making a false ransom claim.

    BTW we agree on at least one thing, I think - Sam Peckinpah was a great director and "The Wild Bunch" one of the best westerns ever made!
    Last edited by AKWILKS; 07-02-2011 at 01:45 PM.

  17. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  18. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The great white north
    Posts
    2,271
    AKWILKS, Your post floored me. At first I thought no way but as I read on, I thought that you could be on to something. As for the cold water on your theory that their journal puts them somewhere else, well I do not believe their journal as gospel.

    I thought that CODIS would have their DNA already. I wonder how many children Mitchell and Barzee have kidnapped that we don't know of?

    How can we speed up the process to get Brian Mitchell's DNA entered into CODIS so that it could be compared to the DNA in Jonbenet's case? If Utah has his DNA, could the FBI get it to compare?

  19. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Patience For This Useful Post:


  20. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,297
    I really don't think Elizabeth and JonBenet were similar victims at all. Elizabeth seemed to be a very submissive girl, and that's why Brian wanted her as his "wife" because he knew she would do what he said and wouldn't try to escape. From what I have read about her, JonBenet was more outspoken. She kicked Patsy once, and even messed up the leaves the gardener had raked. I really don't think Brian would decide to kidnap JonBenet like he kidnapped Elizabeth because JonBenet would probably put up a big fight with that whole "wife" thing. Elizabeth may have been older than JonBenet, but their upbringings and demeanors were extremely different, and I don't think someone like Brian who was looking for a "wife" would be "attracted" to both of them.

  21. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  22. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    Patience thanks! I appreciate it. I have just now started the process on trying to spur the Dna comparison. Eileen Mitchell tried to abduct the daughter of a mormon official just based on seeing her picture. So simply seeing a picture of or performance by Jonbenet amy or elizabeth could have been enough to trigger him.

  23. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  24. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,652
    Mitchell kidnapped ES because he is a nut whose beliefs coincided with the FDLS (though not an actual member, but he held the same beliefs) and he wanted to make ES his "spiritual bride." As a former mainstream Mormon, he would specifically target young Mormon girls because it would be easier to confuse them with their belief system and keep them subdued. That is why he did what he did with her. This would make JB much too young, as she wasn't even close to puberty yet. This is pretty well documented with the case and there is no similarity at all between the two cases, and what few similarities there are are coincidental. The book Under The Banner Of Heaven goes in depth about the reasoning of Mitchell and Barzee's kidnapping of ES, how their extreme beliefs influenced the kidnapping of her and the attempted kidnapping of another girl.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.---Patrick Moynihan
    Living in the

  25. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to thefragile7393 For This Useful Post:


  26. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,297
    Didn't Brian work at the Smart house? How did he decide to kidnap Elizabeth just from a picture if he was spending time at her house?

  27. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to eileenhawkeye For This Useful Post:


  28. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    Brian molested his stepdaughters between ages of 2 and 5. The religion was a con to justify his sick pedophile urges. He worked at the Smart home once for a few hours.At the home of Virl Kemp he just saw a picture of his daugher he probably never even knew her name.

  29. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  30. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by AKWILKS View Post
    SuperDave - you said "None" of the experts had said Patsy did not write the note. That is simply not true. We can debate the qualifications of each "expert", but the fact is numerous experts, with reputations ranging from fair to good to excellent to poor to disputed, have either said they don't think Patsy wrote the note and/or they point to someone else as a possible or likely author.

    This is all old and has been discussed endlessly. I personally think much of Patsy's writing DOES look like the ransom note, but I wonder of she wrote it or the attacker (or his accomplice) copied some of her writing.
    You caught me on a good day, AK. So I'll go with you. But you also know the same is true for the ones who said that they think she did write it.

    I agree a lot of evidence points to the Ramseys. Yet we also have intruder evidence, incuding male DNA mixed with blood and two other spots of the same DNA, including one that yielded NINE MARKERS, which would only likely come from an abrasive pulling leaving skin cells, not a mere touching.
    Well, I'm no expert on DNA, but it makes sense to me that if it were truly connected to this case, it would have all 13 markers.

    What is new in what I posted is information about a known and convicted home invasion child abductor and pedophile, in Colorado in the time period, who used rope cord and duct tape in his abductions, in which he entered large homes and took the child from her bed, while making a false ransom claim.

    BTW we agree on at least one thing, I think - Sam Peckinpah was a great director and "The Wild Bunch" one of the best westerns ever made!
    It sure was!
    All posts made by me are MY exclusive property, and are NOT to be used or reproduced without my permission. DAVE SMASH THIEVES!

  31. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  32. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    65
    I still think the Ramsey's did it, and one of them is no longer with us, so...

  33. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to tbgo For This Useful Post:


  34. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by AKWILKS View Post
    Up until this point, I have thought members of the Ramsey family may have been involved. Perhaps Burke, with Patsy and John covering it up. Perhaps Patsy. Much of the writing on the ransom note has similarities to Patsy's writing. But just as an intruder may have got the information on the $118,000 bonus from a paycheck stub, an intruder might have copied from writing of Patsy Ramsey, not so much to implicate her, but just to disguise his/her own style. Some experts say Patsy Ramsey likely wrote it, others say she did not. Many experts did say the writing and word choice indicated it was probably done by a middle aged white female. A lot of circumstantial evidence points to the Ramsey's. But most of that evidence is disputed and/or has alternative non-incriminating interpretations.


    Don't forget the likely middle aged white female intruder also wrote a practice note. "Experts" are hired by both sides so it's not strange that one would hear two different stories. I put "expert" in quotes because there is nothing very scientific about handwriting analysis. The writing either looks like PR did it, or it doesn't. You can call it how you like, but I'll trust my own eyes over the opinions of the "experts". I won't go further on this point, as SD knows a lot more about the handwriting testimony than I do. Suffice to say that most of the experts seem to think it's likely PR wrote the RN.


    But new DNA evidence appears to clear the Ramsey's. [
    No it does NOT clear the Ramseys, and I think you are smart enough to know better. You've revealed your bias by making that statement.

    The DNA is an unkown. We don't know who's it is, or how it got there, and assuming it must belong to the killer is an error in logic. It is certainly appropriate to speculate that it COULD be from the killer, but then, it COULD also be there from an accidental source - by your own admission.

    The Ramseys absolutely are not cleared.


    Recently Doug Oswell and I took a fresh look at the Ramsey case, which absent a major lab error, now appears more likely to have been done by an intruder. [

    We are looking at Brian Mitchell, aka "Brian David Mitchell", aka "Immanuel", aka the kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart, as a possible suspect, along with his accomplice in child abduction and rape, Wanda Barzee.

    Comments by Doug Oswell
    Analysis by AK Wilks

    If you look even superficially at the Ramsey and Smart cases you'll see that they have a great deal in common.
    ...

    In fact, Brian Mitchell had briefly worked at the Smart home doing odd jobs. The Ramseys had recently had construction and home improvement work done. In addition, they had lawn and landscape services. While it is unlikely that the name "Brian Mitchell" appears on any list of employees of these companies that did work at the Ramsey home, many of these types of companies employ temp workers, who they often pay "under the table", thus there would be no records.


    So you have no evidence at all that Mitchell was anywhere near the R's home. Yet you think he's a good suspect? I have no objection to getting his DNA tested, if that's possible, but you're really stretching things. It is POSSIBLE he worked construction, off the books, at the R's, but then the universe is full of possibilities. Better to look at probability.
    * In both cases, an audacious entry was made into the dwelling through a small aperture while the family members slept; in each case the perpetrator was familiar with the layout of the house.
    You are now regurgitating Lou Smit's analysis as if it's a fact, and it isn't a fact. The evidence suggests it is highly unlikely that anyone entered the R's home through a small aperture. You are stating things as facts that simply are not facts.

    * The victims themselves shared the common attributes of blonde hair, angelic looks, and unique personal talents. Both were abducted directly from their beds.
    Again, a statement of "fact" which is not actually a fact. We don't know that JBR was abducted from her bed. She had been up eating pineapple, that much we know. It's not very likely the abductor stopped for a snack on the way to the basement. It's possible she was up of her own accord, or having been invited to come down for pineapple. We don't know how long she'd been out of bed before being killed, and in fact we don't really know that she'd ever been to bed that night.





    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  35. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  36. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870

    So in both cases the prospect of a kidnap and return for ransom is introduced by the attacker, with no real intent of getting a ransom, but instead to either calm the fears of the victim and/or delay notification of authorities.



    I'm not familiar with the Smart case (I will read up on it) but in the Ramsey case, there doesn't appear to be a reason to "calm" the victim with a false pretense of being held for ransom. As far as we can tell, the victim never left her home. If we take the R's statements at face value, then the authorities were notified a few minutes after the discovery of the RN. Any delay was simply due to the R's being asleep. Arguably, the RN author might have intended the note to act as a delay, assuming the R's would follow the instructions, which of course, they didn't. They not only called police, but friends and neighbors. T

    he killer would have to have assumed that the body would be found quickly. It's only through a "comedy" of errors that the body was not discovered until 1pm. Any delay due to following the instructions in the RN would only have lasted until the discovery of the body - which was left in the basement.

    The similarity you suggest simply does not exist. JBR wasn't taken from the home, didn't need to be calmed by being told she was to be held for ransom, and the delay in reporting to authorities (if instructions had been followed) would only have lasted until discovery of the not very well hidden body in the basement of her home.

    In 1995 Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee leave Idaho and state they are going to "Colorado". With no real documentation as to their exact whereabouts, it seems very possible if not likely that they are in Colorado during the winter of 1996, the time of the JonBenet murder. It also appears that right around the September 1997 time of the failed abduction of JonBenet's dance school classmate, the 14 year old "Amy", Mitchell and Barzee stop their two years of wanderings and return to Utah.
    I'm sorry, I don't quite see what makes it "very possible if not likely" that they were in CO in Dec., '96. You've stated in the same paragraph that there is no documentation of their whereabouts. It's POSSIBLE they were there, but it's also POSSIBLE they were in 135 other places at the time. You simply have no way of knowing.


    There are multiple unconfirmed reports that the DNA found on JonBenet is from a Caucasian. There was also a pubic hair recovered of undescribed color, and a photo of a dark hair on JonBenet's sleeve. Brian Mitchell is Caucasian and has dark hair.
    Multiple unconfirmed reports are of no value - no matter how many times they are multiplied.




    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  37. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  38. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    I don't see either of the Smart kidnappers having the linguistic background to have produced that particular ransom note, nor would they have known the amount of JR's bonus.

    Secondly, if Mitchell or Barzee had produced a ransom note, it would have been loaded with religious text related to his particular beliefs, not mainstream evangelical Christianity.

  39. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to twinkiesmom For This Useful Post:


  40. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    Chris - You raise good points, let me consider them.

    Twinkiesmom - Read the Barzee Mitchell journal, they have the langauge background to have done the RN. It also shares certain stylistic similarities, I outline them in my first or second post.

    IF Mitchell (and maybe Barzee) wrote the RN, it would have been for much the same purpose as if Patsy did it - to deflect blame. They would not have held JonBenet for ransom, but kept her as "wife", i.e., child sex slave, as they did Elizabeth. So the ransom note would be designed to deflect blame and perhaps delay authorities. So they would not have used religious langauge in it.

    Mitchell told Barzee and Smart he was doing an abduction (of Elizabeht's cousin) on a HOLIDAY, because thats when police response time would be slower. We might consider that when asking why the attacker of JonBenet struck on Christmas night. Smart also said Mitchell told her is she screamed he would "duct tape my mouth shut." JonBenet had duct tape on her mouth.

    Under my scenario, something went wrong, as murder was not the likely intent.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  42. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by AKWILKS View Post
    Chris - You raise good points, let me consider them.

    Twinkiesmom - Read the Barzee Mitchell journal, they have the langauge background to have done the RN. It also shares certain stylistic similarities, I outline them in my first or second post.

    IF Mitchell (and maybe Barzee) wrote the RN, it would have been for much the same purpose as if Patsy did it - to deflect blame. They would not have held JonBenet for ransom, but kept her as "wife", i.e., child sex slave, as they did Elizabeth. So the ransom note would be designed to deflect blame and perhaps delay authorities. So they would not have used religious langauge in it.

    Mitchell told Barzee and Smart he was doing an abduction (of Elizabeht's cousin) on a HOLIDAY, because thats when police response time would be slower. We might consider that when asking why the attacker of JonBenet struck on Christmas night. Smart also said Mitchell told her is she screamed he would "duct tape my mouth shut." JonBenet had duct tape on her mouth.

    Under my scenario, something went wrong, as murder was not the likely intent.

    I don't want to seem like I'm spoiling for fight here - I'm not. I respect you contributions to the topic. That said, I think "something went wrong" is one of the weakest parts of IDI theory.

    What could go wrong? If we're supposing an IDI scenario, they got her out of bed (IDI means the R's are -mostly- telling the truth) then got her to the first floor w/o trouble. That much we can assume because if there were trouble upstairs it likely would have woke the parents, and even if not, why go into the basement? If the "trouble" starts on the first floor, why go into the basement? If there was no trouble on the first floor, why go into the basement? Basically, why go into the basement is a huge question in an IDI scenario. If she's to be kept as a sex slave/child wife, why kill her -it spoils all the future "fun". If it really started as a kidnapping, why leave the body behind? Ransom won't get paid if the body is discovered. I've yet to hear a plausible "gone wrong" theory. Perhaps you have one to share with us? So far you have two intruders, a male and a female. The female is apparently a willing accomplice and goes along with the male. Two adults have unspecified "trouble" subduing a 6 year old girl, and their solution to solving the trouble is to take her into the basement, sexually assault her, strangle her, and bash her in the head, rather than quickly get out of the house.

    I'm not trying to put you on the spot, or act like I know better - I don't know who killed JBR. But if you are going to posit a "gone wrong" theory, you have to come up with a scenario that explains what went wrong, (or at least list some things that could have gone wrong) and why taking her into the basement and doing time consuming stuff to her was the solution.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  43. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  44. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    Two adults have unspecified "trouble" subduing a 6 year old girl, and their solution to solving the trouble is to take her into the basement, sexually assault her, strangle her, and bash her in the head, rather than quickly get out of the house.

    not only that but go to the trouble of wiping the body off and REDRESSING her.
    wasting time&risk of being caught,why on earth would they do that?makes NO sense IMO.
    (re "IDI,something went wrong" scenario,I'd rather believe it happened like in JMK's fantasy,they wanted just to have fun but in the end they killed her outta mercy or something.)but again,it DOESN'T make any sense why they would risk being caught while redressing the body.I can understand why they would wipe the body off-getting rid of evidence,but why redress her?WHY write a RN note (in that house) and leave it behind if your goal is just pleasure.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  45. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  46. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    252
    You are asking me to explain the unexplainable. I can't.

    Can you explain why Patsy Ramsey, who seemingly loved her daughter and had no prior history of violence or abuse, bashed her child's skull in, and then tied a rope around her neck? Can you explain why John Ramsey, with no prior history of child abuse, molested and killed his daughter?

    I think it is POSSIBLE that the parents were involved. I am presenting information on a possible suspect who has never before been mentioned in connection to the case.

    Elizabeth awoke with a knife against her throat. Had she jumped up or resisted, she may have died of a cut throat. Smart testified Mitchell told her if she made noise, he would "duct tape my mouth shut". Could an intruder have duct taped the mouth of JonBenet to silence her, and unintentionally suffocated her? Or used the neck rope to silence her, unintentionally killing her?

    The night of her abduction, they dressed Elizabeth in white, washed her body, bound her with rope cord, and "consumated" the "marriage" (i.e., raped her) so that she would be Mitchell's eternal wife in this life and after death.

    The journal of Mitchell and Barzee indicates prior "failed attempts" to get a "wife", i.e., child sex slave, prior to the Smart kidnapping and Wright/Kemp attempted kidnappings. What were these "failed attempts"? Why do they document where they were and what they did for almost every single Christmas in the covered years except for Christmas 1996? Do you believe what they say, that in the winter of 1996 a "black homeless man named Phil" gave them $300 and they went to Alaska?

    I have started the process to do what I can to get the DNA of Mitchell compared to the suspect DNA.

  47. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AKWILKS For This Useful Post:


  48. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by AKWILKS View Post
    You are asking me to explain the unexplainable. I can't.

    Can you explain why Patsy Ramsey, who seemingly loved her daughter and had no prior history of violence or abuse, bashed her child's skull in, and then tied a rope around her neck? Can you explain why John Ramsey, with no prior history of child abuse, molested and killed his daughter?

    I think it is POSSIBLE that the parents were involved. I am presenting information on a possible suspect who has never before been mentioned in connection to the case.

    Elizabeth awoke with a knife against her throat. Had she jumped up or resisted, she may have died of a cut throat. Smart testified Mitchell told her if she made noise, he would "duct tape my mouth shut". Could an intruder have duct taped the mouth of JonBenet to silence her, and unintentionally suffocated her? Or used the neck rope to silence her, unintentionally killing her?

    The night of her abduction, they dressed Elizabeth in white, washed her body, bound her with rope cord, and "consumated" the "marriage" (i.e., raped her) so that she would be Mitchell's eternal wife in this life and after death.

    The journal of Mitchell and Barzee indicates prior "failed attempts" to get a "wife", i.e., child sex slave, prior to the Smart kidnapping and Wright/Kemp attempted kidnappings. What were these "failed attempts"? Why do they document where they were and what they did for almost every single Christmas in the covered years except for Christmas 1996? Do you believe what they say, that in the winter of 1996 a "black homeless man named Phil" gave them $300 and they went to Alaska?

    I have started the process to do what I can to get the DNA of Mitchell compared to the suspect DNA.

    Fair enough - I can't explain the Rs motives, in a RDI theory.

    But you've theorized that intruders started out to do one thing but something went wrong to transform it into a murder. I'm not asking for motive, just a theory of what went wrong (or could have gone wrong) and why all that stuff in the basement was the response to the thing going wrong. That doesn't seem unfair, or even unexplainable, if in fact there is any merit at all to the "gone wrong" theory.

    Let me be more specific. Suppose it started as a kidnapping, and the real intent was to take JBR to be Mithcel's "wife". What could have gone wrong to prevent a kidnapping? The parents woke up? JBR screamed? They couldn't figure out how to get the body out of the house? What can you come up with to explain why the kidnapping couldn't be completed, especially when considering that they had already taken her from her bed and got her at least to the first floor.

    After having come up with a theory of what went wrong to prevent the kidnapping from taking place, I would also ask for a theory as to why taking her into the basement, assaulting her, strangling her, bludgeoning her and redressing her was the response chosen - as opposed to simply leaving the house.

    These questions do not seem unreasonable to me. I appreciate not everything in the case can be explained, but I think you'd have to admit that if a reasonable theory can't be developed, it casts doubt on the whole "gone wrong" theory.

    My problem with the "gone wrong" theory isn't specific to Mitchell and Barzee, it applies to any intruder/gone wrong theory.

    It's not likely she was suffocated by the duct tape. There were no tongue impressions on the tape, as would be expected if she were struggling for breath. It's likely the tape was placed on her mouth (if it ever actually was on her mouth) after death.

    The rope could have been used to silence her, but wouldn't it be more effective to place a hand over her mouth, or duct tape (while she was alive)? If the intruder(s) had accidentally killed her in this way, why bash her in the head?

    ... Why do they document where they were and what they did for almost every single Christmas in the covered years except for Christmas 1996? ...
    I couldn't help focusing on the word "almost". IOW, there are other Christmases unaccounted for, as well as Christmas '96. It's probably because they are the type of people who can't always document where they are.

    No, I don't believe a homeless man gave them $300.

    The DNA comparison will be great. If it's a match, it will go a long way towards wrapping up the case. If it's not a match, nothing has been lost.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  49. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Boulder DA to Take a Fresh Look at the JonBenet Ramsey Case
    By Twoapennything in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 10:32 PM
  2. Glenn Meyer and the JonBenet Ramsey Case
    By LionRun in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-08-2007, 12:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •