Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 129
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Okay, I will bite.

    Henry Lee threw out the possibility of the DNA found in the panties was from an Fruit of a Loom Inspector 12. I know you are not going to admit it but that theory went to hell in a handbasket in 2002 and especially in 2006. Dr. Lee is old old news and we need to move on.

    There is plenty of evidence of an Intruder. Had the police protected the crime scene there would probably be much much more. And here is a question for ya. If LE was so certain that an intruder was not possible why did they let tons of people in the house, clean the house, not properly search the house, and then go away and leave the Ramsey's with an inexperience female officer?

    I don't believe the note looks much like PR's but I can buy she can't be excluded from writing it. The Ramsey or Ramsey lawyers never really needed to challenge evidence such as this. A 100 different document examiners usually give 80 different opinions. I think any three of your options are farfetched but of the three I would say number one as well. The problem is that is not that close and team Ramsey or any Joe Blow attorney would blow this out of the water.

    Motive is pretty important don't you think? Especially when you have two people that you suggest covering for each other. And these people are pillars of society with no background of violence. The only motive that makes any sense is covering for Burke. That is it. That is the only plausible example that these two parents would kill and THEN CONSPIRE a coverup in such a brutal fashion.

    Agh, I know I am wasting my breath on this with you guys. But the great ST and other LE even knew that their could be only one bad egg in that house. The other parent had to be bamboozled by the other. And let me say this--John is the only one who makes sense on committing the crime itself. The Ransom note is a piece of garbage. If it is truly RDI, John wrote the note.
    Just to be clear, I don't suggest two people were covering for each other. If the Rs were involved, it could have been Patsy acting alone.


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mtwentz For This Useful Post:


  3. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    649
    Just for the record, this isn't MY theory, this is my thinking how things would have to work for Dr.Wecht's suggestions to fit into place.


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


  5. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    You can't throw out the actual evidence to cater to a motive you deem logical.

    Patsy's the one whose handwriting is consistent with the note for 24 letters of the alphabet, not to mention writing-style, spacing, writing habits like indention, etc. She's the verbose, over-the-top creative writer. She's the one who couldn't be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note. It was her pad, her pen, and she's the one who lied to LE so badly, it's blatantly obvious throughout her interviews, numerous times through the years.

    She also would have been the one, as mother, caretaker, homemaker, etc., to have noticed blood in her little girl's panties. Patsy is the one who took JB to the doctor, who called Dr. Beuf's office three times in one hour after it closed on Dec. 17th, yet couldn't remember why la de dah.

    Until the person who was molesting JonBenet is revealed, I have no idea which one of those in the home was involved in her death.

    Also, a theory has to account for JonBenet's blood on her pillowcase at the foot of her bed.

    Dr. Wecht's theory also has flaws. Why would any adult play sex games using a ligature on a child's neck without padding it? Bruising would tell the tale. He'd be found out immediately if she didn't die, with a risk of prison anyway if he was identified as the perv. So that's a problem with the theory this wasn't intentional but a sex game gone badly, unless Dr. Wecht believes Burke did it. Burke was too young to think things like that through, of course.

    But Burke also couldn't carry JonBenet's limp body downstairs if she was attacked first upstairs--the blood on her pillowcase indicates that. If it was from mucous, as the question by Haney to Patsy if JB had nosebleeds indicates, JB also had blood-tinged mucous on her face/sleeve, so that would put the head blow first in/near her bedroom, as the elements of the garroting and her death from strangulation took place in the basement, finally, according to the evidence.

    I don't know if only one or all of them had some hand in this; as DeeDee said, motive may not be as cut and dried as a clearly pre-meditated intention. Things happen, people react. Life can get very messy, as the Ramseys well know, IMO.

    I look to Casey Anthony's family as a perfect example of how far parents will go under the worst of circumstances to mitigate the consequences of a deadly sequence of events.

    It worked for the Anthonys also, didn't it?
    Dr. Wecht's theory also has flaws. Why would any adult play sex games using a ligature on a child's neck without padding it? - KK

    Yes KK.

    I wonder about that issue as well. It would be wreckless but then the AEA act in itself is so perverse and dark and primal. It is beyond rationale.

    http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/f...rous-game.html

    If "Autoerotic asphyxia typically begins in adolescence", then who fits the profile in CW's scenario?


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Tadpole12 For This Useful Post:


  7. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Excellent points, UK.

    In fact, I've always wondered if securing the door like that was just in case Burke got involved in the "hunt" somehow. Burke certainly didn't turn that block, did he?
    This is an excellent point. I am sure they also knew that people would be watching BR's reactions to everything going on. I also feel certain that at some point that morning, the Rs KNEW that JB's body was going to be "found" by someone, and did not want BR there when it happened. Getting him out of the house was the only way to handle it. Of course, as they knew there really was no kidnapper, there was no fear of sending BR off with then-friend FW. Otherwise, I can think of NO reason- NONE- where parents of a kidnapped child let their OTHER child out of their sight for a MOMENT. Didn't Patsy say "Keep your babies close to you"? Right.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  9. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Even Steve Thomas knew that logically only one in the family could be capable of such a crime. Especially a family with no criminal history. Suggesting a conspiracy between both family member completely discredits RDI. This is desperation.
    Well, you're certainly free to SAY that it's desperation. But as I see it, they had no choice but to work together. Moreover, the argument itself doesn't hold water. There are PLENTY of cases where one parent covered for another. I can name one that happened on Mary Lacy's watch: the Midyettes.

    Oh, and I'd advise (LOL) you to give that "no criminal history" jive a rest. Most people are hip enough now to know that anyone is capable of anything.

    I will take great enjoyment watching RDI change their theory.
    Not this one.

    Carry on.
    I will!
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  11. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,708
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    Surely you are kidding?

    I haven't changed my mind, I'm putting forward how things would work if we accept the way Dr.Wecht spelled out how things happened in his opinion.

    I just said it was done by one parent, the "conspiracy" you mention is probably very hard to pull off on your own.

    Anyway, like Science, theories change as evidence evolves or is discovered.
    Has it been evolving for the IDI? I think not.
    IDI is the faith based effort to solve the case.
    Given Lou SMit's actions, it's LITERALLY faith-based!
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SuperDave For This Useful Post:


  13. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    Motive is pretty important don't you think? Especially when you have two people that you suggest covering for each other. And these people are pillars of society with no background of violence. The only motive that makes any sense is covering for Burke. That is it. That is the only plausible example that these two parents would kill and THEN CONSPIRE a coverup in such a brutal fashion.
    A motive? Okay, how does this hit you: fear of what would happen in prison. I'm tempted to quote Robin Williams, but I won't just now.

    Agh, I know I am wasting my breath on this with you guys.
    Gee, I can't IMAGINE why that might be!
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


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


  15. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

    It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

    BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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


  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  17. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,967
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

    It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

    BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.
    "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

    I tend to believe the FBI over people on payrolls and authors of books - whatever their credentials. Meyer never said there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. He only commented on the digital penetration that occurred that night.

    Mind you, I lean a little toward prior sexual abuse....but I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe it was ongoing for a long time prior to her death. IMO


  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  19. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,967
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    This is an excellent point. I am sure they also knew that people would be watching BR's reactions to everything going on. I also feel certain that at some point that morning, the Rs KNEW that JB's body was going to be "found" by someone, and did not want BR there when it happened. Getting him out of the house was the only way to handle it. Of course, as they knew there really was no kidnapper, there was no fear of sending BR off with then-friend FW. Otherwise, I can think of NO reason- NONE- where parents of a kidnapped child let their OTHER child out of their sight for a MOMENT. Didn't Patsy say "Keep your babies close to you"? Right.
    BEM: I think this makes perfect sense.


  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  21. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    .....
    Posts
    4,005
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...bsleuths-radio
    Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


    (15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
    let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
    With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
    As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
    somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
    So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

    KK?

    If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.


  22. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    A motive? Okay, how does this hit you: fear of what would happen in prison. I'm tempted to quote Robin Williams, but I won't just now.



    Gee, I can't IMAGINE why that might be!
    These theories are about as likely as little green men jumping down my chimney with both of them in on it. At least in this case. And your hero Wecht now claims strangling came first. That kind blows a hole in your theory does it not?

    I guess upon eating some bad food or something The R's said lets play sex games with our daughter and murder her in some god awful way. We are old and lets garner up some attention for ourselves.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet


  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roy23 For This Useful Post:


  24. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Tadpole12 View Post
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleu...bsleuths-radio
    Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


    (15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
    let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
    With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
    As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
    somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
    So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

    KK?

    If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.

    All I can tell you is what I believe: I believe Dr. Wecht got confused on this because of the issue with the paintbrush used on the "garrote." It happens to all of us who have been around this case so long; details get mixed up when it's been a while since you have thought about them or talked about them.

    I think Wecht was confused because a true garrote actually does use something like the paintbrush handle to twist the cord tighter around the neck. Traditionally that was the actual definition of a garrote, but of course through time it has expanded. We've had many discussions about the correctness of that term, but we use it because loosely defined what was used on JB was and is often called a garrote. It's just shorter than "strangulation device" when you're writing.

    I've never seen anyone argue that there is evidence on the body that the paintbrush was placed under the cord on the neck and turned to tighten it. I think we'd see different bruising than what was left by the simple pulling of the noose of the cord with the long end of it, using the paintbrush as a handle. I also don't see any evidence that the paintbrush was inserted into the dangling cord to "twist" it rather than pull.

    Edit: I think it's best if you want to google up "garrote" or "garotte" yourself, rather than me posting a link; that stuff is very dicey....

    So all I can say is I think Dr. Wecht misspoke. I cut him slack on this because he's done so many autopsies, speaking extemporaneously on a case this old is a challenge even for him. I don't in fact know anyone who has ever spoke or written much about this case through the years who hasn't made mistakes.

    Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol
    Last edited by KoldKase; 08-22-2011 at 05:47 PM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.


  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  26. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol
    That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!


  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  28. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!
    No kidding! I blame Tricia! To quote a famous movie villain: "I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Godfather III

    Then he had a heart attack.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.


  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Wecht vs. Lee
    By shiloh in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 07-31-2006, 11:30 AM

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
  •