IMO, perp obsessed with violent displays

I believe the perp is obsessed with displays of violence, because

• The ransom note author used expressions from movies that display violence.
• 'Immediate execution' and 'beheading' are both references to displays of deadly violence.
• Jonbenet was found in different clothes, which suggests a possible element of display in the murder.
• The ransom note, with its repeated and excessive references to death, was in itself a violent display.

obsession with violent displays would probably have led the perp to display the body in a more noticeable area of the house in a much more gruesome way. JBR was hidden in the basement, fully clothed, wrapped in a blanket, with a heart drawn on her palm. to me that is not a violent display. killing a 6 year old girl is violent on its own, but i think that's about as "nice" as she could be "displayed", if you will...

just my $.02

Voice of Reason said:

obsession with violent displays would probably have led the perp to display the body in a more noticeable area of the house in a much more gruesome way. JBR was hidden in the basement, fully clothed, wrapped in a blanket, with a heart drawn on her palm. to me that is not a violent display. killing a 6 year old girl is violent on its own, but i think that's about as "nice" as she could be "displayed", if you will...

Click to expand...

Voice of Reason,

What you describe is the way JonBenet was found at 1:14 PM, but we don't know where and how she was displayed when and if John and Patsy found her earlier that morning, and re-staged the crime scene. There's some evidence that suggests JonBenet was actually found prior to Patsy's 911 call at 5:52 AM, and she was anything but nicely displayed.

For instance, the bindings on her wrists indicate JonBenet could have been "strung up" by the wrists in a sitting and probably obscene position.

And the stun gun injuries suggest torture.

And the extreme tightening of the ligature around the neck was certainly violent.

And the smash in the head was so violent that it cracked her skull in two.

Therefore, none of us know for sure if this was an accidental death accompanied by violent staging, or a straight out violent murder. But in either event the attempted coverup of the sexual aspects of the crime and the fake ransom note point toward a Ramsey family member. An intruder would have no motive to do either.

BlueCrab

Voice of Reason said:

to me that is not a violent display. killing a 6 year old girl is violent on its own, but i think that's about as "nice" as she could be "displayed", if you will...

just my $.02

Click to expand...

The perp can have an obsession with violent displays, and not leave behind a violent display, because its the perp who is doing the obsessing. IOW, the perp's interest in displays of violence is for the perp's benefit.

The perp wrote an unusually violent ransom note, committed an unusually violent murder, and uses lines from violent films. The sexual predator aspect, although a likely factor, seems to be over-emphasized while the unusually violent aspects are glossed over.

BlueCrab said:

Therefore, none of us know for sure if this was an accidental death accompanied by violent staging, or a straight out violent murder. But in either event the attempted coverup of the sexual aspects of the crime and the fake ransom note point toward a Ramsey family member. An intruder would have no motive to do either.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

We agree, its a straight out violent murder that was also accompanied by a really violent ransom note, written by someone who we know watches violent movies.

To say that an intruder would have no motive is to say we know all possible intruder scenarios, which we don't.

BlueCrab said:

Voice of Reason,

What you describe is the way JonBenet was found at 1:14 PM, but we don't know where and how she was displayed when and if John and Patsy found her earlier that morning, and re-staged the crime scene. There's some evidence that suggests JonBenet was actually found prior to Patsy's 911 call at 5:52 AM, and she was anything but nicely displayed.

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

BlueCrab,

I've always liked your theory, but the more you stretch it, the less I believe it. So, if I'm correct, you think that JonBenet was found violently displayed in an obscene manner at 5 in the morning, and JR and/or PR re-staged the body in a more "appropriate" manner to cover for somebody? Why would they need to restage if the body was found in such a way? COuldn't they have just called the police and said we found our daughter dead? The police would not look at the parents so much if the body was displayed as you suggested, no?

Holdontoyourhat said:

The perp can have an obsession with violent displays, and not leave behind a violent display, because its the perp who is doing the obsessing. IOW, the perp's interest in displays of violence is for the perp's benefit.

The perp wrote an unusually violent ransom note, committed an unusually violent murder, and uses lines from violent films. The sexual predator aspect, although a likely factor, seems to be over-emphasized while the unusually violent aspects are glossed over.


We agree, its a straight out violent murder that was also accompanied by a really violent ransom note, written by someone who we know watches violent movies.

To say that an intruder would have no motive is to say we know all possible intruder scenarios, which we don't.

Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat-
I don't understand why you feel that the prep wrote an "unusually violent ransom note." IMO it is an unusually "mild" rasome note. They start by saying that she is safe, they respect John's business ect. ect. Yes, they did mention killing her twice but they didn't go in to gruesome details. I don't think that it is unusual for a kidnapper to threaten to kill their hostage.

Ok, so say the perp is obsessed with violent displays. How does that help us? Where does that take us in out search for answers? Do you think it points to or away from anyone in particular?

princessmer81 said:

Holdontoyourhat-
I don't understand why you feel that the prep wrote an "unusually violent ransom note." IMO it is an unusually "mild" rasome note. They start by saying that she is safe, they respect John's business ect. ect. Yes, they did mention killing her twice but they didn't go in to gruesome details. I don't think that it is unusual for a kidnapper to threaten to kill their hostage.

Ok, so say the perp is obsessed with violent displays. How does that help us? Where does that take us in out search for answers? Do you think it points to or away from anyone in particular?

Click to expand...

It was noted years ago the perp has an obsession with movies, since the note had lines from various movies in it. IMO, the perp is obsessed with all forms of violent display (R movies, executions, beheadings, murders), and actually speaks like the ransom note sounds. Remember the note starts out 'listen carefully', so the perp wrote it in the same way the perp would have spoken it.

That takes you to an intruder.

Voice of Reason said:

BlueCrab,

I've always liked your theory, but the more you stretch it, the less I believe it. So, if I'm correct, you think that JonBenet was found violently displayed in an obscene manner at 5 in the morning, and JR and/or PR re-staged the body in a more "appropriate" manner to cover for somebody? Why would they need to restage if the body was found in such a way? COuldn't they have just called the police and said we found our daughter dead? The police would not look at the parents so much if the body was displayed as you suggested, no?

Click to expand...

Voice of Reason,

Please read my posts more carefully. I'm not stretching anything. I have a dozen or more BDI theories because I don't know for sure what happened, you don't know for sure what happened, the investigators don't know for sure what happened, and neither does anyone else know for sure what happened. The only persons who seem to know for sure what happened are the Ramseys, because they are the ones who appear to be lying and covering up for someone, and they sure wouldn't be lying and covering up for a non-family member. So that seems to leave a family member. By the process of elimination, that family member appears to be Burke.

In regard to the details, no one knows what happened for sure, but there's a lot of physical and circumstantial evidence to draw inferences -- so that's what I do. And those inferences may range from an accidental death to an evil premeditated torture and murder. Who knows for sure? I don't.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

Voice of Reason,

Please read my posts more carefully. I'm not stretching anything. I have a dozen or more BDI theories because I don't know for sure what happened, you don't know for sure what happened, the investigators don't know for sure what happened, and neither does anyone else know for sure what happened. The only persons who seem to know for sure what happened are the Ramseys, because they are the ones who appear to be lying and covering up for someone, and they sure wouldn't be lying and covering up for a non-family member. So that seems to leave a family member. By the process of elimination, that family member appears to be Burke.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here, and because neither you nor I know exactly what happened, we can only speculate. IMO, I think that an ELABORATE staging/coverup/conspiracy is stretching it. I think that your theory of Burke and a yet to be identified 5th (young) person in the house makes a lot of sense, but to add the element of re-positioning and/or moving the body seems far-fetched to me. Within your theory(s) involving Burke, I would envision an accident. Anything other than an accident would be less likely to be covered for.

I only commented because I feel that some of your speculation goes beyond the facts as they exist. It has been fairly well documented that NI and JAR were many, many states away that night. These leads were exhausted by LE a long time ago. I also think that moving the body more than a few feet doesn't mesh with your theory either. It just begs the question of why. Isn't one of your theories involving Burke a massive coverup started by the Grand Jury dismissal that involves all Ramseys, courts, police, private investigators, lawyers, and perhaps, many GJ witnesses? And another involves EA and/or AEA? I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to question these theories. The reason I do so, is because I think your theories are great from the start, but some of the elaboration doesn't seem to work, IMO.

Voice of Reason said:

I completely agree with you here, and because neither you nor I know exactly what happened, we can only speculate. IMO, I think that an ELABORATE staging/coverup/conspiracy is stretching it. I think that your theory of Burke and a yet to be identified 5th (young) person in the house makes a lot of sense, but to add the element of re-positioning and/or moving the body seems far-fetched to me. Within your theory(s) involving Burke, I would envision an accident. Anything other than an accident would be less likely to be covered for.

I only commented because I feel that some of your speculation goes beyond the facts as they exist. It has been fairly well documented that NI and JAR were many, many states away that night. These leads were exhausted by LE a long time ago. I also think that moving the body more than a few feet doesn't mesh with your theory either. It just begs the question of why. Isn't one of your theories involving Burke a massive coverup started by the Grand Jury dismissal that involves all Ramseys, courts, police, private investigators, lawyers, and perhaps, many GJ witnesses? And another involves EA and/or AEA? I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to question these theories. The reason I do so, is because I think your theories are great from the start, but some of the elaboration doesn't seem to work, IMO.

Click to expand...

Voice of Reason,

Each and every one of my BDI theories is based on a resonably credible item of evidence and/or other facts.

Also, please remember that NOTHING the Ramseys say that transpired that night can be relied upon. The enhanced 911 call proves they were lying even before the investigation was underway, so their credibility for everything else they say can be legitimately questioned.

There is no iron-clad proof that JAR was in Georgia on the night of the crime because we have an eyewitness who contradicts him. Joe Barnhill says he saw JAR walking up to the house on Christmas Day.

And there is no confirmed proof that NI was in California on Christmas Day. Alll we have is HIS say-so, and that was through a third party who says he "threw away" NI's original e-mail.

And saying John didn't move the body at 11 AM flies in the face of what Fleet White says he didn't see at 6:20 AM (the body wasn't there) and what he saw at 1:14 PM (the body was there).

And if there isn't a coverup by the courts, the D.A., and the media, why are they all lying and misleading the public about the facts of the case and pushing an intruder theory that we all know (those of us who know the case well) doesn't make sense?

And why blindly deny that erotic asphyxiation had been employed on JonBenet when the crime scene photos show an EA device wrapped around her neck?

BlueCrab

Voice of Reason said:

I completely agree with you here, and because neither you nor I know exactly what happened, we can only speculate. IMO, I think that an ELABORATE staging/coverup/conspiracy is stretching it. I think that your theory of Burke and a yet to be identified 5th (young) person in the house makes a lot of sense, but to add the element of re-positioning and/or moving the body seems far-fetched to me. Within your theory(s) involving Burke, I would envision an accident. Anything other than an accident would be less likely to be covered for.

I only commented because I feel that some of your speculation goes beyond the facts as they exist. It has been fairly well documented that NI and JAR were many, many states away that night. These leads were exhausted by LE a long time ago. I also think that moving the body more than a few feet doesn't mesh with your theory either. It just begs the question of why. Isn't one of your theories involving Burke a massive coverup started by the Grand Jury dismissal that involves all Ramseys, courts, police, private investigators, lawyers, and perhaps, many GJ witnesses? And another involves EA and/or AEA? I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to question these theories. The reason I do so, is because I think your theories are great from the start, but some of the elaboration doesn't seem to work, IMO.

Click to expand...

JonBenet's murder is a Staged Homicide, IMO BlueCrab is quite correct to suggest the possibility that JonBenet was found indecently or violently displayed in an obscene manner and that JR and/or PR re-staged the body in a more "appropriate" manner.

JonBenet was relocated within the Ramsey house probably at least on three occassions.

Either she went from the kitchen area to upstairs, or from upstairs to downstairs, then possibly indecently posed, then she was relocated to the wine-cellar and again redressed. All this depends on where you think she was killed.

But regardless of who did it and how, she was redressed, her hair was re-styled, her size-6 underwear was replaced with size-12 pants, and her pink barbie gown lay next to her awaiting to be placed on her, as befitted a girl kidnapped violently from her bed!

The violent aspects may simply be staging designed to lead you down another path. The same rationale pervades the Ransom Note, with references to movies that contain violent scenes or threats of violence such as beheading.

So it may help to look at Jonbenet's death through the prism of deliberate staging and ask who may profit from it?

BlueCrab said:

And why blindly deny that erotic asphyxiation had been employed on JonBenet when the crime scene photos show an EA device wrapped around her neck?

BlueCrab

Click to expand...

Why blindly deny the most common use of the garrote, which is control? Even a brief research reveals the garrote is historically used for control and for the 'quiet kill', further supporting an intruder theory.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Why blindly deny the most common use of the garrote, which is control? Even a brief research reveals the garrote is historically used for control and for the 'quiet kill', further supporting an intruder theory.

Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat,

That is not a garrote on JonBenet. Garrotes look nothing like that.

Garrotes are a simple length of rope or wire, usually with a handle or a knot tied on each end to allow the assailant to pull hard and to keep the hands from slipping off as the struggling victim strangles to death. It takes about one minute to make a garrote.

The cord device on JonBenet had a handle on one end and a ligature on the opposite end. It was not designed to be a garrote. There's no way an assailant could sneak up from behind on a victim and get that contraption around his neck. The device was designed to be used in extremely dangerous erotic asphyxiation (breath control) sex games.

Not a garrote? u gotta be kiddn' me! Everybody calls that a garrote except you. I just did a 'garrote' and 'Ramsey' google search and got hundreds of references to the 'garrote used to strangle JonBenet Ramsey,' including media, FBI experts, and local LE.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Not a garrote? u gotta be kiddn' me! Everybody calls that a garrote except you. I just did a 'garrote' and 'Ramsey' google search and got hundreds of references to the 'garrote used to strangle JonBenet Ramsey,' including media, FBI experts, and local LE.

Click to expand...

Holdontoyourhat,

It makes no difference how many references you get who call the device a garrote. It is not a garrote. The device around JonBenet's neck was designed for and was used for sexual erotic asphyxiation, an extremely dangerous masturbation technique. IMO, EA was the cause of JonBenet's death.

The public and the media erroneously picked up the term "garrote", and it stuck because most people aren't aware of EA and AEA and there seemed to be no other explanation for the elaborate device wrapped around JonBenet's neck.

EA and AEA devices almost always include some kind of escape mechanism built into their designs, such as a slip knot or a rope that automatically releases if the person collapses and lets go of the safety rope. Sometimes these "self rescue" features fail, and the person accidentally asphyxiates him or her self. The FBI estimates about 500 people die in the U.S. each year as the result of EA and AEA.

Here's an interesting case that somewhat parallels the JonBenet case in several respects, and especially because the safety mechanism of the AEA device failed to work because the victim's hair got entwined in the slip knot safety mechanism:

Gender: female

Age: 22

Cause of death: Asphyxiation (hair got caught in the rope).

Victim discovered dead by sister, who had been staying with the victim temporarily. The sister had been away for two days and returned on Sunday at 9:00 PM. She went directly to her bed and did not discover the victim until the following morning. The deceased was found with her abdomen, thighs and forearms resting on the floor. Her feet were pulled back toward her head. Her body was in an arched position with an electrical cord attached around the neck via a slip knot, passing over a doorknob, and wrapped around her ankle. HER HAIR WAS ENTANGLED IN THE SLIPKNOT. She was clothed in a sleepshirt. Commercial lubrication cream was found in the victim's vagina, and a battery-operated vibrator was found 4 feet from the body. The only trauma was a 1 1/2-inch contusion above and behind her right ear. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to laryngeal compression.

(Source: Hazelwood, Burgess, and Dietz)

http://www.openmindmedia.com/self-bondage/

BlueCrab

i believe the term "garrotte" is not correct in this case.this particular device i believe was only adjustable in the amount of pressure that could be applied around the neck, by the person applying the pressure by pulling the handle.
in such it was a control device, however JBR had no control over what the perpetrator was doing, she was likely strung up with the cord from her hands over a bar of some kind, at least this is my impression.
so if this was a sexual act, it was the perpetrator(s) only. imho

lawman

BlueCrab said:

Holdontoyourhat,

It makes no difference how many references you get who call the device a garrote. It is not a garrote. The device around JonBenet's neck was designed for and was used for sexual erotic asphyxiation, an extremely dangerous masturbation technique. IMO, EA was the cause of JonBenet's death.

Click to expand...

You may be able to factually dispute that this was NOT a garrotte, but you cannot affirmatively state that it was an EA or AEA device. That is 100% opinion. It may have some support, but it is still opinion. IMO, what was around JBR's neck should be called a noose. It was not tied as a noose is tied, but it was a rope used to strangle her, and that is a noose. Until other evidence is brought out, it is nothing more than a rope that was used to strangle her. Anything else is pure speculation...

Voice of Reason said:

You may be able to factually dispute that this was NOT a garrotte, but you cannot affirmatively state that it was an EA or AEA device. That is 100% opinion. It may have some support, but it is still opinion. IMO, what was around JBR's neck should be called a noose. It was not tied as a noose is tied, but it was a rope used to strangle her, and that is a noose. Until other evidence is brought out, it is nothing more than a rope that was used to strangle her. Anything else is pure speculation...

Click to expand...

Voice of Reason,

I can agree with some of what you say . And to be more specific, it should likely be called a "ligature". The coroner called it a ligature, and the cops called it a ligature. I have always called it a ligature because I know it's not a garrote.

However, that part of the crime scene must be looked at in its entirety, and not look at just the cord around JonBenet's neck. The total scene is one of erotic asphyxiation.

For instance, on the opposite end of that ligature cord there's a stick tied firmly in place on the cord. That stick wouldn't be needed to strangle a little six-year-old girl. It likely had another purpose -- such as the careful control of the amount of air being allowed during EA.

And the wrists were tied together with her hands over her head, indicating JonBenet may have been strung up by the wrists -- a feature often used in EA to keep the subject from involuntarily stripping the ligature from the neck and thus ruining the enhanced orgasm (the goal of EA and AEA).

And the acute injuries to the vagina indicate that something sexual was going on. In fact, there is some autopsy evidence JonBenet died during the actual sexual assault. At least one medical expert says this is what happened.

And finally, while profiling the killer of his daughter, why would John say he's a pedophile experienced with autoerotic asphyxiation?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab said:

For instance, on the opposite end of that ligature cord there's a stick tied firmly in place on the cord. That stick wouldn't be needed to strangle a little six-year-old girl. It likely had another purpose -- such as the careful control of the amount of air being allowed during EA.

Click to expand...

It's a bit sick to think about, but just envision the difference between strangling with a rope attached to nothing v. strangling with a rope attached to a stick. Without the stick, it may give severe ropeburn to the hands of the perp. I mention this only to suggest a purpose for the stick other than EA or AEA.

BlueCrab said:

And the wrists were tied together with her hands over her head, indicating JonBenet may have been strung up by the wrists -- a feature often used in EA to keep the subject from involuntarily stripping the ligature from the neck and thus ruining the enhanced orgasm (the goal of EA and AEA).

Click to expand...

You are aware that the situation of EA and/or AEA that you propose suggest that JBR was the one getting the "enhanced orgasm"? I can accept that the perp may have had the device from previous use of his/her own, but once it goes around JBR's neck, it is either a murder weapon or it is for HER pleasure. Why would a murderer want to give his victim pleasure? That doesn't seem to makes sense to me. I guess it could be sexual play gone wrong, but that assumes a lot more than I can accept.

Voice of Reason said:

You are aware that the situation of EA and/or AEA that you propose suggest that JBR was the one getting the "enhanced orgasm"? I can accept that the perp may have had the device from previous use of his/her own, but once it goes around JBR's neck, it is either a murder weapon or it is for HER pleasure. Why would a murderer want to give his victim pleasure? That doesn't seem to makes sense to me. I guess it could be sexual play gone wrong, but that assumes a lot more than I can accept.

Click to expand...

Voice of Reason,

No matter which way the evidence is interpreted, it is disgusting. But the physical facts can't be ignored just because they are disgusting.

An EA device wrapped around JonBenet's neck is there; the acute injuries (on the day of the murder) to the vagina are there; and the chronic injuries (prior to the day of the murder) to the vagina are there. Something sexual had taken place that night, and had taken place at other times.

The acute and the chronic injuries at the same spot in the vagina suggests consensual sex. Yet there are, IMO, stun gun marks on JonBenet, and this would suggest torture and involuntary sex.

I don't know what really happened other than it appears Burke is somehow involved. Otherwise, the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off, and having serious lapses of memory, and refusing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and obfuscating to confuse and intentionally throw off leads (such as the Santa Bear fiasco where the whole nation was looking for the stuffed Bear when the Ramseys knew all along JonBenet had been awarded the Bear just a few weeks prior to Christmas because both John and Patsy were there when she was awarded it, but the Ramseys disgracefully stayed quiet as the nation searched, which included 10,000 hits to the police on the internet by concerned citizens).

BlueCrab