Criminality: The R's vs. the perp's.

Holdontoyourhat

Former Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
5,299
Reaction score
12
Many seem shocked, revolted, and suspicious of the R's for their pre-crime or post-crime antics or behavior. Maybe so, but when it comes to their criminality, they're putting me to sleep.

Not so with the crime scene. It has abundant criminality. From the child-beheading RN to the garrote still around JBR's neck, the crime scene is the epitome of criminality.

There's really no comparison between the R's and the perp, as far as criminality is concerned.
 
But you don't know who the perp was. How can you compare him/her to the Rams if you don't know who s/he was?

The RN was completely bogus. Not only was the perp not in possession of the child and thereby unable to make good on any threats, but s/he wasn't actually interested in the ransom they claim to be doing this for.

Everyone who commits a crime has to start somewhere. IMO, the Ramseys started with their daughter. Someone was molesting JonBenet. I'd think it was a family member, and that person was commiting a crime by making JB their sexual plaything. Whoever was doing that to her seemed to have no trouble hurting a small defenseless girl by sexually abusing her to the point of strangling her as part of the "game." That "game" turned lethal by accident, and turned the molester into an murderer.

Now how likely is it that this perp - the molester turned murderer - is someone other than a Ramsey? Who else would be able to get to JonBenet in order to be molesting her, not just the night she died but times before? I think the medical evidence from Dr. Beuf supports the theory that JB had been being sexually abused for a while despite his denials. That was someone close to her. Who other than a Ramsey is going to feel comfortable enough to be in their house prowling around molesting the child and writing and re-writing the War And Peace of ransom notes? Why didn't the "foreign faction" target Burke also or instead? Why didn't they take JB with them, and collect the ransom for her body if that was their goal? Why would an intruder care if JB is dressed or naked, and why would s/he go to the trouble of wiping her down and redressing her, tucking her in a comfy blanket? Killers and kidnappers don't behave the way the killer/kidnapper did, and innocent parents don't behave the Ramseys did either. I'll never be convinced anyone other than a Ramsey had anything to do with this - certainly not an intruder, and certainly not any pedophile ring or cult following.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
But you don't know who the perp was. How can you compare him/her to the Rams if you don't know who s/he was?

The RN was completely bogus. Not only was the perp not in possession of the child and thereby unable to make good on any threats, but s/he wasn't actually interested in the ransom they claim to be doing this for.

Everyone who commits a crime has to start somewhere. IMO, the Ramseys started with their daughter. Someone was molesting JonBenet. I'd think it was a family member, and that person was commiting a crime by making JB their sexual plaything. Whoever was doing that to her seemed to have no trouble hurting a small defenseless girl by sexually abusing her to the point of strangling her as part of the "game." That "game" turned lethal by accident, and turned the molester into an murderer.

Now how likely is it that this perp - the molester turned murderer - is someone other than a Ramsey? Who else would be able to get to JonBenet in order to be molesting her, not just the night she died but times before? I think the medical evidence from Dr. Beuf supports the theory that JB had been being sexually abused for a while despite his denials. That was someone close to her. Who other than a Ramsey is going to feel comfortable enough to be in their house prowling around molesting the child and writing and re-writing the War And Peace of ransom notes? Why didn't the "foreign faction" target Burke also or instead? Why didn't they take JB with them, and collect the ransom for her body if that was their goal? Why would an intruder care if JB is dressed or naked, and why would s/he go to the trouble of wiping her down and redressing her, tucking her in a comfy blanket? Killers and kidnappers don't behave the way the killer/kidnapper did, and innocent parents don't behave the Ramseys did either. I'll never be convinced anyone other than a Ramsey had anything to do with this - certainly not an intruder, and certainly not any pedophile ring or cult following.
That crime scene has nothing to do with sex.
It has to do with humiliation.
There is no evidence that JBR was ever molested by anyone at anytime.
 
Zman said:
That crime scene has nothing to do with sex.
It has to do with humiliation.
There is no evidence that JBR was ever molested by anyone at anytime.


Humiliation? She was wrapped in a blanket!

Why, it's as if it was done by someone who loved her.
 
>>There is no evidence that JBR was ever molested by anyone at anytime.<<

Zman
Now come on, you know you cannot state that as a fact.
Expert opinons differ.
Some think she was.
Some think she wasn't.
Dr Beuf's opinion is useless as he never actually performed an internal examination on JonBenet, so he was really in no position to comment.
 
Brefie said:
Humiliation? She was wrapped in a blanket!

Why, it's as if it was done by someone who loved her.
Maybe thats just what the killer happend to have.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't tell me the R's bashed JBR's head in then tied her up and strangled her, possibly stungunned her, shoved a paintbrush handle up her vagina and then out of LOVE for their daughter wrapped her in a blanket.

Please.
 
Zman said:
Maybe thats just what the killer happend to have.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't tell me the R's bashed JBR's head in then tied her up and strangled her, possibly stungunned her, shoved a paintbrush handle up her vagina and then out of LOVE for their daughter wrapped her in a blanket.

Please.

Please???? Please yourself.

Do you know for a fact they didn't? Ummmm, that's a 'no'.
 
The profilers don't always get it right. They do say if the body is taken away from the crime scene it shows planning. In the case of JBR--she was quickly disposed of in the cellar room, and the garrotte made on the spot outside the room. There was a serial killer in Richmond, that the profilers speculated cared about his victims, because he left them covered. He was executed in the last couple of years. When he was asked why he covered them, he had no answers---AND he didn't care about his victims.

There was also a homicidal pedophile in Switzerland, I believe, that murdered both boys and girls. He moved around a lot, and it was years before he was caught. Roy Hazelwood was called in, and he used something called "linkage analysis" to look at all the unsolved murders of children, and thought there were similarities. This perp used a variety of methods in killing...and sometimes all 3. He strangled them....used a blunt object to strike them on the head....and sometimes used a stick to penetrate an orifice. He claimed he wasn't a pedophile, and the reason he used the stick was because the child made them angry. Obviously this guy had issues---but that was his explanation for using a branch or stick.
 
Maikai said:
The profilers don't always get it right. They do say if the body is taken away from the crime scene it shows planning. In the case of JBR--she was quickly disposed of in the cellar room, and the garrotte made on the spot outside the room. There was a serial killer in Richmond, that the profilers speculated cared about his victims, because he left them covered. He was executed in the last couple of years. When he was asked why he covered them, he had no answers---AND he didn't care about his victims.
I'm not sure that 'on the spot' describes the making of the garrote very well. It makes it sound like an afterthought. The fact that the cord and duct tape were not taken from the house does suggest planning. It suggests the killer may not have wanted to rely on finding cord or tape in the house, so he brought his own.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
I'm not sure that 'on the spot' describes the making of the garrote very well. It makes it sound like an afterthought. The fact that the cord and duct tape were not taken from the house does suggest planning. It suggests the killer may not have wanted to rely on finding cord or tape in the house, so he brought his own.

He brought in items for a kidnapping or burglary--not a murder.
 
Maikai said:
He brought in items for a kidnapping or burglary--not a murder.
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the second ligature. It's too complex. It must have been used for more than tieing JBR's wrists together.
 
When considering the possibility that an intruder killed JonBenet why does everyone assume there would have been only one?

Why not two or three or five?

One to have a reason to be present in the Ramsey house and to carry JonBenet down to the basement, one to operate the ligature, another the stun gun and yet another to hit her over the head with a baseball bat. And of course the one who adored her in his own sick way to wrap her body in her white blanket.

And the ransom note? - that wasn't an intruder, that was Patsy IMO.
 
aussiesheila said:
When considering the possibility that an intruder killed JonBenet why does everyone assume there would have been only one?

Why not two or three or five?

One to have a reason to be present in the Ramsey house and to carry JonBenet down to the basement, one to operate the ligature, another the stun gun and yet another to hit her over the head with a baseball bat. And of course the one who adored her in his own sick way to wrap her body in her white blanket.

The note refers to one person...and two might do together what one person alone would not. It might explain the bat and open butler room door as being one means of egress; and the basement window the second. They went out different exits, and one might have gotten spooked when things went wrong. The writer of the note and killer may be different people. One left handwriting--the other DNA.
 
The chance of getting caught greatly increases each time another person is added to the criminal activity, either during the crime (harder to be sneaky with three, four people breaking in and abducting children from their beds, writing notes, etc.) or afterwards (the more who know, the more can talk.) And why would that many people be needed to carry out this crime? How did they get JonBenet to eat the pineapple?

Patsy isn't going to write that note to cover up for intruders. She wrote that note, imo, and the only reason she'd do so is to cover up for one of her own family members - no one else. Not Fleet White, not Bill McReynolds, and certainly not an intruder, much less a gang of intruders.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
The chance of getting caught greatly increases each time another person is added to the criminal activity, either during the crime (harder to be sneaky with three, four people breaking in and abducting children from their beds, writing notes, etc.) or afterwards (the more who know, the more can talk.) And why would that many people be needed to carry out this crime? How did they get JonBenet to eat the pineapple?

Patsy isn't going to write that note to cover up for intruders. She wrote that note, imo, and the only reason she'd do so is to cover up for one of her own family members - no one else. Not Fleet White, not Bill McReynolds, and certainly not an intruder, much less a gang of intruders.
I totally agree...this is not a case of how many morons does it take to change a lightbulb, it is how can we cover up this accident, because we don't want our "social standing" ruined, so we need to stage this to look like an intruder did this to THAT child.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
Patsy isn't going to write that note to cover up for intruders. She wrote that note, imo, and the only reason she'd do so is to cover up for one of her own family members - no one else.
I dont know how many posters have made this statement or is it the same person posting it over and over again?
IMO you should all have another think about this because I say she WOULD write a note to cover up for intruders. I may be the only person saying this at the moment. But that doesn't mean I am wrong.
 
aussiesheila said:
I dont know how many posters have made this statement or is it the same person posting it over and over again?
IMO you should all have another think about this because I say she WOULD write a note to cover up for intruders. I may be the only person saying this at the moment. But that doesn't mean I am wrong.
Well, I keep saying it over and over again, but I'm not the only one.

True, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but...WHY would Patsy want to participate in a cover up for the murder of her daughter committed by intruders? Doesn't that mean Burke is in danger? That both her and John are also in danger? If they can break in and kill JB, then get Patsy to help cover it up, what's to stop them from returning to finish all the rest of them off? What could she possibly be gaining by not turning over murderous intruders to the police? Even if the intruders were people she knew personally, why would she not only allow them to murder her daughter and not have to answer for it, but assist them in the cover up? I don't believe there was a pedophile ring starring JonBenet. I cannot see Patsy allowing her daughter to be so rudely used. She thought JB was some kind of treasure to be adored and thus produce adoration for her as the mother, but I don't think she would ever pimp her daughter out like that.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
Well, I keep saying it over and over again, but I'm not the only one.

True, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but...WHY would Patsy want to participate in a cover up for the murder of her daughter committed by intruders? Doesn't that mean Burke is in danger? That both her and John are also in danger? If they can break in and kill JB, then get Patsy to help cover it up, what's to stop them from returning to finish all the rest of them off? What could she possibly be gaining by not turning over murderous intruders to the police? Even if the intruders were people she knew personally, why would she not only allow them to murder her daughter and not have to answer for it, but assist them in the cover up? I don't believe there was a pedophile ring starring JonBenet. I cannot see Patsy allowing her daughter to be so rudely used. She thought JB was some kind of treasure to be adored and thus produce adoration for her as the mother, but I don't think she would ever pimp her daughter out like that.
Thanks for taking me seriously Nuisanceposter,
I would not be saying that Patsy would cover for murder by an intruder if I thought this was just a straight out murder. But I think the murder occurred when some pedophiles who had been regularly abusing JonBenet were having what they thought would be just another routine session with her. I think that Patsy knew who at least some of these abusers were and I think she knew the abuse had been going on for a long time. The killing that night was not part of the regular abusers plan. They just happened to have allowed an 'outsider' pedophile to join their group that night and he was the one who killed JonBenet. Patsy was involved in the cover up because she knew her daughter was dead anyway and she would rather her death be thought of as being the result of a kidnapping than the result of ongoing sexual abuse with which she was complicit.
I'm sorry but I think Patsy WAS capable of allowing this to happen to her daughter and she is not the first mother in history to have done this. There are a multitude of complex reasons for this phenomenon. Two for examples in this case are IMO - I think that Patsy was totally focussed on her own needs rather than JonBenet's. Some parents adore a child for what the child can do for them rather that for what the child is, which is the way I think Patsy viewed JonBenet. Since several of the pedophiles were very close to Patsy she turned a blind eye to the abuse in order to maintain her relationships with these people. I also think that Patsy was sexually abused herself as a child so saw it as 'normal' when it happened to her own daughter.
 
aussiesheila said:
Thanks for taking me seriously Nuisanceposter,
I would not be saying that Patsy would cover for murder by an intruder if I thought this was just a straight out murder. But I think the murder occurred when some pedophiles who had been regularly abusing JonBenet were having what they thought would be just another routine session with her. I think that Patsy knew who at least some of these abusers were and I think she knew the abuse had been going on for a long time. The killing that night was not part of the regular abusers plan. They just happened to have allowed an 'outsider' pedophile to join their group that night and he was the one who killed JonBenet. Patsy was involved in the cover up because she knew her daughter was dead anyway and she would rather her death be thought of as being the result of a kidnapping than the result of ongoing sexual abuse with which she was complicit.
I'm sorry but I think Patsy WAS capable of allowing this to happen to her daughter and she is not the first mother in history to have done this. There are a multitude of complex reasons for this phenomenon. Two for examples in this case are IMO - I think that Patsy was totally focussed on her own needs rather than JonBenet's. Some parents adore a child for what the child can do for them rather that for what the child is, which is the way I think Patsy viewed JonBenet. Since several of the pedophiles were very close to Patsy she turned a blind eye to the abuse in order to maintain her relationships with these people. I also think that Patsy was sexually abused herself as a child so saw it as 'normal' when it happened to her own daughter.

Your theory might make a good fiction book, but it's not even close to reality in the case of the Ramseys. There is no history of Patsy ever having been sexually abused herself. It's absurd to think even bad parents would allow their child to be routinely used by pedophiles. There were no pedophiles close to the Ramseys, and they didn't need friendships with these sorts---I don't know where you're getting this from. Patsy wasn't self-absorbed--in fact quite the opposite.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
825
Total visitors
922

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,759
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top