886 users online (131 members and 755 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594

    Early Rumor

    Does anybody remember the rumor that went around early on concerning this case that John Ramsey was sexually molesting Jonbenet and Patsy walked in on it and swung at John and missed and hit Jonbenet thus resulting in the head injury? It's probably in one of my many books I have around here but I'm just not taking the time to look it up right now. It's too late and I'm too tired.I will tommorrow. I think this rumor came out of the Access Graphics office where someone was overheard saying that this is what happened. If this rumor were to be proven true it would explain so much of the staging and would include both John and Patsy in the cover up. John would have to be involved because he would have something terrible to hide as well as Patsy. It seems to me that HE would be the one to want to stage a kidnapping and cover up more than Patsy. I don't think Patsy would have even thought of something like that. I've always felt like John was in charge of this whole cover up thing and Patsy was doing her part, like writing the note. The way he defends her in the TV interviews makes me feel like he's actually the one responsible and Patsy is paying the price, so he's doing what he can to thwart that. He looks guilty rather than like he's covering for Patsy. Maybe they have to stay together because each has something on the other one. What say you all about this? (Of course, I might have a completely different opinion tomorrow, but for now I'd like to discuss this one. It seems plausible to me.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    Does anybody remember the rumor that went around early on concerning this case that John Ramsey was sexually molesting Jonbenet and Patsy walked in on it and swung at John and missed and hit Jonbenet thus resulting in the head injury? It's probably in one of my many books I have around here but I'm just not taking the time to look it up right now. It's too late and I'm too tired.I will tommorrow. I think this rumor came out of the Access Graphics office where someone was overheard saying that this is what happened. If this rumor were to be proven true it would explain so much of the staging and would include both John and Patsy in the cover up. John would have to be involved because he would have something terrible to hide as well as Patsy. It seems to me that HE would be the one to want to stage a kidnapping and cover up more than Patsy. I don't think Patsy would have even thought of something like that. I've always felt like John was in charge of this whole cover up thing and Patsy was doing her part, like writing the note. The way he defends her in the TV interviews makes me feel like he's actually the one responsible and Patsy is paying the price, so he's doing what he can to thwart that. He looks guilty rather than like he's covering for Patsy. Maybe they have to stay together because each has something on the other one. What say you all about this? (Of course, I might have a completely different opinion tomorrow, but for now I'd like to discuss this one. It seems plausible to me.)
    This theory may explain a cover up....but it certainly does not explain how this couple could've remained married for all these years had that incident really happened.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,182
    This scenario is one of the theories that I suscribe to.
    It explains why they both covered up.
    Why do they stay married??
    To keep up the charade of being a happily married couple.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Motive

    There was a TV interview with a senior criminologist over Christmas and he made the point that often they need to catch the criminal before they can begin to establish motive.

    Motive is not always apparent.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    This theory is plausible, but its main drawback is that the autopsy findings suggest that asphyxiation came first. The petechial hemorrhages on the neck and eyelids prove JonBenet was alive when the ligature strangled her; and there was just residual blood, not massive blood, on the brain when she was struck on the head (if dead, the heart can't pump blood).

    Of course, if the hit on the head came first and it didn't kill her, then the strangulation could have been used to finish her off. However, if this were the case I'd think the Ramseys would have called 911 in an effort to save her instead of finishing her off. They could have invented a story to account for the accidental hit on the head.

    BlueCrab

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,501
    This theroy does fit a lot of what is known. Prehaps the Asphyxiation was occuring as part of the abuse. When PR accidently hit JBR , the perpertrator , startled from being caught pulled tighter on the ligature killing her. This would put the head injury occuring after but in close proximity to the strangulation. I am a fence sitter in this case but there is one fact that makes me feel strongly the family was involved. That is that Mr. Ramsey tired to get the family to leave for Atlanta within a hour of the body being found. I just can not come to terms with this action as something an innocent parent would do within an hour of finding there child brutally murdered.

    mjak

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Of course, if the hit on the head came first and it didn't kill her, then the strangulation could have been used to finish her off. However, if this were the case I'd think the Ramseys would have called 911 in an effort to save her instead of finishing her off. They could have invented a story to account for the accidental hit on the head.

    BlueCrab
    Staging the strangulation as a bizarre sex crime (allegedly done by an "intruder") and inflicting the injury to JB's vagina would make sense if the Ramseys wanted to hide the evidence of chronic sexual abuse.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    This theory is a rationale for a coverup, which is what most people think we have.

    But IMO JonBenet's death was no accident, the physical violence used, never mind what came first, ligature or head trauma, exceeds that of an accident.

    The most obvious motive, and the one I assume, since others are more complex, is that JonBenet was murdered to silence her, she was going to talk!

    Lets assume she was asphyxiated first, then when her lifeless body hits the floor her head sustains an impact injury, same may apply if someone dragged her body, say off a bed.

    If JonBenet had been bludgeoned first, but her assailant was not certain she was dead, why not just carry on hitting her head, this is very common in homicides.

    Another scenario is that JonBenet and Burke were playing "doctors and nurses", then JonBenet complains and says she is going to tell Patsy, and Burke hits out in anger, but he concusses JonBenet with a blow to the head. The rest we can speculate upon.

    Then of course you can invert the original theory, and suggest Patsy killed JonBenet, she explains this to John as an accident, in fact she may have arranged her body to appear as such, but John decides she should be relocated and displayed much as she was discovered, and he may have additional motives for colluding with Patsy.


    .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,182
    UKGuy

    You posts are always thought provoking, if not slightly confusing lol...but thats probably just me!

    Maybe it wasn't an accident. I guess my feeble mind does not want to accept that JonBenet's death was intentional. I guess I prefer to believe it was an accident, but that still doesnt take away that PR and JR covered up....accident or no accident.
    JR's lawyering up his side of the family has always made me think, his ex wife may have something to hide also. He was still a financial force in her life, paying her mortgage for her. Would that obligate her to keep her mouth shut? Would she put herself before the life of an innocent child?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594

    The

    thing that I wonder about is does anybody really see John as a child molester? I have a hard time with that but then I think about the Priests.
    Most child molesters don't look like we imagine. So that is the only reason I can possibly believe this theory. Also, I've never been able to picture in my mind Patsy doing the garrote. But I can picture John downstairs in the basement doing the garrote while Patsy is upstairs writing the ransom note.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by trixie
    thing that I wonder about is does anybody really see John as a child molester? I have a hard time with that but then I think about the Priests.
    Most child molesters don't look like we imagine. So that is the only reason I can possibly believe this theory. Also, I've never been able to picture in my mind Patsy doing the garrote. But I can picture John downstairs in the basement doing the garrote while Patsy is upstairs writing the ransom note.
    You are so right about seeing someone as a molester. What should one look like, really? Beady eyes? Greasy hair? Prison tatoos? Sick leer on his face?

    I have a friend who married a man whose father had molested his only sister. I had known the dad for many years. He had owned a business that my father had dealings with. My dad, an excellent judge of character, would have described the molester as a good man, hardworking, successful, family man, churchgoer, etc. I know the truth about this man, and it just makes my skin crawl whenever I see him publicly. You just can't know what drives someone to molest their own child.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    UKGuy

    You posts are always thought provoking, if not slightly confusing lol...but thats probably just me!

    Maybe it wasn't an accident. I guess my feeble mind does not want to accept that JonBenet's death was intentional. I guess I prefer to believe it was an accident, but that still doesnt take away that PR and JR covered up....accident or no accident.
    JR's lawyering up his side of the family has always made me think, his ex wife may have something to hide also. He was still a financial force in her life, paying her mortgage for her. Would that obligate her to keep her mouth shut? Would she put herself before the life of an innocent child?
    narlacat,

    Unless you are discussing kgb style conspiracy murders, most homicides have easily understood motives: lust, jealousy and anger being the common ones, others at the extreme encompass serial killers and sociopathic pedophiles.

    So lets assume JR, PR or BR are in JonBenet's company when she has a serious accident, even if they are mainly culpable, whats the advantage or percentage in NOT phoning for an abulance or rushing JonBenet to hospital in a car. Remember medical expenses would be no problem here, any private hospital would fling open their doors when they saw JR's platinum credit card!

    Is there a precedent for this, well yes, Burke whacked JonBenet with a golf club, that was an accident, albeit a violent one, and JonBenet was taken to the hospital.

    So if you think it is an accident then you have to explain why the Ramsey's simply did not say so?

    Accident or Murder they still have to face the media and law enforcement.


    Then without iterating, consider the violence perpetrated upon JonBenet's body, does that appear as the result of an accident, I would suggest not.


    So JonBenet's death is quite unlikely to be the result of an accident.


    Are there any other options, with adults suicide is normally added for consideration, but in JonBenet's case this can be ruled out.


    So whats left, an intentional homicide, so why would anyone deliberately kill JonBenet?

    Lets keep it simple until we have evidence that suggests otherwise, so it would appear JonBenet was killed to keep her quiet. That is to prevent her from talking at that point in time or the following day?


    At this point an intruder may be responsible or a person who was invited into the Ramsey household, or a Ramsey acting alone or in concert with another Ramsey.

    If you add in the forensic evidence, which is partially staged, and still ask was this an accident, somehow it does not add up to an accident for me!



    .

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,182
    UKGuy

    So, you are totally convinced it wasn't an accident.
    You could well be right.
    God knows, the state of JonBenet's body says it must have been one hell of an accident if that's what it was.

    You think someone killed JonBenet to silence her, who?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by narlacat
    UKGuy

    So, you are totally convinced it wasn't an accident.
    You could well be right.
    God knows, the state of JonBenet's body says it must have been one hell of an accident if that's what it was.

    You think someone killed JonBenet to silence her, who?

    narlacat,

    As convinced as the current state of evidence allows. Most of the theories surrounding JonBenet's death are either media driven speculation that pander to populist sensibilities on crime, or they reflect individual personal views, none of which seem to rely on hard evidence.

    There are really only four options and those I've mentioned already, I can zero it down to one person along with additional circumstantial and ancilliary evidence, but there is no smoking gun yet, just plenty smoke, those who know more than me, will have a good idea who I think is responsible. If I get time I may post it in the Members Thoeries, but that takes time and re-checking of details and facts!

    Incidentally consider inverting the assumed cause, try staging a violent homicide to look like an accident, this has been tried and is fairly common, but the amount of forensic evidence normally shows the violent death for what it is. Also suicide by hanging is the standard coverup for instances of lethal garrotting!




    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    IMO, any person who could kill an angelic 6 year old child in cold blood has to be either driven by extreme rage, hatred, jealousy or be a psychopath.

    IMO, a psychopath out for bloodlust isn't going to sit patiently inside a house whose occupants may not return for days/weeks and write a 3 page ransom note. There would IMO be more evidence of psychopathic hysteria in that ransom note. So I am ruling out a psychopath.

    I don't think the DNA is the killer's and I think the killer has enjoyed that little red herring all these years.

    A stranger would not need to carry out any staging. I think we are looking for someone close to the family who hated JonBenet's very existence.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. JP to appear on CBS Early Show 08-25-11
    By TGIRecovered in forum Susan Cox Powell
    Replies: 167
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 01:40 AM