614 users online (87 members and 527 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 96
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514

    The Big Question

    The big question here is not whether or not JMK killed JonBenet - but whether ANY "intruder" could have killed her.
    With the facts as we know them in this case - how do they measure up against the current frenzy that seems to "assume" that indeed an intruder could have killed JonBenet.

    I think it is important to take a step back here, clear our heads and take an elementary look at the BASIC facts of the case. And with those basic facts, ask ourselves if they could in any way allow for JMK as the perp.

    FACTS:

    1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
    claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
    found on their stairs.

    2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
    fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.

    3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
    will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
    of friends to come over.

    4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
    and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
    leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
    friends house with NO police protection.

    5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
    home "hidden" in the basement.

    6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
    favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.

    7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.

    8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
    other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
    DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
    could not ever get a full profile from it.
    With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
    to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
    there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not.

    9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
    were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
    daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth.

    10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
    was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
    the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
    She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
    left hand and attempted to be disguised.

    11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
    house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
    If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
    come equipped with the note?
    If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
    grab the child and leave?
    If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
    didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
    even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
    dead.

    12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
    These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
    driven to commit their crimes for sex.
    Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money.
    Experts have emphasised this time and again.

    13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
    parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
    what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
    They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
    etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
    lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
    and talk to the police.

    14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
    all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
    911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
    asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
    Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
    Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
    seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. During the night
    he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." That morning and
    the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
    presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
    with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
    their every move!

    15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
    NEVER on behalf of John. Why?

    16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
    the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
    room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
    like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
    murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
    chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
    the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense.


    It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning.
    It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money.
    If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
    They grab the child and RUN!!!!!

    The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
    It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.

    John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey.
    This post is my opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean
    But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.
    Remember - ALL crime scenes contain artifacts that might "seem" to be part of the case but have nothing to do with it at all.
    It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at.

    Bottom Line: Parents claim child was kidnapped, produce a note that claims this, child is never kidnapped, no ransom ever sought, child is found hidden and dead in her own home.
    Note is a fake, note has characteristics of mother, mother was one of 3 people on the face of the earth that WAS in the house at the scene of the crime that night, her fibers are on places on the victim that should never be there if she was not involved. There is not the forensic evidence that you should see from a foreign intruder if they had been the perp. There just isn't.

    So - go ahead. List these facts that point to an intruder.
    This post is my opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    Remember - ALL crime scenes contain artifacts that might "seem" to be part of the case but have nothing to do with it at all.
    It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at.

    Bottom Line: Parents claim child was kidnapped, produce a note that claims this, child is never kidnapped, no ransom ever sought, child is found hidden and dead in her own home.
    Note is a fake, note has characteristics of mother, mother was one of 3 people on the face of the earth that WAS in the house at the scene of the crime that night, her fibers are on places on the victim that should never be there if she was not involved. There is not the forensic evidence that you should see from a foreign intruder if they had been the perp. There just isn't.

    So - go ahead. List these facts that point to an intruder.
    What I am saying is that a lot of respected , professional individuals,as well as,posters here believe in the intruder theory. This is the ongoing argument. So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Angel, I've made all of those points many times.

    "So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list."

    It's a free country.

    "It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at."

    Agreed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    Angel, I've made all of those points many times.

    "So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list."

    It's a free country.

    "It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at."

    Agreed.
    Hi SDave..That is my point thank you.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    You're welcome.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    You're welcome.
    Agree or disagree,I appreciate your posts, they seem to be very well researched and you are far more knowledgeable than I.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    It's nice to be appreciated.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean
    What I am saying is that a lot of respected , professional individuals,as well as,posters here believe in the intruder theory. This is the ongoing argument. So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list.
    I'm waiting for this "equally compelling list" of facts that point to an intruder.
    This post is my opinion.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    I'm waiting for this "equally compelling list" of facts that point to an intruder.
    Well, maybe someone will post it.Don't know.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    77
    Have you noticed that on Fox news and maybe elsewhere they're giving out his flight arrival time and flight number, location. Do they always do that? I thought it was usually just, oh..he's being returned Sunday night.

    Are some shady folks hoping a whackjob will pull an JRuby/Oswald on him?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,575
    Great list of the facts K777, it might be most helpful to ones that have not spent years looking at this case.

  14. #14
    I will respond in red.

    QUOTE K777angel
    The big question here is not whether or not JMK killed JonBenet - but whether ANY "intruder" could have killed her.
    With the facts as we know them in this case - how do they measure up against the current frenzy that seems to "assume" that indeed an intruder could have killed JonBenet.

    I think it is important to take a step back here, clear our heads and take an elementary look at the BASIC facts of the case. And with those basic facts, ask ourselves if they could in any way allow for JMK as the perp.

    FACTS:

    1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
    claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
    found on their stairs.

    2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
    fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.
    This means very little to me. I think it is completely plausible that she wore a special christmas outfit for only a few hourse the previous evening, then donned the same outfit for the morning. I have done the same think - reworn the same outfit, to be worn to see different people, as long as it was clean, of course....

    3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
    will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
    of friends to come over. i can accept calling the police. The scores of friends? makes no sense to me.

    4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
    and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
    leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
    friends house with NO police protection. i would have demanded protection for my child, for sure.

    5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
    home "hidden" in the basement.

    6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
    favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.

    7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.

    8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
    other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
    DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
    could not ever get a full profile from it.
    With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
    to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
    there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not. This does not make sense to me either. No physical evidence of an intruder. I dont consider the miniscule speck of DNA to be conclusive evidence of an intruder.

    9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
    were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
    daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth. if this is true, it does not make sense to me that her sweater fiber are in the knot, not unless there is also a sea of other fibers present under the knot also - Burke's clothes, John's clothes, etc.

    10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
    was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
    the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
    She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
    left hand and attempted to be disguised. it would be nice to have this revisited by a fresh and impartial linguistics expert.

    11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
    house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
    If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
    come equipped with the note? Good question.
    If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
    grab the child and leave? Good question.
    If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
    didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
    even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
    dead. Good question.

    12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
    These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
    driven to commit their crimes for sex.
    Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money. Makes sense to me!
    Experts have emphasised this time and again.

    13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
    parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
    what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
    They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
    etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
    lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
    and talk to the police. I agree, this made the R's look very suspicious, and if they were innocent of any involvement, wasted valuable police investigation energy and time, imo.

    14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
    all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
    911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
    asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
    This so-called fact has been disputed, and imo, cannot be relied on.
    Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
    Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
    seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. I can understand prents shielding their surviving child from the horror of the investigation.During the night
    he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." This doesn't seem like an outrageous claim - they arrived home late, they rose early. Any other kid his age would be asleep, why not Burke?That morning and
    the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
    presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
    with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
    their every move!

    15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
    NEVER on behalf of John. Why?

    16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
    the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
    room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
    like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
    murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
    chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
    the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense. I think Lou Smit was too biased in favor of the Rs, did not have the objectivity to say "Yup. I can't explain that".


    It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas BANG ON, GREAT POINT! Least likely night of the year for SURE! (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning. will be interesting to see if there is any way Karr can be placed in Boulder, given that any wife would remember her husband being MIA on christmas night, and so far, the ex thinks he was with her.
    It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money. ITA
    If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
    They grab the child and RUN!!!!! ITA

    The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
    It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.

    John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey.

    From what I have learned so far, I have to agree, JMK did not do this crime. LE is no further ahead than it was a week ago....imo

    Great post, K777angel...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    In a ruling March 31, 2003, by U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes on a libel case brought against the Ramseys stemming from their book, Carnes found evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet more persuasive than evidence that her mother might have done so.

    A few days later, District Attorney Lacy endorsed Judge Carnes decision with a statement of her own.

    Not only is the intruder possible, it is the theory being pursued by Colorado law enforcement.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Copyright question/ Online photo question
    By laini in forum Forum Finesse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 10:54 AM