John Ramsey felt empathy for Karr !!!!

UKGuy said:
cynpat2000,
But he is still a person of interest via some 3rd party?

John is just saying hey I know what its like to be accussed but be innocent, so he is keeping the intruder flag flying!.
I agree, and according to the promo for JR's 48 hours interview there will be something regarding Karr not being "off the hook."
 
UKGuy said:
cynpat2000,
But he is still a person of interest via some 3rd party?

John is just saying hey I know what its like to be accussed but be innocent, so he is keeping the intruder flag flying!


.

Didn't JR also say something to the effect that people shouldn't rush to judgment about Karr? I suspect JR knew very well that Karr would be released.
 
sharkeyes said:
I agree, and according to the promo for JR's 48 hours interview there will be something regarding Karr not being "off the hook."
That's exactly what I thought would happen....JR is still going to try to keep Karr as a suspect, somehow.He's just toooo desperate for an intruder.
Coming to bookstores soon: 101 Reasons Why Karr is Guilty ..by John Ramsey.
Oh yes,and "Ransom Notes for Dummies".How about a promo for a class on the IDI theory:You're off the hook! Sign up for IDI 101: 100 Ways to Prove an Intruder Did It,with instructor John Ramsey,co-instructor Michael Tracey.
 
JMO8778 said:
That's exactly what I thought would happen....JR is still going to try to keep Karr as a suspect, somehow.He's just toooo desperate for an intruder.
Coming to bookstores soon: 101 Reasons Why Karr is Guilty ..by John Ramsey.
Oh yes,and "Ransom Notes for Dummies".How about a promo for a class on the IDI theory:You're off the hook! Sign up for IDI 101: 100 Ways to Prove an Intruder Did It,with instructor John Ramsey,co-instructor Michael Tracey.


lol. I thought IDIs only needed one reason -"A parent could't do this to their child"
 
I use to post daily ... it's comments like the ones in the above posts that make me seldom want to post in the JBR forum anymore.
 
capps said:
I use to post daily ... it's comments like the ones in the above posts that make me seldom want to post in the JBR forum anymore.

Then don't.
 
I know what you mean, guys. My fave is "the Rs were such a good Christian family, so involved in their storybook perfect life - anyone who thinks they were guilty is jealous of that and wants to make them look bad." I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy to frame or defame the Ramsey family, over jealousy or anything else. It's pretty difficult to be jealous of people who neglect their children's obvious issues to focus on what they want for themselves - money and status.

As for no parent could do that - a lot of people who say that are of the belief that the strangling came first, and cannot envision a parent doing THAT to their child. I'm fighting an uphill battle daily to point out the evidence that indicates the head wound came first. People resist the idea that the head wound came first, because it's more likely the Rs may have done this if the head wound came first - they know a parent may go this far to cover up a wound incurred by abuse. But if they believe it was an EA situation...forget it, there's no way JR and certainly NOT PR would be involved in EA. I could slap Dr Wecht for pimping that theory without more solid proof.

John Ramsey, Erin Moriarty, and John Karr...all three make me completely nauseous.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I know what you mean, guys. My fave is "the Rs were such a good Christian family, so involved in their storybook perfect life - anyone who thinks they were guilty is jealous of that and wants to make them look bad." I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy to frame or defame the Ramsey family, over jealousy or anything else. It's pretty difficult to be jealous of people who neglect their children's obvious issues to focus on what they want for themselves - money and status.

As for no parent could do that - a lot of people who say that are of the belief that the strangling came first, and cannot envision a parent doing THAT to their child. I'm fighting an uphill battle daily to point out the evidence that indicates the head wound came first. People resist the idea that the head wound came first, because it's more likely the Rs may have done this if the head wound came first - they know a parent may go this far to cover up a wound incurred by abuse. But if they belieev it was an EA situation...forget it, there's no way JR and certainly NOT PR would be involved in EA. I could slap Dr Wecht for pimping that theory without more solid proof.

John Ramsey, Erin Moriarty, and John Karr...all three make me completely nauseous.

Wecht was also the one who stated in his book the bleeding in the skull was limited to a few CCs of blood. That's why so many people seem to think strangulation came first. But the bleeding was extensive, albeit internal. So she must have been alive when she was hit in the head.

One theory I hear all the time from IDIs is that the blow to the head finished her off, or put her out of her misery. But if the strangulation was effective - e.g. it killed her, then why would she need to be finished off or put out of misery?

One problem for both sides, but I think more so on the IDI side, is we get a rough theory of the case in our head and then anything that doesn't fit gets rejected or explained away.
 
Chrishope said:
Wecht was also the one who stated in his book the bleeding in the skull was limited to a few CCs of blood. That's why so many people seem to think strangulation came first. But the bleeding was extensive, albeit internal. So she must have been alive when she was hit in the head.

One theory I hear all the time from IDIs is that the blow to the head finished her off, or put her out of her misery. But if the strangulation was effective - e.g. it killed her, then why would she need to be finished off or put out of misery?

One problem for both sides, but I think more so on the IDI side, is we get a rough theory of the case in our head and then anything that doesn't fit gets rejected or explained away.
I know - and they don't want to believe Wecht could be correct in his theory, but they believe Wecht was correct in the details of his theory that they need for their theory. I constantly tell people how there was actually quite a bit of blood. They don't want to hear it.

JonBenet's heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and it continued to beat afterwards for at least ten minutes, or the head wound would not have been able to develop as much as it did.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that, but they do. They need this murder to have been the work of a sadistic intruder who got his jollies by strangling the children of people he was jealous of, never mind the evidence that indicates that was not the case at all.

And exactly, if she was being strangled to death (somehow without struggling whatsoever - hmmm), why would anyone need to hit her on the head? If she was at the point of death when hit on the head, how did it end up being so developed? Why didn't she struggle against the restraints or the cord choking her at all, if she was strangled first and the head wound was last? It seems pretty clear to me that she was completely unconscious when strangled - and here's where clever IDIs point out that she had to have been unconscious from the stun gun - but why would a strangler with a stun gun need to bludgeon a child on the head?

The hardest thing for the IDI in my pov is explaining how there's no evidence of an intruder (that's okay, they swear up and down that the undie DNA *had* to have come from the killer) and how the Rs made themselves look guilty with their denial of cooperation and consistently inconsistent versions of events. "Oh, they were so distraught and in such shock from the murder, they couldn't even function!" Yeah, that's why they're going on CNN to address their innocence to the planet.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I know - and they don't want to believe Wecht could be correct in his theory, but they believe Wecht was correct in the details of his theory that they need for their theory. I constantly tell people how there was actually quite a bit of blood. They don't want to hear it.

JonBenet's heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and it continued to beat afterwards for at least ten minutes, or the head wound would not have been able to develop as much as it did.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that, but they do. They need this murder to have been the work of a sadistic intruder who got his jollies by strangling the children of people he was jealous of, never mind the evidence that indicates that was not the case at all.

And exactly, if she was being strangled to death (somehow without struggling whatsoever - hmmm), why would anyone need to hit her on the head? If she was at the point of death when hit on the head, how did it end up being so developed? Why didn't she struggle against the restraints or the cord choking her at all, if she was strangled first and the head wound was last? It seems pretty clear to me that she was completely unconscious when strangled - and here's where clever IDIs point out that she had to have been unconscious from the stun gun - but why would a strangler with a stun gun need to bludgeon a child on the head?

The hardest thing for the IDI in my pov is explaining how there's no evidence of an intruder (that's okay, they swear up and down that the undie DNA *had* to have come from the killer) and how the Rs made themselves look guilty with their denial of cooperation and consistently inconsistent versions of events. "Oh, they were so distraught and in such shock from the murder, they couldn't even function!" Yeah, that's why they're going on CNN to address their innocence to the planet.

We know the head blow came first. We also know, from the coronor, that the COD was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

Let me run this by you - because I don't know much about the physical effects of strangulation. It's been said that the damage to the neck isn't sufficient for the garrotte to have been the actual strangulation device - at least not in the position we see it when the body is discovered. Many believe there was manual strangulation first, with the garrotte as staging.

My question is, why wouldn't some other form of strangulation do damage to the neck muscles?
 
Nuisanceposter said:
John Ramsey, Erin Moriarty, and John Karr...all three make me completely nauseous.
me too...and we all know about Moriarty,per (I think it was SD?) posting her lovely(not)reply.
As far as I'm concerned,Moriarty wouldn't get the fame and notariety out of this if she openly said she thought the R's were guilty.It's certainly to her benefit to stay on his side and get the interviews,as she knows she wouldn't get them otherwise.
 
Chrishope said:
My question is, why wouldn't some other form of strangulation do damage to the neck muscles?
like what other kind ..I think it's possible she was strangled by twisting the collar of her shirt;I think this is in ST's book.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I know - and they don't want to believe Wecht could be correct in his theory, but they believe Wecht was correct in the details of his theory that they need for their theory. I constantly tell people how there was actually quite a bit of blood. They don't want to hear it.

JonBenet's heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and it continued to beat afterwards for at least ten minutes, or the head wound would not have been able to develop as much as it did.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that, but they do. They need this murder to have been the work of a sadistic intruder who got his jollies by strangling the children of people he was jealous of, never mind the evidence that indicates that was not the case at all.

And exactly, if she was being strangled to death (somehow without struggling whatsoever - hmmm), why would anyone need to hit her on the head? If she was at the point of death when hit on the head, how did it end up being so developed? Why didn't she struggle against the restraints or the cord choking her at all, if she was strangled first and the head wound was last? It seems pretty clear to me that she was completely unconscious when strangled - and here's where clever IDIs point out that she had to have been unconscious from the stun gun - but why would a strangler with a stun gun need to bludgeon a child on the head?

The hardest thing for the IDI in my pov is explaining how there's no evidence of an intruder (that's okay, they swear up and down that the undie DNA *had* to have come from the killer) and how the Rs made themselves look guilty with their denial of cooperation and consistently inconsistent versions of events. "Oh, they were so distraught and in such shock from the murder, they couldn't even function!" Yeah, that's why they're going on CNN to address their innocence to the planet.
Yea,they sure did get their act together when they wanted to,didn't they?Esp. if it was in the name of 'clearing their good name'.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I think there's one simple was to figure out which came first...JR says he thinks the head wound came last..therefore,it probably came first.JMO.
 
JMO8778 said:
like what other kind ..I think it's possible she was strangled by twisting the collar of her shirt;I think this is in ST's book.

Any kind. All I'm getting at is that much has been made of the idea that ligature stragulation should have caused more internal damage. This is the principle reason for thinking the garrotte is staging.

My question is simply this -do other forms of strangulation - shirt collars, scarves, hands, anything else you can think of, kill people w/o doing a great deal of internal damage to the neck.

One possible answer is suggested by UKGuy, when he says manual strangulation could have pinched the vagus nerve. Another possible answer is that ligature strangulation wouldn't necessarily cause a great deal of damage, and we've been sold a bill of goods with the statement that her injuries are inconsistant with garrotting.

I'm just trying to sort out what went on.
 
Chrishope said:
Any kind. All I'm getting at is that much has been made of the idea that ligature stragulation should have caused more internal damage. This is the principle reason for thinking the garrotte is staging.

My question is simply this -do other forms of strangulation - shirt collars, scarves, hands, anything else you can think of, kill people w/o doing a great deal of internal damage to the neck.

One possible answer is suggested by UKGuy, when he says manual strangulation could have pinched the vagus nerve. Another possible answer is that ligature strangulation wouldn't necessarily cause a great deal of damage, and we've been sold a bill of goods with the statement that her injuries are inconsistant with garrotting.

I'm just trying to sort out what went on.
I'm sure,I was trying to figure that out as well.
 
Even though Karr may be ruled out as the primary perp, I still have hope that he is connected in some way to the murder.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
874
Total visitors
995

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,785
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top