1145 users online (275 members and 870 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 342
  1. #1

    CASCU Analysis of Crime

    PMPT...page 305 ppb...

    The efforts of CASKU (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit) were not scientifically precise; but it's work was important nonetheless. Its profilers studied the physical evidence and all the known circumstances of homicides in order to provide a probable portrait of the perpetrator.

    JonBenet was at home in bed Christmas night in an affluent neighborhood while her parents were supposedly sleeping, which by the profilers standards put her at extremely low risk of encountering a stranger who intended harm. Her risk for murder by a stranger was also low because she hardly ever interacted with strangers, her circle of playmates and friends was constant, and she hardly ever played on the street unsupervised. Several of her parents friends told police that JonBenet was always with a known adult.

    Appearing in child beauty pageants, however, increased JonBenet's potential risk for meeting death at the hands of a stranger. Pageants exposed her to more potential suspects, including known pedophiles. Even though JonBenet had been found dead at home, the pageant connection couldn't be ignored. Had some stranger been attracted to her?

    Pedophiles are persuasive by nature; they use attention, affection, and gifts to seduce a child, usually over an extended period. Force and violence are rarely involved, and the molester is not usually a stranger to the victim.

    But if a stranger had murdered JonBenet in her home, he took a big risk that family members might wake and discover him.

    The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre-or postmordem, did not appear to have been commited for the perpetrator's gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene, intended to mislead the police.

    Kidnappings are almost always commited for money or sex. Rarely can another motive be found. The FBI concluded that if the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth had been used to silence her during an attempted abduction, the kidnapper would have taken her out of the house immediately. There would have been no reason to stay where the kidnapper could be discovered at any moment.

    Instead, they theorized, the duct tape too was probably used as part of a cover-up, along with the loosely tied cord found around JonBenet's right wrist. Whether the duct tape had been placed around JonBenet's mouth before or after death could be determined by the examination of the body and tape. Skin trauma would be evident if she had been alive when the tape was applied. Applying the tape after her death would not produce noticeable skin markings. Coroner Meyer had not reported any trauma to the skin around JonBenet's mouth.

    The probable behavior of the offender was an important factor. If the killer did not intend to kidnap JonBenet, he or she must have been there for a reason, perhaps to assault her. But if there had been no intent to kidnap, why did the killer leave the ransom note?

    The FBI profilers who scrutinized th overall crime scene, the autopsy findings, and the fingerprints, fibers, and blood evidence told the police that the ransom note was the most important piece of behavioral evidence in the case. Of all the elements of the crime, it probably took the longest to complete.

    The police believed that if the ransom note was written before JonBenet's murder, that left the door open to the possibility of an intruder, but if it was written after she was killed, it was unlikely an intruder would have stayed to write it. But the FBI and the Police could not determine when the ransom note was written.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  2. #2
    Once JonBenet had been murdered, the only reason to write the note or to leave it behind was to provide a false motive for the crime. And, to give credibility to the ransom note and a bogus kidnapping, the offender had to make the police believe that JonBenet had been restrained and silenced. That was called staging within staging.

    The moment JonBenet died and her body was left in a place where it would be found, the ransom money was lost forever to the kidnapper. If it was a real abduction gone sour, why leave the ransom note? After all, the handwriting might lead the police to the killer. The only reasonable conclusion was that the note had been left behind in an attempt to hide the killers identity and the real reason for JonBenet's death.

    If the killer was a stranger, why did he wrap JonBenet's body in a blanket? Why try to comfort someone was no longer with us? The dominant sign of hostility toward JonBenet was the use of the noose. It's elevationat every point around the neck was equal in distance from the shoulders, indicating that it had not been tied during a struggle. The FBI had never before encountered this type of violence in a child homicide. No parent who killed a child had ever used a "garrote" for strangulation.

    The note, the cord around the wrist, the tape over the mouth, the noose around her neck, and the possibility of penetration all suggested that the killer had no fear of discovery during the crime, though John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey were asleep in the house. A further analysis of the crime elements led the FBI to conclude that the killer felt comfortable and secure inside the Ramsey home. Few crime elements suggested an intruder or a stranger. Some of the FBI experts thought that the hard blow to JonBenet's head had been intentional. The injury did not have the characteristics of an accident. Besides, when accidents happen, people usually call for medical assistance. Still, the FBI noted, the blow to the head had not produced any bleeding and might not have been noticed at first. The experts considered an alternative explanation; the offender might have intended to hit a third party, missed, and hit JonBenet by mistake.

    The police knew that when all the factors were considered, one sccenario would be more compelling than the others. Various pieces of evidence might suggest other theories, but all the facts together could allow for only one. The FBI told the Police that whatever theory they settled on must be fact-driven: they could change the theory as new facts emerged, but they could not twist the facts to a pre-existing theory.

    Regardless of the conclusions reached by the FBI profilers, the police were constrained by Colorado law. Behavioral profile analysis was admissable as expert analysis of a crime scene, but nothing about the personality of the presumed offender was admissable in court.


    I want us to go through this piecemeal and see what type of theory fits better. We have expert profilers analysis here and we should discuss it.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,923
    Toltec,

    I tend to agree in most parts with their analysis but differ on some points.

    I consider JonBenet's vaginal trauma as it is termed to be the most important piece of behavioral evidence, rather than the ransom note, also I do not view the use of the blankets as a comforting behaviour, it is just as likely to be a concealing behaviour.

    The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre-or postmordem, did not appear to have been commited for the perpetrator's gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene, intended to mislead the police.
    Which staged crime-scene were they referring to, because her injury was cleaned up and hidden from view, this is entirely inconsistent with the view that it was intended to mislead?

    A further analysis of the crime elements led the FBI to conclude that the killer felt comfortable and secure inside the Ramsey home. Few crime elements suggested an intruder or a stranger. Some of the FBI experts thought that the hard blow to JonBenet's head had been intentional. The injury did not have the characteristics of an accident. Besides, when accidents happen, people usually call for medical assistance. Still, the FBI noted, the blow to the head had not produced any bleeding and might not have been noticed at first. The experts considered an alternative explanation; the offender might have intended to hit a third party, missed, and hit JonBenet by mistake.
    This encapsulates a few of the most popular theories, yet offers contradictory evidence e.g. The experts considered an alternative explanation; the offender might have intended to hit a third party, missed, and hit JonBenet by mistake. Yet earlier they suggest Besides, when accidents happen, people usually call for medical assistance.?

    Some of the FBI experts thought that the hard blow to JonBenet's head had been intentional. The injury did not have the characteristics of an accident. Besides, when accidents happen, people usually call for medical assistance.
    This is spot on and has to be demolished if any other view is to prevail.

    Appearing in child beauty pageants, however, increased JonBenet's potential risk for meeting death at the hands of a stranger. Pageants exposed her to more potential suspects, including known pedophiles. Even though JonBenet had been found dead at home, the pageant connection couldn't be ignored. Had some stranger been attracted to her?
    The pageant connection suggests another kind of domestic relationship, and an alternative theory, one not discussed by CASKU in public, similar applies to the BPD, and Steve Thomas.

    The police believed that if the ransom note was written before JonBenet's murder, that left the door open to the possibility of an intruder, but if it was written after she was killed, it was unlikely an intruder would have stayed to write it. But the FBI and the Police could not determine when the ransom note was written.
    From memory, due to the sequence of forensic evidence, the ransom note was written after JonBenet was killed, e.g. to fit an abduction scenario?

    If you accept that there was multiple staging attempts, then this change of behaviour may represent a difference of opinion between any parties involved, or the acting upon of external advice received?


    I think you know what type of theory I would propose to best explain what we understand as the facts, most of the other theories either lack explanatory power, or are inconsistent with the currently known facts?


    .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Toltec,

    I tend to agree in most parts with their analysis but differ on some points.

    I consider JonBenet's vaginal trauma as it is termed to be the most important piece of behavioral evidence, rather than the ransom note, also I do not view the use of the blankets as a comforting behaviour, it is just as likely to be a concealing behaviour.
    I think she was wrapped in the blanket to dispose of her body,esp. since it had tape on it.But the second reason was to help hide the vag. wound.


    Which staged crime-scene were they referring to, because her injury was cleaned up and hidden from view, this is entirely inconsistent with the view that it was intended to mislead?
    It isn't if you look at the RN first,which I believe stated the killer's original intentions with the line 'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.. *Now..go back and look at the body again..I think the vag. assault was staged for when she would be left outside..to make it seem a pedo did it,in case her body was found.
    And for whatever reason,that scenerio was dropped,and she was wiped down,redressed and covered.


    This encapsulates a few of the most popular theories, yet offers contradictory evidence e.g. The experts considered an alternative explanation; the offender might have intended to hit a third party, missed, and hit JonBenet by mistake. Yet earlier they suggest Besides, when accidents happen, people usually call for medical assistance.?
    I don't buy that one...IF the original target was missed,then that would further anger the killer,and he/she would have all the more reason to go for the original subject again.Yet we didn't see any such kind of injuries on either JR or PR.It seems to me, JB was hit head-on with the flashlight,with intent to kill.Although other things may be possible,and other situations may be as well.



    This is spot on and has to be demolished if any other view is to prevail.
    sounds logical to me.

    The pageant connection suggests another kind of domestic relationship, and an alternative theory, one not discussed by CASKU in public, similar applies to the BPD, and Steve Thomas.


    From memory, due to the sequence of forensic evidence, the ransom note was written after JonBenet was killed, e.g. to fit an abduction scenario?

    If you accept that there was multiple staging attempts, then this change of behaviour may represent a difference of opinion between any parties involved, or the acting upon of external advice received?
    like whom? I'm confused there.


    I think you know what type of theory I would propose to best explain what we understand as the facts, most of the other theories either lack explanatory power, or are inconsistent with the currently known facts?


    .
    to some degree,I agree with that.And I'm not disagreeing with you when I ask this,I only want to know what you think..why do you think ST would call it a rage caused by soiling issues and why would he totally give JR a pass on the whole thing? One reason I ask is,(as was pointed out many times bf),JR wasn't behaving like the parent of a missing child.Plus,he was on the 911 call,not exactly sounding as said such either,and obv. standing right beside Patsy and guiding her on the call itself.
    Also,and don't get me wrong,I admire Thomas to the utmost degree...but I just think after he interviewed Jeff Merrick many times and,after reading the RN,and even asking JM why JR kept pointing the finger at him...I don't see any way he couldn't have known that JR was behind that note,even though Patsy physically wrote it..the $118,000,the 2 gentlemen JM thinks point to him and his friends,the use of fat cat,the use of use that good southern common sense of yours line(since JM had known JR for a long time and they weren't exactly poor)..all point to JR trying to frame Merrick and friends,and I don't see how Thomas could have overlooked it all.I don't think he wrote the book for money,no I don't..but I'm guessing he thought Patsy did it,and didn't want to get sued by JR as well,since they both had separate lawyers?I do think he wanted to expose the corruption in the case,and he did a good job of that.And I do think he truly wanted justice for JB and did all that he could.I also realize all the fiber evidence wasn't in yet,but I still don't see how he could have missed JR's connection to the note.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    When the autopsy (and concurring opinions by other forensic specialists) states that there is evidence of CHRONIC vaginal abuse as well as the acute abuse that occurred close to the time of death, is proof that whoever did this had access to JBR at least once prior to that night. Chronic in this sense does not necessarily mean frequent, repeated, ongoing, etc. It just means PREVIOUS. It could have been the day before, a few days before (like the party on the 23rd) or more.
    So I disagree with the FBI as far as the vaginal penetration occuring only as staging at the time of the murder.
    The injury that produced the blood spots, yes. But the chronic abuse proves that the abuser had access to JBR at least once before. So that rules out an obsessed pedophile/kidnapper for ransom intruder as far as I am concerned as that would be a 1-time event.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    I agree with that Dee,and I think incest was an underlying theme in ST's book.he never came straight out and said it,but I thought the clues were there.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    I think she was wrapped in the blanket to dispose of her body,esp. since it had tape on it.But the second reason was to help hide the vag. wound.


    It isn't if you look at the RN first,which I believe stated the killer's original intentions with the line 'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.. *Now..go back and look at the body again..I think the vag. assault was staged for when she would be left outside..to make it seem a pedo did it,in case her body was found.
    And for whatever reason,that scenerio was dropped,and she was wiped down,redressed and covered.


    I don't buy that one...IF the original target was missed,then that would further anger the killer,and he/she would have all the more reason to go for the original subject again.Yet we didn't see any such kind of injuries on either JR or PR.It seems to me, JB was hit head-on with the flashlight,with intent to kill.Although other things may be possible,and other situations may be as well.



    sounds logical to me.

    like whom? I'm confused there.


    to some degree,I agree with that.And I'm not disagreeing with you when I ask this,I only want to know what you think..why do you think ST would call it a rage caused by soiling issues and why would he totally give JR a pass on the whole thing? One reason I ask is,(as was pointed out many times bf),JR wasn't behaving like the parent of a missing child.Plus,he was on the 911 call,not exactly sounding as said such either,and obv. standing right beside Patsy and guiding her on the call itself.
    Also,and don't get me wrong,I admire Thomas to the utmost degree...but I just think after he interviewed Jeff Merrick many times and,after reading the RN,and even asking JM why JR kept pointing the finger at him...I don't see any way he couldn't have known that JR was behind that note,even though Patsy physically wrote it..the $118,000,the 2 gentlemen JM thinks point to him and his friends,the use of fat cat,the use of use that good southern common sense of yours line(since JM had known JR for a long time and they weren't exactly poor)..all point to JR trying to frame Merrick and friends,and I don't see how Thomas could have overlooked it all.I don't think he wrote the book for money,no I don't..but I'm guessing he thought Patsy did it,and didn't want to get sued by JR as well,since they both had separate lawyers?I do think he wanted to expose the corruption in the case,and he did a good job of that.And I do think he truly wanted justice for JB and did all that he could.I also realize all the fiber evidence wasn't in yet,but I still don't see how he could have missed JR's connection to the note.
    I wonder if SteveThomas had given John Ramsey a pass if he had known that fibers from John's shirt had been found in the crotch area of JB's underwear. [The interview in which John Ramsey was confronted with the lab tests was conducted after the publication of ST's book].
    [JMO8778I] agree with that Dee,and I think incest was an underlying theme in ST's book.he never came straight out and said it,but I thought the clues were there.
    The clues were there and although ST mentioned the panel of experts who had come to the conclusion that JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse, he did not built it into his theory. He was too focused on Patsy having caused all these injuries because she wanted to punish JB for wetting or soiling accidents and thought Dr. Krugman's explanation (who was of the same opinion) as the most likely.

    But the pediatric experts on sexual abuse (Dr. McCann, Dr. Rau, Dr. Monteleone) all came ot the conclusion that the chronic injuries pointed to sexual abuse.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,923
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    I think she was wrapped in the blanket to dispose of her body,esp. since it had tape on it.But the second reason was to help hide the vag. wound.


    It isn't if you look at the RN first,which I believe stated the killer's original intentions with the line 'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.. *Now..go back and look at the body again..I think the vag. assault was staged for when she would be left outside..to make it seem a pedo did it,in case her body was found.
    And for whatever reason,that scenerio was dropped,and she was wiped down,redressed and covered.


    I don't buy that one...IF the original target was missed,then that would further anger the killer,and he/she would have all the more reason to go for the original subject again.Yet we didn't see any such kind of injuries on either JR or PR.It seems to me, JB was hit head-on with the flashlight,with intent to kill.Although other things may be possible,and other situations may be as well.



    sounds logical to me.

    like whom? I'm confused there.


    to some degree,I agree with that.And I'm not disagreeing with you when I ask this,I only want to know what you think..why do you think ST would call it a rage caused by soiling issues and why would he totally give JR a pass on the whole thing? One reason I ask is,(as was pointed out many times bf),JR wasn't behaving like the parent of a missing child.Plus,he was on the 911 call,not exactly sounding as said such either,and obv. standing right beside Patsy and guiding her on the call itself.
    Also,and don't get me wrong,I admire Thomas to the utmost degree...but I just think after he interviewed Jeff Merrick many times and,after reading the RN,and even asking JM why JR kept pointing the finger at him...I don't see any way he couldn't have known that JR was behind that note,even though Patsy physically wrote it..the $118,000,the 2 gentlemen JM thinks point to him and his friends,the use of fat cat,the use of use that good southern common sense of yours line(since JM had known JR for a long time and they weren't exactly poor)..all point to JR trying to frame Merrick and friends,and I don't see how Thomas could have overlooked it all.I don't think he wrote the book for money,no I don't..but I'm guessing he thought Patsy did it,and didn't want to get sued by JR as well,since they both had separate lawyers?I do think he wanted to expose the corruption in the case,and he did a good job of that.And I do think he truly wanted justice for JB and did all that he could.I also realize all the fiber evidence wasn't in yet,but I still don't see how he could have missed JR's connection to the note.
    JMO8778,

    since it had tape on it
    It had tape on it because John had removed it from JonBenet's mouth, then Fleet White returned to the wine-cellar to check some detail regarding the tape, probably that it looked fake?

    It isn't if you look at the RN first,which I believe stated the killer's original intentions with the line 'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.. *Now..go back and look at the body again..I think the vag. assault was staged for when she would be left outside..to make it seem a pedo did it,in case her body was found.
    And for whatever reason,that scenerio was dropped,and she was wiped down,redressed and covered.
    There may have been more than one version of the ransom note written.

    If you accept that there was multiple staging attempts, then this change of behaviour may represent a difference of opinion between any parties involved, or the acting upon of external advice received?
    Maybe someone placed a cellphone call to a person in authority, or requested corporate security advice, prior to making the 911 call?

    to some degree,I agree with that.And I'm not disagreeing with you when I ask this,I only want to know what you think..why do you think ST would call it a rage caused by soiling issues and why would he totally give JR a pass on the whole thing? One reason I ask is,(as was pointed out many times bf),JR wasn't behaving like the parent of a missing child.Plus,he was on the 911 call,not exactly sounding as said such either,and obv. standing right beside Patsy and guiding her on the call itself.
    Steve Thomas most likely proposed his Toilet Rage theory since it offers a credible explanation, but Steve Thomas is motivated both from personal and professional reasons, not to release vital case information to the public domain, as you know there is much more relevant evidence as yet unreleased.

    He would appear to give JR a pass simply to minimize publishing any further information. Consider the searches of the separate Ramsey houses, do you think it was Patsy they thought may have had a child pornography collection hidden away somewhere?

    In the background, the non-public, main suspect was John!

    Steve Thomas' book was not published to tell you who he think killed JonBenet, but to drop hints as to how he was obstructed in bringing her killer to justice.

    The alternative reason as to why Steve Thomas proposed a Toilet Rage theory and gave John a pass, is because he was blinkered and got it wrong, missing the links. That I seriously doubt.

    Another point is that the two most popular theories in this case have been proposed by ex-detectives, and given large media coverage. Both these theories, e.g. Intruder, Toilet Rage, are inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

    There is more to this case than the surface detail, and popular theories suggest.


    .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I wonder if SteveThomas had given John Ramsey a pass if he had known that fibers from John's shirt had been found in the crotch area of JB's underwear. [The interview in which John Ramsey was confronted with the lab tests was conducted after the publication of ST's book].
    there would have been no way he could have,IMO.that requires some explanation.

    The clues were there and although ST mentioned the panel of experts who had come to the conclusion that JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse, he did not built it into his theory. He was too focused on Patsy having caused all these injuries because she wanted to punish JB for wetting or soiling accidents and thought Dr. Krugman's explanation (who was of the same opinion) as the most likely.

    But the pediatric experts on sexual abuse (Dr. McCann, Dr. Rau, Dr. Monteleone) all came ot the conclusion that the chronic injuries pointed to sexual abuse.
    he had good reason to suspect corporal cleaning,imo,as it seems he talked to those close to her and discovered it was a big issue.but it also seems she suffered some sexual abuse as well,imo.question is,did that also lead to her death?
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    I agree with that Dee,and I think incest was an underlying theme in ST's book.he never came straight out and said it,but I thought the clues were there.
    But he does come right out and say it to John Ramsey on the LKL show. He says basically do you know that there is a team of experts who believe there is prior sexual abuse.

    I just don't think Steve believes that is what happened. And he is not the Rookie that the Ramsey claim he is. He is a seasoned investigator who, unfortunately, had the experience of having to kill two people prior to this time and he had also just come off a case where he caught the pedofile who had kidnapped a two year old.

    Sometimes the world is beyond belief. But anyway, my point is I do not think he was afraid to say anything - he said what he felt. He did not feel there was sexual abuse - at least he does not say it - he says others say it.

    I think people have a tendency to read things into this case where it should not be. Steve wrote the book and he said what he said. If he had felt it was incest, he would have said it, he was not afraid to say murder. MY opinion anyway.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    JMO8778,


    It had tape on it because John had removed it from JonBenet's mouth, then Fleet White returned to the wine-cellar to check some detail regarding the tape, probably that it looked fake?
    I think he immediately noticed something wasn't right,imo.

    There may have been more than one version of the ransom note written.
    true,but I think the final version given to LE was the one that stated the original intentions.

    Maybe someone placed a cellphone call to a person in authority, or requested corporate security advice, prior to making the 911 call?
    good possibility.


    Steve Thomas most likely proposed his Toilet Rage theory since it offers a credible explanation, but Steve Thomas is motivated both from personal and professional reasons, not to release vital case information to the public domain, as you know there is much more relevant evidence as yet unreleased.
    indeed.

    He would appear to give JR a pass simply to minimize publishing any further information. Consider the searches of the separate Ramsey houses, do you think it was Patsy they thought may have had a child pornography collection hidden away somewhere?
    of course not,but would just JB's autopsy results be enough to invoke a search for that? or was there more? I'm still not convinced the pics in the basement,while they may not have been of the porn type,were completely innocent either.

    In the background, the non-public, main suspect was John!
    it seems that way,at least for incest it does,maybe more.there's a telling quote i'm going to look for in a moment in it.
    Steve Thomas' book was not published to tell you who he think killed JonBenet, but to drop hints as to how he was obstructed in bringing her killer to justice.
    well,he does name Patsy as the killer,totally bypassing JR in any involvement,other than covering for her.and obv. JR was in on the coverup sooner than ST wrote he was.

    The alternative reason as to why Steve Thomas proposed a Toilet Rage theory and gave John a pass, is because he was blinkered and got it wrong, missing the links. That I seriously doubt.
    I can't see how he missed JR's stink all over that so-called RN.I've also wondered if he pointed the finger at Patsy in an attempt to get her to talk and say it was JR,if he thought JR was really the killer.

    Another point is that the two most popular theories in this case have been proposed by ex-detectives, and given large media coverage. Both these theories, e.g. Intruder, Toilet Rage, are inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

    There is more to this case than the surface detail, and popular theories suggest.
    that I believe.the intruder theory is,of course,totally out of the question,and the toilet rage theory seems weak to me,although it could have happened,I will say that.It just seems too weak a reason to intentionally kill your child,as the head wound suggests she was struck intentionally and with intent to kill,IMO.(feel free to disagree,no offense taken).I do find Mark Furhman's comment about it being no accident,and it in fact was quite intentional..interesting,to say the least.
    As far as toilet rage goes,Patsy could have simply moved JB to the other bed,and had LHP clean up the next day,while having JB dress herself,after she cleaned her,if she was that tired.Actually I think with a big trip scheduled the next day,she might have been likely to put a pull up on her,but perhaps she never made it to bed and that didn't happen.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    I think he immediately noticed something wasn't right,imo.

    true,but I think the final version given to LE was the one that stated the original intentions.

    good possibility.


    indeed.

    of course not,but would just JB's autopsy results be enough to invoke a search for that? or was there more? I'm still not convinced the pics in the basement,while they may not have been of the porn type,were completely innocent either.

    it seems that way,at least for incest it does,maybe more.there's a telling quote i'm going to look for in a moment in it.
    well,he does name Patsy as the killer,totally bypassing JR in any involvement,other than covering for her.and obv. JR was in on the coverup sooner than ST wrote he was.

    I can't see how he missed JR's stink all over that so-called RN.I've also wondered if he pointed the finger at Patsy in an attempt to get her to talk and say it was JR,if he thought JR was really the killer.

    that I believe.the intruder theory is,of course,totally out of the question,and the toilet rage theory seems weak to me,although it could have happened,I will say that.It just seems too weak a reason to intentionally kill your child,as the head wound suggests she was struck intentionally and with intent to kill,IMO.(feel free to disagree,no offense taken).I do find Mark Furhman's comment about it being no accident,and it in fact was quite intentional..interesting,to say the least.
    As far as toilet rage goes,Patsy could have simply moved JB to the other bed,and had LHP clean up the next day,while having JB dress herself,after she cleaned her,if she was that tired.Actually I think with a big trip scheduled the next day,she might have been likely to put a pull up on her,but perhaps she never made it to bed and that didn't happen.
    Yes, but that is the reason it is called rage, because the person does not simply pick the child up and put the child in the other bed. The person is infuriated and exhausted and rage ensues. As Thomas said, he had seen it before.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,697

    the head wound

    The splitting of the skull from the front to back seems unusual. JonBenet was obviously struck or made contact with something that left a hole on top of her skull at the front part of her skull (flashlight, doorknob, sink fixture, bathtub edge, golf club, baseball bat, or something else). The splitting from that point to the back for 7 inches seems odd for a contact point toward the extreme front of her head. I wonder if whatever made contact with the front of her skull caused her to fall backward and strike the back of her head, which resulted in the long skull fracture?

    The downward force to the top of the skull would dissipate the energy as seen by the hole and some fracturing, but I'm not sure that alone would cause a fracture as long as the one we see in the autopsy photos.

    Some think that one angry swing with a flashlight would crack the skull but I'm not sure it would be seven inches. I'm thinking that at some point she fell and hit the back of her head on a very hard, unpadded surface such as concrete or cast-iron bath tub or some such.

    Just thinking out loud here ... anyone have any ideas on this, pro or con?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Good thought,I didn't think of that...if she'd been hit w an object,and then fell ..that could have compounded the original crack,perhaps?
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    The splitting of the skull from the front to back seems unusual. JonBenet was obviously struck or made contact with something that left a hole on top of her skull at the front part of her skull (flashlight, doorknob, sink fixture, bathtub edge, golf club, baseball bat, or something else). The splitting from that point to the back for 7 inches seems odd for a contact point toward the extreme front of her head. I wonder if whatever made contact with the front of her skull caused her to fall backward and strike the back of her head, which resulted in the long skull fracture? No Boesp, the hit is in the back of the head and goes to the front.

    The downward force to the top of the skull would dissipate the energy as seen by the hole and some fracturing, but I'm not sure that alone would cause a fracture as long as the one we see in the autopsy photos.

    Some think that one angry swing with a flashlight would crack the skull but I'm not sure it would be seven inches. I'm thinking that at some point she fell and hit the back of her head on a very hard, unpadded surface such as concrete or cast-iron bath tub or some such.

    Just thinking out loud here ... anyone have any ideas on this, pro or con?
    I am pretty sure I am right about that BOESP. Any one else?

Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-20-2012, 02:30 PM
  2. Trial Analysis
    By Leila in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 252
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 01:52 AM