770 users online (89 members and 681 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 75
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    91

    For Solace (and anyone else who is interested)

    Solace,

    I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another. So, lets talk about some of the other evidence...

    Before the new DNA evidence came out, I thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty, but I didn't think the evidence was completely compelling one way or the other.

    Putting aside the DNA evidence, what other evidence convinces you that the Ramsey's are guilty? I agree that some things about the case are suspicious...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post
    Solace,

    I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another. So, lets talk about some of the other evidence...

    Before the new DNA evidence came out, I thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty, but I didn't think the evidence was completely compelling one way or the other.

    Putting aside the DNA evidence, what other evidence convinces you that the Ramsey's are guilty? I agree that some things about the case are suspicious...
    Okay.

    I just have some things I have to do at work, but I would be very happy to let you know why I think they are guilty.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    698
    I didn't follow the case as closely as many did but off the top of my head, here's my list in no particular order.

    1. Covering of the child with a blanket, redressing the child, fixing her hair, indicates family member and probable female, based on FBI profiling data.

    2. Sweater fibers consistent w/Patsy Ramsey found on the duct tape...seems highly improbable the intruder would manage to get fibers same color and type of the sweater that Patsy Ramsey was wearing on the tape he put on the victim's mouth.

    3. Crime scene is not consistent with a kidnapping gone wrong: very long, handwritten note with unusual $$ figure, sexual attack, failure to abduct her out of the house.

    4. Crime scene is not consistent with a sexually motivated attack. Victim wasn't abducted out of the house or raped. If the crime was sexually motivated and the intruder had spent enough time in the house to move her around, undress her, redress her, why no rape? Why only the paintbrush? Its not consistent with a real sex crime.

    5. Pineapple episode...which was discussed on the other thread. Not consistent with an intruder theory.

    6. Previous evidence of genital trauma, suggestive of motive to stage the scene as a sexual attack to cover up this previous abuse.

    7. Ligatures around arms not sufficient to immobilize the child, evidence suggests that the ligature and garrott were applied AFTER the child was unconscious, which makes this also inconsistent with the rest of the crime scene...why wasn't she strangled and raped if she was already unconscious? For what reason would the perp then bash her head in?

    8. Extremely erratic behavior of the Ramseys: Failure to follow the ransom note directions before JonBenet was found, in fact, they flagrantly and openly failed to follow the directions. Refusal to be questioned separately. Refusal to respond to verbal questions, demanding advance written questions. Failure to worry about their son or keep him with them. Refusal to submit to an independent polygraph.

    9. Ransom note. The length of time it would take to write the note, the practice note in the trash, failure of the perp to come prepared with a note, the strange content, the $118 figure are all suggestive that the note was not written by an intruder but someone who felt free to take plenty of time to write the note. Inability of Patsy Ramsey to be ruled out as a writer with numerous experts stating that she did write it, or probably did write it.

    I'm sure I've forgotten a ton of other evidence, but to me, when taken together it simply does not add up to an intruder.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post
    Solace,

    I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another. So, lets talk about some of the other evidence...

    Before the new DNA evidence came out, I thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty, but I didn't think the evidence was completely compelling one way or the other.

    Putting aside the DNA evidence, what other evidence convinces you that the Ramsey's are guilty? I agree that some things about the case are suspicious...
    SuperDave's posts pretty much sum up all the case facts, I believe.
    Will look for a link. ETA: SuperDave has posted tons on this case, but his latest post in the Theory thread ( which is at the top of the JBR Forum part, good reading for you there) is this: http://websleuths.com/forums/showthr...t=20426&page=4

    I know he has much more info than this.. Most of us who have followed the case for all these years do have a ton of info, thought, etc based upon our interpretation of the autopsy and the ransom note, along with the physical evidence knwn to exist.
    A good place to start is to read the 4 pages on this link and see what you think fits your theory best, if any do.
    Maria


    "Acquiring a pet may be the only opportunity a human has to choose a relative".

    This is MY truth, and this is my new baby puppy, Beau Monde.
    He will be joined in July by a tiny playmate.
    Please spay and neuter your dogs and cats.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    I took a quick second to respond to one of your reasons Medea. The note explicitly says she will be killed if the the police are called. John has just gone public with his company and it is now in the billion dollar range. His attorneys are well respected and well known and they also have connections - one of his attorneys has Bill Clinton as a client or had. But what does John do, he calls 911. I don't even want to call 911 because of the frustration involved in getting the moron on the other end to speak English correctly and get the information I am saying as fast as possible without asking a million questions, just th enecessary ones. I have not had to call very often I admit. But it is frightening to have to if you are desperate.

    I would have called one of my lawyers, the best one, and told him what happened and that we needed help immediately and that her life is threatened if I call the police and get the best people on this NOW. These are influential people who have influential friends and they are not going to use 911, not unless they want a mess. And they are not going to call their friends over and maybe cause her death, unless they want buffers. All of this is opinion of course.

    Bill Kurtis has a great show on the Ramseys and he opens it with John Ramsey saying the FBI never came and then they switch over to the FBI agent, and I aways forget his name and he talks about being there and the ransom note.

    Anyway, so he calls or has Patsy who is hysterical call 911 and the police come sailing up to the front of the house (which by the way John addresses in his book and says I wish they had been more discreet). He wishes they had been more discreet, all the while letting Patsy call over three different couples and their referend and every one is there by 6:45 in the morning.

    And the threat, "we will behead her if we see you call the police".

    And then there is always the evidence one can use in Court. LITTLE BUSY RIGHT NOW THOUGH.

    I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR SUPERDAVE'S TAKE.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    The underwear.....

    IF an intruder wanted to take her underwear as a trophy.... why would he go to the trouble to dressing her with a REPLACEMENT pair? (That were OBVIOUSLY not even her regular ones since they were so HUGE)


    It's not as if she would have been left naked... she had longjohns on.

    There was the papoose-like blanket covering her.

    Parents care a LOT about clean underwear. Killers... not so much.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by SeekingJana View Post
    SuperDave's posts pretty much sum up all the case facts, I believe.
    Will look for a link. ETA: SuperDave has posted tons on this case, but his latest post in the Theory thread ( which is at the top of the JBR Forum part, good reading for you there) is this: http://websleuths.com/forums/showthr...t=20426&page=4

    I know he has much more info than this.. Most of us who have followed the case for all these years do have a ton of info, thought, etc based upon our interpretation of the autopsy and the ransom note, along with the physical evidence knwn to exist.
    A good place to start is to read the 4 pages on this link and see what you think fits your theory best, if any do.
    Maria
    But I have looked through the theory and I do not see a post with his theory on it. Am I looking in the wrong place. I really would like to read what he thinks happened taht night. I may be wrong but I think SD believes there is incest going on. I am not so sure. But would love to hear it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LI_Mom View Post
    The underwear.....

    IF an intruder wanted to take her underwear as a trophy.... why would he go to the trouble to dressing her with a REPLACEMENT pair? (That were OBVIOUSLY not even her regular ones since they were so HUGE)


    It's not as if she would have been left naked... she had longjohns on.

    There was the papoose-like blanket covering her.

    Parents care a LOT about clean underwear. Killers... not so much.
    I agree...and why redress her at all? Heck, he could have just left it all off...panties, longjohns and blanket. And John himself...says that she was covered..."papoose style".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838

    Twister..

    John also refers to the garotte as a "twister". I had never heard it called that before. Makes you wonder how he knows so much about them. The "twister" reference is in Johns 1998 interview...I will be more than glad to post it, if needed.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR SUPERDAVE'S TAKE.
    Aren't I a popular guy these days!

    Bill Kurtis has a great show on the Ramseys and he opens it with John Ramsey saying the FBI never came and then they switch over to the FBI agent, and I aways forget his name and he talks about being there and the ransom note.
    Ron Walker. Glad I could help.

    I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another.
    I think we agree it's important, but not worth clearing anyone over yet.

    Putting aside the DNA evidence, what other evidence convinces you that the Ramsey's are guilty? I agree that some things about the case are suspicious...
    (As John Wayne): How much time ya got, pilgrim?

    (Normal): Well, I suppose we can start with highly irregular fibers in highly irregular places with highly UNlikely stories to go along with them...

    We could start with the testimony of several pediatric experts that JonBenet was a victim of the most horrid kind of abuse...

    We could start with the pineapple and the lack of explanation to go with it...

    We can start with the implausibility of the intruder coming through the window...

    We can start with the note...(got plenty to say about that)

    Or the FBI findings...

    We can start with the DA's office and the nasty little backroom deals they made in this case...

    (As snooty waiter): It's all on your table, sir. Just make a selection.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayce View Post
    Solace,

    I think we have discussed the DNA issue to death, and we obviously don't agree with one another. So, lets talk about some of the other evidence...

    Before the new DNA evidence came out, I thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty, but I didn't think the evidence was completely compelling one way or the other.

    Putting aside the DNA evidence, what other evidence convinces you that the Ramsey's are guilty? I agree that some things about the case are suspicious...
    Jayce,
    If you thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty then you should offer cogent reasons for their non-involvement.

    There is no forensic evidence in the house that was deposited by an intruder.

    Both parents are forensically linked to the crime-scene e.g. wine-cellar.

    Both parents accounts of the sequence of events that night are contradicted by the forensic evidence e.g. the pineapple and Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote despite Patsy stating she never visited the wine-cellar!

    There is forensic evidence suggesting that JonBenet was both acutely and chronically sexually molested. Yet this was cleaned up and hidden from view, not something that any intruder need do. So why hide a sexual assault, who would do that and why, where is the motive?

    Why bother with a ransom note, why not just kidnap JonBenet get out of the house and phone in your ransom demand the next day?

    What intruder needs to wipe both the inside and outside of the flashlight clean? Why not simply slip it into his pocket and leave the house, after all he took JonBenet's size-6 panties.

    Sexual rage is the likely motive for sexually assaulting and bludgeoning JonBenet. Overkill is the hallmark of her death, she was garroted , whacked about the head, and likely manually strangled prior to her death. This was no accident, no slip of the hand or sliding of the foot, no medical assistance was sought despite JonBenet's injuries, she was callously dispatched courtesy of the garrote. All the evidence points to the three residents remaining in the house that night, since Burke knows full well what transpired, even he stated that JonBenet walked into the house, on returning from the White's. John stated he carried her sleeping upstairs, and placed her to bed, despite the pineapple suggesting she was awake, walking about snacking pineapple whilst Burke likely sipped tea?

    The Ramsey anomalies, inconsistencies, and selective loss of memory all suggest collusion and conspiracy to present abuse and murder as the work of some deranged psychopath. Yet to date, despite JonBenet's multiple injuries, including a skull split open, internal bleeding, both in her brain and genitals, the alleged intruder left no forensic evidence?

    Looks like an inside job to me, e.g. a staged crime-scene!


    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Oz
    Posts
    247
    Can I just add:

    the clear imprint of JB's lips on the duct tape and the mucous from her nose under the tape, which indicates that it was placed there after she was unconscious. Why would an intruder do that?

    the "missing" cell phone records - if any of us didn't want potentially incriminating evidence found, would we be able to make it "disappear"?

    Tina

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,960
    Quote Originally Posted by TinaD View Post
    Can I just add:

    the clear imprint of JB's lips on the duct tape and the mucous from her nose under the tape, which indicates that it was placed there after she was unconscious. Why would an intruder do that?

    the "missing" cell phone records - if any of us didn't want potentially incriminating evidence found, would we be able to make it "disappear"?

    Tina
    TinaD,
    Sure you are correct, but those do not directly link the parents to the crime-scene which is why they were not mentioned.

    On the cell-phone records, either John phoned his parent company to notify that a kidnapping had occurred as per corporate policy, or he did not?

    The question is why not? The end result should have been the same as the 911 call, so why favor the latter?

    Speculating it might suggest that a prior call was made to the DA or similar seeking to be treated as victims once the 911 call was made. This call would naturally been a social call, not one made to any official office line. With the FBI involved and JonBenet discovered John and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot for interview.

    How about John's domestic insurance policy has he been paid out on JonBenet's death, is there any liability attached to him not following company policy and notifying them of JonBenet's kidnapping? Has he invalidated any prior or potential insurance claims?

    So making the cell phone records vanish must have been factored in from the very start, and is further evidence of prior planning and collusion.


    .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Oz
    Posts
    247
    Hi UkGuy,

    I guess where I was heading with the duct tape is: it obviously was not used to keep the poor child quiet, as it was applied after she was unconscious. It therefore becomes a part of the staging, and why on earth would an intruder feel the need to make it look as though he taped her mouth shut?

    No, it was someone trying to make it look as though an intruder had taped her mouth. Unfortunately, this person also managed to get fibres from Patsy's clothing that she was wearing that night on the duct tape.

    Tina

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Jayce,
    If you thought that it was unlikely that the Ramsey's were guilty then you should offer cogent reasons for their non-involvement.

    There is no forensic evidence in the house that was deposited by an intruder.

    Both parents are forensically linked to the crime-scene e.g. wine-cellar.

    Both parents accounts of the sequence of events that night are contradicted by the forensic evidence e.g. the pineapple and Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote despite Patsy stating she never visited the wine-cellar!

    There is forensic evidence suggesting that JonBenet was both acutely and chronically sexually molested. Yet this was cleaned up and hidden from view, not something that any intruder need do. So why hide a sexual assault, who would do that and why, where is the motive?

    Why bother with a ransom note, why not just kidnap JonBenet get out of the house and phone in your ransom demand the next day?

    What intruder needs to wipe both the inside and outside of the flashlight clean? Why not simply slip it into his pocket and leave the house, after all he took JonBenet's size-6 panties.

    Sexual rage is the likely motive for sexually assaulting and bludgeoning JonBenet. Overkill is the hallmark of her death, she was garroted , whacked about the head, and likely manually strangled prior to her death. This was no accident, no slip of the hand or sliding of the foot, no medical assistance was sought despite JonBenet's injuries, she was callously dispatched courtesy of the garrote. All the evidence points to the three residents remaining in the house that night, since Burke knows full well what transpired, even he stated that JonBenet walked into the house, on returning from the White's. John stated he carried her sleeping upstairs, and placed her to bed, despite the pineapple suggesting she was awake, walking about snacking pineapple whilst Burke likely sipped tea?

    The Ramsey anomalies, inconsistencies, and selective loss of memory all suggest collusion and conspiracy to present abuse and murder as the work of some deranged psychopath. Yet to date, despite JonBenet's multiple injuries, including a skull split open, internal bleeding, both in her brain and genitals, the alleged intruder left no forensic evidence?

    Looks like an inside job to me, e.g. a staged crime-scene!


    .
    Great post UK. So tell me what do you think happened to her size 6 underwear?

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast