1228 users online (234 members and 994 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 106
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Evil people - and things that don't fit

    This is going to be long (sorry). I feel a ramble coming on.

    Having watched Tracey's documentary a couple of times now and slept in it a few times and mulled it over......

    The idea of a bad man killing JonBenet has always been the easiest to understand. She was a treasured child - I honestly believe that she was the most precious thing in Patsy's life. I can't conceive of a motive for John killing her. I don't believe that her father sexually abused her because she seemed to adore him, missed him when he was away. I understand that victims of sexual abuse aren't always obviously scared of their abusers, but would they actually "miss" them when they are away?

    One thing that didn't fit for me was the notion that a lone stranger-perp would do a deed like this on Christmas Night when kids were excited and wakeful and people were MORE likely to be at home and receiving visitors. Too risky.

    I have never been able to visualise a scenario where either or both Ramseys decided to kill their precious youngest child - apart from anything, they had a busy schedule for the next week or so - if they were going to do that, surely they would have chosen a time when they had a more convenient "window" (I'm being facetious BTW).

    An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree. The Ramseys had a lot to lose and, as we have seen, image is vitally important to them. I think they would cover up anything which might look bad for them (and I believe they HAVE lied over some things in the timeline of events). Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that means the strangulation came first - what kind of "accident" involves strangulation - except rage. If either Patsy or John Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded? It doesn't make sense.

    The only scenario that really has merit for the Ramseys doing a massive cover-up is one where Burke was involved. This is the only scenario where I can see both Ramseys being involved in a cover-up together - but even it has flaws. I don't think they would have allowed him to leave their sight and I think Burke was almost certainly transfixed by his Nintendo that Christmas and likely to be oblivious to his little sister. I know my son was. I emphasise that I don't believe Burke was involved in his sister's death.

    So my best theory to date has been that the killer was someone who knew the family and who had an obsession for Patsy. It still seemed far-fetched, but stranger things have happened. I considered the killer to be intelligent and to have hated JonBenet - been jealous of JonBenet because of the obsession with Patsy

    It was frustrating to read of the ramseys stubborn refusal to help the police in the early days of the investigation. I think it demonised them in public opinion. AT first I sympathised with them for the treatment they received at the hands of the media, but I now see that they brought much of this upon themselves by putting themselves before doing everything humanly possible to bring their daughter's killer to justice. I think they should be ashamed of themselves for that. I firmly believe that had they immediately sat down with police and told them everything they knew, that police would have moved on and that perhaps the killer would have been caught.

    So now we have Tracey's theory. Not just one bad man, but two. Doing it for kicks and $$$s. Working in a pair makes more sense than the lone intruder-perp. They would egg each other on. Mr X is the scary one, the control freak and Helgoth tagging on for the thrill and hoping for $$$s. Yes, I can buy this theory even although it is disturbing to imagine JonBenet's terrifying end at the hand of two men in black, her parents close by and not responding.

    So what is wrong with it? Some pieces still don't gel. For one, Helgoth and Mr X supposedly waited in the Ramsey house for them to return. I think they took a chance there. The Ramseys might have gone to stay with friends or family - as many people do at Christmas. How did they know the Ramseys were going to return?

    Were they watching the Ramsey home - of so, from where?

    Then there is the matter of the ransom note. If Kenady is to be believed, Helgoth and Mr X PLANNED a kidnapping. A ransom note is a key part of a kidnapping. Surely they would have brought one with them? One which was typed or made from newspaper clippings? A short and to the point ransom note? RST say they wouldn't like to risk being caught with a ransom note on their person - that doesn't fit with them liking to take risks inside people's homes and then of course they run a huge risk of being caught with the kidnappee.

    Where did they plan to keep Jonbenet? Kidnappers usually have this carefully planned. If not, these guys must really have been the Bungle Brothers.

    Where did they park for several hours whilst waiting? If they waited for hours inside the ramsey home, surely they would have needed to pee or poo? Even at the low end of the waiting scale, they would have to have stayed still, silent and not had to relieve themselves for at least 2 hours (an hour after the ramseys arrived home and an hour before to case the house and write the ransom note).

    Finally (for now), there is still the matter of the pineapple. Tracey has never addressed this and as Lou SMit says - it is the big bugaboo. Experts say 2-5 hours for digestion. If she ate it before going to the Whites, that means she died soon after returning home. If she ate it AFTER returning from the WHites, that means the ramseys lied about her being asleep.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that Helgoth and Mr X only intended the Ramsey home to be another midnight burglary and that JonBenet disturbed them in their deeds as she crept upstairs after sneaking a piece of pineapple....
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    886
    Very well thought out post Jayelles. I agree with you on most of your ideas regarding the Ramseys and their innocence. I too never bought the idea of one covering for another unless it was Burke. I just don't see how it could happen. But, I also have trouble with the though of 2 intruders. Most people have enough trouble with the concept of one intruder managing to get in and out without leaving any forensic evidence behind. Two seems even more far fetched to me. That is one of the reasons I have always thought JAR was a good bet. Even if he left forensic evidence behind, his fingerprints, fibers, hairs, etc should be there.

    Oh well, maybe someday we will know the truth. But I suspect we will not.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    The only scenario that really has merit for the Ramseys doing a massive cover-up is one where Burke was involved. This is the only scenario where I can see both Ramseys being involved in a cover-up together -

    If they waited for hours inside the ramsey home, surely they would have needed to pee or poo? Even at the low end of the waiting scale, they would have to have stayed still, silent and not had to relieve themselves for at least 2 hours (an hour after the ramseys arrived home and an hour before to case the house and write the ransom note).

    Jayelles,

    THE COVERUP: There were no intruders except those possibly invited into the house by a Ramsey. Otherwise, the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off in the elaborate coverup. And, as you correctly surmise, the parents would engage in a coverup only if Burke was somehow involved. One parent wouldn't even cover up for the other parent. So, if an intruder was in the house that night, he was there at the invitation of Burke.

    THE POO POO: There were two unflushed toilets in the house that night -- the one in JonBenet's bathroom, and the one in the little bathroom in the basement. Why were they unflushed? Was it because the noise that flushed toilets make would have woken the parents? I think so.

    JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Jayelles,

    THE COVERUP: There were no intruders except those possibly invited into the house by a Ramsey. Otherwise, the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off in the elaborate coverup. And, as you correctly surmise, the parents would engage in a coverup only if Burke was somehow involved. One parent wouldn't even cover up for the other parent. So, if an intruder was in the house that night, he was there at the invitation of Burke.

    THE POO POO: There were two unflushed toilets in the house that night -- the one in JonBenet's bathroom, and the one in the little bathroom in the basement. Why were they unflushed? Was it because the noise that flushed toilets make would have woken the parents? I think so.

    JMO
    The unflushed toilets would apply to intruders too (i.e. not wishing to draw attention to themselves). Kids are extremely guilty of not flushing and we know that Burke played in the basement in the train room. Could have been him and his pals from some time previously. Remember that Linda Hoffman Pugh couldn't make it on the 24th to help clear up after the party on 23rd. The kids could simply have been playing down there, paid a visit and not flushed. Playing with the trains in the basement might be especially likely during the period immediately prior to Xmas when Santa hadn't delivered the Nintendo - yet.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree. The Ramseys had a lot to lose and, as we have seen, image is vitally important to them. I think they would cover up anything which might look bad for them (and I believe they HAVE lied over some things in the timeline of events). Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that means the strangulation came first - what kind of "accident" involves strangulation - except rage. If either Patsy or John Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded? It doesn't make sense.
    Yes, but if it WAS a rage incident, you're assuming the other parent was both awake, and present, at the point of rage.

    It is conceivable John was in bed while Patsy was up late packing ... and the rage incident took place BEFORE he could intercede. If John was asleep, or even just lying in bed, it is possible he wouldn't have had time to intervene in a rage incident by Patsy against JonBenet.

    First, he had to hear the altercation, and secondly, he had to get from the third story of the house down to wherever the altercation took place.

    Even if John heard yelling, he may not have responded immediately since he could not know physical injury might result. The damage was already done.

    It is unfortunate that it has not been conclusively established whether the head blow or strangulation took place first. Perhaps, they were simultaneous ... with JonBenet's shirt collar serving as the initial strangulation tool. The ligature applied later to her neck served to mask any possible strangulation marks from the struggle, and was an effort to point away from the family to an outside intruder.


    IMO

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    Of course, there is always the possibility that Helgoth and Mr X only intended the Ramsey home to be another midnight burglary and that JonBenet disturbed them in their deeds as she crept upstairs after sneaking a piece of pineapple....

    But they would've had to bring the pineapple to the house as Patsy knows nothing about it.

    In a way, the unflushed may be linked to JonBenet's midnight bathroom trips. It's been stated that Patsy would wake her up and take her to the bathroom. They (John nor Patsy) put JonBenet on the toilet before putting her into bed - and she was a chronic bedwetter.
    IMO -

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Thanks, Jayelles, for your post. You always seem to have an open mind and are able to look at all sides of the equation. (how Jameson posts that you are BORG, I'll never understand) I don't really have any counterpoints to your thoughts, as I have a lot of the same questions myself.

    I saw a defense attorney being interviewed last week on one of the morning shows in regards to the Peterson case. He was talking about how defense attys always attack the police and say that the police 1. bungled the investigation; and 2. make their minds up early on that someone is involved (such as parents or spouses, etc) and refuse to look at other evidence. The guy admitted on national TV that that is the route the defense will always take. I was sitting there thinking that is exactly what happened in the Ramsey case and here is this man admitting that this is a ploy. One thing that I thought about in this is how the RST jumped on these two points, early on, and have used this as a basis for many of their arguments, when in fact, it was not even the truth~~just a common defense tactic.

    IMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Patsy didn't do it. There's no incriminating evidence against her and she has exculpatory evidence in her favor. Patsy's involvement is strictly in the coverup. Here's why:

    o John would not have covered for Patsy if she had killed JonBenet.

    o The government's six handwriting experts all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    o Gelb's lie-detector exams conclude Patsy didn't kill JonBenet, nor did she author the ransom note.

    o The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male.

    o The grand jury, with almost limitless powers to investigate, after 13 months of investigating was unable to come up with any evidence to indict Patsy.

    John has similar exculpatory evidence in his favor. Yet ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night had to be involved directly in the murder. That leaves Burke.

    JMO

  9. #9

    BC please read also the Documentary thread

    o The government's six handwriting experts all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    o Gelb's lie-detector exams conclude Patsy didn't kill JonBenet, nor did she author the ransom note.

    o The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male.

    o The grand jury, with almost limitless powers to investigate, after 13 months of investigating was unable to come up with any evidence to indict Patsy.

    John has similar exculpatory evidence in his favor. Yet ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night had to be involved directly in the murder. That leaves Burke.

    Ned: BC, I respectfully DISAGREE. ALL the evidence in this case ONLY points to Patsy.

    1.) John WOULD have covered for Patsy. He now has lost 2 children, and one wife if you count the dissolution of his first marriage; he is not about to lose Patsy. He after all is a man of IMAGE. His wife has been through Cancer for Godís sake. I absolutely CAN see him covering for her, now after observing their behavior for all these years.
    2.) There WAS evidence of physical prior sexual abuse. IMO that leaves it open to the POSSIBILTY that JR was molesting JonBenet, another reason to COVER for Patsy
    3.) There was are still are MANY handwriting experts that say Patsy DID write the note, and even the Ramseyís own expert could NOT rule her out. Anyone with eyes can see that note was written by Patsy. Itís all there, letter similarity, word usage, right down to acronyms. That ransom note SHOUTS Patsy. Itís the single MOST important clue in this case.
    4.) The DEGRADED DNA, although male, very likely could have been there from the factory where the panties were manufactures. Even DNA experts contend this, and Dr. Lee stated this was NOT a DNA case.
    5.) The Grand Jury was subjected to a non-proven theory, posed by Lou Smit, and after all we are talking about BOULDER here.
    6.) Fibers, pineapple, hair ties, blanket, pjís, pen, note pad, handwriting, paintbrush, all SCREAM Patsy.
    There is not ONE piece of solid evidence that points to Burke Ramsey.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    how Jameson posts that you are BORG, I'll never understand)
    To jameson, you are either a fully paid up member of the RST or a BORG. I have been subjected to countless snide remarks over the years about getting splinters in my backside from the fence etc. She calls me a BORG out of spite because I can and do question the intruder evidence and because I don't accept her party line. The "BORG" insult is used regularly to intimidate people on yonder forum. Remember when the 911 tape was released, jameson said that it was a BORG test - if you could hear anything at the end of the tape, then you were a BORG. Unsurprisingly, none of her members could hear a thing!

    You watch the attacks on the common-sensical poster Hudson who doesn't think the Ramseys were involved, but who doesn't blindly accept the RST spin either. Look for the snide little insults here and there and BORG remarks.

    I couldn't care less if jameson calls me a BORG or anything else for that matter. It's always rather pathetic when she needs to resort to personal attacks and name-calling.

    I have no axe to grind in this sad case. I can view the evidence objectively and neither through Ramsey-tinted spectacles or BORG-spectacles. I don't hate the Ramseys, nor am I "jealous of their wealth". I'd like to see the perp pay - whomever he or she is.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Bay, California
    Posts
    1,233
    Jayelles,

    I've not posted on this forum for quite a long time. But having just read your post, I'd like to say that yours is the most objective and thought out post I've read in a long time. I posted awhile back that, after so many years thinking the Ramseys were involved in the murder/coverup, I had come to the conclusion that an intruder committed the murder. After more thought and reading...I'm now sitting on the fence, yet once again. Truly, if one looks at the ransom note, it's almost impossible to not see Patsy's shadow all over it. I have honestly tried to look at this case from all angles, and as you, do not totally buy into the intruder theory, nor the so-called BORG theories. I also have no axe to grind with the Ramseys. I'd just like to see whoever did this...pay. Sadly, I see this case going absolutely nowhere and the killer will never be known.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    Nevermind - Nedthan said it for me. He's
    IMO -

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Ii
    Truly, if one looks at the ransom note, it's almost impossible to not see Patsy's shadow all over it.
    You have no idea how accurate this statement is unless you have studied Jungian/Depth psychology and the concept of "shadow".

    People are fond of conspiracy theories because they don't understand human behavior or they don't want to accept their own "shadows" and project it outward onto imaginary shadowy figures (usually men) that move stealthily behind the scenes often with near supernatural abilities.

    All you have to do is listen to Coast to Coast to understand people's willingness to believe the most outrageous events are truly happening "out there" somewhere.

    It is easier to suspect an outer conspiracy than look for the inner truth.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns

    There is not ONE piece of solid evidence that points to Burke Ramsey.

    Ned,

    MOST of the evidence points to Burke Ramsey being directly involved somehow in the murder of JonBenet. I'll list a few of the reasons for you:

    1. Burke, by the process of elimination, is the only Ramsey in the house who could have committed the crime. One of the three Ramseys left alive had to have been involved and John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor. Burke does not.

    2. Burke conspiratorily lied (with his parents) to the police to try to distance himself from the crime when he said he was asleep in bed when the 911 call was placed by Patsy at 5:52 A.M. The enhanced 911 tape proved he was up at that time and had been engaged in conversation with his parents. This important lie impeaches everything else the Ramseys claim took place that morning.

    3. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet had snacked from about two hours before she died. This puts Burke secretly downstairs with JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed.

    4. A glass with a used tea bag in it was found next to the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table. Burke was the resident tea drinker. JonBenet didn't like tea. The bowl of pineapple and the glass of tea were at JonBenet's and Burke's respective and usual seats at the table.

    5. The Ramseys originally denied any of them owned Hi-Tec footwear, but the police finally determined it was Burke's Hi-Tec bootprint that was found in the mold on the floor next to JonBenet's body.

    6. Burke is the only likely person who could have inflicted the acute and the chronic "digital-size" injuries at the same 7 o'clock position in JonBenet's vagina on different days of the week. Only a family member could have likely had access to JonBenet on a day-to-day basis.

    7. Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the possible writer of the ransom note.

    8. Burke was never excluded as the contributor of the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    9. No one of authority, including Chief Beckner and D.A. Keenan, will declare that Burke Ramsey has been cleared in the death of JonBenet.

    JMO

  15. #15

    Bc

    I need clairifying I never heard this...

    Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the possible writer of the ransom note.

    Ned: Where did you hear that?

    8. Burke was never excluded as the contributor of the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    Ned: Not what i heard, and this was posted awhile back that the male DNA found matched NONE of the Ramsey's period.That would include Burke

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast