Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Indigo · Feb 24, 2009

weasel said:
What does this prove exactly? Even if JB was being sexually abused, is that automatic proof that it was someone in her own family? Hardly. The Ramsey's hired plenty of people to work around their house for instance. Gardners and such. Not to mention their social network. And I'm sorry, but please don't quote Steve Thomas' book as a source. That's about as biased and one-sided as you can get.

Exactly! Which is why any parent would have been extremely distressed at this horrendous news and want to get to the bottom of it. Who wouldn't want to rip that gardener, handyman, or Rotorooter guy to shreds. Not the Ramseys. Didn't even blink an eye.

One thing I'm confused about...Don't quote Steve Thomas' book? Did I type an extra "b" by mistake to get here? LOL.

Seriously, if all of those experts had been misquoted by Steve Thomas, they would have had his head on a platter for ruining their presitigious careers. To date, I'm not aware they've caused any fuss at all for being quoted.

Here's an independent source which supports that
Dr. Richard Krugman and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak believe JonBenet was abused.

JonBenet's Legacy - Protect our Children
By Dr. Richard Krugman and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak

<snipped>
Clearly, her death has increased our awareness of child homicides. Just as the death of Matthew Eappen at the hands of his English nanny raised the awareness of Shaken Baby Syndrome, so JonBenet Ramsey's death increased the periodic attention paid to fatal child abuse to new heights.

But what has this awareness ultimately done to prevent other children from dying?
For the first time, some of us began to question our belief system about child abuse. With the death of JonBenet Ramsey, America was forced to think about child abuse in a new way. We saw the death of a child in an affluent neighborhood, with wealthy and powerful parents, reinforcing what Dr. C. Henry Kempe of the Kempe Children's Center taught us decades ago: No family, rich or poor, is immune from this problem.

http://web.uccs.edu/ur/mediawatch/dec2001/denverpost12-23-01.htm

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 24, 2009

GingBreade said:
How about the third known fact? It is usually the parents.

I'm referring to facts that pertain to this case. I tend not to compare JBR to other child murders because...

When I think of comparing JBR to other child murders, I then remember what a famous FBI profiler said: "I mean, its totally bizarre. I've never, never in my 35 year career, seen anything like this."

BBB167893 · Feb 24, 2009

weasel said:
What does this prove exactly? Even if JB was being sexually abused, is that automatic proof that it was someone in her own family? Hardly.

Pardon my butting in, but I've been saying exactly that for a while now. Let me go on record here. Just because I believe that JB was being abused, it does not automatically follow that it was someone in her own family. Speaking purely for myself, there are other factors that lead me to believe it was, but from a technnical standpoint, I can't talk against you.

The Ramsey's hired plenty of people to work around their house for instance. Gardners and such. Not to mention their social network.

Keep going. You interest me, weasel.

And I'm sorry, but please don't quote Steve Thomas' book as a source. That's about as biased and one-sided as you can get.

You really don't want me to respond to that one.

BBB167893 · Feb 24, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
We KNOW that JBR was first seen by LE dressed in long johns, pajamas, and she was wrapped in a blanket. We KNOW the cord was visible, still tight around her neck. We KNOW she was wearing a necklace.

We KNOW that JBR was left in the basement of her own house, and not in plain view.

Yes, yes.

I tend not to compare JBR to other child murders because...

Then you're smarter than Lin Wood. I'll give you that.

BBB167893 · Feb 24, 2009

Indigo said:
Exactly! Which is why any parent would have been extremely distressed at this horrendous news and want to get to the bottom of it. Who wouldn't want to rip that gardener, handyman, or Rotorooter guy to shreds. Not the Ramseys. Didn't even blink an eye.

Darn, you beat me to it.

One thing I'm confused about...Don't quote Steve Thomas' book? Did I type an extra "b" by mistake to get here? LOL.

Damn, I thought I'd bust a gut!

Seriously, if all of those experts had been misquoted by Steve Thomas, they would have had his head on a platter for ruining their presitigious careers. To date, I'm not aware they've caused any fuss at all for being quoted.

Well, there was one, but he did enough damage to his career on his own thanks to this case!

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
We KNOW JBR had a deep furrow around her neck. We KNOW JBR had a skull fracture. We KNOW somebody risked handwriting the ransom note and practice notes. We KNOW that JBR was sexually violated the night she was murdered. We KNOW there was unknown male DNA found in three (3) places on two (2) articles of clothing she was wearing at the time she was murdered. This is stuff WE KNOW.

We also know the paintbrush was broken at both ends, and the broken off end piece with the bristles was found in the tote. We know the 2nd ligature had a double loop slip knot at one end and a fixed loop at the other. We know the 2nd ligature came from the same roll as the garrote ligature.

We know that the largest mark on JBR besides the cord furrow is the hemorrhage on her neck, at the cord furrow.

We know that JBR was first seen by LE dressed in long johns, pajamas, and she was wrapped in a blanket. We KNOW the cord was visible, still tight around her neck. We KNOW she was wearing a necklace.

We know that JBR was left in the basement of her own house, and not in plain view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night, whether her sexual violation was pre or post mortem, if it was staged or real, what the purpose for it was, what caused the skull fracture, where the cord and tape came from, who owns the DNA, who wrote the note, who murdered JBR, whether they lived in the house, or even if they lived in the U.S. We DON'T KNOW any of this stuff. This is all opinion.

We also DON'T KNOW if the 2nd ligature was tightened on JBR, or where the other broken off end piece of the paintbrush is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we know the violation was pre or post mortem? DeeDee posted that the violation was pre mortem.

BBB167893 · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Do we know the violation was pre or post mortem? DeeDee posted that the violation was pre mortem.

Hard to say. The inflammation points to pre-mortem, but as we've seen from the autopsy report, it had been there a while. Plus, "acute inflammatory inflitrate" was not found. That means white blood cells for you regular people. Which means either she was dead, or was killed very quickly after being violated.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

We KNOW JBR had a deep furrow around her neck. We KNOW JBR had a skull fracture. We KNOW somebody risked handwriting the ransom note and practice notes. We KNOW that JBR was sexually violated the night she was murdered. We KNOW there was unknown male DNA found in three (3) places on two (2) articles of clothing she was wearing at the time she was murdered. This is stuff WE KNOW.

We also know the paintbrush was broken at both ends, and the broken off end piece with the bristles was found in the tote. We know the 2nd ligature had a double loop slip knot at one end and a fixed loop at the other. We know the 2nd ligature came from the same roll as the garrote ligature.

We know that the largest mark on JBR besides the cord furrow is the hemorrhage on her neck, at the cord furrow.

We know that JBR was first seen by LE dressed in long johns and pajamas. We KNOW the cord was visible, still tight around her neck. We KNOW she was wearing a necklace.

We know that JBR was left in the basement of her own house, and not in plain view.

We know that a blanket and a piece of black duct tape were found in the basement.

We know that JBR's longjohns were put back on AFTER she was violated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We are told by a witness that JBR was last seen alive in her bed the night before

We are told by a witness that JBR was found in the basement wrapped in a blanket, and had tape over her mouth.

We are told by a witness that the ransom note was found on the back spiral staircase.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night, whether her sexual violation was pre or post mortem, if it was staged or real, what the purpose for it was, what caused the skull fracture, where the cord and tape came from, who owns the DNA, who wrote the note, who murdered JBR, whether they lived in the house, or even if they lived in the U.S. We DON'T KNOW any of this stuff. This is all opinion.

We also DON'T KNOW if the 2nd ligature was tightened on JBR, or where the other broken off end piece of the paintbrush is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tadpole12 · Feb 25, 2009

Indigo said:
Exactly! Which is why any parent would have been extremely distressed at this horrendous news and want to get to the bottom of it. Who wouldn't want to rip that gardener, handyman, or Rotorooter guy to shreds. Not the Ramseys. Didn't even blink an eye.

One thing I'm confused about...Don't quote Steve Thomas' book? Did I type an extra "b" by mistake to get here? LOL.

Seriously, if all of those experts had been misquoted by Steve Thomas, they would have had his head on a platter for ruining their presitigious careers. To date, I'm not aware they've caused any fuss at all for being quoted.

Here's an independent source which supports that
Dr. Richard Krugman and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak believe JonBenet was abused.

JonBenet's Legacy - Protect our Children
By Dr. Richard Krugman and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak

<snipped>
Clearly, her death has increased our awareness of child homicides. Just as the death of Matthew Eappen at the hands of his English nanny raised the awareness of Shaken Baby Syndrome, so JonBenet Ramsey's death increased the periodic attention paid to fatal child abuse to new heights.

But what has this awareness ultimately done to prevent other children from dying?
For the first time, some of us began to question our belief system about child abuse. With the death of JonBenet Ramsey, America was forced to think about child abuse in a new way. We saw the death of a child in an affluent neighborhood, with wealthy and powerful parents, reinforcing what Dr. C. Henry Kempe of the Kempe Children's Center taught us decades ago: No family, rich or poor, is immune from this problem.

http://web.uccs.edu/ur/mediawatch/dec2001/denverpost12-23-01.htm

Hi Indingo. Ty for posting that info.
http://web.uccs.edu/ur/mediawatch/dec2001/denverpost12-23-01.htm

Yes. JonBenet did leave a legacy.

Tadpole12 · Feb 25, 2009

Hi Hotyh ....

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night .... - Hotyh

yet "the injuries are symptomatic of child abuse".

wouldn't that be 'the given'/ the known?

http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.26505

BBB167893 · Feb 25, 2009

Tadpole12 said:
Hi Hotyh ....

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night .... - Hotyh

yet "the injuries are symptomatic of child abuse".

wouldn't that be 'the given'/ the known?

http://www.blackburn.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.26505

You make a good point, Tadpole. It wasn't just physical findings in JB's case. A few months ago, Pam Griffin was talking about PR, and in that interview, she said PR was worried about JB because, as PR put it, "she flirts with people."

As for HOTYH, I see he's got three categories going now: what we know, what witnesses have claimed, and speculation. I wonder where he would put the eight pathologists.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

SuperDave said:
As for HOTYH, I see he's got three categories going now: what we know, what witnesses have claimed, and speculation. I wonder where he would put the eight pathologists.

A fourth category, what we are told by experts.

No matter if you're RDI or IDI, putting JBR's longjohns back on after violating her seems very odd. If its true she was wrapped in a blanket too, that's even more odd. It doesn't make much sense in IDI or RDI.

While you can't ever corroborate witness testimony of finding the ransom note on the stairs, you can corroborate the witness testimony of removing duct tape and blanket. Thats because duct tape and blanket were found discarded on the basement floor.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

SuperDave said:
Don't take my word for it. Yhe CASKU agents weighed in on the injuries from that night, saying:

"The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police."

Then for what other purposes would somebody violate somebody else, if not for gratification? Is 'staging' the only other possibility?

Is this the CASKU violation gratification/staging rule? Where if the evidence suggests there was no perpetrator gratification, then look to staging? I wonder if it has ever even happened before. That is, I wonder if there was ever a 'minor genital trauma associated with crime scene staging.'

Ames · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
A fourth category, what we are told by experts.

No matter if you're RDI or IDI, putting JBR's longjohns back on after violating her seems very odd. If its true she was wrapped in a blanket too, that's even more odd. It doesn't make much sense in IDI or RDI.

While you can't ever corroborate witness testimony of finding the ransom note on the stairs, you can corroborate the witness testimony of removing duct tape and blanket. Thats because duct tape and blanket were found discarded on the basement floor.

You have posted before, that the members of the SFF redressed her and wrapped her in a blanket, because they had intended on taking her out of the house at first (after feeding her the pineapple so that she wouldn't be hungry), placing her into a car, and somehow or another taking her out of the country, to be married off when she reached marrying age. But...something horrible happened...they either decided that they didn't like her eye color, or they heard a noise...panicked...and then hit her over the head with something. Yep....you are right about one thing....
"No matter if you're RDI or IDI, putting JBR's longjohns back on after violating her seems very odd. If its true she was wrapped in a blanket too, that's even more odd. It doesn't make much sense in IDI or RDI."
Finally...we agree on something!

Ames · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Then for what other purposes would somebody violate somebody else, if not for gratification?

I will answer for SuperDave...if he doesn't mind...to either hide a previous sexual assault...OR...to STAGE A molestation/kidnapping gone wrong.

Ames · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Then for what other purposes would somebody violate somebody else, if not for gratification? Is 'staging' the only other possibility?

Is this the CASKU violation gratification/staging rule? Where if the evidence suggests there was no perpetrator gratification, then look to staging? I wonder if it has ever even happened before. That is, I wonder if there was ever a 'minor genital trauma associated with crime scene staging.'

It was actually in a book that John had been reading...a staged sexual assault, complete with murder. I think that it was by John Douglas...and...I believe that the book was true. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong. I will search for a link...

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

Ames said:
I will answer for SuperDave...if he doesn't mind...to either hide a previous sexual assault...OR...to STAGE A molestation/kidnapping gone wrong.

Reasons to violate: gratification, concealment of one crime by staging another crime, OR, something else. Keep going. If you reread your own last post, you might think of it.

Ames · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Then for what other purposes would somebody violate somebody else, if not for gratification? Is 'staging' the only other possibility?

Is this the CASKU violation gratification/staging rule? Where if the evidence suggests there was no perpetrator gratification, then look to staging? I wonder if it has ever even happened before. That is, I wonder if there was ever a 'minor genital trauma associated with crime scene staging.'

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Mindhunter/John-E-Douglas/e/9780671528904

I just researched it. It HAS happened before...true stories...in the book Mind Hunter..by John Douglas.

Ames · Feb 25, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Reasons to violate: gratification, concealment of one crime by staging another crime, OR, something else. Keep going. If you reread your own last post, you might think of it.

Kidnapping gone wrong? I posted to STAGE a kidnapping gone wrong.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 25, 2009

Ames said:
Kidnapping gone wrong? I posted to STAGE a kidnapping gone wrong.

To rephrase, why would somebody 'violate' somebody else, if not for gratification? I already know staging a sex crime, staging a botched kidnapping, staging, staging, etc. etc (talk about stuck records, SD).

Why else, besides staging, would somebody violate somebeody else, not for gratification, and only cause minor genital trauma?

Basically, I don't think there's an 'either/or' rule about gratification/staging.

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics