What makes the JBR case fascinating to you?

Sophie said:

Investigators, though, get instincts about staged scenes - the robbery gone wrong springs to mind. I'm just reading about a woman who murdered her husband with some more-or-less untraceable anaesthetic, placed his body so it looked like he had been masturbating while reading Playboy, then set fire to the room with a lit cigar so it would look like he'd had an accident while in the realms of ecstasy. Police accepting this at face value would have absurd. Just as it would have been in the Ramsey case.

Click to expand...

Police were skeptical with prima facie evidence in both cases. Fine.

Maybe you're leaving out a few details though. In your case example, a ton of smoking gun evidence was found, linking the wife to the murder. Persuing a prima facie investigation was no longer applicable.

In JBR's case, there is no smoking gun evidence that linked JR or PR. Persuing a prima facie investigation is still applicable, especially since its a cold case and the official tendency is toward IDI.

The two cases are apples and handgrenades, as far as prima facie investigation is concerned.

Holdontoyourhat said:

As if somebody else has a better leg??

Interesting though that prima facie investigation represents the most common road travelled in any investigation, and yet we haven't even started down that road. In fact we've gone so far down another more remote road that its now probably too far to go back, IMO.

Click to expand...

Well, in Lou Smits' words, 'murders are usually what they seem.' A child was murdered in her own home by someone who obviously knew the family, an 'inside job' in John's words. Using Lou Smit's own bromide, the police did the right thing starting where they did. The fact that they were stone-walled by Access graphics when they tried to find answers on foreign concerns known to them etc limited the investigation they could do on any putative SFF. Actually, the police looked closely at the IPO and at anyone who might have had their nose pushed out of joint by the floatation including foreigners.


This is missing the point horribly, though: the parents were quite literally the only possible starting point for any investigation since the RN itself referred to the gentlemen looking over JBR not particularly liking him. Had John made himself more available to discuss foreigners who disliked him, the police might have gone down your propsed path quite quickly. As it was, ST was roaming all over 'God's Green Earth' trying to get friends who would discuss enemies, lovers etc and being vilified by the Ramseys for doing so. If it does turn out to be a SFF who carried out this atrocity, the Ramseys are more to blame than anyone for the investigative wrong turns.


(In bed with swine flu and feeling very feverish and cross so apologies if that sounded like a rant).

Rest up, Sophie. Drink fluids. Eat chocolate. Watch movies. Look at YouTube on your laptop in bed.

Sophie said:

HOTYH, how do you think the SFF* picked the Ramsey family?

*SFF evokes Swine Flu Factsheets just now...

Click to expand...

Prima facie evokes it was not SFF that picked the Ramsey family, but rather a group which represented a SFF that picked JR out of a pool of fat cats.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Police were skeptical with prima facie evidence in both cases. Fine.

Maybe you're leaving out a few details though. In your case example, a ton of smoking gun evidence was found, linking the wife to the murder. Persuing a prima facie investigation was no longer applicable.

In JBR's case, there is no smoking gun evidence that linked JR or PR. Persuing a prima facie investigation is still applicable, especially since its a cold case and the official tendency is toward IDI.

The two cases are apples and handgrenades, as far as prima facie investigation is concerned.

Click to expand...

Got to disagree - the police couldn't even establish that the wife had stolen the anaesthetic and things like the cigars etc could have been bought for innocent purposes. Certainly the DA's willingness to subpoena phone records, letters etc in that case meant that harder evidence was found and a motive was clear in that case meaning that there was no resistance to the wife being investigated.

However, we are still missing the point: a prima facie investigation would be of a child murdered in her own home by someone who knew the family (a prima facie acceptance of the RN demands that we accept that the person knew the family) with a RN left by someone who knew the family. Even if you bought the SFF, you'd simply have to look at the one thing your prima facie acceptance demands that you look at: people who knew the Ramseys and didn't like them, American or Anglophone. That is precisely what the police did. Or tried to: The Casa Ramsey was so eager to portray the Ramseys as perfect that they forgot that someone was supposed to dislike them.

Sophie said:

Well, in Lou Smits' words, 'murders are usually what they seem.' A child was murdered in her own home by someone who obviously knew the family, an 'inside job' in John's words. Using Lou Smit's own bromide, the police did the right thing starting where they did. The fact that they were stone-walled by Access graphics when they tried to find answers on foreign concerns known to them etc limited the investigation they could do on any putative SFF. Actually, the police looked closely at the IPO and at anyone who might have had their nose pushed out of joint by the floatation including foreigners.

Click to expand...

Prima facie suspect respected Access Graphics and therefore was probably knowledgeable about their product. Almost an endearment to the company is expressed by challenging the country that the business was serving. Businesses aren't really thought of as 'serving' countries necessarily, except in some other political systems.

Sophie said:

Got to disagree - the police couldn't even establish that the wife had stolen the anaesthetic and things like the cigars etc could have been bought for innocent purposes. Certainly the DA's willingness to subpoena phone records, letters etc in that case meant that harder evidence was found and a motive was clear in that case meaning that there was no resistance to the wife being investigated.

However, we are still missing the point: a prima facie investigation would be of a child murdered in her own home by someone who knew the family (a prima facie acceptance of the RN demands that we accept that the person knew the family) with a RN left by someone who knew the family. Even if you bought the SFF, you'd simply have to look at the one thing your prima facie acceptance demands that you look at: people who knew the Ramseys and didn't like them, American or Anglophone. That is precisely what the police did. Or tried to: The Casa Ramsey was so eager to portray the Ramseys as perfect that they forgot that someone was supposed to dislike them.

Click to expand...

The case you mentioned has the wife discussing killing her husband by fire BEFORE she did it. Has the wife claiming he was drunk when no alcohol was found in his system. Claiming he died by fire when there was no carbon monoxide in his lungs. Her story exploded almost before the lab tests were in!

RDI should study your example case, because she premeditated this staged murder and flopped, while RDI maintains JBR's staging was impromptu, JR and PR underwent more scruitiny over 12 years, and STILL no smoking gun was ever found. Should be a clue to RDI.

BTW, anglophone is about as vague a description as it gets. There are literally millions of Chinese, Greek, Ugandan, and Russian anglophones. Its practically worthless.

Holdontoyourhat said:

Prima facie suspect respected Access Graphics and therefore was probably knowledgeable about their product. Almost an endearment to the company is expressed by challenging the country that the business was serving. Businesses aren't really thought of as 'serving' countries necessarily, except in some other political systems.

Click to expand...

In fairness, though, HOTYH, Lockheed was a defence contractor which does raise a nationalistic element and a great many cultures would view Access as being an example of capitalism and therefore serving a capitalist country.

I don't know how closely you followed the last G20 meeting but it was an object lesson in how different countries view these things. Obama and Brown were essentially taking the 'spend your way out of recession' view while the other EU countries wanted to focus on regulation. Some of the sneering about Anglo-American capitalism coming from various European treasuries was almost blood curdling - and these are moderate, free countries.

Not that this helps my argument much

Sophie said:

In fairness, though, HOTYH, Lockheed was a defence contractor which does raise a nationalistic element and a great many cultures would view Access as being an example of capitalism and therefore serving a capitalist country.

I don't know how closely you followed the last G20 meeting but it was an object lesson in how different countries view these things. Obama and Brown were essentially taking the 'spend your way out of recession' view while the other EU countries wanted to focus on regulation. Some of the sneering about Anglo-American capitalism coming from various European treasuries was almost blood curdling - and these are moderate, free countries.

Not that this helps my argument much

Click to expand...

The ransom note doesn't say 'respect your company' or 'respect your parent company' it says 'respect your business'.

The business was "UNIX-based distributed computing solutions." Prima facie suspect respected that business.

Holdontoyourhat said:

The case you mentioned has the wife discussing killing her husband by fire BEFORE she did it. Has the wife claiming he was drunk when no alcohol was found in his system. Claiming he died by fire when there was no carbon monoxide in his lungs. Her story exploded almost before the lab tests were in!

RDI should study your example case, because she premeditated this staged murder and flopped, while RDI maintains JBR's staging was impromptu, JR and PR underwent more scruitiny over 12 years, and STILL no smoking gun was ever found. Should be a clue to RDI.

BTW, anglophone is about as vague a description as it gets. There are literally millions of Chinese, Greek, Ugandan, and Russian anglophones. Its practically worthless.

Click to expand...

Re para A - but did that necessarily mean that *she* had killed him?

Re Para B - with LE complicity, any smoking gun was probably removed by Pam Paugh. And this was as damaging to IDI or SFF as it was to RDI - isn't it just conceivable that there was a hair on John's golf clubs that could have been linked to an intruder? And, since you are raising the differences in the two cases, the Ramsey crime was committed in the child's home where a smoking gun would be hard to find given how much evidence would obviously belong there, while the other case was committed in a hotel room. Also, the DA in the latter case worked with the police to gain access to find the smoking gun. A critical point IMHO.

However, I'll admit I found a poorish example. Let's talk about the Diane Downs case...

Re para C - true but to me it suggests a degree of fluency, almost bilingualism. However, I'll accept your definition and change mine to 'Fluent Anglophone with utter US cutural literacy.' I'm a native Anglophone raised on a steady diet of Americana but I don't think I could have written so persuasively American a letter*. In fact, a violent criminal who dislikes America and its capitalism, speaks perfect US English and is thoroughly steeped in the externalities of US capitalism (like its movies etc), is connected with the Ramseys and is of independent wealth (have to be if he only needs $118k) is a fairly small subset, I'd say, HOTYH.

Sophie said:

In fairness, though, HOTYH, Lockheed was a defence contractor which does raise a nationalistic element and a great many cultures would view Access as being an example of capitalism and therefore serving a capitalist country.

Click to expand...

Do you mean a great many non-capitalist cultures?

DeeDee249 said:

Rest up, Sophie. Drink fluids. Eat chocolate. Watch movies. Look at YouTube on your laptop in bed.

Click to expand...

Thanks, DeeDee. It's a pretty mild form and I'm limiting myself to my bedroom mainly to avoid passing it on to the rest of the family but chocolate and a good movie sound like a nice indulgence

Sophie said:

Re para C - true but to me it suggests a degree of fluency, almost bilingualism. However, I'll accept your definition and change mine to 'Fluent Anglophone with utter US cutural literacy.' I'm a native Anglophone raised on a steady diet of Americana but I don't think I could have written so persuasively American a letter*. In fact, a violent criminal who dislikes America and its capitalism, speaks perfect US English and is thoroughly steeped in the externalities of US capitalism (like its movies etc), is connected with the Ramseys and is of independent wealth (have to be if he only needs $118k) is a fairly small subset, I'd say, HOTYH.

Click to expand...

Excellent work.

What is it they say, know thy enemy??

Holdontoyourhat said:

Do you mean a great many non-capitalist cultures?

Click to expand...

I don't think I do. I'd view France and Germany as being capitalist countries but both have views on what they term 'Anglo-American Capitalism.' About every two years, a French person writes a book about how we (The English, they tend to exclude Wales and Scotland from any definition of 'British' for critical purposes) have become a pale, 51st state wannabe imitation of your lot and have become as morally bankrupt in our pursuit of capitalism (And I'm quoting the most recent book). Ignoring the historical enmity between France and England, it still tells a tale about how France views our capitalism as being a less tasteful capitalism than theirs....

Holdontoyourhat said:

RDI should study your example case, because she premeditated this staged murder and flopped, while RDI maintains JBR's staging was impromptu, JR and PR underwent more scruitiny over 12 years, and STILL no smoking gun was ever found. Should be a clue to RDI.

Click to expand...

Really. Did this woman have million-dollar lawyers? Could she hire her own "experts?" Was the DA a weak-kneed nincompoop? Seems those points are being overlooked.

SuperDave said:

Really. Did this woman have million-dollar lawyers? Could she hire her own "experts?" Was the DA a weak-kneed nincompoop? Seems those points are being overlooked.

Click to expand...

This woman allegedly stated her husband was drunk and accidentally burned himself to death with a cigar.

The lab said no alcohol in his blood, and no carbon monoxide in his lungs (already dead when fire started). A witness said she had contemplated killing her husband.


Maybe a billion-dollar lawyer would help?

Holdontoyourhat said:

This woman allegedly stated her husband was drunk and accidentally burned himself to death with a cigar.

The lab said no alcohol in his blood, and no carbon monoxide in his lungs (already dead when fire started). A witness said she had contemplated killing her husband.


Maybe a billion-dollar lawyer would help?

Click to expand...

I'll give you that one. It's not a fair comparison. Aside from being stupid, she didn't even have luck on her side. Whereas in this case...well, I've made myself clear, I'm sure.

But I don't think that you understood what I was trying to say. My point was that in JB's case, a lot of problems could have been avoided if not for the things I mentioned.

I hope no one minds that I'm going to reply and bump this thread. I'm interested in hearing more reasons why people are so fascinated with JonBenet's case.

JonBenet's case is the only true crime case I extensively follow. Yes, I read about Kyron Horman and Hailey Dunn, but I'm definitely not into those cases like I'm into JonBenet's case. I do ask myself a lot, "Why this case? Why doesn't any other case fascinate me like this?" So these are the reasons why JBR's case intrigues me like no other:

The first reason is JonBenet, herself. She was obviously a beautiful child on the outside, as you can see from the picture in my signature, but she was also beautiful on the inside. Her nanny said this about her, "JonBenet was the only happy person in that house. She was a ray of sunshine. She was totally adorable. She really was a pretty little thing." Even the people who talked about the "bad" things JBR did like LHP or the gardener, couldn't find something truly horrible that she did. It was just typical 6-year-old stuff.

Whenever I look at pictures or videos of JonBenet, it's so hard for me to believe that she was murdered. We see all these pictures and videos of an ALIVE JonBenet and then to find out what her fate was, at only 6, it's like, "WHAT!"

People Magazine said this about the case, "Little Jonbenét Ramsey's Life Appeared Almost Unnaturally Charmed, Making Her Murder Seem All the More Darkly Perverse," which I agree with 100%. JonBenet was beautiful, she lived in a huge house, her dad was making bank, she spent summers in Michigan, she had been to more states by age 6 than other people have been to by age 30. We know that JonBenet's life wasn't perfect, but on the surface, it definitely seems like it was. If you get rid of the sexual abuse and the pressure with the pageants, JonBenet was living the life.

Then, it's the actual crime itself that interests me. Now I do believe that someone with the last name Ramsey killed JonBenet but I have absolutely no idea how exactly it went about. So they came home from the White's house, and then what? What were the events leading up to the murder? Who delivered the blow to JonBenet's head? Is it possible that JAR could have been in that house? What happened right after the blow was delivered? Where did this all happen? What time? What's up with the pineapple? Did JonBenet go to bed, and then this all happened? Or did she never go to bed? It's a true mystery.

I also do find it interesting to read about all the political connections going on in this case. The R's legal team was extremely influential and had ties to the Clinton white house. Of course I find it sick that they got away with murder (IMO) because of money and connections, but I can't lie, it is fascinating to read about all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in this case.

This case seems like it's out of a movie, like it can't be real. It is like Hollywood screenwriters sat down to think of a murder mystery that the public will love, and this is what they came up with. Obviously, child murders happen everyday, but when you think about all the factors this case had, it is crazy.

And...a question...Can anyone think of another case besides JonBenet or Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, where the case got national coverage, and the victims were always murder victims? JBR and Nicole and Ron were never known as missing to the media and public; they were always murder victims. I was going through cases in my head and it seems like in every case that received national coverage, the victims were missing. It may have been for a short while, but they were still missing. I'm not saying it means anything; I'm just curious. (Just thought of one...The Petit family in Connecticut. But can anyone think of a case involving one person who got national coverage, and was always a murder victim?)

I follow local Australian cases as well as in the UK etc.
I'm mostly interested in the cases involving serial killers, have been for 20 years or so (which is pretty tragic when I think about being 16, but what can you do I guess).

The reason I follow this case is that I have a pet hate for injustice, not just at a criminal level, I mean even someone not waving thanks for letting you into the traffic on the roads.

So I look at this case and the thing that sticks out to me like the proverbials on a dog is the lack of cooperation displayed by the parents.

I can think of no better reason to cooperate with authorities than to assist in the hunt for your own child's killer. The thought of interfering or denying that process is at complete odds with what a rational person would do and clearly points to either massive ignorance or a degree of guilt.

I'm convinced the parents were involved and the passing of PR really just appalled me in that she was escaping. She got away with whatever her involvement was in this case.
I don't buy into the "She'll be judged by God" as I don't believe in fairy tales (no offence to anyone intended, even though it probably was offensive), but I see her death without confession as the ultimate in arrogant acts. So with PR out of the picture it leaves JR and his son (who may or may not know anything).

JR has lost his weak link in the secret with PR's death.
I am interested to see if BR will break with any stories, but I see that he is just as gutless as his parents with his non-cooperation with authorities.

So really, my fascination with this case isn't so much with JonBenet herself as she had just as much right to be alive as the other 6 billion people on the planet and in that respect she is no different to any other homicide.

My fascination is with the perpetrator/s and finding some justice for the victim.

The JonBenet case reminds me of a classic Agatha Christie. The murder takes place within a house. The cast of suspects seem highly respectable, apparently entirely innocent. Yet appearances are never what they seem. Some of the cast have secrets, they behave in a manner that attracts attention, some almost melodramatically.

The plot unfolds in a domestic setting, and just like Columbo, when you think you have it solved, there is always another question!

e.g. Why was there a bloodstained pink barbie nightgown and a barbie doll to be found in the wincellar?

After all we all assume the stager had all night to stage the crime-scene?



.