Can you explain the conclusion you have come to?

[Blazeboy3]

One or both parents were involved. Without a doubt.

The case will never be able to be prosecuted.

The crime scene was contaminated and there were too many initial errors in the investigation. The amount of evidence which was released to the public is unheard of in an open case -- not only did the civil cases open the door to this, but the Ramsey's interviews and the crime scene photos and evidence have been leaked or released to the public in many other ways. This is UNHEARD of in an open case. Even if there was an intruder (which I don't for a second believe) they could NEVER be prosecuted because of the multitude of information which was released, it's a defense attorney's dream.

Lou Smit, whose status I am unsure of,( according to the documentary and some tabloid articles he is in charge, yet the official notices from the D.A.'s office name Tom Bennett) was in on the latest folly- Tracey's documentary naming a "new suspect who is on the run." (This is the one that the internet sleuths fround with Google in 5 minutes....) The vast majority of the public in the U.K. where the show aired, do not read the internet forums and have no way of knowing what a fraud this show really was.


These side shows were orchestrated to sway public opinion-- probably timed to be released while John was seeking the political nomination. Because the vast majority of the public is largely uneducated about the case, and criminal investigations in general, they have gotten away with it. The icing on the cake is a bully of a lawyer that threatens to sue every media outlet if they dare say the Ramseys are the prime suspects.

I agree w/your post; those that want to understand the truth IMHO need to know that "the truth is out there" and read all available info on this case because it (the truth) is not all in one place... :doh:
FWIW I've got/read ALL books available...even the out-of-print one(s)...

 

[Blazeboy3]

First off, the police couldn't even find anyone to say that they even saw either of the Ramsey's so much as slap Jonbenet's hand if she misbehaved. The idea that Patsy accidently threw her off a second story landing and then garroted her and found some foreign DNA to put in her pants is absolutely rediculous.

Second, to ever suggest that the National Enquirer is ever a good source of any kind on information is laughable.

Thirdly,I will defute anything Steve Thomas said in his book, that you are relying on for conclusions.

I apoligize for the insulting tone. I very much welcome and open thoughts and questions.

Kimba...your post is interesting and I thank you for such. Please know in your heart "that anyone can justify anything" and then proceed to feel how you think you should feel for JonBenet the best way you know how. :innocent:

 

[AmAGypsy]

Is there some reason that it wasn't her brother getting hormonal? (sp?) Or is that a no-no to suggest he had anything to do with it? When the phone wasn't hung up properly, it was heard (not a direct quote) Patsy saying to him "we're not talking to you". Why? My parents would say that to me when I got in trouble for something. Why wouldn't the parents be comforting him?

I guess I have a lot of questions. They supposedly were the only three in the house with Jon Benet. I think parents would cover up for a kid before they would cover up for each other.

 

[BrotherMoon]

When the phone wasn't hung up properly, it was heard (not a direct quote) Patsy saying to him "we're not talking to you".

John, not Patsy.

Burke didn't do it because Patsy did. Burke didn't have a history of using JonBenet, Patsy did. Burke wasn't old enough to have developed personality/identity disorders, Patsy was. Burke didn't study literature, Patsy did.

The treatment of the body and the content of the note suggest psychopathology beyond the scope of a desperate yet normal parent.

 

[BrotherMoon]

Patsy Ramsey wrote the "ransom note" to explain JonBenet's dead body being in their house. There is no other reason for a FAKE ransom note, and a staged crime scene to exist.

Not true.

I say the note was written to establish the identity and authority of the small faction and to direct responsibility for the "return" of the "daughter" to someone, or some thing, other than the author of the note.

I say the note was written by Patsy in a state of psychological dissociation in the manner of DID or MPD. All the elements and characters in the note are references to factors in Patsy's mind, her fantasy. The same goes for the body of JonBenet, incuding everything done to it and left attached to it.

The "crime" was not staged for police, but rather for Patsy herself. The note was not written for police or for John, but rather for Patsy herself, or more properly, the alter personality/personalities that were in control at the time.

The fact that it was taken seriously for any length of time is a testament to the intellectual blunting effects of the Boulder Culture.

 

[AmAGypsy]

John, not Patsy.

Burke didn't do it because Patsy did. Burke didn't have a history of using JonBenet, Patsy did. Burke wasn't old enough to have developed personality/identity disorders, Patsy was. Burke didn't study literature, Patsy did.

The treatment of the body and the content of the note suggest psychopathology beyond the scope of a desperate yet normal parent.

Burke didn't study literature, Patsy did? Huh? What are you saying? And so what?
Well, there are other things to consider. What if Burke was molested by his father. Molested then became molesters.
Maybe both kids were molested by the father. In most cases the mother has closed her eyes to the situation....for various reasons. I think she came upon the situation and killed Jon Benet by accident, having been confronted with the sickness of the act (which she suspected and didn't want to look at). She's not the brightest light on the marquies. Who in this rich family is going to expose the horrific acts that have existed within this disfunctional family? I think the father is to blame ultimately. Who did it? Who started it? One of them, for sure. And they all covered up for it. Poor, beautiful Jon Benet was too beautiful for this world. Just a doll with the face of an angel, who was never treated for the little girl she was. There are lives too sick for my comprehension. This doesn't mean they don't exist. Such outrageous violation of human life is pure evil. Let this be a lesson to all of us who make excuses for bad behaviour.

 

[BrotherMoon]

She's not the brightest light on the marquies.

She has a degree in journalism, Magna *advertiser censored* Laude. I estimate her I.Q. to be around 130.

Of the two parents only Patsy showed signs of obsession with JonBenet.

 

[KATKAT19691]

As someone who was accused of commiting a very serious crime I can understand the actions of the Ramseys. I was accused of something I had nothing to do with and it was amazing to me how the police took a lot of evidence and made it seem what it was not. Put in that position, you become very concerned with everything that is coming out of your mouth. You hesitate and try to think how they can twist it around. You have to keep in mind all of the things these people are dealing with. Not only are they dealing with the lose of their daughter, they are dealing with being investagated. I do not pretend to know if they were involved but it is possible for someone to know their habits and routines, that would explain the basement beliveing that no one would catch them there. What if someone new they would be out at the christmas dinner and wrote the note while they were gone and waited in the basement for everyone to go to bed. What if they killed the girl because she screamed in the house so that when they got her outside she would not scream again. Maybe the body was left in the basement because while they were placeing the note on the stairs they heard Patsy coming down the stairs, knowing she would soon be going to wake the kids, paniced ran back down to the basement left the body for fear if police did pull them over they would be caught and went out the window after hiding her in the room where it would take longer to find her, giving them more time for escape. Lie detector test are not given as evidence in court for a reason, they are not reliable! I failed the first two because of the emotional stress I was going through. I even failed the test when I was giving my real name. I know what my name is. As far as Patsy wearing the same cloths, I have worn the same thing from the night before when going on a trip not wanting to leave dirty things in the house and having packed the others, how many of you can say you have never worn the same thing twice?
There is so many ways this could have happened and sooner or later it will be solved, like in the Martha Moxley case, all this time everyone belived that Tommy not Michael was the guilty person look how that turned out.
As in my case it may take years but someone somewhere always talks. Just incase you are wondering, I was cleared of all charges when the real person who commited the crime confessed in prison because he found God and knew that was the only way to true redemtion to confess all his sins. I am more angry at the police than this person because they were so concerned in framing me they refused to look anywhere else, much like the Ramseys. Still to this day even one detective still belives that I am involved when it has been proven over and over I have never met this guy. Unfortuntaly for the Ramseys even if someone confessed today some would still believe they are guilty. So I understand why the attorney trys to sue anyone who accuses them. You do have to protect yourself for the sake of finding the killer, after all if they had corporated more and the police treated them as they did me and they were found guilty and they were innocent the real killer would still be free to stalk others. Try to remember in this world anything is possible. Final thought, as far as the handwriting goes, there are as many experts that says if was Patsy as there are that says it is not and they ALL have something to gain.

 

[narlacat]

Is there some reason that it wasn't her brother getting hormonal? (sp?) Or is that a no-no to suggest he had anything to do with it? When the phone wasn't hung up properly, it was heard (not a direct quote) Patsy saying to him "we're not talking to you". Why? My parents would say that to me when I got in trouble for something. Why wouldn't the parents be comforting him?

I guess I have a lot of questions. They supposedly were the only three in the house with Jon Benet. I think parents would cover up for a kid before they would cover up for each other.

I think the parents are covering for Burke and i think it was John who was supposed to have said to Burke 'were not talking to you', not Patsy but i could be wrong. Is it true about the enhanced call?? Does anyone here dispute that?? Ive always thought that to be true but i could just as easily be wrong so maybe someone can clarify that for me....
If it is true,that certainly is telling evidence isnt it?? Why would John be speaking in that tone to Burke on that day.....not too mention letting him go with the Whites that day and i know people will say...well it was better than him staying at home that day...but i beg to differ...if that were my child in that situation, i would have kept him at home in his bedroom,out of the way so he couldnt witness anything but was still safe....i could never have let him go with even my best friends at that time.
The only reason in my mind they let him go was because they knew there was no threat to him....

 

[GuruJosh]

I'm embarrassed & frustrated to say that i don't think ANY theory works.

This case is haunting... i was daydreaming the other day about hearing a "confession" on TV or something... that moment would have the same level of unreality in my mind as would a newscast of a nuclear war starting, or the discovery of an extraterrestrial signal, or something like that. (i.e. i don't expect ever to know the answer to this case!)

None of the theories work.... my personal faves are BDI, and BDI + juvenile intruder(s), or family friend/acquaintance...

but the thing is, all the scenarios are absurd!

- Intruder - absurd. Look at the note! no forced entry. no kidnapping. no escape route evidence. no motive. $118K? for someone who apparently knows the Ramseys' names at least? Absurd.

- Burke alone (Patsy covering) - how could Burke go straight back to school? how could the R's leave him alone after the killing?

- Burke with friend(s) - What a conspiracy! After all this time, Burke hasn't worked it out by himself, what happened that night? His hideous guilt? Burke and friends have never confessed? Absurd!

- Patsy in a rage - Look at the level of cognitive functioning needed to go through with the staging... so Patsy went into a rage (over bedwetting?!?!?), cracked her daughter's head open, then had the partial mental composure to write a fake note based on movie thrillers, including getting John's origin wrong? Patsy had enough composure to go through with the 911 call (fake call of course), having written the note etc.., but did not think that the handwritten note would be a gift to the police?

- Patsy aiming at John and missing - Don't be ridiculous! So John is a child molester, in Patsy's opinion worthy of a torch to the skull, and in order to save each others' hides they reconcile for TV interviews, the funeral, etc? What planet do we live on? Ridiculous i say!

- John accidentally while abusing - Ummmmmmm.... yes, sounds reasonable doesn't it? Patsy goes through with the coverup no questions asked?

- Fleet, Don, Santa, or other Ramsey friends - Maybe another fave of mine... would explain the combination of familiarity and lack of familiarity in the ludicrous "ransom note".... but where is the evidence? Surely the only evidence for a close friend is neither physical NOR circumstantial... it's the result of having no evidence at all!

- A religious or paedophilic coven - I admit that BECAUSE of the ludicrous nature of all the standard theories, i have been drawn to the idea of SOMETHING truly bizarre happening... maybe there is something truly bizarre about the Ramseys and their friends... who knows?

well i could go on. No, i dont know this case one eighth as well as most of the posters here. However i have read most of the various theories, and every single one of them stinks, really.

A bizarre case - without doubt one of the strangest criminal cases ever recorded.

BTW i don't mean to say that holders of any of the above theories are "absurd" or "ridiculous" i use these words a lot, just in exasperation

 

[BeeBee]

I'm embarrassed & frustrated to say that i don't think ANY theory works.

This case is haunting... i was daydreaming the other day about hearing a "confession" on TV or something... that moment would have the same level of unreality in my mind as would a newscast of a nuclear war starting, or the discovery of an extraterrestrial signal, or something like that. (i.e. i don't expect ever to know the answer to this case!)

None of the theories work.... my personal faves are BDI, and BDI + juvenile intruder(s), or family friend/acquaintance...

but the thing is, all the scenarios are absurd!

- Intruder - absurd. Look at the note! no forced entry. no kidnapping. no escape route evidence. no motive. $118K? for someone who apparently knows the Ramseys' names at least? Absurd.

- Burke alone (Patsy covering) - how could Burke go straight back to school? how could the R's leave him alone after the killing?

- Burke with friend(s) - What a conspiracy! After all this time, Burke hasn't worked it out by himself, what happened that night? His hideous guilt? Burke and friends have never confessed? Absurd!

- Patsy in a rage - Look at the level of cognitive functioning needed to go through with the staging... so Patsy went into a rage (over bedwetting?!?!?), cracked her daughter's head open, then had the partial mental composure to write a fake note based on movie thrillers, including getting John's origin wrong? Patsy had enough composure to go through with the 911 call (fake call of course), having written the note etc.., but did not think that the handwritten note would be a gift to the police?

- Patsy aiming at John and missing - Don't be ridiculous! So John is a child molester, in Patsy's opinion worthy of a torch to the skull, and in order to save each others' hides they reconcile for TV interviews, the funeral, etc? What planet do we live on? Ridiculous i say!

- John accidentally while abusing - Ummmmmmm.... yes, sounds reasonable doesn't it? Patsy goes through with the coverup no questions asked?

- Fleet, Don, Santa, or other Ramsey friends - Maybe another fave of mine... would explain the combination of familiarity and lack of familiarity in the ludicrous "ransom note".... but where is the evidence? Surely the only evidence for a close friend is neither physical NOR circumstantial... it's the result of having no evidence at all!

- A religious or paedophilic coven - I admit that BECAUSE of the ludicrous nature of all the standard theories, i have been drawn to the idea of SOMETHING truly bizarre happening... maybe there is something truly bizarre about the Ramseys and their friends... who knows?

well i could go on. No, i dont know this case one eighth as well as most of the posters here. However i have read most of the various theories, and every single one of them stinks, really.

A bizarre case - without doubt one of the strangest criminal cases ever recorded.

BTW i don't mean to say that holders of any of the above theories are "absurd" or "ridiculous" i use these words a lot, just in exasperation

These have been my thoughts for many years. No matter what theory I have ever come up with, there is that "something" that makes it absurd or ridiculous. (Using your words.) So, thats why I have been neutral to all theorys.

There has never been a case like it and will probably never be another like it.

 

[bensmom98]

I continually go back and forth on this. At first I believed that PDI, and then I convinced myself that it must have been an intruder. I sometimes think that BlueCrab may be right, but again I am not convinced and often question his theory. I guess like the two of you (GuruJosh and BeeBee), I can't find one theory that fits all of the evidence.

I am soooo confused!

 

[BlueCrab]

I'm embarrassed & frustrated to say that i don't think ANY theory works.

GuruJosh,

I respectfully disagree. There is a theory that works, because the crime happened. Therefore, SOMEONE'S theory is on the money or very close to being accurate.

My theory is BDI. I'm convinced that Burke is involved somehow or the parents wouldn't be lying and covering up for him. What I'm not absolutely sure about is who his accomplice or accomplices might have been. And is one of THEM the actual killer?

I also think the grand jury essentially solved the crime, but the perps were too young to prosecute. I say "essentially" solved the crime because there may still be an older, and thus prosecutable, perp who has been permitted to slip between the cracks. N.I. was 21 years old when JonBenet was murdered.

I select D.S. and N.I. as possible accomplices by using the "process of elimination" in a novel way. They were both major figures in the JonBenet story, but were both eliminated from PMPT pb when it went to press soon after the grand jury adjourned in October of 1999. Schiller had held off publishing PMPT until after the GJ adjourned. When it finally adjourned in October a court gag order was slapped on the case. Why were their names apparently purged from PMPT at the last minute?

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

I also think the grand jury essentially solved the crime, but the perps were too young to prosecute. I say "essentially" solved the crime because there may still be an older, and thus prosecutable, perp who has been permitted to slip between the cracks. N.I. was 21 years old when JonBenet was murdered.

I select D.S. and N.I. as possible accomplices by using the "process of elimination" in a novel way. They were both major figures in the JonBenet story, but were both eliminated from PMPT pb when it went to press soon after the grand jury adjourned in October of 1999. Schiller had held off publishing PMPT until after the GJ adjourned. When it finally adjourned in October a court gag order was slapped on the case. Why were their names apparently purged from PMPT at the last minute?

BlueCrab

wasn't N.I. cleared as being in California over xmas? i like your theory BC, but i think that N.I. is not the place to go. perhaps schiller received info from the grand jury that made it crystal clear that N.I. was not involved and that is why he was removed from the book? if an alibi is that strong, an author may put himself in danger of a lawsuit if he continues to publish libelous information when he knows the truth (or at least some of it!).

as for your grand jury gag order=BDI theory, i tend to disagree here. it seems to me that with all the media coverage this case has received, and all the leaks that have occurred since day one, that the most crucial piece of info would not be capable of being kept secret. i understand there's a gag order, but this type of info just tends to get out...especially in a case like this.

i also highly doubt that the ramseys would be able to recover any damages against the NYPost if the grand jury came to the exact conclusion that the post offered. i'm not entirely sure of the entire legal landscape here, but this is my thoughts...if the grand jury concluded BDI and there was a gag order, PR, JR, and Lin Wood are most certainly aware of this. if Lin Wood goes forward to pursue a case against the Post, or anyone, for that matter, for implicating Burke, he would be not just supporting, but PROMOTING perjury! this is against a lawyers code of ethics and he would be disbarred. you may think that since noone knew the GJ's conclusion, the Ramseys and Wood can get away with it, but the legal system knows, and i highly doubt the colorado judicial system would allow this to go through.

 

[BlueCrab]

wasn't N.I. cleared as being in California over xmas? i like your theory BC, but i think that N.I. is not the place to go. perhaps schiller received info from the grand jury that made it crystal clear that N.I. was not involved and that is why he was removed from the book? if an alibi is that strong, an author may put himself in danger of a lawsuit if he continues to publish libelous information when he knows the truth (or at least some of it!).

as for your grand jury gag order=BDI theory, i tend to disagree here. it seems to me that with all the media coverage this case has received, and all the leaks that have occurred since day one, that the most crucial piece of info would not be capable of being kept secret. i understand there's a gag order, but this type of info just tends to get out...especially in a case like this.

i also highly doubt that the ramseys would be able to recover any damages against the NYPost if the grand jury came to the exact conclusion that the post offered. i'm not entirely sure of the entire legal landscape here, but this is my thoughts...if the grand jury concluded BDI and there was a gag order, PR, JR, and Lin Wood are most certainly aware of this. if Lin Wood goes forward to pursue a case against the Post, or anyone, for that matter, for implicating Burke, he would be not just supporting, but PROMOTING perjury! this is against a lawyers code of ethics and he would be disbarred. you may think that since noone knew the GJ's conclusion, the Ramseys and Wood can get away with it, but the legal system knows, and i highly doubt the colorado judicial system would allow this to go through.

Voice of Reason,

No, N.I. wasn't cleared by being in California. DrC's rsponse to WS wasn't N.I.'s direct quote. It was DrC's interpretaion of what N.I. said in his e-mail. DrC said he threw away the original response from N.I.

In regard to PMPT, Schiller listed 500 names in his name index in back of the book, but N.I. wasn't listed. He didn't have to accuse him as being a suspect to simply admit that he interviewed N.I. and state that N.I. babysat and regularly drove JonBenet to school.

In regard to the BR defamation lawsuits, please note the courts didn't allow ANY of them to go forward beyond a certain point. IMO the courts told the litigants to settle or else. I doubt if any money changed hands; they were all a bluff by Lin Wood to try to curtail free speech.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

I continually go back and forth on this. At first I believed that PDI, and then I convinced myself that it must have been an intruder. I sometimes think that BlueCrab may be right, but again I am not convinced and often question his theory. I guess like the two of you (GuruJosh and BeeBee), I can't find one theory that fits all of the evidence.

I am soooo confused!

bensmom98:

Its likely that no one theory will fit all the evidence, since some of it is bogus, some of it is lost, some of it has been relocated, and some was never collected.

Also most people accept that the crime scene was staged, but tend to disagree to what extent.

Personally I consider all the theories to still be in play, since nobody has put forward a convincing explanation. BlueCrab's BDI is consistent but relies on negatives and omissions.

IDI as a theory can be constructed as an alternative using the same rationale, but where the intruder is a known ramsey associate. The Ramseys do not wish to self incriminate, so seek self-preservation via lawyering up, spin, lies etc.

PDI is the theory with the most forensic evidence, the strongest psychological explanation, yet I find it difficult to accept that Patsy would kill JonBenet in the manner she was supposedly murdered? But I could see Patsy staging a murder scene to cover up for another Ramsey or known associate!

BDI Is the least convincing, although appealing, the forensic evidence does not match the profile of a 9-year old boy. It could match that of a teenager though. Or as BlueCrab suggests someone with access to JonBenet e.g. NI.

JDI Seems to have very few proponents.

RDI Similary has few takers. Here they are all involved or colluding, since they have all indulged in some form of illegal activity. Which requires obsfucation, denial, and legal tactics, along with some staging to obscure any hint of a conspiracy. Curiously those that delve deep enough into the case recognize whether planned or not a conspiracy of silence and selective presentation is evident!

So my explanation for not having a conclusion is that the perpetrator(s) were successful in staging the crime scene, removing and relocating evidence. Thus making a conclusion difficult to reach, since after eliminating the impossible and subtracting objects to simplify, the net result is a confusing crime scene.

.

 

[narlacat]

Quote from ukguy
BDI Is the least convincing, although appealing, the forensice evidence does not match the profile of a 9-year old boy. It could match that of a teenager though. Or as BlueCrab suggests someone with access to JonBenet e.g. NI.

I actually dont find this the least convincing theory...i think the least convincing theory is PDI though i do believe she is involved in the cover up/staging. I only found out yesterday that Doug Stine was 13 going on 14 when JB was killed, until then i had assumed he was the same age as Burke as id read they were close friends. Were the R's just stupid or were they just naive? Theres no way i could leave my 9 and 6 year old in the care of teenagers and young adults and feel ok about myself. Theres a world of difference between a 9 yr and a 14 yr old.
I previously thought that BC's theory involving Burke and an older accomplice(s) and EA was a bit far fetched but since finding out Doug Stines age,i am reconsidering that idea. A 13 -14 year old is at a age where sexual experimentation is quite normal.....and a 21 yr old would most certainly know about such practices.

 

[narlacat]

Also,does anyone else think its strange that the Stines followed the R's to Atlanta??? I mean who moves interstate just because their friends do??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Guru-

I've read or heard professionals and rational people like yourself refer to this case as bizarre. What does bizarre mean? The fact that the crime is considered by so many to be bizarre is an important aspect.

What is bizarre to most is sometimes not so bizarre to others. It may depend on where you come from:


bizarre
adj : conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual; "restaurants of bizarre design--one like a hat, another like a rabbit"; "famed for his eccentric spelling"; "a freakish combination of styles"; "his off-the-wall antics"; "the outlandish clothes of teenagers"; "outre and affected stage antics" [syn: eccentric, freakish, freaky, flaky, off-the-wall, outlandish, outre]


out·land·ish
adj: Conspicuously unconventional; bizarre. See Synonyms at strange.

1. Strikingly unfamiliar.
2. Located far from civilized areas.
3. Archaic. Of foreign origin; not native.

 

[BlueCrab]

I only found out yesterday that Doug Stine was 13 going on 14 when JB was killed, until then i had assumed he was the same age as Burke as id read they were close friends.

narlacat,

What is your source that D.S. was 13 years old when JonBenet was killed? I have never been able to find his age or birthdate. Thanks.