Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder

[ATasteOfHoney]

That does not mean it was more than that..Many kids have bathroom issues.. So that does not mean much to me. The fact that she had frequent UTI's, not much either because I also had a friend who had this growing up. No sexual abuse.

So while it can be linked to sexual abuse it does not mean it IS in fact sexual abuse. IT is still a question.. I will read Cyril Wechts book and look at his information.

While I know that you believe the chances are low that it was an intruder. The possibility is there. Yes you apply reason but that should not take the place of evidence and proof.

We don't just surmise people do things and convict them. We need fact, connection and proof that they were involved in the crime. There is none in this case. If there was, PR and JR would have been indicted and tried. They were not..


I don't convict people on gut instinct or reasoning. To me people have to be proved guilty. If you are going to charge and convict someone with the sexual abuse and murder of their family member, You have to prove it to me.

I have never seen a clear case against the Ramseys. I see maybe, could, perhaps, possibly.

That won't get me there.

So then what's your theory? JBR is dead so do you allow yourself to consider how this happened? If so, how did it happen? By the way, that's why we're here at WS---> to sleuth. I don't name names or accuse but I do sleuth in a "theory" perspective.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't want you to think I am posting and running. I have a party at my house in 2 hours but I do have a theory and will try and come back tonight and post it.. I have a lot to say..

 

[SapphireSteel]

I don't want you to think I am posting and running. I have a party at my house in 2 hours but I do have a theory and will try and come back tonight and post it.. I have a lot to say..

Yes and some of it is on Madeleine's thread. You seem very thoughtful and open minded.

It is wonderful that people still are able to give "benefit of the doubt" but WS isn't actually about that.

WS is about sleuthing - we can't really let personal beliefs get in the way if we're doing it properly.

Belief is great, but not when it's based on lack of knowledge.

In JBR's case, as in Madeleine's, there is an entire mountain of knowledge which should be read and weighed up, before an accurate opinion is able to be formed.

The experienced sleuthers around here just don't like the "little things"....things that others may discount as unimportant.

For example, I don't like the fact that Madeleine's parents did not call for her or even look for her when they found her "vanished".

I don't like the staging in the JBR case and personally find it outside of the realms of possibility that anyone else raped or murdered her apart from her dear old mom and dad (the stagers).

My point of view of course but I do know these cases very very well.

Many's the time sleuthers around here have found some sort of inaccuracy or inconsistency which has actually helped solve the crime. I know LE read here regularly, they do not discount our theories as they are trained to consider everything (even the impossible) and leave personal opinions at home.

If you make a serious study on both of these cases I bet you'll change your mind. There is a LOT of information out there, some of it rubbish, some of it not...but you cannot hold an accurate opinion without reading it all.

:twocents:

 

[2 percent]

While I know that you believe the chances are low that it was an intruder. The possibility is there. Yes you apply reason but that should not take the place of evidence and proof.

It doesn't take the place of evidence and proof.
I'm not trying to sound like a smartaleck but just because you have a theory doesn't mean evidence and proof is automatically ignored.

We don't just surmise people do things and convict them. We need fact, connection and proof that they were involved in the crime. There is none in this case. If there was, PR and JR would have been indicted and tried. They were not..

Again, not trying to be a smartaleck but we're not convicting people. We're discussing a case. None of us on this site has the power to convict anyone in this case. So I'm at a loss as to your point. We are all theorizing, not indicting or trying anyone.

I have never seen a clear case against the Ramseys. I see maybe, could, perhaps, possibly.

That won't get me there.

Okay. But I'm not beholden to the same requirements. I speculate based on the information I am given. I do this with the clear understanding that I am speculating and that no one I suspect will ever be under any danger of indictment or conviction from me. I don't even live in CO, so I wouldn't even be a witness if there were a trial.

J.M.O.

Edited to add: On WB we function like LE. While the courts can have the luxury of the presumption of innocence, LE must presume guilty until innocence has been proven to their satisfaction. To speculate and form theories for these unsolved crimes we must also presume guilt of everyone before eliminating them as suspects.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes and some of it is on Madeleine's thread. You seem very thoughtful and open minded.

It is wonderful that people still are able to give "benefit of the doubt" but WS isn't actually about that.

WS is about sleuthing - we can't really let personal beliefs get in the way if we're doing it properly.

Belief is great, but not when it's based on lack of knowledge.

In JBR's case, as in Madeleine's, there is an entire mountain of knowledge which should be read and weighed up, before an accurate opinion is able to be formed.

The experienced sleuthers around here just don't like the "little things"....things that others may discount as unimportant.

For example, I don't like the fact that Madeleine's parents did not call for her or even look for her when they found her "vanished".

I don't like the staging in the JBR case and personally find it outside of the realms of possibility that anyone else raped or murdered her apart from her dear old mom and dad (the stagers).

My point of view of course but I do know these cases very very well.

Many's the time sleuthers around here have found some sort of inaccuracy or inconsistency which has actually helped solve the crime. I know LE read here regularly, they do not discount our theories as they are trained to consider everything (even the impossible) and leave personal opinions at home.

If you make a serious study on both of these cases I bet you'll change your mind. There is a LOT of information out there, some of it rubbish, some of it not...but you cannot hold an accurate opinion without reading it all.

:twocents:

I agree. I love WS's But I can just not make up scenarios.. that is not how my brain works. I need the proof. I especially need proof to point fingers at parents or loved ones. It is the most egregious crime to me for a loved one, a trusted care giver to hurt and kill someone in their care. For me to go there, I need hard proof. I need to see evidence that leads me there.

I believe that JBR was killed by an intruder. Someone who knew her and/or she knew in some capacity. I believe that they could have been waiting there before they got home that night, and waited until the house was silent and then took their opportunity. I believe their intent was not to kill her initially but to take her and things went too far and she ended up dead.


I know that I am in the minority. I am good with that.

ETA: I plan on getting The book this week and starting it.. Kids willing..

 

[2 percent]

I agree. I love WS's But I can just not make up scenarios.. that is not how my brain works. I need the proof. I especially need proof to point fingers at parents or loved ones. It is the most egregious crime to me for a loved one, a trusted care giver to hurt and kill someone in their care. For me to go there, I need hard proof. I need to see evidence that leads me there.

You have standards, I get that. However, unless the Ramseys are your family or friend I seriously doubt they give a hoot what you think.
Again, not trying to be a smartaleck but are you sure your belief of an intruder isn't because you don't want to suspect or accuse a named/known person?
I may be wrong but it seems to me an intruder is a default position for you.

I believe that they could have been waiting there before they got home that night, and waited until the house was silent and then took their opportunity. I believe their intent was not to kill her initially but to take her and things went too far and she ended up dead.

Okay. Why do you believe that? Specifically:
What proof points to an intruder?
What proof points to someone waiting?
How did the intruder get in?
If the intent was to take her, why begin to sexually assault her right then? Why not just leave?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'd keep an open mind when you're reading those books, too.

You know there are several different books on JBR, everyone with their own :twocents:, everyone claiming theirs is the only true story.

Read the transcripts of the Ramsey interviews. This will give you the best idea of the questions asked, the lies told, the contradictions and faulty memories of the Ramseys.

:sick:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You have standards, I get that. However, unless the Ramseys are your family or friend I seriously doubt they give a hoot what you think.
Again, not trying to be a smartaleck but are you sure your belief of an intruder isn't because you don't want to suspect or accuse a named/known person?
I may be wrong but it seems to me an intruder is a default position for you.



Okay. Why do you believe that? Specifically:
What proof points to an intruder?
What proof points to someone waiting?
How did the intruder get in?
If the intent was to take her, why begin to sexually assault her right then? Why not just leave?

It does not matter what the Ramsey's think.. Although since they have not been charged and are not POI's to wildly accuse them to me is in bad form. If the police had enough to charge them, They would have. If the grand jury had enough to indict they would have. All these years later, Still no progress and no charges.

I won't accuse someone without Proof. I will not go along and make up wild scenarios about a then 9 yr old without proof. I need to see the evidence and there is none that shows me a horrible family murder here. You see it differently. That's okay. I think a lot of people WANT the Ramseys to be guilty because that is the easiest fit. But I don't see it.

I am happy to read and I will keep reading the information! But at this point.. Nothing has changed my mind. I see wild speculation but I don't see the proof that leads me to any of the family members.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'd keep an open mind when you're reading those books, too.

You know there are several different books on JBR, everyone with their own :twocents:, everyone claiming theirs is the only true story.

Read the transcripts of the Ramsey interviews. This will give you the best idea of the questions asked, the lies told, the contradictions and faulty memories of the Ramseys.

:sick:

I don't expect people that went through something completely traumatic to have exact memories.. I just don't. Maybe you have to go through something traumatic to understand but I do.

I completely agree. I think that that is the issue. There are so many opinions that are spoken as authority and fact when in fact it is someone's very carefully thought out opinion.

I think that there is a lot that people have adopted as fact that is just the thoughts or ramblings or possibilities from some.

 

[Snowball58]

If the grand jury had enough to indict they would have.

The grand jury DID vote to indict the parents, child abuse resulting in death if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...nd-jury-indictment-alex-hunter_n_2562007.html

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes. I knew that.. I should have been more clear.. Child abuse that lead to a death.. However... The DA did not indict? Why?? Why not???

That is huge. And it says something to me.

Reading Judge Carnes decision on the Civil case.. says something to me.

Grand juries indict ham sandwiches as the saying goes.. But here you have the indictment and then no case? No trial? No charges??

I think people want to make more of small things and ignore the big things and the police mistakes and their quick judgment of the Ramseys..

I know.. I know.. You don't agree with me and think I am delusional. But in the absence of the evidence to bring to trial... You have conjecture and posturing by both sides..

 

[Snowball58]

It's my belief that the Ramsey's were never charged due to their wealth and influence. But I believe that the grand jury got it right.

May I ask what hard evidence is pointing you towards an intruder?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's my belief that the Ramsey's were never charged due to their wealth and influence. But I believe that the grand jury got it right.

May I ask what hard evidence is pointing you towards an intruder?

I think the question is what points toward the Ramseys with fact and untainted evidence. That is my problem.

I think it automatically says intruder on its own. Over time I have seen many agree with that and back it up with evidence. The unknown DNA.

I just think there is so much that points away from them that it is more obvious it is not them but someone else entirely.

I see things in this case that lead me to believe that the Ramseys were targeted from the beginning as the only suspects.

What bothers me is that if someone believes the Ramseys are not guilty, those people are met with vinegar and a desire to ruin them and taint them. To assume they have been touched by money..

No, I need proof that it was not an intruder. I don't see that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think the question is what points toward the Ramseys with fact and untainted evidence. That is my problem.

I think it automatically says intruder on its own. Over time I have seen many agree with that and back it up with evidence. The unknown DNA.

I just think there is so much that points away from them that it is more obvious it is not them but someone else entirely.

I see things in this case that lead me to believe that the Ramseys were targeted from the beginning as the only suspects.

What bothers me is that if someone believes the Ramseys are not guilty, those people are met with vinegar and a desire to ruin them and taint them. To assume they have been touched by money..

No, I need proof that it was not an intruder. I don't see that.

Alex Hunter is the one who refused to prosecute. Just one man.

He refused to prosecute because he was afraid of the fall out. His staffers and LE were ready to go but he flatly refused.

People don't seem to know or remember just how powerful John Ramsey was in Colorado but he had friends in very high places, and a lot of influence.

Some of it, political.

:cow:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The thing is, if the evidence was there, If they could have proved it then they would have. It really is that simple. If they had the evidence that said.. John Ramsey did this. They would have put that trial on for all to see.

The reason he did not do it is because he could not prove it. For me it really is that simple..

 

[SapphireSteel]

The thing is, if the evidence was there, If they could have proved it then they would have. It really is that simple. If they had the evidence that said.. John Ramsey did this. They would have put that trial on for all to see.

The reason he did not do it is because he could not prove it. For me it really is that simple..

Are you saying that only things that can be proven are taken to trial?

Clearly this is false, OJ and Casey Anthony need I go on...

The Grand Jury voted to prosecute. One man stopped it, yet he's the only one who knew the truth?

Nope, makes no sense at all.

As far as "no proof" is concerned, there's mountains and mountains of proof, not least being the note written by PR and the lies told by both.

The difference is, the Ramseys were wealthy and powerful.

The wealthy and powerful generally do not get found guilty in America. Just look at death row...almost exclusively non-white and poor.

:cow:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Are you saying that only things that can be proven are taken to trial?

Clearly this is false, OJ and Casey Anthony need I go on...

The Grand Jury voted to prosecute. One man stopped it, yet he's the only one who knew the truth?

Nope, makes no sense at all.

As far as "no proof" is concerned, there's mountains and mountains of proof, not least being the note written by PR and the lies told by both.

The difference is, the Ramseys were wealthy and powerful.

The wealthy and powerful generally do not get found guilty in America. Just look at death row...almost exclusively non-white and poor.

:cow:

My point is that there was not enough for him to bring it to trial. He did not have enough that he felt he could prove the case. That speaks volumes to me.
AS far as the cases you quoted I am not sure that applies. Because the point is that even with those cases that were lost, The DA's felt they had enough and brought them to TRIAL. Not the case here.

What do you do with DNA that matches no one? That effectively clears people. IT means that if their DNA does not match, It can not be them.

My problem with this case is that people want to just ignore what points away from the Ramseys. And I don't think that makes for a good case.

If anything points away from the Ramseys, That has to be investigated first. I think the best way is before you blame someone who has never been charged or brought to trial, before you point fingers at people that are not POI's, You have to look out there and see where the evidence goes that points away from them first.

Again.. My goal is truth. Not persuasion. I don't see anything that convinces me the Ramseys committed this heinous act on their daughter.

 

[DeeDee249]

Legally- NO one can be cleared in an UNSOLVED murder. UNSOURCED DNA cannot "clear"anyone. Just because it does not match the family does not mean they were not involved. And because the DNA is unsourced it cannot be proven to have belonged to anyone who WAS there. Even more so because it is "touch DNA" - skin cells. Easily transferred from an innocent donor to a crime scene. Many legal experts and LE condemned ML for her "exoneration" for the exact reasons I stated. She can say whatever she wishes but when the new DA took over he made it clear that NO one was "cleared" because the case is unsolved. This is especially true of anyone who was present in the home at the time of the murder- i.e. the three surviving family members. If this case had come to trial that DNA evidence would have been ripped to shreds. One of the reasons why the DA at the time would have sold his soul to keep this case out of a courtroom. And he did.

 

[SapphireSteel]

My point is that there was not enough for him to bring it to trial. He did not have enough that he felt he could prove the case. That speaks volumes to me.
AS far as the cases you quoted I am not sure that applies. Because the point is that even with those cases that were lost, The DA's felt they had enough and brought them to TRIAL. Not the case here.

What do you do with DNA that matches no one? That effectively clears people. IT means that if their DNA does not match, It can not be them.

My problem with this case is that people want to just ignore what points away from the Ramseys. And I don't think that makes for a good case.

If anything points away from the Ramseys, That has to be investigated first. I think the best way is before you blame someone who has never been charged or brought to trial, before you point fingers at people that are not POI's, You have to look out there and see where the evidence goes that points away from them first.

Again.. My goal is truth. Not persuasion. I don't see anything that convinces me the Ramseys committed this heinous act on their daughter.

It's always interesting to get someone else's pov!

I must've missed something - I don't know of any evidence that points away from the Ramseys.

Could you elaborate?

TIA

 

[gramcracker]

from Steve Thomas' JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation

kindle location 167:
Two of us went to the office of the district attorney one day to discuss a search warrant for a drug bust and listened to a couple of the prosecutors mock our operation and joke about their own previous drug use. Cases involving substantial quantities of heroin and cocaine were routinely plea bargained, including one in which the arrested suspect was a deputy district attorney found with syringes in her bathrobe and what appeared to be cocaine in her dresser drawers. Claiming the drugs and paraphanalia belonged to her live-in boyfriend, she was allowed to plead to lesser crimes. But plea bargains weren't handed out just in drug cases, for even people accused of the most heinous crimes could negotiate a deal. Defense attorneys were big fans of the DA. It was the way business was done.

More than once, when I insisted on contesting a plea, a prosecutor would ask me, "Why do you want to ruin someone's life?" I made hundreds of arrests in Boulder but went to court exactly twice in seven years.

I couldn't help but compare passive Boulder to the hard-charging task force I worked with in neighboring Jefferson County for most of 1996. There, we were about to bring home more than a dozen grand jury indictments in a racketeering case. An assistant JeffCo DA was even assigned full-time to the drug task force to give the cops on-the-spot legal advice and expedite needed warrants, a usual practice in many counties where the DA actively supports the police investigative process. That was not the usual practice in Boulder, where the DA's office usually waited on the sidelines until we "presented" a case to them.

kindle location 1146:
As Hofstrom rose in rank through the DA's office, so did his eccentric philosophy that the law is not "simply a set of rules that people are supposed to observe." In his opinion, as stated in a newspaper interview, the law allows him room to "advance society's interest," and he is the one to define those interests.

One thing his vision did not require was spending a lot of time in the courtroom trying cases, when gentlemanly attorneys could agree to avoid such nastiness with plea bargains that traded a watered-down sentence for a conviction on lesser charges. Pete Hofstrom was dealing down more than 90 percent of the felony cases in Boulder County, including some of the most heinous crimes one could imagine - murders, rapes, and cocaine dealing.

kindle location 1156:
In the 1990s Hofstrom dominated the district attorney's office. Being "fair" to defendants was preferred to trials, and the result was a lack of courtroom confidence and grand jury experience among a staff of prosecutors that earned the questionable reputation of not being able to bring home the big ones. Police called it the "3-D Shop," where everything was dismissed, deferred, or dispositioned.

During Alex Hunter's first campaign for district attorney in 1972, he was highly critical of the incumbent for plea-bargaining some 65 percent of his cases. By the mid 1990s, Hunter admitted the figure for his office was about 93 percent, although one newspaper put it nearer 97 percent of the felony cases. At the start of the year 2000, one of his own deputies, Mary Keenan, was campaigning to become district attorney herself and claimed that only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the cases filed in Boulder go to trial. That meant an astounding 99.3 percent of the cases were being plea-bargained!

We had long been aware of the close relationship between Hofstrom and one of the new Ramsey attorneys, Bryan Morgan of Boulder. Proof of just how close their links were came when Commander John Eller went out to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation on December 30.

Eller wanted to discuss some possible evidence that would soon be coming to the CBI for testing, but he was interrupted by one of the examiners, who said they had already been contacted by the office of the district attorney and told not to begin any such tests. Before Eller could even ask why, Hofstrom walked in, almost as if on cue, to deliver a letter ordering the CBI not to test certain types of evidence, particularly very small samples. The instructions came not from the DA's office or the police department but from Bryan Morgan.

No one had been arrested or charged with anything, so by law, until a suspect bcame a defendant, they had no right to observe the testing, much less dictate how it was to be done. The fact that the DA's top prosecutor was hand-delivering mail for a defense attorney instead of fighting the unreasonable demand was outrageous.

kindle location 1882:
Accordingly, the strain between the police and Hunter's office existed long before JonBenet was even born. We were all too familiar with the prosecutors' familiar bleat that there was "insufficient evidence" to go to trial, or that "a jury won't convict." I believed they had been so weakened in trial experience after decades of plea bargaining that they were afraid to take their chances in court.

Of the twenty-three murder cases filed between 1992 and 1996 in Boulder County, none went to trial. All were plea-bargained. Pete Hofstrom told a reporter in 1996, "I haven't tried a case this year, and I don't intend to unless absolutely necessary." So what was happening early in the Ramsey case did not shock any cops. It wasn't just that the Ramseys had money, it was that the Boulder DA's office did not embrace assertive and aggressive prosecution. The Ramsey case exploited weak points that had been in place for years, and the more the prosecutors tried to "build trust" with this defense team, the deeper they dug the hole. Several decades of their unorthodox thinking fell on us all like a ton of bricks.

Therefore, based upon years of experience with the DA's ivory-tower office, where justice seemed to be an abstract concept, I thought it unlikely that the killer of JonBenet Ramsey would ever see the inside of a courtroom. Elsewhere, a tough DA would have told the defense lawyers nothing more than was absolutely required by law and would have applied pressure at every turn to bring a killer to justice. But to do so in Boulder would violate the culture of cowardice and tradition of timidity that were the hallmarks of the DA's office. None of them were suddenly going to start looking like a gutsy prosecutor and adopt a "go-to-hell" attitude toward defense attorneys.