I support the Intruder theory, HOWEVER a question

[Nehemiah]

In this theory my guess is John found the body around 4:00 A.M. The hanging would have been partial, so to speak, just enough to prop up the upper portion of the body to grotesquely pose her with legs apart. According to the autopsy lividity formed on the dorsal part of the body, which could have meant any part of the back including the lower back (the part that would still be lying on the floor).

JMO

And let's not forget what John Walsh said--referring to John R.--"after he cut her down...." (not an exact quote but close.)

 

[Toth]

John Walsh displays an amazing lack of familiarity with the facts.
I don't know if it is an act of some sort or if he really is ignorant.

 

[Nehemiah]

John Walsh displays an amazing lack of familiarity with the facts.
I don't know if it is an act of some sort or if he really is ignorant.

Or perhaps he knows more than we?

 

[BlueCrab]

I say what looks like staging for police is actually posing for viewing by the perp. The raising of the arms was an act of posing. Why not conclude the use of the neck ligature as having the same purpose, posing?

The seeming random nature of the note is comprehensible in terms of symbolism, symbolism that the perp understood. The symbolic nature of the note should be transfered to the condition of the body and all those things should be read as having meaning to the perp.

I say this thing was done in a state of mind where there was no consideration for anything or anyone in the real world. All the elements of the crime had a meaning and reality in the mind of the perp only.

Brothermoon,

I can agree somewhat with your analysis. Add the possible use of a stun gun on JonBenet and the crime really becomes sinister (torture). But, of course, it still doesn't eliminate the involvement of a Ramsey. The Ramseys wouldn't be involved in an elaborate coverup to protect an unknown intruder who murdered their daughter.

JMO

 

[Toth]

The Ramseys wouldn't be involved in an elaborate coverup to protect an unknown intruder who murdered their daughter.

The Ramseys wouldn't be involved in any sort of coverup to protect anyone who murdered their daughter.


Torture? I'm not sure. The stun gun use may have been 'experimentation' or 'wimpy torture' to go along with the 'wimpy bondage'. I do think that the strangulation was slow and the garotte was repeatedly relaxed and then re-tightened so as to give her a very prolonged death and him a very prolonged experience.
This was not 'perverted sex and then kill the witness'. It was primarily kill the kid and do it slowly. After having had some fun with the kid, he had some fun with the parents by imagining what he was doing to them by having them sit by the phone waiting for a call that would never come.

 

[Imon128]

The Ramseys wouldn't be involved in any sort of coverup to protect anyone who murdered their daughter.

Not even an older adult child who would face the death penalty, should the facts be known?

 

[Toth]

Not anyone at any time under any circumstances.

 

[Imon128]

Not anyone at any time under any circumstances.

I disagree. I think they would. But, we'll just agree to disagree on that one, okay?

 

[Britt]

Add the possible use of a stun gun on JonBenet and the crime really becomes sinister (torture).

Not necessarily. One might use a stun gun to try to revive an unconscious victim after a head blow or choking (which may have indeed been sinister) rendered her unconscious.

 

[Barbara]

I I'm not pro-Ramsey, I'm Anti-LynchMob.

So, is it your opinion that everyone believing in Ramsey involvement is part of a "lynch mob"? An ugly term, along with an ugly picture started by an ugly person on an ugly forum. To compare ordinary citizens (who believe, under their Constitutional right to form an opinion and share it) to a group of people who would torture and hang black people is rather unbecoming. Coming from ******* is understandable, but from you? I'm disappointed.

Somewhat beneath you Toth

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Barbara :clap:

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

...Dosn't this lend credence to suggestins that she was strangled by the elasticated neck of her top? That the triangular abrasion on the left side of her neck was caused by knuckles twisting against her neck causing the elasticated neck of the top to abrade only the right hand side of her neck?

Yes, it does. I agree. I think JBR was strangled with her red turtleneck. I know, I know. She was wearing the white crew-neck shirt when she was found and on the night of the 25th.

My thought is this: What was JBR going to wear on the 26th??? If Patsy woke up, found JBR up at around 2 or 3 a.m., might she have tried to get the child dressed in 'tomorrow's' clothes before she let her get a few more hours of sleep?

I know this is a trick I used on my little girl during her first year of preschool. We would put on the clothes for the next day on the night before, after her bath. She just wouldn't cooperate in the morning.

Since JBR fought with Patsy about wearing the red shirt on the 25th, then maybe it was like, "Ok, you wore your shirt tonight. Tomorrow, you will wear the red sweater..."

I have contended previously, and I am sure any parent can understand, turtle-necks are close to impossible to put on an angry, tired, uncooperative child. I usually avoid them altogether, to tell you the truth.

Either the fight was with the white crew-neck coming off, or with the red turtle-neck going on. In either case, I see a struggle that led to the adult (probably Patsy) twisting and yanking the shirt and probably flinging the baby to the ground. During this fight, I think JBR was pulling either up or down, depending on which shirt, producing the nail marks (hmmm....I wonder if the fingernail marks could indicate which way JBR was clawing at her neck...).

These actions would produce the abrasions on her neck, as described by Jayelles and, with enough force, a massive head injury. Yes, a parent flinging a small child across the floor WOULD cause that severe of a head wound. It happens time and time again. Sorry, but it is true. If you want a documented case or two, I can show them to you.

With the above mentioned injuries, the perpetrator would have a lot of explaining to do, and hence, the cover up.

Yeah...I know I said 'and hence.' Couldn't resist.

I have also said it before, but I will say it again...The simplest solution is most likely the correct one.

The further we stretch this thing, in terms of intruder, foreign factions, grudges, pedophiles, crazed 9-year-olds, little green men, etc, etc, the further away we get from the obviously simple, no matter how tragic, truth of child abuse at the hands of a parent.

Don't try to hard.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

blueclouds, Jonbenét is not believed to have been killed in the room where she was found. She died right outside the doorway into that room, on the carpeted floor of the "boiler room", according to both Smit & Thomas (one of the few things they agree on).

I think the killer wrapped her lifeless body in the blanket, picked her up over his shoulder, then tossed her down on the wine cellar floor, which left her arms above her head.

There's no doubt that the cord garrote deeply embeded in her throat is what strangled her. There are no marks to indicate manual strangulation or strangulation by anything as thick as the red turtleneck.

 

[blueclouds]

whoa, a lot to take in. I'm just trying to imagine the crime and there are some things that aren't making sense. Thanks for all the feedback and not attacking me for supporting the intruder theory.

What if the "staging" was done to JB by the perp. What if he killed this child to get back at the parents for something? By the note, he seems to know some things about the Ramsey's.

 

[sissi]

There are those of us who remember the Wide Awake site,depicting horrible pictures of malformed fetuses,dead bodies,and women in bondage ,yet very disturbing among them was the pictures of the games played with barbie...barbie decapitated,barbie in bondage,I'm not certain, this site (warning don't hit the links they look like *advertiser censored* to me)seems to include the same barbie "stuff" that I remember.
Another thing I remember was the use of needle nose pliars,could the marks that Smit thinks are from a stun gun,be a sign of being tortured by these pliars? opinions?

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach..._bondage.php+barbie+in+bondage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[LovelyPigeon]

There is nothing in the ransom note that couldn't have been gleaned & inferred from an article about John Ramsey and Access Graphics in the local Boulder paper in December 1996, just before the murder.

Things in that article, like the Dixieland band that played at an AG celebration party, could have led a killer personally unfamiliar with John Ramsey to conclude, for instance, that JR had "southern" common sense when JR was actually a native of Michigan.

Noticeably lacking in the note is a reference to JonBenét by name, for instance.

For another instance, if $118,000 was an actual reference to the bonus that JR received for the year 1995 and was posted on his check stubs in 1996, the intruder ransom note writer may have found that number inside the house on check stubs.

 

[blueclouds]

The lack of JB's name. That's a thought I've had before too. I just try to visualize the parents staging this scene. I can't. There would be more mistakes. I think the intruder meant to take JB but killed her accidently in the house (not accidently) but too soon, I guess.

Does anyone think he saw her at the beauty pagents? I would think there are some child molesters involved in that industry.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

It's possible that the killer saw JonBenét at beauty pageants and targeted her from there, but how likely is that really? There are thousands of American children kidnapped and killed by strangers, but how many of those children are involved in beauty pageants?

I think that children's pageants have led to few, if any, kidnappings and murders.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I think a lot of things in the ransom note were intended to make the reader think the crime was something different than what it was.

A parent would, of course, know the child's name. So, in my opinion, the parent assumed that the mere mention of Jonbenet's unusual name would point towards the family.

I think the writer realized that if she included JBR's name, the suspect list would be limited to "Now, exactly who would know your child's unusual first name...?"

Plus, writing the name of her dead child might have been just too much for Patsy to bear, given everything else she just had to face.

I think, if I were writing a note like this one (God forbid), and I didn't want anyone to know that I knew the child, I would not write the name at all. I would not realize the subtle possibility that avoiding the name altogether would look more suspicious.

On the other hand, if I was a terrorist-intruder, I might want to be smug and find the kid's name from some source in order to rub it in the faces of the parents. I think this kind of perp would want to scare them into thinking about how close he actually got to the family. Heck, he might have even included "Burke is next..."

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I don't think there is any doubt that the person who wrote the ransom note did it in such a way as to point suspicion toward an imaginary foreign faction rather than toward himself.