The Man On The Stairs
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2019
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 157
Good point.
Members' Theories
- Thread starter JBRMod2
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX-Brooks Co, 18+, UP91370, Found on the Mariposa Ranch, May 22- Latest: Bit of hope
- Status
Good point.
InvSmith
Sometimes your cross is carried by strangers
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 6,784
Yes, I am still tortured by this case as well. I have read all the books about the case. I still go back to the charge of child abuse or contributing to child abuse. Seems like this points to BR or creating an environment where JR was placed at risk.
InvSmith
Sometimes your cross is carried by strangers
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 6,784
I think the head injury looked like it was hit from the top downward motion.
Yes. At least, that's what one of the site moderators has said in the past. Don't shoot the messenger.
Safeguard
On Time Out
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,289
- Reaction score
- 5,696
Yes. It Is. Look for it in the forum stickies. Hense my reluctance to elaborate about the case very much. I've never felt comfortable in this forum.
Blue Donut
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2019
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3
New here...only shared my theory with now fellow retired police officers long ago. The mother was the perpetrator in a fit of rage. You can bet if it was the father the mother would have spilled the beans on him first chance. So now the problem was how to keep the mother out of jail. Here's where Mr. R took command. He laid down an iron clad plan designed to keep the mother out of jail and save the family name. He explained that to abandon the plan would mean that he would go to jail, too....along with her. There was no going back. Once the mother agreed, an improvised plan was put into action which included the BS letter. If I'm not mistaken the letter was analyzed by handwriting experts....at least one pointed to the mother as the author....correct me if I'm wrong....but on the other hand, what murderer would leave a major clue behind at the scene on purpose? That letter was needed to throw doubt on who killed the daughter....an amateur move that apparently worked...so far.
TmmEye
“No, she’s a hair hopper; that’s what SHE is.”
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 1,117
I now have a theory on who killed this little girl and why.
As we know, this was the murder weapon which was used to kill JonBenet. There is a foreign hair on it, which would not match JonBenet’s hair, as she had blonde hair at the time. However, her mother and brother had a very similar color to the foreign hair.
JonBenet’s bed was found in a messed up manner, and my theory is that JonBenet was murdered in the head when someone used the string with the stick to beat her head, then stood backwards with the string on her neck, and pulling it to strangle her. They then grabbed the blanket to control the blood, and carried it to the basement to avoid noise.
In this photo, you can see how similar Patsy's hair is to the photo of the murder weapon. Also worth noting, JonBenet had eaten pineapple before her death, and her brother, Burke, had a bowl of pineapples before bed. I believe Burke got mad when JonBenet ate some of his pineapples, and then he used the weapon to get revenge, or their mom beat her to punish her for that, while Mr. Ramsey was asleep. JonBenet ran to her room in fear, and Patsy chased after her. Once Patsy entered her room, she wanted to get the job done; she strangled her with the weapon, and wrapped her in a blanket to prevent a bloody mess. She then took her lifeless body to the basement, and made Burke go to sleep, and then write the ransom note, on the kitchen stairs near where it all started.
As we know, this was the murder weapon which was used to kill JonBenet. There is a foreign hair on it, which would not match JonBenet’s hair, as she had blonde hair at the time. However, her mother and brother had a very similar color to the foreign hair.
JonBenet’s bed was found in a messed up manner, and my theory is that JonBenet was murdered in the head when someone used the string with the stick to beat her head, then stood backwards with the string on her neck, and pulling it to strangle her. They then grabbed the blanket to control the blood, and carried it to the basement to avoid noise.
In this photo, you can see how similar Patsy's hair is to the photo of the murder weapon. Also worth noting, JonBenet had eaten pineapple before her death, and her brother, Burke, had a bowl of pineapples before bed. I believe Burke got mad when JonBenet ate some of his pineapples, and then he used the weapon to get revenge, or their mom beat her to punish her for that, while Mr. Ramsey was asleep. JonBenet ran to her room in fear, and Patsy chased after her. Once Patsy entered her room, she wanted to get the job done; she strangled her with the weapon, and wrapped her in a blanket to prevent a bloody mess. She then took her lifeless body to the basement, and made Burke go to sleep, and then write the ransom note, on the kitchen stairs near where it all started.
Those hairs in the garrotte were tested and determined to belong to JBR, if I remember correctly. They just look browner in that photo (bad lighting, etc.), but they're blonde.
The "weapon" is technically a broken paintbrush -- I don't think a paintbrush (even an intact one) would be capable of making that type of forceful head wound.
Irmese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
- Messages
- 766
- Reaction score
- 5,807
I don't believe it was anyone in the house. This "fit of rage" was totally out of character for her AFAICT. I've read every book on this and watched every TV program and I just don't get that sense from anyone in the family. I think the brother has an odd affect, maybe smiling inappropriately and just being a little strange. I thought at one time maybe he did it and if anyone in the family did it, he would be my suspect, but there's just no evidence to support that. To me, they looked like a completely normal, loving and gentle family. I feel like all of the R's have been dragged through the mud and the PD never even considered it wasn't them. The last program I watched a few weeks ago, I felt like the perp was somehow related to someone in the PD and being protected. Not a cop, but maybe a cop's relative or a criminal they were protecting for some reason. The program never said that, but look at all the things the cops didn't do. The investigation was total crap because they focused only on the R's. IMO, the press really did a horrible job, too, pushing a narrative that the Ramsey's thought they were somehow above the law because they were "rich" and white, when we all know how nasty rich white people really are, that they love molesting and abusing their kids. They made the pageants out to be some kind of sexual showing off of these little girls. The PD and the media demonized the R's, particularly PR, and most of the public just ate it up.
I think someone was in the house when they came home, and that he had been there before while they were away. I think he looked through JR's papers, including financial statements or found some evidence of bank deposits, balances, etc. I think the letter was written ahead of time and he planned to take JBR from the house with her sleeping or dead. I think he planned to kidnap her, but she woke up or saw them so they killed her to keep her quiet and then found that a dead body wasn't too easy to get out of that cellar window. Who it was, I have no idea, but I think the PD did know and intentionally didn't go after him. One way or the other, the PD botched it.
Just Jayla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,222
- Reaction score
- 211
I was quite surprised when I read the rule, actually. I thought I was not reading it right. Given all of the bombs we tossed in the Caylee forum at any and every (innocent) person who'd spent so much as 5 minutes with Casey, I was admittedly confused.
I don't think any one poster is frightened by debate, though. That's a big leap (and a lazy debate tactic, to try to egg us on) when there could be a plethora of reasons to the contrary. Eg, to moderate that type of forum, with a near 50/50 split RDI:IDI, could be hell on wheels. Whereas the Caylee forum was 98% guilters, and not a lot of fights. The vetting of innocents there was more a means to end at Casey's doorstep beyond doubt.
As far as whether it's "acceptable?" This is a private site and Trish/mods can do what they please. We can take it or leave it. That IS okay, because that's the perks you get when you have your own domain.
fridaybaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,839
- Reaction score
- 8,760
See, a big problem here in discussing this case is that where you see a “loving family”, others see something different. I’m one of those. I don’t see much of anything but a couple of vapid, socially ambitious and successful adults with two children who are mostly adornment for their parents.
I think all those pageants are sick, but I t’s not just about the pageants, is it? If you’re that familiar with the case, you’re certainly aware that JB was taught sexually suggestive moves that the others weren’t doing. Why? BR described her as “flaunting herself”. There are so many indications that she was a SIX year old who had been totally sexualized by her parents, including evidence of chronic abuse. Lots of love there.
I don’t think the investigation focused solely on the Ramseys - in fact, they were given tons of accommodation, including letting a friend into the house to take out whatever she wished to. I think the Ramsey’s were given FAR more accommodation and leeway than some poor sap whose name wasn’t Ramsey or on par with them would have been given.
The Ramseys in my opinion are those monsters who “don’t live under the bed”. They look pretty, say all the right things, know all the right people, and have articles written about them, tours of their lovely home, etc. Meanwhile, they are total “men without chests”, as C.S. Lewis would say.
jypsijemini
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 402
(i) Who the perp was
I believe John, Patsy and Burke all know what happened in the house that night. I believe they can all be accused as perpetrators of Jon Benet's death. I believe Burke delivered the blow to her head, and that this was the cause of death.
(iv) What caused the head blow
I believe this had something to do with the bowl of pineapple and milk that was left on the table. During his questioning as a child, Burke acted strangely when he was asked what he saw in the photo of the kitchen table. He quickly identified the glass of tea next to the bowl, acted out that he couldn't identify the contents of the bowl - but then exclaimed, "Oh, I know what that is" (or something to that effect) - as if it had some other meaning to him. He also stated that Patsy always cleaned up dishes once the children were done eating. Things were not usually left sitting on the table overnight.
I believe that this bowl of pineapple and milk was not intended for Jon Benet. She'd wet the bed that night. Patsy (or John) had changed her but in their frustration, they wiped her roughly which is why during the autopsy, it was noted that she may have been assaulted, but that there was no internal trauma which would be consistent with sexual abuse. I believe that once Jon Benet had been changed into pyjamas (which may not have happened once they arrived home, as John stated that he carried a sleeping Jon Benet upstairs and put her in bed), she came downstairs and pinched some of Burke's late night bedtime snack. This infuriated him, and with the flash-light within reach, he clubbed her over the head with it.
(ii) What the motive was
I believe Burke's actions caused John and Patsy to panic, and with a seemingly dead Jon Benet in their arms, they feared the consequences for their son. They blamed themselves as they'd seen Burke's violence against his sister on many occasions, which had escalated to this point without proper parenting or intervention. They also knew that their position in the community as pageant parents and popular neighbours was now in jeopardy. Burke's motive was to retaliate and harm his sister, who he despised for the excessive attention and favouritism their parents bestowed upon her. He may not have been thinking about this directly at the time, but his violent behaviour towards her was growing in severity as a result of his jealousy. He didn't blame his parents. He loved his parents and desired their love, attention and affection. He hated Jon Benet, and blamed her for making him the outcast of the family.
I believe John and Patsy's motive for covering up the unintentional manslaughter of their daughter was to save their son and themselves from social repercussions. They knew that the courts wouldn't charge their 9 year old son, that he wouldn't serve time for murder - but they would become socially ostracised and lose everything they'd worked so hard for. They wanted to save their lifestyle and the place they'd become so accustomed to holding within their community.
Due to the nature of my theory, there is no reason for me to theorise over a perpetrator entering or leaving the property, how long they were in the house for or whether the perpetrator had offended before or since Jon Benet's death. The perpetrators to the crime were all present when the first responder arrived in the early hours of December 26th.
(vii) What pieces of evidence are for real and what are red herrings?
I believe the "stun gun marks" on Jon Benet's torso were caused by the metal prongs found on the model train track set in the basement owned by Burke Ramsey. As the marks did not cause significant blood loss or bruising, I believe this wound was inflicted after she died. I believe that John and Patsy had plenty of time to stage their fake kidnapping scene, and that this wound was intended to look like a stun gun had been used on her. I theorise that Jon Benet had been injured previously by Burke with one of these train track pieces, and that the parents had noted how much it had resembled a stun gun mark. This led them to pierce her skin with the prongs that night to enhance the idea that "someone" had been in the process of kidnapping her when she was killed.
I believe the suit case was planted under the broken window, which had been broken long before Jon Benet's death (as John later admitted). They knew that this would be the most believable point of entry and it occurred to them to stage this element of the "crime" when they were already down there inflicting the "stun gun" wound, and planting Jon Benet's body in the basement.
The most telling pieces of evidence are:
a) The ropes tied around her neck and hands. Jon Benet would have been able to struggle free if her hands had been tied in this way while she was alive. They were incredibly loose, and caused no indentation on her wrists or arms, nor any bruising. In the same way, there is a startling lack of bruising to her neck from the ligature marks left by her "strangulation". I believe she was either already dead or dying when this was applied to her neck and tightened. I believe the parents may not have known that she was still alive after she was struck on the head by Burke, or that they decided that she probably wouldn't survive such an injury and it was better to end her suffering and stage a failed kidnapping scenario.
b) The flash light left on the kitchen counter. This piece of evidence is completely out of place for a family who were so pedantic about appearing to be so perfect and organised. And to my recollection, none of them claimed ownership over the item. They were also scheduled to leave for a family holiday on that fateful day - so why hadn't Patsy cleaned up in preparation to leave the house?
c) The empty glass of tea and half-eaten bowl of pineapple and milk. Again, the family were scheduled to leave for a holiday on December 26th. They claim to have arrived home from their dinner party relatively early. Patsy had enough time to make this snack for Burke, to change JonBenet's wet bedclothes when she awoke - but left the cleaning up for that next morning? But what strikes me is once again, Burke's realisation once this photo is presented to him during questioning. The questioning officer has to put the words in his mouth even after he states that he recognises what is in the bowl. This realisation seems to make Burke strangely uncomfortable, especially considering that if he was completely innocent and oblivious to how or why Jon Benet was killed, this 'piece of evidence' should be just as meaningless and normal to him as the glass of tea was.
d) The ransom note. This is arguably the most damning piece of evidence in this case. It strongly suggests that the 3-page letter was written by a woman (as language-analysis professionals have expertly testified). The choice of wording is consistent with language a woman would select and use. The handwriting is strikingly, if not convincingly identical to that of Patsy Ramsey. During her interrogation, she denies knowing who penned the captions to the photos found in their very own family albums, as does John. Who else would have captioned the photos found in their family albums?! They're well aware by this point that her handwriting is under scrutiny, and assuming they both know she wrote the ransom note, they would have been even more committed to denying that it resembled her handwriting at all. It would have brought everything crashing down upon them. It was a key piece of evidence that they desperately needed to distance themselves from. They were known to be avid movie-fans, and references to movie quotes were found within the ransom note. The references to very particular sums of money also suggested that the author of the note was well aware of the bonus John Ramsey had accumulated that year.
e) Detective Linda Arndt's testimony. She's experienced. She's trained. She was promoted to detective - she had to work for it and prove her capability in this field. She was well aware how important it was to keep evidence and a crime scene from being contaminated, and while she was left with the family, friends and the family's priest, she did everything in her power to keep people calm, designated them a room to gather in, and tried to keep everybody occupied. She allowed for two of the men, John Ramsey and a family friend, to search the house. She instructed them to search "from top to bottom" and noted that John Ramsey "headed straight for the basement". By that point, other officers had already searched the house, including the basement, but failed to check behind the latched wooden door (because it wasn't considered an exit point for an intruder). Within minutes, John appeared at the top of the stairs with Jon Benet's body in his arms. Linda Arndt testifies that in the moments where she and John knelt down beside Jon Benet's body, he asks her if she is dead. Linda confirms with John that she is, and it is clear that this moment has and will haunt her forever. She says that in that moment, something about that exchange completely and absolutely convinced her that she knew who Jon Benet's killer was. She is still yet to claim who she believes killed Jon Benet, but her interview is incredibly telling. She does not allude to any one of the family members, but it is evident that she is incredibly frustrated and unsettled by the way the case was handled and how none of the family have been convicted.
Unsettling observations:
The behaviour of all three surviving Ramsey family members, to me, is very unsettling and concerning. I have yet to see or hear of any footage or testimony that says that any of these family members shed a single tear. Their composure is eerie and unusual. John and Patsy's compulsion to use proper language and their unfaltering calmness is almost sickening. While neither of them have the hallmarks of proud killers, their inability to show any anguish or pain at the death of their daughter is unfathomable. When compared to parents who are still practically inconsolable over the deaths of their children, even decades after the fact, it's hard to believe that Patsy or John have ever grieved the loss of their daughter. Their behaviour is much more consistent and closely comparable to sociopathic murderers, and particularly the ones who unwaveringly deny their crimes. Their behaviour was mirrored some 11 years later by Gerry and Kate McCann (parents of missing British toddler, Madeleine McCann). In addition, Burke Ramsey's recent interview with Dr Phil McGraw gained world-wide attention as this now-adult's account of the day his sister died was curious and emotionless. In fact, Burke "smiled" a lot in this interview. Dr Phil went on to explain his behaviour as anti-social and a product of the life he'd been subjected to in the aftermath, however I believe that something much more sinister and dark is behind those "awkward" smiles.
I think it's also worth noting that Patsy Ramsey was still wearing the same outfit she'd worn the night before, and that her hair and makeup were done. By all accounts, Patsy Ramsey took her appearance very seriously. She herself was a former pageant queen. The family were scheduled to leave for a holiday that day. To me, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe John's account that Patsy changed back into the clothes she wore for Christmas Day (to which she insisted Jon Benet wear a matching outfit), but still did her hair and make up. It is also reported that she woke at 5.30 that morning, and found the ransom note at 5.45. I strongly believe that Patsy Ramsey, judging by the style of her hair and make up as is seen in many photos, and in her subsequent interviews, took longer than 15 minutes to do her hair and makeup. I also entirely doubt the claim that she redressed herself in her Christmas Day outfit. She was a woman of appearances on all accounts. She was entering her preschool-age daughter in beauty pageants. She was a former pageant contestant herself. She prided herself on perfect family photos and a picture-perfect family life. Everything about Patsy's life was about appearances.
I was also interested to find during a brief Google search that there were witness testimonies about the morning hours of December 26th. One neighbour claims hearing a scream at 2am that morning. Other witnesses claim that John Ramsey wasn't at home that night and was instead seen watching movies and moving around in other people's residences. One neighbour claimed seeing the kitchen lights on and dimmed in the Ramsey residence in the early hours of December 26th.
I believe John, Patsy and Burke all know what happened in the house that night. I believe they can all be accused as perpetrators of Jon Benet's death. I believe Burke delivered the blow to her head, and that this was the cause of death.
(iv) What caused the head blow
I believe this had something to do with the bowl of pineapple and milk that was left on the table. During his questioning as a child, Burke acted strangely when he was asked what he saw in the photo of the kitchen table. He quickly identified the glass of tea next to the bowl, acted out that he couldn't identify the contents of the bowl - but then exclaimed, "Oh, I know what that is" (or something to that effect) - as if it had some other meaning to him. He also stated that Patsy always cleaned up dishes once the children were done eating. Things were not usually left sitting on the table overnight.
I believe that this bowl of pineapple and milk was not intended for Jon Benet. She'd wet the bed that night. Patsy (or John) had changed her but in their frustration, they wiped her roughly which is why during the autopsy, it was noted that she may have been assaulted, but that there was no internal trauma which would be consistent with sexual abuse. I believe that once Jon Benet had been changed into pyjamas (which may not have happened once they arrived home, as John stated that he carried a sleeping Jon Benet upstairs and put her in bed), she came downstairs and pinched some of Burke's late night bedtime snack. This infuriated him, and with the flash-light within reach, he clubbed her over the head with it.
(ii) What the motive was
I believe Burke's actions caused John and Patsy to panic, and with a seemingly dead Jon Benet in their arms, they feared the consequences for their son. They blamed themselves as they'd seen Burke's violence against his sister on many occasions, which had escalated to this point without proper parenting or intervention. They also knew that their position in the community as pageant parents and popular neighbours was now in jeopardy. Burke's motive was to retaliate and harm his sister, who he despised for the excessive attention and favouritism their parents bestowed upon her. He may not have been thinking about this directly at the time, but his violent behaviour towards her was growing in severity as a result of his jealousy. He didn't blame his parents. He loved his parents and desired their love, attention and affection. He hated Jon Benet, and blamed her for making him the outcast of the family.
I believe John and Patsy's motive for covering up the unintentional manslaughter of their daughter was to save their son and themselves from social repercussions. They knew that the courts wouldn't charge their 9 year old son, that he wouldn't serve time for murder - but they would become socially ostracised and lose everything they'd worked so hard for. They wanted to save their lifestyle and the place they'd become so accustomed to holding within their community.
Due to the nature of my theory, there is no reason for me to theorise over a perpetrator entering or leaving the property, how long they were in the house for or whether the perpetrator had offended before or since Jon Benet's death. The perpetrators to the crime were all present when the first responder arrived in the early hours of December 26th.
(vii) What pieces of evidence are for real and what are red herrings?
I believe the "stun gun marks" on Jon Benet's torso were caused by the metal prongs found on the model train track set in the basement owned by Burke Ramsey. As the marks did not cause significant blood loss or bruising, I believe this wound was inflicted after she died. I believe that John and Patsy had plenty of time to stage their fake kidnapping scene, and that this wound was intended to look like a stun gun had been used on her. I theorise that Jon Benet had been injured previously by Burke with one of these train track pieces, and that the parents had noted how much it had resembled a stun gun mark. This led them to pierce her skin with the prongs that night to enhance the idea that "someone" had been in the process of kidnapping her when she was killed.
I believe the suit case was planted under the broken window, which had been broken long before Jon Benet's death (as John later admitted). They knew that this would be the most believable point of entry and it occurred to them to stage this element of the "crime" when they were already down there inflicting the "stun gun" wound, and planting Jon Benet's body in the basement.
The most telling pieces of evidence are:
a) The ropes tied around her neck and hands. Jon Benet would have been able to struggle free if her hands had been tied in this way while she was alive. They were incredibly loose, and caused no indentation on her wrists or arms, nor any bruising. In the same way, there is a startling lack of bruising to her neck from the ligature marks left by her "strangulation". I believe she was either already dead or dying when this was applied to her neck and tightened. I believe the parents may not have known that she was still alive after she was struck on the head by Burke, or that they decided that she probably wouldn't survive such an injury and it was better to end her suffering and stage a failed kidnapping scenario.
b) The flash light left on the kitchen counter. This piece of evidence is completely out of place for a family who were so pedantic about appearing to be so perfect and organised. And to my recollection, none of them claimed ownership over the item. They were also scheduled to leave for a family holiday on that fateful day - so why hadn't Patsy cleaned up in preparation to leave the house?
c) The empty glass of tea and half-eaten bowl of pineapple and milk. Again, the family were scheduled to leave for a holiday on December 26th. They claim to have arrived home from their dinner party relatively early. Patsy had enough time to make this snack for Burke, to change JonBenet's wet bedclothes when she awoke - but left the cleaning up for that next morning? But what strikes me is once again, Burke's realisation once this photo is presented to him during questioning. The questioning officer has to put the words in his mouth even after he states that he recognises what is in the bowl. This realisation seems to make Burke strangely uncomfortable, especially considering that if he was completely innocent and oblivious to how or why Jon Benet was killed, this 'piece of evidence' should be just as meaningless and normal to him as the glass of tea was.
d) The ransom note. This is arguably the most damning piece of evidence in this case. It strongly suggests that the 3-page letter was written by a woman (as language-analysis professionals have expertly testified). The choice of wording is consistent with language a woman would select and use. The handwriting is strikingly, if not convincingly identical to that of Patsy Ramsey. During her interrogation, she denies knowing who penned the captions to the photos found in their very own family albums, as does John. Who else would have captioned the photos found in their family albums?! They're well aware by this point that her handwriting is under scrutiny, and assuming they both know she wrote the ransom note, they would have been even more committed to denying that it resembled her handwriting at all. It would have brought everything crashing down upon them. It was a key piece of evidence that they desperately needed to distance themselves from. They were known to be avid movie-fans, and references to movie quotes were found within the ransom note. The references to very particular sums of money also suggested that the author of the note was well aware of the bonus John Ramsey had accumulated that year.
e) Detective Linda Arndt's testimony. She's experienced. She's trained. She was promoted to detective - she had to work for it and prove her capability in this field. She was well aware how important it was to keep evidence and a crime scene from being contaminated, and while she was left with the family, friends and the family's priest, she did everything in her power to keep people calm, designated them a room to gather in, and tried to keep everybody occupied. She allowed for two of the men, John Ramsey and a family friend, to search the house. She instructed them to search "from top to bottom" and noted that John Ramsey "headed straight for the basement". By that point, other officers had already searched the house, including the basement, but failed to check behind the latched wooden door (because it wasn't considered an exit point for an intruder). Within minutes, John appeared at the top of the stairs with Jon Benet's body in his arms. Linda Arndt testifies that in the moments where she and John knelt down beside Jon Benet's body, he asks her if she is dead. Linda confirms with John that she is, and it is clear that this moment has and will haunt her forever. She says that in that moment, something about that exchange completely and absolutely convinced her that she knew who Jon Benet's killer was. She is still yet to claim who she believes killed Jon Benet, but her interview is incredibly telling. She does not allude to any one of the family members, but it is evident that she is incredibly frustrated and unsettled by the way the case was handled and how none of the family have been convicted.
Unsettling observations:
The behaviour of all three surviving Ramsey family members, to me, is very unsettling and concerning. I have yet to see or hear of any footage or testimony that says that any of these family members shed a single tear. Their composure is eerie and unusual. John and Patsy's compulsion to use proper language and their unfaltering calmness is almost sickening. While neither of them have the hallmarks of proud killers, their inability to show any anguish or pain at the death of their daughter is unfathomable. When compared to parents who are still practically inconsolable over the deaths of their children, even decades after the fact, it's hard to believe that Patsy or John have ever grieved the loss of their daughter. Their behaviour is much more consistent and closely comparable to sociopathic murderers, and particularly the ones who unwaveringly deny their crimes. Their behaviour was mirrored some 11 years later by Gerry and Kate McCann (parents of missing British toddler, Madeleine McCann). In addition, Burke Ramsey's recent interview with Dr Phil McGraw gained world-wide attention as this now-adult's account of the day his sister died was curious and emotionless. In fact, Burke "smiled" a lot in this interview. Dr Phil went on to explain his behaviour as anti-social and a product of the life he'd been subjected to in the aftermath, however I believe that something much more sinister and dark is behind those "awkward" smiles.
I think it's also worth noting that Patsy Ramsey was still wearing the same outfit she'd worn the night before, and that her hair and makeup were done. By all accounts, Patsy Ramsey took her appearance very seriously. She herself was a former pageant queen. The family were scheduled to leave for a holiday that day. To me, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe John's account that Patsy changed back into the clothes she wore for Christmas Day (to which she insisted Jon Benet wear a matching outfit), but still did her hair and make up. It is also reported that she woke at 5.30 that morning, and found the ransom note at 5.45. I strongly believe that Patsy Ramsey, judging by the style of her hair and make up as is seen in many photos, and in her subsequent interviews, took longer than 15 minutes to do her hair and makeup. I also entirely doubt the claim that she redressed herself in her Christmas Day outfit. She was a woman of appearances on all accounts. She was entering her preschool-age daughter in beauty pageants. She was a former pageant contestant herself. She prided herself on perfect family photos and a picture-perfect family life. Everything about Patsy's life was about appearances.
I was also interested to find during a brief Google search that there were witness testimonies about the morning hours of December 26th. One neighbour claims hearing a scream at 2am that morning. Other witnesses claim that John Ramsey wasn't at home that night and was instead seen watching movies and moving around in other people's residences. One neighbour claimed seeing the kitchen lights on and dimmed in the Ramsey residence in the early hours of December 26th.
Last edited:
jypsijemini,
I reckon you are correct in identifying the case as RDI. Everyone has their favorite take on who did it, i.e. PDI, JDI, BDI, or some combination thereof.
BBM: not strictly true, there was evidence of internal trauma. JonBenet was subjected to two internal examinations by different medical practitioners and both agreed with each others conclusions, i.e. internal trauma, or sexual assault. The MD's were John Meyer and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado's Health Services Center. So Sirotnak confirmed Meyer's earlier findings of vaginal injury. Also JonBenet had internal scarring resulting from prior vaginal trauma.
The marks, i.e. abrasions, contusions, punctures, etc, might all simply arise from manhandling JonBenet's body. So lying on items with prongs, consider the items strewn on her bedroom floor, could cause the stun gun marks.
Also all three Ramsey's would have their particular perspective on what kind of injury JonBenet might endure when subjected to an abduction.
That is they want some evident physical explanation for JonBenet's death. Asphyxiation is something that requires planning, its not a spur of the moment thing.
Do you recall Dr Phil asking Burke if he used the flashlight to make his way downstairs after everyone was in their bedroom? John said he used the flashlight to put Burke to bed, why don't ask, but John never said if he returned back downstairs with the flashlight.
The thing about Patsy's behavior, is it definitely is not that of someone attempting to stage herself out of a homicide. Its almost as if she is wanting to act as a decoy?
JonBenet's death revealed the Ramsey's to be a dysfunctional family, so I would not be surprised to learn more than one person was actively abusing JonBenet?
.
Snipped to address specific point -- how specifically do you think the note was written "ahead of time"?
Tobiano8th
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2019
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 1,058
don't forget the R's lawyered up really quickly and didn't cooperate with police for quite awhile (and then only on their terms).
you would think if someone else killed your beloved child this would not be your reaction. you'd probably risk going to jail by committing a major crime against the perpetrator, not worry about whether you'd be falsely accused of a horrible crime against your child (and of course, there'd be no evidence against you........ this is where this case is unique, the evidence isn't terribly strong for any theory)
i understand the criminal courts don't give this info any weight and that's fine. but IRL i think people think it is very telling.
EDIT, i should add. correct me if i'm wrong on R's and lawyers/police. i haven't read a book about it for a long time, but i have read many books about it.
you would think if someone else killed your beloved child this would not be your reaction. you'd probably risk going to jail by committing a major crime against the perpetrator, not worry about whether you'd be falsely accused of a horrible crime against your child (and of course, there'd be no evidence against you........ this is where this case is unique, the evidence isn't terribly strong for any theory)
i understand the criminal courts don't give this info any weight and that's fine. but IRL i think people think it is very telling.
EDIT, i should add. correct me if i'm wrong on R's and lawyers/police. i haven't read a book about it for a long time, but i have read many books about it.
fridaybaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,839
- Reaction score
- 8,760
UKGuy, you often state that PR seems to be "staging herself out" of a homicide. Do you agree that she wrote the RN? My question is -to me it seems obvious that she did write it (I can't begin to imagine anything else).
So, maybe she was just that "un-self aware" that the problem with the staging is the same as with the RN -she's trying to stage herself out, but doesn't know how/isn't good at it?
jypsijemini
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 402
A very valid point and something I think we are all taken back by when considering murder cases, especially those of children. As well as other criminal cases.
For example, the 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer.
The way that Casey Anthony refused to take the stand.
No case depends on the opinions of one or two jurors, nor do they rely solely on the testimony of witnesses. All court cases must present extensive and detailed evidence in many shapes and forms - therefore it is quite alarming when somebody who adamantly professes their own innocence is still unwilling to testify to clear their own name.
Like the way Darlie Routier requested a polygraph examination, but refused it once she was denied any personal supportive accompaniment in the room with her. Yes, she testified in her own case - but her defence team had enough suspicion and worry in their own minds to smartly advise her not to. She was just so narcissistic and psychotic that she thought it'd help in her plea of innocence.
The same with Jodi Arias. She knew she'd been caught out lying on countless occasions, but was still so self-absorbed, she couldn't pass up the opportunity to have a month's worth of attention directed solely on her and decided it'd be best just to play the "self defence" card in order to still get that attention and screen time.
Casey Anthony, the McCanns and the Ramseys were similar, but different. They wanted to profess their innocence but they knew their stories would fall apart if they testified at all. They're not good liars. The McCanns and Ramseys hadn't had to live lives of deception prior to this point. Casey had only been lying mostly to her parents.
I'm sure there are cases where innocent people can't bear the hell of being interrogated and scrutinised and accused continuously for a crime they didn't commit, and this is why some would opt out of any such public opportunities to testify, but in some way, it should be noted in cases where outstanding mounting evidence suggests otherwise. Where everything says that they're somehow connected to the case, they're stressing their innocence but they're completely unwilling to cooperate with the system that is trying to hone in on the truth.
They can't just be allowed to hide behind handsomely paid defence lawyers who can manipulate and lie their way into constructing a defence.
At the same time, I understand that it can't get to a point where "anything NOT said can and will be used against you". That just allows for a total miscarriage of justice and leads to a lot of innocent people doing time or worse yet, being executed for crimes they did not commit.
But when the evidence stacks up overwhelmingly in a way that on its own, is almost totally damning against the defence, there's got to be some way to perjure the witness into demanding that they make some sort of statement in their defence. It'll either serve to help exonerate them, or it will prove that the evidence was truthful and telling.
That's part of it, but I think another part of it is because the note was absolutely necessary in staging an intruder. That was the primary focus of the note. It is literally the main thing that "points" to an intruder -- without the note, even the garrotte wouldn't necessarily "point" to an "intruder."
And the note was written with items from the house -- I've said it before but, it doesn't make sense why an intruder wouldn't bring a ransom into the house before ever stepping foot there. The intruder could have assembled the note by cutting out letters from a magazine, to not use his own handwriting. He wouldn't have to waste time and risk getting caught with writing a note inside the actual crime scene.
fridaybaker,
Yes I reckon Patsy wrote the Ransom Note.
I agree, Patsy was never a career criminal so avoiding forensic deposits will not be her forte.
Here is the catch,if Patsy had left JonBenet in her bedroom,then any fibers linking Patsy can be attributed to her putting JonBenet to bed, etc.
For Patsy this was the best staging strategy, moving JonBenet to the basement and depositing her fibers all over JonBenet, e.g.knots in ligature, sticky side of duct tape on JonBenet's lips, etc simply magnifies Patsy's role.
Is this not the opposite of what should be intended?
Your perspective might be described as highlighting what you consider to be transparent regarding Patsy, nothing wrong with that.
Could this lead you to make erroneous conclusions about Patsy?
If you think not, you should read or listen to Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell, its guaranteed to explain why Default To Truth as Gladwell describes it and alternatively termed as Naive Realism, i.e. its how we tend to view things the majority of the time, myself included, matters wrt Patsy.
.
Userid,
Maybe?
JonBenet left semi-naked,deceased, in her bedroom might also suggest an intruder?
Might it be that the rationale behind the Ransom Note, is that it explains why JonBenet's body goes from her bedroom down to the basement?
The strategy was to divorce any events upstairs from those staged downstairs?
.
- Status