In light of recent events...

[cwiz24]

Very interesting that the poll is split almost 50-50 between the parents and the intruder. It shows it is too early and we have not had a chance to see all the evidence against this man.

I personally came to the conclusion 8 years ago that Patsy Ramsey killed her in a fit of rage. For me there was too little evidence of an intruder. But now I am leaning toward the guilt or at least involvement of this suspect Karr.

I agree...I thought for sure the forum would be weighted toward the "Ramseys did it" side. But it is surprisingly even.

Thank you to everyone for being honest and only voting once...

 

[exoromeo]

I personally came to the conclusion 8 years ago that Patsy Ramsey killed her in a fit of rage.

Same here...and I'll be joining the crow-eating gang if it turns out that Karr is anything more than seriously infatuated with this case and completely messed up in the head.

 

[lilpony]

I am leaning towards an intruder killing JBR. I hope it wasnt the parents.

Lets say that Patsy did kill her in a fit of rage. And that John knew this. Why would he cover for her. I don't care that, this is his wife. No way, would I cover for anyone that killed my child. Its just unthinkable.

 

[exoromeo]

I am leaning towards an intruder killing JBR. I hope it wasnt the parents.

Lets say that Patsy did kill her in a fit of rage. And that John knew this. Why would he cover for her.

To cover his own butt? So it didnt ruin him in the professional world? Might not look too good for his business ventures, career, whatever if he was married to a child murderer. No idea...but it might be something along those lines.

 

[lilpony]

To cover his own butt? So it didnt ruin him in the professional world? Might not look too good for his business ventures, career, whatever if he was married to a child murderer. No idea...but it might be something along those lines.

It could very well be. I just know I couldn't cover for anyone. And I just don't see how he could. I mean the grief, how could you cover for yourself. I couldn't hide it. I would break, I wouldn't be any good at keeping my silence. All they would have to say was....I will start breaking fingers...I would spill!

 

[exoromeo]

It could very well be. I just know I couldn't cover for anyone. And I just don't see how he could. I mean the grief, how could you cover for yourself. I couldn't hide it. I would break, I wouldn't be any good at keeping my silence. All they would have to say was....I will start breaking fingers...I would spill!

Yeah I know. Nah- I wouldnt cover for anyone either (friend, wifey, brother, whatever). But some peeps would Im guessing. That whole money, power, etc thing...maybe it was more important or something.

Scott

 

[13th Juror]

I lean towards an intruder.

IMO Patsy is found guilty because of her having JonBenet in the pagents and people want to see her punished for how she dressed her up and parade around.

OB

Me too. I have to agree with Old Broad, Maybe So and several others that have verbalized this same opinion.



Gotta say - I was never comfortable with the pageant photographs & videos of JonBenet. They made me more than a bit squeamish.

I admit, that over the years, I've had to work hard not to be judgemental and close-minded in my quest for "Ramsey fairness" where involvement in the pageant circuit was concerned. That type of activity for little girls does not appeal to me nor does it fit in with my code of values for children.

However, I'm aware that folks, like Patsy & her sister, who grew up in that pageant genre, find the shared activity to be perfectly acceptable and quite rewarding. I guess it's all a matter of perception - and how we, individually, grow up. So, that said .. I have not allowed my feelings about Patsy's pageant participation to color my judgement of the Ramseys where JonBenet's murder is concerned.

In the many years of the WS JBR forum - I've mostly read the threads without posting. I've never considered myself a verbal advocate for or against the Ramseys. I've been on the sidelines mostly, as I am turned off by the endless bashing n' trashing of the Ramsey parents. IMO - lively discussion from both sides can be achieved without the vicious bashing.

Frankly, I don't "know" - anymore than anyone else does, who brutally murdered little JonBenet. I do know that 'in my heart and soul' - I believe the Ramseys are innocent and deserve, at least - the benefit of the doubt and a modicum of respect from all of us.

Regardless of the John Karr saga - whether he is a sick murderous monster or simply a sick delusional man looking for his ticket to 15+ minutes of fame .. I still feel that an intruder - someone other than a Ramsey parent - committed this horrific act.

Watching & listening to Patsy & John on the LKL encore show last night - the one taped in 2000 - makes me even more confident that they were targeted and set up by an inept BPD that did 'everything wrong'.


I hope everyone will listen with an open mind (& heart!) to Larry's program tonight with Lin Wood and the college professor that communicated via email with John Karr.

JMHO .. for whatever it's worth

13th Juror

PS - Today - Dr. Phil has one of those repeat programs on about gung-ho mothers & their little girls participating in the beauty pageant circuit. A real eye-opener for those who haven't seen it previously.

 

[doublejack]

I am leaning towards an intruder killing JBR. I hope it wasnt the parents.

Lets say that Patsy did kill her in a fit of rage. And that John knew this. Why would he cover for her. I don't care that, this is his wife. No way, would I cover for anyone that killed my child. Its just unthinkable.

Maybe Patsy had some dirt on her husband? Maybe she threatened to implicate him too? Maybe it was truly and accident and he was feeling very sympathetic because of her cancer, or he was worried about losing both his daughter and wife. John had already lost one daughter tragically (auto accident) so he wasn't in uncharted territory. I could see him covering for his wife. Or Burke may have done it with both parents covering for him.

No doubt in my mind that the Ramseys are responsible for the death and staging of the crime scene. IMO, the only reason this case never went to trial is because it's unclear who did what, other than Patsy writing the ransom note. I've read several plausible theories involving Burke and Patsy, but LE doesn't have nearly enough to go on without one of the principals fessing up. And with Patsy dead and gone that'll likely never happen now.

JMK is a kook who will end up being cleared of this crime - he couldn't have been in Colorado at x-mas with three small children at home and his wife not knowing about it. Although I think he is one sick individual and will do jail time and/or be institutionalized for things he really has done. Clearly he's just obsessed with the case and has somehow twisted reality to believe he actually did it. His "confession" to the media was rife with inconsistencies to the actual events and circumstances. I don't think this charade will drag on too long.

 

[Bev]

he might have covered for her because he felt guilty. This is speculation, but I think he went to bed and she was still up packing, beside the fact that she said she ordinarily woke the little girl up @ 11 or so to go to the bathroom. Parents with chronic bedwetters are told to do this to try to "train" the child's bladder. Maybe JR heard an altercation taking place and was too tired or sleepy to interfere with what was going on, I imagine he would have felt pretty guilty about that. I also think the Ramseys convinced themselves that some "monster" did this, which is a way of saying maybe whoever did this wasn't her/hiimself when this happened and thus (or should I say "hence"?) wasn't really guilty of "murder". It probably was an accident and no one intended to kill that little girl. It's pretty easy to convince yourself that you're not really responsible for something if you really want to be convinced. People always try to shift blame to someone else for their bad behavior, it takes awhile to really accept the fact that you might be capable of doing something very bad. Some people never do, they always are able to rationalize or justify their actions.

13th Juror - People who think PR did it, are not all judging PR because of the pageant business. Not everyone who thinks the Ramseys did it think that because they "hate" the Ramseys. Many people who post here have expressed sympathy and compassion for the Ramseys, but still think they did this. Many people who post here think it was an accident that was covered up. I'm getting a little resentful of the comments that anyone who thinks the Ramseys did this are "biased against the Ramseys" or "hate" the Ramseys. I personally think the Ramseys did it because that's where the evidence leads us. I also don't think the BPD "set up" the Ramseys. I doubt that they even knew the Ramseys existed before this, and it seems to me that they treated the Ramseys with respect until this turned ugly. The Ramseys didn't even know that Eller wanted to hold onto the body until Pete Hofstrom (sp?) called Bynum and told him. That could have and should have been resolved between the police and the ME's office, and the parents didn't have to know about it at all. In fact, it was resolved in this manner and Hofstrom didn't have to call Bynum and say, "we've got a problem." Hofstrom should have kept his mouth shut especially since he worked for the DA. HE's the one who started the "feud".

 

[gaia]

he might have covered for her because he felt guilty. This is speculation, but I think he went to bed and she was still up packing, beside the fact that she said she ordinarily woke the little girl up @ 11 or so to go to the bathroom. Parents with chronic bedwetters are told to do this to try to "train" the child's bladder. Maybe JR heard an altercation taking place and was too tired or sleepy to interfere with what was going on, I imagine he would have felt pretty guilty about that. I also think the Ramseys convinced themselves that some "monster" did this, which is a way of saying maybe whoever did this wasn't her/hiimself when this happened and thus (or should I say "hence"?) wasn't really guilty of "murder". It probably was an accident and no one intended to kill that little girl. It's pretty easy to convince yourself that you're not really responsible for something if you really want to be convinced. People always try to shift blame to someone else for their bad behavior, it takes awhile to really accept the fact that you might be capable of doing something very bad. Some people never do, they always are able to rationalize or justify their actions.

Just like OJ?:waitasec:

 

[tuppence]

I really think so much points to it having been an inside job (one of the Ramseys). The one thing that throws me is the garrote. I just don't think if it was an accident and the parents were trying to make it look like an outsider/pedoephile they would think "oh put a garrote on her" - it's a little too out there. So in my mind if it was an inside job then either John or Burke were sexually molesting her using the garrot and although I've read all of BC's theories I'm not buying multiple boys participated and kept it quiet and I don't think Burke was old enough/sophisticated enough to do the garrot.
That leaves John and I just don't see Patsey protecting him if she knew.

So I guess I wish there was an "I still don't have a clue" option.

 

[JanPat]

I really think so much points to it having been an inside job (one of the Ramseys). The one thing that throws me is the garrote. I just don't think if it was an accident and the parents were trying to make it look like an outsider/pedoephile they would think "oh put a garrote on her" - it's a little too out there. So in my mind if it was an inside job then either John or Burke were sexually molesting her using the garrot and although I've read all of BC's theories I'm not buying multiple boys participated and kept it quiet and I don't think Burke was old enough/sophisticated enough to do the garrot.
That leaves John and I just don't see Patsey protecting him if she knew.

So I guess I wish there was an "I still don't have a clue" option.

Tuppence,

I'm solidly in the Ramsey did it camp, but I agree with you--the garrote seems a bit much for parents trying to cover up an accident. I've thought for awhile that the garrote was necessary to hide other marks on her neck. Several have speculated that a collar, grabbed and twisted in a rage, could have initially strangled her, perhaps to the point of unconsciousness (sp?). If so, it would have undoubtably left marks that would need to be covered. That could also explain why they would try to cover up an accidental head injury. How would you explain the marks on her neck if you're trying to convince an ER that she accidently hit her head? I'm not married to that theory, but it's certainly a possibility.

By the way, LONG time lurker. I posted sporadically years ago, before the last big crash. I just recently re-registered, but I've continued to follow the discussion for years! Thanks to all of you who have kept this case on the radar!

 

[joeskidbeck]

I really think so much points to it having been an inside job (one of the Ramseys). The one thing that throws me is the garrote. I just don't think if it was an accident and the parents were trying to make it look like an outsider/pedoephile they would think "oh put a garrote on her" - it's a little too out there. So in my mind if it was an inside job then either John or Burke were sexually molesting her using the garrot and although I've read all of BC's theories I'm not buying multiple boys participated and kept it quiet and I don't think Burke was old enough/sophisticated enough to do the garrot.
That leaves John and I just don't see Patsey protecting him if she knew.

So I guess I wish there was an "I still don't have a clue" option.

Has anyone ever considered that by using the garrote, the killer/stager(?) didn't have to look at JonBenet's face? I imagine it would be pretty hard, if not impossible to look into the face of someone you love while taking their life, especially if it was to cover up an accident.

 

[tuppence]

Tuppence,

I'm solidly in the Ramsey did it camp, but I agree with you--the garrote seems a bit much for parents trying to cover up an accident. I've thought for awhile that the garrote was necessary to hide other marks on her neck. Several have speculated that a collar, grabbed and twisted in a rage, could have initially strangled her, perhaps to the point of unconsciousness (sp?). If so, it would have undoubtably left marks that would need to be covered. That could also explain why they would try to cover up an accidental head injury. How would you explain the marks on her neck if you're trying to convince an ER that she accidently hit her head? I'm not married to that theory, but it's certainly a possibility.

interesting idea. Wonder if the ME looked at the neck marks with this in mind - if there could have been some injuries inconsistent with the garrote.

 

[tumble]

Tuppence,

I'm solidly in the Ramsey did it camp, but I agree with you--the garrote seems a bit much for parents trying to cover up an accident. I've thought for awhile that the garrote was necessary to hide other marks on her neck. Several have speculated that a collar, grabbed and twisted in a rage, could have initially strangled her, perhaps to the point of unconsciousness (sp?). If so, it would have undoubtably left marks that would need to be covered. That could also explain why they would try to cover up an accidental head injury. How would you explain the marks on her neck if you're trying to convince an ER that she accidently hit her head? I'm not married to that theory, but it's certainly a possibility.

By the way, LONG time lurker. I posted sporadically years ago, before the last big crash. I just recently re-registered, but I've continued to follow the discussion for years! Thanks to all of you who have kept this case on the radar!

I think the stager faced the problem of trying to explain the death.

Stabbing or cutting your own child would be very hard emotionally and messy.
Shooting her sounds alot and is messy and emotionally hard.
Strangling her is perhaps the most undisturbing way. If you want it too look like a strangling doing it with your bare hands on an seemingly dead child probably would not seem convincing enough to the stager.
Leaving a ligature around the neck is the obvious choice.
And BTW, the so called strangling was very gentle with no trauma to the thyroid and no trauma to the bottom of the tongue which are commonly seen in stranglings.

 

[aspidistra]

I used to debate these things in 1997-98 on the forums, based on what we knew then, but it's all different now. It's totally different. We had no suspect then! We now have a really creepy, horrific person here, who admits he was there. I never thought he was making it up from day one. The only thing that made me pause briefly is that he seems so pathetic, like when he said he wanted to dress like a schoolteacher for the last time, and coming out in those loose clothes about 8 sizes too big for him. And he seems so weak and sad. But then, those factors don't rule out his being a vicious killer with a split personality. We heard stories of his temper. He is very obviously mentally ill, a pedophile and psychotic, but I think he either knows who did it, or did it himself. This man fits the profile of the pedophile monster who laid in wait in their home, that both John and Patsy talked about in their Larry King interview in 2000. Here he is.

Now back to 9 years ago, we thought Patsy did it by accident in a fit of rage over bedwetting, probably under the influence of some antidepressants, which are known to make some people flip out and kill people or themselves. But that is because there was NO suspect. We thought John would have covered for her out of pity because of her cancer; we thought maybe it was coming back and that is why he was protecting her to make her last years not be in prison (it did come back but not right away). I always thought Patsy would never cover for John though; therefore he could not have been the killer. She also would never have covered for him molesting their daughter. She would have left him. So it couldn't be him.

I came to the conclusion way back then that the mother did it and the father covered for her, because of the weird staging, and she seemed highly strung, whereas he seemed cool and able to carry out the staging. But now that we understand some of Karr's sick ideas, the staging easily seems like something he would do. Don't you think so? We just never saw anyone like him - ever.

I am definitely sure of the Ramsey's innocence now. I think that Karr did it and has a multiple personality disorder, as well as narcissistic disorder, confusion about his sexual identity, and probably other disorders as well.

I don't see that Patsy or John changed their personalities from back then. They maintained the same stories all along. I think I gradually came to think they were innocent, just because they seemed to be consistent, and seemed to carry on with their lives. I decided it must have just been one of those crimes that are unsolvable because the murderer was too clever, leaving red herrings, false clues, wiping all fingerprints, washing the body, etc.

I lost hope that the case would ever be solved, when no intruder was ever found. I didn't even read the books when they came out. I stopped debating in the forums as it was the same things over and over, with no new evidence. So I lost interest in the case, totally, until this guy was arrested. When I saw those staring eyes in his resume, and read the freakish things he wrote and said, I felt that finally they had caught the guy. The reason they caught him was the classic reason - he couldn't stop himself from talking about it. Way back then, John and Patsy and many others said it would never be solved unless a third party came forward and said what they knew. I guess the passage of ten years makes it almost like it's too late for it to matter, especially since Patsy was blamed the whole rest of her life. All I know is, to my mind this guy totally fits the profile of the sick pedophile that we were looking for, and never could find. Why? Because he didn't live in Boulder; he didn't repeat the crime; and he eluded capture for a long time. Now it's like he wanted to be captured. He looks just resigned to it.

 

[kazzbar]

:clap: :clap: Thanks for a terrific post.Enjoyed reading it.
Time will tell.....

 

[tumble]

It's totally different. We had no suspect then!

Were you just listening with one ear? The R's have been suspects from day one.

But that is because there was NO suspect

No it was because an intruder scenario doesn't match up to the facts.

 

[cwiz24]

Were you just listening with one ear? The R's have been suspects from day one.

Tumble--there's really no reason to be rude. Some of your posts come off as really nasty.

No it was because an intruder scenario doesn't match up to the facts.

In your opinion.

 

[tumble]

Tumble--there's really no reason to be rude.

Sorry for being rude.